Centre for Internet and Society

The Difficult Balance of Transparent Surveillance

kovey — 2013-07-15T04:23:35Z

Is it too much to ask for transparency in data surveillance? On occasion, companies like Microsoft, Facebook, and the other silicon valley giants would say no. When customers join these services, each company provides their own privacy statement which assures customers of the safety and transparency that accompanies their personal data.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC

Google even publishes annual “Transparency Reports” which detail the data movement behind the scenes. Governments, too, are somewhat open about surveillance methods, for example with the public knowledge of the existence and role of institutions like America’s NSA and India’s CMS. These façades of assurance, however, never satisfy the public enough to protect them from feeling cheated and deceived when information leaks about surveillance practices. And in the face of controversy around surveillance, both service providers and governments scramble to provide explanations for discrepancies between their promises and their practices.

So it seems that transparency might not be too much to ask, but instead is perhaps more complicated of a request than imagined. For some citizens, nothing would be more satisfying than complete transparency on all data collection. For those who recognize surveillance as crucial for national security, however, complete transparency would mean undermining the very efficacy of surveillance practices. And data companies often find themselves caught between these two ends, simultaneously seeking profits by catering to the public, while also trying to abide by political and legal frameworks. Therefore, in the process of modern data surveillance, each attempt at resolution of the transparency issue will become a delicate balance between three actors: the government, the big data companies, and the people. As rightly stated on the Digital Due Process website, rules for surveillance must carefully consider “the individual’s constitutional right to privacy, the government’s need for tools to conduct investigations, and the interest of service providers in clarity and customer trust.”[1]

So we must unpack the idea of transparency.

First, there should be a distinction made between proactive transparency and reactive transparency, or, the announcement of surveillance practices versus the later access to surveillance records. The former is more risky and therefore more difficult to entertain, while the latter may lack any real substance beyond satisfying inquiries. Also consider the discrepancy in motivation for transparency between the actors. For the citizen, is transparency really an end goal, or is it only a stepping stone in the argument for eradication of surveillance practices in the name of rights to privacy? Here, we ascertain the true value of total transparency; will it ever please citizens to learn of a government’s most recent undermining of the private sphere?

Reactive transparency has been achieved only in recent years in India, during a number of well publicized legal cases. In one of the earliest cases of reactive transparency, Reliance Communications made an affidavit in the Supreme Court over the exact number of surveillance directives given by the government. It was released that 151,000 Reliance accounts were monitored for a project between 2006 and 2010, with 3,588 tapped phones just from the Delhi region alone in 2005.[2]

But also there has been controversy over the extent of reactive transparency, because it has been especially problematic to discern the point where transparency once again encroaches on privacy, both for government and the people’s sake. After gathering the data, its release could further jeopardize the citizens and the government. It is important to carefully consider the productive extent of reactive transparency: What will become of the information? Will one publicly reveal how many people were spied on? Who was spied on? What was found when through spying? Citizens must take all of this into consideration when requesting transparency.

Meanwhile, service providers embrace transparency when it can benefit their corporation, or as a recent Facebook statement explained, “we’ve been in discussions with U.S. national security authorities urging them to allow more transparency, so that our users around the world can understand how infrequently we are asked to provide user data on national security grounds.” [a] Many of the service providers mentioned in the recently leaked PRISM report have made well-publicized requests to the U.S. government for more transparency.[3]

Not only have they allegedly written requests to the government to allow them to disclose information, but the companies (including Facebook [a], Apple [b], Microsoft[c], and Google [d]) have all released explanatory statements in the wake of the June 2013 PRISM scandal. Although service providers claim that the request to release data about their cooperation is in the ‘interest of transparency,’ it instead seems that the motivation for this transparency is to ease consumers’ concerns and help the companies save face. The companies (and the government) will admit their participation in surveillance once it has become impossible to deny their association with the programs. This shrewd aspect of transparency can be seen most clearly in statements like those from Microsoft, who included in their statement on June 14^th, “We have not received any national security orders of the type that Verizon was reported to have received.” [c] Spontaneous allusions like this are meant to contrast guilt-conscious service providers favorably to telecom service providers such as AT&T and Verizon, who allegedly yielded the most communications data and who as of now have yet to release defensive public statements.

Currently, we find ourselves in a situation where entities admit to their collusion in snooping only once information has leaked, indignation has ignited, and scandal has erupted. A half-hearted proactive transparency leads to an outrage demanding reactive semi-transparency. These weak forms of transparency neither satisfy the public, nor allow governments and service providers to maintain dignity.

But now is also a crucial moment for possible reevaluation and reformation of this system, especially in India. Not only is India enacting its own national security surveillance system, the CMS[4] but the recent NSA and PRISM revelations are still sending shockwaves throughout the world of cyber security and surveillance. Last week, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was sent to the Indian Supreme Court, arguing that nine foreign service providers (Facebook, Hotmail, Yahoo!, Google, Apple, Skype, Paltalk, AOL, YouTube) violated the trust and privacy of their Indian customers through their collusion with the US government’s surveillance programs.[5]

Among other things, the PIL emphatically sought prosecution of the mentioned corporations, demands for the service providers to establish servers in India, and also sought stricter rules to prevent Indian officials from using these foreign services for work involving national security. Ultimately, the PIL was rejected by the Supreme Court; although the PIL stated the grounds of Rule 6 of the Information Technology Rules 2011 for the guidelines in protecting sensitive Indian citizen information, the SC saw the PIL as addressing problems outside of SC jurisdiction, and was quoted as saying “we cannot entertain the petition as an Indian agency is not involved.”[5][6]

The SC considered the PIL only partially, however, as certain significant parts of the petition were indeed within Indian domestic agency, for example the urge to prohibit federal officials from using the private email services such as Gmail, Hotmail, and Yahoo. And although the SC is not the correct place to push for new safeguard legislation, the ideas of the PIL are not invalid, as Indian leaders have long searched for ways of ensuring basic Indian privacy laws in the context of international service providers. This is also not a problem distinctive to India. International service providers have entered into agreements regarding the same problems of incorporating international customers’ rights, formal agreements which India could emulate if it wanted to demand greater privacy or transparency.

For example, there is the Safe Harbor Framework, an institution in place to protect and mediate European Union citizens’ privacy rights within the servers of foreign (i.e. American) Internet companies. These regulations were established in 2000, and serve the purpose of adjusting foreign companies’ standards to incorporate E.U. privacy laws. In accordance with the agreement, E.U. data is only allowed to be sent to outside providers who maintain the seven Safe Harbor principles, several of which focus on transparency of data usage.[7] India could enact a system similar to this, and it would likely alleviate some of the concerns raised in the most recent PIL. These frameworks, however, have not proven completely reliable safeguards either, especially when the service providers’ own government uses national security as a means to override the agreement. Although the U.S. government has yet to fully confirm or deny many of the NSA and PRISM allegations in regards to Europe, there is currently strong room to believe that the surveillance practices may have violated the Safe Harbor agreements by delivering sensitive E.U. citizen data to the U.S. government.[8] It is uncertain how these revelations will impact the agreements made between the big Silicon-Valley companies and their E.U. customers.

The recent PIL also strongly suggested establishing domestic data servers to keep Indian citizens’ information within the country and under the direct supervision of Indian entities. It strongly pushes for self-reliance as the best way to ensure both citizen and national security. The PIL assumes that domestic servers will not only offer better information protection, but also create much needed jobs and raise national tax revenue.[5] If allegations about PRISM and the E.U. prove true, then the E.U. may also decide to support establishment of European servers as well.

Several of the ideas outlined in the PIL have merit, but may not be as productive as the requesters assume. It is true that establishing servers and domestic regulators in India may temporarily protect from unwanted foreign, i.e. American, surveillance. But at the same time, this also increases likelihood of India’s own central government taking a stronger surveillance stance, more stringently monitoring their own servers and databases. It has not yet been described how the CMS will be operate its surveillance methods, but moving data to domestic servers may just result in shifting power from NSA to CMS. Rather than more privacy or transparency, the situation could easily become a matter of who citizens prefer spying over them.

Even if one government establishes rules which enforce transparency, this may clash with the laws of the service providers’ domestic government, i.e. confidentiality in surveillance. Considering all of this, rejection of foreign service providers and promotion of domestic self reliance may ultimately prove the most effective alternative for nations which are growing rapidly in both internet presence and internet consciousness. But that does not make this option the easiest. Facing the revelations and disillusionment of domestic (CMS) and international (PRISM) surveillance methods, countries like India are reaching an impeding critical juncture. Now is the most important time to establish new norms, while public sentiment is at its highest and transition is most possible, not only creating new laws which can safeguard privacy, but also strongly considering alternatives to foreign service providers like those outlined in June’s PIL. Privacy International’s guiding principles of communications surveillance also offer useful advice, urging for the establishment of oversight institutions which can access surveillance records and periodically publish aggregate data on surveillance methods.[9] Although the balance between security on the national level and security on the personal level will continue to be problematic for nations in the upcoming years, and even though service providers’ positions on surveillance usually seem contrived, Microsoft Vice President John Frank made a statement which deserves appreciation, rightly saying, “Transparency alone may not be enough to restore public confidence, but it’s a great place to start.”[c]

[1]. http://digitaldueprocess.org/

[2]. http://bit.ly/151Ue1H

[3]. http://bit.ly/12XDb1Z

[4]. http://ti.me/11Xh08V

[5]. Copy of 2013 PIL to Supreme Court, Prof. S.N. Singh [attached]

[6]. http://bit.ly/1aXWdbU

[7]. http://1.usa.gov/qafcXe

[8]. http://bit.ly/114hcCX

[9]. http://bit.ly/156wspI

[a]. Facebook Statement: http://bit.ly/ZQDcn6

[b]. Apple Statement: http://bit.ly/1akaBuN

[c]. Microsoft Statement:http://bit.ly/1bFIt31

[d]. Google Statement: http://bit.ly/16QlaqB

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-difficult-balance-of-transparent-surveillance

Spy Files 3: WikiLeaks Sheds More Light On The Global Surveillance Industry

maria — 2013-11-14T16:21:00Z

In this article, Maria Xynou looks at WikiLeaks' latest Spy Files and examines the legality of India's surveillance technologies, as well as their potential connection with India's Central Monitoring System (CMS) and implications on human rights.

Last month, WikiLeaks released “Spy Files 3”, a mass exposure of the global surveillance trade and industry. WikiLeaks first released the Spy Files in December 2011, which entail brochures, presentations, marketing videos and technical specifications on the global trade of surveillance technologies. Spy Files 3 supplements this with 294 additional documents from 92 global intelligence contractors.

So what do the latest Spy Files reveal about India?

When we think about India, the first issues that probably come to mind are poverty and corruption, while surveillance appears to be a more “Western” and elitist issue. However, while many other developing countries are excluded from WikiLeaks’ list of surveillance technology companies, India is once again on the list with some of the most controversial spyware.

ISS World Surveillance Trade Shows

The latest Spy Files include a brochure of the ISS World 2013 -the so-called “wiretapper’s ball”- which is the world’s largest surveillance trade show. This years ’ ISS World Asia will take place in Malaysia during the first week of December and law enforcement agencies from around the world will have another opportunity to view and purchase the latest surveillance tech. The leaked ISS World 2013 brochure entails a list of last years’ global attendees. According to the brochure, 53% of the attendees included law enforcement agencies and individuals from the defense, public safety and interior security sectors, 41% of the attendees were ISS vendors and technology integrators, while only 6% of the attendees were telecom operators and from the private enterprise. The brochure boasts that 4,635 individuals from 110 countries attended the ISS World trade shows last year and that the percentage of attendance is increasing.

The following table lists the Indian attendees at last years ’ ISS World:

Law Enforcement, Defense and Interior Security Attendees	Telecom Operators and Private Enterprises Attendees	ISS Vendors and Technology Integrators Attendees
Andhra Pradesh India Police	BT	AGC Networks
CBI Academy	Cogence Investment Bank	Aqsacom India
Government of India, Telecom Department	India Reliance Communications	ClearTrail Technologies
India Cabinet Secretariat	Span Telecom Pvt. Ldt.	Foundation Technologies
India Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT)		Kommlabs
India Chandigarh Police		Paladion Networks
India Defence Agency		Polaris Wireless
India General Police		Polixel Security Systems
India Intelligence Department		Pyramid Cyber Security
India National Institute of Criminology		Schleicher Group
India office LOKAYUKTA NCT DELHI		Span Technologies
India Police Department, A.P.		TATA India
India Tamil Nadu Police Department		Tata Consultancy Services
Indian Police Service, Vigilance		Telecommunications India
Indian Telecommunications Authority		Vehere Interactive
NTRO India
SAIC Indian Tamil Nadu Police

17 4 15

According to the above table - which is based on data from the WikiLeaks ’ ISS World 2013 brochure- the majority of Indian attendees at last years’ ISS World were from the law enforcement, defense and interior security sectors. 15 Indian companies exhibited and sold their surveillance technologies to law enforcement agencies from around the world and it is notable that India’s popular ISP provider, Reliance Communications, attended the trade show too.

In addition to the ISS World 2013 brochure, the Spy Files 3 entail a detailed brochure of a major Indian surveillance technology company: ClearTrail Technologies.

ClearTrail Technologies

ClearTrail Technologies is an Indian company based in Indore. The document titled “Internet Monitoring Suite ” from ClearTrail Technologies boasts about the company’s mass monitoring, deep packet inspection, COMINT, SIGINT, tactical Internet monitoring, network recording and lawful interception technologies. ClearTrail’s Internet Monitoring Suite includes the following products:

1. ComTrail: Mass Monitoring of IP and Voice Networks

ComTrail is an integrated product suite for centralized interception and monitoring of voice and data networks. It is equipped with an advanced analysis engine for pro-active analysis of thousands of connections and is integrated with various tools, such as Link Analysis, Voice Recognition and Target Location.

ComTrail is deployed within a service provider network and its monitoring function correlates voice and data intercepts across diverse networks to provide a comprehensive intelligence picture. ComTrail supports the capture, record and replay of a variety of Voice and IP communications in pretty much any type of communication, including - but not limited to- Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, BlackBerry, ICQ and GSM voice calls.

Additionally, ComTrail intercepts data from any type of network -whether Wireless, packet data, Wire line or VoIP networks- and can decode hundreds of protocols and P2P applications, including HTTP, Instant Messengers, Web-mails, VoIP Calls and MMS.

In short, ComTrail’s key features include the following:

- Equipped to handle millions of communications per day intercepted over high speed STM & Ethernet Links

- Doubles up as Targeted Monitoring System

- On demand data retention, capacity exceeding several years

- Instant Analysis across thousands of Terabytes

- Correlates Identities across multiple networks

- Speaker Recognition and Target Location

2. xTrail: Targeted IP Monitoring

xTrail is a solution for interception, decoding and analysis of high speed data traffic over IP networks and independently monitors ISPs/GPRS and 3G networks. xTrail has been designed in such a way that it can be deployed within minutes and enables law enforcement agencies to intercept and monitor targeted communications without degrading the service quality of the IP network. This product is capable of intercepting all types of networks -including wireline, wireless, cable, VoIP and VSAT networks- and acts as a black box for “record and replay” targeted Internet communications.

Interestingly enough, xTrail can filter based on a “pure keyword”, a URL/Domain with a keyword, an IP address, a mobile number or even with just a user identity, such as an email ID, chat ID or VoIP ID. Furthermore, xTrail can be integrated with link analysis tools and can export data in a digital format which can allegedly be presented in court as evidence.

In short, xTrail’s key features include the following:

- Pure passive probe

- Designed for rapid field operations at ISP/GPRS/Wi-Max/VSAT Network Gateways

- Stand-alone solution for interception, decoding and analysis of multi Gigabit IP traffic

- Portable trolley based for simplified logistics, can easily be deployed and removed from any network location

- Huge data retention, rich analysis interface and tamper proof court evidence

- Easily integrates with any existing centralized monitoring system for extended coverage

3. QuickTrail: Tactical Wi-Fi Monitoring

Some of the biggest IP monitoring challenges that law enforcement agencies face include cases when targets operate from public Internet networks and/or use encryption.

QuickTrail is a device which is designed to gather intelligence from public Internet networks, when a target is operating from a cyber cafe, a hotel, a university campus or a free Wi-Fi zone. In particular, QuickTrail is equipped with multiple monitoring tools and techniques that can help intercept almost any wired, Wi-Fi or hybrid Internet network so that a target communication can be monitored. QuickTrail can be deployed within fractions of seconds to intercept, reconstruct, replay and analyze email, chat, VoIP and other Internet activities of a target. This device supports real time monitoring and wiretapping of Ethernet LANs.

According to ClearTrail’s brochure, QuickTrail is a “all-in-one” device which can intercept secured communications, know passwords with c-Jack attack, alert on activities of a target, support active and passive interception of Wi-Fi and wired LAN and capture, reconstruct and replay. It is noteworthy that QuickTrail can identify a target machine on the basis of an IP address, MAC ID, machine name, activity status and several other parameters. In addition, QuickTrail supports protocol decoding, including HTTP, SMTP, POP3 and HTTPS. This device also enables the remote and central management of field operations at geographically different locations.

In short, QuickTrail’s key features include the following:

- Conveniently housed in a laptop computer

- Intercepts Wi-Fi and wired LANs in five different ways

- Breaks WEP, WPA/WPA2 to rip-off secured Wi-Fi networks

- Deploys spyware into a target’s machine

- Monitor’s Gmail, Yahoo and all other HTTPS-based communications

- Reconstructs webmails, chats, VoIP calls, news groups and social networks

4. mTrail: Off-The-Air Interception

mTrail offers active and passive ‘off-the-air’ interception of GSM 900/1800/1900 Mhz phone calls and data to meet law enforcement surveillance and investigation requirements. The mTrail passive interception system works in the stealth mode so that there is no dependence on the network operator and so that the target is unaware of the interception of its communications.

The mTrail system has the capability to scale from interception of 2 channels (carrier frequencies) to 32 channels. mTrail can be deployed either in a mobile or fixed mode: in the mobile mode the system is able to fit into a briefcase, while in the fixed mode the system fits in a rack-mount industrial grade chassis.

Target location identification is supported by using signal strength, target numbers, such as IMSI, TIMSI, IMEI or MSI SDN, which makes it possible to listen to the conversation on so-called “lawfully intercepted” calls in near real-time, as well as to store all calls. Additionally, mTrail supports the interception of targeted calls from pre-defined suspect lists and the monitoring of SMS and protocol information.

In short, mTrail’s key features include the following:

- Designed for passive interception of GSM communications

- Intercepts Voice and SMS “off-the-air”

- Detects the location of the target

- Can be deployed as a fixed unit or mounted in a surveillance van

- No support required from GSM operator

5. Astra: Remote Monitoring and Infection framework

“Astra ” is a remote monitoring and infection framework which incorporates both conventional and proprietary infection methods to ensure bot delivery to the targeted devices. It also offers a varied choice in handling the behavior of bots and ensuring non-traceable payload delivery to the controller.

The conventional methods of infection include physical access to a targeted device by using exposed interfaces, such as a CD-ROM, DVD and USB ports, as well as the use of social media engineering techniques. However, Astra also supports bot deployment without requiring any physical access to the target device.

In particular, Astra can push bot to any targeted machine sharing the same LAN (wired, wi-fi or hybrid). The SEED is a generic bot which can identify a target’s location, log keystrokes, capture screen-shots, capture Mic, listen to Skype calls, capture webcams and search the target’s browsing history. Additionally, the SEED bot can also be remotely activated, deactivated or terminated, as and when required. Astra allegedly provides an un-traceable reporting mechanism that operates without using any proxies, which overrules the possibility of getting traced by the target.

Astra’s key features include the following:

- Proactive intelligence gathering

- End-to-end remote infection and monitoring framework

- Follow the target, beat encryption, listen to in-room conversations, capture keystrokes and screen shots

- Designed for centralized management of thousands of targets

- A wide range of deployment mechanisms to optimize success ration

- Non-traceable, non-detectable delivery mechanism

- Intrusive yet stealthy

- Easy interface for handling most complex tasks

- Successfully tested over the current top 10 anti-virus available in the market

- No third party dependencies

- Free from any back-door intervention

ClearTrail Technologies argue that they meet lawful interception regulatory requirements across the globe. In particular, they claim that their products are compliant with ETSI and CALEA regulations and that they are efficient to cater to region specific requirements as well.

The latest Spy Files also include data on foreign surveillance technology companies operating in India, such as Telesoft Technologies, AGT International and Verint Systems. In particular, Verint Systems has its headquarters in New York and offices all around the world, including Bangalore in India. Founded in 1994 and run by Dan Bodner, Verint Systems produces a wide range of surveillance technologies, including the following:

- Impact 360 Speech Analytics

- Impact 360 Text Analytics

- Nextiva Video Management Software (VMS)

- Nextiva Physical Security Information Management (PSIM)

- Nextiva Network Video Recorders (NVRs)

- Nextiva Video Business Intelligence (VBI)

- Nextiva Surveillance Analytics

- Nextiva IP cameras

- CYBERVISION Network Security

- ENGAGE suite

- FOCAL-INFO (FOCAL-COLLECT & FOCAL-ANALYTICS)

- RELIANT

- STAR-GATE

- VANTAGE

While Verint Systems claims to be in compliance with ETSI, CALEA and other worldwide lawful interception and standards and regulations, it remains unclear whether such products successfully help law enforcement agencies in tackling crime and terrorism, without violating individuals’ right to privacy and other human rights. After all, Verint Systems has participated in ISS World Trade shows which exhibit some of the most controversial spyware in the world, used to target individuals and for mass surveillance.

And what do the latest Spy Files mean for India?

Why is it even important to look at the latest Spy Files? Well, for starters, they reveal data about which Indian law enforcement agencies are interested in surveillance and which companies are interested in selling and/or buying the latest spy gear. And why is any of this important? I can think of three main reasons:

1. The Central Monitoring System (CMS)

2. Is any of this surveillance even legal in India?

3. Can such surveillance result in the violation of human rights?

Spy Files 3...and the Central Monitoring System (CMS)

Following the Mumbai 2008 terrorist attacks, the Telecom Enforcement, Resource and Monitoring (TREM) cells and the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT) started preparing the Central Monitoring System (CMS ). As of April 2013, this project is being manned by the Intelligence Bureau, while agencies which are planned to have access to it include the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). ISP and Telecom operators are required to install the gear which enables law enforcement agencies to carry out the Central Monitoring System under the Unified Access Services (UAS ) License Agreement.

The Central Monitoring System aims at centrally monitoring all telecommunications and Internet communications in India and its estimated cost is Rs . 4 billion. In addition to equipping government agencies with Direct Electronic Provisioning, filters and alerts on the target numbers, the CMS will also enable Call Data Records (CDR) analysis and data mining to identify personal information of the target numbers. The CMS supplements regional Internet Monitoring Systems , such as that of Assam, by providing a nationwide monitoring of telecommunications and Internet communications, supposedly to assist law enforcement agencies in tackling crime and terrorism.

However, data monitored and collected through the CMS will be stored in a centralised database, which could potentially increase the probability of centralized cyber attacks and thus increase, rather than reduce, threats to national security. Furthermore, some basic rules of statistics indicate that the bigger the amount of data , the bigger the probability of an error in matching profiles, which could potentially result in innocent people being charged with crimes they did not commit. And most importantly: the CMS currently lacks adequate legal oversight, which means that it remains unclear how monitored data will be used. The UAS License Agreement regarding the CMS mandates mass surveillance by requiring ISPs and Telecom operators to enable the monitoring and interception of communications. However, targeted and mass surveillance through the CMS not only raises serious questions around its legality, but also creates the potential for abuse of the right to privacy and other human rights.

Interestingly enough, Indian law enforcement agencies which attended last years ’ ISS World trade shows are linked to the Central Monitoring System. In particular, last years’ law enforcement, defense and interior security attendees include the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT) and the Department of Telecommunications, both of which prepared the Central Monitoring System. The list of attendees also includes India’s Intelligence Bureau, which is manning the CMS, as well as the agencies which will have access to the CMS: the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the National Technical Research Organization (NTRO) and various other state police departments and intelligence agencies.

Furthermore, Spy Files 3 entail a list of last years ’ ISS World security company attendees, which includes several Indian companies. Again, interestingly enough, many of these companies may potentially be aiding law enforcement with the technology to carry out the Central Monitoring System. ClearTrail Technologies, in particular, provides solutions for targeted and mass monitoring of IP and voice networks, as well as remote monitoring and infection frameworks - all of which would potentially be perfect to aid the Central Monitoring System.

In fact, ClearTrail states in its brochure that its ComTrail product is equipped to handle millions of communications per day, while its xTrail product can easily be integrated with any existing centralised monitoring system for extended coverage. And if that’s not enough, ClearTrail’s “Astra ” is designed for the centralized management of thousands of targets. While there may not be any concrete proof that ClearTrail is indeed aiding the Centralized Monitoring System, the facts speak for themselves: ClearTrail is an Indian company which sells target and mass monitoring products to law enforcement agencies. The Centralized Monitoring System is currently being implemented. What are the odds that ClearTrail is not equipping the CMS? And what are the odds that such technology is not being used for other mass electronic surveillance programmes, such as the Lawful Intercept and Monitoring (LIM)?

Spy Files 3...and the legality of India’s surveillance technologies

ClearTrail Technologies’ brochure -the only leaked document on Indian surveillance technology by the latest Spy Files- states that the company complies with ETSI and CALEA regulations. While it’s clear that the company complies with U.S. and European regulations on the interception of communications to attract more customers in the international market, such regulations don’t really apply within India, which is part of ClearTrail’s market. Notably enough, ClearTrail does not mention any compliance with Indian regulations in its brochure. So let’s have a look at them.

India has five laws which regulate surveillance:

1. The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

2. The Indian Post Office Act, 1898

3. The Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933

4. The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPc ), 1973: Section 91

5. The Information Technology (Amendment ) Act, 2008

The Indian Post Offices Act does not cover electronic communications and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act lacks procedures which would determine if surveillance should be targeted or not. Neither the Indian Telegraph Act nor the Information Technology (Amendment ) Act cover mass surveillance, but are both limited to targeted surveillance. Moreover, targeted interception in India according to these laws requires case-by-case authorization by either the home secretary or the secretary department of information technology. In other words, unauthorized, limitless, mass surveillance is not technically permitted by law in India.

The Indian Telegraph Act mandates that the interception of communications can only be carried out on account of a public emergency or for public safety. However, in 2008, the Information Technology Act copied most of the interception provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, but removed the preconditions of public emergency or public safety, and instead expanded the power of the government to order interception for the “investigation of any offense”.

The interception of Internet communications is mainly covered by the 2009 Rules under the Information Technology Act 2008 and Sections 69 and 69 B are particularly noteworthy. According to these Sections, an Intelligence Bureau officer who leaked national secrets may be imprisoned for up to three years, while Section 69 not only allows for the interception of any information transmitted through a computer resource, but also requires that users disclose their encryption keys upon request or face a jail sentence of up to seven years.

While these laws allow for the interception of communications and can be viewed as widely controversial, they do not technically permit the mass surveillance of communications. In other words, ClearTrail’s products, such as ComTrail, which enable the mass interception of IP networks, lack legal backing. However, the Unified Access Services (UAS ) License Agreement regarding the Central Monitoring System mandates mass surveillance and requires ISP and Telecom operators to comply.

Through the licenses of the Department of Telecommunications, Internet service providers, cellular providers and telecoms are required to provide the Government of India direct access to all communications data and content even without a warrant, which is not permitted under the laws on interception. These licenses also require cellular providers to have ‘bulk encryption’ of less than 40 bits, which means that potentially any person can use off-the-air interception to monitor phone calls. However, such licenses do not regulate the capture of signal strength, target numbers like IMSI, TIMSI, IMEI or MSI SDN, which can be captured through ClearTrail’s mTrail product.

More importantly, following allegations that the National Technical Research Organization (NTRO) had been using off-the-air interception equipment to snoop on politicians in 2011, the Home Ministry issued a directive to ban the possession or use of all off-the-air phone interception gear. As a result, the Indian Government asked the Customs Department to provide an inventory of all all such equipment imported over a ten year period, and it was uncovered that as many as 73,000 pieces of equipment had been imported. Since, the Home Ministry has informed the heads of law enforcement agencies that there has been a compete ban on use of such equipment and that all those who possess such equipment and fail to inform the Government will face prosecution and imprisonment. In short, ClearTrail's product, mTrail, which undertakes off-the-air phone monitoring is illegal and Indian law enforcement agencies are prohibited from using it.

ClearTrail’s “Astra ” product is capable of remote infection and monitoring, which can push bot to any targeted machine sharing the same LAN. While India’s ISP and telecommunications licenses generally provide some regulations, they appear to be inadequate in regulating specific surveillance technologies which have the capability to target machines and remotely monitor them. Such licenses mandate mass surveillance, but legally, wireless communications are completely unregulated, which raises the question of whether the interception of public Internet networks is allowed. In other words, it is not clear if ClearTrail’s QuickTrail is technically legal or not. The UAS License agreement mandates mass surveillance, and while the law does not prohibit it, it does not mandate mass surveillance either. This remains a grey area.

The issue of data retention arises from ClearTrail ’s leaked brochure. In particular, ClearTrail states in its brochure that ComTrail - which undertakes mass monitoring of IP and Voice networks - retains data upon request, with a capacity that exceeds several years. xTrail - for targeted IP monitoring - has the ability to retain huge volumes of data which can potentially be used as proof in court. However, India currently lacks privacy legislation which would regulate data retention, which means that data collected by ClearTrail could potentially be stored indefinitely.

Section 7 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, deals with the retention of electronic records. However, this section does not state a particular data retention period, nor who will have authorized access to data during its retention, who can authorize such access, whether retained data can be shared with third parties and, if so, under what conditions. Section 7 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, appears to be incredibly vague and to fail to regulate data retention adequately.

Data retention requirements for service providers are included in the ISP and UASL licenses and, while they clarify the type of data they retain, they do not specify adequate conditions for data retention. Due to the lack of data protection legislation in India, it remains unclear how long data collected by companies, such as ClearTrail, would be stored for, as well as who would have authorized access to such data during its retention period, whether such data would be shared with third parties and disclosed and if so, under what conditions.

India currently lacks specific regulations for the use of various types of technologies, which makes it unclear whether ClearTrail ’s spy products are technically legal or not. It is clear that ClearTrail’s mass interception products, such as ComTrail, are not legalized - since Indian laws allow for targeted interception- but they are mandated through the UAS License agreement regarding the Central Monitoring System.

In short, the legality of ClearTrail’s surveillance technologies remains ambiguous. While India’s ISP and telecom licenses and the UAS License Agreement mandate mass surveillance, the laws - particularly the 2009 Information Technology Rules- mandate targeted surveillance and remain silent on the issue of mass surveillance. Technically, this does not constitute mass surveillance legal or illegal, but rather a grey area. Furthermore, while India ’s Telegraph Act, Information Technology Act and 2009 Rules allow for the interception, monitoring and decryption of communications and surveillance in general, they do not explicitly regulate the various types of surveillance technologies, but rather attempt to “legalize” them through the blanket term of surveillance.

One thing is clear: India’s license agreements ensure that all ISPs and telecom operators are a part of the surveillance regime. The lack of regulations for India’s surveillance technologies appear to create a grey zone for the expansion of mass surveillance in the country. According to Saikat Datta, an investigative journalist, a senior privacy telecom official stated:

“Do you really think a private telecom company can stand up to the government or any intelligence agency and cite law if they want to tap someone’s phone?”

Spy Files 3...and human rights in India

The facts speak for themselves. The latest Spy Files confirm that the same agencies involved in the development of the Central Monitoring System (CMS) are also interested in the latest surveillance technology sold in the global market. Spy Files 3 also provide data on one of India’s largest surveillance technology companies, ClearTrail, which sells a wide range of surveillance technologies to law enforcement agencies around the world. And Spy Files 3 show us exactly what these technologies can do.

In particular, ClearTrail’s ComTrail provides mass monitoring of IP and voice networks, which means that law enforcement agencies using it are capable of intercepting millions of communications every day through Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail and others, of correlating our identities across networks and of targeting our location. xTrail enables law enforcement agencies to monitor us based on our “harmless” metadata, such as our IP address, our mobile number and our email ID. Think our data is secure when using the Internet through a cyber cafe? Well QuickTrail proves us wrong, as it’s able to assist law enforcement agencies in monitoring and intercepting our communications even when we are using public Internet networks.

And indeed, carrying a mobile phone is like carrying a GPS device, especially since mTrail provides law enforcement with off-the-air interception of mobile communications. Not only can mTrail target our location, listen to our calls and store our data, but it can also undertake passive off-the-air interception and monitor our voice, SMS and protocol information. Interestingly enough, mTrail also intercepts targeted calls from a predefined suspect list. The questions though which arise are: who is a suspect? How do we even know if we are suspects? In the age of the War on Terror, potentially anyone could be a suspect and thus potentially anyone’s mobile communications could be intercepted. After all, mass surveillance dictates that we are all suspicious until proven innocent .

And if anyone can potentially be a suspect, then potentially anyone can be remotely infected and monitored by Astra. Having physical access to a targeted device is a conventional surveillance mean of the past. Today, Astra can remotely push bot to our laptops and listen to our Skype calls, capture our Webcams, search our browsing history, identify our location and much more. And why is any of this concerning? Because contrary to mainstream belief, we should all have something to hide !

Privacy protects us from abuse from those in power and safeguards our individuality and autonomy as human beings. If we are opposed to the idea of the police searching our home without a search warrant, we should be opposed to the idea of our indiscriminate mass surveillance. After all, mass surveillance - especially the type undertaken by ClearTrail ’s products - can potentially result in the access, sharing, disclosure and retention of data much more valuable than that acquired by the police searching our home. Our credit card details, our photos, our acquaintances, our personal thoughts and opinions, and other sensitive personal information can usually be found in our laptops, which potentially can constitute much more incriminating information than that found in our homes.

And most importantly: even if we think that we have nothing to hide, it’s really not up to us to decide: it’s up to data analysts. While we may think that our data is “harmless”, a data analyst linking our data to various other people and search activities we have undertaken might indicate otherwise. Five years ago, a UK student studying Islamic terrorism for his Masters dissertation was detained for six days . The student may not have been a terrorist, but his data said this: “Young, male, Muslim... who is downloading Al-Qaeda’s training material” - and that was enough for him to get detained. Clearly, the data analysts mining his online activity did not care about the fact that the only reason why he was downloading Al-Qaeda material was for his Masters dissertation. The fact that he was a male Muslim downloading terrorist material was incriminating enough.

This incident reveals several concerning points: The first is that he was clearly already under surveillance, prior to downloading Al-Qaeda’s material. However, given that he did not have a criminal record and was “just a Masters student in the UK”, there does not appear to be any probable cause for his surveillance in the first place. Clearly he was on some suspect list on the premise that he is male and Muslim - which is a discriminative approach. The second point is that after this incident, it is likely that some male Muslims may be more cautious about their online activity - with the fear of being on some suspect list and eventually being prosecuted because their data shows that “they’re a terrorist”. Thus, mass surveillance today appears to also have implications on freedom of expression. The third point is that this incident reveals the extent of mass surveillance, since even a document downloaded by a Masters student is being monitored.

This case proves that innocent people can potentially be under surveillance and prosecuted, as a result of mass, indiscriminate surveillance. Anyone can potentially be a suspect today, and maybe for the wrong reasons. It does not matter if we think our data is “harmless”, but what matters is who is looking at our data, when and why. Every bit of data potentially hides several other bits of information which we are not aware of, but which will be revealed within a data analysis. We should always “have something to hide ”, as that is the only way to protect us from abuse by those in power.

In the contemporary surveillance state, we are all suspects and mass surveillance technologies, such as the ones sold by ClearTrail, can potentially pose major threats to our right to privacy, freedom of expression and other human rights. And probably the main reason for this is because surveillance technologies in India legally fall in a grey area. Thus, it is recommended that law enforcement agencies in India regulate the various types of surveillance technologies in compliance with the International Principles on Communications Surveillance and Human Rights.

Spy Files 3 show us why our human rights are at peril and why we should fight for our right to be free from suspicion.

This article was cross-posted in Medianama on 6th November 2013.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/spy-files-three

Roundtable on Indian Privacy Law and Policy

bhairav — 2014-12-27T14:18:16Z

This event was hosted by the Centre for Law and Development of the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS) in Kochi. It was attended by members of the faculty of NUALS, some students from the 2nd year, 3rd year, 4th year, and 5th year.

The meeting began with a talk by Bhairav Acharya on the origin of privacy law, its jurisprudential evolution, and the current context in which privacy is being debated in India and around the world.

Bhairav began by talking about the nature of privacy law around the world. Privacy has, until recently, never been a right in English common law. Indeed, the tort of invasion of privacy is also relatively incomplete. Privacy is protected through other torts, including the torts of nuisance, trespass, and others. European treaty requirements have foisted a right to privacy upon the British legal system; the contours of this right remain unclear.

American courts, on the other hand, have been more receptive to claims of the right to privacy. There is much in the American political and legal tradition that has contributed to the easy acceptability of privacy claims. Not least among these are the strong emphasis on the individual as the fundamental unit of governance and sovereignty, and the American libertarian tradition of autonomy.

Bhairav then spoke of the right to privacy in India. Early cases in the Supreme Court of India see privacy as a negotiation between the liberties of citizens and the power of the state. In a legal tradition deeply influenced by colonialism, Indian courts readily accepted claims against physical police surveillance and other related rights in the criminal justice process – public rights against the state that were once denied to Indian subjects of colonial rule, but held short of viewing privacy as a necessary individual protection against society. This has resulted in dichotomous privacy jurisprudence.

Bhairav then talked about the contexts in which privacy claims arise in India today. Specifically, he spoke about increasingly sophisticated surveillance techniques and large-scale personal data collection and processing. There are many complexities in both these fields and a lot of time and questions were spent going over them. Surveillance is older than the nation-state; privacy law does not seek the end of surveillance, but only its optimal use. There are many kinds of surveillance, the contemporary debate deals solely with wiretapping and electronic surveillance. Privacy law cannot be blind to the many other kinds of surveillance, including old-fashioned physical surveillance on the road.

Data collection, too, cannot be ended, nor should it for it forms the basis of modern commerce and is tied to India’s economic growth. There were questions and discussion on ‘big data’, data mining, analytics, business models, and other related areas. In India, however, in the absence of an innovative IT industry, the dominant business model is of receiving foreign personal data, usually of Europeans and Americans, to provide cheap processing services. This model depends entirely on comparatively lower Indian wages. Hence, it is not surprising that the first personal data protection rules issued by the Indian government in 2011 applied solely to foreign data that was outsourced to India.

Bhairav then introduced the 2011 draft Right to Privacy Bill that was proposed by the Department of Personnel and Training of the Indian government, as well as the Personal Data Protection Rules issued under the Information Technology Act, 2000. These measures were studied clause-by-clause.

Similarly, Indian law in respect of communications surveillance was analysed in detail. The Indian Telegraph Act 1885, the Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 (including the amendments of 1961, 1999, 2007, and 2014) were looked at in detail. These laws were compared to the Indian Post Office Act 1898 and the Information Technology Act 2000. The 1968 report of the Law Commission of India that examined the wiretapping power and suggested possible overreach was also examined.

Bhairav reviewed Indian law in respect of wiretapping. All Supreme Court case law, especially the cases of Hukum Chand and Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, were analysed. Finally, the group looked at how the legal principles applicable to wiretapping have been extended to electronic and Internet surveillance. Over here, the group studied the two sets of 2011 Rules under the IT Act that enable Internet and email surveillance of both content and metadata.

After a lunch break, the group spoke about possible models for privacy regulation and protection in India. In respect of surveillance, a lot of time was spent discussing the merits and demerits of judicial warranting of surveillance, as opposed to executive authorisations. The consensus of the group, with a few exceptions, was that judicial warranting would not be a suitable model for Indian surveillance, due to several systemic weaknesses. The group also rejected several of the principles proposed by Justice A. P. Shah in the 2012 Report that was commissioned by the Planning Commission.

After a discussion on legislative models, the group discussed, clause-by-clause, the CIS proposal on privacy that was read through by Bhairav. This discussion lasted several hours, and covered many areas.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/roundtable-on-indian-privacy-law-and-policy

Privacy and Surveillance Roundtable

praskrishna — 2014-06-20T05:26:10Z

The Centre for Internet and Society and the Cellular Operators Association of India in collaboration with the Council for Fair Business Practices invite you to a "Privacy Roundtable" at IMC Building, IMC Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai on June 28, 2014, 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.

Time	Details
10:00 – 11:00	Introduction
11:00 - 11:30	Tea
11:30 - 13:00	Discussion
13:00 - 14:00	Lunch
14.00 - 16.00	Discussion
16.00 - 16.15	Tea

Background and Context to the Roundtables

In India, lawful interception of communications may be conducted by the state in three ways: firstly, intercepting telephone calls and other telecommunications may take place under powers listed in the Telegraph Act, 1885 and procedure set out in the Telegraph Rules, 1951; secondly, intercepting written communications transmitted through the postal service or by private couriers may occur under the Post Office Act, 1898; and, thirdly, intercepting, de-crypting, and monitoring email messages and other electronic communications may take place under the Information Technology Act, 1950 and two sets of Rules issued in 2008.

The government’s intention to create a Central Monitoring System to automate the existing process of telephone tapping is significant for a number of reasons. It will bypass private telephone service providers; currently the active cooperation of TSPs is required and compelled in order to intercept and monitor a telephone conversation. This creates an extra layer of compliance activity for TSPs which is cumbersome and expensive. Interception orders from the state often do not comply with the procedure required by law. This uncertainty is compounded by the lack of an indemnity for TSPs.

However, while the CMS will release TSPs from legal liability, it will leave the government free to conduct telephone interceptions in absolute secrecy and without a credible system of oversight and checks and balances. Amongst the world’s major democratic countries, India is alone in refusing to overhaul its telephone tapping regime. The legal requirements of probable cause, judicial sanction, and warrant-based interception – which are followed with exceptions in democracies around the world – are not adequately protected in India. The same principles also apply to the interception of postal and electronic communications.

There are several intelligence and police agencies in India that conduct interceptions of communications without central coordination. Previous cases in the Supreme Court of India and a few Indian High Courts reveal many cases of improper and even illegal surveillance. The sheer number of interested state agencies, the concerns of inadequate oversight, the lack of a credible legal regime, the constant leaks of private communications, and the poor legal protection given to TSPs and ISPs must be legally addressed.

Information about the Roundtables

The Privacy and Surveillance Roundtables are a CIS initiative, in partnership with the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI). From June 2014 – November 2014, CIS and COAI will host seven Privacy and Surveillance Roundtable discussions across multiple cities in India. The Roundtables will be closed-door deliberations involving multiple stakeholders. Through the course of these discussions we aim to deliberate upon the current legal framework for surveillance in India, and discuss possible frameworks for surveillance in India. The provisions of the draft CIS Privacy Bill 2013, the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communication Surveillance, and the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy will be used as background material and entry points into the discussion. The recommendations and dialogue from each roundtable will be compiled and submitted to the Department of Personnel and training.

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy

In January 2012 Justice A.P. Shah formed a committee to create a report of recommendations for privacy legislation in India. The committee met seven times from January 2012 to September 2012. The Report is made up of six chapters and begins by reviewing the international best practices around privacy and the relevant Indian jurisprudence. The Report then recommends nine National Privacy Principles to be adopted by each sector in India. The Nine National Privacy Principles reflect international standards, as well as taking into consideration the Indian context. Along with the National Privacy Principles, the Report lays out a regulatory framework for privacy including privacy commissioners at the regional and national level, self regulating organizations at the industry level, and a system of complaints. Finally the report demonstrates how the National Privacy Principles could be used to harmonize existing legislation and practices.

The Draft CIS Citizens Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013

The Centre for Internet and Society has been researching privacy in India since 2010 with the objective of raising public awareness, completing in depth research, and driving a privacy legislation in India. As part of this work, the Centre for Internet and Society has drafted the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013. The Citizens Privacy Protection Bill contains provisions that speak to data protection, interception, and surveillance. The Bill also establishes the powers and functions of the privacy commissioner, and lays out offenses and penalties for contravention of the Act. The Bill represents a citizens’ version of a privacy legislation, and will be shared with civil society, industry, and government. It is hoped that the review and revision of the Bill will be a participatory process, and thus comments and feedback to it’s’ provisions will be included as annex’s to the Bill.

The International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communication Surveillance

These principles were defined in 2013 in response to rapidly changing technologies and surveillance practices. The principles are the outcome of a global consultation with civil society groups, industry and international experts in communications surveillance law, policy and technology, spearheaded by the Electronic Frontier Foundation US and Privacy International UK. As technologies that facilitate State surveillance of communications advance, States are failing to ensure that laws and regulations related to communications surveillance adhere to international human rights and adequately protect the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. These principles attempt to explain how international human rights law applies in the current digital environment, particularly in light of the increase in and changes to communications surveillance technologies and techniques. These principles can provide civil society groups, industry, States and others with a framework to evaluate whether current or proposed surveillance laws and practices are consistent with human rights.

Tentative schedule for the Roundtables:

Mumbai – June 28th
New Delhi – July 4th
Ahmedabad/Hyderabad – August 1st
Bangalore – September 5th
New Delhi – October 3rd
Chennai – October 24th
New Delhi – November 7th

Resources

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/privacy-surveillance-roundtable

Interview with Big Brother Watch on Privacy and Surveillance

maria — 2013-10-15T14:24:27Z

Maria Xynou interviewed Emma Carr, the Deputy Director of Big Brother Watch, on privacy and surveillance. View this interview and gain an insight on why we should all "have something to hide"!

For all those of you who haven't heard of Big Brother Watch, it's a London-based campaign group which was founded in 2009 to protect individual privacy and defend civil liberties.

Big Brother Watch was set up to challenge policies that threaten our privacy, our freedoms and our civil liberties, and to expose the true scale of the surveillance state. The campaign group has produced unique research exposing the erosion of civil liberties in the UK, looking at the dramatic expansion of surveillance powers, the growth of the database state and the misuse of personal information. Big Brother Watch campaigns to give individuals more control over their personal data, and hold to account those who fail to respect our privacy, whether private companies, government departments or local authorities.

Emma Carr joined Big Brother Watch as Deputy Director in February 2012 and has since been regularly quoted in the UK press. The Centre for Internet and Society interviewed Emma Carr on the following questions:

How do you define privacy?
Can privacy and freedom of expression co-exist? Why/Why not?
What is the balance between Internet freedom and surveillance?
According to your research, most people worldwide care about their online privacy – yet they give up most of it through the use of social networking sites and other online services. Why, in your opinion, does this occur and what are the potential implications?
Should people have the right to give up their right to privacy? Why/Why not?
What implications on human rights can mass surveillance potentially have?
“I'm not a terrorist and I have nothing to hide...and thus surveillance can't affect me personally.” Please comment.
Do we have Internet freedom?

VIDEO

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/interview-with-big-brother-watch-on-privacy-and-surveillance

Policy Brief: Oversight Mechanisms for Surveillance

elonnai — 2015-11-24T06:09:01Z

Download the PDF

Introduction

Across jurisdictions, the need for effective and relevant oversight mechanisms (coupled with legislative safeguards) for state surveillance has been highlighted by civil society, academia, citizens and other key stakeholders.[1] A key part of oversight of state surveillance is accountability of intelligence agencies. This has been recognized at the international level. Indeed, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, The United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the Inter-Parliamentary Union have all recognized that intelligence agencies need to be subject to democratic accountability.[2] Since 2013, the need for oversight has received particular attention in light of the information disclosed through the 'Snowden Revelations'. [3] Some countries such as the US, Canada, and the UK have regulatory mechanisms for the oversight of state surveillance and the intelligence community, while many other countries – India included - have piecemeal oversight mechanisms in place. The existence of regulatory mechanisms for state surveillance does not necessarily equate to effective oversight – and piecemeal mechanisms – depending on how they are implemented, could be more effective than comprehensive mechanisms. This policy brief seeks to explore the purpose of oversight mechanisms for state surveillance, different forms of mechanisms, and what makes a mechanism effective and comprehensive. The brief also reviews different oversight mechanisms from the US, UK, and Canada and provides recommendations for ways in which India can strengthen its present oversight mechanisms for state surveillance and the intelligence community.

What is the purpose and what are the different components of an oversight mechanism for State Surveillance?

The International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communication Surveillance, developed through a global consultation with civil society groups, industry, and international experts recommends that public oversight mechanisms for state surveillance should be established to ensure transparency and accountability of Communications Surveillance. To achieve this, mechanisms should have the authority to:

Access all potentially relevant information about State actions, including, where appropriate, access to secret or classified information;
Assess whether the State is making legitimate use of its lawful capabilities;
Evaluate whether the State has been comprehensively and accurately publishing information about the use and scope of Communications Surveillance techniques and powers in accordance with its Transparency obligations publish periodic reports and other information relevant to Communications Surveillance;
Make public determinations as to the lawfulness of those actions, including the extent to which they comply with these Principles[4]

What can inform oversight mechanisms for state surveillance?

The development of effective oversight mechanisms for state surveillance can be informed by a number of factors including:

Rapidly changing technology – how can mechanisms adapt, account for, and evaluate perpetually changing intelligence capabilities?
Expanding surveillance powers – how can mechanisms evaluate and rationalize the use of expanding agency powers?
Tensions around secrecy, national interest, and individual rights – how can mechanisms respect, recognize, and uphold multiple competing interests and needs including an agency's need for secrecy, the government's need to protect national security, and the citizens need to have their constitutional and fundamental rights upheld?
The structure, purpose, and goals of specific intelligence agencies and circumstances– how can mechanisms be sensitive and attuned to the structure, purpose, and functions of differing intelligence agencies and circumstances?

These factors lead to further questions around:

The purpose of an oversight mechanism: Is an oversight mechanism meant to ensure effectiveness of an agency? Perform general reviews of agency performance? Supervise the actions of an agency? Hold an agency accountable for misconduct?
The structure of an oversight mechanism: Is it internal? External? A combination of both? How many oversight mechanisms that agencies should be held accountable to?
The functions of an oversight mechanism: Is an oversight mechanism meant to inspect? Evaluate? Investigate? Report?
The powers of an oversight mechanism: The extent of access that an oversight mechanism needs and should have to the internal workings of security agencies and law enforcement to carry out due diligence? The extent of legal backing that an oversight mechanism should have to hold agencies legally accountable.

What oversight mechanisms for State Surveillance exist in India?

In India the oversight 'ecosystem' for state surveillance is comprised of:

Review committee: Under the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and the Rules issued thereunder (Rule 419A), a Central Review Committee that consists of the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary of Legal Affairs to the Government of India, Secretary of Department of Telecommunications to the Government of India is responsible for meeting on a bi-monthly basis and reviewing the legality of interception directions. The review committee has the power to revoke the directions and order the destruction of intercepted material.[5] This review committee is also responsible for evaluating interception, monitoring, and decryption orders issued under section 69 of the Information Technology Act 2000.[6] and orders for the monitoring and collection of traffic data under section 69B of the Information Technology Act 2000.[7]
Authorizing Authorities: The Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Central Government is responsible for authorizing requests for the interception, monitoring, and decryption of communications issued by central agencies.[8] The Secretary in charge of the Home Department is responsible for authorizing requests for the interception, monitoring, and decryption of communications from state level agencies and law enforcement.[9] The Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Information Technology under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology is responsible for authorizing requests for the monitoring and collection of traffic data.[10] Any officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who has been authorised by the Union Home Secretary or the State Home Secretary in this behalf, may authorize the interception of communications in case of an emergency.[11] A Commissioner of Police, District Superintendent of Police or Magistrate may issue requests for stored data to any postal or telegraph authority.[12]
Administrative authorities: India does not have an oversight mechanism for intelligence agencies, but agencies do report to different authorities. For example: The Intelligence Bureau reports to the Home Minister, the Research and Anaylsis Wing is under the Cabinet Secretariat and reports to the Prime Minister, the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) and Aviation Research Centre (ARC) report to the National Security Adviser; and the National Security Council Secretariat under the NSA which serves the National Security Council.[13]

It is important to note that though India has a Right to Information Act, but most of the security agencies are exempt from the purview of the Act[14] as is disclosure of any information that falls under the purview of the Official Secrets Act 1923.[15] [Note: There is no point in listing out all the exceptions given in section 8 and other sections as well. I think the point is sufficiently made when we say that security agencies are exempt from the purview of the Act.] The Official Secrets Act does not provide a definition of an 'official secret' and instead protects information: pertaining to national Security, defence of the country, affecting friendly relations with foreign states, etc.[16] Information in India is designated as classified in accordance to the Manual of Departmental Security Instruction which is circulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs. According to the Public Records Rules 1997, “classified records" means the files relating to the public records classified as top-secret, confidential and restricted in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Manual of Departmental Security Instruction circulated by the Ministry of Home affairs from time to time;”[17] Bi-annually officers evaluate and de-classify classified information and share the same with the national archives.[18] In response to questions raised in the Lok Sabha on the 5th of May 2015 regarding if the Official Secrets Act, 1923 will be reviewed, the number of classified files stored with the Government under the Act, and if the Government has any plans to declassify some of the files – the Ministry of Home Affairs clarified that a committee consisting of Secretaries of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Department of Personnel and Training, and the Department of Legal Affairs has been established to examine the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 particularly in light of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Ministry of Home Affairs also clarified that the classification and declassification of files is done by each Government Department as per the Manual of Departmental Security Instructions, 1994 and thus there is no 'central database of the total number of classified files'.[19]

How can India's oversight mechanism for state surveillance be clarified?

Though these mechanisms establish a basic framework for an oversight mechanism for state surveillance in India, there are aspects of this framework that could be clarified and there are ways in which the framework could be strengthened.

Aspects of the present review committee that could be clarified:

Powers of the review committee: Beyond having the authority to declare that orders for interception, monitoring, decryption, and collection of traffic data are not within the scope of the law and order for destruction of any collected information – what powers does the review committee have? Does the committee have the power to compel agencies to produce additional or supporting evidence? Does the committee have the power to compel information from the authorizing authority?
Obligations of the review committee: The review committee is required to 'record its findings' as to whether the interception orders issued are in accordance with the law. Is there a standard set of questions/information that must be addressed by the committee when reviewing an order? Does the committee only review the content of the order or do they also review the implementation of the order? Beyond recording its findings, are there any additional reporting obligations that the review committee must fulfill?
Accountability of the review committee: Does the review committee answer to a higher authority? Do they have to submit their findings to other branches of the government – such as Parliament? Is there a mechanism to ensure that the review committee does indeed meet every two months and review all orders issued under the relevant sections of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and the Information Technology Act 2008?

Proposed oversight mechanisms in India

Oversight mechanisms can help with avoiding breaches of national security by ensuring efficiency and effectiveness in the functioning of security agencies. The need for the oversight of state surveillance is not new in India. In 1999 the Union Government constituted a Committee with the mandate of reviewing the events leading up to Pakistani aggression in Kargil and to recommend measures towards ensuring national security. Though the Kargil Committee was addressing surveillance from the perspective of gathering information on external forces, there are parellels in the lessons learned for state surveillance. Among other findings, in their Report the Committee found a number of limitations in the system for collection, reporting, collation, and assessment of intelligence. The Committee also found that there was a lack of oversight for the intelligence community in India – resulting in no mechanisms for tasking the agencies, monitoring their performance and overall functioning, and evaluating the quality of the work.

The Committee also noted that such a mechanism is a standard feature in jurisdictions across the world. The Committee emphasized this need from an economic perspective – that without oversight – the Government and the nation has no way of evaluating whether or not they are receiving value for their money. The Committee recommended a review of the intelligence system with the objective of solving such deficiencies.[20]

In 2000 a Group of Ministers was established to review the security and intelligence apparatus of the country. In their report issued to the Prime Minister, the Group of Ministers recommended the establishment of an Intelligence Coordination Group for the purpose of providing oversight of intelligence agencies at the Central level. Specifically the Intelligence Coordination Group would be responsible for:

Allocation of resources to the intelligence agencies
Consideration of annual reviews on the quality of inputs
Approve the annual tasking for intelligence collection
Oversee the functions of intelligence agencies
Examine national estimates and forecasts[21]

Past critiques of the Indian surveillance regime have included the fact that intelligence agencies do not come under the purview of any overseeing mechanism including Parliament, the Right to Information Act 2005, or the General Comptroller of India.

In 2011, Manish Tewari, who at the time was a Member of Parliament from Ludhiana, introduced the Private Member's Bill - “The Intelligence Services (Powers and Regulation) Bill” proposed stand alone statutory regulation of intelligence agencies. In doing so it sought to establish an oversight mechanism for intelligence agencies within and outside of India. The Bill was never introduced into Parliament.[22] Broadly, the Bill sought to establish: a National Intelligence and Security Oversight Committee which would oversee the functionings of intelligence agencies and would submit an annual report to the Prime Minister, a National Intelligence Tribunal for the purpose of investigating complaints against intelligence agencies, an Intelligence Ombudsman for overseeing and ensuring the efficient functioning of agencies, and a legislative framework regulating intelligence agencies.[23]

Proposed policy in India has also explored the possibility of coupling surveillance regulation and oversight with private regulation and oversight. In 2011 the Right to Privacy Bill was drafted by the Department of Personnel and Training. The Bill proposed to establish a “Central Communication Interception Review Committee” for the purposes of reviewing orders for interception issued under the Telegraph Act. The Bill also sought to establish an authorization process for surveillance undertaken by following a person, through CCTV's, or other electronic means.[24] In contrast, the 2012 Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, which provided recommendations for a privacy framework for India, recommended that the Privacy Commissioner should exercise broad oversight functions with respect to interception/access, audio & video recordings, the use of personal identifiers, and the use of bodily or genetic material.[25]

A 2012 report by the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses titled “A Case for Intelligence Reforms in India” highlights at least four 'gaps' in intelligence that have resulted in breaches of national security including: zero intelligence, inadequate intelligence, inaccurate intelligence, and excessive intelligence – particularly in light of additional technical inputs and open source inputs.[26] In some cases, an oversight mechanism could help in remediating some of these gaps. Returning to the 2012 IDSA Report, the Report recommends the following steps towards an oversight mechanism for Indian intelligence:

Establishing an Intelligence Coordination Group (ICG) that will exercise oversight functions for the intelligence community at the Central level. This could include overseeing functions of the agencies, quality of work, and finances.
Enacting legislation defining the mandates, functions, and duties of intelligence agencies.
Holding intelligence agencies accountable to the Comptroller & Auditor General to ensure financial accountability.
Establishing a Minister for National Security & Intelligence for exercising administrative authority over intelligence agencies.
Establishing a Parliamentary Accountability Committee for oversight of intelligence agencies through parliament.
Defining the extent to which intelligence agencies can be held accountable to reply to requests pertaining to violations of privacy and other human rights issued under the Right to Information Act.

Highlighting the importance of accountable surveillance frameworks, in 2015 the external affairs ministry director general of India Santosh Jha stated at the UN General Assembly that the global community needs to "to create frameworks so that Internet surveillance practices motivated by security concerns are conducted within a truly transparent and accountable framework.”[27]

In what ways can India's mechanisms for state surveillance be strengthened?

Building upon the recommendations from the Kargil Committee, the Report from the Group of Ministers, the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the Draft Privacy Bill 2011, and the IDSA report, ways in which the framework for oversight of state surveillance in India could be strengthened include:

Oversight to enhance public understanding, debate, accountability, and democratic governance: State surveillance is unique in that it is enabled with the objective of protecting a nations security. Yet, to do so it requires citizens of a nation to trust the actions taken by intelligence agencies and to allow for possible access into their personal lives and possible activities that might infringe on their constitutional rights (such as freedom of expression) for a larger outcome of security. Because of this, oversight mechanisms for state surveillance must balance securing national security while submitting itself to some form of accountability to the public.
Independence of oversight mechanisms: Given the Indian context, it is particularly important that an oversight mechanism for surveillance powers and the intelligence community is capable of addressing and being independent from political interference. Indeed, the majority of cases regarding illegal interceptions that have reached the public sphere pertain to the surveillance of political figures and political turf wars.[28] Furthermore, though the current Review Committee established in the Indian Telegraph Act does not have a member from the Ministry of Home Affairs (the Ministry responsible for authorizing interception requests), it is unclear how independent this committee is from the authorizing Ministry. To ensure non-biased oversight, it is important that oversight mechanisms are independent.
Legislative regulation of intelligence agencies: Currently, intelligence agencies are provided surveillance powers through the Information Technology Act and the Telegraph Act, but beyond the National Intelligence Agency Act which establishes the National Intelligence Agency, there is no legal mechanism creating, regulating and overseeing intelligence agencies using these powers. In the 'surveillance ecosystem' this creates a policy vacuum, where an agency is enabled through law with a surveillance power and provided a procedure to follow, but is not held legally accountable for the effective, ethical, and legal use of the power. To ensure legal accountability of the use of surveillance techniques, it is important that intelligence are created through legislation that includes oversight provisions.
Comprehensive oversight of all intrusive measures: Currently the Review Committee established under the Telegraph Act is responsible for the evaluation of orders for the interception, monitoring, decryption, and collection of traffic data. The Review Committee is not responsible for reviewing the implementation or effectiveness of such orders and is not responsible for reviewing orders for access to stored information or other forms of electronic surveillance. This situation is a result of 1. Present oversight mechanisms not having comprehensive mandates 2. Different laws in India enabling different levels of access and not providing a harmonized oversight mechanism and 3.Indian law not formally addressing and regulating emerging surveillance technologies and techniques. To ensure effectiveness, it is important for oversight mechanisms to be comprehensive in mandate and scope.
Establishment of a tribunal or redress mechanism: India currently does not have a specified means for individuals to seek redress for unlawful surveillance or surveillance that they feel has violated their rights. Thus, individuals must take any complaint to the courts. The downsides of such a system include the fact that the judiciary might not be able to make determinations regarding the violation, the court system in India is overwhelmed and thus due process is slow, and given the sensitive nature of the topic – courts might not have the ability to immediately access relevant documentation. To ensure redress, it is important that a tribunal or a redress mechanism with appropriate powers is established to address complaints or violations pertaining to surveillance.
Annual reporting by security agencies, law enforcement, and service providers: Information regarding orders for surveillance and the implementation of the same is not disclosed by the government or by service providers in India.[29] Indeed, service providers by law are required to maintain the confidentiality of orders for the interception, monitoring, or decryption of communications and monitoring or collection of traffic data. At the minimum, an oversight mechanism should receive annual reports from security agencies, law enforcement, and service providers with respect to the surveillance undertaken. Edited versions of these Reports could be shared with Parliament and the public.
Consistent and mandatory reviews of relevant legislation: Though committees have been established to review various legislation and policy pertaining to state surveillance, the time frame for these reviews is not clearly defined by law. These reviews should take place on a consistent and publicly stated time frame. Furthermore, legislation enabling surveillance in India do not require review and assessment for relevance, adequacy, necessity, and proportionality after a certain period of time. Mandating that legislation regulating surveillance is subject to review on a consistent is important in ensuring that the provisions are relevant, proportionate, adequate, and necessary.
Transparency of classification and declassification process and centralization of de-classified records: Currently, the Ministry of Home Affairs establishes the process that government departments must follow for classifying and de-classifying information. This process is not publicly available and de-classified information is stored only with the respective department. For transparency purposes, it is important that the process for classification of records be made public and the practice of classification of information take place in exceptional cases. Furthermore, de-classified records should be stored centrally and made easily accessible to the public.
Executive and administrative orders regarding establishing of agencies and surveillance projects should be in the public domain: Intelligence agencies and surveillance projects in India are typically enabled through executive orders. For example, NATGRID was established via an executive order, but this order is not publicly available. As a form of transparency and accountability to the public, it is important that if executive orders establish an agency or a surveillance project, these are made available to the public to the extent possible.
Oversight of surveillance should incorporate privacy and cyber/national security: Increasingly issues of surveillance, privacy, and cyber security are interlinked. Any move to establish an oversight mechanism for surveillance and the intelligence committee must incorporate and take into consideration privacy and cyber security. This could mean that an oversight mechanism for surveillance in India works closely with CERT-IN and a potential privacy commissioner or that the oversight mechanism contains internal expertise in these areas to ensure that they are adequately considered.
Oversight by design: Just like the concept of privacy by design promotes the ideal that principles of privacy are built into devices, processes, services, organizations, and regulation from the outset – oversight mechanisms for state surveillance should also be built in from the outset of surveillance projects and enabling legislation. In the past, this has not been the practice in India– the National Intelligence Grid was an intelligence system that sought to link twenty one databases together – making such information easily and readily accessible to security agencies – but the oversight of such a system was never defined.[30] Similarly, the Centralized Monitoring System was conceptualized to automate and internalize the process of intercepting communications by allowing security agencies to intercept communications directly and bypass the service provider.[31] Despite amending the Telecom Licenses to provide for the technical components of this project, oversight of the project or of security agencies directly accessing information has yet to be defined.[32]

Examples of oversight mechanisms for State Surveillance: US, UK, Canada and United States

United States

In the United States the oversight 'ecosystem' for state surveillance is made up of:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

The U.S Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) is the predominant oversight mechanism for state surveillance and oversees and authorizes the actions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency.[33] The court was established by the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 1978 and is governed by Rules of Procedure, the current Rules being formulated in 2010.[34] The Court is empowered to ensure compliance with the orders that it issues and the government is obligated to inform the Court if orders are breached.[35] FISA allows for individuals who receive an order from the Court to challenge the same,[36] and public filings are available on the Court's website.[37] Additionally, organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union[38] and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have filed motions with the Court for release of records. [39] Similarly, Google has approached the Court for the ability to publish aggregate information regarding FISA orders that the company recieves.[40]

Government Accountability Office

The U.S Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent office that works for Congress and conducts audits, investigates, provides recommendations, and issues legal decisions and opinions with regard to federal government spending of taxpayer's money by the government and associated agencies including the Defence Department, the FBI, and Homeland Security.[41] The head of the GAO is the Comptroller General of the United States and is appointed by the President. The GAO will initiate an investigation if requested by congressional committees or subcommittees or if required under public law or committee reports. The GOA has reviewed topics relating to Homeland Security, Information Security, Justice and Law Enforcement, National Defense, and Telecommunications.[42] For example, in June 2015 the GOA completed an investigation and report on 'Foreign Terrorist Organization Process and U.S Agency Enforcement Actions” [43] and an investigation on “Cyber Security: Recent Data Breaches Illustrate Need for Strong Controls across Federal Agencies”.[44]

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is a standing committee of the U.S Senate with the mandate to review intelligence activities and programs and ensure that these are inline with the Constitution and other relevant laws. The Committee is also responsible for submitting to Senate appropriate proposals for legislation, and for reporting to Senate on intelligence activities and programs.[45] The House Permanent Select Committee holds similar jurisdiction. The House Permanent Select Committee is committed to secrecy and cannot disclose classified information excepted authorized to do so. Such an obligation does not exist for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the committee can disclose classified information publicly on its own.[46]

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB)

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 and is located within the executive branch.[47] The objective of the PCLOB is to ensure that the Federal Government's actions to combat terrorism are balanced against privacy and civil liberties. Towards this, the Board has the mandate to review and analyse ant-terrorism measures the executive takes and ensure that such actions are balanced with privacy and civil liberties, and to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are liberties are adequately considered in the development and implementation of anti-terrorism laws, regulations and policies.[48] The Board is responsible for developing principles to guide why, whether, when, and how the United States conducts surveillance for authorized purposes. Additionally, officers of eight federal agencies must submit reports to the PCLOB regarding the reviews that they have undertaken, the number and content of the complaints, and a summary of how each complaint was handled. In order to fulfill its mandate, the Board is authorized to access all relevant records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, and classified information. The Board may also interview and take statements from necessary personnel. The Board may request the Attorney General to subpoena on the Board's behalf individuals outside of the executive branch.[49]

To the extent possible, the Reports of the Board are made public. Examples of recommendations that the Board has made in the 2015 Report include: End the NSA”s bulk telephone records program, add additional privacy safeguards to the bulk telephone records program, enable the FISC to hear independent views on novel and significant matters, expand opportunities for appellate review of FISC decisions, take advantage of existing opportunities for outside legal and technical input in FISC matters, publicly release new and past FISC and DISCR decisions that involve novel legal, technical, or compliance questions, publicly report on the operation of the FISC Special Advocate Program, Permit Companies to Disclose Information about their receipt of FISA production orders and disclose more detailed statistics on surveillance, inform the PCLOB of FISA activities and provide relevant congressional reports and FISC decisions, begin to develop principles for transparency, disclose the scope of surveillance authorities affecting US Citizens.[50]

The Wiretap Report

The Wiretap Report is an annual compilation of information provided by federal and state officials regarding applications for interception orders of wire, oral, or electronic communications, data address offenses under investigation, types and locations of interception devices, and costs and duration of authorized intercepts.[51] When submitting information for the report a judge will include the name and jurisdiction of the prosecuting official who applied for the order, the criminal offense under investigation, the type of intercept device used, the physical location of the device, and the duration of the intercept. Prosecutors provide information related to the cost of the intercept, the number of days the intercept device was in operation, the number of persons whose communications were intercepted, the number of intercepts, and the number of incriminating intercepts recorded. Results of the interception orders such as arrest, trials, convictions, and the number of motions to suppress evidence are also noted in the prosecutor reports. The Report is submitted to Congress and is legally required under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The report is issued by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.[52]

United Kingdom

The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) of Parliament

The Intelligence Security Committee was established by the Intelligence Services Act 1994. Members are appointed by the Prime Minster and the Committee reports directly to the same. Additionally, the Committee submits annual reports to Parliament. Towards this, the Committee can take evidence from cabinet ministers, senior officials, and from the public.[53] The most recent report of the Committee is the 2015 “Report on Privacy and Security”.[54] Members of the Committee are subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989 and have access to classified material when carrying out investigations.[55]

Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC)

This Joint Intelligence Committee is located in the Cabinet office and is broadly responsible for overseeing national intelligence organizations and providing advice to the Cabinet on issues related to security, defense, and foreign affairs. The JIC is overseen by the Intelligence and Security Committee.[56]

The Interception of Communications Commissioner

The Interception of Communications Commissioner is appointed by the Prime Minster under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 for the purpose of reviewing surveillance conducted by intelligence agencies, police forces, and other public authorities. Specifically, the Commissioner inspects the interception of communications, the acquisition and disclosure of communications data, the interception of communications in prisons, and the unintentional electronic interception.[57] The Commissioner submits an annual report to the Prime Minister. The Reports of the Commissioner are publicly available.[58]

The Intelligence Services Commissioner

The Intelligence Services Commissioner is an independent body appointed by the Prime Minister that is legally empowered through the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000. The Commissioner provides independent oversight on the use of surveillance by UK intelligence services.[59] Specifically, the Commissioner is responsible for reviewing authorized interception orders and the actions and performance of the intelligence services.[60] The Commissioner is also responsible for providing assistance to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, submitting annual reports to the Prime Minister on the discharge of its functions, and advising the Home Office on the need of extending the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures regime.[61] Towards these the Commissioner conducts in-depth audits on the orders for interception to ensure that the surveillance is within the scope of the law, that the surveillance was necessary for a legally established reason, that the surveillance was proportionate, that the information accessed was justified by the privacy invaded, and that the surveillance authorized by the appropriate official. The Commissioner also conducts 'site visits' to ensure that orders are being implemented as per the law.[62] As a note, the Intelligence Services Commissioner does not undertake any subject that is related to the Interception of Communications Commissioner. The Commissioner has access to any information that he feels is necessary to carry out his investigations. The Reports of the Intelligence Service Commissioner are publicly available.[63]

Investigatory Powers Tribunal

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal is a court which investigates complaints of unlawful surveillance by public authorities or intelligence/law enforcement agencies.[64] The Tribunal was established under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and has a range of oversight functions to ensure that public authorities act and agencies are in compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998.[65] The Tribunal specifically is an avenue of redress for anyone who believes that they have been a victim of unlawful surveillance under RIPA or wider human rights infringements under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Tribunal can provide seven possible outcomes for any application including 'found in favor of complainant, no determination in favour of complainant, frivolous or vexatious, out of time, out of jurisdiction, withdrawn, or no valid complaint.[66] The Tribunal has the authority to receive and consider evidence in any form, even if inadmissible in an ordinary court.[67] Where possible, cases are available on the Tribunal's website. Decisions by the Tribunal cannot be appealed, but can be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights.[68]

Canada

In Canada the oversight 'ecosystem' for state surveillance includes:

Security Intelligence Review Committee

The Security Intelligence Review Committee is an independent body that is accountable to the Parliament of Canada and reports on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.[69] Members of the Security Intelligence Review Committee are appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada. The committee conducts reviews on a pro-active basis and investigates complaints. Committee members have access to classified information to conduct reviews. The Committee submits an annual report to Parliament and an edited version is publicly available. The 2014 Report was titled “Lifting the Shroud of Secrecy”[70] and includes reviews of the CSIS's activities, reports on complaints and subsequent investigations, and provides recommendations.

Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

The Communications Security Commissioner conducts independent reviews of Communications Security Establishment (CSE) activities to evaluate if they are within the scope of Canadian law.[71] The Commissioner submits a report to Parliament on an annual basis and has a number of powers including the power to subpoena documents and personnel.[72] If the Commissioner believes that the CSE has not complied with the law – it must report this to the Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of National Defence. The Commissioner may also receive information from persons bound to secrecy if they deem it to be in the public interest to disclose such information.[73] The Commissioner is also responsible for verifying that the CSE does not surveil Canadians and for promoting measures to protect the privacy of Canadians.[74] When conducting a review, the Commissioner has the ability to examine records, receive briefings, interview relevant personnel, assess the veracity of information, listen to intercepted voice recordings, observe CSE operators and analysts to verify their work, examine CSI electronic tools, systems and databases to ensure compliance with the law.[75]

Office of the Privacy Commissioner

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) oversees the implementation of and compliance with the Privacy Act and the Personal information and Electronic Documents Act.[76]

The OPC is an independent body that has the authority to investigate complaints regarding the handling of personal information by government and private companies, but can only comment on the activities of security and intelligence agencies. For example, in 2014 the OPC issued the report “Checks and Controls: Reinforcing Privacy Protection and Oversight for the Canadian Intelligence Community in an Era of Cyber Surveillance”[77] The OPC can also provide testimony to Parliament and other government bodies.[78] For example, the OPC has made appearances before the Senate Standing Committee of National Security and Defense on Bill C-51.[79] The OPC cannot conduct joint audits or investigations with other bodies.[80]

Annual Interception Reports

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, regional governments must issue annual interception reports. The reports must include number of individuals affected by interceptions, average duration of the interception, type of crimes investigated, numbers of cases brought to court, and number of individuals notified that interception had taken place.[81]

Conclusion

The presence of multiple and robust oversight mechanisms for state surveillance does not necessarily correlate to effective oversight. The oversight mechanisms in the UK, Canada, and the U.S have been criticised. For example, Canada . For example, the Canadian regime has been characterized as becoming weaker it has removed one of its key over sight mechanisms – the Inspector General of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service which was responsible for certifying that the Service was in compliance with law.[82]

Other weaknesses in the Canadian regime that have been highlighted include the fact that different oversight bodies do not have the authority to share information with each other, and transparency reports do not include many new forms of surveillance.[83] Oversight mechanisms in the U.S on the other hand have been criticized as being opaque[84] or as lacking the needed political support to be effective.[85] The UK oversight mechanism has been criticized for not having judicial authorization of surveillance requests, have opaque laws, and for not having a strong right of redress for affected individuals.[86] These critiques demonstrate that there are a number of factors that must come together for an oversight mechanism to be effective. Public transparency and accountability to decision making bodies such as Parliament or Congress can ensure effectiveness of oversight mechanisms, and are steps towards providing the public with means to debate in an informed manner issues related to state surveillance and allows different bodies within the government the ability to hold the state accountable for its actions.

.[1]. For example, “Public Oversight” is one of the thirteen Necessary and Proportionate principles on state communications surveillance developed by civil society and academia globally, that should be incorporated by states into communication surveillance regimes. The principles can be accessed here: https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/

[2]. Hans Born and Ian Leigh, “Making Intelligence Accountable. Legal Standards and Best Practice for Oversight of Intelligence Agencies.” Pg. 13. 2005. Available at: http://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/making-intelligence.pdf. Last accessed: August 6, 2015.

[3]. For example, this point was made in the context of the UK. For more information see: Nick Clegg, 'Edward Snowden's revelations made it clear: security oversight must be fit for the internet age,”. The Guardian. March 3rd 2014. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/nick-clegg-snowden-security-oversight-internet-age. Accessed: July 27, 2015.

[4]. International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance. Available at: https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/

[5]. Sub Rules (16) and (17) of Rule 419A, Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. Available at:http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/march2007.pdf Note: This review committee is responsible for overseeing interception orders issued under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Information Technology Act.

[6]. Information Technology Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information Rules 2009. Definition q. Available at: http://dispur.nic.in/itact/it-procedure-interception-monitoring-decryption-rules-2009.pdf

[7]. Information Technology (Procedure and safeguard for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information Rules, 2009). Definition (n). Available at: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/it-procedure-and-safeguard-for-monitoring-and-collecting-traffic-data-or-information-rules-2009

[8]. This authority is responsible for authorizing interception requests issued under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Information Technology Act. Section 2, Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and Section 4, Information Technology Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009

[9]. This authority is responsible for authorizing interception requests issued under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Information Technology Act. Section 2, Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and Section 4, Information Technology Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009

[10]. Definition (d) and section 3 of the Information Technology (Procedure and safeguard for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information Rules, 2009). Available at: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/it-procedure-and-safeguard-for-monitoring-and-collecting-traffic-data-or-information-rules-2009

[11]. Rule 1, of the 419A Rules, Indian Telegraph Act 1885. Available at:http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/march2007.pdf This authority is responsible for authorizing interception requests issued under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Information Technology Act.

[12]. Section 92, CrPc. Available at: http://www.icf.indianrailways.gov.in/uploads/files/CrPC.pdf

[13]. Press Information Bureau GOI. Reconstitution of Cabinet Committees. June 19th 2014. Available at: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=105747. Accessed August 6, 2015.

[14]. Press Information Bureau, Government of India. Home minister proposes radical restructuring of security architecture. Available at: http://www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=56395. Accessed August 6, 2015.

[15]. Section 24 read with Schedule II of the Right to Information Act 2005. Available at: http://rti.gov.in/rti-act.pdf

[16]. Section 8 of the Right to Information Act 2005. Available at: http://rti.gov.in/rti-act.pdf

[17]. Abhimanyu Ghosh. “Open Government and the Right to Information”. Legal Services India. Available at: http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/og.htm. Accessed: August 8, 2015

[18]. Public Record Rules 1997. Section 2. Definition c. Available at: http://nationalarchives.nic.in/writereaddata/html_en_files/html/public_records97.html. Accessed: August 8, 2015

[19]. Times of India. Classified information is reviewed after 25-30 years. April 13th 2015. Available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Classified-information-is-reviewed-after-25-30-years/articleshow/46901878.cms. Accessed: August 8, 2015.

[20]. Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs. Lok Sabha Starred Question No 557. Available at: http://mha1.nic.in/par2013/par2015-pdfs/ls-050515/557.pdf.

[21]. The Kargil Committee report Executive Summanry. Available at: http://fas.org/news/india/2000/25indi1.htm. Accessed: August 6, 2015.

[22]. PIB Releases. Group of Ministers Report on Reforming the National Security System”. Available at: http://pib.nic.in/archieve/lreleng/lyr2001/rmay2001/23052001/r2305200110.html. Last accessed: August 6, 2015

[23]. The Observer Research Foundation. “Manish Tewari introduces Bill on Intelligence Agencies Reform. August 5th 2011. Available at: http://www.observerindia.com/cms/sites/orfonline/modules/report/ReportDetail.html?cmaid=25156&mmacmaid=20327. Last accessed: August 6, 2015.

[24]. The Intelligence Services (Powers and Regulation) Bill, 2011. Available at: http://www.observerindia.com/cms/export/orfonline/documents/Int_Bill.pdf. Accessed: August 6, 2015.

[25]. The Privacy Bill 2011. Available at: https://bourgeoisinspirations.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/draft_right-to-privacy.pdf

[26]. The Report of Group of Experts on Privacy. Available at: http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf

[27]. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. “A Case for Intelligence Reforms in India”. Available at: http://www.idsa.in/book/AcaseforIntelligenceReformsinIndia.html. Accessed: August 6, 2015.

[28]. India Calls for Transparency in internet Surveillance. NDTV. July 3rd 2015. Available at: http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/india-calls-for-transparency-in-internet-surveillance-710945. Accessed: July 6, 2015.

[29]. Lovisha Aggarwal. “Analysis of News Items and Cases on Surveillance and Digital Evidence in India”. Available at: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysis-of-news-items-and-cases-on-surveillance-and-digital-evidence-in-india.pdf

[30]. Rule 25 (4) of the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for the Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information Rules) 2011. Available at: http://dispur.nic.in/itact/it-procedure-interception-monitoring-decryption-rules-2009.pdf

[31]. Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI. National Intelligence Grid. Available at: http://www.davp.nic.in/WriteReadData/ADS/eng_19138_1_1314b.pdf. Last accessed: August 6, 2015

[32]. Press Information Bureau, Government of India. Centralised System to Monitor Communications Rajya Sabha. Available at: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=54679. Last accessed: August 6, 2015.

[33]. Department of Telecommunications. Amendemnt to the UAS License agreement regarding Central Monitoring System. June 2013. Available at: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/uas-license-agreement-amendment

[34]. United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. July 29th 2013. Available at: http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Leahy.pdf. Last accessed: August 8, 2015

[35]. United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Rules of Procedure 2010. Available at: http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.pdf

[36]. United States Foreign Intelligence Court. Honorable Patrick J. Leahy. 2013. Available at: http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Leahy.pdf

[37]. United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. July 29th 2013. Available at: http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Leahy.pdf. Last accessed: August 8, 2015

[38]. Public Filings – U.S Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Available at: http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/public-filings

[39]. ACLU. FISC Public Access Motion – ACLU Motion for Release of Court Records Interpreting Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Available at: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/fisc-public-access-motion-aclu-motion-release-court-records-interpreting-section-215

[40]. United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Washington DC. In Re motion for consent to disclosure of court records or, in the alternative a determination of the effect of the Court's rules on statutory access rights. Available at: https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/misc-13-01-opinion-order.pdf

[41]. Google Official Blog. Shedding some light on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requests. February 3rd 2014. Available at: http://googleblog.blogspot.in/2014/02/shedding-some-light-on-foreign.html

[42]. U.S Government Accountability Office. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/overview#t=1. Last accessed: August 8, 2015.

[43]. Report to Congressional Requesters. Combating Terrorism: Foreign Terrorist Organization Designation Proces and U.S Agency Enforcement Actions. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/671028.pdf. Accessed: August 8, 2015

[44]. United States Government Accountability Office. Cybersecurity: Recent Data Breaches Illustrate Need for Strong Controls across Federal Agencies. Available: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670935.pdf. Last accessed: August 6, 2015.

[45]. Committee Legislation. Available at: http://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Intelligence_(Select)#Committee_legislation

[46]. Congressional Research Service. Congressional Oversight of Intelligence: Current Structure and Alternatives. May 14th 2012. Available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL32525.pdf. Last Accessed: August 8, 2015

[47]. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: About the Board. Available at: https://www.pclob.gov/aboutus.html

[48]. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: About the Board. Available at: https://www.pclob.gov/aboutus.html

[49]. Congressional Research Service. Congressional Oversight of Intelligence: Current Structure and Alternatives. May 14th 2012. Available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL32525.pdf. Last Accessed: August 8th 2015

[50]. United States Courts. Wiretap Reports. Available at: http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/analysisreports/wiretap-reports

[51]. United States Courts. Wiretap Reports. Available at: http://www.uscourts.gov/statisticsreports/
analysis-reports/wiretap-reports/faqs-wiretap-reports#faq-What-information-does-the-AO-receive-from-prosecutors?. Last Accessed: August 8th 2015

[52]. Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. Transcripts and Public Evidence. Available at: http://isc.independent.gov.uk/public-evidence. Last accessed: August 8th 2015.

[53]. Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. Special Reports. Available at http://isc.independent.gov.uk/committee-reports/special-reports. Last accessed: August 8th 2015.

[54]. Hugh Segal. The U.K. has legislative oversight of surveillance. Why not Canada. The Globe and Mail. June 12th 2013. Available at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/uk-haslegislative-oversight-of-surveillance-why-not-canada/article12489071/. Last accessed: August 8th 2015

[55]. The Joint Intelligence Committee home page. For more information see: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-security/groups/joint-intelligence-committee

[56]. Interception of Communications Commissioner's Office. RIPA. Available at: http://www.iocco-uk.info/sections.asp?sectionID=2&type=top. Last accessed: August 8th 2015

[57]. Interception of Communications Commissioner's Office. Reports. Available at: http://www.iocco-uk.info/sections.asp?sectionID=1&type=top. Last accessed: August 8th 2015

[58]. The Intelligence Services Commissioner's Office Homepage. For more information see: http://intelligencecommissioner.com/

[59]. The Intelligence Services Commissioner's Office – The Commissioner's Statutory Functions. Available at: http://intelligencecommissioner.com/content.asp?id=4

[60]. The Intelligence Services Commissioner's Office – The Commissioner's Statutory Functions. Available at: http://intelligencecommissioner.com/content.asp?id=4

[61]. The Intelligence Services Commissioner's Office. What we do. Available at: http://intelligencecommissioner.com/content.asp?id=5. Last Accessed: August 8th 2015.

[62]. The Intelligence Services Commissioner's Office. Intelligence Services Commissioner's Annual Reports. Available at: http://intelligencecommissioner.com/content.asp?id=19. Last
accessed: August 8th 2015

[63]. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal Homepage. Available at: http://www.ipt-uk.com/

[64]. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal – Functions – Key role. Available at: http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=1

[65]. Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Functions – Decisions available to the Tribunal. Available at: http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=4. Last accessed: August 8th 2015

[66]. Investigator Powers Tribunal. Operation - Available at: http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=7

[67]. Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Operation- Differences to the ordinary court system. Available at: http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=7. Last accessed: August 8th 2015

[68]. Security Intelligence Review Committee – Homepage. Available at: http://www.sirc-csars.gc.ca/index-eng.html

[69]. SIRC Annual Report 2013-2014: Lifting the Shroud of Secrecy. Available at: http://www.sirccsars. gc.ca/anrran/2013-2014/index-eng.html. Last accessed: August 6th 2015.

[70]. The Office of the Communications Security Establishment – Homepage. Available at: http://www.ocsecbccst.gc.ca/index_e.php

[71]. The Office of the Communications Security Establishment – Homepage. Available at: http://www.ocsecbccst.gc.ca/index_e.php

[72]. The Office of the Communications Security Establishment – Mandate. Available at: http://www.ocsecbccst.gc.ca/mandate/index_e.php

[73]. The Office of the Communications Security Establishment – Functions. Available at: http://www.ocsecbccst.gc.ca/functions/review_e.php

[74]. The Office of the Communications Security Establishment – Functions. Available at: http://www.ocsecbccst.gc.ca/functions/review_e.php

[75]. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Homepage. Available at: https://www.priv.gc.ca/index_e.ASP

[76]. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Reports and Publications. Special Report to Parliament “Checks and Controls: Reinforcing Privacy Protection and Oversight for the Canadian Intelligence Community in an Era of Cyber-Surveillance. January 28th 2014. Available at: https://www.priv.gc.ca/information/srrs/201314/sr_cic_e.asp

[77]. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Available at: https://www.priv.gc.ca/index_e.asp. Last accessed: August 6th 2015.

[78]. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Appearance before the Senate Standing Commitee National Security and Defence on Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015. Available at: https://www.priv.gc.ca/parl/2015/parl_20150423_e.asp. Last accessed: August 6th 2015.

[79]. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Special Report to Parliament. January 8th 2014. Available at: https://www.priv.gc.ca/information/sr-rs/201314/sr_cic_e.asp. Last accessed: August 6th 2015.

[80]. Telecom Transparency Project. The Governance of Telecommunications Surveillance: How Opaque and Unaccountable Practices and Policies Threaten Canadians. Available at: http://www.telecomtransparency.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Governance-of-Telecommunications-Surveillance-Final.pdf. Last accessed: August 6th 2015.

[81]. Patrick Baud. The Elimination of the Inspector General of the Canadian Security Intelligence Serive. May 2013. Ryerson University. Available at; http://www.academia.edu/4731993/The_Elimination_of_the_Inspector_General_of_the_Canadian_Security_Intelligence_Service

[82]. Telecom Transparency Project. The Governance of Telecommunications Surveillance: How Opaque and Unaccountable Practices and Policies Threaten Canadians. Available at: http://www.telecomtransparency.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Governance-of-Telecommunications-Surveillance-Final.pdf. Last accessed: August 6th 2015.

[83]. Glenn Greenwald. Fisa court oversight: a look inside a secret and empty process. The Guardian. June 19th 2013. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy, Nadia Kayyali. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to NSA: Why is Bulk Collection of Telelphone Records Still Happening? February 2105. Available at :https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board-nsa-whybulk-collection-telephone. Last accessed: August 8th 2015.

[84]. Scott Shance. The Troubled Life of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. August 9th 2012. The Caucus. Available at: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/thetroubled-life-of-the-privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board/?_r=0. Last accessed: August 8th 2015

[85]. The Open Rights Group. Don't Spy on Us. Reforming Surveillance in the UK. September 2014. Available at: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/assets/files/pdfs/reports/DSOU_Reforming_surveillance_old.pdf

[86].

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/policy-brief-oversight-mechanisms-for-surveillance

India’s Central Monitoring System: Security can’t come at cost of privacy

praskrishna — 2013-07-15T06:43:21Z

During a Google hangout session in June this year, Milind Deora, minister of state for communications and information technology, addressed concerns related to the central monitoring system (CMS).

Danish Raza's article was published in FirstPost on July 10, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The surveillance project, described as the Indian version of PRISM, will allow the government to monitor online and telephone data of citizens. prism-milind-deora-cms-central-monitoring-system/” target=”_blank”>

The minister tried to justify the project arguing that the union government will become the sole custodian of citizen’s data which is now accessible to other parties such as telecom operators. But his justification failed to persuade experts who argue that the data is hardly safe because it is held by the government. And the limited information available about the project has raised serious concerns about its need and the consequences of government snooping on such a mass scale.

A release by the Press Information Bureau, dated November 26, 2009, is perhaps the only government document related to CMS available in public domain. It merely states that the project will strengthen the security environment in the country. “In the existing system secrecy can be easily compromised due to manual intervention at many stages while in CMS these functions will be performed on secured electronic link and there will be minimum manual intervention. Interception through CMS will be instant as compared to the existing system which takes a very long time.”

One of the primary concerns raised by experts is the sheer lack of public information on the project. So far, there is no official word from the government about which government bodies or agencies will be able to access the data; how will they use this information; what percentage of population will be under surveillance; or how long the data of a citizen will be kept in the record.

“This makes it impossible for India’s citizens to assess whether surveillance is the only, or the best, way in which the stated goal can be achieved. Also, citizens cannot gauge whether these measures are proportionate i.e. they are the most effective means to achieve this aim. The possibility of having such a debate is crucial in any democratic country,” said Dr Anja Kovacs, project director at Internet Democracy Project, Delhi based NGO working for online freedom of speech and related issues.

There is also no legal recourse for a citizen whose personal details are being misused or leaked from the central or regional database. Unlike America’s PRISM project under which surveillance orders are approved by courts, CMS does not have any judicial oversight. “This means that the larger ecosystem of checks and balances in which any surveillance should be embedded in a democratic country is lacking. There is an urgent requirement for a strong legal protection of the right to privacy; for judicial oversight of any surveillance; and for parliamentary or judicial oversight of the agencies which will do surveillance. At the moment, all three are missing.” said Kovacs.

Given the use of technology by criminals and terrorists, government surveillance per se, seems inevitable. Almost in every nation, certain chunk of population is always under the scanner of intelligence agencies. However, mass-scale tracking the data of all citizens — not just those who are deemed persons of interest — enabled by the CMS has sparked a public furor. Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore, compared surveillance with salt in cooking. “A tiny amount is essential but any excess is counterproductive,” he said. “Unlike target surveillance, blanket surveillance increases the probability of false positives. Wrong data analysis will put more number of innocent civilians under suspicion as, by default, their number in the central server is more than those are actually criminals.”

Such blanket surveillance techniques also pose a threat to online business. With all the data going in one central pool, a competitor or a cyber criminal rival can easily tap into private and sensitive information by hacking into the server. “As vulnerabilities will be introduced into Internet infrastructure in order to enable surveillance, it will undermine the security of online transactions,” said Abraham. He notes that the project also can undermine the confidentiality of intellectual property especially pre-grant patents and trade secrets. “Rights-holders will never be sure if their IPR is being stolen by some government in order to prop up national players.”

Every time a surveillance system is exposed or its misuse sparks a debate, governments argue that such programs are required for internal security purposes and to help abort terror attacks. Obama made the same argument after PRISM was revealed to the public. Civil rights groups, on the other hand, argue that security cannot be prioritised by large-scale invasions of privacy especially in a country like India where there is little accountability or transparency. So is there a middle ground that will satisfy both sides?

“Yes, security and privacy can coexist,” said Commander (rtd) Mukesh Saini, former national information security coordinator, government of India, “We can design a system which takes care of national security aspect and yet gains the confidence of the citizens. Secrecy period must not be more than three to four years in such projects. Thereafter who all were snooped and when and why and under whose direction/circumstances must be made public through a website after this time gap.”

Kovacs agrees and says the right kind of surveillance program would focus on the needs of the citizen and not the government. “If a contradiction seems to exist between cyber security and privacy online, this is only because we have lost sight of who is supposed to benefit from any security measures. Only if a measure contributes to citizen’s sense of security, can it really be considered a legitimate security measure.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/firstpost-danish-raza-july-10-2013-indias-central-monitoring-system-security-cant-come-at-cost-of-privacy

Surveillance Stories: Optimizing rights and governance

Admin — 2018-10-31T01:39:56Z

Sunil Abraham gave a talk at the National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore on October 16, 2018. Sunil used a series of stories to explain how surveillance works and fails in the context of theft, murder, insider trading, terrorism, demonetization and encounter killings.

These stories were used to explore multiple technical solutions for solving the “surveillance optimization problem”. Policy makers have to simultaneously maximize various rights — the right to privacy, the right to transparency, the right to free speech — and uphold the imperatives of the nation state: national security, law enforcement and effective governance.

Two decades ago, Lawrence Lessig introduced a socioeconomic theory of regulation called the ‘pathetic dot theory’, which discusses how individuals in a society are regulated by four forces — law, code or technical infrastructure, market and social norms. The talk will explore how these four regulatory options contribute to solving the surveillance optimization problem.

This was published on the website of National Centre for Biological Sciences

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/surveillance-stories-optimizing-rights-and-governance

The State is Snooping: Can You Escape?

snehashish — 2019-04-29T15:09:18Z

Blanket surveillance of the kind envisaged by India's Centralized Monitoring System achieves little, but blatantly violates the citizen's right to privacy; Snehashish Ghosh explores why it may be dangerous and looks at potential safeguards against such intrusion.

The Snowden Leaks have made it amply clear that the covert surveillance conducted by governments is no longer covert. Information by its very nature is prone to leaks. The discretion lies completely in the hands of the personnel handling your data or information. Whether it is through knowledge obtained by an intelligence analyst about the US Government conducting indiscriminate surveillance, or hackers infiltrating a secure system and leaking personal information, stored information has a tendency to come out in the open sooner or later.

This raises the question whether, with the advancement of technologies, we should trust our personal information and data with computers. Should we have more stringent laws and procedural safeguards to protect our personal information? Of course, the broader question that remains is whether we have a ‘Right to be Forgotten’.

Similar to PRISM in the US, India is also implementing a Centralized Monitoring System (CMS) which would have the capabilities to conduct multiple privacy-intrusive activities, ranging from call data record analysis to location based monitoring. Given the circumstances and the current revelations by a whistleblower in the US, it is more than imperative to take a closer look at the surveillance technologies which are being deployed by India and question what implications it might have in the future.

Technological shift and procedural safeguards
The need for procedural safeguards was brought to light in the Supreme Court case, when news reports surfaced about the tapping of politicians' phones by the CBI. The Court while deciding on the issue of phone tapping in the case of People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1996), observed that the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is an ancient legislation and does not address the issue of telephone tapping. Thereafter, the court issued guidelines, which were implemented by the Government by amending and inserting Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. These procedural safeguards ensure that due process will be followed by any law enforcement agency, while conducting surveillance.

Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 grants the power to the Government to conduct surveillance provided that there is an occurrence of any public emergency or public safety. If and only if the conditions of public safety and public emergency are compromised, and if the concerned authority is convinced that it is expedient to issue such an order for interception in the interest of “the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence” is surveillance legitimized. The same was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1996 judgment on wire tapping.

Now, as the Government of India is planning to launch a new technology, the Centralized Monitoring System (CMS) which would snoop, track and monitor communication data flowing through telecom and data networks, the question arises: can we have procedural safeguards which would protect our right to privacy against technologies such as the CMS?

The key component of a procedural safeguard is human discretion; either a court authorization or an order from a high ranking government official is necessary to conduct targeted surveillance and the reasons for conducting surveillance have to be recorded in writing. This is the procedure which is ordinarily followed by law enforcement agencies before conducting any form of surveillance. However, with the computational turn, governments have resorted to practices which would do away with the human discretion. Dragnet surveillance allows for blanket surveillance. Before getting to the problems in evolving a due process for systems like CMS, it is imperative to examine the capabilities of the system.

Centralized Monitoring System and death of due process
Setting up of a CMS was conceptualized in India after the 2008 Mumbai attacks. It was further consolidated and found a place in the Report of the Telecom Working Group on the Telecom Sector for the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-2017). The Report was published in August, 2011 and goes into the details of the CMS.

When machines and robots are deployed to conduct blanket surveillance and impinge on the most fundamental right to life and liberty, and also violate the basic tenets of due process, then much cannot be done by way of procedures. What then do we resort to, is the primary question. Can there be a compromise between the right to privacy and security?

The Report indicates that the technology will cater to “the requirements of security management for law enforcement agencies for interception, monitoring, data analysis/mining, antiâ€socialâ€networking using the country’s telecom infrastructure for unlawful activities.”

The CMS will also be capable of running algorithms for interception of connection oriented networks, algorithms for interception of voice over internet protocol (VoIP), video over IP and GPS based monitoring systems. These algorithms would be able to intercept any communication without any intervention from the telecom or internet service provider. It would also have the capability to intercept and analyze data on any communication network as well as to conduct location based monitoring by tracking GPS locations. Given such capabilities, it is clear that a computer system will be sifting through the internet/communication data and will conduct surveillance as instructed through algorithms. This would include identifying patterns, profiling and also storing data for posterity. Moreover, the CMS will have direct access to the telecommunication infrastructure and would be monitoring all forms of communication.

With the introduction of CMS, state surveillance will shift to blanket surveillance from the current practice of targeted surveillance which can be carried out under specific circumstances that are well defined in the law and in judgments. Moreover, when it comes to current means of surveillance, there are well-defined procedures under the law which have the ability to prevent misuse of the surveillance systems. This is not to say that the current procedural safeguards under the laws are not prone to abuse, but if implemented properly, there is less chance of them being misused. Furthermore, with strong privacy and data protection laws, unlawful and illegal surveillance can be minimized.

In the current legal framework, with respect to surveillance, if CMS is implemented then it will be in violation of the fundamental right to privacy and freedom of speech as guaranteed under our Constitution. It will be also in contravention of the procedural safeguards laid down in the Supreme Court judgement and the Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules, thereof. Strong privacy laws and data protection laws may be put in place, which are completely absent now. But at the end of the day, a machine will be spying on every citizen of India or anyone using any communication services, without any specific targets or suspects.

In the People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court laid down that “the substantive law as laid down in Section 5(2) of the [Indian Telegraph Act, 1885] must have procedural backing so that the exercise of power is fair and reasonable.” But with technologies such as CMS, it will be very difficult to have any form of procedural backing because the system would do away with human discretion which happens to be a key ingredient of any legal procedure.

The argument which can be made in favour of CMS, if any, is that a machine will be going through personal data and it will not be available to any personnel or law enforcement agency without authorization and therefore, it will adhere to the due process. However, such a system will be keeping track of all personal information. Right to privacy is the right to be left alone and any incursion on this fundamental right can only be allowed in special cases, in cases of public emergency or threat of public safety. So, electronic blanket surveillance without human intervention also amounts to violation of the substantive law, which specifically allows surveillance only to be conducted under certain conditions, and not through a system such as CMS that is designed to keep a constant watch on everyone, irrespective of the fact whether there is a need to do so.

Additionally, there exists a strong, pre-established notion that whatever comes out of a computer is bound to be true and authentic and there cannot be any mistakes. We have witnessed this in the past where an IT professional from Bangalore was arrested and detained by the Maharashtra Police for posting derogatory content on Orkut about Shivaji. Later, it was found that the records acquired from the Internet Service Provider were incorrect and the individual had been arrested and detained illegally.

Telephone bills, credit card bills coming out from a computer system are often held to be authentic and error-free. With UID, our identity has been reduced to a number and biometrics stored in a database corresponding to that number. It is this trust in anything which comes out of a computer or a machine that can lead to massive abuse of the system in the absence of any form of checks and balance in place. Artificial things taking control over human lives and our almost unflinching trust in technology will not only cause gross violations of privacy but will also be the death of due process and basic human rights as we know it.

In this regard, due emphasis should be given to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) which deals with issues related to due process and privacy. It states that "procedure which deals with the modalities of regulating, restricting or even rejecting a fundamental right falling within Article 21 has to be fair, not foolish, carefully designed to effectuate, not to subvert, the substantive right itself. Thus, understood, ‘procedure’ must rule out anything arbitrary, freakish or bizarre. A valuable constitutional right can be canalised only by canalised processes".

When machines and robots are deployed to conduct blanket surveillance and impinge on the most fundamental right to life and liberty and also violate the basic tenets of due process, then much cannot be done by way of procedures. What then do we resort to, is the primary question. Can there be a compromise between the right to privacy and security?

A no-win situation
In reality, dragnet surveillance or blanket surveillance is not very useful for gathering valuable intelligence to prevent instances of threat to national security, public safety and public emergency. For example, if the CMS is used to mine data, analyse content related to anti-social activities and even if the system is 99 per cent accurate, the remaining 1 per cent which is a false positive happens to be a large set. So, 1 out of every 100 individuals identified as an anti-social element by CMS may actually be an innocent citizen. Given the possibility of false positives and which may be more than 1 per cent, the number of innocent citizens caught in the terrorist net would be much higher.

Even though blanket surveillance or dragnet surveillance can keep a tab on everyone, it is nearly impossible for an algorithm to separate the terrorists from the rest. Moreover, the data set collected by the machine is too big for any human analyst, to actually analyze and identify the terrorist in the midst of a deluge of information. Therefore, the argument that a system like CMS will ensure security in lieu of minor intrusions of privacy is a flawed one. Implementation of CMS will not really ensure security but will be a case of blatant violation of individual’s right to privacy anyway.

What is perhaps more shocking is that not only will CMS be futile in preventing security breaches or neutralizing security threats, it will on the contrary expose individual Indian citizens to breach of personal security. If personal data and information are stored for future reference through a centralized mechanism, which is also the case with UID, it will be highly susceptible to attacks and security threats. It will be a Pandora’s Box with a potential to create havoc the moment someone is able to gain access to the information with intention to misuse that. Leaking of personal information and data on a large scale can be detrimental to society and give rise to instances of public emergency.

The ‘Right to be Forgotten’

Currently, the European Union is engulfed in the debate on the “Right to be Forgotten” laws. The Right to be Forgotten finds its origins in the French Law le droit Ã l’oubli or the right of oblivion, where a convict who has served his sentence can object to the publication of facts of his conviction and imprisonment or penalty. This law has a new found meaning in the context of social media and the internet, where we have the right to delete all our personal information permanently. This is an important issue which India should debate and discuss, as we live in an era where privacy comes at a cost.

On the one hand, technology has made it easier to track, trace, monitor and snoop, on the other it has also seen innovation in the field of encryption and anonymity tools. Encryption tools such as Open PGP exist online, which can secure information from third party access. Tor Browser, allows an user to surf the web anonymously. The use of such technologies should be encouraged as there is no law which prohibits their use. If systems are being built to spy on us, it will be better if we use technologies which protect our personal information from such surveillance technologies.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-together-june-26-2013-snehashish-ghosh-the-state-is-snooping-can-you-escape

Big Democracy, Big Surveillance: India's Surveillance State

maria — 2014-02-28T10:35:09Z

In India, surveillance is on the rise by the state to tackle crime and terrorism, and private companies are eager to meet the demand.

This article by Maria Xynou was published by OpenDemocracy on 10 February 2014.

Worried about the secret, mass surveillance schemes being carried out by the NSA? While we should be, some of the surveillance schemes in the world's largest democracy, India, are arguably in the same league.

Surveillance is being globalised to the extent that even India, a country with huge poverty issues, is investing millions of dollars in creating an expansive surveillance regime. However, why would communications monitoring interest Indian authorities, when the majority of the population lives below the line of poverty and only 17% of the population has access to the Internet?

The official political motivation behind surveillance in India appears to be the government's determination to tackle terrorism in the country. The 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks were arguably a similar landmark to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US, and both governments officially announced their intention to carry out surveillance as a counter-terrorism measure. However, unlike in the west, terrorist attacks in India are much more common, and the National Security Adviser reported in 2008 that 800 terrorist cells were operational in the country. With India’s history of major terror attacks in India over the last 25 years, it's easy for one to be persuaded that terrorism is actually a major threat to national security.

India's surveillance schemes

India’s surveillance programs mostly started following the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. That was when the Ministry of Home Affairs first proposed the creation of a National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), which will give 11 intelligence and investigative agencies real-time access to 21 citizen data sources to track terror activities. These citizen data sources will be provided by various ministries and departments, otherwise called “provider agencies”, and will include bank account details, telephone records, passport data and vehicle registration details, among other types of data.

The Ministry of Home Affairs has sought over Rs. 3,400 crore (around USD 540 million!) for the implementation of NATGRID, which aims to create comprehensive patterns of intelligence by collecting sensitive information from databases of departments like the police, banks, tax and telecoms to supposedly track any terror suspect and incident.

But NATGRID is far from India's only data sharing scheme. In 2009 the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs approved the creation and implementation of the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS), which would facilitate the sharing of databases among 14,000 police stations across all 35 states and Union Territories of India, excluding 6,000 police offices which are high in the police hierarchy. Rs. 2,000 crore (around USD 320 million) have been allocated for the CCTNS, which is being implemented by the National Crime Records Bureau under the national e-governance scheme. The CCTNS not only increases transparency by automating the function of police stations, but also provides the civil police with tools, technology and information to facilitate the investigation of crime and detection of criminals.

But apparently, sharing data and linking databases is not enough to track criminals and terrorists. As such, in the aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, the Indian government also implemented various interception systems. In September 2013 it was reported that the Indian government has been operating Lawful Intercept & Monitoring (LIM) systems, widely in secret. In particular, mobile operators in India have deployed their own LIM systems allowing for the so-called “lawful interception” of calls by the government. And possibly to enable this, mobile operators are required to provide subscriber verification to the Telecom Enforcement, Resource and Monitoring (TERM) cells of the Department of Telecommunications.

In the case of Internet traffic, the LIM systems are deployed at the international gateways of large Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and expand to a broad search across all Internet traffic using “keywords” and “key-phrases”. In other words, security agencies using LIM systems are capable of launching a search for suspicious words, resulting in the indiscriminate monitoring of all Internet traffic, possibly without court oversight and without the knowledge of ISPs.

India has also automated and centralized the interception of communications through the Central Monitoring System (CMS). This project was initially envisioned in 2009, following the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks and was approved in 2011. The CMS intercepts all telecommunications in India and centrally stores the data in national and regional databases. The CMS will be connected with the Telephone Call Interception System (TCIS) which will help monitor voice calls, SMS and MMS, fax communications on landlines, CDMA, video calls, GSM and 3G networks. Agencies which will have access to the CMS include the Intelligence Bureau (IB), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

Unlike mainstream interception, where service providers are required to intercept communications and provision interception requests to law enforcement agencies, the Central Monitoring System will automate the entire process of interception. This means that the CMS authority will have centralized access to all intercepted data and that the authority can also bypass service providers in gaining such access. Once security agencies have access to this data, they are equipped with Direct Electronic Provisioning, filters and alerts on the target numbers, as well as with Call Details Records (CDR) analysis and data mining tools to identify the personal information of target numbers.

Given that roughly 73% of India's population uses mobile phones, this means that the Central Monitoring System can potentially affect about 893 million people, more than double the population of the United States! However, how is it even possible for Indian authorities to mine the data of literally millions of people? Who supplies Indian authorities with the technology to do this and what type of technology is actually being used?

India's surveillance industry

India has the world's second largest population, consisting of more than a billion people and an expanding middle class. Undoubtedly, India is a big market and many international companies aspire in investing in the country. Unfortunately though, along with everything else being imported into India, surveillance technologies are no exception.

Some of the biggest and most notorious surveillance technology companies in the world, such as ZTE, Utimaco and Verint, have offices in India. Even FinFisher command and control servers have been found in India. However, in addition to allowing foreign surveillance technology companies to create offices and to sell their products and solutions in the country, local companies selling controversial spyware appear to be on the rise too.

Kommlabs Dezign is an Indian company which loves to show off its Internet monitoring solutions at various ISS trade shows, otherwise known as “the Wiretapper's Ball”. In particular, Kommlabs Dezign sells VerbaNET, an Internet Interception Solution, as well as VerbaCENTRE, which is a Unified Monitoring Centre that can even detect cognitive and emotional stress in voice calls and flag them! In other words, Kommlabs Dezign makes a point that not only should we worry about what we text and say over our phones, but that we should also worry about what we sound like when on the phone.

Vehere is another Indian company which sells various surveillance solutions and notably sells vCRIMES, which is a Call Details Records (CDR) analysis system. VCRIMES is used to analyse and gather intelligence and to unveil hidden interconnections and relations through communications. This system also includes a tool for detecting sleeper cells through advanced statistical analysis and can analyse more than 40 billion records in less than 3 seconds.

Paladion Networks is headquartered in Bangalore, India and sells various Internet Monitoring Systems, Telecom Operator Interception Systems, SSL Interception and Decryption Systems and Cyber Cafe Monitoring Systems to law enforcement agencies in India and abroad. In fact, Paladion Networks even states in its website that its customers include India's Ministry of Information Technology and the U.S Department of Justice.

ClearTrail Technologies is yet another Indian company which not only sponsors global surveillance trade shows but also sells a wide range of monitoring solutions to law enforcement agencies in India and abroad. ComTrail is a solution for the centralised mass interception and monitoring of voice and data networks, including Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, BlackBerry, ICQ and GSM voice calls. Furthermore, ComTrail is equipped to handle millions of communications per day, correlating identities across multiple networks, and can instantly analyse data across thousands of terabytes.

ClearTrail also sells xTrail, which is a solution for the targeted interception, decoding and analysis of data traffic over IP networks and which enables law enforcement agencies to intercept and monitor targeted communications without degrading the service quality of the IP network. Interestingly, xTrail can filter based on a “pure keyword”, a URL/Domain with a keyword, a mobile number or even with just a user identity, such as an email ID, chat ID or VoIP ID.

Apparently, some the biggest challenges that law enforcement agencies face when monitoring communications include cases when targets operate from public Internet networks and/or use encryption. However, it turns out that ClearTrail's QuickTrail solution is designed to gather intelligence from public Internet networks, when a target is operating from a cyber cafe, a hotel, a university campus or a free Wi-Fi zone. This device can remotely deploy spyware into a target's computer and supports protocol decoding, including HTTP, SMTP, POP3 and HTTPS.

Additionally, QuickTrail can identify a target machine on the basis of metadata, such as an IP address, and can monitor Ethernet LANs in real time, as well as monitor Gmail, Yahoo and all other HTTPS-based communications. ClearTrail's mTrail is designed for the passive 'off-the-air' interception of GSM communications, including the interception of targeted calls from pre-defined suspect lists and the monitoring of SMS and protocol information. MTrail also identifies a target's location by using signal strength, target numbers, such as IMSI, TIMSI, IMEI or MSI SDN, which makes it possible to listen to the conversation of so-called “lawfully intercepted” calls in near real-time.

In short, it looks like India is reaching the top league when it comes to surveillance technologies, especially since many of its companies and their products appear to be just as scary as some of the most sophisticated spying gear sold by the West. India may be the world's largest (by population) democracy, but that means that it has a huge population with way too many opinions...and apparently, the private and public sectors in India appear to be joining forces to do something about it.

So do Indians have nothing to hide?

A very popular rhetoric in both India and the west is that citizens should not be concerned about surveillance because, after all, if they are not terrorists, they should have nothing to hide. However, privacy advocate Caspar Bowden has rightfully stated that this rhetoric is fundamentally flawed and that we should all indeed “have something to hide”. But is privacy just about “having something to hide”? Jacob Appelbaum has stated that this rhetoric is merely a psychological copying mechanism when dealing with security.

It's probably rather comforting and reassuring to think that we are not special or important enough for surveillance to affect us personally. But is that really up to us to decide? Unfortunately not. The very point of data mining is to match patterns, create profiles of individuals and to unveil hidden interconnections and relations. A data analyst can uncover more information about us than what we are even aware of and it is they who decide if our data is “incriminating” or not. Or even worse: in many cases it's up to data mining software to decide how “special” or “important” we are. And unfortunately, technology is not infallible.

The world's largest democracy, which is also one of the most corrupt countries in the world, is implementing many controversial surveillance schemes which lack transparency, accountability and adequate legal backing, and which are largely being carried out in secret. And to make matters worse, India lacks privacy legislation. Over a billion people in a democratic regime are exposed to inadequately regulated surveillance schemes, while a local surveillance industry is thriving without any checks or balances whatsoever. What will this mean for the global future of democracy?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/big-democracy-big-surveillance-indias-surveillance-state

The constitutionality of MHA surveillance order

nehaa — 2018-12-31T14:06:04Z

The rules require review committees to examine all surveillance orders issued under this section every couple of months.

The article by Nehaa Chaudhari was published in Asian Age on December 30, 2018.

The MHA notification authorising 10 agencies to intercept, monitor and decrypt “any information” generated, transmitted, received or stored in “any computer” has kicked up a row. One section calls it electronic surveillance at the behest of the Big Brother. This time the qualitative difference is data stored anywhere, not just data in motion, can be intercepted.

Privacy is a fundamental right in India. Nine Supreme Court judges agreed on this in late August, last year. It is “the constitutional core of human dignity” and flows primarily from the “guarantee of life and personal liberty” of our Constitution, they said, in the case of K.S.Puttaswamy vs Union of India. This meant two rules for the Indian state. Rule number 1.) Do not intrude upon a citizen’s right to life and personal liberty; and rule number 2.) Take all necessary steps to safeguard individual privacy.

However, because no fundamental right is absolute, the Indian state is allowed to deviate from rule number 1 in certain situations. It can restrict individual privacy provided that it first fulfills three conditions: The restriction must be backed by law; it must be for a legitimate state aim; and, it must be proportionate.

All laws (including existing ones) and government actions, with consequences for individual privacy, must meet the three conditions listed above to be valid.

Those that fail to do so are unconstitutional, and must be suitably amended, or will be struck down, as was the case with Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, earlier this year. Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, under which the Ministry of Home Affairs has issued its recent surveillance order, warrants similar scrutiny.

Section 69 empowers the Centre and all state governments to authorise any of their officers to surveil citizens’ electronic communications and information. They may do so for any of the reasons laid down in the same section, including India’s sovereignty, integrity, defence, security and foreign relations, or public order, or to prevent the incitement of certain offences, or to investigate any offence. Government orders issued under this section must be reasoned, and in writing. These orders, and the resultant surveillance activity, must follow the procedure laid down in a set of rules framed under the Information Technology Act in 2009. The rules require review committees to examine all surveillance orders issued under this section every couple of months. The review committee at the Centre examines the Union government’s surveillance orders, while state governments’ orders are examined by committees at their respective states. But, review committees, whether at the Centre, or at any of the states, only have
three members each, tasked with reviewing hundreds of orders every day. Moreover, they consist only of government officials. Neither the Information Technology Act, nor the accompanying 2009 rules, require Parliamentary or judicial oversight of electronic surveillance by the executive.

In the past week, at least two petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court,which claim that the MHA’s surveillance order violates the fundamental right to privacy and is unconstitutional. This order for electronic surveillance is a clear deviation from rule number 1, and so the question before the court will be if it meets each of the conditions above to be valid.

Is the MHA order lawful? Yes, given as it was framed under the framework of the IT Act. There remains however, a larger question of the constitutionality of Section 69 itself. If the court finds Section 69 itself to be unconstitutional, any action taken pursuant to Section 69, including the recent MHA order, will also be unconstitutional.

Is the MHA order pursuant to a legitimate state aim? The order itself does not specify what in particular the government hopes to achieve. However, given as it was issued under Section 69, the government could well argue that it was only for the six purposes laid down in the statute.

Moreover, according to the Supreme Court in the right to privacy judgment, legitimate state aims are “matters of policy to be considered by the Union government.” The court even offered examples of possible legitimate state aims, which included the grounds listed under Section 69.

Is the MHA order proportionate? No; and neither is the IT Act’s framework dealing with electronic surveillance. The IT Act allows government surveillance of citizens, unchecked by either the legislature, or the judiciary. It creates a scenario where tiny government committees must review the government’s own decisions to curtail citizens’ fundamental rights. Moreover, it penalises individuals with up to seven years in jail, in addition to fines, for not complying with any interception, monitoring, or decryption request by an authorised government agency.

In light of the recent MHA order, this means that individuals must comply with surveillance requests by 10 government agencies including tax authorities, the police, and civil and military intelligence agencies, or be prepared to face jail time. This is unethical, undemocratic, and unconstitutional.

Unchecked government surveillance threatens not just an individual’s fundamental right to privacy, but also her fundamental freedoms of speech, movement, and assembly among others, also guaranteed fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.

These rights and freedoms are the very essence of what it means to be a free citizen in a modern democracy. A democratic state must only exercise its police powers in the narrowest of circumstances, within bright lines, clearly defined.

In August, 2017, the Supreme Court laid down the framework to identify these narrow circumstances and bright lines in so far as the fundamental right to privacy was concerned. But, the promise of Puttaswamy is only as good as its implementation, and here lies its biggest challenge.

As Pranesh Prakash, Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, said on a television channel recently, perhaps it is about time that we stopped relying solely on the courts to step in to safeguard our fundamental rights, and started demanding that our elected law-markers did their jobs, or did them better. After all, a general election is but a few months away.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/nehaa-chaudhari-asian-age-december-30-2018-constitutionality-of-mha-surveillance-order

Mastering the Art of Keeping Indians Under Surveillance

bhairav — 2015-08-23T12:26:48Z

In its first year in office, the National Democratic Alliance government has been notably silent on the large-scale surveillance projects it has inherited. This ended last week amidst reports the government is hastening to complete the Central Monitoring System (CMS) within the year.

The article was published in the Wire on May 30, 2015.

In a statement to the Rajya Sabha in 2009, Gurudas Kamat, the erstwhile United Progressive Alliance’s junior communications minister, said the CMS was a project to enable direct state access to all communications on mobile phones, landlines, and the Internet in India. He meant the government was building ‘backdoors’, or capitalising on existing ones, to enable state authorities to intercept any communication at will, besides collecting large amounts of metadata, without having to rely on private communications carriers.

This is not new. Legally sanctioned backdoors have existed in Europe and the USA since the early 1990s to enable direct state interception of private communications. But the laws of those countries also subject state surveillance to a strong regime of state accountability, individual freedoms, and privacy. This regime may not be completely robust, as Edward Snowden’s revelations have shown, but at least it exists on paper. The CMS is not illegal by itself, but it is coloured by the compromised foundation of Indian surveillance law upon which it is built.

Surveillance and social control

The CMS is a technological project. But technology does not exist in isolation; it is contextualised by law, society, politics, and history. Surveillance and the CMS must be seen in the same contexts.

The great sociologist Max Weber claimed the modern state could not exist without monopolising violence. It seems clear the state also entertains the equal desire to monopolise communications technologies. The state has historically shaped the way in which information is transmitted, received, and intercepted. From the telegraph and radio to telephones and the Internet, the state has constantly endeavoured to control communications technologies.

Law is the vehicle of this control. When the first telegraph line was laid down in India, its implications for social control were instantly realised; so the law swiftly responded by creating a state monopoly over the telegraph. The telegraph played a significant role in thwarting the Revolt of 1857, even as Indians attempted to destroy the line; so the state consolidated its control over the technology to obviate future contests.

This controlling impulse was exercised over radio and telephones, which are also government monopolies, and is expressed through the state’s surveillance prerogative. On the other hand, because of its open and decentralised architecture, the Internet presents the single greatest threat to the state’s communications monopoly and dilutes its ability to control society.

Interception in India

The power to intercept communications arises with the regulation of telegraphy. The first two laws governing telegraphs, in 1854 and 1860, granted the government powers to take possession of telegraphs “on the occurrence of any public emergency”. In 1876, the third telegraph law expanded this threshold to include “the interest of public safety”. These are vague phrases and their interpretation was deliberately left to the government’s discretion.

This unclear formulation was replicated in the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885, the fourth law on the subject, which is currently in force today. The 1885 law included a specific power to wiretap. Incredibly, this colonial surveillance provision survived untouched for 87 years even as countries across the world balanced their surveillance powers with democratic safeguards.

The Indian Constitution requires all deprivations of free speech to conform to any of nine grounds listed in Article 19(2). Public emergencies and public safety are not listed. So Indira Gandhi amended the wiretapping provision in 1972 to insert five grounds copied from Article 19(2). However, the original unclear language on public emergencies and public safety remained.

Indira Gandhi’s amendment was ironic because one year earlier she had overseen the enactment of the Defence and Internal Security of India Act, 1971 (DISA), which gave the government fresh powers to wiretap. These powers were not subject to even the minimal protections of the Telegraph Act. When the Emergency was imposed in 1975, Gandhi’s government bypassed her earlier amendment and, through the DISA Rules, instituted the most intensive period of surveillance in Indian history.

Although DISA was repealed, the tradition of having parallel surveillance powers for fictitious emergencies continues to flourish. Wiretapping powers are also found in the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 which has been copied by Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, and Gujarat.

Procedural weaknesses

Meanwhile, the Telegraph Act with its 1972 amendment continued to weather criticism through the 1980s. The wiretapping power was largely exercised free of procedural safeguards such as the requirements to exhaust other less intrusive means of investigation, minimise information collection, limit the sharing of information, ensure accountability, and others.

This changed in 1996 when the Supreme Court, on a challenge brought by PUCL, ordered the government to create a minimally fair procedure. The government fell in line in 1999, and a new rule, 419A, was put into the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.

Unlike the United States, where a wiretap can only be ordered by a judge when she decides the state has legally made its case for the requested interception, an Indian wiretap is sanctioned by a bureaucrat or police officer. Unlike the United Kingdom, which also grants wiretapping powers to bureaucrats but subjects them to two additional safeguards including an independent auditor and a judicial tribunal, an Indian wiretap is only reviewed by a committee of the original bureaucrat’s colleagues. Unlike most of the world which restricts this power to grave crime or serious security needs, an Indian wiretap can even be obtained by the income tax department.

Rule 419A certainly creates procedure, but it lacks crucial safeguards that impugn its credibility. Worse, the contours of rule 419A were copied in 2009 to create flawed procedures to intercept the content of Internet communications and collect metadata. Unlike rule 419A, these new rules issued under sections 69(2) and 69B(3) of the Information Technology Act 2000 have not been constitutionally scrutinised.

Three steps to tap

Despite its monopoly, the state does not own the infrastructure of telephones. It is dependent on telecommunications carriers to physically perform the wiretap. Indian wiretaps take place in three steps: a bureaucrat authorises the wiretap; a law enforcement officer serves the authorisation on a carrier; and, the carrier performs the tap and returns the information to the law enforcement officer.

There are many moving parts in this process, and so there are leaks. Some leaks are cynically motivated such as Amar Singh’s lewd conversations in 2011. But others serve a public purpose: Niira Radia’s conversations were allegedly leaked by a whistleblower to reveal serious governmental culpability. Ironically, leaks have created accountability where the law has failed.

The CMS will prevent leaks by installing servers on the transmission infrastructure of carriers to divert communications to regional monitoring centres. Regional centres, in turn, will relay communications to a centralised monitoring centre where they will be analysed, mined, and stored. Carriers will no longer perform wiretaps; and, since this obviates their costs of compliance, they are willing participants.

In its annual report of 2012, the Centre for the Development of Telematics (C-DOT), a state-owned R&D centre tasked with designing and creating the CMS, claimed the system would intercept 3G video, ILD, SMS, and ISDN PRI communications made through landlines or mobile phones – both GSM and CDMA.

There are unclear reports of an expansion to intercept Internet data, such as emails and browsing details, as well as instant messaging services; but these remain unconfirmed. There is also a potential overlap with another secretive Internet surveillance programme being developed by the Defence R&D Organisation called NETRA, no details of which are public.

Culmination of surveillance

In its present state, Indian surveillance law is unable to bear the weight of the CMS project, and must be vastly strengthened to protect privacy and accountability before the state is given direct access to communications.

But there is a larger way to understand the CMS in the context of Indian surveillance. Christopher Bayly, the noted colonial historian, writes that when the British set about establishing a surveillance apparatus in colonised India, they came up against an established system of indigenous intelligence gathering. Colonial rule was at its most vulnerable at this point of intersection between foreign surveillance and indigenous knowledge, and the meeting of the two was riven by suspicion. So the colonial state simply co-opted the interface by creating institutions to acquire local knowledge.

The CMS is also an attempt to co-opt the interface between government and the purveyors of communications; because if the state cannot control communications, it cannot control society. Seen in this light, the CMS represents the natural culmination of the progression of Indian surveillance. No challenge against it that does not question the construction of the modern Indian state will be successful.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-may-30-2015-bhairav-acharya-mastering-the-art-of-keeping-indians-under-surveillance

Big Brother is watching you

chinmayi — 2014-01-06T09:31:22Z

India has no requirements of transparency whether in the form of disclosing the quantum of interception or in the form of notification to people whose communication was intercepted.

The article by Chinmayi Arun was published in the Hindu on January 3, 2014.

The Gujarat telephone tapping controversy is just one of many kinds of abuse that surveillance systems enable. If a relatively primitive surveillance system can be misused so flagrantly despite safeguards that the government claims are adequate, imagine what is to come with the Central Monitoring System (CMS) and Netra in place.

News reports indicate Netra — a “NEtwork TRaffic Analysis system” — will intercept and examine communication over the Internet for keywords like “attack,” “bomb,” “blast” or “kill.” While phone tapping and the CMS monitor specific targets, Netra is vast and indiscriminate. It appears to be the Indian government’s first attempt at mass surveillance rather than surveillance of predetermined targets. It will scan tweets, status updates, emails, chat transcripts and even voice traffic over the Internet (including from platforms like Skype and Google Talk) in addition to scanning blogs and more public parts of the Internet. Whistle-blower Edward Snowden said of mass-surveillance dragnets that “they were never about terrorism: they’re about economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They’re about power.”

So far, our jurisprudence has dealt with only targeted surveillance; and even that in a woefully inadequate manner. This article discusses the slow evolution of the right to privacy in India, highlighting the context and manner in which it is protected. It then discusses international jurisprudence to demonstrate how the right to privacy might be protected more effectively.

Privacy and the Constitution

A proposal to include the right to privacy in the Constitution was rejected by the Constituent Assembly with very little debate. Separately, a proposal to give citizens an explicit fundamental right against unreasonable governmental search and seizure was also put before the Constituent Assembly. This proposal was supported by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. If accepted, it would have included within our Constitution the principles from which the United States derives its protection against state surveillance. However, the proposed amendment was rejected by the Constituent Assembly.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has gradually been reading the right to privacy into the fundamental rights explicitly listed in the Constitution. After its initial reluctance to affirm the right to privacy in the 1954 case of M.P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, the court came around to the view that other rights and liberties guaranteed in the Constitution would be seriously affected if the right to privacy was not protected. In Kharak Singh vs. The State of U.P., the court recognised “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” and declared that their right against unreasonable searches and seizures was not to be violated. The right to privacy here was conceived around the home, and unauthorised intrusions into homes were seen as interference with the right to personal liberty.

If the Kharak Singh judgment was progressive in its recognition of the right to privacy, it was conservative about the circumstances in which the right applies. The majority of judges held that shadowing a person could not be seen to interfere with that person’s liberty. Dissenting with the majority, Justice Subba Rao maintained that broad surveillance powers put innocent citizens at risk, and that the right to privacy is an integral part of personal liberty. He recognised that when a person is shadowed, her movements will be constricted, and will certainly not be free movements. His dissenting judgment showed remarkable foresight and his reasoning is consistent with what is now a universally acknowledged principle that there is a “chilling effect” on expression and action when people think that they are being watched.

The right to privacy as defined by the Supreme Court now extends beyond government intrusion into private homes. After Govind vs. State of M.P., and Dist. Registrar and Collector of Hyderabad vs. Canara Bank, this right is seen to protect persons and not places. Any inroads into this right for surveillance of communication must be for permissible reasons and according to just, fair and reasonable procedure. State action in violation of this procedure is open to a constitutional challenge.

Our meagre procedural safeguards against phone tapping were introduced in PUCL vs. Union of India (1997) after the Supreme Court was confronted with extensive, undocumented phone tapping by the government. The apex court found itself compelled to lay down what it saw as bare minimum safeguards, consisting mostly of proper record-keeping and internal executive oversight by senior officers such as the home secretary, the cabinet secretary, the law secretary and the telecommunications secretary. These safeguards are of little use since they are opaque and rely solely on members of the executive to review surveillance requests.

Right and safeguards

There is a difference between targeted surveillance in which reasons have to be given for surveillance of particular people, and the mass-surveillance which Netra sets up. The question of mass surveillance and its attendant safeguards has been considered by the European Court of Human Rights in Liberty and Others vs. the United Kingdom. Drawing upon its own past jurisprudence, the European Court insisted on reasonable procedural safeguards. It stated quite clearly that there are significant risks of arbitrariness when executive power is exercised in secret and that the law should be sufficiently clear to give citizens an adequate indication of the circumstances in which interception might take place. Additionally, the extent of discretion conferred and the manner of its exercise must be clear enough to protect individuals from arbitrary interference. The principles laid down by the European Court in relation to phone-tapping also require that the nature of the offences which may give rise to an interception order, the procedure to be followed for examining, using and storing the data obtained, the precautions to be taken when communicating the data to other parties, and the circumstances in which recordings may or must be erased or the tapes destroyed be made clear.

Opaque and ineffective

Our safeguards apply only to targeted surveillance, and require written requests to be provided and reviewed before telephone tapping or Internet interception is carried out. CMS makes the process of tapping more prone to misuse by the state, by making it even more opaque: if the state can intercept communication directly, without making requests to a private telecommunication service provider, then it is one less layer of scrutiny through which the abuse of power can reach the public. There is no one to ask whether the requisite paperwork is in place or to notice a dramatic increase in interception requests.

India has no requirements of transparency whether in the form of disclosing the quantum of interception taking place each year, or in the form of subsequent notification to people whose communication was intercepted. It does not even have external oversight in the form of an independent regulatory body or the judiciary to ensure that no abuse of surveillance systems takes place. Given these structural flaws, the Amit Shah controversy is just the beginning of what is to come. Unfettered mass surveillance does not bode well for democracy.

(Chinmayi Arun is research director, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi, and fellow, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-january-3-2014-chinmayi-arun-big-brother-is-watching-you

Counter Surveillance Panel: DiscoTech & Hackathon

praskrishna — 2014-02-28T05:36:15Z

We invite you to a Counter Surveillance DiscoTech and Hackathon at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore on Saturday, March 1, 2014 (9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.). The event is being co-organized by the Centre for Internet and Society in tandem with the MIT Centre for Civic Media Co-Design Lab, with support from members of Tactical Technology Collective, Hackteria.org and Srishti School of Art Design and Technology. Registrations begin at 9.00 a.m. The event shall close with a featured talk by renown information activist and maker lab innovator Smari McCarthy, titled "Privacy for Humanity" at 5.00 p.m.

Overview

Mirroring the call by MIT Civic Media Lab Co-Design Studio, this event brings together students, technologists, designers and citizens to explore counter-surveillance strategies. The event will be held simultaneously across various locations including Boston, Palestine, Lisbon and Buenos Aires. Click here for the definition of DiscoTech.(Discovering Technology)

Agenda

We shall begin with brief contextualized introductions catalyzed by researchers in the field of privacy & surveillance, followed by workshops and hackathons led by expert practitioners. Participants are welcome from diverse backgrounds looking to be involved in designing engaging and creative ways to counter surveillance. The event shall close with a featured talk by renown information activist and maker lab innovator Smari McCarthy , titled "Privacy for Humanity" at 5.00 p.m.

Introductory Catalyst Sessions

Malavika Jayaram: Fellow at Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University and the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Laird Brown: DesiSec Project at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore and University of Toronto
Kaustubh Srikant: Head of Technology, Tactical Technology Collective and Maya Indira Ganesh (Program Director)
Abhay Raj Naik: Assistant Professor, Azim Premji University

Design and Hackathon Lead Catalysts

Yashas Shetty:Faculty@ www.srishti.ac.in and Co-Founder Hackteria.org (DNA Spoofing, Surveillance Camera: Avoidance, Microscopic Re-Appropriation & Bacterial Discotheque)

Hari Dilip Kumar: Co, Founder, FluxGen: (Introducing data transmission protocols, Software Defined Radio (SDR) design and surveillance detection )

Sharath Chandra Ram: Researcher @ CIS Open Lab and Faculty@Srishti (Civic Media solutions using open citizen networks and the web, spectrum scanning, visual communication design strategies, finger print mash-up publishing)

Featured Talk and Interactive Closing Session by Smari McCarthy

(Executive Director, International Modern Media Institute and Founder, Icelandic Pirate Party & Icelandic Digital Freedom Society)

Title of Talk: PRIVACY for HUMANITY - 5.00 p.m.

Click to download the flyer invite
Date: Saturday, March 1, 2014
Time: 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. (Registration 9.00 a.m. sharp)
Venue: Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Map : http://bit.ly /1fcDDLG

Please RSVP due to limited space and logistics for lunch and refreshments

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/counter-surveillance-panel-disco-tech-hackathon

Free Speech and Surveillance

Gautam Bhatia — 2014-07-07T04:59:59Z

Gautam Bhatia examines the constitutionality of surveillance by the Indian state.

The Indian surveillance regime has been the subject of discussion for quite some time now. Its nature and scope is controversial. The Central Monitoring System, through which the government can obtain direct access to call records, appears to have the potential to be used for bulk surveillance, although official claims emphasise that it will only be implemented in a targeted manner. The Netra system, on the other hand, is certainly about dragnet collection, since it detects the communication, via electronic media, of certain “keywords” (such as “attack”, “bomb”, “blast” and “kill”), no matter what context they are used in, and no matter who is using them.

Surveillance is quintessentially thought to raise concerns about privacy. Over a series of decisions, the Indian Supreme Court has read in the right to privacy into Article 21’s guarantee of the right to life and personal liberty. Under the Supreme Court’s (somewhat cloudy) precedents, privacy may only be infringed if there is a compelling State interest, and if the restrictive law is narrowly tailored – that is, it does not infringe upon rights to an extent greater than it needs to, in order to fulfill its goal. It is questionable whether bulk surveillance meets these standards.

Surveillance, however, does not only involve privacy rights. It also implicated Article 19 – in particular, the Article 19(1)(a) guarantee of the freedom of expression, and the 19(1)(c) guarantee of the freedom of association.

Previously on this blog, we have discussed the “chilling effect” in relation to free speech. The chilling effect evolved in the context of defamation cases, where a combination of exacting standards of proof, and prohibitive damages, contributed to create a culture of self-censorship, where people would refrain from voicing even legitimate criticism for fear of ruinous defamation lawsuits. The chilling effect, however, is not restricted merely to defamation, but arises in free speech cases more generally, where vague and over-broad statutes often leave the border of the permitted and the prohibited unclear.

Indeed, a few years before it decided New York Times v. Sullivan, which brought in the chilling effect doctrine into defamation and free speech law, the American Supreme Court applies a very similar principle in a surveillance case. In NAACP v. Alabama, the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP), which was heavily engaged in the civil rights movement in the American deep South, was ordered by the State of Alabama to disclose its membership list. NAACP challenged this, and the Court held in its favour. It specifically connected freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the impact of surveillance upon both:

“Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the “liberty” assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny… it is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute [an] effective a restraint on freedom of association… this Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations. Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.”

In other words, if persons are not assured of privacy in their association with each other, they will tend to self-censor both who they associate with, and what they say to each other, especially when unpopular groups, who have been historically subject to governmental or social persecution, are involved. Indeed, this was precisely the argument that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) made in its constitutional challenge to PRISM, the American bulk surveillance program. In addition to advancing a Fourth Amendment argument from privacy, the ACLU also made a First Amendment freedom of speech and association claim, arguing that the knowledge of bulk surveillance had made – or at least, was likely to have made – politically unpopular groups wary of contacting it for professional purposes (the difficulty, of course, is that any chilling effect argument effectively requires proving a negative).

If this argument holds, then it is clear that Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) are prima facie infringed in cases of bulk – or even other forms of – surveillance. Two conclusions follow: first, that any surveillance regime needs statutory backing. Under Article 19(2), reasonable restrictions upon fundamental rights can only be imposed by law, and not be executive fiat (the same argument applies to Article 21 as well).

Assuming that a statutory framework is brought into force, the crucial issue then becomes whether the restriction is a reasonable one, in service of one of the stated 19(2) interests. The relevant part of Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions upon the freedom of speech and expression “in the interests of… the security of the State [and] public order.” The Constitution does not, however, provide a test for determining when a restriction can be legitimately justified as being “in the interests of” the security of the State, and of public order. There is not much relevant precedent with respect to the first sub-clause, but there happens to be an extensive – although conflicted – jurisprudence dealing with the public order exception.

One line of cases – characterised by Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP and Virendra v. State of Punjab – has held that the phrase “for the interests of” is of very wide ambit, and that the government has virtually limitless scope to make laws ostensibly for securing public order (this extends to prior restraint as well, something that Blackstone, writing in the 18^th century, found to be illegal!). The other line of cases, such as Superintendent v. Ram Manohar Lohia and S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, have required the government to satisfy a stringent burden of proof. In Lohia, for instance, Ram Manohar Lohia’s conviction for encouraging people to break a tax law was reversed, the Court holding that the relationship between restricting free speech and a public order justification must be “proximate”. In Rangarajan, the Court used the euphemistic image of a “spark in a powder keg”, to characterise the degree of proximity required. It is evident that under the broad test of Ramji Lal Modi, a bulk surveillance system is likely to be upheld, whereas under the narrow test of Lohia, it is almost certain not to be.

Thus, if the constitutionality of surveillance comes to Court, three issues will need to be decided: first, whether Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) have been violated. Secondly – and if so – whether the “security of the State” exception is subject to the same standards as the “public order” exception (there is no reason why it should not be). And thirdly, which of the two lines of precedent represent the correct understanding of Article 19(2)?

Gautam Bhatia — @gautambhatia88 on Twitter — is a graduate of the National Law School of India University (2011), and has just received an LLM from the Yale Law School. He blogs about the Indian Constitution at http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com. Here at CIS, he blogs on issues of online freedom of speech and expression.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/free-speech-and-surveillance