Celling our privacy

What8217;s the difference between ignorance and indifference 8211; I don8217;t know and I don8217;t care. That pretty much sums up the Indian attitude to our own right to privacy, thrown sharply into focus by the accessing and public circulation of private cellphone records in the cash-for-votes scandal. That the BJP would want to find evidence of possible wrong-doing by ruling coalition leaders is understandable. Indeed, if the BJP8217;s allegations turn out to be right, Indian politics will confront a big question. Also, Arun Jaitley had a point when he told this newspaper that like journalists he isn8217;t automatically obligated to reveal his sources. But there8217;s another, bigger point: why was it so apparently easy to get the phone records of an individual, without a court order or a police investigation, and how come a major private telecom company parted with this information? Vodafone, remember, serves 50 million Indian consumers, and is a listed company of global reach and repute.

In India, cellphones have great economic and totemic value, standing in for unshackled upward mobility. They are also digital Swiss-army knives, enfolding a range of functions 8212; the internet revolution that has swept the world is likely to be delivered via cellphones rather than personal computers in India. In such a situation, where vast amounts of personal data will be accessible to cellphone providers, it is vital that their workings are unimpeachable. In fact, the licence agreement explicitly prohibits companies from revealing call details 8212; but clearly, the well-connected manage to obtain details. Vodafone claiming this was a case of 8220;unauthorised access8221; is not enough. It doesn8217;t satisfy consumers. And this is not the first such case and privacy breach is not restricted to one service provider. Journalists have been shown their phone details by sundry politicians in unorthodox attempts to manage news. nbsp;

The implications for civil liberties are disturbing. Though the prospect of someone rifling through your call details may not bother you individually you have nothing to hide or have a healthy sense of your own irrelevance, the fact is that compromising on privacy standards leaves the door open to more dangerous forms of surveillance 8212; it8217;s a short step from divulging call details to bigger forms of unauthorised privacy invasions. The bulk of criminal investigations rests on phone details in India, which an assistant commissioner of police can command. In India, seven designated security agencies have the right to demand this information, and the home secretary can order phone tapping. The American debate over warrantless wiretapping is an acknowledgement of the political abuse that such intelligence gathering can be put to, threatening open debate in a democracy. Americans worry rightly that laws like FISA Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act enable an unbridled executive to turn its 8220;national security8221; surveillance powers to political ends. In India, the Supreme Court has given rulings on the importance of framing rules for privacy. Private telecom companies are bound by such rules as well. Time they got a reminder. nbsp;