Govt Wants to Monitor Facebook, Twitter

Govt Wants to Monitor Facebook, Twitter is a news report from Bangalore Mirror published on 8 August 2011. It covers the Union home ministry’s directive to the department of telecom to ensure monitoring of social networking sites, and includes commentary from Sunil Abraham on the counterproductive nature of blanket surveillance practices.

Article Details
Full Text
Context and Background
External Link

Article Details

📰 Published in:: Bangalore Mirror
📅 Date:: 8 August 2011
📄 Type:: News report
📰 Newspaper Link:: Read Online

Full Text

New Delhi: The Union home ministry has written to the department of telecom asking it to "ensure effective monitoring of Twitter and Facebook".

Milind Deora, minister of state for communications and information technology, said in written reply to a question on Friday in the Rajya Sabha that DoT has received a letter from MHA to ensure monitoring of social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter in order to "strengthen cyber security paraphernalia".

Deora told the Parliament "the telecom service providers (already) provide facilities for lawful interception and monitoring of communication flowing through their network including communications from social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter."

He said that in cases where the data is encrypted, the department works with all concerned parties to obtain lawful access to it.

Citing security as a reason, India in the recent months has sought more surveillance and monitoring from internet service providers as well as companies like Research In Motion, which sells BlackBerry phones capable of encrypted emails and messaging.

In April the government notified a new set of IT rules, virtually making intermediaries like internet service providers and web hosts and websites like Facebook and Twitter responsible for any wrongdoings on their networks. The rules were widely criticized by privacy activists.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of Centre for Internet and Society said these "blanket surveillance practices" are counterproductive.

"People advocating greater surveillance don't understand how the web works. In some cases, if there is evidence, targeted monitoring can be done but if governments wants to go through each tweet and every status update, it's just waste of money and resources. Agencies involved in monitoring can do better work by focusing on core issues. This will also save ordinary law-abiding citizens from unnecessary harassment," said Abraham.

According to their policies, Twitter and Facebook don't share any private information available on their servers without valid court order or subpoena. Twitter had said in the past that even if there was a court order, it would first inform the users in question before sharing information related to them.

Context and Background

The report was published in August 2011, at a time when Indian authorities were increasing their focus on cyber security and online surveillance amid the rapid growth of social media platforms. Facebook and Twitter were becoming important channels for public communication, prompting concerns within government agencies about monitoring online activity and access to encrypted data.

The article documents official correspondence between the Union home ministry and the department of telecom, as well as statements made in Parliament that framed monitoring and interception as part of existing lawful procedures. It also situates these developments alongside the notification of new Information Technology rules earlier that year, which expanded the responsibilities of intermediaries such as internet service providers and social networking platforms.

Sunil Abraham’s comments reflect concerns raised by civil society actors about the effectiveness and proportionality of broad surveillance measures. Rather than opposing monitoring in principle, his remarks highlight the distinction between targeted investigation based on evidence and indiscriminate scrutiny of online communication. The piece also notes platform policies on data sharing, pointing to early tensions between government demands for access and corporate commitments to user privacy, an issue that would continue to shape debates on internet governance in India.