INTRODUCTION:

The Surveillance Laws in India started with the enactment of The Telegraph Act, 1885 on 1^st October 1885. This Law was responsible for surveillance and its regulation for more than a century. Later on, with the enactment of The Information Technology Act, 2000 on 9^th June 2000; the surveillance laws in India are monitored under both of these laws. Hence, these two statutory regulations are the only ones that protect our newly recognized Fundamental Right of Privacy.

The Judicial Development of the Fundamental Right to Privacy has been complex, with broadly broad views.

The first case to discuss Privacy as a Fundamental Right was M.P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra¹ in 1954, A bench of 8 Judges held that "There is no concept of Right to Privacy in our Constitution. This Right is available in the United States under the 4^th Amendment of their Constitution." The second major case in 1963 was of Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,² where a bench of 6 Judges clearly stated that the Right to Privacy is not a guarantee under our Constitution.

However, on the other side, Supreme Court Judgments with minor benches held the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right. The Gobind vs. Union of India³ in 1975, a 3-judge bench held that – "India and the freedom of speech create an independent Right of Privacy as an emanation from them which one can characterize as a Fundamental Right, we do not think that the Right is absolute." In another case of R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu⁴ and Peoples Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India⁵ , a 2 Judge bench held that the Right to Privacy is enshrined in Art 21 of The Constitution of India, 1950.

Finally, due to recent conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court against its landmark judgments made the status of the Right to Privacy ambiguous in the Indian Court. Therefore, to have a clear and explicit position on this, the Supreme Court formed an 11 Judge Bench in the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India⁶. In this the bench unanimously held that the Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right enshrined in our Constitution and can be traced to Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21 of The Constitution of India. The Court also stressed the need to enact a law on Data Privacy due to globalization and Technology. Therefore, this Judgement cleared the Court's position concerning Privacy. Hence, this Research Paper will also be viewed with the backdrop of the Right to Privacy and Surveillance Laws in India.

DATA PRIVACY BILL:

In July 2017, a committee was formed in response to the demand of a data protection law. This committee was held under the chairmanship of Justice B.N. Srikrishnan and hence came into being the legal framework draft of Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018. In furtherance of observation laid down in the case of Justice K.S. Puttasawmy vs. Union of India, the Personal Data Protection Bill was drafted based on the report of Justice B.N. Srikrishnan Committee, and introduced in 2019 by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology⁷. According to National Crime Record Bureau, there has been an increase of 11.8% in CyberCrime in 2020. Therefore, this Bill is a need of an hour as The Information technology Act, 2000 is the only legislated Law dealing with cyberspace data privacy and offences. The Preamble of this Bill explicitly mentions that the Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right and that it is necessary to protect this data. Therefore, this Bill strives to protect people from illegal breach of Privacy through means of surveillance, whether done by the State or by any Corporate organization. Some of the Important aspects of this Bill are – 1. Types of Data – The Bill distinguishes data into two types - Personal Data and Sensitive Personal Data. The Bill provides more stringent laws for Sensitive Data than Personal Data as it deals with intimate details of a person that would cause significant harm to him if leaked.

1. Rights of Individual:

This most pertinent part as well as the crux of this Bill. The primary basis for legislating this Law is to protect every individual's Privacy and give the users the power to administer and control their own data and information in cyberspace. This Bill also defines the powers and functions of a Data Fiduciary concerning this user's data collected by them

· Check on the procedure of Data processing followed by Data Fiduciary

· Correction of inaccurate, incomplete personal data

· Restrict the continuing disclosure of their personal data by a fiduciary

· Consent of the individual that is free, informed, clear, specific, and capable of being withdrawn.

2. Transfer of Data Outside India:

· This Bill states that if sensitive personal data has to be processed outside India, then only by explicit consent of the individual to process the data, can it be transferred outside of India; however, such sensitive personal data must be stored in India.

· The critical personal Data to be processed in India

3. Exemptions:

· The Central Government and its agency can be exempted from the application of this Bill upon notification by the Central Government regarding the same. The Pegasus spyware scandal has highlighted the need to introspect the need of this exemption. It has forced the legislators to amend this provision and also to restrict the power of the central government in providing discretionary power for it and its agencies. The Sate must also follow the Rule of Law in order to protect the Fundamental Rights of the people.

· For Data processing; Contract between the Government of India and any person, including a company incorporated outside India after availing a grant from the Central Government regarding the same.

4. Data Protection Authority:

This Authority is established under this Bill to adjudicate and enforce all cases related to offences and violations committed under The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019.

Today In India, the surveillance laws are regulated by only two statutes, The Telegraph Act, 1885, and The Information Technology Act, 2000. However, both fail to encompass the new challenges to Privacy breach on the internet and cyberspace. This Bill successfully addresses these issues and provides relief for individuals by recognizing their Right to Privacy and liability of Data Fiduciaries which was not recognized before this Bill in Indian Law. However, there are lacunas in this Bill, the exemption clause acts arbitrarily against the preamble of the Bill. The State and its agencies are the primary sources of Privacy breach through surveillance, interception and monitoring of personal information. This Bill currently only regulates the personal data of a user, but it should expand its scope and provide regulations for non-personal data within its jurisdiction. Some of the other features introduced in this Bill are obligations of Data Fiduciary, Social-Media Intemrdiaries, offences under this Act and sharing of data with the Government. A large portion of the Indian population is now connected to the internet network. It is necessary to establish a safe digital ecosystem for these users; the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 is to likely impact these aspects and provide for a better Cyberspace experience.⁸

State Digital Surveillance:

The State carries on the Digital Surveillance under the regulations of two Acts in India. After the Puttaswamy case in 2017 and its judgment rendering the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right and an intrusive part of the Indian Constitution has vastly affected the role of the Government towards Privacy Rights of an individual. The State now must protect the privacy of an individual and not take any actions that lead to breach of Privacy. Therefore, after 2017 it’s a greater onus on the Government and its State agencies to protect every persons’ Fundamental Right to Privacy.

The two Acts that govern the laws of surveillance in India are The Telegraph Act, 1885, and The Information Technology Act, 2000. This research paper will deal with both these laws and its impact on regulating surveillance in detail hereafter. The first Section will deal with The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the second section will deal with The Information Technology Act, 2000

The India Telegraph Act, 1885:

This Act was the only legislated law that dealt with the provisions of surveillance, interception and monitoring of devices, mainly telegrams and Telephone, before the enactment of The Information Technology Act, 2000. The Sec 5⁹ of this Act deals with the aspect of State Surveillance. In 2014, a report based of Right to Information revealed that more than 1 Lakh interception of telephones was issued by the central Government each year¹⁰. The Central Governemnt ordered this surveillance, interception, or monitoring of information on “public emergency” and/or “public safety” grounds. These orders were initially not mandated to be disclosed and hence their was very little regard from the State towards the Rights of the Individuals.

Therefore, their was no concrete provisions to safeguard peoples’ information and a disregard attitude of the Government and the State to protect the Privacy of the people.

However, these circumstances were overturned in 1997 by the Supreme Court in the case of Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India¹¹. The Court introspected Sec 5 and Sec. 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and delivered a judgment to change the surveillance procedure in India. In this case, the court observed that the method followed by the State in enforcing Sec. 5 of the Act was extraordinarily intrusive and secretive. It opined that neither “public emergency” nor “public safety”could be secretive as it deals with danger to public at large and so it must be evident to a reasonable person.¹² The Court also laid down some guidelines to provide a narrow down the power of authorities for surveillance under Sec. 5 of the Act. These guidelines were later amended into The Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. Rule 419-A¹³ was amended and it provided for strict guidelines to be followed, it also empowered in case of Central Government, the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affaris and in case of State Governemnt, the Secretary in-charge of Home Department to issue orders under Sec. 5 of the Act.

The 2017 Judgment of Puttaswamy vs. Union of India further limited the powers of the State. In the case of Vinit Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.¹⁴ (2019), the Bombay High Court stated that in the light of Puttaswamy Judgment, the threshold of “public safety” and “public emergency” is high enough not to get affected for minor economic charges as the Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right.

The Information Technology Act, 2000:

Due to technology and the fast pace growth of computers and mobile phones the digital space became the new jurisdiction of information creation and transmission. Therefore, to carry out surveillance the State had to move from the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to The Information Technology Act, 2000 (from now on referred to as IT Act, 2000). This IT Act, 2000 Sec. 69¹⁵ granted power to carry out surveillance and interception in cyberspace and/or on computers. This section was amended into the IT Act, 2000 in 2009. There are six grounds mentioned in IT Act, 2000 under which the Government can issue an order for monitoring, interception, or decryption of information. These six grounds are as follows –

1. Sovereignty and integrity of India;

2. Défense of India;

3. Security of the State;

4. Friendly relations with foreign States;

5. Public order;

6. Preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence.

The last clause is ambiguous and has a broad scope of interpretation. As stated in the article, the Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right and therefore, it should not be breached on a mere speculation of commission of any cognizable offence. The threshold of Privacy is high and the State has to protect this Right. The Personal Data Protection Bill will work in accordance of this provision if enacted.

In order to exercise the powers under sec. 69 of the IT Act, 2000, rules were drafted to lay down the procedure of execution of orders under Sec. 69. These rules are known as Information Technology (Procedure for Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009.¹⁶These rules are similar to The Telegraph Rules, 1951 and was also a effect of the 1997 PUCL Judgment. In May 2007, due to data breach by external parties’ sensitive data of Aadhaar numbers and other data was leaked on the internet. Therefore, the State should be responsible for legal surveillance and protecting the data that is stored with them due to surveillance or any other means.

In 2018, to further restrict the scope and clear the ambiguity of Surveillance Laws, the Government of India notified in Official Gazette a list of competent authorities under Information Technology (Procedure for Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009. These 10 authorities are as follows -

1. Intelligence Bureau;

2. Narcotics Control Bureau;

3. Enforcement Directorate;

4. Central Board of Direct Taxes;

5. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence;

6. Central Bureau of Investigation;

7. National Investigation Agency;

8. Cabinet Secretariat (RAW);

9. Directorate of Signal Intelligence (For service areas of Jammu & Kashmir, North-East and Assam only);

10. Commissioner of Police, Delhi.

Therefore, only these agencies are legally allowed to monitor, intercept, decrypt any information or to possess any device for the purpose of surveillance under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Corporate Surveillance:

The Term “Corporate Surveillance” denotes to an act of surveillance done by any non-state entity and it includes private companies, organizations, Cyber-intelligence firms, among others. The act of surveillance done by the State is direct surveillance as it is empowered by Legislated Statues, while the act of surveillance done by corporate is indirect surveillance as it is done through data processing and identifying behavior by developing a predictive algorithmic system of data analysis. The most significant source of surveillance is the surveillance done by private companies and entities, this data processing is done mainly for the purpose of collecting data for marketing and advertising. However, the companies are not legally obligated under the Indian Law to protect the users' personal data. In today’s world, due to globalization and international connectivity due to internet, the Digital Data plays a vital role as it has the power to influence the global market. Thus, the Digital Data is now considered a National Asset due to its importance as it provides immense information on individuals that can be used to drive the country's economic policies.

In the case of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the macro–Social Media Platform Facebook used to give permissions to any website developer access to the users' information and their profiles without conducting any safeguard procedures for these website developers. Therefore, these employees of the Cambridge Analytica used to access the information sought by them from Facebook and sell it to their marketing clients. The clients then used this information to influence the people and target them for marketing and advertisement¹⁷. Therefore, the user that entrusted his information to Facebook was later used against his consent and knowledge by other companies. This leads to Criminal Breach of Trust as the property entrusted by the users to Facebook is used in an unethical way without their knowledge. This 3^rd Party information access though seeming illegal, had no legal consequence to Facebook due to lack of laws to make them liable for it. The State can also mandate these intermediaries or other data collecting companies to furnish information that the State uses for surveillance on the people. Therefore, there is a need to limit the power of these companies to access information in first instance only.

In case of the Pegasus Spyware virus scandal, the virus was developed by NSO Group, an Israeli – Cyberintelligence Firm that contracts with Governments of the States. The NSO released this virus on Whatsapp and Facebook in India and it infected around 300 mobile phones in India comprising of opposition leaders, journalists and activists among others.¹⁸ This virus was also capable of surveillance and stealing data and manipulating the data on the mobile phones, which can lead to severe repercussions to these people. This incident highlighted the need for a data privacy laws and the role of State and private companies’ surveillance. This incident enforces the narrative to restrict the State's powers for surveillance as conferred to them under Sec. 5 of The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Sec. 69 of The Information Technology Act, 2000. The State employed a Private Company to carry surveillance on its people. This is illegal as the State can only do direct surveillance and its agency and a Private Company cannot be an agency of the State. The Supreme Court in the ongoing cases also stated that the defense of “National Security” cannot be raised by the Government to get a free pass every time. The State has to protect the Fundamental Rights of a person; however, it has failed to do so in this present case. Some of the effects of the Pegasus Spyware Scandal are –

1) Violation of Privacy

2) International Impact of the virus

3) Implications to let foreign companies access for dealing with Indian cybercrime and surveillance

In India, there is no law that states the Intermediaries' powers or the limits of it. The scope of these Private Companies have been developed over the years through case law but there is an ambiguity due to overlapping judgments rendered on it. Hence, it is the need of the hour to clearly define the boundaries of the companies and the States for protecting and preserving the Right of Privacy of every individual.

SURVEILLANCE IN USA:

Mass surveillance is an age-old practice in United states Of America. It first started with checking of censorship law but after first and second world war it became the necessity on grounds of national security. During cold war the surveillance was at peak through program such as “Black Chamber” and “Project Shamrock” almost every citizen having any kind of link or sympathy with communist ideology was tracked by all means possible. With growth of Federal agencies like FBI and CIA institutional and political mass surveillance got a boost as evidence Counter Intelligence Program (1956-1971) and also during civil liberty movement where person supporting Communist American Ideology, Black, Native Americans i.e., Indians and Anglo- American were at mass surveillance and such surveillance was used as ground for arrest. With UK-US surveillance pact of 1946 the mass US surveillance got and international angle. “ECHELON of famously known as the five eyes which was collaboration of five English Speaking Nations namely US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand”¹⁹ “where electronic surveillance was used for interborder monitoring for the first time which increased the count of targets under surveillance and also the technological upgrade was only possible by such collaboration”²⁰. Presidential Order of 14^th September 2001 which was immediate reaction of 9/11 attack Signed by G.W Bush declared the state of National Emergency gave domestic and international surveillance dramatic growth subsequent Patriot Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance amendment act gave immune power to all agencies to check and track any person at any movement of time without any prior permission of any legislative authority.

After the victory in World War II America entered into a knew kind of war which was fought on basis of economy and intelligence against Communist nations this created a new organisation under project SHEMROCK under this many corporates from IT sector like Western union, RAC Global and ITT World Communication were actively involved this was birth of Corporate Surveillance in USA.

“Edward Snowden revelled about many surveillances’ activity beyond law”²¹ this was biggest intelligence leak of USA this involved tracking and tapping call phones mails etc of billions of Americans mostly by NSA and also there was active involvement of Corporate. The “Church Committee” was set up by Senate to check the abuse of power by NSA the final report of committee was eye opener for may as report held that “26000 People were under one touch surveillance of FBI”²². “63000 first class letter was opened by FBI and over 11000 Americans were under Army surveillance and over 300000 individuals were indexed in files of Federal agencies”²³.

Duncan Campbell under his research paper talks about how singles and transmissions were taped by USA and its alliance under the program named “ECHELON”²⁴. He also talks about how Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States under the above said program kept an eye on domestic, diplomatic, political and economical condition of USSR and the eastern bloc. This research got its authenticity when The European Parliament stated in its report that “the term "ECHELON" occurred in a number of contexts, but that the evidence presented indicated it was a signals-intelligence collection system capable of interception and content-inspection of telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other data-traffic globally”²⁵.

The CALSA Act i.e., Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act 1994 asked the telephone companies to provide easy ways to track and tape the phone calls by government also wiretapping of VoIP and broadband internet traffic was asked to be made easier for Federal agencies. “In 1999 two models of mandatory data retention were suggested for the US. The first model would record the IP address assigned to a customer at a specific time”²⁶. In the second model, "which is closer to what Europe adopted", telephone numbers dialled, contents of Web pages visited, and recipients of e-mail messages must be retained by the ISP for an unspecified amount of time”²⁷

The Patriot Act which was a immediate of 9/11 attack gave power to government to spy in four major sectors first to search the record of any individual which is in custody of third party. Second, it gave ability to search any private property without any kind of notice to the owner. Third, it extended power of government to do international surveillance and collect data from foreign intelligence agencies. Fourth, it granted immense power to government on handling data stored by them.

SURVEILLANCE IN UAE:

United Arab Emirates have a mixed scenario when it comes to surveillance the law is very strict about unauthorised surveillance by corporate but sets very low bar for state. recently mass surveillance at UAE was in news as New York Times claimed that the chatting app named “ToTak” was used by the government for not only tracking and tracing citizens of UAE but for monitoring their location and activity. A law suit was also filed with allegation on NSO a corporate company for selling a spyware named “Pegasus” which was used to monitor and spy on any person through his own smart phone without is knowledge. Later it was alleged that the above spyware was sold by Israeli Company to many more countries for the purpose for mass surveillance.

UAE has also joined WoT as partner which shows the deep interest of government in breaching the privacy of its citizens under the banner and cover of state security and technical upgradation. UAE has a colonial legacy of mass surveillance when we see into its history even though UAE provides open market for everyone but behind the curtains the gave is something else. UAE brands itself as a liberal nation welcoming all and every investment however such investments from foreign nations calls a need for secure and safe market which bring in picture the importance of mass surveillance. UAE invests a very large amount of its GDP on national security which involves investment in many socio-political software such as the infamous “Pegasus”. The government at emirates holds major share in telecommunication sector and the major telephone or internet service provider are either directly or sometime indirectly owned by state itself which gives an important advantage to state in keeping surveillance on any given point if time also control over internet gives liberty to state to stop or start the service as per their discretions. E- governance in UAE involves a resident registry system which includes the biometrics of every citizen which help the federal department of identification and citizenship to issue certificate which is similar to that of AADHAR in India but the difference is it is also issued to migrants and non-residents as well and in absence of this no person get an employment neither allowed to pass through domestic gates of airports. Also, the above is linked to insurance, health policies and other essential services cannot be used without the above mentioned. The shift of biometrics is directly related to smart cities as it allows state to gather and analysis the date and location. In broadest sense this allows and enable governments to provide services as per need of citizens on basis of their search on internet also it helps in maintaining proper flow of traffic as the authorities are able to track the movement of persons and vehicles on road and also can guess their desire destination.

“Abu Dhabi Monitoring and Controlling Centre abbreviated as ADMCC was created by the law No.(5) 2011, Its sole purpose is to manage and regulate the use of Monitoring and control system in places and vital facilities, public and private facilities, and analysis of data provided by the systems. The main aim is to prevent crime and detect offenders, save security and public order in the Emirates, and continue the work of the monitoring and control systems and its integration and interdependence with other monitoring systems in the Emirate. The objective of ADMCC is to provide modern and sophisticated service for monitoring and control system, the establishment also provide electronic follow-up to ensure effectiveness of the system. MCC certification is essential for a commercial enterprise, to obtain MCC clearance the Design and integration of the Surveillance system should be carried out by a ADMCC certified Company.”²⁸

ADVANTAGE OF SURVEILLANCE:

Electronic surveillance has a lot of advantages for both state and citizens firstly it acts as first and basic step of data collection and allows the government to act accordingly for safety of people also this method give data to government which can be later used by them to create a better society also to mark and monitor the potential threats to the society at large and sometime even to an individual. Data collected through surveillance help government to neutralise the threat well before the time for example the planned terrorist attack or infiltration at LOC and LAC. Killing of infamous terrorist Osama bin laden was also a result of global surveillance by USA. Secondly electronic mass surveillance does not create a threat of physical harm in mind of any person which help in silent neutralisation of the threat and if the person is innocent, he never ever gets to know that the was under surveillance. This is also a very cost-efficient method as the heavy charges or payments of the on-field agents and contactors are reduced and the data also comes in first hand format and can be analysis as per the need. In addition to it surveillance act as a method of deterrent for to be criminals it has been seen that the countries with strong online surveillance have a smaller number of new criminals as compare to the countries with poor surveillance system. One of very important advantages of online surveillance is it does not require any kind of hardware or device such as camera or voice recorder it uses the targets owned devices which make it much easier to surveillance the person without his knowledge it is like becoming the shadow of that person which he carries with him himself.

One of the major advantages of corporate surveillance is that it is not bound by any boundaries for example the “Panama Paper ” “The Panama Papers refer to a leak of 11.5 million of documents, uncovered by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), of confidential financial and legal documents from the Panamanian law firm “Mosack Fonseca” which offered corporate services and became one of the largest entities to provide offshore financial services worldwide (Joaristi et al., 2019). These papers provide information on the financial details of individuals and public officials, exposing the use of offshore business for possible illicit activities. Approximately 360,000 businesses and individuals are involved in this filtration, covering approximately 200 countries, which are connected to offshore structures. Behind this fraudulent scandal, illegal operations of money laundering, tax evasions and fraud have been detected. The initial purpose of tax havens was to provide low tax provisions to attract investments (Dharmapala and Hines, 2009b; Bucovetsky, 2014), but the increase of offshoring activities has become more visible, and thus, not all tax havens are perceived to be safe (Dharmapala and Hines, 2009b), with an existing tendency to use tax havens for criminal purposes.”²⁹

Similarly the alleged Pandora Box is an example of cross border surveillance by corporate as per International Consortium Of Investigative Journalist “The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists obtained the trove of more than 11.9 million confidential files and led a team of more than 600 journalists from 150 news outlets that spent two years sifting through them, tracking down hard-to-find sources and digging into court records and other public documents from dozens of countries.

The leaked records come from 14 offshore services firms from around the world that set up shell companies and other offshore nooks for clients often seeking to keep their financial activities in the shadows. The records include information about the dealings of nearly three times as many current and former country leaders as any previous leak of documents from offshore havens.

In an era of widening authoritarianism and inequality, the Pandora Papers investigation provides an unequalled perspective on how money and power operate in the 21st century – and how the rule of law has been bent and broken around the world by a system of financial secrecy enabled by the U.S. and other wealthy nations.

The findings by ICIJ and its media partners spotlight how deeply secretive finance have infiltrated global politics – and offer insights into why governments and global organizations have made little headway in ending offshore financial abuses.”³⁰

DISADVANTAGES OF SURVEILLANCE:

“Mostly the action of surveillance is secret in nature, but this unauthorised activity entails sometimes invasion of privacy of an individual." Industrial espionage" refers to the illegal and unethical theft of business trade secrets for use by a competitor to achieve a competitive advantage clears the fine line between encroaching privacy and exercising a lawful activity. A case on privacy law "violated Illinois" by collecting data on worker's opinion about union as well as such apparently dissimilar details as where a worker window-shopped and a female worker living arrangement. This case is a clear example of endangering the fine line between intruding privacy and exercising a lawful activity.”³¹

“Intrusion of privacy broadly divided into 4 types: -

1) Intrusion Intrudes into someone's personal matter. Action which is highly offensive to a prudent person.

2) Appropriation Inappropriately using someone's name trademark or personality for his own benefit.

3) Disclosing publicly someone personal facts: - Displaying someone personal matter and crucial information which is highly offensive to a reasonable prudent person

4) False light: - By taking advantage of someone's personal crucial information for their own benefit and places himself in the False light.”

Somebody ended any activity which falls in the above types is an offence to public sensibility and personal integrity." Investigation and surveillance, shadowing and trailing, as a violation to right to privacy recently addressed this topic on American laws and reports focuses on the accusive use of this surveillance technology. “According to them, these technologies of surveillance, shadowing or trailing of displaying someone personal information which are unreasonable according to a reasonable prudent person is usually held on actual invasion of the right to privacy. Drug screening, testing and related monitoring programs have been challenged on privacy ground. In an age of terror, our government has shown a keen willingness to acquire this data and use it for unknown purposes. As we know government have been purchasing and borrowing private sector databases. And we recently learned that the national security agency (NSA) has been building a massive data and supercomputing centre in Utah, with the objective of intercepting and storing much of the world's internet communication for decryption and analysis.”³²

Although we have laws that protect us against government surveillance, secret government programs cannot be challenged until they are discovered. And even they are, our law of surveillance provides only minimal protections. Courts frequently dismiss challenges to such programs for lack of standing, under the theory that mere surveillance creates no harms. “Clapper v. Amnesty international USA³³, in this case the supreme recently reversed the only major case to hold to the contrary, where respondents claim that their communications were likely being monitored was " too speculative".

We need to understand government surveillance is very harmful because it can freeze the exercise of our political liberties. This hinders our intellectual autonomy to think without state oversight, we need " intellectual privacy". And second special harm surveillance poses are its effect on the power dynamic between the watcher and the watched. This led to various risk where government can be prosecuted or blackmailed for transgression unrelated to the purpose of the surveillance.

CONCLUSION:

Surveillance is a sword with both sides sharped it has a lot of advantages but to balance it has equal number of disadvantages. The major issue is the grounds that is used by state. The question remains the same weather right to privacy can be compromised every time on the same ground of state security. Also weather the access taken by corporates through mean of almost non readable and highly technical and legal terms can be considered as a fair practice and a valid consent. Also, the validity of evidence presented in court of law which were retrieved through such surveillance remains in question in every such case also constitutionality of such evidences is under highlight. From the above arguments it can be concluded a rock solid and constitutionally valid national and international law are needed so that the system oof surveillance can be controlled as it is rightly said “with great power comes the great responsibility” and the state should remember the famous saying of Mahatma Gandhi “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”

REFERENCE:

1. 1954 AIR 300

2. 1963 AIR 1295

3. AIR 1975 SC 1378

4. 1995 AIR 264

5. AIR 1997 SC 568

6. (2017) 10 SCC 1

7. Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India, https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Personal_Data_Protection_Bill,2018.pdf

8. Anirudh Burman, “The Growth of Prrivacy Regulation and the Bill”, Carnegie Endowmwnt for International Peace, 3-6, March 1st, 2020

9. Section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 – Power for the government to take possession of licencesd telegraphs and to order interception of messages.

10. Sangeeta Mahapatra, “Digital Surveillance and the Threat to Civil Liberties in India”, German Institute of Global and Area Studies, 12 pages, May 1st, 2021

11. AIR 1997 SC 568

12. Gautam Bhatia, “State Surveillance and The Right to Privacy In India”, Vol: 26, National Law School of India Review, 127-158, 2014.

13. G.S.R. 193 (E), 1st March 2007, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/march2007.pdf?download=1

14. Writ Petition no. 2637 of 2019, Bombay High Court

15. Sec. 69 of The Information Technology Act,2000 - Power to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource

16. G.S.R. 780 (E), 27th October 2009, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology.

17. Nolen Gertz, “The Four Facebooks” Vol: 58, The New Atlantis, 65-70, Spring 2019

18. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/project-pegasus-phones-of-2-ministers-3-opp-leaders-among-many-targeted-for- surveillance-report-7411027/

19. Farrell, Paul (2 December 2013). "History of 5-Eyes – explainer". Theguardian.com. Retrieved 30 October 2021

20. "Unmasking the Five Eyes' global surveillance practices - GI Swatch". giswatch.org. Retrieved 30 October 2021

21. Poitras, Laura; Greenwald, Glenn (2013-06-09). "NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things' – video". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 30 October 2021

22. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities ("Church Committee"). Book II, Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans (PDF) (Final Report, S. Rep. No. 94-755 (1976) ed.). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 October 2021

23. Supra

24. Campbell, Duncan (12 August 1988). "Somebody's Listening". New Statesman. Archived from the original on 2007-01-03. Retrieved 31 October 2021.

25. Schmid, Gerhard (11 July 2001). "On the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system), (2001/2098(INI))" (pdf). European Parliament: Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System. p. 194. Retrieved 31 October 2021.

26. Mass surveillance in the United States - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States

27. Declan McCullagh (14 April 2006). "ISP snooping gaining support". CNET. CBS Interactive. Retrieved 31 October 2021.

28. https://u.ae/en/information-and-services/justice-safety-and-the-law/cyber-safety-and-digital-security

29. David Dominguez, Odette Pantoja, Pablo Pico, Miguel Mateos, María del Mar Alonso-Almeida, Mario González Panama Papers' offshoring network behaviour, Heliyon, Volume 6, Issue 6, 2020, e04293, ISSN 2405-8440,

30. Original report of International Consortium Of Investigative Journalist Retrieved on 2nd November 2021

31. Clifton L. Smith, David J. Brooks, in Security Science, 2013

32. Clifton L. Smith, David J. Brooks, in Security Science, 2013

33. 568 U.S. 398 (more) 133 S. Ct. 1138; 185 L. Ed. 2d 264; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1858; 2013 ILRC 1311; 41 Med. L. Rptr. 1357; 81 U.S.L.W. 4121

Received on 23.03.2022 Modified on 13.05.2022

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2022;13(3):193-200.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5828.2022.00031