Dear Supreme Court,
Thanking you once again
Regards,
Hemen parekh
From: Hemen Parekh [mailto:hcp@recruitguru.com]
Sent: 28 October 2021 13:45
To: Cabinet July 2021; rajyasabha1_2020; rajyasabha2_2020; loksabha1_2020; loksabha2_2020; loksabha3_2020; Chief Minister 2021; BJP National Executive; Editors; TV Anchors; Business Leader; Indian Think Tanks; TIMESjourno; amitabh.kant@nic.in; vch-niti@gov.in; fmo@nic.in; cea@nic.in; bibek.debroy@gov.in; van@ifmr.ac.in; eam@mea.gov.in; drjitendras@gmail.com; moshealth.akc@gov.in; alav@ias.nic.in; cm@karnataka.gov.in; CM Mah; office@rahulgandhi.in; kc.venugopal@sansad.nic.in; kcvenugopal.org@gmail.com; gkishanreddy@yahoo.com; tc.gehlot@sansad.nic.in; niti; hardeepsinghpuri@yahoo.com; nitin.gadkari@nic.in; d.pradhan@sansad.nic.in; assocham@nic.in; info@cii.in; Hm.moca@nic.in; prahladp@sansad.nic.in; sundeep.oberoi@yahoo.com; naveen.chaudhary@nfsu.ac.in; pp_amritha@cb.amrita.edu; ashwing@iitb.ac.in
==============================
Subject: FOR CONSIDERATION BY : ASHWINI VAISHNAWJI / RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHARJI
Supremely Satisfactory
Context :
‘Can’t give free pass’: SC panel to probe Pegasus / HT / 28 Oct 2021
Extract :
The Supreme Court on Wednesday set up a three-member expert committee, to be supervised by a retired judge of the court, RV Raveendran, to investigate,
# whether the Centre or any state government acquired and used Israeli spyware Pegasus for
surveillance of Indian citizens, and
# to also ascertain details of people targeted.
Justice Raveendran will be assisted by :
# Former IPS officer Alok Joshi and
# Cyber security expert Sundeep Oberoi / sundeep.oberoi@yahoo.com
The court appointed as members of the technical committee :
# National Forensic Sciences University’s dean Naveen Kumar Chaudhary
# Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham’s professor Prabaharan P
# IIT-Bombay professor Ashwin Anil Gumaste
Ø The committee shall ascertain :
# Whether the Centre or any state government acquired Pegasus and used it on the phones or other
devices of the citizens of the country to access stored data and other information.
# If the spyware was indeed used, the court said, the committee shall determine how and by whom
such interceptions were authorised, and
# The details of the victims of spyware attack.
The committee would propose :
# A mechanism to ensure prevention of invasion of citizens’ right to privacy
# Suggest a forum to raise grievances on suspicion of illegal surveillance of their devices; and
# Evaluate the feasibility of setting up of a well -equipped independent premier agency to
investigate cybersecurity vulnerabilities and cyberattacks
# An ad hoc arrangement that may be made by the court as an interim measure for the protection
Of citizen’s rights, pending Parliament passing a law to this effect.
The committee shall have the power,
# to take the statements of any person in connection with the inquiry and call for the records of any
authority or individual.
The SC added:
# “ It is undeniable that surveillance and the knowledge that one is under the
threat of being spied on can affect the way an individual decides to exercise his or her rights.”
In its order on Wednesday, the top court began by pointing out that the petitions on use of Pegasus raise an Orwellian concern, about the alleged possibility of utilising modern technology,
# to hear what you hear,
# see what you see and to
# know what you do.”
==============================
MY TAKE :
Thank You, Supreme Court :
For incorporating, in your yesterday’s order, suggestions from my following e-mail :
Pegasus Committee : Terms of Reference …………[ 26 Sept 2021 ]
Extract :
Dear CJI,
No doubt those “ Terms of Reference “ will require the proposed committee to investigate – and answer :
Ø Was the snooping ( phone-tapping ) was as per existing LAW or not ?
Ø Was it properly “ authorized “ ( by officers having necessary authority to order ) ?
Ø Did that snooping amount to “ invasion of privacy “ of persons whose phones were tapped ?
Ø Against those whose phones got tapped, was there sufficient evidence to suspect that they were likely to be engaged in “ activities that could be prejudicial to National Security “ ?
Ø After that tapping, did it reveal “ bad intentions “ on part of those surveyed ?
Ø If yes, what action got taken against those persons ?
------------------------------
By no means, the above is a comprehensive list
I urge you to include in those “ terms of reference “, the following :
Ø In light of your findings, do you see the need to modify / amend, not only the current law ( governing such surveillance of citizen ), but also the rules / procedures / processes etc , governing such snooping ?
Ø If yes , please consider rules – process – procedure , described in :
# Who watches the Watchmen ? ………………( 12 Jan 2019 )
With whatever changes that you may want to propose to the suggestion made above, please submit a draft for consideration by this court
If satisfied with your draft , this court may submit the same to the Central Government for carrying out suitable amendments
While preparing your recommendations, you may kindly examine whether your recommendations will stand the test of time, in light of the rapidly changing SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY , as illustrated below :
Ø Pegasus seems to have changed its “ Strategy “ , as follows :
# bypassing the governments of countries
# not selling or franchising its software to governments
# carrying out the phone-tapping of any citizen in any country
without taking any permission of that country’s government
( Zero Click method ) – and without citizen being aware
# may be “ selling “ that data to any willing buyer – including the govt
of citizen’s country
( source :
Dear Supreme : How about asking Pegasus to file an Affidavit ? / 15 Sept 2021 )
Only a week ago, Facebook ( in collaboration with Ray Ban ), has launched :
“ Smart Eye Glasses “ which enable the wearer to take photos / videos, of any person
in his surrounding and store the same ( personal / private data ? ) on a mobile app (
with mobile phone hidden in wearer’s pocket ). Let no one have doubts that, before
long, Facebook will be collecting / compiling ( without anyone’s permission –
including officers in the IT Ministry of Govt of India ), data of billions of
humans from all over the world !
( Ref : Facebook glasses are a privacy nightmare )
Dear Naveen Kumar Chaudhuriji / Amrita Prabhaharanji / Ashwin Gumasteji ,
Supreme Court has asked you for recommending / proposing :
# A mechanism
# A forum
# An independent premier agency
# An ad hoc arrangement
In my following earlier e-mail to Supreme Court :
Who watches the Watchmen ? ……………………..[ 12 Jan 2019 ],
I have described in considerable details, all of these
Supreme Court, in its order says :
“ The committee shall have the power, to take the statements of any person in connection with the inquiry “
Please treat this as my “ Statement “
With regards,
Hemen Parekh / hcp@RecruitGuru.com / 28 Oct 2021
Related Readings :
Ø Dear Supreme : How about asking Pegasus to file an Affidavit ? ( 15 Sept 2021 )
Ø Will mother Medusa replace son Pegasus ? ……………………………………………..( 29 July 2021 )
Ø Pegasus : Give it to a Surgeon……………………………………………………………
Ø Balancing : National Security vs Personal Privacy…………………………………… ( 19 July 2021 )
=============================
Related Readings :
Ø Dear Supreme : How about asking Pegasus to file an Affidavit ? ( 15 Sept 2021 )
Ø Will mother Medusa replace son Pegasus ? ……………………………………………..( 29 July 2021 )
Ø Pegasus : Give it to a Surgeon……………………………………………………………
Ø Balancing : National Security vs Personal Privacy…………………………………… ( 19 July 2021 )
ReplyReply allForward |
No comments:
Post a Comment