Censorship And Surveillance Under Aadhaar And Digital India Projects

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has changed the way we looked at traditional Human Rights and Civil Liberties. Traditionally Human Rights were confined to physical and mental aspects only. However, with the advent of ICT, Human Rights and Civil Liberties have assumed a totally different meaning. Unfortunately, the legislations around the world are still lagging far behind that required to protect Human Rights in Cyberspace.

India has been deliberately violating Privacy Rights of its Netizens through various e-surveillance projects and its phone tapping activities. We have no dedicated Privacy Laws and Data Protection Laws (PDF) in India as on date. Successive Indian Governments have clearly signaled through their "conducts" that they are not at all interested in protecting Privacy Rights in India. The Narendra Modi Government even mentioned in the Supreme Court of India that there is no Privacy Right in India under the Indian Constitution.

This article is discussing the controversial issues of censorship and e-surveillance in India under the projects like Aadhaar, Digital India, national intelligence grid (Natgrid), etc. Till now it is clear that surveillance and censorship under Digital India and Aadhaar is widely practiced in India.

Adoption of digital India project by Indian government has always been portrayed as a social and welfare oriented initiative. Digital India is treading exactly on similar lines as Aadhaar has worked so far. As Aadhaar has increasingly been tied up by Indian government with digital India, there is no escape from the conclusion that the combination of Aadhaar and digital India is a digital panopticon.

Further, it is also obvious that surveillance and censorship under digital India and Aadhaar regimes are omnipresent. The blog title Internet, Mobile And Social Media Censorship In India By Twitter, Facebook, Google, Etc has been cataloging the censorship and surveillance activities of Indian government and technology companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, etc for long. A dedicated page titled censorship and surveillance under digital India has also been opened to report about surveillance and censorship activities of Indian government. Censorship and surveillance under Aadhaar project has also been covered by us.

Anyone who is active on social media websites like Twitter, Facebook, etc is well aware that critical tweets and sharing are oftenly censored in India. Twitter is on the forefront of this exercise where Aadhaar and digital India related critical tweets are censored in real time.

As far as e-surveillance is concerned, Indian government is infamous for its blatant e-surveillance with no regard to the constitutional norms. Aadhaar is the final nail in the coffin of civil liberties that are openly violated by Indian government. Civil liberties protection in cyberspace is absent in India. There is no e-surveillance policy of India (pdf) that can govern the illegal and unconstitutional e-surveillance and phone tapping activities of Indian government and its agencies.

Worst part of this situation is that parliamentary oversight of intelligence agencies of India is still missing till date. To give overreaching and illegal e-surveillance and phone tapping powers in the hands of such intelligence agencies is a death knell of civil liberties. India “must reconcile” the civil liberties and national security requirements but the same is presently missing. Clearly India has become a police state with unaccountable Orwellian powers.

FinFisher: The New Face Of Global Electronic Spying, E-Surveillance And Eavesdropping

Human Right Protection in Cyberspace has become a tedious task in the present E-Surveillance oriented environment around the Globe. Issues like E-Surveillance in India, Cell Site Location Based E-Surveillance In India, Surveillance Of Internet Traffic In India,  Central Monitoring System (CMS) for Telephone Tapping in India, etc are well known.

It is of utmost importance that a Balance between Civil Liberties and National Security Requirements Must be Maintained. Affirming this requirement a District Court of United States has recently declared the FBI National Security Letters (NSLs) With Gag Orders to be Unconstitutional.

In the meantime, some Researchers have found a Malware named FinFisher that is notorious for violating Civil Liberty Stakeholders’ Privacy and Confidentiality. Interestingly, the Malware has spread around the Globe to many Civil Liberty Oppressing Countries.

Although the hand and involvement of Nations in the spreading of this Malware cannot be predicted and confirmed at this stage yet it can also not be ruled out. This is so because the Malware of the nature of Spyware is targeting dissidents living under oppressive regimes.

A Canadian research center has confirmed that it had identified 25 different Countries that host servers linked to FinFisher, a Trojan Hrse program which can dodge Anti-Virus protections to steal data, log keystrokes, eavesdrop on Skype calls, and turn microphones and web cams into live Surveillance devices.

Some have even claimed that the Company making the Spyware has sold the Malware to repressive regimes and this is a potential breach of UK export laws. Besides export norm violations, this episode can also raise a variety of Legal Issues as well, especially those pertaining to Cyber Laws Violations across the Globe, including India.

Unfortunately we have no Harmonised International Legal Frameworks in this regard. For instance an International Cyber Law Treaty Is Required on an urgent basis. Similarly, International Cyber Security Treaty Is Required on priority basis. The United Nations must protect Human Rights in Cyberspace so that Civil Liberties can be suitably protected. Otherwise Self Defense in Cyberspace to Protect Civil Liberties would be the only option left.

Civil Liberties And National Security Requirements Must Be Reconciled By India

Maintaining a balance between civil liberties and national security requirements is a difficult task. Countries across the world, including India, are trying to achieve this mammoth task. Similar is the case for reconciling the homeland security and civil liberties in India. Equally national security and fundamental rights must be reconciled in India.

However, the bigger question is how to reconcile civil liberties with national security requirements? There is no second opinion that civil liberties and national security must be reconciled in India as soon as possible. Similarly, India must reconcile national security concerns with due process requirements as prescribed by Indian constitution.

The truth is that nations across the world are ignoring civil liberties for the false claims of national security. This is a disturbing trend especially when the United Nations is silent on the protection of human rights in cyberspace. This applies to India as well that has draconian laws like information technology act 2000 to violate civil liberties in cyberspace.

Unfortunately, UN has not been able to formulate a universally acceptable legal framework of cyber law and human rights protection in cyberspace. The obvious result is that different jurisdictions have different cyber laws. The only thing common in these cyber laws is that virtually none of them is protecting human rights in cyberspace.

According to Praveen Dalal, managing partner of New Delhi based ICT and techno legal law firm Perry4Law and CEO of PTLB, there is need to have “Reconciliation” between National Security needs of India on the one hand and Protection of Fundamental Rights on the other. I have also sent a communication in this regard to Government of India in the past, informs Dalal.

It seems some segments of Indian government agree with this “reconciliation theory” suggested by techno legal experts of India. For instance, the Union Minister of Communications and Information Technology, Shri Kapil Sibal has reportedly said that adequate balance needs to be maintained between needs of “privacy of individual” and “genuine security concerns of state” while dealing with challenges of cyber security.

Another area that deserves the attention of Indian government in general and UN in particular pertains to Human Rights Protection in Cyberspace. According to techno legal experts like Praveen Dalal, presently UN and Human Rights in Cyberspace are two separate issues although they need to be one. Similarly, we have no International Cyber Law Treaty, International Cyber Security Treaty, International Cooperation in Techno Legal fields, etc, informs Dalal.

Interestingly, Kapil Sibal appealed to the global community to collaborate and evolve global protocols in security of information and network. Sibal assured that India stands committed to contribute and cooperate with international community on this issue. It seems at least Kapil Sibal is aware of the details of techno legal issues and that is good news for India. However, we must not be satisfied with mere declarations and we must actual achieve the reconciliatory task as soon as possible.

Source: P4LO Blog.

Unconstitutional And Illegal Biometrics Collection Laws And Practices In India

India is passing through one of the “Most Dangerous Periods” for Civil Liberties and Human Rights Protections. No time in the past Indian Citizens were so “Vulnerable” to Human Rights Violations and blatant violation of their Fundamental Rights.

The Constitution of India has conferred many Fundamental Rights upon Indian Citizens and Persons. However, Indian Government is acting in clear “Derogation” of these Fundamental Rights and Human Rights.

Article 21 of Indian Constitution confers Privacy Rights in India to all. Similarly, Article 21 also confers Right to Life and Liberty to all that cannot be taken away except by “Due Process of Law”. Articles 14, 19 and 21 collectively protect against “Arbitrary and Unconstitutional State Actions”.

Despite all these “Protections and Rights” we have Authorities like Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that is not governed by any Law whatsoever. Similarly, we have provisions pertaining to National Population Register (NPR) of India that are clearly “Unconstitutional”.

We have no dedicated Data Protection Laws in India, Data Security Laws in India, Cyber Security Laws in India, etc. Even the Cyber Law of India, incorporated in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act 2000), is an “Endemic E-Surveillance Enabling Law” that requires urgent “Repeal”.

Cyber Security in India is also in bad shape and even the Supreme Court of India has chided Indian Government to boost up its Cyber Security to protect National Security of India. National Security and Right to Information in India are on “Crossroads” where the “National Security Card” is very frequently played by Indian Government to deny “Legitimate and Eligible Information” to Indian Citizens.

In all this “Political and Legislative Mess” we have a “Bonus” for Indian Government as well. The Parliamentary Oversight of Intelligence Agencies of India is missing and they are “Not Accountable” to any “Legislative and Parliamentary Scrutiny”.  Intelligence related Projects like National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), Central Monitoring System (CMS) of India, proposed National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) of India, etc have no Parliamentary Approval and Oversight.  

There is no second opinion that collection of “Highly Sensitive Biometric Details” by any Governmental Agency or Authority in such circumstances is not only “Unconstitutional” but is also “Highly Risky” for Life and Liberty of Indian Citizens/Persons. In fact, collection of Biometric Details by UIDAI and NPR are clearly “Unconstitutional and Illegal” and Indian Citizens and Residents can “Refuse” to provide the same no matter what these Authorities and Laws say.

Human Rights Protection in India is at its nadir. Similarly, Civil Liberties Protection in Indian Cyberspace is in doldrums. If we keep on succumbing to the “Pressure Tactics” of Indian Government, the day would be not far when Indian Government would have complete control over our “Body and Soul”.

National Security And Right To Information In India

National Security and Right to Information are interrelated concepts. We occasionally find them on Crossroads. In fact, the National Security Card is played so often by Governments around the World that the concept of National Security has become the most abused and most favourite method of defeating Civil Liberties Protections in Cyberspace.

Indian Judiciary has not been much involved with Cyberspace issues for long. Of late it has started dealing with issues pertaining to Cyberspace like Websites Blocking. Clearly, Indian Judiciary has not been comfortable with Cyberspace issues so far. Even issues pertaining to Information and Communication Technology (ICT) have not been properly appreciated by Indian Judiciary.

I personally believe that there must be a “Constitutional Balance” between National Security and Human Rights and Fundamental Rights Protection Requirements. Giving “Primacy” to one over the other, without engaging in a “Reconciliatory Exercise”, would be “Counter Productive” in the long run.

Further, the Fundamental Rights themselves must be “Reconciled” so that our Constitutional Scheme remains intact. The Indian Constitutional Scheme is based upon “Balance of Rights” and no right is absolute in nature. In case of conflict between two Fundamental Rights, the Fundamental Right that strengthens and substantiate the Public Interest should prevail”.

For instance, if there is a conflict between Right to Privacy and Right to Information/know, any information can be disclosed in certain circumstances to substantiate and strengthen Public Interest.

Thus, not all tapped conversations of Nira Radia and Ratan Tata can be labeled as “Private” or pertaining to “National Security” and barring few “Exceptional Disclosures” all other can be made “Public” by the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court of India must not unnecessarily put a “Blanket Ban” upon disclosure or publication of such conversations as that would amount to “Unreasonable Curtailment” of other Fundamental Rights like Right to Information. The “National Security Card” should not be used by any individual or institution, including the Supreme Court of India, to defeat the Constitutional Protections and Safeguards.

I have already written about this issue to Indian Government in February 2011 and this was sufficient time for it to deliberate and formulate an effective Policy in this regard. If still the Indian Government has failed to formulate such Policy, it only shows that it is not interested in formulating one.

Finally, Intelligence Infrastructure of India needs Rejuvenation as it has become synonymous for Non Accountability and Mess. There is neither any Parliamentary Oversight nor and Transparency and Accountability of the working of Intelligence Agencies of India. E-Surveillance in India is presently done in much derogation of Constitutional Protections.

The matter is pending before Supreme Court of India and if it does not handle the issue properly, the chaos would persist for some more decades.

Supreme Court Guidelines On National Security And Mobile Connections Verification In India

Of late Indian Government has shown great concerns regarding National Security issues and national threats arising out of use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Indian Government has been stressing really hard to regulate and control ICT, especially the Internet and Mobile Communications.

For instance, the Central Monitoring System (CMS) Project of India has been proposed to regulate and control Telecom Communications over Telecommunication Infrastructure in India. Similarly, establishment of the National Cyber Coordination Centre (NCCC) of India has been suggested to exercise control over Indian Cyberspace.

While National Security is of paramount importance yet it should not be a ground to violate Human Rights and Civil Liberties. Human Rights Protection in Cyberspace is an area that requires urgent attention of United Nations and International Community. The way National Governments are engaging in Illegal and Unconstitutional E-Surveillance and Phone Tapping, Civil Liberties in Cyberspace are in great danger.

I personally believe that there must be a “Constitutional Balance” between National Security and Human Rights Protection Requirements. Giving “Primacy” to one over the other, without engaging in a “Reconciliatory Exercise”, would be “Counter Productive” in the long run.

The Big Brother must not overstep its Constitutional Limitations. For instance, the proposal of Indian Government to constitute an Agency that would scan all Tweets, E-mails, etc must maintain a “Balance” between Civil Liberties and National Security Requirements.

In a significant development regarding National Security arising out of use of Mobile Phones in India, the Supreme Court of India would issue “Directions” on Monday (26-03-2012) on the plea for making strict adherence to verification of consumers before providing connections for mobile phones in the interest of National Security.

The guidelines have been framed by the Central Government for tightening the verification process for mobile phone connections in India. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has also provided its inputs in this regard to the Supreme Court of India. A Bench of Chief Justice SH Kapadia, Justice AK Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar reserved its order in the past.

However, the entire exercise seems to be a “Piecemeal Effort” as we have no dedicated Cell Phone Laws in India. The way developments are happening at National and International levels, enactment of dedicated Mobile Phone Laws in India are urgently required. Presently, they are missing and this is creating lots of problems to Telecom Operators, Consumers, Indian Government and various Stakeholders.

National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) Of India Got Cabinet Approval

The National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) of India is a “Dream Project” of Home Minister Mr. P. Chidambaram. The NCTC Project of India is also very “Significant” for the National Security of India. Terrorist Attacks against India are on increase and we need a “Specilaised Institution” like NCTC to provide Valuable Intelligence Inputs and Leads.

According to Media Reports, the Central Government's Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) on Thursday cleared the proposal to set up NCTC. It is expected that the NCTC may get Cabinet Approval this month. It is also expected that NCTC would be an expanded form of the Multi-Agency-centre (MAC), the Nodal Intelligence Cell under the Union Home Ministry.

NCTC would be the “Central Body” that would include, among others, the Intelligence Bureau (IB)’s MAC, Joint Intelligence Committee, National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) and the National Security Guard. NCTC would be supported by National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) Project, Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and System (CCTNS), etc.

Projects like NCTC, NATGRID, CCTNS, etc are Crucial for National Security of India. However, they must be “Properly Planned and Executed”. These Projects should not face the same “Fate” that the Aadhar Project of India has faced.

These Projects must be implemented with Proper Planning and Foresight. Further, a “Special Care” must be taken get “Parliamentary Oversight” for these Projects before they are made “Operational”. These Projects cannot serve their purpose if they do not defend Civil Liberties and ensure Procedural Safeguards for Protection of Human Rights in Cyberspace through a Legal Framework. For instance, Intelligence Gathering should not violate Privacy Rights of Indians.

The NCTC would be reporting to the Union Home Minister and it has been reported that it would be “Accountable to the Parliament”. Presently Intelligence Agencies of India are not governed by any Legal Framework. Even the draft Intelligence Services (Powers and Regulations) Bill 2011 has failed to become an applicable law. Strangely, even the proposed Central Bureau of Investigation Act 2010 failed to become an applicable law.

As on date, both Intelligence Agencies of India and CBI are working in India without “Constitutional Laws” governing their operations. This is a “Serious Issue” that Indian Government must resolves as soon as possible. Even for the successful operations of Projects like NCTC, NATGRID, CCTNS, such “Parliamentary Oversight” is essential. I hope Mr. P. Chidambaram would consider these issues on priority basis.

Indian Judiciary, Cyber Law and Websites Blocking

Recently a Lower Court was hearing a case where the complainant requested for an order to remove derogatory and obscene contents posted on various Social Networking websites. The Court ordered 21 Social Networking websites including Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and YouTube to remove derogatory and obscene content by February 6, 2012.

The magistrate had summoned the accused companies to face trial for allegedly committing the offence punishable under section 292 (sale of obscene books etc), 293 (sale of obscene objects to young person etc) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.

Recently another lower Court, in an ex-parte order, had directed the social networking websites to remove the objectionable content in the form photographs, videos or text which might hurt religious sentiments.

Indian Judiciary is trying to deal with Cyber Law issues in the absence of dedicated Social Media Laws in India. Although we have Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act 2000) as the Cyber Law of India yet we have no dedicated Social Networking Laws in India. However, Cyber Law on Social Media and Networking Sites in India is still not adequate. It has, in fact, created more problems than solution.

The way Cyber Crimes are committed on Social Media websites in India, it has become a big nuisance for Indian Government to control the same. In fact, Indian Government asked Internet Intermediaries in India to pre screen users’ contents in India. Internet Intermediary Laws in India have been made very stringent and they are required to follow Cyber Law Due Diligence in India. Naturally, Cyber Due Diligence for Indian Companies cannot be ignored any more in India.

However, Indian Executive are bypassing the Parliament of India by formulating Rules instead of getting proper Laws passed by the Parliament. This has created a situation where the Cyber Law of India has become a big nuisance and this Cyber Law of India must be Repealed as soon as possible. Since the Cyber Law of India is incomplete and self contradictory, even Indian Judiciary is confused in many cases.

For instance, cases of ignorant Judicial Blocking of Websites in India have increased a lot where even genuine and law abiding websites are blocked in a blanket manner. In most of the cases, an ex parte order is issued that is seldom contested and the websites remain blocked for an unreasonable period of time.

If Blocking of Websites in India is done to give effect to Laws that are Constitutionally Sound, there is no problem. But if corporate houses start misusing the process of law to get useful, genuine and law abiding websites blocked in India, this is a serious miscarriage of justice in India.

In fact, this amounts to violation of human rights in cyberspace that is happening a lot in India these days. It is high time for Parliament of India to intervene in this regard and enact a Sound, Effective and Constitutionally Sound Cyber Law of India that covers all these issues appropriately.

E-Surveillance In India

E-Surveillance in India is a well known phenomenon. Whether it is telephone tapping or e-surveillance and electronic eavesdropping, Indian Government has been doing it for long and to the maximum possible extent. E-Surveillance in India is a death knell to privacy in India. The truth is that we have an over zealous and e-surveillance oriented Indian government.

We have no dedicated privacy laws, data protection laws, data privacy and security laws, etc in India. On the contrary, the Cyber Law of India, incorporated in the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act 2000), facilitates E-Surveillance, Internet Censorship, etc “Without any Procedural Safeguards”.

Indian Government acquired itself Unregulated, Illegal and Unconstitutional E-Surveillance, Internet Censorship and Website Blocking powers with no Procedural Safeguards. The IT Act 2000 was amended through the Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 (IT Act 2008) and this amendment gave Unconstitutional and Illegal Powers to Indian Government and its Agencies. With the notification of the IT Act, 2008, the journey from Welfare State to a Police State was completed for India.

Instances of Website Blocking in India and Internet Censorship in India have increased a lot. What is more worrisome is the fact that E-Surveillance and Internet Censorship in India have increased without any Constitutional Lawful Interception Law in India. Lawful Interception Law in India is missing and Phone Tapping in India is done in an Unconstitutional manner.

The Cell Site Location Based E-Surveillance in India is also in contemplation. Cell Site Data Location Laws in India and Privacy issues are once again ignored in this case. However, of all E-Surveillance Project, nothing is worst than the Aadhar Project of India and its implementing Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) headed by Nandan Nilekani.

E-Surveillance is a direct violation of Human Rights in Cyberspace in India. Human Rights in Cyberspace are Outlawed in India. Human Rights Protection in Cyberspace is urgently required. In fact, E-Surveillance Policy of India is needed so that E-Surveillance can be conducted in “Exceptional Cases and Constitutional Manner only”.

If Unconstitutional E-Surveillance and Phone Tapping continue in India, Self Defense in Indian Cyberspace is the only viable option. However, there are circumstances when self defense in cyberspace ceases to exist. Further self defense against State must be always “Legal and Constitutional”.

World over Law Enforcement Agencies have been advocating maintaining a balance between Civil Liberties and National Security Requirements. India must also follow the same practice. I hope Indian Government would do the needful very soon.

FBI Mulls Fighting Cyber Crimes While Respecting Civil Liberties

Human rights and civil liberties are well known world over. However, what is not very popular is the human rights protection in cyberspace. Governments and nations across the world are not very keen in protection of civil liberties in cyberspace. On the contrary, they are actively indulging in e-surveillance, e-eavesdropping and violation of various civil liberties and human rights in cyberspace and India is no exception to this rule.

Any government that respects human rights and civil liberties must maintain a balance between civil liberties, human rights and national security requirements. Further, a sound and constitutional e-surveillance policy is also required that clearly demarcates the nature, extent, procedure, etc of using e-surveillance for national security purposes.

The United Nations must protect human rights in cyberspace more vigorously. Presently UN has not taken enough initiatives in this regard. Of course, UN has declared that access to Internet is a human right but that is far from satisfactory.

If UN believes in human rights, it must start thinking towards its new form in this Internet era. There is no reason why human rights in cyberspace must be given any lesser importance than its traditional human rights. After all human rights like right to speech and expression, right to information, right to know, privacy rights, etc are similar in cyberspace. Rather violation of human rights in cyberspace is much easier and more frequent.

In a welcome move, a positive attitude in this regard has been shown by FBI Director Robert Mueller. He said that the FBI has to stay ahead of changing threats and new technology to keep the nation safe from terrorism, espionage and cyber-attacks, but must not get ahead of the rule of law and constitutional protections.

He opined that the cyber-intrusions, be they aimed either at stealing national security systems, military technology or the private sector's intellectual property, or at disrupting public services or the private economy, is costing the nation billions. But adhering to the rule of law remains the FBI's guiding principle, he said, and the bureau knows it'll be judged on how well it safeguards the liberties for which it is fighting.

This attitude and mentality must be adopted by all the law enforcement agencies of the world, including India. Till human rights in cyberspace are not respected and protected, the fight against cyber crimes would always remain biased and incomplete.

Indian National Privacy Policy Is Missing

Right to privacy bill of India 2011 has been suggested for many times in the year 2011. However, till now we do not have any conclusive draft in this regard that can be introduced in that parliament of India. In fact, we are still waiting for a final and conclusive proposed draft right to privacy bill 2011 of India that can be discussed in the parliament.

Privacy rights in India in the information age are too important to be ignored. Surprisingly, Indian government is deliberately keeping privacy protection at distance even if the constitution of India protects privacy rights of Indian citizens/persons.

For instance, India has launched Projects like Aadhar, National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS), National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), Central Monitoring System (CMS), Centre for Communication Security Research and Monitoring (CCSRM), etc. None of them are governed by any Legal Framework and none of them are under Parliamentary Scrutiny.

Lack of privacy law has already stalled Natgrid whereas other projects like unique identification project of India or Aadhar project of India are simply unconstitutional by their very existence and being violative of privacy rights as conferred under Indian constitution.

Right to privacy bill of India 2011, along with a dedicated data protection law in India is needed. We already have an anti consumer telemarketing policy of India that openly allows violation of consumers privacy and peace.

In short, the unwritten, but widely followed, national privacy policy of India is not only negative in nature but is also violative of various provisions of Indian constitution. Time has come to enact a good techno legal national privacy policy of India.

United Nations (UN), Cyber Laws And Human Rights In Cyberspace

The relationship of United Nations (UN) and Cyber Laws is a very Unique but Ignored area. Cyber Law is an aspect that is International in nature but it is always given a “National Treatment”. This is a “Big Fallacy” as Cyberspace recognises no boundary and by confining it to National Boundaries, we are just creating Chaos and Confusion.

What is more surprising is why UN has still not provided a “Harmonised Framework” for Cyber Law that is acceptable to all concerned. In the absence of “International Harmonisation”, Cyber Law has not witnessed the “Growth” that it deserved. In short, we have no Common Law of Cyberspace till now.

Another area that deserves the attention of UN pertains to Human Rights Protection in Cyberspace. Presently, UN and Human Rights in Cyberspace are two separate issues although they need to be one. Similarly, we have no International Cyber Law Treaty, International Cyber Security Treaty, International Cooperation in Techno Legal fields, etc.

UN is very slow in protecting Human Rights in Cyberspace and it must now expedite this process of protection. Although UN has declared that Access to Internet is a Human Right yet this can be considered to be a beginning at the most. UN has still to cover a “Long Gap” in this regard.

Public Legal Awareness regarding International Law in general and Cyber Law in particular is also required to be spread. This can be achieved through the mode of Online Courses and Trainings through E-Learning methodology.

UN must use Public Private Partnership (PPP) Model to associate with National and International Institutions and Individual Experts in this regard. The sooner this is done the better it would be for the larger benefit of Cyberspace and Netizens.

National Security And Fundamental Rights Must Be Reconciled

This is my latest “Communication” with the Government of India where I have stressed upon the need to have “Reconciliation” between National Security needs of India on the one hand and Protection of Fundamental Rights on the other. I hope Indian Government would “Favourably” consider this request of mine.

National Security, Civil Liberties and Constitutional Aspirations are on “Cross Roads” these days. Projects like Aadhar/UID, National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), Crime and Criminal Tracking and Systems (CCTNS), Central Monitoring System (CMS), etc are required for National Security but Civil Liberties and Fundamental Rights are also of Prime Importance.

Enacting suitable Techno Legal Laws and Regulations in fields like Cyber Law, Cyber Security, Cyber Forensics, etc is of Paramount Importance. However, these fields are emerging World over and India need to streamline its Techno Legal Jurisprudence.

We have been in the process of “Compiling” and “Formulating” a Techno Legal Framework for India. To start with, we have already written on the topic of Cyber Forensics and Compiled it in the form of a Book.

The First Edition of the Book has been written in September 2010 and we are working towards not only “Improving and Upgrading” the same but also coming up with the Second Edition of the same very soon. The Book carries possible useful information in the field of Cyber Forensics in India and includes International Best Practices in this field.

We are also working in the direction of Compiling Techno Legal Literature in the Fields like Cyber Law, Cyber Security, Cyber Terrorism, Cyber Espionage, Cyber Warfare, etc. We have been trying to “Reconcile” National Security with Fundamental Rights of Indian so that Projects like Aadhar/UID, NATGRID, CCTNS, CMS, can be effectively and “Constitutionally” launched in India.

We look forward for your Active and Constructive Cooperation and Support in this regard. We would be glad to provide you with a “Copy” of our Book on Cyber Forensics somewhere in the month of June/July 2011.

If interested, kindly send us a request in this regard on the official Letterhead of your concerned Ministry/Department.

We look forward for a Cooperative and Collaborative Alliance and Public Private Partnership (PPP) in this regard.

Phone Tapping In India Is Not Constitutionally Performed

It is both ironic and sad that laws used by British Government against Indians are used by our own Indian Government against its own Citizens. There are many “Draconian Colonial Laws” that were kept intact by Indian Government even if they go against the very Philosophy and Spirit of Indian Constitution. This is because these Outdated and Unconstitutional Laws are well serving the “Purposes” of Indian Government.

One of such laws that require an immediate repeal is the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It is the most abused law of India when it comes to Phone Tapping and Illegal Surveillance. The fact and truth is that India does not have a Legal and Constitutionally Sound Phone Tapping and E-Surveillance Law.

Even after the Supreme Court of India declared Right to Privacy a part of Article 21 of Indian Constitution, Indian Government kept at bay the requirement to protect Privacy Rights of its Citizens. Instead, it preferred to impose Projects and Authorities without any Legal Framework. This is nothing but a “Complete Failure” of “Parliamentary Democracy” in India. I wonder whether India has Separation of Powers anymore.

So much so that even after the Supreme Court’s Judgment in PUCL case prescribed minimum “Safeguards” against Illegal Phone Tapping, nothing has changed. The “Safeguards” provided by Supreme Court were “Sub Minimum” and even those Safeguards are not followed in India.

Naturally, even Private Individuals also jumped upon Illegal Phone Tapping and E-Surveillance business and they are openly operating in India. This is bound to happen because when even the Government is not “Fair”, it cannot expect its Citizens to be honest and upright.

Till now it is clear that India would not provide any sort of Privacy Rights to its Citizens and would not protect their crucial Data through a dedicated and strong Data Protection Law in India. The only safeguard that is available against Indian Government and Private Individuals from violating our Privacy Rights is to use “Self Defence Measures”.

This is the reason why I believe that Google, Skype, Blackberry, etc must not succumb to the pressures of Indian Government. They must strongly refuse to share any information regarding its users unless and until there is a “Court Order” in this regard.

Time has come for the Supreme Court of India to stop Indian Executive from Hijacking the Constitution of India, by bypassing both Parliament of India and Indian Judiciary. Since the matter is pending before Supreme Court, it can lay down “Stringent Requirements” before Phone Tapping and E-Surveillance can be conducted in India.

Do We Have Separation Of Powers In India Anymore?

India is perhaps the only country of the World whose Agencies and Instrumentalities are working without any law supporting their existence. Whether it is the Aadhar Project/ UID Project, Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies of India, etc none of them are “Practically Governed” by any Legal Framework and Parliamentary Scrutiny.

Surprisingly, India has a long and unpardonable history of clinging to antique and colonial laws like Indian Telegraph Act. It is beyond any reasonable doubt that laws like Telegraph Act do not serve the present purposes of lawful interception in India.

In the absence of a Constitutionally Valid Lawful Interception Law in India, companies like Google, Skype and Blackberry can legally refuse to part with any information regarding its users citing absence of a lawful interception law on the one hand and protecting its users’ Privacy on the other hand.

Unfortunately, Blackberry’s maker Research in Motion (RIM) has succumbed to Indian Government’s pressures and has openly shown its intentions to violate the Privacy Rights of its users in a “Cloud Computing Environment”. This also proves that India is still not ready for a cloud computing environment. Fortunately, Google has rightly rejected Indian Government’s possible demand well in advance citing privacy reasons.

India is deliberately escaping from enacting suitable Privacy Laws and Data Protection Laws. Further, since the Colonial Laws like Telegraph Act serve the purpose of Indian Government, it is abstaining from enacting suitable and timely Legislations.

However, of all Illegal and Unconstitutional Projects nothing can match the Violating Limits of Aadhar Project and UDIAI. With “Biometric Information” as its base and core components, Indian residents have virtually surrendered their Privacy Rights in the hands of a Regime and Government that cannot be trusted at all in this regard. That is why there is an urgent need of Robust, Effective and Constitutionally Sound Legal Framework in this regard.

In these circumstances it can be safely said that Indian Parliament is slightly better than a non operational one. It does not conduct any relevant business these days and even if it does not operate at all, not much difference would be there. Are Indian Parliamentarians listening or has Indian Constitution been “Bypassed” for surrendering all its “Constitutional Powers” to its Executive Branch and Bureaucrats? Perhaps, the concept of “Separation of Power” no longer exists under Indian Constitution.

Security And National Interest: What A Joke By Vodafone India

At last I got some insight about the “Reverification Drive” of Department of Telecommunication (DOT) India and mobile service providers like Vodafone. A person named Rahul Sindwani of Customer Care, Vodafone, finally contacted me to explain the rationale for unilateral disconnection exercise of mobile services of Vodafone India in the name of “Reverification”.

He informed that as per DOT guidelines they have instructions to disconnect all cellular connections, whose documentation is found non-complaint by the “authorities”. Now this is interesting on at least two counts. First, Vodafone has passed the buck upon DOT India for this whole mess. Secondly, who are these “Authorities” that see whether the documents in question are complaint or non complaint? Is it DOT, India or the Security and Intelligence Agencies?

It also raise an important question that if complete and proper documents in question have already been submitted at the time of getting connection, why Vodafone/DOT are again asking for the same? Without knowing who checked our documents and what deficiencies, if any, have been found by them, it is very difficult to believe the argument of DOT/Vodafone regarding lack of proper documentation. Perhaps, it is high time for a Right to Information Application (RTI Application) against DOT/Vodafone.

Vodafone also played the classic card of “Security” and “Public Interest” for this whole mess. Where is “Public Interest” in harassing law abiding and honest citizens and what “Security” purposes it is going to serve?

Meanwhile, I have once again communicated with Vodafone and asked for further details like the rationale for resubmission of documents, by whom my documents have been analysed, who are the authorities that analyses the documents, how would Vodafone indemnify the users whose documents have been misused and why should not a Consumer Case and Civil Proceeding be started against Vodafone.

I hope I would get some good, concrete and logical answers this time and not another eye wash response by Vodafone. Of course, the option of filing an RTI Application to elicit truth is always available to me.

Analysis Of Right to Information Rules, 2010

This is my Opinion regarding the Right to Information Rules, 2010:

(1) Request for Information U/S 6(1) Of Act: A person, who desires to obtain any information from a public authority under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, shall pay an application fee of Rs. 10/- to the public authority alongwith the application;

Provided that the request for information shall relate only to one subject matter and shall be limited to two hundred and fifty words, excluding the address of the Central Public Information Officer and the address of the applicant.

Opinion: In my opinion this is a retrograde step in a backward direction. Firstly, the Proviso is limiting information seeking to a “Single Subject” only. At times subjects for which information is required are so interrelated and diverse in nature that it is neither feasible nor possible to limit them to a single category.

Similarly, the limiting of the number of words to 250 is also “Not Desirable” as it would compromise the nature of information sought. Of course, an applicant cannot ask for information in hundreds of pages but at times it becomes pertinent to ask information in many pages.

Suggestion: The Proviso is a serious “Embargo” upon information seeking and should be reconsidered.

(2) Fees for providing information: Fee for providing information under Section 4(4), Section 7 (1) and Section 7 (5), as the case may be, shall be charged at the following rates:

(a) rupees two for each page in A-3 size or smaller size paper;
(b) actual cost or price of a copy in larger size paper;
(c ) actual cost or price for samples or models;
(d) for inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and fee of rupees five for each subsequent hour (or fraction thereof);
(e) for information provided in diskette or floppy, rupees fifty per diskette or floppy;
(f) for information provided in printed form, at the price fixed for such publication or rupees two per page of photocopy for extracts from the publication;
(g) the actual amount spent by public authority on hiring a machine or any other equipment, if any, to supply information;
(h) Postal charges, in excess of rupees ten, if any, involved in supply of information.

Provided that no Fee shall be charged under this rule from the persons who are below poverty line as may be determined by respective State Governments.

Opinion: Charging of fees on the basis of actual amount spent by a public authority on hiring a machine or any other equipment, if any, to supply information is “Not Rationale”. Every Public Authority is supposed to have “Complete Infrastructure” like Printers, Scanners, Photo Copiers, etc at its place. It would be absurd to suggest that Indian Government would not or have not yet provided the required Infrastructure to these Public Authorities.

Suggestion: This Clause need to be removed from the Rules.

Opinion: For inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and fee of rupees five for each subsequent hour (or fraction thereof). This is a good provision and it should be implemented in “True Letter and Spirit”. In many cases there is no need of any documents or the quantity of documents can be reduced to a considerable amount, if proper inspection is allowed. This would also reduce the burden upon Public Authorities.

Opinion: The Proviso also specifies that no Fee shall be charged under this rule from the persons who are below poverty line as may be determined by respective State Governments. This is a “Very Sensible” provision and is a “Welcome Addition”.

(3) Payment of fee: Fee under these rules shall be paid by way of cash, demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Order, etc to relevant officer of the public authority. Even electronic means are also available if facility for receiving fee through electronic means is available with the public authority.

Provided that a public authority may accept fee by any other mode of payment.

Opinion: The “Modes of Payment” of fees are good to effectuated information seeking by the Applicants. Even electronic payment facility has been prescribed if the Public Authority has an infrastructure for the same. The best part of this arrangement is that the Public authority may accept fee by any other mode of payment. This is an “Enabling Provision” and Welcome Step.

(4) Admission of Appeals: (1) On receipt of an appeal, if the Commission is satisfied that it is a fit case for consideration, it may admit such appeal; but where the Commission is not so satisfied, it may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant of being heard and after recording its reasons, reject the appeal.

(2) The Commission shall not admit an appeal unless it is satisfied that the appellant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the Act.

(3) For the purposes of sub-rule (2), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the Act:

(a) if he had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority or any other person competent to pass order on such appeal had made a final order on the appeal; or

(b) where no final order has been made by the First Appellate Authority with regard to the appeal preferred, and a period of 45 days from the date on which such appeal was preferred has expired.

Opinion: This Rule needs to be “Reconsidered” especially Sub Rule (2). It seems to be in conflict with other Provisions and Powers of the Central Information Commission under the Act.

(5) Procedure for Deciding Appeals: The Commission, while deciding an appeal may,

(i) receive oral or written evidence on oath or on affidavit from concerned or interested person;
(ii) peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof;
(iii) inquire through authorized officer further details or facts;
(iv) hear Central Public Information Officer, Central Assistant Public Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority, or such person against whose action the appeal is made, as the case may be;
(v) hear third party; and
(vi) receive evidence on affidavits from Central Public Information Officer, Central Assistant Public Information Officer, First Appellate Authority and such person against whom the appeal lies or the third party.

Opinion: This is a Good Rule and it must be incorporated.

(6) Amendment or withdrawal of an Appeal: The Commission may allow a prayer for any amendment or withdrawal of an Appeal during the course of hearing, if such a prayer is made by the Appellant on an application made in writing.

Provided that such request shall not be entertained by the Commission after the matter has been finally heard or a decision or order has been pronounced by the Commission.

Opinion: This is a Good Rule and it must be incorporated.

(7) Personal presence of the appellant before the Commission: (1) The appellant shall be informed of the date of hearing at least seven clear days before that date.

(2) The appellant may, at his discretion, be present in person or through his duly authorized representative or, if permitted by the commission, through video conferencing, at the time of hearing of the appeal by the Commission.

(3) Where the Commission is satisfied that the circumstances exist due to which the appellant is being prevented from attending the hearing of the Commission, then, the Commission may afford the appellant another opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken or take any other appropriate action as it may deem fit.

Opinion: This is a Good Rule expecially the use of Video Conferencing Facility by the Commission. Effective use of E-Governance is presently missing from RTI Act, 2005 and under other Laws and it is high time for the Government of India to make it “Mandatory”

(8) Service of notice by Commission: Notice by name to be issued by the Commission may be served in any of the following modes, namely:-
(i) service by the party itself;
(ii) by hand delivery (dasti) through Process Server;
(iii) by registered post with acknowledgement due;
(iv) by electronic mail in case electronic address is available.

Opinion: Use of E-Mail as a Mode of Service of Notice by Commission is a welcome step and good provision.

(9) Compliance of the order of the Commission: The head of a public authority shall ensure that an order passed by the Commission, unless varied or stayed by a validly passed order, is complied with and compliance report filed with the Commission within the time limit specified by the Commission, or within 60 days if no such limit is specified.

Opinion: This is a Good Rule and it must be incorporated.

CORE RECOMMENDATION: Both RTI Act 2005 and Rules made thereunder must be “Thoroughly Amended”. The RTI Act 2005 needs many “Pro Active Amendments” that would make it more Effective, Transparent and Accountable. The RTI Act, 2005 also needs to be “Reconciled” with other Laws.

Supreme Court Of India Must Expand Privacy Rights In India

Enactment of suitable Privacy Laws in India is long overdue. However, the Government of India has not considered this issue to be important enough.This is so even if Projects like Aadhar, NATGRID, CCTNS, etc may be declared to be “Unconstitutional” by Constitutional Courts of India. The matter is pending before the Supreme Court and this occasion can be utilised by it for prescribing “Stringent and Suitable” Privacy Rights Guidelines.

Few things related to 2G Scam have happened in the right perspective so far at the Supreme Court of India. The questioning of Supreme Court regarding inaction on the part of Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) India, giving due credit to the CAG’s Report, accepting Ratan Tata’s Writ Petition regarding Privacy Rights Violation, etc are some of them.

The latest to add to this list is denial of Supreme Court to issue any “Interim Relief” in the Tata’s Writ Petition and issuing of notices to open and outlook magazines which had published contents of the alleged taped conversation.

Tata had sought an interim relief for restraining the respondents from further publication of recorded conversations between him and Radia. He also sought an Injunction that would prevent the publishing and circulation of the contents of these conversations in “Any Form”. However, is it possible and does it make any difference at this stage?

The answer seems to be in Negative although Tata may not like the same. This is because contents of conversations are already out in “Public Domain” and on multiple traditional and electronic mediums and platforms. It is not possible for the Supreme Court of India or even for the Government of India to do much at this stage and in this regard.

However, one aspect has skipped the attention of all parties to the Writ Petition and even of the Supreme Court. The sole purpose of Ratan Tata seems to be to protect “His Privacy Rights” by preventing the “Disclosure and Circulation” of conversation or communication recorded through “Surveillance Methods” of State machinery. At this stage this concern and demand seems to be “Infructuous” and “Academic Purpose” only. This is because even if Supreme Court of India provides the “Relief” that Tata is claiming “In Toto”, the “Contents” of the conversation would remain on Internet and this is next to impossible to remove.

There is a blessing in disguise in Tata’s Petition. This is a golden chance for the Supreme Court of India to analyse the “Implementation” of its decision in the PUCL case (Phone Tapping Case). The Supreme Court must “Widen” the scope of Privacy Rights in India not only in the context of Phone Tapping but in an “Overall Manner”. The Supreme Court must formulate and lay down the widest possible “Guidelines” regarding Privacy Protection in India as it has done in the Vishaka’s Case (Guidelines against Sexual Harassment).

I hope this Writ Petition by Tata would come as a rescue of Fundamental Rights in general and Right to Privacy of Indians in particular. The only question that remains to be seen is will the Supreme Court of India protect Privacy Rights of Indians at large? I am optimistic and would be glad to see this outcome.

Challenges Before National Intelligence Grid Of India

National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) is one of the most desirable Projects of India. It is essential to safeguard the National Security of India on the one hand and Internal Security of India on the other. It is also required to “Modernise” the Law enforcement Machinery of India. However, there are many challenges before the NATGRID Project before it can be finally implemented in India.

The first and foremost challenge before the Project is to provide for adequate safeguards and protections against its misuse. India has already committed a blunder by starting the Aadhar Project of India without any legal framework and necessary safeguards. As a result the Aadhar Project has not been successful at all and is facing severe criticism and opposition.

Similar opposition were raised against NATGRID Project as well and the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) of India asked for further “Safeguards” before the NATGRID Project can be launched in India. However, till the month of November 2010, no such safeguards have been put at place by the Home Ministry of India. This can be a serious problem for the successful implementation of the Project.

The Law enforcement Agencies and Intelligence Agencies of India are also practically governed by no law. The outdated colonial laws still govern the functioning of these agencies. Similarly, there are no privacy laws and data protection laws in India. There is an urgent need to formulate effective privacy and data protection laws in India.

Another area of concern is the growing use of e-surveillance in India. In order to effectuate its e-surveillance exercises, India has manipulated the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act 2000), the sole cyber law of India, through the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008 (IT Amendment Act 2008). There are no “Guidelines” or “Procedural Safeguards” subject to which the “Internet Censorship” and “E-Surveillance Powers” can be exercised by Indian Government and its Agencies and Instrumentalities under the cyber law of India. In fact, the present Encryption Norms and Regulations in India allow only an “Outlaw” to enjoy Human Rights in Indian Cyberspace.

Before NATGRID Project is implemented in India, it is very imperative to enact a “Lawful Interception Law”. In the absence of proper laws that respect and Safeguards and Fundamental Rights enshrined under the Constitution of India, the exercise of “Self Defence” against Indian Government and its agencies and Instrumentalities seems to be the only choice.

If Home Minister P. Chidambaram wants the Projects like NATGRID, Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and System (CCTNS), etc to succeed, he must not take a short cut and must not avoid the “Constitutional Scrutiny”. Rather he must ensure proper “Safeguards” before such Projects are launched in India.

Self Defence In Indian Cyberspace

In the present e-surveillance scenario of India, at least two things are very clear. First is that the Government of India is not going to enact any law(s) regarding Data Protection and Privacy Protection in India. This is because the moment it enacts these laws, it cannot engage in illegal and “Unconstitutional” e-surveillance activities as it has been doing presently. The second is that it would further increase its e-surveillance activities in the near future with Projects like Aadhar/UID Project, NATGRID, CCTNS, etc.

Now the service providers like ISPs, Telecom companies, Google/Gmail, Skype, Blackberry, etc have to either accept the Indian Government’s demands or they must cease to carry on their operations in India. Obviously, all of them have accepted the first choice and are “Cooperating” with Indian Government.

India does not have any “Lawful Interception Law”. All it has is the “Unconstitutional” provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 (through IT Act 2008 Amendments). Through these amendments, the Cyber Law of India has been made an “Instrumentality” of e-surveillance in India. There are no procedural safeguards that can prevent the illegal and unconstitutional e-surveillance activities in India.

The only recourse for Indians in such circumstances is to use “Self Defence” and prevent the illegal and unconstitutional encroachment upon their “Civil Liberties” like Right to Privacy. You can do the following:

(1) Use disposable e-mails to avoid e-mail surveillance,

(2) Use Safeguards like TOR against illegal Internet eavesdropping and sniffing

(3) Use TOR for instant messaging (IM) and mobile phones for private and secure conversations,

(4) For Blackberry users and those believing in a good combination of Privacy and Security, use Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) along with any good smart phone. This way you can have a better and e-surveillance free mobile infrastructure than the future controversial Blackberry phones.

(5) Use Enigmail for encrypted e-mails,

(6) For card holders, do not give your “Biometric Details” to Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). This way your private and crucial details cannot be used for “Unconstitutional Projects Databases” like NATGRID, AADHAR, CCTNS, etc.

These are just “Basic Level Safeguards” and much more are possible and would be discussed subsequently.