Surveillance state is a breach of individual privacy.
Do you think
modern states like India can be called surveillance states? Critically
analyze with a suitable case study.
As technology develops, every single human’s behavior is being closely watched by a third
party. The term "surveillance state" refers to a situation where the government extensively
monitors its citizens, potentially infringing upon individual privacy rights. It collects
information on everyone without regard to guilt, stating that it’s necessary to fight terrorism,
prevent crime, and protect national security. A surveillance state aims at preventive,
everyday, mass surveillance and considers surveillance as the solution to complex social
issues. They cannot be questioned because they have a monopoly on knowledge.
The surveillance is often carried out by local and federal governments, but it can also be
conducted by private organizations on behalf of the government. Depending on a country’s
laws and judicial system, the legality of and permission required to engage in mass
surveillance vary. This acts as an indicator of a distinguishing feature of a totalitarian regime
as well as targeted surveillance.
India is empowered to perform targeted surveillance in the form of interception. Both
untargeted and targeted surveillance are routinely accused of treating innocent people as
suspects in unfair ways and violating human rights, national laws, and international treaties.
While mass and lateral surveillance equally curb the right to privacy and freedom of
expression, targeted surveillance happens in an ad hoc manner, which allows the state to
create a task with a particular purpose based on the situation. A state cannot confine the
modern surveillance system to a domestic issue. Cross-border surveillance is becoming
increasingly prevalent, and the laws controlling it have not kept up. Some countries don’t
have any restrictions on conducting electronic surveillance outside their borders.
Legally, there are enough justifications given by the state to oversee the actions of its own
citizens, but privacy protection exists for the surveillance of noncitizens. The problem of the
surveillance state is not so much what the state does with the data. The surveillance state is
dangerous not so much because it violates some standard of privacy as because surveillance
fuels control. According to Foucault, knowledge is power. Those who hold the information
can control it.
India, the world’s largest democracy, is also among the biggest surveillance states. The
country ranks behind only Russia and China when it comes to surveilling citizens, the
UK-based research firm Compritech has found. On the company’s privacy index, India scored
2.4 out of 5, indicating a “systemic failure to maintain (privacy) safeguards.” The survey was
conducted across 47 countries, and their privacy safeguards were ranked based on
constitutional protection, statutory protection, privacy enforcement, biometrics, data
sharing, and the government’s access to data, among other things.
Reasons for Considering India as a Surveillance State:
1. Widespread Surveillance Infrastructure: India has significantly expanded its
surveillance infrastructure, including the installation of millions of CCTV cameras in
cities, creating a pervasive monitoring environment. As of 2021, the Forbes list of the
world's most surveilled cities shows that India's capital city, New Delhi, ranks first with
1,826.6 cameras per square mile, while Chennai, which has 609.9 cameras per square
mile, ranks third; London is second (1,138.5 cameras), and Mumbai is at 18 (157.4
cameras). In New Delhi, the 2nd phase of installation of CCTVs has also started.
2. Aadhaar System: An Aadhaar is a unique 12-digit identification number issued to the
citizens of the country by the Government of India as identification proof. The Aadhaar
biometric identification system, while designed to improve government services,
collected vast amounts of personal data, raising concerns about data security and
misuse. There have been a lot of controversies about the privacy-related issues with
Aadhaar as in view of maintaining the data online, the privacy of citizens cannot be
avoided. The linking of Aadhaar cards to bank accounts, UPI applications, etc. has
raised many questions in terms of the Right to Privacy of a citizen.
A related concern that has been highlighted is that even if data is secure, with
Aadhaar-enabled Payments System (AePS), the Aadhaar project has created a
vulnerability to identity fraud, even identity theft. Easy harvesting of biometrics traits and
publicly-available Aadhaar numbers increase the risk of banking fraud. The emerging
AePS architecture opens the door to identity theft. A second privacy concern is from the
‘personal integrity’ point of view, the discomfort from information about our lives being
available to people or institutions with whom we do not wish to share it.
The Supreme Court has said the Aadhaar metadata cannot be stored for more than six
months. The Supreme Court has read down Section 2(d) of the Aadhaar Act to refrain
government authorities from storing Aadhaar metadata of transactions. The Court also
said that the Centre must bring a robust data protection law urgently.
3. Social Media Monitoring: Social media monitoring in India refers to the practice of
tracking and analyzing social media activities, posts, and content by various entities,
including government agencies, law enforcement, businesses, and political
organizations. Indian security and intelligence agencies have been known to monitor
social media for national security purposes. During elections, political parties in India
often engage in social media monitoring to track public sentiment, analyze trends, and
gain insights into voters' preferences. They may also use it to shape their political
messaging. Government agencies sometimes monitor social media to assess the impact
of their policies and initiatives and to understand public opinion and grievances.
The practice of social media monitoring raises concerns about individual privacy. It can
lead to the intrusion into personal conversations and online activities. When individuals
know they are being monitored, they may self-censor, fearing reprisals or consequences
for expressing their opinions or participating in open dialogue. This can stifle free
speech and open discourse. Storing and sharing the vast amount of data collected
through monitoring also possess data security risks. If this data falls into the wrong
hands, it can lead to identity theft, doxxing, or other malicious activities. It potentially
diverts resources from more pressing issues, such as public services or addressing
actual security threats.
4. Surveillance laws: Surveillance laws in India are primarily governed by the Information
Technology Act, 2000, and its associated rules and regulations. These laws set the
framework for electronic surveillance, data protection, and the legal basis for
monitoring and intercepting electronic communications. The Information Technology
Act provides the legal foundation for electronic surveillance, data protection, and the
interception of electronic communications. These laws enable government agencies to
intercept and monitor electronic communication for specific purposes, primarily
national security and law enforcement.
The Act does not provide a comprehensive framework for data protection and privacy,
leaving a significant gap in addressing the increasing privacy concerns of individuals. It
lacks provisions for explicit consent, data protection principles, and the rights of data
subjects. The Act grants the government broad powers to block, restrict, or take down
content that is considered offensive or a threat to national security. This has raised
concerns about censorship and government overreach, impacting freedom of
expression. With the rapid growth of digital payments and the increasing importance of
cybersecurity, the Act may need further amendments and enhancements to address
emerging challenges in these areas adequately.
The Information Technology (Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information)
Rules, 2009: These rules outline the procedures and safeguards for government
agencies to intercept, monitor, and decrypt electronic information. These rules allow
for lawful interception of electronic communications under specific circumstances,
such as in cases of national security or public order. The rules have been criticized for
their lack of clarity and specificity. They do not clearly define the circumstances under
which interception and monitoring are permissible.
In 2021, the Indian government introduced the Information Technology (Intermediary
Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which aim to regulate social
media platforms and digital news organizations. These guidelines place additional
responsibilities on intermediaries to monitor content, cooperate with government
requests, and establish grievance mechanisms.
5. Case Study - Pegasus Spyware: Pegasus is a spyware developed by the NSO Group,
an Israeli technology and cyber-arms firm that can be secretly deployed on mobile
phones and other devices, which run most versions of Android and iOS. Pegasus is
capable of reading text messages, tracking calls, collecting passwords, location
tracking, accessing the target device's microphone and camera, and harvesting
information from apps. Pegasus can send back to the hacker the target’s private data,
including contact lists, calendar events, passwords, text messages, and live voice calls
from popular mobile messaging apps”.
Pegasus has evolved from a crude system that was reliant on social engineering to
software that can compromise a phone without the user having to click on a single link.
This is called Zero-click attack. Since Pegasus is classified as cyber-arms by the Israeli
government, only national governments can purchase the spyware after the
authorisation of the Israeli government. The Pegasus Project initiative investigated the
use of the Pegasus spyware by governments on journalists, opposition politicians,
activists and business people. A target list consisting of 50,000 phone numbers, which
could have been possibly targeted by the spyware, leaked to Forbidden Stories which
spawned this investigation. 300 of these numbers were from India.
The government refused to file a detailed response to the allegations made by the
petitioners citing national security as a reason. The government also pleaded to set up
its own probe which was rejected by the court. The Supreme Court of India stated that
the technical committee had found 'malware' in 5 of the 29 phones, but not able to say
conclusively that the malware found was Pegasus. The Chief Justice also mentioned
that the government refused to cooperate in the investigation.
Reasons Against Considering India as a Surveillance State:
1. Democratic System: India remains a democratic country with a vibrant civil
society and free media, which can act as checks on government surveillance
abuses.
2. Legal Safeguards: India has various legal provisions and a judiciary that can
protect citizens' privacy rights. The Supreme Court of India has recognized the
right to privacy as a fundamental right.
3. Diverse and Varied Context: India is a diverse nation with varying levels of
surveillance and privacy concerns in different regions. Not all states or regions
may exhibit the same surveillance practices.
4. Public Debate: There has been ongoing public debate and scrutiny of government
surveillance activities in India, indicating an awareness of privacy concerns.
In conclusion, while India has exhibited characteristics of a surveillance state, it may not
fit the definition entirely due to its democratic institutions, legal safeguards, and ongoing
public discourse on surveillance-related issues. While India has implemented surveillance
practices and regulations that have raised privacy and civil liberties concerns, there are
important factors to consider that mitigate the characterization of India as a surveillance
state. Thus, it would not be accurate to classify India as a surveillance state.
