One of the greatest threats to democracy is when fear prevails about a big-brotherly monitoring of independent thought. This is what the WhatsApp snooping scandal showed
Some time back, in these columns, I had written about the need to come up with a better understanding of our policies. I had mentioned about a study set in an office environment where the purpose was to examine how people react when they know they are being watched. The subjects were divided into two categories: The first group of people was asked to make private donations through a letter or email. The other group consisted of those who would sign up a sheet displayed in the common area of the office. It would also mention the amount committed by them. It was found that people were more likely to donate and be generous when they knew their behaviour would be judged or viewed, in that particular case, by their fellow peers. The crux of this experiment was that people behave differently when they know that their behaviour is being monitored or watched.
While this study looked at the positive impact of such an examination, it is also true that one of the greatest threats to a democracy is the fear that independent thought and criticism of a Government cannot be aired freely because one is being monitored. It is in this context that the recent, frankly terrifying, incident of Whatsapp snooping and hacking of mobile phones of several Indian rights activists must be examined. I presume the readers remember what actually happened. I say this because given the existing climate within the country, it is hard to keep track of one crisis as there are so many more mushrooming concurrently. The issue of an Israeli software, Pegasus, snooping on Indian citizens’ accounts came to light at the beginning of this month. This should have been one of the most significant topics for discussion. But unfortunately, several other crises emerged over the month: The illegal operation of electoral bonds, the Maharashtra imbroglio and the NSSO report claiming that consumer spending and sentiment is at its lowest in 40 years, among other issues.
Honestly, even I forgot about the snooping incident. Until the day I was speaking to a friend over phone, who also happened to be a bureaucrat. He was criticising some of the policies of the BJP Government but before doing so, he became conscious and asked me to call him up on WhatsApp. He feared that regular channels of communication were being tapped or examined in one way or the other by some department of the Government. Yet my friend wasn’t committing any wrong; he just wanted to air his views about the many shortcomings of the current Government as a regular citizen. He was too afraid to continue through a regular call. My friend is not the only one. Even my grocer insisted on talking over WhatsApp rather than making regular calls after the recent news of Pegasus tapping Indian citizens’ phones went viral.
What we know about the “WhatsApp snoopgate” till now is as follows: It was reported in the beginning of November that around 17 Indian activists and lawyers were spied upon by Pegasus. They were targetted using the popular WhatsApp messaging platform. This is done by either giving a missed call on WhatsApp or through a message on the platform. This allows Pegasus to gain access to the device, essentially all your photos, files and emails.
Pegasus, which is owned by an Israeli group called NSO, has been sued by WhatsApp for its activities. NSO’s defence or response when these facts came to light was that it sells the Pegasus software only to Government intelligence agencies to enable them fight terrorism and serious crimes. Its statement also went on to clarify that it does not sell the software for use against human rights activists and journalists.
However, this is exactly how it was put to use in India. The BJP Government responded by asking WhatsApp to explain why the data breach happened. As per news reports, in response, WhatsApp stated that it had informed the Indian Government about the data breach in May and then again in September. Thereafter, a parliamentary committee was formed to look into the breach, among other things. According to reports, after some pushback and non-cooperation, this committee will try to get some answers from the relevant wings of the Government.
The primary issue, however, with such a grave and serious case is that it is a reminder to the people that their lives are no longer private. It is important to remember that the Supreme Court had itself stated that the right to privacy is fundamental as guaranteed under the Constitution. The familiar refrain of any Government, especially the current one, is that these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. But what’s common between bureaucrats and grocers alike is that they are genuinely afraid of speaking against the policies of the Government, for this may affect them adversely. There is no denying the fact that this fear psychosis exists and the environment creating this mindset is problematic on its own.
There are many questions regarding Pegasus that must be answered but the most basic question is: How was a software — sold only to Governments and enforcement agencies to tackle terrorism — used to target human rights activists, journalists and politicians? This is an uncomfortable question that the Government must answer and it must do so for its own benefit.
This incident has heightened the fear factor among the citizens. They worry that critics are being monitored and that they may be spied upon without following the due process of law.
The breach of an Indian citizen’s privacy, with no regard to established procedures, is egregious if true. However, even the belief that this is an accepted state of affairs today is problematic. Such fears lead to a “chilling effect”, where people will be more fearful about criticising the Government. What will be even worse is that this fear will prevent the Government’s failures from coming to light in public.
All of this will make the Government a non-transparent organisation, one that answers only to itself or to a privileged few. Indeed, this would be a travesty. A Government, we must not forget, is an agent of its citizens. It was elected by the people to act for their benefit. It has not, by any stretch, been empowered to snoop on lawyers and journalists who question it unless, of course, our new definition of a terrorist is a person who does just that. In which case, our worst fears have already been realised.
(Writer: Ajoy Kumar ; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Comments (0)