Thread by @internetfreedom

Remember when DoT claimed it had sought bulk call data records for call drop analysis and there was no cause for concern? Well, turns out that claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny based on RTI responses received by IFF. 1/n

internetfreedom.in/bulk-cdr-mass-…

We received RTI responses from DoT's Licensed Service Area Units in Haryana, Kolkata, Kochi, Shillong and Pune. The reasons provided by these units for requisitioning bulk call data records do not mention call drops. 2/n

Further, while these units did not seek the name of the user, they did demand 13 fields of information which make identification of the person fairly easy, especially since people routinely provide their phone number to avail government services. 3/n

Some areas for which call data records were requisitioned include places where MPs and judges reside, creating a real possibility of the Executive surveilling other branches of govt which are intended to act as a check on the Executive within our constitutional scheme. 4/n

Such bulk call data records also facilitate mass surveillance of ordinary citizens and enable the government to keep a watch on our everyday interactions. 5/n

This is why we have filed a PIL seeking surveillance reform before the Supreme Court. Unless there is independent oversight, govt surveillance will continue in an opaque and unaccountable manner. 6/n

internetfreedom.in/iff-files-rejo…

CC: @JagmeetS13 @thaver_mohamed @pranavmukul @DevinaET

Report in today’s @IndianExpress following up on significant disclosures of mass requisition of Call Data Records. indianexpress.com/article/busine…

@IndianExpress Yesterday’s report in the @EconomicTimes on how the DOTs own stated justification for seeking bulk Call Data Records do not match their own RTI responses. economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/telec…