Introduction

• The age of mass surveillance is undeniably amidst us. As “order” from the Home Ministry, using the euphemism “competent authority”, declared that “any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource” is of interest to the state.
• Ergo, the competent authority “hereby authorises the following Security and Intelligence Agencies” to intercept, monitor and decrypt any such information.

What Does it Mean?

It simply means state can have access to all your digital data including what you consider personal and sensitive. The state is trying use NATIONAL SECURITY as an excuse to legally violate our right to privacy.

The Case of Edward Snowden

• Edward Snowden had to risk his life and liberty to let the people of the United States, and the rest of the world, know that the U.S. establishment was using a secretly negotiated law and judges and courts that operated in secret and issued secret orders granting hordes of requests to carry on a programme of mass surveillance.

Is such Surveillance necessary?

• The USA defended their move by saying that the surveillance is not over citizens rather it is on others, which is necessary for keeping terrorist, spies etc.
• However, in case of India the proclamation of power of the government is over the people, which is definitely not in line with the democratic ethos of our country.
• More concerning is the fact is the swiftness with which we have skittered down the path that leads to extraordinary assumption of power of the state over the people.

It All started with UIDAI

• When the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) project was launched, it soon became plain that the ID project which had begun with addressing the issue of Pakistani infiltration into India and then moved to illegal migration from Bangladesh had found its resting place in “leakage in service delivery”.
• Even though the project was projected as saviour of poor whose ration was not reaching to them but still there were many who were warning about the surveillance potential of the project.
• This began to manifest itself when everyone was coerced to enrol in the UID database and then to link the number to every database, and then we noticed the UIDAI had planned for “organic” and “inorganic” linking of numbers: that is, it could be with the individual’s consent, or the number could simply be seeded in various databases using a software created by the UIDAI.
• Then there were the State Resident Data Hubs (SRDH) that the UIDAI trained States to create, that would provide a 360-degree view of the individual which the state could keep expanded and updated. 
• The majority judges in the Puttaswamy II case did not see the surveillance aspects of the project. Yet, significantly, they were able to uphold the project because they did not see the surveillance in the 360-degree view.
• The very idea of mass surveillance by state which pursues what an aadhaar number holder (ANH) does all the time and based on Aadhaar is an absurdity and impossibility.”

State, surveillance and technology

• This era of surveillance can only be achieved with the complicity of technology companies. 
• There is something deeply disturbing about the government holding “confidential” meetings with representatives of Google, Facebook, WhatsApp, Amazon, Yahoo, Twitter and ShareChat to discuss how to put a people under surveillance.
• This relationship between the state, surveillance and technology companies is not new. Between 2001, after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre, and 2007, telecom companies in the U.S. were involved in “warrantless surveillance”. This was in breach of the law even back then.

Right to Privacy

• In August 2017, nine judges of the Supreme Court were expansive in their endorsement of privacy as a fundamental right. 
• The court categorically rejected the challenge that had been set up by the government to the existence of the right.

Response of the Government

• The government has, however, been reluctant to accept this verdict.
• In April 2018, even as a Constitutional Bench was listening to arguments on the UID matter, which included concerns about surveillance, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting revealed its plan to set up a technology platform to collect “digital media chatter”.
• This Platform support easy management of conversational logs with each individual, with capabilities to merge it across channels to help creating a 360-degree view of the people – violating privacy of millions.

Way Forward

•  It is difficult to reconcile the notion of national security and sharing all manner of personal information with companies and governments.
• In this context Justice D.Y. Chandrachud rightly noted: “If every tweet and WhatsApp message was to be monitored by the government, it will be like creating a surveillance state.”
• The need of the hour is clearly stated by Justice S.K. Kaul by saying “Let the right to privacy, an inherent right, be unequivocally a fundamental right embedded in Part III of the Constitution of India, but subject to the restriction specified, relatable to that part. This is the call of today. The old order change yielding place to the new.”
• Thus, mass surveillance is not acceptable at any cost or under any banner.

Keynotes/Keywords from Article:

• The article is emphasising on Right to Privacy.
• Please note down the statement of judges and try to use it in your answers.