The government’s flip-flop on the draft encryption policy regarding users being compelled to store records of private chats and social media messages for 90 days is testimony yet again to its ham-handed approach to the Internet and social and communication platforms. Attempts to pass off the proposed breach of personal freedoms as being just “draft” proposals and trying to pin the blame on the panel set up for drawing up the policy further proves how disconnected official India is when it comes to the way modern society interacts.
The misguided thought of putting the onus on users to impractically store all communication data and produce them at the command of the law enforcement establishment is anathema to the very principles of free India. The government was wrong on Net neutrality and it is wrong again on encryption of data, and it took a huge public outcry for it to accept a second mistake. The high level of paranoia regarding terrorism may not be unfounded. However, the onus of ferreting out sensitive information on security matters is entirely the responsibility of the state.
To expect to shift it to all the people who are connected via mobile Internet or through billions of devices and computer systems betrays a naiveté that does not sit well with a government that likes to believe it is tech-savvy. It is primarily the government’s task to set up efficient organisations to tackle cybercrimes and terrorism by mining meta data on powerful, interlinked computers like those of the NSA of the US and MI5, MI6 and GCHQ of the UK, two countries that are past masters at the art of spying.
Smarter after being bitten by the bugs of data spying, modern communicating platforms are providing encryption, which is now the last preserve of every citizen who values his right to privacy. Having arm-twisted so many companies into surrendering server data, it is up to the government to enlist aid in counter-terrorism. The burden of proof always lies with official India rather than citizens. To define a protocol of layered action in case of suspicion of fraud or terror by bringing in a judicial overview of any policing or investigative need to eavesdrop or glean communications would be the way forward.
Any blanket action, like trying to enlist the whole of India to do the government’s job, is typical of a mindset associated with a regime that feels a compulsive need to control lives At a time when we should be talking about a law protecting privacy, the government is stumbling by proposing half clever methods of breaching fundamental rights.
