Written by: Aastha Rani, Second year , B.A.LL.B (Hons), Galgotias University
With the evolution in the digital era and technological advancement the meaning of human rights was again overhauled particularly in the areas of freedom of speech and expression, right to privacy, governmental surveillance etc in the 21st century. Appeal to the Internet, social networks, working digital identification systems have not only disclosed numerous possibilities for free speech but also create new threats to personal rights and state mastery. As governments globally continue to impose their laws and policies to govern cyber space the question of how to catch up with national security, individual’s privacy and fundamental freedom makes it a highly sensitive legal and ethical dilemma.
1. Freedom of speech afforded in the Internet and Internet censorship
An Overview of Digital Space and Freedom of Speech
Social networks and other internet offerings have thus become the major area for citizens’ voice, opinion sharing, and information exchange. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has Article 19 that supports freedom of opinions and expressions which also has non-interference from the online space. This right, however, is not absolute, meaning that the use of deadly force is not always permissible except in special circumstances as we shall see further in this paper. This result in the limitation of free speech in many countries under the pretext of maintaining national security, public order or morality thus creating conflict of state control and freedom of speech.
The influence of State imposed restriction and Internet censorship
Currently, most governments employ legal means to control content, and many do so referring to the struggle against the spread of fake news, racism or extremism in any form including terrorism. Of course, some restrictions are justified, but what’s often seen is overkill, resulting is blocking of access to the Internet and trying to stifle dissent. Some nations such as China have strict internet censorship referred to as the ‘Great Firewall,’ which shuts out social media networks such as twitter, face book among others. Likewise in India, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, accredit obligation on the Social Media companies in moderating the content and in compliance to the directions passed by the government for removal of content, else they shall face penal actions.
It is obvious that it is necessary to prevent such content from appearing, but there are some concerns regarding excessive actions from the states. It is opined that vague or general definitions of ‘objectionable content’ enable governments to gag potential critics, opposition and dominate discourses. The thrust is in balancing the situation whereby the regulations themselves are designed not to alter or eliminate freedom of speech but are carefully crafted, communicated and monitored.
Balancing Regulation with Freedom
Speaking of free speech there is always a thin line between the rights and freedoms to be preserved and limitations that must be put in place. This has one aspect of the need to draw some legal bright lines that define the range of state authority in countervailing with the freedom of expression of the public. In this regard, courts have a central responsibility in struck the balance. For example, the recent judgement of the Indian Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) declared Section 66A of Information Technology Act invalid to arrest people for posting any comment which is regarded as ‘offensive’ on the social sites because of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India.
2. Surveillance Laws: They have acted in the Post-Snowden Era where companies are now more vigilant on who they share sensitive information with than ever before.
The government spying on the citizens in the modern digital world.
Equally Snowden’s leak of classified documents in June 2013 made the general public more aware of the true extent of surveillance by state actors in the information era. Governments worldwide have been using advance technology to gather as well as analyze data pertaining to the people without their authorization. This surveillance is rationalized under the pretext of national protection, fight against terror outfit, and crime prevention. Nevertheless, the opportunities for ethical and legal monitoring of subjects have stirred a lot of controversy.
Legal and Ethical Concerns
The principal regulation of government surveillance rallies around the right to privacy which is a human right as stated under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These include surveillance practices involved in the collection of large amounts of information on the citizens and their activities on the internet, their communication and movements among other things seen to be intrusive measures that seek to place a lot of control in the hands of the state to the detriment of the people.
The storm is ignited and led by such countries as the US, the UK, and India impose laws that sanction the practice of mass data capture and surveillance. The laws that empower the government of India to intercept and or monitor the aforementioned communications include; The telegraph act of 1885 and the information technology act of 2000. However, the opponents noticed that there are no rigorous data protection laws and supervisory bodies that can prevent possible abuse. The Judicial review happened in Puttaswamy judgment (2017) that reinforces the right to privacy as part of the Article 21 in the Constitution of India but limits state interference, yet legislation is needed for protection.
From an ethical consideration the issue as to what extent security can be achieved through surveillance and on the other extent to which it violates civil liberties comes into question. This connection between nation security and surveillance makes it hard to distinguish where legitimate state interest ends, and overly intrusive means begin; questions concerning state accountability and the public’s right to know are thereby aroused.
This brings us to the imperative need to develop the laws on surveillance and transparency.
Suppose surveillance is at times inevitable to deter crime and safeguard the citizens; there must be well-set rules regarding this matter that are comprehensible, specific and, limited in scope. Surveillance should only be allowed when there are serious threats and this should be under the approval of courts. Furthermore, the citizens need to be aware of the type and level of surveillance required in order to monitor the process are responsible.
3. The Rights of Human According to the IDs of the Digital Society
The Emergence of Computerised Recognition Systems
Digital identification systems such as Aadhaar in India are presented as enablers to enhance access to governmental services, basic financial services and social benefits. Aadhaar, the largest biometric system around the globe, has enrolled more than one billion Indian citizens anded them with identification numbers tying their biometric details including fingerprints as well as iris scans with the demographic details of the users.
Although digital IDs have other advantages, including cost-effective and increasing access to services, there are major concerns over privacy. The repository where people’s biometric data are stored makes them exposed to Identity thefts, Surveillance and data leaks. There is apprehension from certain people mainly the privacy advocates that Aadhaar may be misused by either the state agencies as well as other third parties to monitor the activities of the people.
Aadhaar and Privacy Concerns
Some constitutional issues relating to Aadhaar are the challenges which have been presented in the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India in 2018. Supreme Court in its final verdict held the Aadhaar constitutionally valid though with limitations and restrictions The court said Aadhaar cannot be mandatory for other service like bank accounts or mobile connections. But it could still be used for welfare schemes because welfare schemes are good. The judgment was a attempt to find a middle ground between the need for efficiency that is required in governments and the need to keep an individual’s privacy.
The Aadhaar case highlights the broader dilemma: approaches for the management of the relations between technological advancement and human rights. But when it comes to the delivery of such services, these governments are finding it better to help them with the digital IDs for the particular purposes by making sure that the rights of a person are protected, and at the same time, data protection measures are strong enough not to fall into the wrong hands.
Conclusion
The digital age has opened wide opportunities for communication, governance and social development but has also posed so many challenges to Human Rights. As human rights are being brushed aside in the garb of austerity measures and efficient governance, there is little possibility of human rights being protected or enhanced unless the following issues are dealt with: freedom of speech versus internet censorship; ethical and legal controls over state surveillance; and, privacy and free choice issues with regard to digital identity. Subsequently, law should also change with the advancement of technology so that the people’s rights to privacy, liberty, and freedom of speech are not violated but at the same time, security and wellbeing of society should not suffer. This balance is much needed for a society to be just and free especially when it comes to the issue of the internet.
insightful