Opinion Berry,berry complicated

Let’s note here that the BlackBerry issue is not per se a matter of personal freedom vs national security. India’s espiocrats don’t get hyper worried about many other communication devices/ services. These can be presumably comfortably monitored. Clearly,freedom is not the issue when you are using,say,an iPhone or a Nokia N-series phone and I am using a BlackBerry. Technology is the issue.

An extraordinary amount of stuff we send and receive across various communication platforms can be and/ or are read by many governments and corporations. Fact of life,as they say. Not a comfortable fact,and some smart people around the world are fighting it and looking for technological/ regulatory pro-privacy solutions. May they succeed. But the point remains that BlackBerry users in India,or in other countries where governments are worrying about RIM’s phones,are not the symbol of a fight between freedom and Big Brother. They are a symbol of complicated,seldom-made-public negotiations between Big Brother and Big Technology.

This brings us,as we said,to the first set of problems: perceived or real differential treatments of various Big Brothers by Big Technology. Why is it that the hyper security conscious,democratic US government and the hyper everything conscious,undemocratic Chinese government are both comfortable with BlackBerry services? What were the deals RIM struck with them and other major countries?

China reportedly had a long negotiation before BlackBerry services were allowed in. But some technology commentators also say the BlackBerry Messenger service — the hardest-to-decode offering from RIM — is a hit with young Chinese precisely because exchanges on this platform can’t be automatically monitored. Are the grey men in Beijing okay with that? We don’t know,and we won’t get to know any substantive details of issues like these.

That’s why when American officials talk about things like information freedom in the context of BlackBerry services we must pay more attention to what BlackBerry-banning UAE says. UAE says it wants the same treatment from RIM that the Canadian company gave to major Western nations. It’s a valid point. And we need to work that point in when we assess India’s home ministry’s demands as well.

Of course,some Big Brothers are nastier than others. Shouldn’t Big Technology be selective? My heart is all for this argument. But my head says: look,RIM is doing business in China. Look,Saudi Arabia,which had big problems with BlackBerry services,is reportedly close to being satisfied. True,Google protested Chinese government intrusion. But it had agreed to be nice to Beijing earlier. And many tech companies simply are in the business of doing business,wherever they can. It is,in fact,unfair to impose the burden of liberty,as it were,on tech companies. Democratic governments are doing business with undemocratic ones.

Plus,there’s another aspect: Western tech companies would have been more selective if they could have afforded it — but market dynamics make listening to major non-Western countries a necessity. RIM’s revenue from non-Western countries is becoming increasingly important to it. India gets a hearing from RIM because it’s a healthy,middle-size market likely to grow quite big.

So,Big Brothers with Big or Biggish Markets behind them have an advantage in the technology/ security issue. But,and here’s the second problem in the technology/ security debate,not all Big Brothers are equally capable. Some tech observers say BlackBerry does not pose a problem to some major countries because their security agencies are in the masterclass of decryption. Mythic powers are ascribed to America’s National Security Agency. But that myth is widely acknowledged to have basis in real,awesome capabilities.

This raises a question for India — a middling power with a self-narrative of technological capability. To what extent are India’s security services’ anxieties a reflection of their less-than-stellar technological capabilities? Do India’s espiocrats sound slightly desperate sometimes because at the high end of the national security business we have a capability gap just as we do at the low end (fighting Maoists with ill-equipped,lowly-paid forces)?

There are media reports that the home ministry wants 3G telecom services to not roll out before official monitoring capabilities are adequate. This is very unimpressive national security management. 3G has been around in other countries for years and India has been talking about it for years. It’s not even the most cutting-edge technology. Surely,India’s espiocrats should have been ready by now?

Technology,as they say,is evolving ever faster. And its spread in a country is linked to its economy’s vitality. As India grows richer,therefore,its security services’ technological capabilities will have to get smarter. And get smarter disproportionately more. America will remain several times richer than India for many decades.

But in terms of communication technology and security concerns,there will be very little gap. There is likely to be more BlackBerry-like challenges. And a big country with global aspirations and a major economy can’t really tell businesses and consumers every now and then that you can’t use that device/ service because we can’t monitor it.

The third problem is the most depressing: the war or battle or combat or response (call it what you will) against terrorism is marked by the fact that the guys that are being fought will,if they can,operate for ever. A conflict between nations can be finite. But when can a major country fighting terrorism say okay we have solved the problem? This built-in open-endedness in tackling terrorism puts enormous pressure on security agencies,especially when combined with technology’s rapid change. Also,this complication brings the issue back to personal freedom from technology.

When a national threat vs national security match up ends,and assuming the latter wins,in sensible democracies at least there can be demands that security agencies give up on some of the monitoring capabilities. But in a match with no end,when can we demand that? Maybe,one day,we will find a way to limit businesses from excessive snooping. But when can we demand,at least in democracies,that official agencies do the same?

Liberalism 101 is great. We love it. But the BlackBerry controversy shows it isn’t enough for the world we live in. That world is,as it were,berry,berry complicated.

saubhik.chakrabarti@expressindia.com