Cyber Experts Suggest Using Open Source Software to Protect Privacy

Cyber Experts Suggest Using Open Source Software to Protect Privacy is a feature published by The Times of India on 22 June 2013, written by Kim Arora. The article examines cybersecurity experts’ recommendations for protecting online privacy in response to revelations about PRISM surveillance in the United States and deployment of the Central Monitoring System in India. It includes detailed technical advice from Sunil Abraham on using free and open source software, encryption tools and community-based alternatives to mainstream services.

Contents

  1. Article Details
  2. Full Text
  3. Context and Background
  4. External Link

Article Details

📰 Published in:
The Times of India
✍️ Author:
Kim Arora
📅 Date:
22 June 2013
📄 Type:
Feature
📰 Newspaper Link:
Read Online

Full Text

NEW DELHI: Big Brother is watching. With the Central Monitoring System (CMS) at home and PRISM from the US, millions of users worldwide have become vulnerable to online surveillance by state agencies without even realizing it. No surprise, several cyber security experts feel that building one's own personal firewall is a good way of fortifying online privacy.

One enterprising netizen has compiled a list of services, from social networks to email clients, and even web browsers, that offer better protection from surveillance. They are listed on a web page called prism-break.org.

When asked about steps that a digital native can take to protect his privacy and online data, Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based non-profit Centre for Internet and Society said, "Stop using proprietary software, shift to free/open source software for your operating system and applications on your computer and phone. Android is not sufficiently free; shift to CyanogenMod. Encrypt all sensitive Internet traffic and email using software like TOR and GNU Privacy Guard. Use community-based infrastructure such as Open Street Maps and Wikipedia. Opt for alternatives to mainstream services. For example, replace Google Search with DuckDuckGo."

Use of licensed or proprietary software, which binds users legally when it comes to use and distribution, seems to be losing favour among an informed niche. While alternative software cannot offer absolute protection, it is being seen as a "better-than-nothing" option. Anonymisers like TOR, though also not entirely foolproof, are also a popular option among those who wish to keep their web usage untraceable. Once installed on a browser, anonymisers can hide the route that digital traffic takes when sent from your computer over a network before emerging at an end node.

There is one caveat, though. Some websites can deny service to users operating on certain anonymising networks. Also, anonymisers are known to reduce browsing speeds. In India, where broadband speeds are already abysmally low, anything that slows one down even further would find popularity hard to come by.

Computer and network security expert Aseem Jakhar too recommends open source software since they offer the convenience of customization to suit one's encryption needs and are able to verify the source code. For laypersons, there are other tools. "One can use anonymisers like TOR which encrypt your communication and hide your identity. With these it becomes very difficult to exactly locate the source. For email clients, it is best to use ones that offer end-to-end strong encryption," he says. Jakhar, co-founder of open security community "null", also recommends the use of customized and Linux systems for more advanced users. Default Linux distributions, he points out, may have free online services which can again be analysed by governments.

The home-bred CMS programme seeks to directly procure data pertaining to call records and internet usage for intelligence purposes without going through telecom service providers. There were fears of abuse when information about the programme, kept under strict wraps by the government, trickled in. Department of Telecom and Ministry of IT and Communication have been reticent about the state of implementation of the 400-crore rupees programme.

PRISM, a similar, international monitoring programme mounted by the US and revealed to the world by the US National Security Authority whistleblower Edward Snowden, has raised concerns of safeguarding digital information the world over.

Back to Top ⇧

Context and Background

This article appeared within two weeks of Edward Snowden’s initial disclosures about PRISM, a classified NSA surveillance programme collecting data from major technology companies including Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple. The revelations prompted widespread concern about government access to private communications and prompted technical communities to compile resources for individuals seeking to reduce surveillance exposure.

The PRISM-Break website referenced in the article became a widely circulated catalogue of privacy-protecting alternatives to mainstream software and services. It recommended open source operating systems, encrypted email clients, anonymity networks and decentralised platforms as substitutes for proprietary products vulnerable to surveillance requests or backdoor access by intelligence agencies.

In India, parallel concerns centred on the Central Monitoring System, which enabled direct access to telecommunications metadata and content by law enforcement agencies. The CMS programme, approved in 2011 and entering operational deployment in 2013, bypassed traditional lawful interception mechanisms requiring service provider intermediation. Its implementation lacked transparency about legal authorisation procedures, retention periods or oversight mechanisms.

The technical recommendations outlined in the article—using Tor for anonymous browsing, GNU Privacy Guard for email encryption, CyanogenMod as an alternative Android distribution and privacy-focused search engines—reflected broader debates within digital rights and security communities about individual countermeasures against mass surveillance. These tools offered partial protection against some forms of monitoring but required technical proficiency and imposed usability costs, limiting their adoption beyond specialist users.

📄 This page was created on 23 December 2025. You can view its history on GitHub, preview the fileTip: Press Alt+Shift+G, or inspect the .