Thread: Indian Government to tap all phones in real time

Originally Posted by warthog

lmao tapping cell phones is not invasion of privacy but tapping wired connection is and when did i mention cell phone cameras.

you dont mind cell phone tapping but mind lanline tapping.You need to get your head straight about the defination of communication privacy.

I was using the CCTV camera defense there and extending it to cellphone cameras or any video camera in a public space.

I also agree that is a contradiction to think one is ok but not the other

But if you look at it from a security pov, its out in the open with a cellphone, you have a radio transmitter. Anyone can listen in. Its like unsecured wi-fi. There is no way i'm aware of to secure a cellphone communication. Military grade wireless shifts frequencies at quick intervals but there is nothing like that for the consumer.

The point i'm making is don't assume any privacy when making a cellphone call because its very mode of operation is not secure.

Originally Posted by warthog

here you go
Curb phone tapping - Edit Page - OPINION - The Times of India
\"In India, phone tapping is allowed under Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Though safeguards were subsequently suggested, the legislature did not act.

It was in this background that People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) took the matter to the Supreme Court. The court ruled that phone tapping is a serious invasion of an individual's privacy and increasingly susceptible to abuse.

More importantly, it held that the right to privacy is part of the right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court said that when a person is talking on the phone, he is exercising his fundamental rights.\"

AKA WHAT GOVT IS GOING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.I need to contact PUCL

Yes but look a little further and you see this...

The court laid down that officials could pass an order of interception only after recording its satisfaction that it is necessary to do:
- in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India,
- the security of the state,
- friendly relations with foreign states,
- public order or
- for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence.

..and those are the 4 points the govt. will trot out if challenged.

A more interesting question is has every person using a phone now fall under this category and if any evidence produced by tapping would be accepted by courts in a criminal case

They are not taping for the fun of it, the govt.fully believes it will allow them to keep track on terrorism and use it to convict.

From your TOI article in your first post of the thread...

The government has decided to do away with multiple channels of surveillance and set up a centralized official tapping facility. Until the project becomes fully functional, all telecom companies will be required to operate their lawful intercept monitoring facilities.

Under what law can the govt. even do this ?

It seems they require all telecoms providers to do it on submission of a warrant and that it was becoming unwieldy with so many operators so it was thought more efficient to centralise it all.

But does this imply a warrant still needs to be applied for or not ?

thank you for clearing it up.Then the ball is in the isp's and providers court.Seeing that this is india and private company would do anything the govt say i dont think that the telcos would challenge this.

We are suckers,land of the suckers.
prolly ot but look at this
ISPs Refuse to Block Cheap Russian Music Sites | TorrentFreak

but in india all isps complied and banned irc undernet and other sites.

btw in USA this guy blowed the whistle on mass nsa surveillance where private companies were working with the govt


NSA call database - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The NSA call database is a database created by the United States National Security Agency (NSA) that contains hundreds of billions of records of telephone calls made by U.S. citizens from the four largest telephone carriers in the United States: AT&T, SBC, BellSouth (all three now being called AT&T since AT&T bought BellSouth and SBC purchased AT&T but kept the AT&T name), and Verizon.[1]

The existence of this database and the NSA program that compiled it was unknown to the general public until USA Today broke the story on May 10, 2006.[1] It is estimated that the database contains over 1.9 trillion call-detail records.[2] According to Bloomberg News, the effort began approximately seven months before the September 11, 2001 attacks.[

you know that the congress did?.
they passed the FISA amedment bill 2008 to give retroactive immunity to the providers!
They have the 4th amendment which give them absolute right against illegal search and seizure but still the govt nullified it and when it was challenged the court upheald the govt law!!!
NSA warrantless surveillance controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hepting v. AT&T - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

when bush did it,it was ok
when nixon did it aka watergate he resigned.


this world is going to a hell in a handbasket.

Yes this is all well & good but it would be better if you can determine whether the govt. can set up a centralised facility for the purpose of recording everyone's calls -- without a warrant. Taping everyone implies its no longer required.

They have done so because some law somewhere permits them to do so.

Can that law be challenged or not ?

in usa it has been challenged but the govt refuses to acknowledge that they are doing it so the courts aren't ruling it.
see Hepting v. AT&T - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

haha, yes. must prove they ARE doing it in the first place.

FISA was passed to protect AT&T from this law suit.

But the Ninth circuit judge has not ruled as yet.

btw i doubt the reasonable restrictions apply to article 21,it only applies to article 19 so imo this right is absolute and phone tapping conversation are not admissible in the court.
sadly these provisions were repealed in MCOCA and UAPA cases.the bombay high court originally voided phone tapping in MCOCA but SC stayed it.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report...oca-sc_1187298


but this is totally Orwellian as it amounts to mass surveillance and warrant less wiretapping.

Its still not clear whether a warrant had to be made out or not. Thats what this all boils down to. Yes they an tap as always but only after a warrant was filed.

I 'assume' it isn't required but is it that clear ?

the need for a warrant automatically disappears when all the data is centralized in govt servers.how can the govt issue a warrant to itself?

one good thing is that the govt cannot claim plausible deniability unlike in usa.O our honest govt told the truth,this initiative is dead in the water.

the need for a warrant automatically disappears when all the data is centralized in govt servers.how can the govt issue a warrant to itself?

WRONG!

See this...

Under the new act, the State through any government official or police can now eavesdrop on your emails, smses, phone conversations and all online activity. Unlike in the past, they will not even require a warrant to do so.

Source

The basis for tapping is provided in IT Amendment Act 2008. A key point that your orginal TOI article neglected to mention.

So that's HOW they can set up a centralised location to hoover up everything.

Earlier, only a deputy superintendent of police (or senior) could raid a home to search and seize. Now an inspector can raid and haul off a computer user for questioning — and without a warrant.

Lack of independent oversight makes these intercepting powers liable to misuse. Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the act is its failure to put in place a safeguard mechanism that would stop the State from misusing it.

Right now, neither is an ombudsman nor a law nor any other safety mechanism in place for redress. The act says checks and balances will flow from safeguards such as “may be prescribed”.

Until the passage of the amended IT Act, Clause 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 allowed phone tapping on grounds of public emergency, or for public safety. In December 1996, the Supreme Court reiterated this position in a petition filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties.

Section 69 of the amended IT Act drops all references to public emergency or public safety. Combined with the absence of clearly defined checks against misinterpretation of the law, the new law effectively gives the government a carte blanche to check a citizen’s use of communication tools.

So its NOT illegal for the govt. to do this, whether its constitutional is upto the Supreme Court to decide.

Some also question its effectiveness. Ajai Sahni, executive director of the Delhi-based Institute for Conflict Management, doesn’t knock the new act but argues that a law depends upon the mechanisms that are effectively put in place to implement it. “At this moment, I don’t see this capacity in the State to execute it. Where, for instance, are the technical personnel? The act provides powers for immediate post-event investigation like checking cyber cafes, or tracing an online message. But this is only a small tool.”

To be truly effective, counter-terrorism measures need to be anticipatory. He continues, “There is no preventive value that arises from this act with regard to cyber terrorism. Who, for instance, will monitor a large quantum of correspondence between several groups of people? Secondly, cyber forensics, or examining digital evidence, is still weak in our country. Until these capacities are developed, the act is of limited value.”

This is WHY the centralised location is being setup.

So..what do we do about it

First we have to show the govt. is indeed using taping to convict people. I guess it might take 1-2 yrs to setup the necessary infrastructure to effectively monitor everyone. Then wait for reports in the press that ppl have been busted through the powers of this act.

Then see whether these ppl were innocent or not. Make a dossier of all instances were innocent people were wrongfully accused.

Use this dossier to make a case against this act or at least argue for safeguards to be put into this act.

There is no way this act will be repealed (terrorism is not going to stop anytime soon) but it may help to limit the damage it causes to civil society. This dossier will necessarily be balanced against the cases were guilty parties were convicted thanks to this act.

Which dossier will be the bigger one ?