On Communication Interception & Privacy

As regards interception of data packets in the public medium i.e. Internet (whether at a cyber cafe or at the national/regional Internet gateway), I believe Indian Telegraph act 1885 still rules as there is no substitute to that yet. All other constitutional, statutory and regulatory references are inferential. So the only agencies who have any say are the Govt appointed and approved ones as per due process and even if it steps on citizens privacy. The new privacy regulation is likely to trample a little more on citizens' privacy than make the interference lesser. Similar Laws exist in most countries.

Monitoring with in organisations is not seen with the same light. Here privacy laws if any apply squarely; hence a variety of interpretations abound. While India, US and China permit unlimited monitoring of internal electronic communication after generic notification/intimation to employees, Australia, Japan, Canada and a few others permit the same after specific intimation. Europe on the other hand has a lot of variety; some countries require specific intimation to employees and individual acceptance by them, some exempt 'private'/'personal' marked mails/content within office mail communication and many such subtle variations.

Privacy Laws mandate such specific intimation to employees and the variations are almost as many as there are countries in Western Europe; the Russians and several East European countries have a much easier take on privacy. There are technological fixes that could identify whether employees are misusing the given facilities without necessarily singling out the perpetrator. However, there may not be possibility to serve individual notices without identifying offenders. Doing so would be a serious offence, in say Germany. Actually, in Germany, even general monitoring would be an offence without following laborious protocols to initiate the same.


But all in all, the very privacy regulations themselves are being re-looked or at least re-interpreted as is the failing welfare state concept prevalent in Western Europe for more than half a century. Enterprises which used to earlier leave alone data interceptions altogether are employing full time privacy officers and legal advisers not only to ensure compliance to the privacy regulations but see to it that the internal monitoring program is managed with in limits of the law. We are sure to hear more of this from Europe topic in coming times.
Back to the Govt monitoring, Govt agencies in poorly oversighted systems tend to go overboard with the use of power when consequences are not known to be severe. Same is the case with lawful monitoring. Excesses are rampant and law enforcement has pretty much a free hand, be it for tapping phones (land line/mobile) or track Internet communication..