Taps, NATGRID and freedom
21 Oct 2012 5:22 AM IST
The recommendations of a panel led by former High Court Chief Justice A P Shah, that was set up by the Planning Commission to identify privacy issues, are worthy of consideration. This panel was constituted after members of the public and others pointed out that several of the newly constituted nationanal programmes, seemingly benign, such as for the Unique Identification Number and the NATGRID as also for the interception of communications, have a huge potential to violate the rights of citizens. Though the scope of the A P Shah panel was limited to privacy, what is at stake are not just rights to privacy but also the constitutional and political rights of the people which these programmes may endanger. The government has no business to collect routine information about the ordinary activities of citizens in their daily life. Such information, particularly if it falls in the hands of unscrupulous political leaders or collusive corporates, may be used to harass or harm citizens. NATGRID, for instance, devised as a solution for the colossal failure to anticipate terrorism in Mumbai in 2008, has tremendous implications for the freedoms of individuals. These attacks happened not because those in power were not sufficently aware of the threat but because of their monumental incompetence and negligence in letting the situation drift. NATGRID, a massive intelligence programme, is at a cost which does not justify its existence. Moreover, these programmes get used not so much for anti-terrorism but to watch political opponents, to crackdown on them and to surpress dissent.
These programmes are essentially undemocratic and violative of constitutional rights and, beyond a point, are illegal. The experience of other countries, mostly dictatorships and police states, which have similarly watched citizens in the past, have not been happy. Moreover, the experience of India at the time of the Emergency was not good. The A P Shah Commission has made a number of recommendations, especially with regard to the interception of communications, puting a limit to their duration as also asking for the recording of reasons. However, this is not enough. There must be greater public accountability of these programmes and agencies which operate in the shadows and of whose functioning the public is not sufficiently in the know. This include surveillence by the private sector, which is completely illegal. The issue is more than that of privacy, and, in the interests of preserving the freedoms of the Indian people, there must be greater discussion of these programmes and of any proposed laws.
These programmes are essentially undemocratic and violative of constitutional rights and, beyond a point, are illegal. The experience of other countries, mostly dictatorships and police states, which have similarly watched citizens in the past, have not been happy. Moreover, the experience of India at the time of the Emergency was not good. The A P Shah Commission has made a number of recommendations, especially with regard to the interception of communications, puting a limit to their duration as also asking for the recording of reasons. However, this is not enough. There must be greater public accountability of these programmes and agencies which operate in the shadows and of whose functioning the public is not sufficiently in the know. This include surveillence by the private sector, which is completely illegal. The issue is more than that of privacy, and, in the interests of preserving the freedoms of the Indian people, there must be greater discussion of these programmes and of any proposed laws.
Next Story
