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.

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.

When Rights Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Rights

Philip R. "Phil" Zimmermann Jr. (born February 12, 1954) is one of the greatest civil liberty protectors in the cyberspace. Zimmermann is the creator of Pretty Good Privacy (PGP), the most widely used email encryption software in the world. He is also known for his work in VoIP encryption protocols, notably ZRTP and Zfone.

In his rationale for creating PGP he tells that using PGP is good for preserving democracy. He believes that if privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy. This is so true not only in the context of America but also India.

India is passing through the worst era of police state and e-surveillance society. Even worst is the reliance upon American models that have failed in America itself. But Home Minister P.Chidambaram is not discouraged by these failures and he would stop only on the failure of these models in India.

Even the Department of Information Technology (DIT) and Department of Telecommunications (DOT) have joined this blind and ignorant race and are trying to ban telecommunication services like Blackberry and Skype and Internet services like Gmail.

These departments are troubled by the strong and secure encryption technology and other similar technologies that prevent unlawful and illegal e-surveillance by the government and its agencies. Criminals and terrorists are already using these, and much better options, and these ignorant actions would only trouble and violate the civil liberties of law abiding citizens alone.

All the limits in this regard were crossed when the Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 (IT Act 2008) was made an enforceable law in India. The IT Act 2008 provides unregulated, unconstitutional and illegal e-surveillance, Internet censorship and website blocking powers in the hands of Indian government and its agencies. There is no mechanism at all that can prevent the abuses of these powers and there is no accountability as well.

A time has come in India when Human Rights in Cyberspace are clearly outlawed and only outlaws (as per the norms and standards of Indian government) would have these Human Rights. This is the main reason why I dedicated a resource titled Human Rights Protection in Cyberspace (HRPIC) to those law abiding citizens who cherish and wish to protect their civil liberties in cyberspace.

With further illegal and unconstitutional projects like CCTNS, NATGRID, UID Project/Aadhar Project, etc things are only going to be worst in India. The only option remains is to use self defence against the persons, institutions and agencies that are engaging in illegal and unconstitutional e-surveillance and civil liberty violations.

Cabinet Committee On Security Of India Desires Safeguards In Natgrid Project

Recently the proposal to establish national intelligence grid (NATGRID) in India was considered by Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) of India. However, the CCS was advised in advanced by techno-legal experts like Praveen Dalal regarding the possible political misuse and violation of civil liberties of the Indian citizens. As a result, the CCS withheld its nod and asked the Home Ministry to come back after further consultation with all stakeholders.

In the past Praveen Dalal has suggested that NATGRID is an essential requirement for robust and effective intelligence agencies and law enforcement functions in India. The only requirement is to ensure that its abuses can be anticipated, prevented and remedied.

The Home Ministry of India would now start fresh discussions with various stakeholders to ensure that NATGRID may not be abused in future. The task is difficult and it would be beneficial to consult good techno-legal experts in this regard.

The most important aspect that must be kept in mind by the government of India is that it must reconcile the national security aspects of India with human rights protection in cyberspace. This is a difficult task especially in the absence of a dedicate privacy law and data protection law in India, says Praveen Dalal.

A “dedicated resource” in this regard has been launched by Perry4Law [ http://perry4law.com/hr/index.html ] in this regard that may be helpful for the Indian government while implementing projects like Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS) Project (CCTNS Project), National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) of India, E-Surveillance under the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act 2000) and other laws, etc.

SOURCE: MYNEWS

Electronic Surveillance And Encryption Standards In India

E-Surveillance of Internet communications is not a new concept as it has been happening for many years in the intelligence agencies circles world wide. It also adversely effects "Human Rights in Cyberspace". However, now even others are using “sniffers” and other tools to gather information and communications happening between the sender and the recipient. The same is possible because of non-use of strong encryption techniques while communicating. India is insisting upon weak encryption standards and usage on the recommendations of intelligence and security agencies. This would not deter the criminals and terrorists to use the same but would make the online transactions of law abiding citizens vulnerable to eavesdropping and sniffing activities.

Electronic surveillance has been in place for long. Internet communications are sniffed by not only law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies but also by cyber criminals. Now even terrorists are using technology for their nefarious activities.

Recent news has revealed that some unknown Pakistani hackers had intercepted an official email communication between J&K Police’s intelligence chief and the J&K Chief Minister. However, it is claimed that the intercepted email did not carry “sensitive information”. As per a senior police officer this is normal as both sides do it.

Omar Abdullah, Chief Minister J&K, has been encouraging use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for government functions. He has been seeking police reports and daily confidential police bulletins through e-mails instead of traditional mailing system.

According to Mr. Praveen Dalal, Managing Partner of Perry4Law and the leading Techno-Legal Expert of India, “Electronic communications sniffing is a very effective mechanism to steal e-mail passwords and confidential information. The same happens if the sniffer is at the same network in case of wired networks or through airwaves if he is targeting the wireless networks”.

To avoid the interception of the email communication by the security agencies, terrorists are not communicating between two email addresses but use a single address with several people knowing the password. The militant then save the document in the draft folder which could be subsequently read by his companions.

Similarly, security agencies are also adopting various methods to keep their e-communications safe and secure. This tussle between the terrorists and security agencies would further increase in the distant future and India should be well prepared to deal with the same.

India must also ensure that encryption standards are suitably regulated through a good and strong cyber law so that security and law enforcement requirements can be reconciled, opined Praveen Dalal. Presently, India is confused regarding the same and trying to stifle the same as much a possible. Indian authorities are insisting upon 40 bits encryption for long whereas anything below 128-bit encryption is equivalent to no encryption at all.

An enhanced encryption use would not only strengthen public trust in online transactions but also would prevent unauthorised e-surveillance by the State. However, Indian Department of Telecommunications has not been uniform in its stand against encryption standards in the Blackberry services in India. The security agencies of India are insisting upon weak encryption standards in India so that they can monitor the electronic communications of Indian citizens and others. This is resulting in an enhanced and unregulated electronic communications sniffing in India. India must change its attitude in this regard as this approach would bring more troubles than benefits.

AUTHOR: TECHTALK

SOURCE: GROUND REPORT

India Is Adopting Double Standards Regarding Its Cyber Law

India is adopting double standards and creating a façade to hide its incompetent and weak cyber law. On the one hand the government made the cyber law a safe heaven whereas on the other hand it is trying to show that it is serious about cyber crimes. If the government is so serious about cyber crimes, why it made it criminal friendly and a safe heaven for the cyber criminals? This double standard of Indian government would create lot of socio-economic problems in the contemporary modern society of India.

The Parliament of India is either not willing to enact suitable laws in a timely manner or it makes absurd laws like the Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 (IT Act 2008). India is already struggling hard to tackle cyber crimes and cyber contraventions. However, what is more confusing is why Indian government made India a Safe Heaven for cyber criminals? Further, with the IT Act 2008 India became an E-Surveillance State. The E-Surveillance may be crucial for Indian National security and Internal Security vis-à-vis information technology but even these crucial capabilities are missing. The cyber warfare capabilities of India are still decades far away. The net result due to the Irrational Cyber Law of India is that there is a complete Cyber Anarchy existing in India.

Realising the gravity of the situation, Mr. Praveen Dalal, Managing Partner of Perry4Law and the leading Techno-Legal Expert of India, sent a communication to the Government of India including the Prime Minister of India, President of India, Supreme Court of India, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, etc in this regard. The government reciprocated through media by showing its concern regarding the rising number of cyber crimes in India. Now the Centre is planning to assign the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate cases registered under the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act 2000) in the country. This is the irony of Indian political thinking. On the one hand they made almost all the cyber crimes in India “Bailable” whereas on the other hand they are “showing concern” for the very same cyber crimes that have been committed due to the lax cyber law of India that they enacted, says Praveen Dalal.

The Centre has in a letter to the State Governments requested them to issue general consent for the handing over of such cases to the CBI. The CBI cannot proceed till the States grant it permission to do so. This step of the Centre may be a compulsion as Indian law enforcement needs Techno-Legal Training to solve cyber crimes effectively. Surprisingly, the Centre is aware that cyber crimes are affecting the life of the general public and cases of phishing, online credit card fraud, hacking, pornography and theft of data, source code and identity are on the rise. It also believes that these cases have national and international ramifications and affect national security. What is not understandable is why such serious crimes have been made bailable and why India has been made a cyber heaven for cyber criminals, questions Praveen Dalal.

The only explanation to this strange behaviour of Indian government may be that it is “confused” regarding its cyber law. Further, Indian government cannot enact strong and stringent cyber law because the “industry lobbying” of Indian companies would not allow it to do so. Till India acquires good “legislative skill” and shows its will to provide a robust cyber law of India, the confusion will keep on marring the government’s decision making power.

AUTHOR: SHAYAM PRASAD

SOURCE: GROUND REPORT

Privacy And E-Surveillance Issues Must Be Resolved First By UIDAI

The Unique Identification Project of India is based upon lack of planning and foresight. The hit and trial attitude of the Government of India (GOI) coupled with the charitable tendencies to distribute the public money among corrupt officials of India without any transparency and accountability would once again fail another much needed project in India. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is not a “legally constituted” authority. In the absence of just and reasonable law(s) to support the same, it would violate the Human Rights and Fundamental Rights of the citizens of India, say techno-legal experts like Praveen Dalal. The interaction of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) with Human Rights is no more a science fiction and India must keep in mind the mandates of Human Rights Protection in Cyberspace while implementing projects that have no legal sanction and backing.

The security and privacy issues of UIDAI have been raised times and again. The real problem seems to be that neither UIDAI nor its functions are legally valid and constitutionally sound. In its present form they are violative of not only the sacrosanct Human Rights but also the Fundamental Rights conferred by the Constitution of India (COI), says Praveen Dalal.

The first and foremost evil of UIDAI without a proper legal framework is that it would violate the “Right to Privacy” as conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution. This is not expressly mentioned in it but the same has been enunciated by way of judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court of India. India is a signatory to the International covenant on civil and political rights, 1966. Article 17 thereof provides for the “right of privacy”. Article 17 of the international covenant does not go contrary to any part of our municipal law. Article 21 has, therefore, to be interpreted in conformity with the international law.

Even the “Data Protection” requirements would pose big challenge before India. The amount of data collected for by UIDAI would be tremendous. Presently, India does not have either a legal framework or technical capabilities to accommodate the demands of the proposed functions of UIDAI.

The main aim of the proposed project by UID Project seems to be to strengthen the “E-Surveillance Capabilities” of India. With the passage of IT Act 2008 India has now officially become an endemic e-surveillance society. The amendments have provided unregulated, unconstitutional and arbitrary e-surveillance powers to Government of India and its agencies and instrumentalities. The fact is that India has become an E-Police State, states the ICT Trends of India 2009.

Privacy rights are valuable and must not be violated by the government under the garb of national security. An important question that has been raised in the past is whether the citizens have a right to self-defense against the State if the latter is violating their rights illegally? Private or self defense is a Human Right, Constitutional Rights as well as Statutory Right. The Indian citizens have a right to exercise self defense even against the State. This is more so in the sphere of ICT where there are least possibilities of human injuries. However the same can be exercised by law abiding citizens alone and criminals cannot claim this Constitutional Protection. The UIDAI Project must keep all these aspects in mind before being finally implemented in India.

SOURCE: GROUND REPORT