<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/delivering-us-from-surveillance/article5197660.ece?homepage=true">http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/delivering-us-from-surveillance/article5197660.ece?homepage=true</a><br>
<br>
(The cartoon is of the the Indian Prime Minister and Obama in an
embrace, and while in embrace, the Indian PM cutting the wire of
Obama's surveillance equipment. )<br>
</font>
<h1 class="entry-title instapaper_title">Delivering us from
surveillance</h1>
<p>The Hindu <br>
<br>
</p>
<ul class="entry-meta">
<li class="byline author vcard"> by <span class="fn">Arun Mohan
Sukumar</span> </li>
<li> <time class="updated" datetime="2013-10-03T00:00:00"
pubdate=""> Oct. 3, 2013 </time> </li>
<li> <a
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/delivering-us-from-surveillance/article5197660.ece?homepage=true"
data-stat="rv-banner-meta-original"> original </a> </li>
</ul>
<div class="text-embed">
<img src="cid:part2.00010201.03000907@itforchange.net"
class="main-image leftImage" alt="" title="" width="318">
<p class="photo-caption">
<span class="photo-source">Illustration: Satwik Gade</span>
</p>
</div>
<p class="articleLead">
</p>
<h2>New Delhi can pursue a series of small, simple measures to help
check NSA’s snooping without seriously affecting India-U.S. ties</h2>
<p class="body">
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s reluctance to raise the slightest
murmur of protest against the U.S. National Security Agency’s
(NSA) spying excesses during his American trip leaves us with one
question: will NSA surveillance continue unabated? India has
displayed a stunning lack of political will to even broach the
issue with Washington D.C. Perhaps, this was inevitable: a Prime
Minister humiliated at home by his own party can hardly be
expected to sour the one foreign policy achievement that defines
his legacy. Dr. Singh was busy ensuring the India-U.S. nuclear
deal is operationalised before he demits office to worry about
concerns that actually affect the lives and businesses of Indians.
</p>
<p class="body">
<b>Consensus</b>
</p>
<p class="body">
This is unfortunate because NSA surveillance is an area where rare
consensus has emerged among the BRICS countries. At the U.N.
General Assembly session in New York last week, BRICS Foreign
Ministers “expressed concern” at the “unauthorised interception of
communication and data,” without calling out the NSA in specific.
But there exist no international regulations to protect civilians
from such surveillance because the U.S., the United Kingdom and
Israel in particular are opposed to any cybersecurity treaty. In
2010, Russia — backed by Brazil and China — tabled a draft
convention on cybercrimes at the U.N., only to be shot down by the
West. The Russian proposal specifically targeted intrusive
technology and cyber attacks — the sort of stuff the NSA is adept
at. But the U.S. successfully spun the narrative around to suggest
autocratic countries like Russia and China wanted to clamp down on
the Internet. A year later, <i>The New York Times </i>would
reveal the U.S. and Israel had used precisely this technology to
infect nuclear reactors in Iran with the Stuxnet virus.
</p>
<p class="body">
The U.S. used the same pretext last December in Dubai when the
U.N. deliberated an international communications treaty under the
auspices of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The
Obama administration, however, refused to sign the International
Telecom Regulations and asserted that cybersecurity be kept out of
the treaty’s mandate. It insisted the Internet be unregulated to
leave it “free and open.” Months later, leaked NSA documents
courtesy Edward Snowden would reveal how the U.S. arm-twisted
telecom companies and Internet service providers for confidential
user data. Had the U.S. signed on to the ITRs, the NSA’s PRISM
programme would have amounted to a gross breach of its treaty
obligations.
</p>
<p class="body">
At the ITU negotiations, India chose regrettably to side with the
U.S. This July, <i>The Hindu </i>disclosed how India’s Central
Monitoring System (CMS) intercepts private communication in the
same vein as the NSA. Given that India and the U.S. signed a
Memorandum of Understanding in 2011 to share “cybersecurity
information and expertise,” it would not be surprising to learn
that much of the CMS’ capabilities stem from our cooperation with
the U.S.
</p>
<p class="body">
<b>Holding back</b>
</p>
<p class="body">
There are then three plausible reasons behind India’s refusal to
take up the NSA revelations with the U.S. One, Prime Minister
Singh does not wish to sully the piece de resistance in his
foreign policy tab. Two, New Delhi worries about a potential
blowback in ties especially on technology transfer, private
investment and defence cooperation. Third, the government needs to
sustain its own monitoring and intercepting of communication, for
which it needs U.S. assistance.
</p>
<p class="body">
The moral basis for these justifications is shaky. Yet, with all
its reservations about publicly airing grievances with the U.S.,
India still has a good opportunity to help rein in the NSA’s
mandate. Diplomacy offers enough avenues to do so without
substantially affecting India-U.S. ties.
</p>
<p class="body">
<b>Three steps</b>
</p>
<p class="body">
For starters, India could revive an IBSA (India-Brazil-South
Africa) proposal from 2011 to set up a U.N. Committee for
Internet- Related Policies (CIRP), and submit it again to the U.N.
General Assembly. CIRP would comprise a rotating group of 50
countries serving in an advisory capacity on Internet governance
policies. This committee would be positioned ideally to highlight
egregious surveillance schemes of the U.S. and other countries.
First tabled at the 66th UNGA session, this idea met with
opposition from the West and advocates of Internet freedom. But in
light of new circumstances, and great resentment against the U.S.
and NSA’s practices, mooting CIRP is sure to generate much
discussion at the U.N. The IBSA proposal should be coupled with a
draft resolution for the General Assembly to adopt: one that
strongly denounces practices of global surveillance and use of
interceptive technologies against governments.
</p>
<p class="body">
Second, when Parliament convenes for the winter session, the
Congress party — or any party or independent legislator, for that
matter — could table amendments to the National Security Act and
the Official Secrets Act. Broadly, the amendments would stipulate
it is a punishable offence for Indian or India-based Internet and
telecom companies to share confidential information about Indian
citizens, public-sector institutions, and officials with foreign
governments. The enforcement of these provisions, if enacted,
would be supervised by a parliamentary committee. The chances
these amendments are passed by Parliament are frankly slim. But
the parliamentary debate that would ensue will surely include
sharp and critical comments on U.S. surveillance programmes, all
of which go on the record as the opinion of India’s sovereign
body.
</p>
<p class="body">
Third, India could help formulate a BRICS Charter for Internet
Governance, given that there is substantial agreement among member
states. Among the provisions in the draft charter could be an idea
adapted, ironically, from the George W. Bush administration — the
Proliferation Security Initiative. The PSI was a mechanism set up
by the U.S. and endorsed by “volunteer” countries to target the
shipment of arms to Iran and North Korea. The simple idea behind
PSI was this: while the West could do little to influence policy
in Tehran and Pyongyang, it held all the economic cards to ensure
these policies were not implemented. BRICS countries retain a
trump card when it comes to Internet governance: their massive
consumer base. To be sure, the charter should not punish or
sanction Internet companies that collaborate with the U.S.
government for surveillance. BRICS members would circulate an
annual “name and shame” list of such companies to multilateral
avenues and civil society forums across the world. The negative
publicity would do more than its fair share to make IT companies
rethink their surreptitious collaboration with the U.S.
</p>
<p class="body">
These are modest, but not conclusive, proposals that India could
articulate to help check the NSA’s surveillance programmes. </p>
<p class="body">
They are not aimed at setting back India-U.S. ties — in fact,
pursuing such policies would only boost India’s reputation as a
pursuer of independent foreign policy.
</p>
<p class="body">
<a href="mailto:arun.sukumar@thehindu.co.in" target="_blank"><i>arun.sukumar@thehindu.co.in</i></a>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>