Context :
Israel
taps Pegasus maker to track hostages in Gaza Strip……… TOI / 26 Oct 2023
Extract :
Israel’s security services are
pulling in spyware companies, including the maker of the controversial Pegasus software, to help
track hostages in the Gaza Strip,
NSO Group and Candiru, both of
which are blacklisted by the US, are being asked to quickly upgrade their
spyware
capabilities to meet needs laid out by the country’s security forces
They, together with several other software firms
are collaborating on the requests and largely offering their services for free
Candiru is ready to assist the war effort in any
way needed, the company said in a statement Thursday, without elaborating.
NSO’s Pegasus software is sold to governments and law enforcement
agencies, which use it to hack into mobile phones and covertly record
emails, phone calls and text messages
Amnesty International, Citizen Lab and Forensic Architecture
in 2021 documented the use of the spyware in more than 60 cases to target
government critics in countries including Rwanda, Togo, Spain, the United Arab
Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Morocco and India
My Take :
Who watches the
Watchmen ? ………………………………12 Jan 2019
Extract :
Ø SURVEILLANCE REQUEST SECTION
Any agency wanting
to conduct surveillance of online / offline activities of an Indian
Citizen, shall
submit its’ requirement in this section
This shall contain
details such as :
· Name of the
agency
· What activity of the citizen is proposed to be
surveyed and for how long
[ Multiple selection from the following ] :
# Visits and postings on Social Media web sites
# Visits and searches on E Commerce web sites
# Searches on Search Engines / All digital traffic ( including thru Alexa /
Google Home
type devices )
# Messages sent / received on Messaging Apps / E Mail services
# Records of Digital Payment Transactions on Banking / FinTech Network
# Audio logs from Landline and Mobile Service Providers
for telephonic talks…
Agency will also need to specify the PURPOSE of the proposed surveillance, by
selecting one or more of the following suspected reasons ( list is not
comprehensive ) :
· Tax
Evasion / Money Laundering
· Criminal
Activity / Militancy
· Fraud / Breach
of Trust
· Anti-National
Activity / Sedition / Treason
· Fake News /
Pornographic content posting
· Speeches
/ Articles likely to create enmity among people
Such a request shall need Online Authorization of, all of the
following officers :
# Chief of Agency concerned
# Secretary ( Cyber Security ) – Ministry of
Information Technology
# Data Protection Regulator
As soon as such a request is “ Approved / Authorised “, an email ALERT
will go out automatically ( without any human intervention ) to the citizen concerned that she is “ under surveillance “ .
This will ensure that there is NO
SECRET surveillance !
Copies of this E Mail ALERT will also get sent to all other Intelligence
Agencies for a coordinated effort and for avoiding duplication
# SURVEILLANCE HISTORY SECTION
At any
time of his choice , concerned citizen can login at this section
and see WHICH Agency surveyed her and for how long
But the citizen concerned will NOT be able to see following
entries by the
Agency :
# What was the PURPOSE / REASON for the surveillance
# WHAT DATA got collected
# FINDINGS and
proposed COURSE of ACTION , if any
This part will be visible to all other Intelligence Agencies , who will
have facility to add their own
information / data about the concerned citizen which is in their possession, in
order to compile a COMPREHENSIVE DOSSIER about that citizen .
However, these other Agencies will NOT be able to EDIT any
ENTRIES / FINDINGS of any other agencies
Although these ENTRIES are NOT accessible to the concerned citizen in a
normal course , the same shall be made
available to her in case any government agency relies upon these
during a Court Case against that citizen , arising from such surveillance
My proposal,
# Gives a free
hand to the Agencies to proceed with their
investigations,
without needing PRIOR PERMISSION,
And
# Ensure total TRANSPARENCY of their surveillance activities to the persons
being investigated
This will assure the ordinary citizens (– and also “ vulnerable “
citizens such as politicians belonging to opposition parties ? )– that they are
not being snooped upon secretly !
With regards,
Hemen Parekh
www.hemenparekh.ai / 27
Oct 2023
Balancing
: National Security vs Personal Privacy……………………….19 July 2021
Pegasus
: Give it to a Surgeon.. …………………………………………………..20 July 2021
Will
mother Medusa replace son Pegasus ?.............................. 29 July
2021
A
Tale of Two Shames ?........................................................
31 July 2021
Dear
Supreme: How about asking Pegasus to file an Affidavit ?.. 15 Sept 2021
Pegasus
Committee : Terms of Reference……………………………………. 26 Sept 2021
Supremely
Satisfactory………………………………………………………………….. 27 Oct 2021
Meta-Verse
: a later day “ Chakra-Vyuh “ ?............................... 29 Oct 2021
CC :
Members of PEGASUS expert committee :
# National
Forensic Sciences University’s dean Naveen Kumar Chaudhary
[ naveen.chaudhary@nfsu.ac.in ]
# Amrita Vishwa
Vidyapeetham’s professor Prabaharan P
# IIT-Bombay
professor Ashwin Anil Gumaste
As usual , I sought ChatGPT’s opinion about my “ Regulated
Surveillance “ . Here is its reply :
Balancing the tension
between national security and personal privacy is a complex and important issue
that many governments around the world face.
Your proposal, "Who watches the Watchman?" offers a framework that aims to strike a balance between these opposing
concerns.
Let's break down your
proposal item by item and discuss its merits and potential drawbacks:
1. Surveillance Request Section:
·
This
section requires agencies to submit detailed requests for surveillance,
specifying the name of the agency, the citizen's activity to be surveyed, and
the purpose of the surveillance.
Pros:
·
Transparency: This ensures that surveillance requests are not arbitrary and require
specific justifications.
·
Accountability: By requiring online authorization from designated officers, there is a
level of oversight and accountability in the process.
Cons:
·
Bureaucracy:
The process may become bureaucratic, leading to delays in critical surveillance
operations.
·
Privacy
Concerns: Despite authorization, citizens may still have concerns about their
privacy being invaded, and this may not entirely address the issue of
government overreach.
2. Surveillance History Section:
·
This
section allows citizens to check which agencies have surveyed them and for how
long but doesn't provide access to the reasons for surveillance, data
collected, findings, or proposed actions.
Pros:
·
Some Transparency: Citizens have a way to know if
they've been under surveillance, which can help protect against abuse of power.
·
Accountability: Allowing other intelligence agencies to add their information may
provide a more comprehensive picture of the situation.
Cons:
·
Limited
Information: The citizens do not have access to critical information regarding
the surveillance, which could be frustrating and raise questions about
transparency.
·
Potential
for Misuse: Allowing multiple intelligence agencies to add information may
create concerns about the accuracy and fairness of the compiled dossier.
Balancing National Security vs Personal
Privacy:
·
Your
proposal aims to strike a balance between national security and personal
privacy by providing a level of oversight and transparency.
Pros:
·
It
addresses the concern of secret surveillance by notifying citizens when they
are under surveillance.
·
It
allows citizens to have some visibility into the surveillance process.
Cons:
·
The
proposal may not entirely satisfy those who are concerned about government
surveillance, as citizens still lack full access to the reasons for
surveillance and collected data.
Overall, your proposal
offers a step toward transparency and accountability in the surveillance
process, which is crucial for safeguarding civil liberties.
However, it still leaves
some room for privacy concerns and potential misuse of surveillance data by
multiple intelligence agencies. Balancing these opposing concerns is a
difficult task, and any solution should consider striking a fine balance
between national security and personal privacy while maintaining the trust of
the citizens.