Skip to main content

Is Our Privacy at Risk?

 Is Our Privacy at Risk?

By Shagun Mahendroo


The most contentious issue we face today is the right to privacy vs. national security. Pegasus Spyware shocked the entire nation when it was revealed that Pegasus had targeted around 300 mobile phone numbers in India, including devices belonging to journalists, politicians, businesspeople, lawyers, and other professionals. It was also claimed that Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan's device had been traced.

What is Pegasus Spyware, and how does it work?

Pegasus is a spyware programme created by the Israeli corporation NSO (Niv, Shalev, and Omri) in 2010. It is malicious software that can infiltrate your device, collect data, and send it to a third party without your permission. It is compatible with both Android and iOS. Pegasus, the winged horse of Greek mythology, is the name of the spyware. Without the targeted user's awareness, the Pegasus Spyware can read text, messages, and gain access to the device's microphone and camera.

Pegasus Spyware's History

Researchers from the Canadian cyber security company THE CITIZEN LAB first detected it in 2016 while the Pegasus was attempting to penetrate Jamal Khashoggi's (Saudi Arabian Journalist) iPhone. Pegasus was originally detected after Apple became aware of the spyware.

In 2016, the spyware employed a technique known as Spear Phishing, in which the hackers sent an email to the smartphone to infect it.

The Citizen Lab revealed data in September 2018 that identified 60 clients from 40 countries.

In 2019, a spyware call was made on WhatsApp, and if the person replied, the virus was downloaded onto their device.

In 2021, a new technology known as ZERO CLICK ATTACK was invented, in which the code enters the phone even if the call is not answered, making it harder to track down the hacker.

The NSO group said that the software was exclusively kept for government authorities to utilise in the fight against money laundering, terrorism, and criminal activity. Pegasus is also highly expensive; 50 smartphones cost roughly $7-8 million, making it tough for a private player to use.

In July 2021, Amnesty International and Forbidden Stories, a Paris-based non-profit journalism organisation, shared information with 16 media outlets, including The Guardian. According to publicly available statistics, roughly 50,000 phone numbers have been leaked since 2016. A total of 37 mobile phones were tested, with around 10 Indian phones showing symptoms of Pegasus Spyware.

India's Legal Situation

In the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. against Union of India and Ors., the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is protected by Article 14, 19, and 21. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to privacy. The government must pass a data protection law, according to the Supreme Court. The right to privacy is safeguarded as an integral aspect of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as part of the freedoms granted by Part III of the Constitution, according to a nine-judge panel.

The Information Technology Act of 2000, Section 69, empowers the government to undertake surveillance and monitor information without court oversight.

However, the government is not permitted to install spyware under this rule. The hacking of equipment is illegal under Section 66, which is combined with Section 43 of the IT Act 2000.

The Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 allows for the tracking of phones in reasons of national security, while part 4 of the Act deals with punishments and offences.

Breach of confidentiality and privacy is punishable under Section 72 of the Information Technology Act of 2000. Anyone who exposes an electronic record, communication information, or document without permission will be sentenced to two years in prison or a fine of up to one lakh rupees, or both.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more