Common Cause, a non-governmental organisation, in collaboration with the Centre for Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), on Friday launched its annual report on “Status of Policing in India Report 2023: Surveillance and the Question of Privacy.”
Ghazala Ahmad | Clarion India
NEW DELHI — Acknowledging that the State has reasons to keep surveillance depending upon the situation, former Supreme Court Judge J. Chelameswar said there should be “an amount of transparency in the process”.
He also emphasised the need to exert “democratic pressure” on lawmakers and Parliament to create a rational legal system to regulate the monitoring of citizens.
“When I talk about governments, I do not talk about any political party. Whichever political party is in the government, there is a change in the hardware, but the software is the same,” he said here on Friday during a panel discussion on “Re-thinking Surveillance: How Much is too Much?”
Justice Chelameswar, who acted as Chief Justice of the Kerala and Gauhati High Courts also, lamented that all political parties in power have never prioritised making the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) stable, statutory, or rational.
He then posed a question: As a society, can we apply democratic pressure on lawmakers, parliament, and the legislatures to rationalise the practices and institutions related to surveillance?
Delivering the keynote address at the release of a report on the status of policing in India at the India Habitat Centre here, the former judge of the apex court advocated for a strong privacy law. “It is necessary to ascertain whether private citizens’ data is being collected for the public good,” he said.
Any action taken by the State, he said, was intended for the betterment of the people. But this can only be confirmed if there was a law in place to regulate the collection of data. Without such a law, it would be difficult to determine if that surveillance serves the people’s interests or it merely depended on the whims of those in power, he added.
The event was organized by Common Cause, a non-governmental organisation, in collaboration with the Centre for Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) to launch its annual report on “Status of Policing in India Report 2023: Surveillance and the Question of Privacy.”
The report’s launch was followed by the panel discussion which was addressed by prominent speakers from different organisations and experts in their respective fields.
Moderating the panel discussion, Anjali Bharadwaj, Co-convener of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, talked about accountability and transparency when it comes to surveillance.
Bharadwaj is a long-time activist for transparency on accountability in all institutions, be it governmental bodies or political parties.
Prakash Singh, former DGP of Uttar Pradesh and Assam, a retired IPS officer who has been advocating for police reforms, said surveillance has been a part of human societies since time immemorial. However, with the rapid advancements in technology, the government now has access to sophisticated surveillance tools.
“Certain agencies in India have been granted permission to conduct surveillance, but the authorisation must come from the Home Ministry. Approximately 1 lakh sanctions for surveillance are granted each year, which amounts to around 250 per day,” he said.
Singh emphasised giving careful consideration to each case, given the high volume of surveillance cases. “Additionally, there is no accountability if a mistake is made and the wrong person is put under surveillance,” he said.
In Singh’s view, due diligence is not being exercised in the current surveillance system.
Prof. Ruchi Sinha, who teaches Criminology and Justice at Mumbai’s Tata Institute of Social Sciences, said that private tech corporations do surveillance of the citizens’ most private desires and monetise them and that this should cause outrage. “We are victims of horizontal surveillance. Contemporary surveillance is asymmetrical. The data capture is giving power to the corporations.”
She expressed her grave concern at how social media and other Internet-based platforms use the data as a footprint and track the personal choices of individuals.
“This data footprint is the bias of the person who has done the coding,” she said.
“This tracking can be harmful as it is uncertain whether the person who is doing the coding is trained in human rights or sensitivity?” And the moot question is, she said, how that person will use the gathered information.”
She also suggested that the younger generation must stop relying on the internet for basic things in order to avoid being put under surveillance.
Apar Gupta, Executive Director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, noted that digital surveillance is not a recent phenomenon. In this regard, he cited the Malimath and Madhava Menon Committee reports from early 2000 which discussed electronic surveillance as evidence that the government has long sought to normalise systematic monitoring.
The SPIR 2023 is a unique study in India that examines public attitudes and experiences regarding digital surveillance. This study comes at a time when discussions on data protection and privacy have been amplified due to recent events, such as the Supreme Court’s ruling on the right to privacy.
The study very closely examines the government’s purported use of Pegasus spyware and the implementation of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, which empowers the police to gather biometric data from individuals under their custody.
How SPIR is carried out?
To carry out this report, the Common Cause, in collaboration with the Lokniti Programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, conducted a face-to-face survey with 9,779 individuals across 12 Indian states and Union Territories to understand perceptions around digital surveillance.
The study also involved group discussions involving experts, in-depth interviews with serving police officials, and an analysis of media coverage of surveillance-related issues.
The report’s key findings reveal a significant degree of public backing for certain types of government surveillance, while simultaneously indicating a general lack of public knowledge concerning critical matters such as the Pegasus controversy and the Puttaswamy case.
The report’s findings are consistent with previous SPIR surveys, indicating that the public generally supports government surveillance and is in favor of police action, including the use of violence. Interestingly, the level of support for surveillance is correlated with the socio-economic status of the respondent, with richer respondents demonstrating greater support.
It highlights that conversely, marginalised groups such as Adivasis, Dalits, Muslims, and the poor exhibit the lowest level of trust in the police.
Findings of the report
* The number of CCTV cameras with the police is significantly lower than the number of cameras within the cities, and there is no statistically significant relationship between the CCTVs available with the police and the rates of cognisable crimes.
* The capacity to handle cybercrimes does not match the high volumes of registration of cybercrimes in even high registration states.
* Unchecked surveillance by the State is the biggest cause for concern among stakeholders, and there was consensus that surveillance technologies require better oversight.
* The support for surveillance technologies amongst the general public stems from ignorance about the right to privacy, and the public views surveillance as an effective tool for public safety and national security.
* The poorest are least likely to support the installation of CCTVs at any location and Adivasis and Muslims are the most critical of the police collecting biometric details of all suspects.
* People strongly support the use of drones and FRT by government agencies, but farmers and the poorest are most likely to oppose drone usage by government agencies.
* Over half of the people strongly justify using CCTV cameras to control protests and nearly two out of three respondents believe that political parties surveil citizens for electoral gains.
* One out of five people believes that it is right for the government to monitor people’s social media posts.
* A significant number of respondents believe that government surveillance through various means such as CCTVs (52%), drones (30%), and FRT (25%) to suppress protests and political movements is justified to a great extent. The people of Punjab are least likely to support government surveillance during protests, while those from Gujarat are most likely to support it.
All the findings are based on the real-time case studies and surveys done by Common Cause, a registered society dedicated to championing public causes, campaigns for probity in public life and integrity of institutions, and CSDS. It is one of India’s leading institutes for research in social sciences and humanities.
The report is accessible on the CSDS website.
