cogitoergosum
2011-02-14 23:00:33 UTC
Everything you always wanted to know about India and more
← History for Hindu Dummies: Sid Harth
India’s Superpower Euphoria CCLIX
http://cogitoergosum.co.cc/2011/02/14/indias-superpower-euphoria-cclix/
14/02/2011 by navanavonmilita
Over 1 lakh phones are tapped every year
Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN, Feb 15, 2011, 12.54am IST
Comments (5)
Tags:Supreme Court|Reliance communications|Phone tapping|Delhi Police|
Bharti Airtel|amar singh
NEW DELHI: Some startling figures tumbled out on rampant phone tapping
in the country when telecom service provider Reliance Communications
told the Supreme Court on Monday that the authorities had asked it to
tap 1.51 lakh phone numbers in a five-year span between 2006 and 2010.
This works out to an average of over 30,000 telephone interceptions
every year by a single service provider on the orders of various law
enforcing agencies. Or, over 82 telephones were intercepted every day
by a single service provider.
Reliance is the second-largest service provider with a subscriber base
of 12.57 crore as in 2010. The biggest service provider, Bharti
Airtel, had 15.25 crore subscribers in 2010, while Vodafone’s
subscriber base was just a shade lower than Reliance’s at 12.43 crore.
State-owned BSNL came fourth with 8.67 crore subscribers.
If Reliance’s ratio of phones tapped to the number of its subscribers
were to be taken as representative and applied to other service
providers, it is a fair assumption that government agencies were
tapping more than one lakh phones every year.
In Delhi alone, Reliance tapped a total of 3,588 phones in 2005 when
the teledensity was low compared to today. It also included Amar
Singh’s number which was put under surveillance — allegedly on a
forged letter from Delhi Police.
Four days back, a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly had
expressed concern over the large number of interceptions being ordered
by the agencies and the “grave danger” this posed to the citizen’s
right to privacy.
In an affidavit tendered by senior advocate Ram Jethmalani before the
bench, Reliance Communications said: “The total number of
interceptions in 2005 in respect of Delhi Service Area were 3,588.
There were about 1.51 lakh number of cases for monitoring/interception
during the period 2006-10 in all India.”
Responding to the court’s observation that no service provider worth
its salt would intercept a phone based on a purported communication
full of grammatical and spelling mistakes, Reliance said most of the
genuine interception orders were identical to the now known forged
letter as far as spelling and grammatical mistakes were concerned. It
cited a genuine interception order of February 1, 2011, received from
the Delhi Police to make its point.
After detailing the precautions it had taken, including writing to the
authorities to authenticate the letter asking for interception of Amar
Singh’s phone, Reliance said it received no response, yet it was duty
bound under a bona fide perception of the letter to continue
interception for 15 days.
“A bare perusal of various letters sent by Ranjit Narayan (then Joint
Commissioner of Delhi Police) and R Narayanswami (then Delhi home
secretary) show that the letters dated October 22, 2005 and November
9, 2005 (both purportedly forged ones) were similar to other letters
received from them,” Reliance said while claiming its innocence in the
interception controversy.
It said request for surveillance of a telephone from the law
enforcement agencies could not be postponed based on spelling mistakes
in the communication from agencies as it called for immediate action
“for safety of general public at large and in the interest of the
nation.” It added: “Postponing compliance on the ground of
inconsequential mistakes like spelling errors may conceivably lead to
a serious terrorist attack and the blame may fall on us.”
“The service providers are also required to provide assistance to law
enforcement agencies as per the licence condition. Any violation of it
can lead to a penalty of Rs 50 crore,” Reliance said.
It said service providers do not keep a record of conversations taped
from a phone under surveillance. Reliance Communication said it did
not have the technology to record the conversations and that there was
no law mandating the service provider to record the conversations and
submit it to the law enforcement agencies.
Readers’ opinions (6)
Sid Harth (USA)
3 mins ago (03:35 AM)
I strongly object to this news article. Government is trying to offer
employment opportunities to a mass of educated, semi-educated and
purely uneducated masses of India. Indian government cannot be blamed
but rewarded. What is it about privacy and human rights? India is not
America. She has inherited her culture from such ancient legal beagles
as Arya Chanakya. Chanakya placed information gathering, analyzing to
determine the health and wealth of the state/nation. If India could
simply insert a gadget, a gizmo, a device in each mobile phone with a
powerful translation algorithm and listen to each and every morsel of
conversation she can laugh all the way to bank. Free speech, privacy,
human rights, proper legal procedures be damned. We are Hindus and
anything goes. Affected parties may leave the country if they so
choose. Good riddance, I say.
Bharatiyar (mumbai)
21 mins ago (03:17 AM)
Bravo! This is like Jessica’s case. No one did anything wrong but a
wrong deed has been committed. Govt. has not asked for tapping.
Reliance doesn’t have the technique to know the order’s genuineness
and hence has done no wrong. But the phone has been tapped and
tappings used for whatever purposes intended. Question arises is it
democracy or an autocratic regime wherein the rules are framed for
convenience of few. Now SC has to step in and stream line the
procedures. Such things in US would have put all concerned behind bars
in no time. They value their privacy so much. For us when country
itself means nothing what about its citizen’s privacy. Jinhe naaz hai
Hind pur woh kahan hai? Kahin nahin.
Agree (1)
Anil (USA) replies to Bharatiyar
11 mins ago (03:27 AM)
I fully agree with you.
AVTAR CHHINA (Ludhiana)
1 hr ago (02:14 AM)
In a country having such a large number of population & the corruption
& crime % very high, and where there are several so called people
corporate Lobbyist. There need to be a high % of phne tapping. And
people are smart enough to have too many lines, so te authoriy need to
me smart enough to find every line and tapp. Authority keep up the
pressure.
Agree (4)Disagree (1)
Anil (USA) replies to AVTAR CHHINA
7 mins ago (03:31 AM)
Mr. Chhina, yes the law enforceing agencies have full right to record
your phone. But first they should get court’s order.
Bhagwad Park (Chennai, Tamil Nadu)
1 hr ago (01:43 AM)
This should be a wake up call for those who claim phone tapping
without proper procedures is necessary for “national security.” The
govt. is no better and by giving up one’s privacy and civil liberties,
nothing is going to improve. A phone must be tapped ONLY after a
magistrate has approved the order and if that takes a few days to
obtain, then so be it.
Agree (5)Disagree (5)
Phone-tapping case: Amar Singh withdraws allegations against Congress
Dhananjay Mahapatra, TIMES NEWS NETWORK & AGENCIES, Feb 9, 2011,
02.07pm IST
Comments (22)
Tags:Phone tapping|amar singh
Phone-tapping case: SC slams Amar Singh
NEW DELHI: In a turnaround, politician Amar Singh on Wednesday
withdrew all allegations against Congress party in the phone-tapping
incident.
He had earlier alleged that the Congress had misused official
machinery to intercept political adversaries.
His counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is also the Congress
spokesperson, today, told the Supreme Court that investigation into
the matter had revealed that there was no role of the Congress party.
The former Samajwadi party leader faced intense grilling from the
Supreme Court as he sought to drop his allegations against Congress
and its chief Sonia Gandhi in connection with the tapping of his phone
in 2006, according to PTI.
Singh informed a bench of justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly that he
was dropping the allegations he had made against Gandhi in his
petition in the phone tapping case.
“In view of your revised affidavit how do you affirm the allegations
against the political party through its president,” the bench said,
adding, “Your averment which is based on personal knowledge cannot
change.”
Singh had filed the petition in 2006.
“When you say that its personal knowledge, it means it is something
that you know personally and which cannot change with the passage of
time,” the court observed when Singhvi submitted that he had made the
allegations in 2006 out of his personal knowledge that political
rivals including Congress party was behind the tapping of his phone.
“If that is your personal knowledge, it cannot be contradicted by
yourself,” the court said, noting, “Your personal knowledge is dubious
and the court is a victim of your affidavit.”
While pulling up Singh for changing his stand, the bench said, “The
court started hearing your case. Many years have passed and many hours
were devoted in your case on the basis of your averments. We tend to
rely on them.”
Singhvi was visibly uncomfortable when the bench repeatedly asked him
to read out the portion of his petition in which Singh had made
allegations against the Congress party and its president.
During the hearing, the court said, “In the petition, you have said
that the party in power was misusing the authority but now everything
is found to be bogus.”
The court also asked as to why the petition should be entertained.
“Why should the court entertain the petition about a person who has
not come with clean hands?” the bench asked.
Comments (22)
Recommended (11)
Yaamunan Acharya (CHENNAI)
10 Feb, 2011 01:16 PM
Hasan Aliji, Dawood bhai, Balwaji,Quattrochiji here is great piece of
news for you. Join congress. Have the case fought by one of the gr8
legal luminaries of congress – abhishek singhvi, Manish Tiwari, Sibal
(fees bit high and he may embarass you with his silly jokes-but never
mind end results count). Am I exaggerating? First Abhishek singh
manuvi argued for Martin on lottery case. Martin is well known
criminal and he also argued for Anderson. Sibal defends Raja like
anything. So this is not some loony speaking out of turn. And as a
bonus Moily will ensure he passes necessary law to exonerate you. Even
PM will speak in your support saying that juidiciary must not
interfere with legislature – and who knows I may be writing to one of
our future CVC. Woh kahawat hai na subah ka boola agar shaam- arey
yahaan shaam kya agar der raat se bhi aaoge tho bhoola nahin kahenge.
We swear. arey main tho bhool hi gaya. Hafiz saeed aap bhi aajao. Our
government is very broad hearted. See it calls maoists who kill our
security forces as misled youth and is going to include kasab in our
census. Dhuniya ke jitne chor aur kaala bazaari log aap ko hamaare
desh me haardik swaagat hai.(come before this govt goes).
Agree (3)
A (Mumbai)
10 Feb, 2011 09:48 AM
WHY??????????????????????????????????
Anil (Pune)
10 Feb, 2011 09:16 AM
What shamless and thick skinned these politicians are? They change
their stand as the direction of the wind changes. Supreme Court should
take it very seriously and punish this joker for misusing the precious
time of the official machinary. He should be handed over such fine so
as to deter any other politician to misuse courts. Now Amarsingh is
trying to be close to Congress as he has lost his base(????) in SP and
to please Sonia he is trying to be in her good book by dropping
charges.
Agree (1)
N.Shekar (Bangalore)
10 Feb, 2011 05:11 AM
Why is no body enquiring Mr.Amar Singh in the Cash for Votes scam and
his involvement in the Nuclear Deal. How much money he got from the
U.S. for the Nuclear Deal? Why is the media also silent in this
matter?
Agree (3)Recommend (2)
indian (delhi)
09 Feb, 2011 08:32 PM
Give severe punishment for wasting the precious court time by fillig
sensational case just to gain media attention.. Court should not take
it lightly. Teach him a lesson so that other can see who misuse law.
Agree (12)Recommend (1)
Arvind Joshi (Mumbai (Bombay), India)
09 Feb, 2011 07:53 PM
“Hamaam mein sab nange hain” ….. Amar Singh is no Saint.
Agree (7)Recommend (1)
Karthik (Rotterdam)
09 Feb, 2011 06:32 PM
Very Simple… he has to save him from the Black Money Spot….
Agree (11)Recommend (4)
murli gopal (Hissar)
09 Feb, 2011 06:30 PM
Obviously the Congress has struck a deal with Amar Singh, like they
have done with Mulayam! What else can you expect from Amar Singh. Why
does not the Supreme Court not haul him up for contempt of court?
Agree (9)
DP (London)
09 Feb, 2011 06:29 PM
Court has to try him for civil / criminal offence (with fine and
imprisonment). Also has to rule that all his open and future cases
will be treated as doubtful and will not be entertained. This would
not only help this case, would also help decision on other dubious
cases.
Agree (5)
Yogi (Canada)
09 Feb, 2011 06:16 PM
Put him in jail plain and simple for misusing the SC
Agree (7)
LD Bhatia (Delhi)
09 Feb, 2011 05:36 PM
Politics in India is getting curiouser and curiouser. It is the
Chinest leaders who are record having said that there are no permanent
friends or foes in politics, there are only permanent interests. It
seems Indian political leaders are following this advice both
seriously and literally. Amar Singh, once looked upon as the right-
hand man of SP supremo is not only at loggerheads with him but is also
saying all sorts of things against his once fast political friend. SP
supremo who had faced a tricky situation after the Lok Sabha elections
when Congress had achieved an incredible victory in Uttar Pradess and
SP was not able to get the number of seats it had declared it would is
hard put to it to have an understanding if not alignment with the
Congress at the Centre. Amar Singh isn astute leader who knows which
way the political wind is blowing. He wants to mend his fences witht
he Congress though as an SP leader he had said uncharitable things
against the Congress Presiddent. Congress on its part is showing
consideration for SPO Supreme as is evident from the CBI stand in the
Supreme Court that there is much in the charges against SP supremo.
Amar Singh naturally wants to be in the good books of the Congress
leaders as the political isolation he is facing at present is p;roving
detrimental to his future political career. Politics is really an art
of the possible in our country where opportunism comes first.
Agree (5)
ThinkingDimaag (India)
09 Feb, 2011 05:00 PM
Do choron ki ladai sulajh gayee. Apne apne ghar jao bhayya, Tamasha
kharam ho gaya hai.
Agree (12)Disagree (2)Recommend (2)
amarMC (hyb) replies to ThinkingDimaag
09 Feb, 2011 07:10 PM
c****** hain be ye sab… nautanki bc!!!!
Agree (1)
Mohammad Ali Amir (Patna)
09 Feb, 2011 04:56 PM
Regardless of who is in power, it is fact the politicians and parties
file case in supreme court for public attention and to bolster their
image in public. Supreme court shall not entertain these cases and
they shall be brought to its attention only in date sequence. When
hundred of thousands of cases are lying for attention in supreme
court, ordinary citizens which have issues related to life and death
only shall be taken up on priority.
Agree (4)Disagree (1)Recommend (2)
Bart Simpson (Bangalore)
09 Feb, 2011 04:36 PM
Nothing surprising in all this. Obviously Amar Singh has sold his
loyalty to the Congress for a price. This is the kind of politics
which is followed by the Congress and its leaders. No wonder then we
have all these scams. The Congress culture and its Governance of the
Country has helped spread the the looting of the country to levels
never seen before. All credit for this must of course go to the people
who lead, run and own the Congress Party. They join hands with people
who have no morals and give membership and Parliamentary tickets to
chargesheeted criminals. Their own CVC has gone on to say to the
Supreme Court that over 25% of our Parliamentarians have chargesheets
and cases against them and ironically are involved in making laws for
the Country. This can only happen in India. It has reduced the
institutions of the country to a level that Government Servants live
and thrive on corruption and the aam admi get poorer day by day. Will
the new, younger generations of Congressmen rise up to this challenge
and do what it takes to transform this once historical party to its
former glory.
Agree (16)Disagree (6)Recommend (3)
Pam (Mumbai)
09 Feb, 2011 04:22 PM
Can’t the Supreme Court hold him accountable for the time and money
spent on his bogus case? There are more important cases that need the
attention of the Supreme Court. Is there any law which punishes such
jokers.
Agree (21)Disagree (1)Recommend (11)
anand (delhi)
09 Feb, 2011 03:25 PM
amar singh is doomed for sure, now he is licking the feet of Sonia as
a dog would do, but then what can you expect from this kind of
people !!
Agree (25)Disagree (6)Recommend (15)
Sunil (Mumbai)
09 Feb, 2011 02:46 PM
It is the time SC imposed a heavy fine on politician who uses its
premises for political gain, also SC has to draw a line on judicial
activism and refrain from taking up politically motivated cases.
Agree (17)Disagree (1)Recommend (11)
Vijay Sharma (Hyderabad) replies to Sunil
09 Feb, 2011 04:49 PM
WELL SAID ! ! !
Agree (2)Recommend (1)
SAWAI (BHARAT)
09 Feb, 2011 02:33 PM
May be signal Amar Singh’s Congress Pravesh……..
Agree (21)Disagree (5)Recommend (7)
karavadiraghavarao (Vijayawada-) replies to SAWAI
09 Feb, 2011 02:49 PM
No difference between the closinga nd opening ofa Blind Eye.Amar Singh
is like that.He has no base at all in UP.He will not be of any use to
the already limping Congress in UP.
Agree (16)Disagree (4)Recommend (8)
Raju (Bombay) replies to karavadiraghavarao
09 Feb, 2011 04:09 PM
Hope Mr.Amithab is listening
Agree (7)Recommend (3)
Phone tapping: Position in India
May 12th, 2010 → 10:11 pm @ Nikita Anand
cellphoneLast month both the houses of the Parliament were in a state
of upheaval over a phenomenon called ‘phone tapping’. Gradually media
converted it into yet another national issue, but it got muddled with
the simultaneous Indian Premier League controversy and left people
wondering about the intricacies of phone tapping. So here is
everything you might be like to know about the concept in question!
What is Phone Tapping?
Phone tapping means secretly listening or/and recording a
communication channel (esp. a telephone) in order to get information.
It is also known as ‘wire-tapping’ in some countries (primarily in
USA). It can only be done in an authorized manner with permission from
the department concerned. If it is undertaken in an unauthorized
manner then it is illegal and will result in prosecution of the person
responsible for breach of privacy.
What is the required procedure for Phone tapping in India?
Both, the Central and the State Governments have a right to tap phones
under section 5 of Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885. There are times when
an investigating authority/agency needs to record the phone
conversations of the person who is under suspicion. The authority/
agency per se does not have privilege of tapping calls of anyone they
fancy. It is supposed to seek permission from the Home Ministry before
going ahead with such an act. Specific reasons have to be mentioned in
the application, also it must be explained that how tapping will help
in further investigation of the case. The ministry considers the
request and grants permission if it the reason specified seems fit,
otherwise the request is denied.
If the agency/authority is granted permission to tap the calls then it
contacts the service provider of the telephone/mobile being used by
the suspect. Every service provider possesses technology required for
phone tapping. The service provider moves ahead with the specified
task and provides data to the investigating agency/authority.
What can be done tapping takes place in an unauthorized manner?
* Unauthorized tapping is violation of the right to privacy. The
person can file a complaint in the Human Rights Commission.
* An FIR can be lodged in the nearest Police Station when unauthorized
phone tapping comes into the knowledge of the person.
* The aggrieved person can move to court against the person/company
doing the act in an unauthorized manner under section 26 (b) of the
Indian Telegraphic Act, which provides for 3 year imprisonment for
persons held for tapping. The person (s) can also be prosecuted for
authorized tapping but sharing of the data in an authorized manner.
Phone tapping: What 1997 Supreme Court verdict says
Last updated on: April 26, 2010 14:45 IST
Tags: Supreme Court, Ramakrishna Hegde, PUCL, National Technical
Research Organisation, Zail Singh
The Outlook magazine report on tapping of phones of prominent
politicians by the National Technical Research Organisation has kicked
up a huge storm. The government is under fire and legal experts are of
the opinion that it is clearly violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution, which very clearly mandates that protection ought to be
given to life and liberty.
In this context, it would be interesting to note a very important
judgment of the Supreme Court that had clearly stated that the right
to hold a telephone conversation in private at home or at an office
will come under the provisions of right to privacy and a telephone
conversation is an important part of a person’s private life.
The court also specified in this judgment delivered in the PUCL vs
Union of India [ Images ] case in 1997 that a telephonic conversation
in private without interference would come under the purview of right
to privacy as mandated in the Constitution.
The court further observed that unlawful means of phone tapping are
invasions in privacy and are uncivilized and undemocratic in nature.
The Supreme Court, in the same judgment, also went on to lay down
various guidelines regarding phone tapping which are as follows:
# If a telephone needs to be tapped, then the home secretary of the
Union government or the respective state government can issue an order
to this effect.
# Strong reasons have to be specified in order to issue such a
directive.
# Such an order shall be in force only for two months unless there is
another order, which will give the home secretary the right to extend
it by another six months only.
The Supreme Court, however, does not give the home secretary the
ultimate power and states clearly in the same judgment that such an
order shall be subject to review by the Cabinet, law and
telecommunication secretary who will need to review the same in 2
months time of the date the order has been passed.
Further, the court held that records relating to phone tapping should
be used and destroyed within two months.
The order, which will be passed by the home secretary, shall be
specific in nature. The invasion of privacy shall be minimum in nature
and a strong justification to the act shall be mentioned. A
justification to the effect that the phone is being tapped as they
were unable to collect information through other means.
Constitutional requirements have to be satisfied and unlawful means of
telephone tapping shall be avoided at any cost.
Famous incidents of phone tapping
One of the most famous incidents of phone tapping in India was during
the Ramakrishna Hegde regime in Karnataka [ Images ] in the year 1988.
The opposition had alleged that Hegde had ordered the tapping of
phones of opposition leaders and was invading their privacy. There was
a huge uproar in the state and he was forced to step down as chief
minister after which S R Bommai took over.
Similarly, Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa [ Images ] was
also under the storm when JD-S leader H D Kumaraswamy accused him of
phone tapping.
At the Centre, Zail Singh had accused the Rajiv Gandhi [ Images ]
government of bugging Rashtrapathi Bhavan [ Images ].
Vicky Nanjappa
Discussion Board
11 messages
Vilas Deshpande
ref
by Vilas Deshpande on Nov 29, 2010 01:37 PM
so always talk in such way that it is tapped , speak nicely at least
speaking will be improved.
debasis mukherjee
It is Highly Unethical & Non Democratic
by debasis mukherjee on May 01, 2010 07:36 PM
Tapping phone of a person, only because that person is Politically
Opponent, is Highly Unethical & Non Democratic.
It is something like Gagging Freedom of Expression.
Irrespective of any political party, we all must form public opinion
against this Non Democratic act.
Anoopam Modak
ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS
by Anoopam Modak on Apr 27, 2010 11:12 AM
If enactmwnt of law is the order of the day then enforcement of the
existing laws in force is of prime importance. The crux of the whole
issue is that the nemder of law abiding citizens are on the
downsliding, leaving little room for respect of law. A system ought to
be in place to infuse respect and fear of law into the citizens, which
may improve the deteriorating aocio-economic-politico system.
Praveen Goud
Laws for Punishing Judges?.
by Praveen Goud on Apr 27, 2010 04:51 AM
Every politician, political parties including ruling governments,
bureaucrats, jurists, police and media are voilating fundamental and
constituional rights openly every day. When these idiots and slaves
including judiciary who are supposed to protect and enforce
consitution be respected are voilating , whome shall citizens complain
or rely on?. The same thing applies to privacy of citizens or article
21. Even Article 49-0 provides for NO VOTE provision, did NONSENSE
indian judiciary ever question or any ruling government implement
that?.
We have cabinet level law ministry. UPA is under second term, why
doesn’t Moily minister come out with reforms for collapsed judiciary?.
Why this person inspite of being minister is being used as PCC ?.
Government should remove Moily as Law Minister and appoint an educated
and young minister who can reform the collapsed indian judiciary.
Unless we have laws to punish judges for non-performance, wrong
judgements and delibeate delay in judgements, indian judiciary will be
exploited for bread and butter by quality less parasites with
political support to leach and harass citizens for vested interests.
PRK Reddy
vote bank politics and secularism combat
by PRK Reddy on Apr 26, 2010 02:54 PM
vote bank politics and secularism combat
Type all the above six words in Gooooggggle and search. New articles
posted.
R Balasubramanian
half baked Nanjappa
by R Balasubramanian on Apr 26, 2010 02:28 PM
I think you belong to Karnataka. You do not know who the present CM of
Karnataka. You say ” former Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa”.
Be sensible while reporting. Rediff be alert in appointing such people
to write.
Balu, Bangalore
spring
Re: half baked Nanjappa
by spring on Apr 26, 2010 02:38 PM
even though he is CM of karnataka, he still act like opposition
leader. blame everything to other instead of taking responsibilities
and act. I think 35years opposition leader was too much for him. one
of worst CM and government karnataka ever seen in the entire history.
by the time they finish term, state will turn to stone age and
officially we can declare karnataka as south bihar.
chatur pahalwan
Re: Re: half baked Nanjappa
by chatur pahalwan on Apr 27, 2010 07:54 AM
why only u say so sitting in Australia as per ur comments. I know that
u dont like bjp. But ur the only 1 saying so against Yedurappa else
people are happy.
A C
Phone Tapping ??? How ?? when??
by A C on Apr 26, 2010 01:51 PM
When any Govt official does phone tapping unofficially, how is a
person supposed to know that their phone is being tapped? They can
always deny that it was never done, illegal phone tapping can’t be
used as evidence but it is used to actually find out what somebody
else is doing for some ulterior motive and obviously there is no
control over it. Wrong thing but it is done by special agencies and
police so, how will they stop it? Who will bell the cat? Unless
telecom companies are made to ensure that no illegal tapping is
possible it can’t be controlled, but they will not use that option and
all illegal tapping should be made public and informed to the hapless
unwitting consumer. If it is legal there is no issue anyways.
firefly
80 billion indians
by firefly on Apr 26, 2010 01:28 PM
80 billion Indians are seeing but are helpless against the games
CONGRESS is playing!
Is there any POWER to Democracy?
No!
with Media and all legal authorities like IT dept, CBI, TV CHANNELS,
NGO’S…Congress shows that it the richest party in INDIA…and yes it is
only in their regime that INDIANS become the most poor, helpless
against neighbours, against their own politicians, helpless against
media mafia.
This IPL fiasco CONTROLLED by GANDHI FAMILY…is a big stigma on INDIAN
HISTORY and we are damn sure the souls of all those freedom fighetrs
who gave their lives for INDIA must be spitting on 80 Billion Indians!
Jai Hind!
bak bak
Re: 80 billion indians
by bak bak on Apr 26, 2010 01:43 PM
apart from earth, in how many other planets do indians exist to make
up the 80 billion!!!!!!
Shivaram Krishnan
Use this tool Mr.Opposition Politician.
by Shivaram Krishnan on Apr 26, 2010 01:22 PM
If the govt. is tapping the phones of opposition leaders then those
leaders should use it as a tool to mislead the morons in the govt. Say
something on phone and do something else. Simple..what an idea sirji
Manoj Dev
Re: Use this tool Mr.Opposition Politician.
by Manoj Dev on Apr 26, 2010 02:03 PM
Terrific idea. But, possibly, some have already done so; take IPL-
Bharat, why should otherwise people living in glass houses would throw
stones at each other!
Message(s) deleted by moderator not displayed on this page
Shivaram Krishnan
Use this tool Mr.Opposition Politician.
by Shivaram Krishnan on Apr 26, 2010 01:22 PM
If the govt. is tapping the phones of opposition leaders then those
leaders should use it as a tool to mislead the morons in the govt. Say
something on phone and do something else. Simple..what an idea sirji
Manoj Dev
Re: Use this tool Mr.Opposition Politician.
by Manoj Dev on Apr 26, 2010 02:03 PM
Terrific idea. But, possibly, some have already done so; take IPL-
Bharat, why should otherwise people living in glass houses would throw
stones at each other!
HRM
private telecoms
by HRM on Apr 26, 2010 01:20 PM
In this modern era of privatisation, private telecoms should also be
bought under the scanner as the judgt is equally applicable to the
private sectors too
JD-U activists demand PM’s resignation over phone tapping report
[IST]
Patna (Bihar), Apr 26 (ANI): Supporters of Bihar’s ruling Janata Dal-
United (JD-U) Government demanded the resignation of the Prime
Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, on Monday over a media report of phone
tapping of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and several other leaders.
They burnt the effigy of Dr Singh here and called him a ‘dummy Prime
Minister’.
“The Central Government has tapped the phone of the most popular chief
minister of India, Nitish Kumar. It proves that Manmohan Singh is a
dummy Prime minister. He has no right to remain in power any longer,”
said JD-U supporter Rajiv Ranjan Patel.
“He should immediately resign. If he doesn’t resign, we will take this
matter from Bihar to Delhi,” he added.
‘Outlook’ magazine in a cover story had reported that government
intelligence agencies had tapped the phones of Communist Party leader
Prakash Karat, Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, and Congress leader
Digvijay Singh among others. (ANI)
Phone tapping row likely to rock India parliament
By Krittivas Mukherjee
NEW DELHI | Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:36am EDT
NEW DELHI (Reuters) – A row over charges government agencies secretly
tapped telephones of senior politicians is likely to paralyze India’s
parliament on Monday, possibly spelling fresh delay for the budget and
other key bills.
The tension comes just as the government is seeking to secure its
allies’ support for a possible vote in parliament over high food
prices. The government would fall if it loses the vote.
The controversy is the latest blow for a coalition that was expected
to capitalize on its re-election to promote policies to boost
investment and ailing infrastructure as well as reform welfare and
subsidies.
Instead, a slew of crises has distracted it, upstaging even routine
parliamentary business like passing the budget and discussion on
crucial reforms legislation.
The phone tapping charge has united the opposition, which said it will
demand a statement from the government on Monday.
“In the garb of tracking terror, the government is tracking
politicians and even their cabinet ministers,” said Rajiv Pratap Rudy,
spokesman of the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party.
A magazine report said last week that senior politicians, including
two from the government, had their mobile conversations listened into,
sparking allegations intelligence agencies were being used to spy upon
political rivals.
The government has still to officially react to the allegation, but
officials in the prime minister’s office said the matter was being
looked into.
The government already faced heavy protests over its handling of a
worsening Maoist insurgency, while rising food prices and fuel price
hikes had prompted the opposition demand for a special parliamentary
vote.
A probe into India’s popular multi-billion dollar cricket league has
ensnared senior politicians and billionaire businessmen in a growing
scandal also hurting an already weakened Congress-led government.
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee canceled a trip to Washington for an
International Monetary fund meeting last week in order to firefight
and muster support for the special vote.
Some Indian TV stations said on Sunday that Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh might skip a South Asian leaders’ summit in Bhutan this week in
view of political developments at home. His office denied this.
The special parliamentary vote will make Congress nervous, given that
two of its allies pulled out of the coalition last month to protest a
controversial women’s bill. This has dangerously thinned its
parliamentary support.
But most experts expect the government to win. Bond and stock markets
are unaffected, with traders anticipating the government will survive.
However, the vote, plus the cricket and phone rows, have reduced the
chances of the government getting key bills passed.
It is trying to pass the budget and reform legislation with a thinner
majority. Among other legislation, the government is eyeing passage of
a bill allowing foreign universities to set up campuses on Indian soil
and another to cut its stake in the State Bank of India.
It has already put on ice until it reaches a political consensus a
bill to open its $150 billion civilian nuclear sector.
(Editing by Jerry Norton)
The secret world of phone tapping
Ashish Khetan, Bhavna Vij-Aurora and Sandeep Unnithan | December 9,
2010 | Updated 23:54 IST
Relateds
* New Radia tapes made public
* ‘Phone tapes should not be leaked’
* Nira Radia tapes mind-boggling: SC
* Experts debate Radia tapes’ impact
* The rise of Nira Radia
* ‘Radia foreign intel agencies’ spy’
Over a million mobile phones, across service providers, are under the
surveillance of Central agencies in India through the year.
Officially, the Government will admit to over 6,000 telephones in New
Delhi being tapped. This secret hot list has as many as 400
bureaucrats and military officials monitored on suspicion of
corruption, 200 corporate honchos, over 50 top journalists, an equal
number of fixers, a dozen arms dealers, two dozen NGOs and about 100
high society pimps, drug dealers and hawala operators. This is in
addition to suspected militants, their supporters and sympathisers and
known criminals.
READ MORE:
* Transcript: Radia and A Raja
* Transcript: Radia and Barkha Dutt
* Transcript: Radia and Vir Sanghvi
In an attempt to widen its surveillance net, the Home Ministry has now
sought suitable amendments to the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, to allow
active intervention for tapping phones and monitoring Internet
communication. Home Secretary G.K. Pillai says the home ministry is
pursuing changes to the country’s telecom laws to bring clarity in the
Government’s authority to intercept highly secure corporate
communications. This will be part of broader changes related to lawful
intercept policy and privacy.
Everyday, Pillai, the sole authoriser of such Central wiretaps,
receives hundreds of fresh written requests for electronic
surveillance. A majority of requests emanate from the Intelligence
Bureau (IB), Income Tax Department, Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and the Enforcement
Directorate (ED). Additional requests also come from state agencies
who need the home ministry’s permission to intercept phones in Union
Territories. Law enforcement agencies can tap a phone without the home
secretary’s permission for the first week. Thereafter, a tap can be
done only after a strong case is made. In reality, a weak argument
works. Crime and terrorism are the familiar rationales but they leave
the door open for multi-level abuse. Each state has an average of
2,000 to 3,000 phones under surveillance at any given time.
“Civil liberties are far too important to be left to the executive or
the home secretary. There is EVERY DANGER OF WRONG PERMISSIONS being
given out and indiscriminate tapping.”
- Rajinder Sachar, Former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court
Phone tapping is uncoordinated. Various agencies monitor numbers in
silos. At times, a single number is simultaneously being monitored by
multiple agencies of the state and Centre. The proliferation of off-
the-shelf sophisticated listening devices and absence of a Central
database compound the problem. Except in certain special laws,
wiretaps can be used only as corroborative evidence in courts. But it
is so easily done with such little effort that it becomes the first
recourse for law enforcement authorities. With an increasing reliance
on phone tapping as operational tools, the surveillance society is
only set for consolidation.
Activists argue for a US-like system where only a judge authorises
wiretaps after reviewing the evidence. “Civil liberties are far too
important to be left to the executive or the home secretary. There is
every danger of wrong permissions being given out, resulting in
indiscriminate tapping,” says former chief justice Rajinder Sachar.
What The Law Says:
Phone tapping is allowed under the general provisions of Section 5 of
the Indian Telegraph Act, but only in “public emergency, or in the
interest of public safety”. In 1997, the Supreme Court, in response to
a petition filed by justice Sachar, laid down five precepts for
intercepting conversations-in the interests of national sovereignty
and integrity, state security, friendly relations with foreign states,
public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an
offence. “Tapping phones especially for tax evasion and corruption
needs to be done only in the rarest of rare cases,” says former IPS
officer-turned-lawyer Y.P. Singh.
There are seven Central agencies authorised to tap telephones – the
IB, ED, Delhi Police, CBI, DRI, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau
and the Narcotics Control Bureau. “Phone tapping is a legal
instrument. It should be kept in safe custody of the court or very few
officers should have access to it. Leaking tapes are like leaking
official secrets; it not only adversely affects an individual but is
also harmful to investigations and the prosecution process,” says Arun
Bhagat, former director, IB.
Who Is Being Tapped:
Often a hint of suspicion can put you under the scanner. Home ministry
officials became suspicious of the flamboyant lifestyle of IAS officer
Ravi Inder Singh. The bureaucrat shunned his official accommodation in
favour of a plush guesthouse provided by his friend and co-accused
Vinit Kumar. Singh’s phones were kept under observation where he was
heard referring to “Ukranian and Russian software”, a code for
prostitutes. Hotels were referred to as hardware and bribes were
called laddoos. He was charged with giving clearance to a US-based
telecom company, Telecordia, for mobile number portability. Dozens of
other bureaucrats are believed to be under surveillance for similar
reasons. But for every legal case, there are hundreds of illegal wire
taps. Five years ago, a Mumbai newspaper publicised explicit phone
conversations of actor Salman Khan. The Government claimed the voice
on the tapes was not Khan’s. It was a cover-up of an illegal wiretap.
The conversations had been leaked out from the city crime branch. Four
private detectives were arrested for illegally obtaining phone records
of former Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh in 2005.
But what if an illegally monitored phone yields evidence of
wrongdoing? Officials say a backdated application is sought from the
home secretary.
How They Are Tapped:
Every agency fills out an authorisation slip before placing a phone
under surveillance. In the states, it is the state home secretary who
signs this. Officially, telephones of politicians cannot be tapped-a
qualifier on the slip says the surveilled person is not an elected
representative. Before the advent of cellular phones, state agencies
often strung out parallel lines from telephone poles, rented lodgings
in the vicinity or even pitched a tent in the vicinity posing as
nomadic tribes. Often the target would get to know due to the
disturbance in the phone. Calls could only be listened to, not
recorded. Cellphones gave organised crime syndicates mobility and
anonymity as connections could be bought in fake names. In the
mid-1990s, operators were ill-equipped to intercept calls. In the
first instance of surveillance, the then deputy superintendent of the
Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force (STF) Rajesh Pandey got a telecom
engineer in Allahabad to devise a typewritersized interception box.
The box was lugged around and connected to switching stations.
Today, every cellular service provider has an aggregation station
which is a clutch of servers called mediation servers (because they
mediate between the cellular operators and the law enforcement
agencies) to intercept phones. Two kinds of interception facilities
are available-Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) and the
leased line. Under ISDN, a mediation server intercepts a call, and
then transmits it through a Primary Rate Interface (PRI) line to the
office of a government agency. The police can listen to the phone on
their PRI line and store the recording to attached computers.
Simultaneously, a sound file of the intercepted call is also recorded
and stored in the mediation server. In ISDN, the transfer of call-
related data doesn’t happen in real time. A slow 64 KBPS speed results
in a time lag of two to three minutes. Data packets are lost in
traffic and calls don’t reach the PRI line.
Under the leased line facility, the service provider gives the agency
direct access to its backbone network through a dedicated fast speed
fibre optic cable connection. The call-related data is not only
transmitted in real time, at the lightning speed of 2 MBPS, the
chances of missing any call are minimal. But since the cost of laying
a fast-speed fibre optic cable connection is higher, state agencies
are more dependent on ISDN. For instance, the Mumbai Crime Branch has
leased line connections from just three service providers, for the
rest it uses ISDN. At any given point of time a service provider can
provide a maximum of eight agencies the call interception facility to
a given number.
The commonest surveillance methods are sourcing an individual’s call
data records (CDR) or list of numbers dialled and received. This does
not require government sanction. Fed into a special software, the CDR
rapidly builds up a ‘relationship tree’ or charts the relationship
between thousands of calls. This can easily be used to pry on
civilians. A secretary in a Central ministry is believed to source the
CDRs of journalists to trace their sources.
Trying To Beat The Tap Trap:
Niira Radia
Niira Radia’s TATA Docomo phone was not tapped because the service
provider was her employer
Technology is an antidote to privacy. The rich and the famous do try
and escape it. In one of her taped conversations, Niira Radia
instructs Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi’s wife Rajathi’s
charted accountant to call on her Tata Docomo number. Since lawful
intercept of a cellphone can only be done by writing to the concerned
telecom service provider, Radia evidently felt secure on a number
provided by her client, Tata. Not surprisingly, Radia’s Idea and MTNL
numbers only were intercepted. Anil Ambani’s aide Tony Jesudasan uses
only Reliance cellphone numbers. Sources say both the IT Department
and CBI wanted to tap Jesudasan’s number but decided against it for
obvious reasons. Singh had a friend in Vodafone’s senior management
who warned him of all his four numbers being monitored by the Delhi
Police, thus giving him time to destroy incriminating evidence.
There is a twist in this tale. A majority of surveillance equipment
was acquired to keep track of organised crime and terrorism.
Intelligence agencies rue that phone tapping and interceptions are now
yielding diminishing returns because terrorists have found new ways of
staying ahead of them. Terrorists are increasingly using BlackBerry
phones while their handlers are using the new generation Inmarsat-4
satellite phones, making their interception next to impossible, at
least for now.
Though Inmarsat-4 phones can be monitored off the air, the
conversation is available only in encrypted format. Voice and data can
be effectively monitored only at the Inmarsat-4 switch in London and
New York, where it is available in decrypted form. That is the reason
why India still has to depend upon British or US intelligence agencies
for information. Voice over Internet Telephony (VOIP)-based Skype and
Google mail and chat are also extensively used by terrorists,
smalltime criminals and corporate houses. Free software can be
downloaded on smart handsets and computers to encrypt calls and mails.
Commercially available software like Cellcrypt has been found to be
most effective in securing conversations and messages. Compatible with
all smartphones, Cellcrypt aids in personalised encryption of all
communication. The only catch for completely secure communication is
that handsets at both ends should have the software. If only one of
the handsets has installed the software, the communication will be
available in decrypted format at the other end.
Central Oversight And The Big Brother Server:
The home ministry is now setting up what could be called a ‘Big
Brother server’. This move, done in sync with new laws on active phone
interception, greatly enhances the Government’s powers to snoop on
individuals. At the heart of this plan is a Centralised phone and data
monitoring centre costing Rs 800 crore. The Centre will improve
coordination among the seven agencies authorised to tap phones and
also with the states. “It will help centralise data collation and give
the Central agencies actionable intelligence in more or less real
time,” says a home ministry official. It will also generate data about
the number of phones being tapped countrywide.
“Phone tapping needs to be done ONLY IN THE RAREST OF RARE cases where
there is occurrence of any PUBLIC EMERGENCY or in the interests of
PUBLIC SAFETY.”
- Y.P. Singh, IPS officer-turned-lawyer
The monitoring system will connect the small towns and cities of a
state to its capital, and all the state capitals will be linked to a
centralised monitoring centre in Delhi via fibre optic cables. If the
IB wants to monitor a phone at Gonda in Uttar Pradesh, they can do so
sitting in Delhi after sending necessary authorisations to the service
provider. It will even make the process of tapping much smoother for
the states since the capital city will be connected to the local
switchboards. “It also increases the responsibility of the service
provider since he is bound to deliver the traffic wherever asked,” the
official added. It will, for the first time, allow the Government to
seamlessly monitor a suspect’s cellphone across several networks and
across the country. An intelligence official calls this the “nuclear
weapon” of phone tapping software. “Implemented in its full form, it
will give us the precise location of any individual within a cellphone
network,” he says.
This is why the Government plans to maintain the mandatory audit trail
file, which will have electronic footprints of the number tapped-the
agency given access for how long and if the conversation was recorded
and if any copies were made. This protocol is followed worldwide and
the audit file is crucial in the courts of countries where phone taps
are admissible as evidence. “In India, the protocol ensures no
unauthorised copy is made and the system remains transparent,” says an
intelligence official, dealing with the project. Moreover, access to
the audit file will only be through a valid password available with
any of the Central agencies. Even service providers will not have
access to it to rule out any tampering.
In an attempt to collate tapped data, the home ministry has asked the
states for all records of phone and Internet interceptions. It also
plans to supervise the working of the mandatory oversight committees
on electronic surveillance in various states. At the Central level,
the oversight committee is headed by the cabinet secretary and
includes the law and telecom secretaries. With the home secretary
approving most requests, the oversight committee is a mere formality.
It rarely questions phone or Internet monitoring. Oversight committees
on tapping in the states is tardily implemented. A few states don’t
even have these mandatory committees. The states that do have them
rarely meet. Law and order being a state subject, the states are not
bound to share the information.
The Orwellian Future-active Intervention:
Imagine this scenario. Terrorist A sends SMSes from Malad in Mumbai to
terrorists B in Colaba and C in Bandra. The SMS asks B and C to meet
at Juhu beach, at 6 p.m. As B and C are moving, it becomes difficult
to nab them by their cellphone location. The police alter the SMS from
A and send an SMS saying “meet at Kalaghoda at 5 p.m.” to B and “meet
at Regal Cinema at 6 p.m.” to C. B and C, believing that the SMS was
from A, respond accordingly. The police nab all three in a smooth
operation.
“LEAKING TAPES are like leaking official secrets, it not only
adversely effects a particular individual but is also HARMFULTO
INVESTIGATIONS and the prosecution process.”
- Arun Bhagat, Former Director, IB
Most anti-terror agencies can actually carry out such operations.
Active off-air interception allows the police to virtually act as
cellphone towers and thus modify or block SMSes and calls. The machine
can be vehicle-mounted and can follow the target in urban areas where
conventional surveillance fails to track moving suspects. Security
agencies say they have elaborate internal regulations to control the
use of this technology. In Mumbai, for instance, the Crime Branch
needs written authorisation from the police commissioner to use this
machine. However, the temptation to misuse it for political espionage
and personal gains is high. Conscious of its potential for misuse, the
Uttar Pradesh ATS has recently declined to acquire this tool. There is
no guarantee that others will display such resolve.
THE BIG FISH CAUGHT OVER PHONE
Secret surveillance of phone calls helped policemen to achieve vital
breakthroughs in several high-profile cases
Batla House Encounter
After a series of IED blasts rocked Ahmedabad on July 26, 2008 the
city crime branch analysed a suspect’s call data record which led to
Atif Amin, a student of Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi. On September 2,
11 days before the Delhi blasts, the special cell of the Delhi Police
put Amin’s phone under observation.
Batla House encounter
Four days later, he received a call from Indian Mujahideen terrorist
Mirza Shadab Baig who spoke about the parking position of an auto-
rickshaw at Ghaffar Market, Karol Bagh. On September 11, Amin switched
off his cellphone. Two days later, a bomb, kept in an auto-rickshaw,
detonated in the market. Four more bombs exploded at Connaught Place
and Greater Kailash, killing over 30 people. Delhi Police failed to
prevent the blasts because of their colossal failure in analysing
Amin’s calls while the conspiracy was being hatched.
A day after the blasts, Amin switched his cellphone on. Though too
late in the day, the police could now join the dots. On September 18,
an NTRO van equipped with an off the air phone intercepting machine
was parked close to Jamia Millia Islamia to monitor Amin’s cellphone.
The mobile monitoring system planned to track him if he had moved out
of Batla House at Jamia Nagar, where he lived. On the morning of
September 19, as Amin’s cellphone confirmed his continued presence at
Batla House, the special cell stormed the residential building and
killed three terrorists, including Amin. The encounter went on to
become controversial for the circumstances and the death of encounter
specialist and Delhi Police inspector Mohan Chand Sharma.
Veerappan’s death trap
In June 2004, sandalwood smuggler Veerappan’s elder brother Madhayan,
who was lodged in Vellore jail, tried to buy a cellphone by bribing
the jail staff. The police allowed it and put his phone under
surveillance.
Bodies of Veerappan and his aides
Though Madhayan never spoke to Veerappan, one day a gang member told
him that while applying hair dye, Veerappan’s eyes had accidently got
infected and a doctor, who had been taken to the forest, had advised
an urgent surgery. The police implanted an under-cover policeman
posing as an LTTE member in Madhayan’s cell. The under-cover cop
offered to make arrangements for Veerappan’s eye surgery and on
October 19, 2004, policemen in the guise of hospital staff drove an
ambulance to the fringe of the forest in Dharmapuri district in
Karnataka. Veerappan and three of his aides emerged and were driven
into a meticulously planned trap. All four were shot dead.
End of Sri Prakash Shukla’s terror in Uttar Pradesh
With the launch of cellular services in Uttar Pradesh in March 1998,
Sri Prakash Shukla, a dreaded gangster, started operating with
impunity. He had forged a nexus with gangsters and politicians in
Bihar, West Bengal, Nepal and Uttar Pradesh.
Gangster Sri Prakash Shukla
Several sensational murders in the heart of Lucknow made him the
state’s most wanted gangster. The newly introduced cellphones provided
Shukla’s gang with both mobility and anonymity. The challenge before
the newly formed Uttar Pradesh STF, constituted to eliminate Shukla
and 43 other criminals, were twofold: to listen to Shukla’s calls and
to track his location. But the mobile service providers took a few
months before they could provide police with interception and tower
location facilities. Things were not easy as Shukla began changing his
numbers. The cellphone trail finally led to Delhi and on September 22,
1998, the STF nabbed Shukla and two aides from the M-Block market in
Greater Kailash-II. The police gunned them down after reaching
Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh.
26/11 Mumbai attacks
On November 26, 2008, as LeT fidayeen terrorists took positions in the
Taj Mahal and Oberoi hotels, the electronic intelligence room of the
Mumbai ATS started working overtime, sifting through all the calls
originating from or coming to the towers within Colaba, Cuff Parade
and Nariman Point areas. An IB input led to the first breakthrough.
A few months before 26/11, the Jammu and Kashmir Police infiltrated an
LeT module active in Kolkata and planted 35 SIM cards. A few hours
into the 26/11 attacks, one out of those 35 numbers was switched on.
It was being used by one of the terrorists Hafiz Arshad alias Abdul
Rahman Bada at the Taj. The Mumbai ATS then discovered that the calls
were emanating from a Voice over Internet Protocol or Internet
telephone number through the Airtel international gateway. All the
calls were coming through the number on surveillance. So as the
terrorists in Mumbai switched over to the cellphones they had snatched
from the hostages, the ATS kept tapping the new numbers. Over the next
56 hours, the Mumbai ATS intercepted a total of 284 conversations
running into over 16 hours. An NSG officer was stationed at the ATS
headquarters to pass on realtime intelligence gathered from the
intercepts to commandos on the ground. The telephonic intercepts
constituted one of the biggest evidence of Pakistan’s culpability in
the terror attack.
Telephone-tapping an invasion of individual’s privacy
PUCL Bulletin, February 2006
– By Rajindar Sachar
The current slanging match between political parties arising from
telephone-tapping of Amar Singh, General Secretary of S.P. has again
highlighted the menace of unauthorized telephone tapping. This evil
was highlighted in the press in 1991 showing hundreds of telephone
tapping of top politicians (including Chandra Shekhar, former Prime
Minister) and journalists. In India telephone tapping is provided
under Section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. But it could not
survive after the Constitution and the Second Press Commission
suggested some safeguards to be provided in the Act, but legislature
did not act.
It was in this background that Peoples Union for Civil Liberties
(PUCL) took the matter to the Supreme Court, which agreed that
“Telephone-tapping is a serious invasion of an individual’s privacy,
and increasingly susceptible to abuse.” More importantly it held right
to privacy is a part of the right to “life” and “personal liberty”
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and Right to freedom of
speech and expression is guaranteed also under Article 19 (1)(a) of
the Constitution and when a person is talking on telephone, he is
exercising this fundamental rights. This Court laid down that
officials could pass an order of interception only after recording its
satisfaction that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the
interest of (i) sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) the security
of the State, (iii) friendly relations with foreign States, (iv)
public order or (v) for preventing incitement to the commission of an
offence. It is only when any of the five situations mentioned above to
the satisfaction of the competent authority require that the said
authority may pass the order for interception of messages by recording
reasons in writing for doing so.
Thus the Court emphasized that the security of ones privacy against
arbitrary intrusion by the police is basic to a free society and
enforceable against the state through the Courts. Lamenting the
present position and noticing that though the Act was enacted in the
year 1885, and the power to make rules under Section 7 of the Act has
been there for over a century but the Central Government has not
thought it proper to frame the necessary rules despite severe
criticism of the manner in which the power under Section 5 (2) has
been exercised. Though conceding that it is entirely for the Central
Government to make rules on the subject but till the time it is done
the right to privacy of an individual has to be safeguarded, against
arbitrariness in the exercise of power under Act.
The Court therefore gave certain directions under which alone
telephone tapping could be done. It directed that telephone tapping
order will not be issued except under authorization by Home Secretary
of the Central Government or of the State Government. The order should
indicate the kind of communication which is to be tapped. The order
passed by the Home Secretary was to cease to have effect at the end of
two months from the date of authority, though it could be renewed for
six months.
A further direction was also given that original order would have to
be reviewed by Committee consisting of Cabinet Secretary, Law
Secretary and Secretary for Telephone Communication at the Central
level and also a Corresponding Committee at the state level and if it
considers that there has been a contravention of Act it will set aside
the order and also destroy copies of interception material. In the
background of Constitutional violation one is amazed at the
indifference and levity being shown in political circles. The Congress
can legitimately object to Amar Singh blaming Mrs. Sonia Gandhi
without substantiating it. But the response by its spokes person
should have been disdainful silence rather than the Babalog immature
and supercilious reaction by a query as to why Amar Singh was feeling
jittery about it and describing it as “Operation Majnu”. What if Amar
Singh was to get nasty by calling this reaction as “Operation Laila”,
such attitudes can only degrade the atmosphere of politics.
The matter has assumed All India implication with Chief Minister of
Tamil Nadu also complaining of her telephone being tapped. To this,
complaints have been added by Mr. Gowda, the former Prime Minister and
Mr. Chandrababu Naidu, former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh openly
alleging that they have reason to believe that their telephones are
being tapped. These are very serious allegations made by the
responsible persons. Allegations made by such two high functionaries,
representing a broad spectrum of political mass cannot be brushed
aside by Central Government by taking cover on the plea that CBI is
holding an inquiry. This is not acceptable.
I feel that public can only be satisfied either by judicial enquiry by
a Supreme Court judge, or better still (which I would personally
advocate) committee of Members of Parliament appointed jointly by
chairperson of Rajya Sabha and the Speaker of Lok Sabha. Each party
has admittedly a stake in truth coming out. The formation of the
Committee should be immediate to prevent further muddying of political
debate and heightening of political temper.
This situation is hardly conducive to rational politics and the
country needs to resolve it immediately. Prime Minister’s restrained
response gives hope that all parties meet would immediately sit down
and diffuse the situation. I say this because there are different
political parties in power in various states. This game of telephone
tapping can be played by all political parties and they should sort
this out so that there is no scope left for opportunist and vested
groups to play one political party against another.
We, in this context need to remind ourselves that unauthorized wire
tapping of his political opponent raised such an uproar which led to
the ultimate resignation of President Nixon. I believe public
indignation here is similarly as strong and widespread.
It is regrettable that though this judgment was passed in 1997 and we
have had since then governments of different political parties, yet no
one has cared to frame specific rules for this purpose even when
Supreme Court had expressed its unhappiness at this lacuna. My own
suggestion is that instead of getting authorization from officials,
the same should be obtained (of course ex parte) from a high judicial
officer, nominated by the high Court, on line similar to as in USA.
Is it fair that notwithstanding this gross lapse by legislature, it
should still blame the judiciary for dealing with matters belonging to
legislature? What other course for the judiciary, when Constitution
mandates it to be protector of fundamental rights of citizens.
The politicians possibly when in power feel comfortable about tapping
telephones of their opponents but it is ironically forgotten that
because of electoral fortune it may be a victim in future.
Phone tapping: Why target us, ask Muslims
April 25, 2010 19:45 IST
Tags: Muslim, National Security Advisory M K Narayanan, Vishwa Hindu
Parishad, Abdul Raheem Qureshi, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
Muslims in Hyderabad have expressed their unhappiness over reports
that they were target of a sophisticated telephone tapping operation
by Intelligence Bureau.
Reacting sharply to the revelations made by news magazine Outlook that
Muslim-dominated areas of Hyderabad and Lucknow [ Images ] were
targeted for telephone tapping at the behest of then National Security
Advisory M K Narayanan, community leaders said that this was yet
another proof of how Muslims were being eyed with suspicions by those
in power as well as the agencies.
All India [ Images ] Muslim Personal Law Board secretary Abdul Raheem
Qureshi has urged the Centre and the state to immediately put an end
to the abominable practices of targeting of Muslims for telephone
tapping and other espionage operations in the name of fight against
terrorism.
“Telephone tapping is a serious violation of the right to privacy,
guaranteed by the constitution,” said Moulana Qureshi, who was also
part of Muslim United Forum, the umbrella of several Muslim
organisations in Andhra Pradesh.
“The telephone tapping operation in Muslim-dominated areas of
Hyderabad and Lucknow shows that the home ministries both at the
Centre and the states, and their intelligence agencies were out to
selectively target the Muslim minority in the country.”
Strongly condemning the anti Muslim bias of the intelligence
authorities, Qureshi demanded to know whether similar operations were
carried out against the leaders of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Vishwa
Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal.
Mohammed Siddique in Hyderabad
Govt has not authorised any phone tapping: Chidambaram
Last updated on: April 26, 2010 13:54 IST
Tags: National Technical Research Organisation, UPA, Chidambaram, Lok
Sabha, Cabinet
Amid uproar over the issue of telephone tapping of senior political
leaders, the Centre on Monday rubbished the charge in Parliament
asserting that it had not authorised any such action.
“I wish to state categorically that no telephone tapping or
eavesdropping on political leaders was authorised by the previous UPA
government. Nor has the present UPA government authorised any such
activity,” Home Minister P Chidambaram [ Images ] said in Lok Sabha.
He said the report in Outlook magazine on phone tapping was thoroughly
enquired into and ‘nothing has been found in the records of the NTRO
(National Technical Research Organisation) to substantiate the
allegations’.
“Further enquiries are being made into the allegations in the
magazine. If any evidence is forthcoming or discovered, the matter
will be thoroughly investigated by the appropriate agencies,” the Home
Minister said.
“It is a technical organisation of the government….The organisation
was notified on April 15, 2004,” he said.
Asserting that intelligence agencies functioned within the law, he
said they are “fully accountable” to the government.
Under the Telegraph Act and the IT Act, each case of monitoring of
telephones or electronic communications has to be approved by the
Union home secretary personally and is subject to review by an
oversight committee chaired by the Cabinet secretary.
“Such monitoring, as may be necessary to fight crime, for national
security or for counter-terrorism effort, is subject to multiple
checks and oversight,” Chidambaram said.
Advani on phone tapping row: ‘Is Emergency back?’
April 25, 2010 14:53 IST
Tags: Advani, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Gyani Zail Singh, Prakash Karat,
Digvijay Singh
Taking a serious note of allegations of tapping of phones of
politicians, senior Bharatiya Janata Party [ Images ] leader L K
Advani [ Images ] has demanded enactment of a new legislation to
protect citizens’ privacy.
It is a “shocking report describing how the Government of India
[ Images ] has been making use of the latest phone tapping technology
to prepare records of telephonic conversations of prominent political
leaders, including chief ministers like Nitish Kumar, Union ministers
like Sharad Pawar [ Images ], communist leaders like Prakash Karat
[ Images ] and the Congress party’s own office bearers like its
general secretary, Digvijay Singh [ Images ],” he said.
Commenting on the report on phone tapping published in Outlook
magazine, Advani, in his blog titled Is the Emergency back, said that
the ‘outdated’ Telephone Act should be scrapped and demanded that a
new legislation be enacted to protect citizens’ privacy.
“What is really required in this context is to set up a Parliamentary
committee on the lines of the Birkett committee in Britain to examine
all aspects of the problem, scrap the outdated Indian Telephone Act of
1885 and replace it by a new legislation, which forbids invasion of an
ordinary citizens’ privacy…,” Advani said.
He said a new law should formally recognise the right of the State to
use the latest IT devices of interception to deal only with crime,
subversion and espionage. The law must provide statutory safeguards,
which make it impossible for the government to abuse its powers
against political activists and journalists, he said.
Recalling an incident, he said, “This reminds me of an interesting
encounter I had 25 years back. In 1985, one morning a stranger arrived
at my house carrying a briefcase full of papers. This brief case, he
told me, contained ‘dynamite’, which could blow up this government. He
opened his briefcase and out poured some 200 sheets of closely-typed
records of telephonic conversations of many VIPs,” he said.
However, Advani did not find them ‘explosive’, as that gentleman
seemed to presume. Some of those papers were telephonic conversations
between him and Atal Bihari Vajpayee [ Images ], he said.
“What surprised me even more was that those transcripts included tape-
recorded conversations not only of opposition leaders but also of
eminent journalists and some extremely distinguished VVIPs like Gyani
Zail Singh,” he said.
Advani’s blog mentioned many incidents of phone tapping in the past,
including a press conference of June 25, 1985, on the 10th anniversary
of Emergency by Vajpayee. He said Vajpayee had then referred to large-
scale phone tapping that was done during the 19 months of Emergency.
Congress distances itself from phone ‘tapping’ row
April 23, 2010 21:35 IST
Tags: Congress, Rajya Sabha S S Ahluwalia, Opposition Bharatiya Janata
Party, National Technical Research Organisation, Communist Party of
India
The Congress on Friday downplayed the issue of the government tapping
the phones of several politicians, including those in power, and said
it is for the government to explain. However, the party admitted that
illegal phone tapping was unjustified.
“Illegal phone tapping is unjustified but in this case, it is for the
government to explain whether phone tapping was done or not or whether
it was legal or not,” party spokesperson Shakeel Ahmed said.
The Congress leader’s remark comes in the wake of reports in a weekly
magazine alleging that government agencies have been tapping phones of
important politicians and ministers since 2006.
Reacting to it, main Opposition Bharatiya Janata Party [ Images ] has
said it will raise the issue in Parliament.
“If the government is tapping the phones of terrorists, or tax evaders
or secessionists, then it is understandable as national interest and
national security are involved. But tapping phones of politicians and
ministers is condemnable,” BJP deputy leader in Rajya Sabha S S
Ahluwalia [ Images ] said.
Ahluwalia insisted that this was violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution which assures protection of life and personal liberty of
every citizen.
Communist Party of India [ Images ] – Marxist general secretary
Prakash Karat [ Images ] termed as ‘illegal and intolerable’ the
reported tapping of phones of political leaders and asked the
government to take action against those responsible for the acts.
“The United Progressive Alliance [ Images ] government is resorting to
tapping of phones of political leaders which is illegal and
intolerable. The government has to own up responsibility and take
action against those responsible,” said Karat.
He said further safeguards should be taken against such misuse of
security agencies. His comments came in the backdrop of a magazine
report that phones of prominent political leaders including Union
Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar [ Images ], Congress leader Digvijay
Singh [ Images ] and Karat have been tapped.
The phones of Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar have also been tapped
by the National Technical Research Organisation, an intelligence
agency created in the aftermath of the Kargil [ Images ] war to cover
all aspects of technical intelligence gathering, Outlook magazine
claimed in its latest issue.
While the phones of Singh and Kumar were tapped in 2007, Karat’s phone
was tapped in 2008, at the height of his opposition to the Indo-United
States nuclear deal, leading to the no-confidence motion against the
government. Pawar’s phone was tapped last fortnight in the wake of the
IPL scandal.
Phone tapping, IPL scandals rock Parliament
Last updated on: April 26, 2010 14:54 IST
Tags: IPL, RJD, BJP, Joint Parliamentary Committee, National Technical
Research Organisation
Reports of telephone tapping and the IPL controversy rocked Parliament
on Monday with both Houses adjourning for the day as an agitated
opposition demanded a Joint Parliamentary Committee probe into the two
issues.
The opposition members were not satisfied with Home Minister P
Chidambaram’s [ Images ] statement rubbishing the charge that it had
authorised any telephone tapping of politicians and alleged that the
issue smacked of the 1975 Emergency days.
While the BJP in both the Houses went hammer and tongs against the
government on the phone tapping issue, the SP and RJD focussed on the
IPL issue with Lalu Prasad and Mulayam Singh Yadav [ Images ]
personally leading their party members into the well of the Lok Sabha.
Members of the BSP, which is cosying up to the government ahead of the
crucial cut motions, were conspicuously silent during these protests.
Making a statement on the tapping issue in both the Houses,
Chidambaram said, “I wish to state categorically that no telephone
tapping or eavesdropping on political leaders was authorised by the
previous UPA government. Nor has the present UPA government authorised
any such activity.”
He said the report in Outlook magazine on phone tapping was thoroughly
enquired into and “nothing has been found in the records of the NTRO
(National Technical Research Organisation) to substantiate the
allegations.”
Demanding a statement from the Prime Minister, senior BJP leader L K
Advani [ Images ] recalled a press conference held on June 25, 1985 to
mark 10 years of Emergency in which Atal Bihari Vajpayee [ Images ]
spoke about phone tapping of leaders like Chandrashekhar, Jagjivan Ram
[ Images ], Charan Singh and journalists like Kuldeep Nayyar and Arun
Shourie.
He also demanded passing of a law to prevent the government from
tapping phones of political leaders.
In the Rajya Sabha too, BJP vociferously demanded a Joint
Parliamentary Committee enquiry, with senior leader M Venkaiah Naidu
seeking a statement from the Prime Minister.
Both Houses, which had earlier adjourned twice on the issue with
repeated protests by the opposition parties, were adjourned for the
day as the protests continued.
SP and RJD members trooped into the well of Lok Sabha seeking a JPC
probe into the IPL controversy. “This is the biggest scandal in the
recent years,” the RJD chief remarked.
The Home Minister, who read out the statement on phone tapping amid
continued slogan-shouting, said, “Further enquiries are being made
into the allegations in the magazine. If any evidence is forthcoming
or discovered, the matter will be thoroughly investigated by the
appropriate agencies”.
He read out a similar statement in Rajya Sabha.
No person living in India is secure from phone tapping
Sunday, 13 February 2011 00:05
Written by Pratiksha Chauhan
safeindia.jpgThe Supreme Court articulated serious fear with regards
to the isolation and liberty for the citizens in the country. The
senior Justice G S Singhvi and Justice Kumar Ganguly said, “No person
living in India is secure. Will this nation be the target over the
years? There are master forgers. Experts in fabrication of records.”
The bench was inquiring about the case of Amar Singh, a former leader
of Samajwadi Party of Uttar Pradesh. As it was assumed by Amar Singh
that his telephones were tapped. So, the Bench realized that it might
happen to any person in future.
The accusation were that tapping of the phones of Amar Singh were
counterfeit by someone and the service provider , in this state of
affairs, Reliance, was not under commitment for checking the
authenticity of the orders of tapping.
The bench throws the lime light on the tendency to tap phones, the
susceptibility of the people to counterfeit the prospect of the common
man becoming an object for such deeds. The question raised by Justice
Singhvi to Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium, “What will he do if
similar counterfeit document is given to some service provider to
falsify the phone of the Army Chief and the conversation is abstracted
to some foreign country which deals with security of the country.”
Article viewed at: Oye! Times at www.oyetimes.com
Telephone recording laws
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Telephone recording laws are laws that govern the civilian recording
of telephone conversations by the participants (as opposed to laws
controlling government or law enforcement wiretapping).
Telephone tapping is officially strictly controlled in many countries
to safeguard an individual’s privacy; this is the case in all
developed democracies. In theory, telephone tapping often needs to be
authorised by a court, and is, again in theory, normally only approved
when evidence shows it is not possible to detect criminal or
subversive activity in less intrusive ways; often the law and
regulations require that the crime investigated must be at least of a
certain severity. In many jurisdictions however, permission for
telephone tapping is easily obtained on a routine basis without
further investigation by the court or other entity granting such
permission. Illegal or unauthorised telephone tapping is often a
criminal offence. However, in certain jurisdictions such as Germany,
courts will accept illegally recorded phone calls without the other
party’s consent as evidence.
Canada
Canadian law requires that at least one party in the phone call be
aware of the recording.[1][2]
Denmark
Calls and conversations may be recorded by any active participant.
There is no requirement to make other parties aware of the recording,
but the use of recordings, depending on their content, may be subject
to various laws.
Exceptions
It is in general not legal to tape conversations in a court room.
It is against good ethics for lawyers to tape conversations without
informing participants first, and this can be sanctioned by the Danish
Bar and Law Society (da: advokatsamfundet).
Finland
In the case of private persons, calls and conversations may be
recorded by any active participant. There is no requirement to make
other parties aware of the recording, but the use of recordings,
depending on their content, may be subject to various laws, such as
data protection (privacy) legislation, libel laws, laws governing
trade and national secrets, and any agreements, such as non-disclosure
agreements.[3]
Recording of calls by a company or an employer is subject to data
protection legislation and, as a general rule, requires informing the
participants prior to recording.[3]
India
In India, telephone tapping has to be approved by a designated
authority. It is illegal otherwise. [4]
The Central Government or State Government is empowered to order
interception of messages per section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act 1885
[5]. Rule 419 and 419A sets out the procedure of interception and
monitoring of telephone messages. There is a provision for a review
committee to supervise the order of interception. Phone tapping is
permitted based on Court order only and such permission is granted
only if it is required to prevent a major offence involving national
security or to gather intelligence on anti-national/terrorist
activities. Though economic offences/tax evasion were initially
covered under the reasons for interception of phones, the same was
withdrawn in 1999 by the Government based on a Supreme Court order
citing protection to privacy of the individual.
As per Rule 428 of the India telegraphic rules, no person without the
sanction of the telegraph authority, use any telephone or cause or
suffer it to be used, purposes other than the establishment of local
or trunk calls.
The Government of India instructions provide for approved attachments.
There is no provision for attachment for recording conversation.
United Kingdom
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in general prohibits
interception of communications by a third party, with exceptions
related to government agencies. A recording made by one party to a
phone call or e-mail without notifying the other is not prohibited
provided that the recording is for their own use; recording without
notification is prohibited where some of the contents of the
communication—a phone conversation or an e-mail—are made available to
a third party. Businesses may record with the knowledge of their
employees but without notifying the other party to
* provide evidence of a business transaction
* ensure that a business complies with regulatory procedures
* see that quality standards or targets are being met in the
interests of national security
* prevent or detect crime to investigate the unauthorised use of a
telecom system
* secure the effective operation of the telecommunications system.
They may monitor without recording phone calls or e-mails that have
been received to see whether they are relevant to the business (e.g.,
to check for business communications addressed to an employee who is
away); but such monitoring must be proportionate and in accordance
with data protection laws and codes of practice.
Companies that record telephone calls must ensure that their employees
can make unrecorded personal calls, if necessary on a telephone on the
premises which is not recorded; they may otherwise be in breach of
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This summary does not necessarily cover all possible cases. The main
legislation which must be complied with is:
* Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”)[6]
* Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice)(Interception of
Communications) Regulations 2000 (“LBP Regulations”)[7]
* Data Protection Act 1998
* Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations
1999[8]
* Human Rights Act 1998
Under RIPA unlawful recording or monitoring of communications is a
tort, allowing civil action in the courts.
There is a summary of applicable rules on the Oftel website[9]
Detailed advice from a solicitor, oriented towards businesses, is
available on the Web [10].
United States
In the United States, federal agencies may be authorized to engage in
wiretaps by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,
a court with secret proceedings, in certain circumstances.
Under United States federal law and most state laws there is nothing
illegal about one of the parties to a telephone call recording the
conversation, or giving permission for calls to be recorded or
permitting their telephone line to be tapped. However, several states
(i.e., California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and
Washington) require that all parties consent when one party wants to
record a telephone conversation. Many businesses and other
organizations record their telephone calls so that they can prove what
was said, train their staff, or monitor performance. This activity may
not be considered telephone tapping in some, but not all,
jurisdictions because it is done with the knowledge of at least one of
the parties to the telephone conversation. The Telephone recording
laws in some U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the
recording, while other states require both parties to be aware. It is
considered better practice to announce at the beginning of a call that
the conversation is being recorded.
There is a federal law and two main types of state laws that govern
telephone recording:
Federal law requires that at least one party taking part in the call
must be notified of the recording (18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d)). For
example, it would be illegal to record the phone calls of people who
come into one’s place of business and ask to use the phone unless they
are notified.
Two-party notification states
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable
sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2010)
Twelve states currently require that all parties consent to the
recording. These states are:
* California[11]
* Connecticut
* Florida
* Illinois
* Maryland[12]
* Massachusetts[13]
* Montana
* Nevada
* New Hampshire
* Pennsylvania[14]
* Washington[15]
One-party notification states
All other states (and the District of Columbia) not listed above
require only that one party consent. Michigan’s eavesdropping statute
seems to put it into the two-party category, but the courts have ruled
that in Michigan, a party may record their own conversation without
the consent of any other parties but cannot grant that right to a
third party[16] There are certain exceptions to these rules. See full
rules here.
Of course, if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation
with someone in a two-party state, that caller is subject to the
stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers. (Cf.
Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006).)
Accepted forms of notification for recording by a telephone company
The FCC defines accepted forms of notification for telephone recording
by telephone companies as:
* Prior verbal (oral) or written consent of all parties to the
telephone conversation.
* Verbal (oral) notification before the recording is made. (This
is the most common)
* An audible beep tone repeated at regular intervals during the
course of the call.
Note that the law re: verbal is not worded “consent” but
“notification” Notification as the FCC defines
Germany
In the meaning above, Germany is a two party consent state. Telephone
recording without two or more parties consents is a criminal act
according to Sec. 201 to German Criminal Code [5] – violation of the
confidentiality of the spoken word. Telephone tapping by authorities
has to be approved by a judge. For the discussing about the lawful
interception in Germany please see here de:Telefonüberwachung(German
language).
References
* FCC Consumer facts on recording calls
* Privacy Rights Clearinghouse / UCAN
* The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press article on
telephone recording laws by state
* California courts document on Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney,
Inc.
* Federal law 18 U.S.C. 119, Sec. 2511(2)(d)
* Comprehensive Telephone Law Recording Reference
1. ^ “PART VI INVASION OF PRIVACY”. Criminal Code ( R.S., 1985, c.
C-46 ). Department of Justice Canada. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-5.html#codese:183_1.
2. ^ “Canada: Legal Guide On Recording Telephone Conversations”.
http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-canada.htm. Retrieved
2008-09-10.
3. ^ a b “Omien keskustelujen ja puheluiden nauhoittaminen
työpaikalla (Data Protection Ombudsman)”. 2007.
4. ^ [http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/apr/26/phone-tapping-
what-1997-supreme-court-verdict-says.htm 1997 Indian Supreme court
Verdict
5. ^ Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
6. ^ UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
7. ^ Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice)(Interception of
Communications) Regulations 2000
8. ^ Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations
1999
9. ^ Oftel (UK) FAQ: Recording and monitoring telephone calls or e-
mails
10. ^ Telephone Monitoring: Dos and Don'ts (UK)
11. ^ California Penal Code Section 632(a)[1]
12. ^ Maryland Code Section 10-402, Courts and Judicial Proceedings
Article[2]
13. ^ Massachusetts Call Recording Law, Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 , §
99 [3]
14. ^ “Can we tape?” Pennsylvania.
15. ^ Revised Code of Washington 9.73.030 [4]
16. ^ Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws“
Categories: Communications regulation | Telephone tapping
* This page was last modified on 12 February 2011 at 05:54.
* Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-
ShareAlike License;
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
…and I am Sid Harth
Filed under News, Views and Reviews
← History for Hindu Dummies: Sid Harth
India’s Superpower Euphoria CCLIX
http://cogitoergosum.co.cc/2011/02/14/indias-superpower-euphoria-cclix/
14/02/2011 by navanavonmilita
Over 1 lakh phones are tapped every year
Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN, Feb 15, 2011, 12.54am IST
Comments (5)
Tags:Supreme Court|Reliance communications|Phone tapping|Delhi Police|
Bharti Airtel|amar singh
NEW DELHI: Some startling figures tumbled out on rampant phone tapping
in the country when telecom service provider Reliance Communications
told the Supreme Court on Monday that the authorities had asked it to
tap 1.51 lakh phone numbers in a five-year span between 2006 and 2010.
This works out to an average of over 30,000 telephone interceptions
every year by a single service provider on the orders of various law
enforcing agencies. Or, over 82 telephones were intercepted every day
by a single service provider.
Reliance is the second-largest service provider with a subscriber base
of 12.57 crore as in 2010. The biggest service provider, Bharti
Airtel, had 15.25 crore subscribers in 2010, while Vodafone’s
subscriber base was just a shade lower than Reliance’s at 12.43 crore.
State-owned BSNL came fourth with 8.67 crore subscribers.
If Reliance’s ratio of phones tapped to the number of its subscribers
were to be taken as representative and applied to other service
providers, it is a fair assumption that government agencies were
tapping more than one lakh phones every year.
In Delhi alone, Reliance tapped a total of 3,588 phones in 2005 when
the teledensity was low compared to today. It also included Amar
Singh’s number which was put under surveillance — allegedly on a
forged letter from Delhi Police.
Four days back, a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly had
expressed concern over the large number of interceptions being ordered
by the agencies and the “grave danger” this posed to the citizen’s
right to privacy.
In an affidavit tendered by senior advocate Ram Jethmalani before the
bench, Reliance Communications said: “The total number of
interceptions in 2005 in respect of Delhi Service Area were 3,588.
There were about 1.51 lakh number of cases for monitoring/interception
during the period 2006-10 in all India.”
Responding to the court’s observation that no service provider worth
its salt would intercept a phone based on a purported communication
full of grammatical and spelling mistakes, Reliance said most of the
genuine interception orders were identical to the now known forged
letter as far as spelling and grammatical mistakes were concerned. It
cited a genuine interception order of February 1, 2011, received from
the Delhi Police to make its point.
After detailing the precautions it had taken, including writing to the
authorities to authenticate the letter asking for interception of Amar
Singh’s phone, Reliance said it received no response, yet it was duty
bound under a bona fide perception of the letter to continue
interception for 15 days.
“A bare perusal of various letters sent by Ranjit Narayan (then Joint
Commissioner of Delhi Police) and R Narayanswami (then Delhi home
secretary) show that the letters dated October 22, 2005 and November
9, 2005 (both purportedly forged ones) were similar to other letters
received from them,” Reliance said while claiming its innocence in the
interception controversy.
It said request for surveillance of a telephone from the law
enforcement agencies could not be postponed based on spelling mistakes
in the communication from agencies as it called for immediate action
“for safety of general public at large and in the interest of the
nation.” It added: “Postponing compliance on the ground of
inconsequential mistakes like spelling errors may conceivably lead to
a serious terrorist attack and the blame may fall on us.”
“The service providers are also required to provide assistance to law
enforcement agencies as per the licence condition. Any violation of it
can lead to a penalty of Rs 50 crore,” Reliance said.
It said service providers do not keep a record of conversations taped
from a phone under surveillance. Reliance Communication said it did
not have the technology to record the conversations and that there was
no law mandating the service provider to record the conversations and
submit it to the law enforcement agencies.
Readers’ opinions (6)
Sid Harth (USA)
3 mins ago (03:35 AM)
I strongly object to this news article. Government is trying to offer
employment opportunities to a mass of educated, semi-educated and
purely uneducated masses of India. Indian government cannot be blamed
but rewarded. What is it about privacy and human rights? India is not
America. She has inherited her culture from such ancient legal beagles
as Arya Chanakya. Chanakya placed information gathering, analyzing to
determine the health and wealth of the state/nation. If India could
simply insert a gadget, a gizmo, a device in each mobile phone with a
powerful translation algorithm and listen to each and every morsel of
conversation she can laugh all the way to bank. Free speech, privacy,
human rights, proper legal procedures be damned. We are Hindus and
anything goes. Affected parties may leave the country if they so
choose. Good riddance, I say.
Bharatiyar (mumbai)
21 mins ago (03:17 AM)
Bravo! This is like Jessica’s case. No one did anything wrong but a
wrong deed has been committed. Govt. has not asked for tapping.
Reliance doesn’t have the technique to know the order’s genuineness
and hence has done no wrong. But the phone has been tapped and
tappings used for whatever purposes intended. Question arises is it
democracy or an autocratic regime wherein the rules are framed for
convenience of few. Now SC has to step in and stream line the
procedures. Such things in US would have put all concerned behind bars
in no time. They value their privacy so much. For us when country
itself means nothing what about its citizen’s privacy. Jinhe naaz hai
Hind pur woh kahan hai? Kahin nahin.
Agree (1)
Anil (USA) replies to Bharatiyar
11 mins ago (03:27 AM)
I fully agree with you.
AVTAR CHHINA (Ludhiana)
1 hr ago (02:14 AM)
In a country having such a large number of population & the corruption
& crime % very high, and where there are several so called people
corporate Lobbyist. There need to be a high % of phne tapping. And
people are smart enough to have too many lines, so te authoriy need to
me smart enough to find every line and tapp. Authority keep up the
pressure.
Agree (4)Disagree (1)
Anil (USA) replies to AVTAR CHHINA
7 mins ago (03:31 AM)
Mr. Chhina, yes the law enforceing agencies have full right to record
your phone. But first they should get court’s order.
Bhagwad Park (Chennai, Tamil Nadu)
1 hr ago (01:43 AM)
This should be a wake up call for those who claim phone tapping
without proper procedures is necessary for “national security.” The
govt. is no better and by giving up one’s privacy and civil liberties,
nothing is going to improve. A phone must be tapped ONLY after a
magistrate has approved the order and if that takes a few days to
obtain, then so be it.
Agree (5)Disagree (5)
Phone-tapping case: Amar Singh withdraws allegations against Congress
Dhananjay Mahapatra, TIMES NEWS NETWORK & AGENCIES, Feb 9, 2011,
02.07pm IST
Comments (22)
Tags:Phone tapping|amar singh
Phone-tapping case: SC slams Amar Singh
NEW DELHI: In a turnaround, politician Amar Singh on Wednesday
withdrew all allegations against Congress party in the phone-tapping
incident.
He had earlier alleged that the Congress had misused official
machinery to intercept political adversaries.
His counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is also the Congress
spokesperson, today, told the Supreme Court that investigation into
the matter had revealed that there was no role of the Congress party.
The former Samajwadi party leader faced intense grilling from the
Supreme Court as he sought to drop his allegations against Congress
and its chief Sonia Gandhi in connection with the tapping of his phone
in 2006, according to PTI.
Singh informed a bench of justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly that he
was dropping the allegations he had made against Gandhi in his
petition in the phone tapping case.
“In view of your revised affidavit how do you affirm the allegations
against the political party through its president,” the bench said,
adding, “Your averment which is based on personal knowledge cannot
change.”
Singh had filed the petition in 2006.
“When you say that its personal knowledge, it means it is something
that you know personally and which cannot change with the passage of
time,” the court observed when Singhvi submitted that he had made the
allegations in 2006 out of his personal knowledge that political
rivals including Congress party was behind the tapping of his phone.
“If that is your personal knowledge, it cannot be contradicted by
yourself,” the court said, noting, “Your personal knowledge is dubious
and the court is a victim of your affidavit.”
While pulling up Singh for changing his stand, the bench said, “The
court started hearing your case. Many years have passed and many hours
were devoted in your case on the basis of your averments. We tend to
rely on them.”
Singhvi was visibly uncomfortable when the bench repeatedly asked him
to read out the portion of his petition in which Singh had made
allegations against the Congress party and its president.
During the hearing, the court said, “In the petition, you have said
that the party in power was misusing the authority but now everything
is found to be bogus.”
The court also asked as to why the petition should be entertained.
“Why should the court entertain the petition about a person who has
not come with clean hands?” the bench asked.
Comments (22)
Recommended (11)
Yaamunan Acharya (CHENNAI)
10 Feb, 2011 01:16 PM
Hasan Aliji, Dawood bhai, Balwaji,Quattrochiji here is great piece of
news for you. Join congress. Have the case fought by one of the gr8
legal luminaries of congress – abhishek singhvi, Manish Tiwari, Sibal
(fees bit high and he may embarass you with his silly jokes-but never
mind end results count). Am I exaggerating? First Abhishek singh
manuvi argued for Martin on lottery case. Martin is well known
criminal and he also argued for Anderson. Sibal defends Raja like
anything. So this is not some loony speaking out of turn. And as a
bonus Moily will ensure he passes necessary law to exonerate you. Even
PM will speak in your support saying that juidiciary must not
interfere with legislature – and who knows I may be writing to one of
our future CVC. Woh kahawat hai na subah ka boola agar shaam- arey
yahaan shaam kya agar der raat se bhi aaoge tho bhoola nahin kahenge.
We swear. arey main tho bhool hi gaya. Hafiz saeed aap bhi aajao. Our
government is very broad hearted. See it calls maoists who kill our
security forces as misled youth and is going to include kasab in our
census. Dhuniya ke jitne chor aur kaala bazaari log aap ko hamaare
desh me haardik swaagat hai.(come before this govt goes).
Agree (3)
A (Mumbai)
10 Feb, 2011 09:48 AM
WHY??????????????????????????????????
Anil (Pune)
10 Feb, 2011 09:16 AM
What shamless and thick skinned these politicians are? They change
their stand as the direction of the wind changes. Supreme Court should
take it very seriously and punish this joker for misusing the precious
time of the official machinary. He should be handed over such fine so
as to deter any other politician to misuse courts. Now Amarsingh is
trying to be close to Congress as he has lost his base(????) in SP and
to please Sonia he is trying to be in her good book by dropping
charges.
Agree (1)
N.Shekar (Bangalore)
10 Feb, 2011 05:11 AM
Why is no body enquiring Mr.Amar Singh in the Cash for Votes scam and
his involvement in the Nuclear Deal. How much money he got from the
U.S. for the Nuclear Deal? Why is the media also silent in this
matter?
Agree (3)Recommend (2)
indian (delhi)
09 Feb, 2011 08:32 PM
Give severe punishment for wasting the precious court time by fillig
sensational case just to gain media attention.. Court should not take
it lightly. Teach him a lesson so that other can see who misuse law.
Agree (12)Recommend (1)
Arvind Joshi (Mumbai (Bombay), India)
09 Feb, 2011 07:53 PM
“Hamaam mein sab nange hain” ….. Amar Singh is no Saint.
Agree (7)Recommend (1)
Karthik (Rotterdam)
09 Feb, 2011 06:32 PM
Very Simple… he has to save him from the Black Money Spot….
Agree (11)Recommend (4)
murli gopal (Hissar)
09 Feb, 2011 06:30 PM
Obviously the Congress has struck a deal with Amar Singh, like they
have done with Mulayam! What else can you expect from Amar Singh. Why
does not the Supreme Court not haul him up for contempt of court?
Agree (9)
DP (London)
09 Feb, 2011 06:29 PM
Court has to try him for civil / criminal offence (with fine and
imprisonment). Also has to rule that all his open and future cases
will be treated as doubtful and will not be entertained. This would
not only help this case, would also help decision on other dubious
cases.
Agree (5)
Yogi (Canada)
09 Feb, 2011 06:16 PM
Put him in jail plain and simple for misusing the SC
Agree (7)
LD Bhatia (Delhi)
09 Feb, 2011 05:36 PM
Politics in India is getting curiouser and curiouser. It is the
Chinest leaders who are record having said that there are no permanent
friends or foes in politics, there are only permanent interests. It
seems Indian political leaders are following this advice both
seriously and literally. Amar Singh, once looked upon as the right-
hand man of SP supremo is not only at loggerheads with him but is also
saying all sorts of things against his once fast political friend. SP
supremo who had faced a tricky situation after the Lok Sabha elections
when Congress had achieved an incredible victory in Uttar Pradess and
SP was not able to get the number of seats it had declared it would is
hard put to it to have an understanding if not alignment with the
Congress at the Centre. Amar Singh isn astute leader who knows which
way the political wind is blowing. He wants to mend his fences witht
he Congress though as an SP leader he had said uncharitable things
against the Congress Presiddent. Congress on its part is showing
consideration for SPO Supreme as is evident from the CBI stand in the
Supreme Court that there is much in the charges against SP supremo.
Amar Singh naturally wants to be in the good books of the Congress
leaders as the political isolation he is facing at present is p;roving
detrimental to his future political career. Politics is really an art
of the possible in our country where opportunism comes first.
Agree (5)
ThinkingDimaag (India)
09 Feb, 2011 05:00 PM
Do choron ki ladai sulajh gayee. Apne apne ghar jao bhayya, Tamasha
kharam ho gaya hai.
Agree (12)Disagree (2)Recommend (2)
amarMC (hyb) replies to ThinkingDimaag
09 Feb, 2011 07:10 PM
c****** hain be ye sab… nautanki bc!!!!
Agree (1)
Mohammad Ali Amir (Patna)
09 Feb, 2011 04:56 PM
Regardless of who is in power, it is fact the politicians and parties
file case in supreme court for public attention and to bolster their
image in public. Supreme court shall not entertain these cases and
they shall be brought to its attention only in date sequence. When
hundred of thousands of cases are lying for attention in supreme
court, ordinary citizens which have issues related to life and death
only shall be taken up on priority.
Agree (4)Disagree (1)Recommend (2)
Bart Simpson (Bangalore)
09 Feb, 2011 04:36 PM
Nothing surprising in all this. Obviously Amar Singh has sold his
loyalty to the Congress for a price. This is the kind of politics
which is followed by the Congress and its leaders. No wonder then we
have all these scams. The Congress culture and its Governance of the
Country has helped spread the the looting of the country to levels
never seen before. All credit for this must of course go to the people
who lead, run and own the Congress Party. They join hands with people
who have no morals and give membership and Parliamentary tickets to
chargesheeted criminals. Their own CVC has gone on to say to the
Supreme Court that over 25% of our Parliamentarians have chargesheets
and cases against them and ironically are involved in making laws for
the Country. This can only happen in India. It has reduced the
institutions of the country to a level that Government Servants live
and thrive on corruption and the aam admi get poorer day by day. Will
the new, younger generations of Congressmen rise up to this challenge
and do what it takes to transform this once historical party to its
former glory.
Agree (16)Disagree (6)Recommend (3)
Pam (Mumbai)
09 Feb, 2011 04:22 PM
Can’t the Supreme Court hold him accountable for the time and money
spent on his bogus case? There are more important cases that need the
attention of the Supreme Court. Is there any law which punishes such
jokers.
Agree (21)Disagree (1)Recommend (11)
anand (delhi)
09 Feb, 2011 03:25 PM
amar singh is doomed for sure, now he is licking the feet of Sonia as
a dog would do, but then what can you expect from this kind of
people !!
Agree (25)Disagree (6)Recommend (15)
Sunil (Mumbai)
09 Feb, 2011 02:46 PM
It is the time SC imposed a heavy fine on politician who uses its
premises for political gain, also SC has to draw a line on judicial
activism and refrain from taking up politically motivated cases.
Agree (17)Disagree (1)Recommend (11)
Vijay Sharma (Hyderabad) replies to Sunil
09 Feb, 2011 04:49 PM
WELL SAID ! ! !
Agree (2)Recommend (1)
SAWAI (BHARAT)
09 Feb, 2011 02:33 PM
May be signal Amar Singh’s Congress Pravesh……..
Agree (21)Disagree (5)Recommend (7)
karavadiraghavarao (Vijayawada-) replies to SAWAI
09 Feb, 2011 02:49 PM
No difference between the closinga nd opening ofa Blind Eye.Amar Singh
is like that.He has no base at all in UP.He will not be of any use to
the already limping Congress in UP.
Agree (16)Disagree (4)Recommend (8)
Raju (Bombay) replies to karavadiraghavarao
09 Feb, 2011 04:09 PM
Hope Mr.Amithab is listening
Agree (7)Recommend (3)
Phone tapping: Position in India
May 12th, 2010 → 10:11 pm @ Nikita Anand
cellphoneLast month both the houses of the Parliament were in a state
of upheaval over a phenomenon called ‘phone tapping’. Gradually media
converted it into yet another national issue, but it got muddled with
the simultaneous Indian Premier League controversy and left people
wondering about the intricacies of phone tapping. So here is
everything you might be like to know about the concept in question!
What is Phone Tapping?
Phone tapping means secretly listening or/and recording a
communication channel (esp. a telephone) in order to get information.
It is also known as ‘wire-tapping’ in some countries (primarily in
USA). It can only be done in an authorized manner with permission from
the department concerned. If it is undertaken in an unauthorized
manner then it is illegal and will result in prosecution of the person
responsible for breach of privacy.
What is the required procedure for Phone tapping in India?
Both, the Central and the State Governments have a right to tap phones
under section 5 of Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885. There are times when
an investigating authority/agency needs to record the phone
conversations of the person who is under suspicion. The authority/
agency per se does not have privilege of tapping calls of anyone they
fancy. It is supposed to seek permission from the Home Ministry before
going ahead with such an act. Specific reasons have to be mentioned in
the application, also it must be explained that how tapping will help
in further investigation of the case. The ministry considers the
request and grants permission if it the reason specified seems fit,
otherwise the request is denied.
If the agency/authority is granted permission to tap the calls then it
contacts the service provider of the telephone/mobile being used by
the suspect. Every service provider possesses technology required for
phone tapping. The service provider moves ahead with the specified
task and provides data to the investigating agency/authority.
What can be done tapping takes place in an unauthorized manner?
* Unauthorized tapping is violation of the right to privacy. The
person can file a complaint in the Human Rights Commission.
* An FIR can be lodged in the nearest Police Station when unauthorized
phone tapping comes into the knowledge of the person.
* The aggrieved person can move to court against the person/company
doing the act in an unauthorized manner under section 26 (b) of the
Indian Telegraphic Act, which provides for 3 year imprisonment for
persons held for tapping. The person (s) can also be prosecuted for
authorized tapping but sharing of the data in an authorized manner.
Phone tapping: What 1997 Supreme Court verdict says
Last updated on: April 26, 2010 14:45 IST
Tags: Supreme Court, Ramakrishna Hegde, PUCL, National Technical
Research Organisation, Zail Singh
The Outlook magazine report on tapping of phones of prominent
politicians by the National Technical Research Organisation has kicked
up a huge storm. The government is under fire and legal experts are of
the opinion that it is clearly violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution, which very clearly mandates that protection ought to be
given to life and liberty.
In this context, it would be interesting to note a very important
judgment of the Supreme Court that had clearly stated that the right
to hold a telephone conversation in private at home or at an office
will come under the provisions of right to privacy and a telephone
conversation is an important part of a person’s private life.
The court also specified in this judgment delivered in the PUCL vs
Union of India [ Images ] case in 1997 that a telephonic conversation
in private without interference would come under the purview of right
to privacy as mandated in the Constitution.
The court further observed that unlawful means of phone tapping are
invasions in privacy and are uncivilized and undemocratic in nature.
The Supreme Court, in the same judgment, also went on to lay down
various guidelines regarding phone tapping which are as follows:
# If a telephone needs to be tapped, then the home secretary of the
Union government or the respective state government can issue an order
to this effect.
# Strong reasons have to be specified in order to issue such a
directive.
# Such an order shall be in force only for two months unless there is
another order, which will give the home secretary the right to extend
it by another six months only.
The Supreme Court, however, does not give the home secretary the
ultimate power and states clearly in the same judgment that such an
order shall be subject to review by the Cabinet, law and
telecommunication secretary who will need to review the same in 2
months time of the date the order has been passed.
Further, the court held that records relating to phone tapping should
be used and destroyed within two months.
The order, which will be passed by the home secretary, shall be
specific in nature. The invasion of privacy shall be minimum in nature
and a strong justification to the act shall be mentioned. A
justification to the effect that the phone is being tapped as they
were unable to collect information through other means.
Constitutional requirements have to be satisfied and unlawful means of
telephone tapping shall be avoided at any cost.
Famous incidents of phone tapping
One of the most famous incidents of phone tapping in India was during
the Ramakrishna Hegde regime in Karnataka [ Images ] in the year 1988.
The opposition had alleged that Hegde had ordered the tapping of
phones of opposition leaders and was invading their privacy. There was
a huge uproar in the state and he was forced to step down as chief
minister after which S R Bommai took over.
Similarly, Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa [ Images ] was
also under the storm when JD-S leader H D Kumaraswamy accused him of
phone tapping.
At the Centre, Zail Singh had accused the Rajiv Gandhi [ Images ]
government of bugging Rashtrapathi Bhavan [ Images ].
Vicky Nanjappa
Discussion Board
11 messages
Vilas Deshpande
ref
by Vilas Deshpande on Nov 29, 2010 01:37 PM
so always talk in such way that it is tapped , speak nicely at least
speaking will be improved.
debasis mukherjee
It is Highly Unethical & Non Democratic
by debasis mukherjee on May 01, 2010 07:36 PM
Tapping phone of a person, only because that person is Politically
Opponent, is Highly Unethical & Non Democratic.
It is something like Gagging Freedom of Expression.
Irrespective of any political party, we all must form public opinion
against this Non Democratic act.
Anoopam Modak
ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS
by Anoopam Modak on Apr 27, 2010 11:12 AM
If enactmwnt of law is the order of the day then enforcement of the
existing laws in force is of prime importance. The crux of the whole
issue is that the nemder of law abiding citizens are on the
downsliding, leaving little room for respect of law. A system ought to
be in place to infuse respect and fear of law into the citizens, which
may improve the deteriorating aocio-economic-politico system.
Praveen Goud
Laws for Punishing Judges?.
by Praveen Goud on Apr 27, 2010 04:51 AM
Every politician, political parties including ruling governments,
bureaucrats, jurists, police and media are voilating fundamental and
constituional rights openly every day. When these idiots and slaves
including judiciary who are supposed to protect and enforce
consitution be respected are voilating , whome shall citizens complain
or rely on?. The same thing applies to privacy of citizens or article
21. Even Article 49-0 provides for NO VOTE provision, did NONSENSE
indian judiciary ever question or any ruling government implement
that?.
We have cabinet level law ministry. UPA is under second term, why
doesn’t Moily minister come out with reforms for collapsed judiciary?.
Why this person inspite of being minister is being used as PCC ?.
Government should remove Moily as Law Minister and appoint an educated
and young minister who can reform the collapsed indian judiciary.
Unless we have laws to punish judges for non-performance, wrong
judgements and delibeate delay in judgements, indian judiciary will be
exploited for bread and butter by quality less parasites with
political support to leach and harass citizens for vested interests.
PRK Reddy
vote bank politics and secularism combat
by PRK Reddy on Apr 26, 2010 02:54 PM
vote bank politics and secularism combat
Type all the above six words in Gooooggggle and search. New articles
posted.
R Balasubramanian
half baked Nanjappa
by R Balasubramanian on Apr 26, 2010 02:28 PM
I think you belong to Karnataka. You do not know who the present CM of
Karnataka. You say ” former Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa”.
Be sensible while reporting. Rediff be alert in appointing such people
to write.
Balu, Bangalore
spring
Re: half baked Nanjappa
by spring on Apr 26, 2010 02:38 PM
even though he is CM of karnataka, he still act like opposition
leader. blame everything to other instead of taking responsibilities
and act. I think 35years opposition leader was too much for him. one
of worst CM and government karnataka ever seen in the entire history.
by the time they finish term, state will turn to stone age and
officially we can declare karnataka as south bihar.
chatur pahalwan
Re: Re: half baked Nanjappa
by chatur pahalwan on Apr 27, 2010 07:54 AM
why only u say so sitting in Australia as per ur comments. I know that
u dont like bjp. But ur the only 1 saying so against Yedurappa else
people are happy.
A C
Phone Tapping ??? How ?? when??
by A C on Apr 26, 2010 01:51 PM
When any Govt official does phone tapping unofficially, how is a
person supposed to know that their phone is being tapped? They can
always deny that it was never done, illegal phone tapping can’t be
used as evidence but it is used to actually find out what somebody
else is doing for some ulterior motive and obviously there is no
control over it. Wrong thing but it is done by special agencies and
police so, how will they stop it? Who will bell the cat? Unless
telecom companies are made to ensure that no illegal tapping is
possible it can’t be controlled, but they will not use that option and
all illegal tapping should be made public and informed to the hapless
unwitting consumer. If it is legal there is no issue anyways.
firefly
80 billion indians
by firefly on Apr 26, 2010 01:28 PM
80 billion Indians are seeing but are helpless against the games
CONGRESS is playing!
Is there any POWER to Democracy?
No!
with Media and all legal authorities like IT dept, CBI, TV CHANNELS,
NGO’S…Congress shows that it the richest party in INDIA…and yes it is
only in their regime that INDIANS become the most poor, helpless
against neighbours, against their own politicians, helpless against
media mafia.
This IPL fiasco CONTROLLED by GANDHI FAMILY…is a big stigma on INDIAN
HISTORY and we are damn sure the souls of all those freedom fighetrs
who gave their lives for INDIA must be spitting on 80 Billion Indians!
Jai Hind!
bak bak
Re: 80 billion indians
by bak bak on Apr 26, 2010 01:43 PM
apart from earth, in how many other planets do indians exist to make
up the 80 billion!!!!!!
Shivaram Krishnan
Use this tool Mr.Opposition Politician.
by Shivaram Krishnan on Apr 26, 2010 01:22 PM
If the govt. is tapping the phones of opposition leaders then those
leaders should use it as a tool to mislead the morons in the govt. Say
something on phone and do something else. Simple..what an idea sirji
Manoj Dev
Re: Use this tool Mr.Opposition Politician.
by Manoj Dev on Apr 26, 2010 02:03 PM
Terrific idea. But, possibly, some have already done so; take IPL-
Bharat, why should otherwise people living in glass houses would throw
stones at each other!
Message(s) deleted by moderator not displayed on this page
Shivaram Krishnan
Use this tool Mr.Opposition Politician.
by Shivaram Krishnan on Apr 26, 2010 01:22 PM
If the govt. is tapping the phones of opposition leaders then those
leaders should use it as a tool to mislead the morons in the govt. Say
something on phone and do something else. Simple..what an idea sirji
Manoj Dev
Re: Use this tool Mr.Opposition Politician.
by Manoj Dev on Apr 26, 2010 02:03 PM
Terrific idea. But, possibly, some have already done so; take IPL-
Bharat, why should otherwise people living in glass houses would throw
stones at each other!
HRM
private telecoms
by HRM on Apr 26, 2010 01:20 PM
In this modern era of privatisation, private telecoms should also be
bought under the scanner as the judgt is equally applicable to the
private sectors too
JD-U activists demand PM’s resignation over phone tapping report
[IST]
Patna (Bihar), Apr 26 (ANI): Supporters of Bihar’s ruling Janata Dal-
United (JD-U) Government demanded the resignation of the Prime
Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, on Monday over a media report of phone
tapping of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and several other leaders.
They burnt the effigy of Dr Singh here and called him a ‘dummy Prime
Minister’.
“The Central Government has tapped the phone of the most popular chief
minister of India, Nitish Kumar. It proves that Manmohan Singh is a
dummy Prime minister. He has no right to remain in power any longer,”
said JD-U supporter Rajiv Ranjan Patel.
“He should immediately resign. If he doesn’t resign, we will take this
matter from Bihar to Delhi,” he added.
‘Outlook’ magazine in a cover story had reported that government
intelligence agencies had tapped the phones of Communist Party leader
Prakash Karat, Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, and Congress leader
Digvijay Singh among others. (ANI)
Phone tapping row likely to rock India parliament
By Krittivas Mukherjee
NEW DELHI | Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:36am EDT
NEW DELHI (Reuters) – A row over charges government agencies secretly
tapped telephones of senior politicians is likely to paralyze India’s
parliament on Monday, possibly spelling fresh delay for the budget and
other key bills.
The tension comes just as the government is seeking to secure its
allies’ support for a possible vote in parliament over high food
prices. The government would fall if it loses the vote.
The controversy is the latest blow for a coalition that was expected
to capitalize on its re-election to promote policies to boost
investment and ailing infrastructure as well as reform welfare and
subsidies.
Instead, a slew of crises has distracted it, upstaging even routine
parliamentary business like passing the budget and discussion on
crucial reforms legislation.
The phone tapping charge has united the opposition, which said it will
demand a statement from the government on Monday.
“In the garb of tracking terror, the government is tracking
politicians and even their cabinet ministers,” said Rajiv Pratap Rudy,
spokesman of the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party.
A magazine report said last week that senior politicians, including
two from the government, had their mobile conversations listened into,
sparking allegations intelligence agencies were being used to spy upon
political rivals.
The government has still to officially react to the allegation, but
officials in the prime minister’s office said the matter was being
looked into.
The government already faced heavy protests over its handling of a
worsening Maoist insurgency, while rising food prices and fuel price
hikes had prompted the opposition demand for a special parliamentary
vote.
A probe into India’s popular multi-billion dollar cricket league has
ensnared senior politicians and billionaire businessmen in a growing
scandal also hurting an already weakened Congress-led government.
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee canceled a trip to Washington for an
International Monetary fund meeting last week in order to firefight
and muster support for the special vote.
Some Indian TV stations said on Sunday that Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh might skip a South Asian leaders’ summit in Bhutan this week in
view of political developments at home. His office denied this.
The special parliamentary vote will make Congress nervous, given that
two of its allies pulled out of the coalition last month to protest a
controversial women’s bill. This has dangerously thinned its
parliamentary support.
But most experts expect the government to win. Bond and stock markets
are unaffected, with traders anticipating the government will survive.
However, the vote, plus the cricket and phone rows, have reduced the
chances of the government getting key bills passed.
It is trying to pass the budget and reform legislation with a thinner
majority. Among other legislation, the government is eyeing passage of
a bill allowing foreign universities to set up campuses on Indian soil
and another to cut its stake in the State Bank of India.
It has already put on ice until it reaches a political consensus a
bill to open its $150 billion civilian nuclear sector.
(Editing by Jerry Norton)
The secret world of phone tapping
Ashish Khetan, Bhavna Vij-Aurora and Sandeep Unnithan | December 9,
2010 | Updated 23:54 IST
Relateds
* New Radia tapes made public
* ‘Phone tapes should not be leaked’
* Nira Radia tapes mind-boggling: SC
* Experts debate Radia tapes’ impact
* The rise of Nira Radia
* ‘Radia foreign intel agencies’ spy’
Over a million mobile phones, across service providers, are under the
surveillance of Central agencies in India through the year.
Officially, the Government will admit to over 6,000 telephones in New
Delhi being tapped. This secret hot list has as many as 400
bureaucrats and military officials monitored on suspicion of
corruption, 200 corporate honchos, over 50 top journalists, an equal
number of fixers, a dozen arms dealers, two dozen NGOs and about 100
high society pimps, drug dealers and hawala operators. This is in
addition to suspected militants, their supporters and sympathisers and
known criminals.
READ MORE:
* Transcript: Radia and A Raja
* Transcript: Radia and Barkha Dutt
* Transcript: Radia and Vir Sanghvi
In an attempt to widen its surveillance net, the Home Ministry has now
sought suitable amendments to the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, to allow
active intervention for tapping phones and monitoring Internet
communication. Home Secretary G.K. Pillai says the home ministry is
pursuing changes to the country’s telecom laws to bring clarity in the
Government’s authority to intercept highly secure corporate
communications. This will be part of broader changes related to lawful
intercept policy and privacy.
Everyday, Pillai, the sole authoriser of such Central wiretaps,
receives hundreds of fresh written requests for electronic
surveillance. A majority of requests emanate from the Intelligence
Bureau (IB), Income Tax Department, Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and the Enforcement
Directorate (ED). Additional requests also come from state agencies
who need the home ministry’s permission to intercept phones in Union
Territories. Law enforcement agencies can tap a phone without the home
secretary’s permission for the first week. Thereafter, a tap can be
done only after a strong case is made. In reality, a weak argument
works. Crime and terrorism are the familiar rationales but they leave
the door open for multi-level abuse. Each state has an average of
2,000 to 3,000 phones under surveillance at any given time.
“Civil liberties are far too important to be left to the executive or
the home secretary. There is EVERY DANGER OF WRONG PERMISSIONS being
given out and indiscriminate tapping.”
- Rajinder Sachar, Former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court
Phone tapping is uncoordinated. Various agencies monitor numbers in
silos. At times, a single number is simultaneously being monitored by
multiple agencies of the state and Centre. The proliferation of off-
the-shelf sophisticated listening devices and absence of a Central
database compound the problem. Except in certain special laws,
wiretaps can be used only as corroborative evidence in courts. But it
is so easily done with such little effort that it becomes the first
recourse for law enforcement authorities. With an increasing reliance
on phone tapping as operational tools, the surveillance society is
only set for consolidation.
Activists argue for a US-like system where only a judge authorises
wiretaps after reviewing the evidence. “Civil liberties are far too
important to be left to the executive or the home secretary. There is
every danger of wrong permissions being given out, resulting in
indiscriminate tapping,” says former chief justice Rajinder Sachar.
What The Law Says:
Phone tapping is allowed under the general provisions of Section 5 of
the Indian Telegraph Act, but only in “public emergency, or in the
interest of public safety”. In 1997, the Supreme Court, in response to
a petition filed by justice Sachar, laid down five precepts for
intercepting conversations-in the interests of national sovereignty
and integrity, state security, friendly relations with foreign states,
public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an
offence. “Tapping phones especially for tax evasion and corruption
needs to be done only in the rarest of rare cases,” says former IPS
officer-turned-lawyer Y.P. Singh.
There are seven Central agencies authorised to tap telephones – the
IB, ED, Delhi Police, CBI, DRI, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau
and the Narcotics Control Bureau. “Phone tapping is a legal
instrument. It should be kept in safe custody of the court or very few
officers should have access to it. Leaking tapes are like leaking
official secrets; it not only adversely affects an individual but is
also harmful to investigations and the prosecution process,” says Arun
Bhagat, former director, IB.
Who Is Being Tapped:
Often a hint of suspicion can put you under the scanner. Home ministry
officials became suspicious of the flamboyant lifestyle of IAS officer
Ravi Inder Singh. The bureaucrat shunned his official accommodation in
favour of a plush guesthouse provided by his friend and co-accused
Vinit Kumar. Singh’s phones were kept under observation where he was
heard referring to “Ukranian and Russian software”, a code for
prostitutes. Hotels were referred to as hardware and bribes were
called laddoos. He was charged with giving clearance to a US-based
telecom company, Telecordia, for mobile number portability. Dozens of
other bureaucrats are believed to be under surveillance for similar
reasons. But for every legal case, there are hundreds of illegal wire
taps. Five years ago, a Mumbai newspaper publicised explicit phone
conversations of actor Salman Khan. The Government claimed the voice
on the tapes was not Khan’s. It was a cover-up of an illegal wiretap.
The conversations had been leaked out from the city crime branch. Four
private detectives were arrested for illegally obtaining phone records
of former Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh in 2005.
But what if an illegally monitored phone yields evidence of
wrongdoing? Officials say a backdated application is sought from the
home secretary.
How They Are Tapped:
Every agency fills out an authorisation slip before placing a phone
under surveillance. In the states, it is the state home secretary who
signs this. Officially, telephones of politicians cannot be tapped-a
qualifier on the slip says the surveilled person is not an elected
representative. Before the advent of cellular phones, state agencies
often strung out parallel lines from telephone poles, rented lodgings
in the vicinity or even pitched a tent in the vicinity posing as
nomadic tribes. Often the target would get to know due to the
disturbance in the phone. Calls could only be listened to, not
recorded. Cellphones gave organised crime syndicates mobility and
anonymity as connections could be bought in fake names. In the
mid-1990s, operators were ill-equipped to intercept calls. In the
first instance of surveillance, the then deputy superintendent of the
Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force (STF) Rajesh Pandey got a telecom
engineer in Allahabad to devise a typewritersized interception box.
The box was lugged around and connected to switching stations.
Today, every cellular service provider has an aggregation station
which is a clutch of servers called mediation servers (because they
mediate between the cellular operators and the law enforcement
agencies) to intercept phones. Two kinds of interception facilities
are available-Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) and the
leased line. Under ISDN, a mediation server intercepts a call, and
then transmits it through a Primary Rate Interface (PRI) line to the
office of a government agency. The police can listen to the phone on
their PRI line and store the recording to attached computers.
Simultaneously, a sound file of the intercepted call is also recorded
and stored in the mediation server. In ISDN, the transfer of call-
related data doesn’t happen in real time. A slow 64 KBPS speed results
in a time lag of two to three minutes. Data packets are lost in
traffic and calls don’t reach the PRI line.
Under the leased line facility, the service provider gives the agency
direct access to its backbone network through a dedicated fast speed
fibre optic cable connection. The call-related data is not only
transmitted in real time, at the lightning speed of 2 MBPS, the
chances of missing any call are minimal. But since the cost of laying
a fast-speed fibre optic cable connection is higher, state agencies
are more dependent on ISDN. For instance, the Mumbai Crime Branch has
leased line connections from just three service providers, for the
rest it uses ISDN. At any given point of time a service provider can
provide a maximum of eight agencies the call interception facility to
a given number.
The commonest surveillance methods are sourcing an individual’s call
data records (CDR) or list of numbers dialled and received. This does
not require government sanction. Fed into a special software, the CDR
rapidly builds up a ‘relationship tree’ or charts the relationship
between thousands of calls. This can easily be used to pry on
civilians. A secretary in a Central ministry is believed to source the
CDRs of journalists to trace their sources.
Trying To Beat The Tap Trap:
Niira Radia
Niira Radia’s TATA Docomo phone was not tapped because the service
provider was her employer
Technology is an antidote to privacy. The rich and the famous do try
and escape it. In one of her taped conversations, Niira Radia
instructs Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi’s wife Rajathi’s
charted accountant to call on her Tata Docomo number. Since lawful
intercept of a cellphone can only be done by writing to the concerned
telecom service provider, Radia evidently felt secure on a number
provided by her client, Tata. Not surprisingly, Radia’s Idea and MTNL
numbers only were intercepted. Anil Ambani’s aide Tony Jesudasan uses
only Reliance cellphone numbers. Sources say both the IT Department
and CBI wanted to tap Jesudasan’s number but decided against it for
obvious reasons. Singh had a friend in Vodafone’s senior management
who warned him of all his four numbers being monitored by the Delhi
Police, thus giving him time to destroy incriminating evidence.
There is a twist in this tale. A majority of surveillance equipment
was acquired to keep track of organised crime and terrorism.
Intelligence agencies rue that phone tapping and interceptions are now
yielding diminishing returns because terrorists have found new ways of
staying ahead of them. Terrorists are increasingly using BlackBerry
phones while their handlers are using the new generation Inmarsat-4
satellite phones, making their interception next to impossible, at
least for now.
Though Inmarsat-4 phones can be monitored off the air, the
conversation is available only in encrypted format. Voice and data can
be effectively monitored only at the Inmarsat-4 switch in London and
New York, where it is available in decrypted form. That is the reason
why India still has to depend upon British or US intelligence agencies
for information. Voice over Internet Telephony (VOIP)-based Skype and
Google mail and chat are also extensively used by terrorists,
smalltime criminals and corporate houses. Free software can be
downloaded on smart handsets and computers to encrypt calls and mails.
Commercially available software like Cellcrypt has been found to be
most effective in securing conversations and messages. Compatible with
all smartphones, Cellcrypt aids in personalised encryption of all
communication. The only catch for completely secure communication is
that handsets at both ends should have the software. If only one of
the handsets has installed the software, the communication will be
available in decrypted format at the other end.
Central Oversight And The Big Brother Server:
The home ministry is now setting up what could be called a ‘Big
Brother server’. This move, done in sync with new laws on active phone
interception, greatly enhances the Government’s powers to snoop on
individuals. At the heart of this plan is a Centralised phone and data
monitoring centre costing Rs 800 crore. The Centre will improve
coordination among the seven agencies authorised to tap phones and
also with the states. “It will help centralise data collation and give
the Central agencies actionable intelligence in more or less real
time,” says a home ministry official. It will also generate data about
the number of phones being tapped countrywide.
“Phone tapping needs to be done ONLY IN THE RAREST OF RARE cases where
there is occurrence of any PUBLIC EMERGENCY or in the interests of
PUBLIC SAFETY.”
- Y.P. Singh, IPS officer-turned-lawyer
The monitoring system will connect the small towns and cities of a
state to its capital, and all the state capitals will be linked to a
centralised monitoring centre in Delhi via fibre optic cables. If the
IB wants to monitor a phone at Gonda in Uttar Pradesh, they can do so
sitting in Delhi after sending necessary authorisations to the service
provider. It will even make the process of tapping much smoother for
the states since the capital city will be connected to the local
switchboards. “It also increases the responsibility of the service
provider since he is bound to deliver the traffic wherever asked,” the
official added. It will, for the first time, allow the Government to
seamlessly monitor a suspect’s cellphone across several networks and
across the country. An intelligence official calls this the “nuclear
weapon” of phone tapping software. “Implemented in its full form, it
will give us the precise location of any individual within a cellphone
network,” he says.
This is why the Government plans to maintain the mandatory audit trail
file, which will have electronic footprints of the number tapped-the
agency given access for how long and if the conversation was recorded
and if any copies were made. This protocol is followed worldwide and
the audit file is crucial in the courts of countries where phone taps
are admissible as evidence. “In India, the protocol ensures no
unauthorised copy is made and the system remains transparent,” says an
intelligence official, dealing with the project. Moreover, access to
the audit file will only be through a valid password available with
any of the Central agencies. Even service providers will not have
access to it to rule out any tampering.
In an attempt to collate tapped data, the home ministry has asked the
states for all records of phone and Internet interceptions. It also
plans to supervise the working of the mandatory oversight committees
on electronic surveillance in various states. At the Central level,
the oversight committee is headed by the cabinet secretary and
includes the law and telecom secretaries. With the home secretary
approving most requests, the oversight committee is a mere formality.
It rarely questions phone or Internet monitoring. Oversight committees
on tapping in the states is tardily implemented. A few states don’t
even have these mandatory committees. The states that do have them
rarely meet. Law and order being a state subject, the states are not
bound to share the information.
The Orwellian Future-active Intervention:
Imagine this scenario. Terrorist A sends SMSes from Malad in Mumbai to
terrorists B in Colaba and C in Bandra. The SMS asks B and C to meet
at Juhu beach, at 6 p.m. As B and C are moving, it becomes difficult
to nab them by their cellphone location. The police alter the SMS from
A and send an SMS saying “meet at Kalaghoda at 5 p.m.” to B and “meet
at Regal Cinema at 6 p.m.” to C. B and C, believing that the SMS was
from A, respond accordingly. The police nab all three in a smooth
operation.
“LEAKING TAPES are like leaking official secrets, it not only
adversely effects a particular individual but is also HARMFULTO
INVESTIGATIONS and the prosecution process.”
- Arun Bhagat, Former Director, IB
Most anti-terror agencies can actually carry out such operations.
Active off-air interception allows the police to virtually act as
cellphone towers and thus modify or block SMSes and calls. The machine
can be vehicle-mounted and can follow the target in urban areas where
conventional surveillance fails to track moving suspects. Security
agencies say they have elaborate internal regulations to control the
use of this technology. In Mumbai, for instance, the Crime Branch
needs written authorisation from the police commissioner to use this
machine. However, the temptation to misuse it for political espionage
and personal gains is high. Conscious of its potential for misuse, the
Uttar Pradesh ATS has recently declined to acquire this tool. There is
no guarantee that others will display such resolve.
THE BIG FISH CAUGHT OVER PHONE
Secret surveillance of phone calls helped policemen to achieve vital
breakthroughs in several high-profile cases
Batla House Encounter
After a series of IED blasts rocked Ahmedabad on July 26, 2008 the
city crime branch analysed a suspect’s call data record which led to
Atif Amin, a student of Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi. On September 2,
11 days before the Delhi blasts, the special cell of the Delhi Police
put Amin’s phone under observation.
Batla House encounter
Four days later, he received a call from Indian Mujahideen terrorist
Mirza Shadab Baig who spoke about the parking position of an auto-
rickshaw at Ghaffar Market, Karol Bagh. On September 11, Amin switched
off his cellphone. Two days later, a bomb, kept in an auto-rickshaw,
detonated in the market. Four more bombs exploded at Connaught Place
and Greater Kailash, killing over 30 people. Delhi Police failed to
prevent the blasts because of their colossal failure in analysing
Amin’s calls while the conspiracy was being hatched.
A day after the blasts, Amin switched his cellphone on. Though too
late in the day, the police could now join the dots. On September 18,
an NTRO van equipped with an off the air phone intercepting machine
was parked close to Jamia Millia Islamia to monitor Amin’s cellphone.
The mobile monitoring system planned to track him if he had moved out
of Batla House at Jamia Nagar, where he lived. On the morning of
September 19, as Amin’s cellphone confirmed his continued presence at
Batla House, the special cell stormed the residential building and
killed three terrorists, including Amin. The encounter went on to
become controversial for the circumstances and the death of encounter
specialist and Delhi Police inspector Mohan Chand Sharma.
Veerappan’s death trap
In June 2004, sandalwood smuggler Veerappan’s elder brother Madhayan,
who was lodged in Vellore jail, tried to buy a cellphone by bribing
the jail staff. The police allowed it and put his phone under
surveillance.
Bodies of Veerappan and his aides
Though Madhayan never spoke to Veerappan, one day a gang member told
him that while applying hair dye, Veerappan’s eyes had accidently got
infected and a doctor, who had been taken to the forest, had advised
an urgent surgery. The police implanted an under-cover policeman
posing as an LTTE member in Madhayan’s cell. The under-cover cop
offered to make arrangements for Veerappan’s eye surgery and on
October 19, 2004, policemen in the guise of hospital staff drove an
ambulance to the fringe of the forest in Dharmapuri district in
Karnataka. Veerappan and three of his aides emerged and were driven
into a meticulously planned trap. All four were shot dead.
End of Sri Prakash Shukla’s terror in Uttar Pradesh
With the launch of cellular services in Uttar Pradesh in March 1998,
Sri Prakash Shukla, a dreaded gangster, started operating with
impunity. He had forged a nexus with gangsters and politicians in
Bihar, West Bengal, Nepal and Uttar Pradesh.
Gangster Sri Prakash Shukla
Several sensational murders in the heart of Lucknow made him the
state’s most wanted gangster. The newly introduced cellphones provided
Shukla’s gang with both mobility and anonymity. The challenge before
the newly formed Uttar Pradesh STF, constituted to eliminate Shukla
and 43 other criminals, were twofold: to listen to Shukla’s calls and
to track his location. But the mobile service providers took a few
months before they could provide police with interception and tower
location facilities. Things were not easy as Shukla began changing his
numbers. The cellphone trail finally led to Delhi and on September 22,
1998, the STF nabbed Shukla and two aides from the M-Block market in
Greater Kailash-II. The police gunned them down after reaching
Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh.
26/11 Mumbai attacks
On November 26, 2008, as LeT fidayeen terrorists took positions in the
Taj Mahal and Oberoi hotels, the electronic intelligence room of the
Mumbai ATS started working overtime, sifting through all the calls
originating from or coming to the towers within Colaba, Cuff Parade
and Nariman Point areas. An IB input led to the first breakthrough.
A few months before 26/11, the Jammu and Kashmir Police infiltrated an
LeT module active in Kolkata and planted 35 SIM cards. A few hours
into the 26/11 attacks, one out of those 35 numbers was switched on.
It was being used by one of the terrorists Hafiz Arshad alias Abdul
Rahman Bada at the Taj. The Mumbai ATS then discovered that the calls
were emanating from a Voice over Internet Protocol or Internet
telephone number through the Airtel international gateway. All the
calls were coming through the number on surveillance. So as the
terrorists in Mumbai switched over to the cellphones they had snatched
from the hostages, the ATS kept tapping the new numbers. Over the next
56 hours, the Mumbai ATS intercepted a total of 284 conversations
running into over 16 hours. An NSG officer was stationed at the ATS
headquarters to pass on realtime intelligence gathered from the
intercepts to commandos on the ground. The telephonic intercepts
constituted one of the biggest evidence of Pakistan’s culpability in
the terror attack.
Telephone-tapping an invasion of individual’s privacy
PUCL Bulletin, February 2006
– By Rajindar Sachar
The current slanging match between political parties arising from
telephone-tapping of Amar Singh, General Secretary of S.P. has again
highlighted the menace of unauthorized telephone tapping. This evil
was highlighted in the press in 1991 showing hundreds of telephone
tapping of top politicians (including Chandra Shekhar, former Prime
Minister) and journalists. In India telephone tapping is provided
under Section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. But it could not
survive after the Constitution and the Second Press Commission
suggested some safeguards to be provided in the Act, but legislature
did not act.
It was in this background that Peoples Union for Civil Liberties
(PUCL) took the matter to the Supreme Court, which agreed that
“Telephone-tapping is a serious invasion of an individual’s privacy,
and increasingly susceptible to abuse.” More importantly it held right
to privacy is a part of the right to “life” and “personal liberty”
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and Right to freedom of
speech and expression is guaranteed also under Article 19 (1)(a) of
the Constitution and when a person is talking on telephone, he is
exercising this fundamental rights. This Court laid down that
officials could pass an order of interception only after recording its
satisfaction that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the
interest of (i) sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) the security
of the State, (iii) friendly relations with foreign States, (iv)
public order or (v) for preventing incitement to the commission of an
offence. It is only when any of the five situations mentioned above to
the satisfaction of the competent authority require that the said
authority may pass the order for interception of messages by recording
reasons in writing for doing so.
Thus the Court emphasized that the security of ones privacy against
arbitrary intrusion by the police is basic to a free society and
enforceable against the state through the Courts. Lamenting the
present position and noticing that though the Act was enacted in the
year 1885, and the power to make rules under Section 7 of the Act has
been there for over a century but the Central Government has not
thought it proper to frame the necessary rules despite severe
criticism of the manner in which the power under Section 5 (2) has
been exercised. Though conceding that it is entirely for the Central
Government to make rules on the subject but till the time it is done
the right to privacy of an individual has to be safeguarded, against
arbitrariness in the exercise of power under Act.
The Court therefore gave certain directions under which alone
telephone tapping could be done. It directed that telephone tapping
order will not be issued except under authorization by Home Secretary
of the Central Government or of the State Government. The order should
indicate the kind of communication which is to be tapped. The order
passed by the Home Secretary was to cease to have effect at the end of
two months from the date of authority, though it could be renewed for
six months.
A further direction was also given that original order would have to
be reviewed by Committee consisting of Cabinet Secretary, Law
Secretary and Secretary for Telephone Communication at the Central
level and also a Corresponding Committee at the state level and if it
considers that there has been a contravention of Act it will set aside
the order and also destroy copies of interception material. In the
background of Constitutional violation one is amazed at the
indifference and levity being shown in political circles. The Congress
can legitimately object to Amar Singh blaming Mrs. Sonia Gandhi
without substantiating it. But the response by its spokes person
should have been disdainful silence rather than the Babalog immature
and supercilious reaction by a query as to why Amar Singh was feeling
jittery about it and describing it as “Operation Majnu”. What if Amar
Singh was to get nasty by calling this reaction as “Operation Laila”,
such attitudes can only degrade the atmosphere of politics.
The matter has assumed All India implication with Chief Minister of
Tamil Nadu also complaining of her telephone being tapped. To this,
complaints have been added by Mr. Gowda, the former Prime Minister and
Mr. Chandrababu Naidu, former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh openly
alleging that they have reason to believe that their telephones are
being tapped. These are very serious allegations made by the
responsible persons. Allegations made by such two high functionaries,
representing a broad spectrum of political mass cannot be brushed
aside by Central Government by taking cover on the plea that CBI is
holding an inquiry. This is not acceptable.
I feel that public can only be satisfied either by judicial enquiry by
a Supreme Court judge, or better still (which I would personally
advocate) committee of Members of Parliament appointed jointly by
chairperson of Rajya Sabha and the Speaker of Lok Sabha. Each party
has admittedly a stake in truth coming out. The formation of the
Committee should be immediate to prevent further muddying of political
debate and heightening of political temper.
This situation is hardly conducive to rational politics and the
country needs to resolve it immediately. Prime Minister’s restrained
response gives hope that all parties meet would immediately sit down
and diffuse the situation. I say this because there are different
political parties in power in various states. This game of telephone
tapping can be played by all political parties and they should sort
this out so that there is no scope left for opportunist and vested
groups to play one political party against another.
We, in this context need to remind ourselves that unauthorized wire
tapping of his political opponent raised such an uproar which led to
the ultimate resignation of President Nixon. I believe public
indignation here is similarly as strong and widespread.
It is regrettable that though this judgment was passed in 1997 and we
have had since then governments of different political parties, yet no
one has cared to frame specific rules for this purpose even when
Supreme Court had expressed its unhappiness at this lacuna. My own
suggestion is that instead of getting authorization from officials,
the same should be obtained (of course ex parte) from a high judicial
officer, nominated by the high Court, on line similar to as in USA.
Is it fair that notwithstanding this gross lapse by legislature, it
should still blame the judiciary for dealing with matters belonging to
legislature? What other course for the judiciary, when Constitution
mandates it to be protector of fundamental rights of citizens.
The politicians possibly when in power feel comfortable about tapping
telephones of their opponents but it is ironically forgotten that
because of electoral fortune it may be a victim in future.
Phone tapping: Why target us, ask Muslims
April 25, 2010 19:45 IST
Tags: Muslim, National Security Advisory M K Narayanan, Vishwa Hindu
Parishad, Abdul Raheem Qureshi, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
Muslims in Hyderabad have expressed their unhappiness over reports
that they were target of a sophisticated telephone tapping operation
by Intelligence Bureau.
Reacting sharply to the revelations made by news magazine Outlook that
Muslim-dominated areas of Hyderabad and Lucknow [ Images ] were
targeted for telephone tapping at the behest of then National Security
Advisory M K Narayanan, community leaders said that this was yet
another proof of how Muslims were being eyed with suspicions by those
in power as well as the agencies.
All India [ Images ] Muslim Personal Law Board secretary Abdul Raheem
Qureshi has urged the Centre and the state to immediately put an end
to the abominable practices of targeting of Muslims for telephone
tapping and other espionage operations in the name of fight against
terrorism.
“Telephone tapping is a serious violation of the right to privacy,
guaranteed by the constitution,” said Moulana Qureshi, who was also
part of Muslim United Forum, the umbrella of several Muslim
organisations in Andhra Pradesh.
“The telephone tapping operation in Muslim-dominated areas of
Hyderabad and Lucknow shows that the home ministries both at the
Centre and the states, and their intelligence agencies were out to
selectively target the Muslim minority in the country.”
Strongly condemning the anti Muslim bias of the intelligence
authorities, Qureshi demanded to know whether similar operations were
carried out against the leaders of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Vishwa
Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal.
Mohammed Siddique in Hyderabad
Govt has not authorised any phone tapping: Chidambaram
Last updated on: April 26, 2010 13:54 IST
Tags: National Technical Research Organisation, UPA, Chidambaram, Lok
Sabha, Cabinet
Amid uproar over the issue of telephone tapping of senior political
leaders, the Centre on Monday rubbished the charge in Parliament
asserting that it had not authorised any such action.
“I wish to state categorically that no telephone tapping or
eavesdropping on political leaders was authorised by the previous UPA
government. Nor has the present UPA government authorised any such
activity,” Home Minister P Chidambaram [ Images ] said in Lok Sabha.
He said the report in Outlook magazine on phone tapping was thoroughly
enquired into and ‘nothing has been found in the records of the NTRO
(National Technical Research Organisation) to substantiate the
allegations’.
“Further enquiries are being made into the allegations in the
magazine. If any evidence is forthcoming or discovered, the matter
will be thoroughly investigated by the appropriate agencies,” the Home
Minister said.
“It is a technical organisation of the government….The organisation
was notified on April 15, 2004,” he said.
Asserting that intelligence agencies functioned within the law, he
said they are “fully accountable” to the government.
Under the Telegraph Act and the IT Act, each case of monitoring of
telephones or electronic communications has to be approved by the
Union home secretary personally and is subject to review by an
oversight committee chaired by the Cabinet secretary.
“Such monitoring, as may be necessary to fight crime, for national
security or for counter-terrorism effort, is subject to multiple
checks and oversight,” Chidambaram said.
Advani on phone tapping row: ‘Is Emergency back?’
April 25, 2010 14:53 IST
Tags: Advani, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Gyani Zail Singh, Prakash Karat,
Digvijay Singh
Taking a serious note of allegations of tapping of phones of
politicians, senior Bharatiya Janata Party [ Images ] leader L K
Advani [ Images ] has demanded enactment of a new legislation to
protect citizens’ privacy.
It is a “shocking report describing how the Government of India
[ Images ] has been making use of the latest phone tapping technology
to prepare records of telephonic conversations of prominent political
leaders, including chief ministers like Nitish Kumar, Union ministers
like Sharad Pawar [ Images ], communist leaders like Prakash Karat
[ Images ] and the Congress party’s own office bearers like its
general secretary, Digvijay Singh [ Images ],” he said.
Commenting on the report on phone tapping published in Outlook
magazine, Advani, in his blog titled Is the Emergency back, said that
the ‘outdated’ Telephone Act should be scrapped and demanded that a
new legislation be enacted to protect citizens’ privacy.
“What is really required in this context is to set up a Parliamentary
committee on the lines of the Birkett committee in Britain to examine
all aspects of the problem, scrap the outdated Indian Telephone Act of
1885 and replace it by a new legislation, which forbids invasion of an
ordinary citizens’ privacy…,” Advani said.
He said a new law should formally recognise the right of the State to
use the latest IT devices of interception to deal only with crime,
subversion and espionage. The law must provide statutory safeguards,
which make it impossible for the government to abuse its powers
against political activists and journalists, he said.
Recalling an incident, he said, “This reminds me of an interesting
encounter I had 25 years back. In 1985, one morning a stranger arrived
at my house carrying a briefcase full of papers. This brief case, he
told me, contained ‘dynamite’, which could blow up this government. He
opened his briefcase and out poured some 200 sheets of closely-typed
records of telephonic conversations of many VIPs,” he said.
However, Advani did not find them ‘explosive’, as that gentleman
seemed to presume. Some of those papers were telephonic conversations
between him and Atal Bihari Vajpayee [ Images ], he said.
“What surprised me even more was that those transcripts included tape-
recorded conversations not only of opposition leaders but also of
eminent journalists and some extremely distinguished VVIPs like Gyani
Zail Singh,” he said.
Advani’s blog mentioned many incidents of phone tapping in the past,
including a press conference of June 25, 1985, on the 10th anniversary
of Emergency by Vajpayee. He said Vajpayee had then referred to large-
scale phone tapping that was done during the 19 months of Emergency.
Congress distances itself from phone ‘tapping’ row
April 23, 2010 21:35 IST
Tags: Congress, Rajya Sabha S S Ahluwalia, Opposition Bharatiya Janata
Party, National Technical Research Organisation, Communist Party of
India
The Congress on Friday downplayed the issue of the government tapping
the phones of several politicians, including those in power, and said
it is for the government to explain. However, the party admitted that
illegal phone tapping was unjustified.
“Illegal phone tapping is unjustified but in this case, it is for the
government to explain whether phone tapping was done or not or whether
it was legal or not,” party spokesperson Shakeel Ahmed said.
The Congress leader’s remark comes in the wake of reports in a weekly
magazine alleging that government agencies have been tapping phones of
important politicians and ministers since 2006.
Reacting to it, main Opposition Bharatiya Janata Party [ Images ] has
said it will raise the issue in Parliament.
“If the government is tapping the phones of terrorists, or tax evaders
or secessionists, then it is understandable as national interest and
national security are involved. But tapping phones of politicians and
ministers is condemnable,” BJP deputy leader in Rajya Sabha S S
Ahluwalia [ Images ] said.
Ahluwalia insisted that this was violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution which assures protection of life and personal liberty of
every citizen.
Communist Party of India [ Images ] – Marxist general secretary
Prakash Karat [ Images ] termed as ‘illegal and intolerable’ the
reported tapping of phones of political leaders and asked the
government to take action against those responsible for the acts.
“The United Progressive Alliance [ Images ] government is resorting to
tapping of phones of political leaders which is illegal and
intolerable. The government has to own up responsibility and take
action against those responsible,” said Karat.
He said further safeguards should be taken against such misuse of
security agencies. His comments came in the backdrop of a magazine
report that phones of prominent political leaders including Union
Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar [ Images ], Congress leader Digvijay
Singh [ Images ] and Karat have been tapped.
The phones of Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar have also been tapped
by the National Technical Research Organisation, an intelligence
agency created in the aftermath of the Kargil [ Images ] war to cover
all aspects of technical intelligence gathering, Outlook magazine
claimed in its latest issue.
While the phones of Singh and Kumar were tapped in 2007, Karat’s phone
was tapped in 2008, at the height of his opposition to the Indo-United
States nuclear deal, leading to the no-confidence motion against the
government. Pawar’s phone was tapped last fortnight in the wake of the
IPL scandal.
Phone tapping, IPL scandals rock Parliament
Last updated on: April 26, 2010 14:54 IST
Tags: IPL, RJD, BJP, Joint Parliamentary Committee, National Technical
Research Organisation
Reports of telephone tapping and the IPL controversy rocked Parliament
on Monday with both Houses adjourning for the day as an agitated
opposition demanded a Joint Parliamentary Committee probe into the two
issues.
The opposition members were not satisfied with Home Minister P
Chidambaram’s [ Images ] statement rubbishing the charge that it had
authorised any telephone tapping of politicians and alleged that the
issue smacked of the 1975 Emergency days.
While the BJP in both the Houses went hammer and tongs against the
government on the phone tapping issue, the SP and RJD focussed on the
IPL issue with Lalu Prasad and Mulayam Singh Yadav [ Images ]
personally leading their party members into the well of the Lok Sabha.
Members of the BSP, which is cosying up to the government ahead of the
crucial cut motions, were conspicuously silent during these protests.
Making a statement on the tapping issue in both the Houses,
Chidambaram said, “I wish to state categorically that no telephone
tapping or eavesdropping on political leaders was authorised by the
previous UPA government. Nor has the present UPA government authorised
any such activity.”
He said the report in Outlook magazine on phone tapping was thoroughly
enquired into and “nothing has been found in the records of the NTRO
(National Technical Research Organisation) to substantiate the
allegations.”
Demanding a statement from the Prime Minister, senior BJP leader L K
Advani [ Images ] recalled a press conference held on June 25, 1985 to
mark 10 years of Emergency in which Atal Bihari Vajpayee [ Images ]
spoke about phone tapping of leaders like Chandrashekhar, Jagjivan Ram
[ Images ], Charan Singh and journalists like Kuldeep Nayyar and Arun
Shourie.
He also demanded passing of a law to prevent the government from
tapping phones of political leaders.
In the Rajya Sabha too, BJP vociferously demanded a Joint
Parliamentary Committee enquiry, with senior leader M Venkaiah Naidu
seeking a statement from the Prime Minister.
Both Houses, which had earlier adjourned twice on the issue with
repeated protests by the opposition parties, were adjourned for the
day as the protests continued.
SP and RJD members trooped into the well of Lok Sabha seeking a JPC
probe into the IPL controversy. “This is the biggest scandal in the
recent years,” the RJD chief remarked.
The Home Minister, who read out the statement on phone tapping amid
continued slogan-shouting, said, “Further enquiries are being made
into the allegations in the magazine. If any evidence is forthcoming
or discovered, the matter will be thoroughly investigated by the
appropriate agencies”.
He read out a similar statement in Rajya Sabha.
No person living in India is secure from phone tapping
Sunday, 13 February 2011 00:05
Written by Pratiksha Chauhan
safeindia.jpgThe Supreme Court articulated serious fear with regards
to the isolation and liberty for the citizens in the country. The
senior Justice G S Singhvi and Justice Kumar Ganguly said, “No person
living in India is secure. Will this nation be the target over the
years? There are master forgers. Experts in fabrication of records.”
The bench was inquiring about the case of Amar Singh, a former leader
of Samajwadi Party of Uttar Pradesh. As it was assumed by Amar Singh
that his telephones were tapped. So, the Bench realized that it might
happen to any person in future.
The accusation were that tapping of the phones of Amar Singh were
counterfeit by someone and the service provider , in this state of
affairs, Reliance, was not under commitment for checking the
authenticity of the orders of tapping.
The bench throws the lime light on the tendency to tap phones, the
susceptibility of the people to counterfeit the prospect of the common
man becoming an object for such deeds. The question raised by Justice
Singhvi to Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium, “What will he do if
similar counterfeit document is given to some service provider to
falsify the phone of the Army Chief and the conversation is abstracted
to some foreign country which deals with security of the country.”
Article viewed at: Oye! Times at www.oyetimes.com
Telephone recording laws
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Telephone recording laws are laws that govern the civilian recording
of telephone conversations by the participants (as opposed to laws
controlling government or law enforcement wiretapping).
Telephone tapping is officially strictly controlled in many countries
to safeguard an individual’s privacy; this is the case in all
developed democracies. In theory, telephone tapping often needs to be
authorised by a court, and is, again in theory, normally only approved
when evidence shows it is not possible to detect criminal or
subversive activity in less intrusive ways; often the law and
regulations require that the crime investigated must be at least of a
certain severity. In many jurisdictions however, permission for
telephone tapping is easily obtained on a routine basis without
further investigation by the court or other entity granting such
permission. Illegal or unauthorised telephone tapping is often a
criminal offence. However, in certain jurisdictions such as Germany,
courts will accept illegally recorded phone calls without the other
party’s consent as evidence.
Canada
Canadian law requires that at least one party in the phone call be
aware of the recording.[1][2]
Denmark
Calls and conversations may be recorded by any active participant.
There is no requirement to make other parties aware of the recording,
but the use of recordings, depending on their content, may be subject
to various laws.
Exceptions
It is in general not legal to tape conversations in a court room.
It is against good ethics for lawyers to tape conversations without
informing participants first, and this can be sanctioned by the Danish
Bar and Law Society (da: advokatsamfundet).
Finland
In the case of private persons, calls and conversations may be
recorded by any active participant. There is no requirement to make
other parties aware of the recording, but the use of recordings,
depending on their content, may be subject to various laws, such as
data protection (privacy) legislation, libel laws, laws governing
trade and national secrets, and any agreements, such as non-disclosure
agreements.[3]
Recording of calls by a company or an employer is subject to data
protection legislation and, as a general rule, requires informing the
participants prior to recording.[3]
India
In India, telephone tapping has to be approved by a designated
authority. It is illegal otherwise. [4]
The Central Government or State Government is empowered to order
interception of messages per section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act 1885
[5]. Rule 419 and 419A sets out the procedure of interception and
monitoring of telephone messages. There is a provision for a review
committee to supervise the order of interception. Phone tapping is
permitted based on Court order only and such permission is granted
only if it is required to prevent a major offence involving national
security or to gather intelligence on anti-national/terrorist
activities. Though economic offences/tax evasion were initially
covered under the reasons for interception of phones, the same was
withdrawn in 1999 by the Government based on a Supreme Court order
citing protection to privacy of the individual.
As per Rule 428 of the India telegraphic rules, no person without the
sanction of the telegraph authority, use any telephone or cause or
suffer it to be used, purposes other than the establishment of local
or trunk calls.
The Government of India instructions provide for approved attachments.
There is no provision for attachment for recording conversation.
United Kingdom
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in general prohibits
interception of communications by a third party, with exceptions
related to government agencies. A recording made by one party to a
phone call or e-mail without notifying the other is not prohibited
provided that the recording is for their own use; recording without
notification is prohibited where some of the contents of the
communication—a phone conversation or an e-mail—are made available to
a third party. Businesses may record with the knowledge of their
employees but without notifying the other party to
* provide evidence of a business transaction
* ensure that a business complies with regulatory procedures
* see that quality standards or targets are being met in the
interests of national security
* prevent or detect crime to investigate the unauthorised use of a
telecom system
* secure the effective operation of the telecommunications system.
They may monitor without recording phone calls or e-mails that have
been received to see whether they are relevant to the business (e.g.,
to check for business communications addressed to an employee who is
away); but such monitoring must be proportionate and in accordance
with data protection laws and codes of practice.
Companies that record telephone calls must ensure that their employees
can make unrecorded personal calls, if necessary on a telephone on the
premises which is not recorded; they may otherwise be in breach of
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This summary does not necessarily cover all possible cases. The main
legislation which must be complied with is:
* Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”)[6]
* Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice)(Interception of
Communications) Regulations 2000 (“LBP Regulations”)[7]
* Data Protection Act 1998
* Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations
1999[8]
* Human Rights Act 1998
Under RIPA unlawful recording or monitoring of communications is a
tort, allowing civil action in the courts.
There is a summary of applicable rules on the Oftel website[9]
Detailed advice from a solicitor, oriented towards businesses, is
available on the Web [10].
United States
In the United States, federal agencies may be authorized to engage in
wiretaps by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,
a court with secret proceedings, in certain circumstances.
Under United States federal law and most state laws there is nothing
illegal about one of the parties to a telephone call recording the
conversation, or giving permission for calls to be recorded or
permitting their telephone line to be tapped. However, several states
(i.e., California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and
Washington) require that all parties consent when one party wants to
record a telephone conversation. Many businesses and other
organizations record their telephone calls so that they can prove what
was said, train their staff, or monitor performance. This activity may
not be considered telephone tapping in some, but not all,
jurisdictions because it is done with the knowledge of at least one of
the parties to the telephone conversation. The Telephone recording
laws in some U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the
recording, while other states require both parties to be aware. It is
considered better practice to announce at the beginning of a call that
the conversation is being recorded.
There is a federal law and two main types of state laws that govern
telephone recording:
Federal law requires that at least one party taking part in the call
must be notified of the recording (18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d)). For
example, it would be illegal to record the phone calls of people who
come into one’s place of business and ask to use the phone unless they
are notified.
Two-party notification states
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable
sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2010)
Twelve states currently require that all parties consent to the
recording. These states are:
* California[11]
* Connecticut
* Florida
* Illinois
* Maryland[12]
* Massachusetts[13]
* Montana
* Nevada
* New Hampshire
* Pennsylvania[14]
* Washington[15]
One-party notification states
All other states (and the District of Columbia) not listed above
require only that one party consent. Michigan’s eavesdropping statute
seems to put it into the two-party category, but the courts have ruled
that in Michigan, a party may record their own conversation without
the consent of any other parties but cannot grant that right to a
third party[16] There are certain exceptions to these rules. See full
rules here.
Of course, if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation
with someone in a two-party state, that caller is subject to the
stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers. (Cf.
Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006).)
Accepted forms of notification for recording by a telephone company
The FCC defines accepted forms of notification for telephone recording
by telephone companies as:
* Prior verbal (oral) or written consent of all parties to the
telephone conversation.
* Verbal (oral) notification before the recording is made. (This
is the most common)
* An audible beep tone repeated at regular intervals during the
course of the call.
Note that the law re: verbal is not worded “consent” but
“notification” Notification as the FCC defines
Germany
In the meaning above, Germany is a two party consent state. Telephone
recording without two or more parties consents is a criminal act
according to Sec. 201 to German Criminal Code [5] – violation of the
confidentiality of the spoken word. Telephone tapping by authorities
has to be approved by a judge. For the discussing about the lawful
interception in Germany please see here de:Telefonüberwachung(German
language).
References
* FCC Consumer facts on recording calls
* Privacy Rights Clearinghouse / UCAN
* The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press article on
telephone recording laws by state
* California courts document on Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney,
Inc.
* Federal law 18 U.S.C. 119, Sec. 2511(2)(d)
* Comprehensive Telephone Law Recording Reference
1. ^ “PART VI INVASION OF PRIVACY”. Criminal Code ( R.S., 1985, c.
C-46 ). Department of Justice Canada. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-5.html#codese:183_1.
2. ^ “Canada: Legal Guide On Recording Telephone Conversations”.
http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-canada.htm. Retrieved
2008-09-10.
3. ^ a b “Omien keskustelujen ja puheluiden nauhoittaminen
työpaikalla (Data Protection Ombudsman)”. 2007.
4. ^ [http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/apr/26/phone-tapping-
what-1997-supreme-court-verdict-says.htm 1997 Indian Supreme court
Verdict
5. ^ Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
6. ^ UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
7. ^ Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice)(Interception of
Communications) Regulations 2000
8. ^ Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations
1999
9. ^ Oftel (UK) FAQ: Recording and monitoring telephone calls or e-
mails
10. ^ Telephone Monitoring: Dos and Don'ts (UK)
11. ^ California Penal Code Section 632(a)[1]
12. ^ Maryland Code Section 10-402, Courts and Judicial Proceedings
Article[2]
13. ^ Massachusetts Call Recording Law, Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 , §
99 [3]
14. ^ “Can we tape?” Pennsylvania.
15. ^ Revised Code of Washington 9.73.030 [4]
16. ^ Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws“
Categories: Communications regulation | Telephone tapping
* This page was last modified on 12 February 2011 at 05:54.
* Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-
ShareAlike License;
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
…and I am Sid Harth
Filed under News, Views and Reviews