Big brother is listening

Landlines, like Amar Singh8217;s Reliance connection, can be tapped at the telephone exchange, or on the caller8217;s transmission line leading to the exchange. Also, bugs can be placed in the caller8217;s instrument, on an extension, or in the room.

The police typically tap at the phone exchange level, or for international calls, at the international gateways. These are the most sophisticated taps and require the full cooperation of the service providers. The licence agreements of all basic and cellular operators in India require them to provide elaborate facilities to police and intelligence agencies to tap thousands of lines at a time at the exchange level. Taps at the exchange level are almost impossible for the target to detect.

Most private snoopers tap the caller8217;s transmission line leading to the exchange or place bugs on the target8217;s premises. These can be detected by radio frequency RF and very low frequency VLF sweeps.

Security agencies can also point laser-devices at the windows of the room from where the target is speaking. From the minute vibrations of the glass windowpanes, they can reconstruct all the sounds in that room. This is almost impossible to guard against8212;the only solution is for both speaker and listener to use words and phrases that cannot be easily understood by anyone else.

8226; How are cellphones tapped?

The police tap most cellphones at the Mobile Switching Centre MSC or at the Base Station Controllers BSC. These require the full cooperation of the service provider. All cellular operators in India are required to provide the police facilities to tap at least 180 cellphone calls at a time at each MSC.

Over-the-air interception of CDMA and GSM calls requires more elaborate equipment, costing a minimum of US 50,000. But over-the-air interception of GSM calls is also easier in India compared to other countries, since India permits only the weakest A 50 encryption on Indian GSM networks. This was insisted on by the Government to permit easy tapping of terrorists8217; phones. European and NATO countries have the A 51 encryption which is almost impossible to tap, except by the best intelligence agencies.

8226; How do I prevent my cellphone from being tapped?

Several manufacturers abroad make cellular voice and data encryption scramblers. These can be snapped on as attachments to the data port of most cellular phone models, and provide complete end-to-end protection against both voice and data being deciphered by any interceptor. These use technologies such as Advanced Encryption Standard AES, Rijndahl, Diffie-Hellman, Triple DES, etc.

The catch is that both sender and receiver have to have the attachment already installed before the call is initiated. This limits the number of people whom the caller can phone. These cards cost Rs 80,000 to Rs 1.5 lakh, and their use requires prior permission of the Indian Government. They are also subject to export controls in their countries of manufacture.

Moreover, even if they cannot decipher the actual contents of your conversation, the cellular operator can detect that you are using the encryption cards. And the police can then call you in and ask you to explain why you are using these cards.

8226; How do I prevent my landline conversations from being eavesdropped on?

If both parties have personal computers, then they can make calls over the internet. There are several websites, such as http://www.speakfreely.org, which provide software which completely encrypt the conversation end-to-end. But this only works if both the parties have the same software already installed on their PCs. This limits the number of people whom the caller can phone.

The license agreements of all Internet Service Providers in India prevent them from using such strong encryption without the prior permission of the Government. But there is no practical method by which the ISPs can prevent their subscribers from installing such encryption software and making international or domestic calls. Moreover, the legal status of Indian end users using strong encryption is unclear8212;while it is not banned, it is not explicitly allowed either.

Again, even if your ISP cannot decipher the contents of your conversation, it can detect that powerful encryption algorithms are being used. And, again, there may be a call from the police.

Also note that intelligence agencies can use electromagnetic interference devices to capture the tiny electromagnetic emissions from your computer keyboard or phone instrument, and reproduce your key strokes.

For protection against most private snoopers, you can sweep your premises using RF probes in the range of 200 Hz to 3 GHz. These would detect most hidden phones, or body bugs; remote signals; computer, fax or telex transmitters; video transmitters; pulsed-tracking transmitters; and wide-band frequency-hopping or 8216;8216;burst8217;8217; bugs, that are used by most private detectives.

You can also use VLF probes on all your electrical wires, phone lines, and all other wiring in your premises. These will detect the VLF 8216;8216;carrier currents8217;8217; typically used by bugs.

8226; What is the legal position of phone tapping in India?

Phone tapping is almost as old as the introduction of telephones in India, in the early 1880s. Clause 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 authorises tapping by governments at the Centre and states. Tapping the phones of subscribers of private-sector telecom operators are governed by Clauses 39, 40 and 41 of the Unified Services Licence Agreement; these essentially deal with the facilities and assistance that private operators are required to provide to the government for interception and storing.

Section 7 2 b of the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 mentions that the Government should formulate precautions to be taken to prevent improper interception and disclosure of messages. But ever since 1885, no government has formulated any such precautions.

The People8217;s Union for Civil Liberties took the matter to the Supreme Court in 1991. In 1996, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment that essentially stated that the right to a private phone conversation was a Fundamental Right of Privacy, and laid down the following guidelines to be followed for phone tapping:

a An order for telephone tapping in terms of Section 52 of the Act shall not be issued except by the Home Secretary, Government of India, Central Government and Home Secretaries of state governments. In an urgent case the power may be delegated to an officer of the Home Department of the Government of India and by the state governments to an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary. Copy of the order shall be sent to the Review Committee concerned within one week of the passing of the order.

b The order under Section 59 of the Act shall, unless renewed, cease to have effect at the end of the period of two months from the date of issue. The authority which issued the order may, at any time before the end of two-month period, renew the order.

c The Committee shall on its own, within two months of the passing of the order by the authority concerned, investigate whether there is or has been a relevant order under Section 52 of the Act.

d If the committee concludes that there has been a contravention of the provisions of Section 52 of the Act, it shall set aside the order. It shall further direct the destruction of the copies of the intercepted material.

e If the Committee comes to the conclusion that there has been no contravention of the provisions of the Section and that the order stays, the total period of the operation of the order shall not exceed six months.

Interestingly, in the USA, the right to have a private conversation is legally unclear. According to a distinguished US jurist, this is because when the US constitution was written, there were no telephones or telegraphs, let alone technologies in place to permit eavesdropping at a distance.

8226; What are the impediments to amending the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885?

All prime ministers want to be able to spy on their opponents, not just in the opposition but even rivals within their own party. It is significant that while all political parties have called for legislation to regulate phone tapping, Union Law Minister H R Bhardwaj stated that the Law Ministry would not take up the matter on its own. Bhardwaj wanted the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology to take the initiative.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India also abdicated responsibility, stating that it did not have any powers to take action in this matter. This is not entirely true, since under section 11 1 bi of the TRAI Act, TRAI has powers to 8216;8216;ensure compliance of terms and conditions of licence8217;8217;. This means that TRAI can take steps to ensure that all service providers strictly follow all the clauses in their licence agreements regarding interception of messages.

Moreover, under Section 11 1 a ii of the TRAI Act, TRAI can 8216;8216;make recommendations, either suo motu or on a request from the licensor, on terms and conditions of licence to a service provider8217;8217;.

Further, under Section 11 1 a iii, TRAI can 8216;8216;make recommendations, either suo motu or on a request from the licensor, on revocation of licence for non-compliance of terms and conditions of licence8217;8217;. But the actual situation is unclear since it is not mandatory for the Government Dept of Telecom is the Licensor to act on TRAI8217;s recommendations.

The author is a telecom and IT consultant