The debate on right to privacy should result in consensus on data protection and not opposition to the use of data for greater public good (“Privacy in the public domain,” July 27). There is nothing exciting about the formation of a nine-judge Bench by the Supreme Court. This is because right to privacy has already been recognised by the Supreme Court as an offshoot of ‘right to life and personal liberty’ (Article 21). However, we must remember that no right, howsoever sacrosanct it may be, is not absolute. It has to be regulated for the larger public good.
In this age of technology-driven life, data analysis can serve many purposes like better targeting of welfare schemes, transparent and direct transfer of benefits, monitoring and detection of crimes, ensuring of tax compliances, and tracking of anti-national and terror activities.
At the same time, unauthorised and illegal use of individual data may result in fraud and loss of privacy for individuals. Therefore , it is high time that the Central government constitutes a task force comprising experts from the Law and Information Technology Ministries and comes out with a comprehensive data protection law.
M.K. Bhandari,
Mumbai
Privacy is a universal human right. There is a big list of international accords related to privacy that serve as the foundation for national laws, policy frameworks, and international agreements throughout the world. Each year, the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners brings together the highest authorities and institutions guaranteeing data protection and privacy, as well as experts in the field from every continent. The modern privacy benchmark at an international level can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which specifically protects territorial and communications privacy, as per Article 12 . In addition, philosophers and ethicists have described privacy as an indispensable characteristic of personal freedom. No group has a greater stake in the protection of privacy than the new inhabitants of cyberspace. Let us enjoy the benefits of the future while preserving the freedoms of our past.
K.M.K Murthy,
Secunderabad
K.M.K. Murthy,
Secunderabad
The article has exposed the hypocrisy of singling out the government and its agencies as arch-violators of the citizens’ privacy while turning a blind eye to the surreptitious and invisible collection, storage and unauthorised use of private data by technology companies. Strictly speaking, there isn’t much of a difference between privacy lost through the coercive actions of the government and that caused by the voluntary parting of personal information by netizens. In fact, the latter is more insidious because while the citizens can always haul the government before the courts, no such legal recourse is available against the American technology companies if personal information falls into the wrong hands. Privacy activists should be more worried about the Internet’s oligopolistic architecture where the control and command systems lie in the hands of a couple of technology companies. Sure, users can sign out of Facebook and Google, but these companies have colonised the digital space to such an extent that pulling the plug involves the risk of inviting social isolation and ostracism.
V.N. Mukundarajan,
Thiruvananthapuram
