Recently the snooping scandal hit India and the world when devices of 1,400 people globally, including 121 Indians was compromised after the infectious Pegasus spyware hit their cellphones. This instantly sparked a debate on the government's plans to regulate social media content and platforms by early next year.
At the jam-packed Tata Theatre at NCPA, those supporting the motion included Baijayant Jay Panda and Hindol Sengupta. The former is four time MP and National spokesperson of the BJP while the latter is a journalist and author.
Those against the motion were Ashutosh, former AAP member and Shashi Tharoor, MP and author. The debate was chaired by Siddharth Bhatia, Co- founder of ‘The Wire’.
Hindol Sengupta opened the debate by taking the audience back in time to the 26/11 attacks. “It was only the placement of a camera which gave the evidence of the terrorist and brought him to the gallows.”
Sengputa further stated that national security protects the violation of data and is accepted in Indian courts. He referred to a global survey commission across 24 countries which had deduced that 75 percent of people are pro access of private accounts by law authorities.
Ashutosh began by asking the audience if they would want agencies to be allowed to read their WhatsApp messages under the pretext of national security. “In today’s age it is important to protect our individual liberty and not privacy.
The fundamental of modern society is the individual. The state has only been given the responsibility of regulating and has not been vested with unrestrained power.”
Sengupta countered Ashutosh saying, “London, today has 600,000 cameras installed throughout. London today is a far safer city as compared to New Delhi. If you value privacy it is time that we start valuing national security.”
According to Ashutosh, today, everyone is looked at by the agencies as suspects. We are made to feel as if we are conspiring against the government.
Under the pretext of national security we are told of the involvement of a ‘foreign hand’ and the ‘enemy state’. “Agencies are making laws to help them peep into private lives.
This is only done by an insecure and incompetent government which has monitored instead of implemented the laws that are made to curb crime.”
Jay Panda stuck firmly at being logical. “The argument of National Security Vs Privacy is not something that is binary. In fact it is about convenience against privacy.
All of us, while using modern day apps and websites have willingly or unknowingly compromised our privacy when we sign those complex agreement clauses.
In recent years there have not been many attacks as a result of growing awareness about national security. We are living in the modern day wherein it is extremely difficult to have utmost privacy,” claimed Panda.
Shashi Tharoor took to the stage to contradict the views of Panda and Sengupta. He began by stating that privacy is the right of the individual to be left alone.
“It is your call on the amount and the quality of data that needs to be shared with others. It is your right to decide what part of data is made accessible by you.”
Tharoor further added that privacy is also about control. “One might allow access to fingerprints for a VISA or entry into a nation. However the same individual might not want the agencies to get access to his phone number.”
According to Tharoor, privacy is essential to safeguard one's dignity. Intimacy in groups and individuals is needed in society. “This has been mentioned by the Supreme Court of India in the Puluswamy judgement as privacy being a fundamental right under Article 21.
The reason that we are against the motion is that today, most governments are using national security as a pretext to erode the privacy of individuals. They argue that national security is more important. Yes it is important.
However it has to be done under a controlled environment where it is responsible and under certain laws. India today does not have any law about allowing agencies to monitor under specific reasons.”
The former Union Minister added that the Human Rights Committee in the United Nations has taken a stand that states must take steps to protect individuals’ data from falling into the hands of unauthorised agents and institutions that are bound to misuse it.
Tharoor concluded by saying that if there is a clear approach in surveillance that is done with integrity then there is no problem. However, the recent snooping scandal has exposed the government's motives and how data can be monitored.
“It is laughable that the government has written to WhatsApp which is in fact the victim of the scandal. The government should have written to NSO but avoided that as NSO provides the software to governments,” he signed off, this time to a standing ovation.
The bottom line is that sovereignty and security cannot be compromised but it doesn't have to conflict with right to privacy either.
