The big national security versus privacy debate

I think one reality is very clear, WhatsApp has become the hunting ground  of cyber criminals everywhere and this is the direction many discussions have taken recently, especially in the government. If this is to be allowed it will compromise the privacy of the users. However, strict mechanism needs to be in place in order to regulate surveillance. Technological limitations of companies too is a challenge whereby encrypted conversations just cannot be accessed at the drop of a hat. There is no final resolution on this, but there seems to be a push to extend intermediary liabilities to the service provider so as to help curb cyber terror. The intrinsic problem lies in the license to survey: who will determine whether a particular individual is a terrorist? There are also potential jurisdiction challenges. When a server is in a different country, it is difficult to summon the data. It is understandable that a sovereign state does not want to stand mute while OTT services are misused for cyber crimes. In India we have no documented policy on encryption, as the previous one was withdrawn. Service providers are legally mandated to provide information to the government when required to. People have also become fiercely protective of privacy and have been resorting to the dark web.
Pawan Duggal, Cyber law expert, Advocate, Supreme Court.

You cannot make people ‘more secure’ by taking away their privacy and making them vulnerable. End-to-end encryption is one safeguard that has enabled us to keep our private conversations private. If the government can find a way to infiltrate this, so can hackers. Just to facilitate this sort of snooping you cannot put so many people at risk. The argument that “those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear” is simply not true. Access to personal chats puts people at risk of potential blackmail. Also, end-to-end encryption is a blanket protection. Either we all have it or we all don’t have it. Besides, the Paris attack, which was facilitated through SMS is testament to the fact that this does not always work. This will also create two classes in society, the security forces who will have secure communication, and the rest of us, who won’t. Laws are made to protect the people: this should be kept in mind.
Nikhil Pahwa, Editor, MediaNama.com

While decryption of messages by services like Whatsapp may make life much smoother for government agencies, there is the obvious elephant in the room - the question of privacy.
I believe that Whatsapp should be made to give decrypted information where a government agency is able to prove a viable threat. Another issue that would need to be dealt with by the law if such a provision were made is who will police the police?  People’s privacy should remain unbroken. But at what cost? Does maintaining the privacy of an account warrant an attack on the sovereignty of a nation. That is finally what this issue will need to resolve once for all.
Shuchi Nagpal, Chief Education Officer, Asian School of Cyber Laws