A new threat to citizens’ privacy
With the election mere months away, we are alarmed by the revelation that a new system of phone surveillance that provides precise information about the locations of mobile phone users may soon be added to the government's arsenal of surveillance weapons. According to a report by Prothom Alo, the system, called Integrated Lawful Interception System (ILIS), can be operational as early as November, enabling law enforcement and intelligence agencies to get six months' worth of geo-location data from phones. It is said to be an improvement over the current system that can track the general whereabouts of a person but not their exact location; the new system offers more accurate, mass-level tracking capabilities using artificial intelligence.
This is, we must say, alarming for a number of reasons. First, the cloak of legality – note its name and also existing legislation surrounding interception for criminal investigation purposes – makes such systems vulnerable to abuse by government agencies and political actors, if history is any indication. The legal argument for tracking location using phones, not just one's calls/conversations, is also quite tenuous. Second, such technology are typically meant for tracking individuals associated with criminal activities, not for mass surveillance of the public, which is what the government may do with the opposition parties intensifying their one-point movement for its resignation. Third, the costs of installing the ILIS will apparently have to be borne by mobile network operators, which will eventually fall on the customers.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. 
If that is the case, we must ask, what are we paying for, really? It goes without saying that the implications of such breaches of privacy are profound. As a columnist of this daily raised the all-too-important question when the home minister first announced the acquisition of the ILIS early this year: "How can breaching citizens' privacy be lawful?" The government claims it wants to thwart "anti-state" and "anti-government" conspiracies using such surveillance tools – of which it already has plenty. But since when is being anti-government a crime?
The modern era has seen the misuse of such technology by governments worldwide. But it's crucial to strike a balance between ensuring security and respecting individual privacy and democratic principles, especially with the general election approaching. The clarity of purpose is as important as sticking to the purpose – and that, for the Awami League government, must not be silencing critics and weakening opposition parties. We urge the government to ensure transparency and accountability in its use of any surveillance mechanism.
Comments