Centre for Internet and Society

Vodafone Report Explains Government Access to Customer Data

joe — 2014-06-19T10:38:01Z

Vodafone Group PLC, the world’s second largest mobile carrier, released a report on Friday, June 6 2014 disclosing to what extent governments can request their customers’ data.

The Law Enforcement Disclosure Report, a section of a larger annual Sustainability Report began by asserting that Vodafone "customers have a right to privacy which is enshrined in international human rights law and standards and enacted through national laws."

However, the report continues, Vodafone is incapable of fully protecting its customers right to privacy, because it is bound by the laws in the various countries in which it operates. "If we do not comply with a lawful demand for assistance, governments can remove our license to operate, preventing us from providing services to our customers," The report goes into detail about the laws in each of the 29 nations where the company operates.

Vodafone’s report is one of the first published by a multinational service provider. Compiling such a report was especially difficult, according to the report, for a few reasons. Because no comparable report had been published before, Vodafone had to figure out for themselves, the “complex task” of what information they could legally publish in each country. This difficulty was compounded by the fact that Vodafone operates physical infrastructure and thus sets up a business in each of the countries where it provides services. This means that Vodafone is subject to the laws and operating licenses of each nation where it operates, unlike as a search engine such as Google, which can provide services across international borders but still be subject to United States law – where it is incorporated.

The report is an important step forward for consumer privacy. First, the Report shows that the company is aware of the conflict of interest between government authorities and its customers, and the pivotal position that the company can play in honoring the privacy of its users by providing information regarding the same in all cases where it legally can. Additionally, providing the user insight into challenges that the company faces when addressing and responding to law enforcement requests, the Report provides a brief overview of the legal qualifications that must be met in each country to access customer data. Also, Vodafone’s report has encouraged other telecom companies to disclose similar information to the public. For instance, Deutsche Telekom AG, a large European and American telecommunications company, said Vodafone’s report had led it consider releasing a report of it’s own.

Direct Government Access

The report revealed that six countries had constructed secret wires or “pipes” which allowed them access to customers’ private data. This means that the governments of these six countries have immediate access to Vodafone’s network without any due process, oversight, or accountability for these opaque practices. Essentially, the report reveals, in order to operate in one of these jurisdictions, a communications company must ensure that authorities have, real time and direct access to all personal customer data at any time, without any specific justification. The report does not name these six nations for legal reasons.

"These pipes exist, the direct access model exists,” Vodafone's group privacy officer, Stephen Deadman, told the Guardian. “We are making a call to end direct access as a means of government agencies obtaining people's communication data. Without an official warrant, there is no external visibility. If we receive a demand we can push back against the agency. The fact that a government has to issue a piece of paper is an important constraint on how powers are used."

Data Organization

Vodafone’s Report lists the aggregate number of content requests they received in each country where it operates, and groups these requests into two major categories. The first is Lawful Interceptions, which is when the government directly listens in or reads the content of a communication. In the past, this type of action has been called wiretapping, but now includes reading the content of text messages, emails, and other communications.

The second data point Vodafone provides for each country is the number of Communications Data requests they receive from each country. These are requests for the metadata associated with customer communications, such as the numbers they have been texting and the time stamps on all of their texts and calls.

It is worth noting that all of the numbers Vodafone reports are warrant statistics rather than target statistics. Vodafone, according to the report, has chosen to include the number of times a government sent a request to Vodafone to "intrude into the private affairs of its citizens, not the extent to which those warranted activities then range across an ever-expanding multiplicity of devices, accounts and apps."

Data Construction

However, in many cases, laws in the various companies in which Vodafone operates prohibit Vodafone from publishing all or part of the aforementioned data. In fact, this is the rule rather than the exception. The majority of countries, including India, prohibit Vodafone from releasing the number of data requests they receive. Other countries publish the numbers themselves, so Vodafone has chosen not to reprint their statistics either. This is because Vodafone wants to encourage governments to take responsibility for informing their citizens of the statistics themselves.

The report also makes note of the process Vodafone went through to determine the legality of publishing these statistics. It was not always straightforward. For example, in Germany, when Vodafone’s legal team went to examine the legislation governing whether or not they could publish statistics on government data requests, they concluded that the laws were unclear, and asked German authorities for advice on how to proceed. They were informed that publishing any such statistics would be illegal, so they did not include any German numbers in their report. However, since that time, other local carriers have released similar statistics, and thus the situation remains unresolved.

Other companies have also recently released reports. Twitter, a microblogging website, Facebook, a social networking website, and Google a search engine with social network capabilities have all released comparable reports, but their reports differ from Vodafone’s in a number of ways. While Twitter, Google, and Facebook all specified the percent of requests granted, Vodafone released no similar statistics. However, Vodafone prepared discussions of the various legal constraints that each country imposed on telecom companies, giving readers an understanding of what was required in each country for authorities to access their data, a component that was left out of other recent reports. Once again, Vodafone’s report differed from those of Google Facebook and Twitter because while Vodafone opens businesses in each of the countries where it operates and is subject to their laws, Google, Facebook, and Twitter are all Internet companies and so are only governed by United States law.

Google disclosed that it received 27,427 requests over a six-month period ending in December, 2013, and also noted that the number of requests has increased consistently each six-month period since data began being compiled in 2009, when fewer than half as many requests were being made. On the other hand Google said that the percentage of requests it complied with (64% over the most recent period) had declined significantly since 2010, when it complied with 76% of requests.

Google went into less detail when explaining the process non-American authorities had to go through to access data, but did note that a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty was the primary way governments outside of the United States could force the release of user data. Such a treaty is an agreement between the United States and another government to help each other with legal proceedings. However, the report indicated that Google might disclose user information in situations when they were not legally compelled to, and did not go into detail about how or when it did that. Thus, given the difficulty of obtaining a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty in addition to local warrants or subpoenas, it seems likely that Google complies with many more non-American data requests than it was legally forced to.

Facebook has only released two such reports so far, for the two six month periods in 2013, but they too indicated an increasing number of requests, from roughly 26,000 to 28,147. Facebook plans to continue issuing reports every six months.

Twitter has also seen an increase of 22% in government requests between this and the previous reporting period, six months ago. Twitter attributes this increase in requests to an increase in users internationally, and it does seem that the website has a similarly growing user base, according to charts released by Twitter. It is worth noting that while large nations such as the United States and India are responsible for the majority of government requests, smaller nations such as Bulgaria and Ecuador also order telecom and Internet companies to turn over data.

Vodaphone’s Statistics

Though Vodafone’s report didn’t print statistics for the majority of the countries the report covered, looking at the few numbers they did publish can shed some light on the behavior of governments in countries where publishing such statistics is illegal. For the countries where Vodafone does release data, the numbers of government requests for Vodafone data were much higher than for Google data. For instance, Italy requested Vodafone data 605,601 times, while requesting Google data only 896 times. This suggests that other countries such as India could be looking at many more customers’ data through telecom companies like Vodafone than Internet companies like Google.

Vodafone stressed that they were not the only telecom company that was being forced to share customers’ data, sometimes without warrants. In fact, such access was the norm in countries where authorities demanded it.

India and the Reports

India is one of the most proliferate requesters of data, second only to the United States in number of requests for data from Facebook and fourth after the United States, France and Germany in number of requests for data from Google. In the most recent six-month period, India requested data from Google 2,513 times, Facebook 3,598 times, and Twitter 19 times. The percentage of requests granted varies widely from country. For example, while Facebook complies with 79% of United States authorities’ requests, it only grants 50% of India’s requests. Google responds to 83% of US requests but only 66% of India’s.

Facebook also provides data on the number of content restrictions each country requests. A content restriction request is where an authority asks Facebook to take down a particular status, photo, video, or other web content and no longer display it on their site. India, with 4,765 requests, is the country that most often asks Facebook to remove content.

While Vodafone’s report publishes no statistics on Indian data requests, because such disclosure would be illegal, it does discuss the legal considerations they are faced with. In India, the report explains, several laws govern Internet communications. The Information Technology Act (ITA) of 2000 is the parent legislation governing information technology in India. The ITA allows certain members of Indian national or state governments order an interception of a phone call or other communication in real time, for a number of reasons. According to the report, an interception can be ordered “if the official in question believes that it is necessary to do so in the: (a) interest of sovereignty and integrity of India; (b) the security of the State; (c) friendly relations with foreign states; (d) public order; or (e) the prevention of incitement of offences.” In short, it is fairly easy for a high-ranking official to order a wiretapping in India.

The report goes on to detail Indian authorities’ abilities to request other customer data beyond a lawful interception. The Code of Criminal Procedure allows a court or police officer to ask Vodafone and other telecom companies to produce “any document or other thing” that the officer believes is necessary for any investigation. The ITA extends this ability to any information stored in any computer, and requires service providers to extend their full assistance to the government. Thus, it is not only legally simple to order a wiretapping in India; it is also very easy for authorities to obtain customer web or communication data at any time.

It is clear that Indian laws governing communication have very little protections in place for consumer privacy. However, many in India hope to change this reality. The Group of Experts chaired by Justice AP Shah, the Department of Personnel and Training, along with other concerned groups have been working towards the drafting of a privacy legislation for India. According to the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the legislation would fix the 50 or so privacy laws in India that are outdated and unable to protect citizen’s privacy when they use modern technology.

On the other hand, the Indian government is moving forward with a number of plans to further infringe the privacy of civilians. For example, the Central Monitoring System, a clandestine electronic surveillance program, gives India’s security agencies and income tax officials direct access to communications data in the country. The program began in 2007 and was announced publicly in 2009 to little fanfare and muted public debate. The system became operational in 2013.

Conclusion

Vodafone’s report indicates that it is concerned about protecting its customer’s privacy, and Vodafone’s disclosure report is an important step forward for consumer web and communication privacy. The report stresses that company practice and government policy need to come together to protect citizen’s privacy and –businesses cannot do it alone. However, the report reveals what companies can do to effect privacy reform. By challenging authorities abilities to access customer data, as well as publishing information about these powers, they bring the issue to the government’s attention and open it up to public debate. Through Vodafone’s report, the public can see why their governments are making surveillance decisions. Yet, in India, there is still little adoption of transparent business practices such as these. Perhaps if more companies were transparent about the level of government surveillance their customers were being subjected to, their practices and policies for responding to requests from law enforcement, and the laws and regulations that they are subject to - the public would press the government for stronger privacy safeguards and protections.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/vodafone-report-explains-govt-access-to-customer-data

UK’s Interception of Communications Commissioner — A Model of Accountability

joe — 2014-07-24T06:08:53Z

The United Kingdom maintains sophisticated electronic surveillance operations through a number of government agencies, ranging from military intelligence organizations to police departments to tax collection agencies. However, all of this surveillance is governed by one set of national laws outlining specifically what surveillance agencies can and cannot do.

The primary law that governs government investigations is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, abbreviated as RIPA 2000.

To ensure that this law is being followed and surveillance operations in the United Kingdom are not conducted illegally, the RIPA 2000 Part I establishes an Interception of Communications Commissioner, who is tasked with inspecting the surveillance operations, assessing their legality, and compiling an annual report to for the Prime Minister.

On April 8, 2014 the current Commissioner, Rt Hon. Sir Anthony May, laid the 2013 annual report before the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament. In its introduction, the report notes that it is responding to concerns raised as a result of Edward Snowden’s actions, especially misuse of powers by intelligence agencies and invasion of privacy. The report also acknowledges that the laws governing surveillance, and particularly RIPA 2000, are difficult for the average citizen to understand, so the report includes a narrative outline of relevant provisions in an attempt to make the legislation clear and accessible. However, the report points out that while the Commissioner had complete access to any documents or investigative records necessary to construct the report, the Commissioner was unable to publish surveillance details indiscriminately, due to confidentiality concerns in a report being issued to the public. (It is worth noting here that though the Commissioner is one man, he has an entire agency working under him, so it is possible that he himself did not do or write all of that the report attributes to him). As a whole, the report outlines a series of thorough audits of surveillance operations, and reveals that the overwhelming majority of surveillance in the UK is conducted entirely legally, and that the small minority of incorrectly conducted surveillance appears to be unintentional. Looking beyond the borders of the United Kingdom, the report represents a powerful model of a government initiative to ensure transparency in surveillance efforts across the globe.

The Role of the Commissioner

The report begins in the first person, by outlining the role of the Commissioner. May’s role, he writes, is primarily to audit the interception of data, both to satisfy his own curiosity and to prepare a report for the Prime Minister. Thus, his primary responsibility is to review the lawfulness of surveillance actions, and to that end, his organization possesses considerable investigative powers. He is also tasked with ensuring that prisons are legally administrated, though he makes this duty an afterthought in his report.

Everyone associated with surveillance or interception in the government must disclose whatever the commissioner asks for. In short, he seems well equipped to carry out his work. The Commissioner has a budget of £1,101,000, almost all of which, £948,000 is dedicated to staff salaries.

The report directly addresses questions about the Commissioner’s ability to carry out his duties. Does the Commissioner have full access to whatever materials or data it needs to conduct its investigations, the report asks, and it answers bluntly, yes. It is likely, the report concludes, that the Commissioner also has sufficient resources to adequately carry out his duties. Yes, the Commissioner is fully independent from other government interests; the commissioner answers his own question. Finally, the report asks if the Commissioner should be more open in his reports to the public about surveillance, and he responds that the sensitivity of the material prohibits him from disclosing more, but that the report adequately addresses public concern regardless. There is a degree to which this question and answer routine seems self-congratulatory, but it is good to see that the Commissioner is considering these questions as he carries out his duties.

Interception of Communications

The report first goes into detail about the Commissioner’s audits of communications interception operations, where interception means wiretapping or reading the actual content of text messages, emails, or other communications, as opposed to the metadata associated with communications, such as timestamps and numbers contacted. In this section, the report outlines the steps necessary to conduct an interception, outlining that an interception requires a warrant, and only a Secretary of State (one of five officials) can authorize an interception warrant. Moreover, the only people who can apply for such warrants are the directors of various intelligence, police, and revenue agencies. In practice, the Secretaries of State have senior staff that read warrant applications and present those they deem worthy to the Secretary for his or her signature, as their personal signature is required for authorization.

For a warrant to be granted, it must meet a number of criteria. First, interception warrants must be necessary in the interests of national security, to prevent or detect serious crime, or to safeguard economic wellbeing of the UK. Additionally, a warrant can be granted if it is necessary for similar reasons in other countries with mutual assistance agreements with the UK. Warrants must be proportionate to the ends sought. Finally, interception warrants for communications inside the UK must specify either a person or a location where the interception will take place. Warrants for communications outside of the UK require no such specificity.

In 2013, 2760 interception warrants were authorized, 19% fewer warrants than in 2012. The Commissioner inspected 26 different agencies and examined 600 different warrants throughout 2013. He gave inspected agencies a report on his findings after each inspection, so they could see whether or not they were following the law. He concluded that the agencies that undertake interception “do so lawfully, conscientiously, effectively, and in our national interest.” Thus, all warrants adequately meet the application and authorization requirements outlined in RIPA 2000.

Communications Data

The report goes on to discuss communications data collection, where communications data refers to metadata–not the content of the communications itself, but data associated with it, such as call durations, or a list of email recipients. The Commissioner explains that metadata is easier to obtain than an interception warrant. Designated officials in their respective surveillance organization read and grant metadata warrant applications, instead of one of the Secretaries of State who could grant interception warrants. Additionally, the requirements for a metadata warrant are looser than for interception warrants. Metadata warrants must still be necessary, but necessary for a broader range of causes, ranging from collecting taxes, protecting public health, or for any purpose specified by a Secretary of State.

The relative ease of obtaining a metadata warrant is consistent with a higher number of warrants approved. In 2013, 514,608 metadata warrants were authorized, down from 570,135 in 2012. Local law enforcement applied for 87.5% of those warrants while intelligence agencies accounted for 11.5%. Only a small minority of requests was sent from the revenue office or other departments.

The purposes of these warrants were similarly concentrated. 76.9% of metadata warrants were issued for prevention or detection of crime. Protecting national security justified 11.4% of warrants and another 11.4% of warrants were issued to prevent death or injury. 0.2% of warrants were to identify people who had died or otherwise couldn’t identify themselves, 0.11% of warrants were issued to protect the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom, and 0.02% of warrants were associated with tax collection. The Commissioner identified less than 0.01% of warrants as being issued in a miscarriage of justice, a very low proportion.

The Commissioner inspected metadata surveillance efforts, conducting 75 inspections in 2013, and classified the practices of those operations inspected as good, fair or poor. 4% of operations had poor practices. He noticed two primary errors. The first was that data was occasionally requested on an incorrect communications address, and the second was that he could not verify that some metadata was not being stored past its useful lifetime. May highlighted that RIPA 2000 does not give concrete lengths for which data should be stored, as Section 15(3) states only that data must be deleted “as soon as there are no longer grounds for retaining it as necessary for any of the authorized purposes.” He noted that he was only concerned because some metadata was being stored for longer periods than associated interception data. As May put it, “I have yet to satisfy myself fully that some of these periods are justified and in those cases I required the agencies to shorten their retention periods or, if not, provide me with more persuasive reasons.” The Commissioner seems determined that this practice will either be eliminated or better justified to him in the near future.

Indian Applications

The United Kingdom’s Interception of Communications Commissioner has similar powers to the Indian Privacy Commissioner suggested by the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy. Similar to the United Kingdom, it is recommended that a Privacy Commissioner in India have investigative powers in the execution of its charter, and that the Privacy Commissioner represent citizen interests, ensuring that data controllers are in line with the stipulated regulations. The Report also broadly states that “with respect to interception/access, audio & video recordings, the use of personal identifiers, and the use of bodily or genetic material, the Commissioner may exercise broad oversight functions.” In this way, the Report touches upon the need for oversight of surveillance, and suggests that this responsibility may be undertaken by the Privacy Commissioner, but does not clearly place this responsibility with the Privacy Commissioner. This raises the question of if India should adopt a similar model to the United Kingdom – and create a privacy commissioner – responsible primarily for overseeing and enforcing data protection standards, and a separate surveillance commissioner – responsible for overseeing and enforcing standards relating to surveillance measures. When evaluating the different approaches there are a number of considerations that should be kept in mind:

Law enforcement and security agencies are the exception to a number of data protection standards including access and disclosure.
There is a higher level of ‘sensitivity’ around issues relating to surveillance than data protection and each needs to be handled differently.
The ‘competence’ required to deliberate on issues related to data protection is different then the ‘competence’ required deliberating on issues related to surveillance.

Additionally, this raises the question of whether India needs a separate regulation governing data protection and a separate regulation governing surveillance.

Allegations of Wrongdoing

It is worth noting that though May describes surveillance operations conducted in compliance with the law, many other organizations have accused the UK government of abusing their powers and spying on citizens and internet users in illegal ways. The GCHQ, the government’s communications surveillance center has come under particular fire. The organization has been accused indiscriminate spying and introducing malware into citizen’s computers, among other things. Led by the NGO Privacy International, internet service providers around the world have recently lodged complaints against the GCHQ, alleging that it uses malicious software to break into their networks. Many of these complaints are based on the information brought to light in Edward Snowden’s document leaks. Privacy International alleges that malware distributed by GCHQ enables access to any stored content, logging keystrokes and “the covert and unauthorized photography or recording of the user and those around him,” which they claim is similar to physically searching through someone’s house unbeknownst to them and without permission. They also accuse GCHQ malware of leaving devices open to attacks by others, such as identity thieves.

Snowden’s files also indicate a high level of collaboration between GCHQ and the NSA. According to the Guardian, which analyzed and reported on many of the Snowden files, the NSA has in past years paid GCHQ to conduct surveillance operations through the US program called Prism. Leaked documents report that the British intelligence agency used Prism to generate 197 intelligence reports in the year to May 2012. Prism is not mentioned at all in the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s report. In fact, while the report’s introduction explains that it will attempt to address details revealed in Snowden’s leaked documents, very little of what those documents indicate is later referenced in the report. May ignores the plethora of accusations of GCHQ wrongdoing.

Thus, while May’s tone appears genuine and sincere, the details of his report do little to dispel fears of widespread surveillance. It is unclear whether May is being totally forthcoming in his report, especially when he devotes so little energy to directly responding to concerns raised by Snowden’s leaks.

Conclusion

May wrapped up his report with some reflections on the state of surveillance in the United Kingdom. He concluded that RIPA 2000 protects consumers in an internet age, though small incursions are imaginable, and especially lauds the law for it’s technological neutrality. That is, RIPA 2000 is a strong law because it deals with surveillance in general and not with any specific technologies like telephones or Facebook, use of which changes over time. The Commissioner also was satisfied that powers were not being misused in the United Kingdom. He reported that there have been a small number of unintentional errors, he noted, and some confusion about the duration of data retention. However, any data storage mistakes seemed to stem from an unspecific law.

Despite May’s report of surveillance run by the books, other UK groups have accused GCHQ, the government’s communications surveillance center, of indiscriminate spying and introducing malware into citizen’s computers. Privacy International has submitted a claim arguing that a litany of malware is employed by the GCHQ to log detailed personal data such as keystrokes. The fact that May’s report does little to disprove these claims casts the Commissioner in an uncertain light. It is unclear whether surveillance is being conducted illegally or, as the report suggests, all surveillance of citizens is being conducted as authorized.

Still, the concept of a transparency report and audit of a nation’s surveillance initiatives report is a step towards government accountability done right, and should serve as a model for enforcement methods in other nations. May’s practice of giving feedback to the organizations he inspects allows them to improve, and the public report he releases serves as a deterrent to illegal surveillance activity. The Interception of Communications Commissioner–provided he reports truthfully and accurately–is what gives the safeguards built into the UK’s interception regime strength and accountability. In other nations looking to establish privacy protections, a similar role would make their surveillance provisions balanced with safeguards and accountability to ensure that the citizens fundamental rights–including the right to privacy–are not compromised.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/uk-interception-of-communications-commissioner-a-model-of-accountability

Surat’s Massive Surveillance Network Should Cause Concern, Not Celebration

joe — 2014-09-06T03:05:13Z

The blog post examines the surveillance network of Surat, a city in Gujarat state in India.

The Surveillance System

Surat, a city in the state of Gujarat, has recently unveiled a comprehensive closed-circuit camera surveillance system that spans almost the entire city. This makes Surat the first Indian city to have a modern, real-time CCTV system, with eye-tracking software and night vision cameras, along with intense data analysis capabilities that older systems lack.

Similar systems are planned for cities across India, from Delhi to Punjab, even those that already have older CCTV programs in place. Phase I of the system, which is currently completed, consists of 104 CCTV cameras installed at 23 locations and a 280 square foot video wall at the police control room. The video wall is one of the largest in the country, according to the Times of India.

Narendra Modi, then the Gujarat chief minister, launched the project in January 2013, though the project was original conceptualized by police commissioner Rakesh Asthana, who has cited the CCTV system in Scotland Yard as his inspiration.

Phase II of the surveillance project will involve the installation of 550 cameras at 282 locations, and in the future, police plan to install over 5000 cameras across the city. Though other security systems, like those in Delhi, rely on lines from the state owned service provider MTNL, with limited bandwidth for their CCTV network, the Surat system has its own dedicated cables.

The security system was financed by a unique Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model, where a coalition of businesses, including many manufacturing units and representatives of Surat’s textile industry want to prevent crime. The many jewelers in the city also hoped it would limit thefts. In the model, businesses interested in joining the coalition contribute Rs 25 lakh as a one-time fee and the combined fees along with some public financing go to construct the city-wide system. The chairman of the coalition is always the Commissioner of Surat Police. Members of the coalition not only get a tax break, but also believe they are helping to create a safer city for their industries to thrive.

Arguments for the System

Bomb blasts in Ahmedabad in 2008 led the Gujarat police to consider setting up surveillance systems not just in Ahmedabad, according to Scroll.in, but in many cities including Surat. Terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008 and at the Delhi High Court in 2011 lent momentum to surveillance efforts, as did international responses to terror, such as the United Kingdom’s intensive surveillance efforts in response to 2005 bombing in London. The UK’s security system has become so comprehensive that Londoners are caught on camera over 300 times a day on average. The UK’s CCTV systems cost over £500 million between 2008 and 2012, and one single crime has been solved in London for every 1,000 cameras each year, according to 2008 Metropolitan Police figures.

However, citizens in London may feel safer in their surveillance state knowing that the Home Office of the United Kingdom regulates how CCTV systems are used to ensure that cameras are being used to protect and not to spy. The UK’s Surveillance Camera Code of Practice outlines a thorough system of safeguards that make CCTV implementation less open to abuse. India currently has no comparable regulation.

The combined government worries of terrorism and business owners desire to prevent crime led to Surat’s unique PPP, ournalist Suarav Datta’s article in Scroll.in continues. Though the Surat Municipal Corporation invested Rs 2 crore, business leaders demonstrated their support for the surveillance system by donating the remaining Rs 10 crore required to build the first phase system. Phase II will cost Rs 21 crore, with the state government investing Rs 3 crore and business groups donating the other Rs 18 crore. This finance model demonstrates both public and private support for the CCTV system.

Why CCTV systems may do more harm than good

Despite hopes that surveillance through CCTV systems may prevent terrorism and crime, evidence suggests that it is not as much of a golden bullet as its proponents believe. In the UK, for example, where surveillance is practice extensively, the number of crimes captured on camera dropped significantly in 2010, because there were so many cameras that combing through all the hours footage was proving to be an exercise in futility for many officers. According to Suaray Datta’s article on Scroll.in, potential offenders in London either dodge cameras or carry out their acts in full view of them, which detracts from the argument that cameras deter crime. Additionally, prosecutors allege that the CCTV systems are of little value in court, because the quality of the footage is so low that it cannot provide conclusive proof of identities.

A 2008 study in San Francisco showed that surveillance cameras produce only a placebo effect–they do not deter crime, they just move it down the block, away from the cameras. In Los Angeles, more dramatically, there was little evidence that CCTV cameras helped detect crime, because in high traffic areas the number of cameras and operators required is so high, and because the city’s system was privately funded, the California Research Bureau’s report noted that it was open to exploitation by private interests pursuing their own goals. Surat’s surveillance efforts are largely privately funded too, a vulnerability that could lead to miscarriages of justice if private security contractors were to gain to security footage.

More evidence of the ineffectiveness of CCTV surveillance comes in the Boston marathon bombing of 2013 and the attack on the Indian parliament in 2001. In the case of the Boston bombing, release of CCTV footage to the general public led to rampant and unproductive speculation about the identity of the bomber, which resulted in innocent spectators being unfairly painted with suspicion.

India’s lack of regulation over CCTV’s also makes Surat’s new system susceptible to misuse. There is currently no strong legislation that protects citizens filmed on CCTV from having their images exploited or used inappropriately. Only police will have access to the recordings, Surat officials say, but the police themselves cannot always be trusted to adequately respect the rights of the citizens they are trying to protect.

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy acknowledges the lack of regulations on CCTV surveillance, and recommends that CCTV footage be legally protected from abuse. However, the Report notes that regulating CCTV surveillance to the standards of the National Privacy Principals they establish earlier in the report may not be possible for a number of reasons. First, it will be difficult to limit the quantity of information collected because the cameras are simply recording video of public spaces, and is unlikely that individuals will be able to access security footage of themselves. However, issues of consent and choice can be addressed by indicating that CCTV surveillance is taking place on entryways to monitored spaces.

Surat is not the first place in India to experiment with mass CCTV surveillance. Goa has mandated surveillance cameras in beach huts to monitor the huts and deter and detect crime. The rollout is slow and ongoing, and some of the penalties the cameras are intended to enforce seem too severe, such as potentially three months in prison for having too many beach chairs. More worryingly, there are still no laws ensuring that the footage will only be used for its proper law-enforcement objectives. Clear oversight is needed in Goa just as it is in Surat. The Privacy Commissioner outlined by the Report of the Group of Experts could be well suited to overseeing the proper administration of CCTV installations, just as the Commissioner would oversee digital surveillance.

Concerns of privacy and civil liberties appear to have flown out the window in Surat, with little public debate. It is unclear that Surat’s surveillance efforts will achieve any of their desired effects, but without needed safeguards they will present an opportunity for abuse. Perhaps CCTV initiatives need to be subjected to a little bit more scrutiny.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/surat-massive-surveillance-network-cause-of-concern-not-celebration