Understanding The Times - Is the Big Brother Watching?

Understanding the Times – Is the Big Brother Watching?

John Amalraj K

Published in AIM magazine of EFI – March 2019 Issue

George Orwell in his best seller novel “1984” published in the year 1949 talked about a ‘big-brother watching’ hinting at a totalitarian regime that seeks to penetrate into the private lives of the citizens monitoring them using high end technology and removing all dissent.  He opined that the obsession of the system becomes part of the system through which people are not allowed to think for themselves, act freely or question the policies of the authorities.  Any dissent is viewed as resistance which needs to be eliminated.  Today even as the technology advancement has reached dizzy heights the sense of in-security has paralyzed many.

The psalmist says that there is nowhere he can hide from the presence of God.  He acknowledges that God knows his thoughts, his words, his actions and all his movements.  (Ps 139:1-12).  We believe in an all knowing God (omniscience) who sees everything and no secrets are hid from him.    God does not need any of the electronic surveillance devices that the authorities use.   The problem with surveillance is that when human authorities assume the position of the all-knowing God, the rights of the people especially those who are marginalized are violated. 

Government Surveillance: The Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India on December 20, 2018 issued an order authorizing 10 Central agencies to intercept, monitor, and decrypt “any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer.” (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/all-computers-can-now-be-monitored-by-govt-agencies/article25792523)

The agencies are the Intelligence Bureau, Narcotics Control Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Bureau of Investigation; National Investigation Agency, Cabinet Secretariat (R&AW), Directorate of Signal Intelligence (For service areas of Jammu & Kashmir, North-East and Assam only) and Commissioner of Police, Delhi.

According to the order, the subscriber or service provider or any person in charge of the computer resource will be bound to extend all facilities and technical assistance to the agencies and failing to do will invite seven-year imprisonment and fine.  Later the government claimed that this was nothing new and it was provided for under section 69 (1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which says that the Central government can direct any agency after it is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so in the “interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence.”

Intelligence agencies in the past have been used to tap into phone conversations, intercept email conversations and social media activities in the interest of security by the government of the day.  At times the government has attempted to contain dissent and opposition using such surveillance measures.   

The above government order has been challenged in the Supreme Court as violating the fundamental rights to privacy of the citizens but we have to wait to see how the court will decide this issue.  This discussion takes us to two judgements of the Supreme Court related to privacy.  

The Privacy Rights: The Supreme Court constitutional bench in its milestone judgment on 24 August 2017 declared that ‘Privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity’.  (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/24/545963181/indian-supreme-court-declares-privacy-a-fundamental-right) The right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to personal life and liberty as enshrined in the Constitution in the section on the rights to freedom (Article 21). The words ‘Right to Privacy’ is not mentioned in the constitutional text.  The judges further declared, ‘The right to be let alone is a part of the right to enjoy life. The right to enjoy life is, in its turn, a part of the fundamental right to life of the individual.  This has implications from what people say online to who they love, to what they eat. Privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes a right to be let alone. Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognizes the ability of the individual to control vital aspects of his or her life. Personal choices governing a way of life are intrinsic to privacy.’  This important judgment overruled all the earlier judicial pronouncements on restricting personal freedom and privacy and set the precedent for all subsequent references made to the constitutional bench on related issues.   Based on the foundation of this judgement, the Supreme Court later struck down Section 377 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code relating to treating homosexuality and adultery as a criminal offence.

Unique Identification Card – ‘Aadhaar’ and Privacy: The historic majority judgment on the issue of Aadhaar Scheme delivered on 26 September 2018 by the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy has its limitations subject to a three- fold test of legality, legitimate state aim and proportionality.  The judges had earlier observed: ‘In an age where information technology governs every aspect of our lives,’ the court ‘has to be sensitive... to the opportunities and dangers posed to liberty in a digital world and prevent intrusion into the personal lives of people’.  

The majority judgment authored by Justice Sikri also holds that the architecture of Aadhaar, as well as the provisions of the Aadhaar Act, do not tend to create a surveillance state. (https://www.livelaw.in/aadhaar-read-the-summary-of-majority-41-judgment/)

It was observed that this aspect is ensured by the manner in which the Aadhaar project operates. The judges also found that it is very difficult to create profile of a person simply on the basis of biometric and demographic information stored and –In so far as authentication is concerned, there are sufficient safeguard mechanisms. 

The highlights of the majority judgment are as follows: 

• Authentication records are not to be kept beyond a period of six months. The provision that permitted records to be archived for a period of five years was struck down.
• Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act was further strengthened to add that an individual, whose information is sought to be released, shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing.
• Section 33(2) of the Act that permitted disclosure of information including identity and authentication in the present form was struck down.
• The particular provision of Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act which authorized corporate organizations like telecom companies, banks and financial institutions etc. and other individuals to seek authentication was held to be unconstitutional.
• Mandatory linking of the Aadhaar card with bank accounts and mobile phone connections was also struck down.
• The court advised the Government to draft a robust data protection regime in the form of an enactment so that the personal information given through Aadhaar registration is always protected.
• Provided an option for children to exit the scheme once they attain majority. 
• It also stated that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for children’s admissions into any institutions or for examinations and cannot withhold any financial aid for lack of an Aadhaar.
• The court upheld the mandatory linking of Aadhaar and PAN card

Unfortunately the government of the day is planning to bring a law to dilute some of these judgments.  We have to wait for the final draft to watch the real intentions of the government.

In the year 2013, Edward Snowden broke open the secret of the US government’s surveillance through his ‘WikiLeaks’.   It revealed how governments can use technology for surveillance on its citizens depriving their rights to privacy.

Privacy and Digital Media:  Beyond the fear of government surveillance, we need to be more aware of the dangers of erosion of privacy by the digital social media.    Recently there have been security breaches of the social media and many of our personal details have been stolen by commercial establishments for marketing.  In September 2018, Facebook the leading social media platform admitted that hackers have accessed personal user accounts and potentially can exploit the personal data for profit.  Technology has advanced to the extent that even as we type an email, the same is being scanned by others and soon you start to see related commercial advertisements on your browser.   Every click on the screen is monitored.  

Some friends alerted that there is a potential that even if the mobile phone is switched off – the intelligence officers can still track the same and may be even hear our conversations through the microphone and may be even use the cameras.  The fact is that inspite of all the threat to our security, we use the social media to upload photos and personal details for our friends and extended family – unknowingly that list grows beyond our imagination.  It also provides marketing information for corporates trying to sell their products and services while those with other ulterior motives attempt to misuse the information.

Our understanding of Privacy: When I was in my youth attending a weekly prayer meeting, we made a vow to each other that what is shared during those sessions remains there and is not discussed outside or with anyone else.  We were willing to be vulnerable with each other sharing from the depth of our hearts.  But at the same time, there were occasions, when some information leaked outside it strained our relationships along with the consequence of loss of trust.  It is said that to a doctor, lawyer and a counsellor we need to disclose everything so that they can help us.  Privacy is not the main concern in our interaction with these professionals but bringing a solution to our problems are.  The neighborhood barber / hair dresser / beautician knows more about our personal information than some of our extended family or friends.  We trust them even if they are strangers because of their professions.   Our concern for privacy is at times very superfluous for example when we travel on public transport like the trains we share a lot of our personal information with co-passengers who are often strangers.

Chris Ridgeway in his cover story in ‘Christianity Today’ in August 2018 addresses the issue of privacy in a unique manner.   He suggests that we can understand this issue through relational circles and patterns.  He calls them “country people”, the “suburbs people” or the “city people” approaches.    Country people (villagers) maintain their privacy by seldom using digital social media to avoid personal disclosure.  The suburb people keep their security systems on to defend their privacy.  The city people who live very close to each other – and yet remain anonymous assume that no one is looking at them.    The scripture on the other hand presents a very different picture.  God is one who has created community.  Chris rightly points out that “privacy, at its core is about human relationship”.  Information sharing is not the issue but who knows and when they come to know about it matters because of relationships.  There are artificial borders and boundaries created by us which confuses our own understanding of digital settings that determines privacy.

Biblical Reflection:  God respects the individuality of our person hood, since we are created in His image.   He knows each one of us by name and knows everything about us.  When the government authorities, corporates, institutions and digital platforms reduce our identity to numbers, alphabets, thumb impressions, pass words, designations and roles etc., God knows us intimately always calling us by our given name.   Privacy is a gift of God given through His creation where the individuality is protected.  He created us with the ability to exercise our will through the choices we make.  This is an important part of our privacy.  John the apostle describes in the book of Revelation a picture of Jesus standing at the door and knocking (Rev 3:20). God the creator, Jesus the redeemer and Holy Spirit the sustainer will never violate our privacy by entering into our lives uninvited.   Only when we make exercise our choice to accept his lordship the triune God takes control.   This being the case, when other human beings violate our privacy it affects the image of God.   

When Jesus met the Samaritan women at the well and initiated a conversation, it was very personal (Jn 4: 1-42).  Jesus knew about the marital status of the woman but graciously he confronted her to face her own realities.   This led her to open her spiritual eyes to see the long awaited Messiah.  A woman who was an outcast in her village – suddenly becomes the messenger of the good news of the messiah.  She ignites a revival that not only brought her to faith but the entire village.   This was an occasion when Jesus did not really mind when his divine identity as the ‘messiah’ was publicly revealed in the Samaritan village.  But there were other occasions, when he was cautious.  For example when the demons and the evil spirits acknowledged that Jesus was the son of God – he in fact did not hesitate to stop this unwanted publicity (Mk 1:23-26,34).  Once when Jesus healed a leper– he did not want him to spread the news (Mt 8:1-4).  In an intimate conversation with his disciples – he asked them what the public thought of his divine identity and what they thought.  When Peter responds with his confession that Jesus was the son of God and the expected messiah – he prohibits them from making this public (Mt 16: 13-20).   There were many occasions when Jesus withdraws himself from crowds and a busy ministry.   

The trial of Jesus with the High priest and with Pilate was about his true identity.  The chief priest questions Jesus and asks him to declare whether he was the son of God whom he claims to be.  Jesus affirms the fact as said by the High Priest (Mt 26:62-64).    Later on Pilate asks a similar question as to his identity – whether he was the king of the Jews? Again Jesus acknowledges the answer leading to his condemnation (Mt 27:11). The consequences of revealing his divine identity finally led him to the cross.   It is an irony that Judas Iscariot who was present among the disciples was finally the one who betrays Jesus to the authorities (Mt 26: 14-16).  Jesus had warned in his teachings that in the last days, it will be the family members who will betray each other (Mt 10:21; 24:10).   Jesus has taught us to be shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves. (Mt 10:16)

Thomas Hale III in his book “Authentic Lives: Overcoming the Problem of Hidden Identity in Outreach” (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2016, pp 189-206) writes that each of us have multiple identities connected to our different roles in family, community, work, and church.  He goes on to say that we are under no obligation to disclose every one of them in each location.  Disclosure is not required in every situation.   He argues that hidden identity is a burden.  He suggests that a better option is to have an integrated identity, the same for all audiences.  He does make a distinction though of hidden agendas vs hidden identities.

In one sense when we know that we have nothing to hide in the presence of God – the fear of people around us vanishes.  We can be transparent in all our interactions whether with the government or with various communities.  This does not mean that we can just give away all our person information to the world.  We need to exercise discretion with wisdom as we still live in a world where sin continues to rule.   Human beings can misuse our transparency and our willingness to be vulnerable.  Just like we put locks on our doors – we need to make choices as to what information we can share and what we should not do.

Caution is the Key in Privacy:  A few years ago, when the Aadhaar card enrollment was in full swing, some Christians refused to be part of it as they associated this identity card to certain Biblical prophecies of the last days.  Enrolling under the Aadhaar scheme, registering with the income tax for a PAN card, applying for a passport etc., by default do give us unique identification numbers.   At present we need to comply with these requirements as the law requires it for us to function in our day to day life.   The question is whether this has to be associated with the passage in Revelation that talks about the mark of the evil one (Rev 13: 16-18).  As long as these requirements do not compromise our identity with Christ or ask for our allegiance and worship to someone other than Christ, we should not have any doubt to adopt the present systems of identification.  However we have a choice. If we choose not to enroll for these services, then the consequence is that we may have to forego some of the privileges and services.  It is more important that when we use the digital social media platforms – we need to be careful as to what personal information we are disclosing that may be misused by authorities and marketing firms.  The privacy settings must be periodically checked to ensure that we remain protected.  It is our personal responsibility to secure our lives and those of our loved ones.  The same principle that we adopt to secure our home and valuables under a lock is required in the digital world.

Conclusion: Closed circuit security cameras have been installed everywhere.  Public places like streets, transportation, offices, buildings, institutions, worship places, elevators are all under surveillance for the purpose of safety.  Our mobile phones and devices have a GPS system that can track all our movements.  Technology has advanced to the extent that we are always being watched.  The psalmist declares that unless the Lord protects the city, the guards watch in vain (Ps 127:1).  God is our only protector.   We can sing along with the psalmist that God is our refuge (Ps 46:1).

John Amalraj, studied Law, Management and Theology and has served in corporate and mission organization leadership for more than 25 years.  He lives with his family in Pune and reflects on leadership and current affairs to serve as a resource person for churches and missions at large.

 

The views expressed in this article reflect the author’s personal opinions and are not necessarily the views of the publisher, editor or any of the associated church, society, institution or organization.