The Trump administration has removed Gen. Timothy Haugh, head of both the National Security Agency (NSA) and US Cyber Command, without providing an official explanation. Haugh, who took on the dual roles just over a year ago, was dismissed alongside his NSA deputy, Wendy Noble, according to two officials who spoke with The Washington Post.
The decision follows a Wednesday meeting between President Donald Trump and far-right activist Laura Loomer, who reportedly pushed for the removal of Haugh and several others she viewed as disloyal to the president.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-national-security-who-is-laura-loomer-signalgate-mike-waltz-brian-walsh-thomas-boodry-david-feith-8922705" rel="dofollow noopener" target="_blank">'You're fired!' Trump fires &lsquo;disloyal&rsquo; national security staffers after meeting with conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer: Who is she?</a>
Loomer later confirmed to The Washington Post that she had called for the firings during her 30-minute Oval Office meeting with Trump. She has since stated publicly, &ldquo;NSA Director Tim Haugh and his deputy Wendy Noble have been disloyal to President Trump. That is why they have been fired.&rdquo;
In addition to Haugh and Noble, at least five senior staffers from the National Security Council were also dismissed on Thursday. Trump hinted at the shake-up while speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Miami, saying, &ldquo;Always we&rsquo;re letting go of people. People that we don&rsquo;t like or people that we don&rsquo;t think can do the job or people that may have loyalties to somebody else.&rdquo;
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-fires-nsc-officials-who-are-they-impact-on-us-national-security-8924331" rel="dofollow noopener" target="_blank">Donald Trump fires NSC officials, who are they? What is its impact on US national security</a>
The firings have caused alarm across Washington, particularly given Loomer&rsquo;s controversial background and history of promoting conspiracy theories. Her growing influence within Trump&rsquo;s inner circle is raising questions about decision-making at the highest levels of US national security.
According to individuals familiar with the situation, Loomer used the meeting to press Trump to purge staff members she deemed unfaithful to his &ldquo;Make America Great Again&rdquo; vision.
<h2>Strong backlash from lawmakers</h2>
The surprise dismissal of Gen. Haugh has drawn swift criticism from top Democratic lawmakers, who argue the move undermines US national security.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/unacceptable-threat-russia-formally-declared-national-security-threat-to-britain-for-first-time-heres-why-8915070" rel="dofollow noopener" target="_blank">'Unacceptable threat': Russia formally declared national security threat to Britain for first time. Here's why</a>
Senator Mark Warner, vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, &ldquo;General Haugh has served our country in uniform, with honour and distinction, for more than 30 years. At a time when the United States is facing unprecedented cyber threats &hellip; how does firing him make Americans any safer?&rdquo;
Representative Jim Himes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, expressed similar concerns, &ldquo;I have known General Haugh to be an honest and forthright leader who followed the law and put national security first &ndash; I fear those are precisely the qualities that could lead to his firing in this administration.&rdquo;
&ldquo;The intelligence committee and the American people need an immediate explanation for this decision, which makes all of us less safe,&rdquo; he added.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-continues-to-have-confidence-in-his-national-security-team-white-house-8894436" rel="dofollow noopener" target="_blank">Trump continues to have 'confidence in his national security team': White House</a>
<h2>No official reason given</h2>
As of now, the White House has not provided any public justification for the firings.&nbsp;
(With inputs from agencies)

World: In addition to Haugh and Noble, at least five senior staffers from the National Security Council were also dismissed on Thursday.

The Trump administration has removed Gen. Timothy Haugh, head of both the National Security Agency (NSA) and US Cyber Command, without providing an official explanation. Haugh, who took on the dual roles just over a year ago, was dismissed alongside his NSA deputy, Wendy Noble, according to two officials who spoke with The Washington Post. The decision follows a Wednesday meeting between President Donald Trump and far-right activist Laura Loomer, who reportedly pushed for the removal of Haugh and several others she viewed as disloyal to the president. Also read: 'You're fired!' Trump fires ‘disloyal’ national security staffers after meeting with conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer: Who is she? Loomer later confirmed to The Washington Post that she had called for the firings during her 30-minute Oval Office meeting with Trump. She has since stated publicly, “NSA Director Tim Haugh and his deputy Wendy Noble have been disloyal to President Trump. That is why they have been fired.” In addition to Haugh and Noble, at least five senior staffers from the National Security Council were also dismissed on Thursday. Trump hinted at the shake-up while speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Miami, saying, “Always we’re letting go of people. People that we don’t like or people that we don’t think can do the job or people that may have loyalties to somebody else.” Also read: Donald Trump fires NSC officials, who are they? What is its impact on US national security The firings have caused alarm across Washington, particularly given Loomer’s controversial background and history of promoting conspiracy theories. Her growing influence within Trump’s inner circle is raising questions about decision-making at the highest levels of US national security. According to individuals familiar with the situation, Loomer used the meeting to press Trump to purge staff members she deemed unfaithful to his “Make America Great Again” vision. Strong backlash from lawmakers The surprise dismissal of Gen. Haugh has drawn swift criticism from top Democratic lawmakers, who argue the move undermines US national security. Also read: 'Unacceptable threat': Russia formally declared national security threat to Britain for first time. Here's why Senator Mark Warner, vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, “General Haugh has served our country in uniform, with honour and distinction, for more than 30 years. At a time when the United States is facing unprecedented cyber threats … how does firing him make Americans any safer?” Representative Jim Himes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, expressed similar concerns, “I have known General Haugh to be an honest and forthright leader who followed the law and put national security first – I fear those are precisely the qualities that could lead to his firing in this administration.” “The intelligence committee and the American people need an immediate explanation for this decision, which makes all of us less safe,” he added. Also read: Trump continues to have 'confidence in his national security team': White House No official reason given As of now, the White House has not provided any public justification for the firings. (With inputs from agencies)

‘Makes us less safe': Trump ousts NSA chief Tim Haugh for 'no reason' after Loomer meeting amid 'loyalty purge'

The US&nbsp;National Security Agency buys Americans' internet browsing information from commercial brokers without a&nbsp;warrant, the agency's director told Democratic Senator Ron Wyden in a letter made public on Thursday.

Wyden, who released the Dec. 11 letter, called upon US&nbsp;intelligence officials to stop using Americans' personal data without their express knowledge and consent, saying it was unlawful.

"Such records can identify Americans who are seeking help from a suicide hotline or a hotline for survivors of sexual assault or domestic abuse," Wyden said in a statement.

The NSA responded that the information has significant value for national security and cybersecurity missions and is used sparingly.

"At all stages, NSA takes steps to minimize the collection of US&nbsp;person information, to include application of technical filters," a spokesperson for the agency said in an email.

Wyden, a privacy and internet freedom advocate, had blocked the appointment of incoming NSA Director Timothy Haugh until the agency responded to his questions about collecting Americans' internet and location data.

NSA Director Paul Nakasone confirmed such purchases in his letter to Wyden, saying the data collected "may include information associated with electronic devices being used outside - and, in certain cases, inside - the United States."

Such records, Wyden said, can reveal which websites Americans' visit and what apps they use, and are in violation of US&nbsp;Federal Trade Commission standards. An FTC order earlier this month barred Virginia-based data broker Outlogic, formerly called X-Mode Social, from selling sensitive location data that helps track people's whereabouts.

Wyden said he had written to the Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines asking that the US&nbsp;intelligence community build an inventory of all the personal data of Americans that the NSA has so far, and purge any of it that does not comply with the FTC's standards.&nbsp;

The US National Security Agency buys Americans' internet browsing information from commercial brokers without a warrant, the agency's director told Democratic Senator Ron Wyden in a letter made public on Thursday.

The US National Security Agency buys Americans' internet browsing information from commercial brokers without a warrant, the agency's director told Democratic Senator Ron Wyden in a letter made public on Thursday. Wyden, who released the Dec. 11 letter, called upon US intelligence officials to stop using Americans' personal data without their express knowledge and consent, saying it was unlawful. "Such records can identify Americans who are seeking help from a suicide hotline or a hotline for survivors of sexual assault or domestic abuse," Wyden said in a statement. The NSA responded that the information has significant value for national security and cybersecurity missions and is used sparingly. "At all stages, NSA takes steps to minimize the collection of US person information, to include application of technical filters," a spokesperson for the agency said in an email. Wyden, a privacy and internet freedom advocate, had blocked the appointment of incoming NSA Director Timothy Haugh until the agency responded to his questions about collecting Americans' internet and location data. NSA Director Paul Nakasone confirmed such purchases in his letter to Wyden, saying the data collected "may include information associated with electronic devices being used outside - and, in certain cases, inside - the United States." Such records, Wyden said, can reveal which websites Americans' visit and what apps they use, and are in violation of US Federal Trade Commission standards. An FTC order earlier this month barred Virginia-based data broker Outlogic, formerly called X-Mode Social, from selling sensitive location data that helps track people's whereabouts. Wyden said he had written to the Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines asking that the US intelligence community build an inventory of all the personal data of Americans that the NSA has so far, and purge any of it that does not comply with the FTC's standards.

US National Security Agency buys web browsing data without warrant, letter shows

Edward Snowden, a former US intelligence contractor who revealed in 2013 that the US government was spying on its citizens, has said he would like to return to his home country, but only on the condition of a fair trial.

However, the US President Donald Trump has said he will "take a look" at pardoning Snowden.

The former intelligence contractor leaked information and acted as a whistleblower revealing that agents from the National Security Agency (NSA) were conducting a widespread surveillance on the US citizens. However, the United States, in retaliation,&nbsp;accused Snowden of putting national security at risk and declined his claims. Following this,&nbsp;he faces the danger of a conviction on espionage charges that could send him to prison for decades.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/most-infamous-and-shocking-presidential-pardons-in-the-history-of-us-312513">In pics:&nbsp;Most infamous and shocking presidential pardons in the history of US</a>

Snowden has taken exile in Russia since then. Earlier, then-President Barack Obama had tried to set a motion for pardoning Snowden, but had failed to do so.&nbsp;

Now, when the local reporters asked the current President if he would be willing to, or planning to, pardon Snowden, Trump claimed to not know a lot about his case. He also added that the controversy&nbsp;is a "split decision."

"Many people think that he should be somehow treated differently and other people think he did very bad things," he said, and added, "I'm going to take a look at that very strongly."

This statement, given by the President from his media briefing from the Beminster, New Jersey&nbsp;golf field, was a surprise after he made strong remarks against Snowden during his 2016 Presidential campaing, saying,"I think he's a total traitor and I would deal with him harshly."

Edward Snowden, a former US intelligence contractor who revealed in 2013 that the US government was spying on its citizens, has said he would like to return to his home country, but only on the condition of a fair trial.

Edward Snowden, a former US intelligence contractor who revealed in 2013 that the US government was spying on its citizens, has said he would like to return to his home country, but only on the condition of a fair trial. However, the US President Donald Trump has said he will "take a look" at pardoning Snowden. The former intelligence contractor leaked information and acted as a whistleblower revealing that agents from the National Security Agency (NSA) were conducting a widespread surveillance on the US citizens. However, the United States, in retaliation, accused Snowden of putting national security at risk and declined his claims. Following this, he faces the danger of a conviction on espionage charges that could send him to prison for decades. In pics: Most infamous and shocking presidential pardons in the history of US Snowden has taken exile in Russia since then. Earlier, then-President Barack Obama had tried to set a motion for pardoning Snowden, but had failed to do so. Now, when the local reporters asked the current President if he would be willing to, or planning to, pardon Snowden, Trump claimed to not know a lot about his case. He also added that the controversy is a "split decision." "Many people think that he should be somehow treated differently and other people think he did very bad things," he said, and added, "I'm going to take a look at that very strongly." This statement, given by the President from his media briefing from the Beminster, New Jersey golf field, was a surprise after he made strong remarks against Snowden during his 2016 Presidential campaing, saying,"I think he's a total traitor and I would deal with him harshly."

Edward Snowden asks to return to US; Trump to 'take a look' at pardoning

Why the CIA doesn't spy on the UAE

Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who fled to Russia after leaking information about the US government's mass surveillance program, is publishing a memoir.

The book, "Permanent Record," will go on sale on September 17. It is being published globally by Macmillan Publishers.

Snowden, who once worked for the CIA in addition to the NSA, has been living in Russia since leaking thousands of classified documents to the press in 2013 which revealed the scope of US government surveillance after 9/11.

Praised as a whistleblower and a privacy advocate by his defenders, the United States accuses Snowden of endangering national security.

He is facing espionage charges in the United States that could send him to prison for decades.

"Edward Snowden decided at the age of 29 to give up his entire future for the good of his country," John Sargent, the CEO of Macmillan Publishers USA, said in a statement.

"He displayed enormous courage in doing so, and like him or not, he is an incredible American story," Sargent said. "There is no doubt that the world is a better and more private place for his actions."

On his Twitter account, Snowden said: "I wrote a book" and included a link to a video of himself.

"Everything that we do now lasts forever, not because we want to remember but because we're no longer allowed to forget," he says in the video. "Helping to create that system is my greatest regret."

Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who fled to Russia after leaking information about the US government's mass surveillance program, is publishing a memoir.

Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who fled to Russia after leaking information about the US government's mass surveillance program, is publishing a memoir. The book, "Permanent Record," will go on sale on September 17. It is being published globally by Macmillan Publishers. Snowden, who once worked for the CIA in addition to the NSA, has been living in Russia since leaking thousands of classified documents to the press in 2013 which revealed the scope of US government surveillance after 9/11. Praised as a whistleblower and a privacy advocate by his defenders, the United States accuses Snowden of endangering national security. He is facing espionage charges in the United States that could send him to prison for decades. "Edward Snowden decided at the age of 29 to give up his entire future for the good of his country," John Sargent, the CEO of Macmillan Publishers USA, said in a statement. "He displayed enormous courage in doing so, and like him or not, he is an incredible American story," Sargent said. "There is no doubt that the world is a better and more private place for his actions." On his Twitter account, Snowden said: "I wrote a book" and included a link to a video of himself. "Everything that we do now lasts forever, not because we want to remember but because we're no longer allowed to forget," he says in the video. "Helping to create that system is my greatest regret."

Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden to publish memoir

When former NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden&nbsp;met with Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone to discuss a movie on his life, he never thought he would be making his own film debut.

Stone had initially interviewed&nbsp;Snowden&nbsp;to include him in DVD outtakes,&nbsp;Snowden&nbsp;said via video link on late Thursday in San Diego after a screening of Stone&#39;s &quot;Snowden&quot;, which stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the title character.&nbsp;But&nbsp;Snowden&nbsp;and Stone ended up filming nine takes for a scene in which he talks about his fears stemming from his actions.

&quot;I spoke at length just about personal values and just what it meant to me with the things that were happening since 2013,&quot; said&nbsp;Snowden. &quot;I guess he liked it. People do seem to respond to that.&quot;

The movie, due out in September, follows the 2013 events that led&nbsp;Snowden, a former contractor with the National Security Agency, to expose the US&nbsp;government&#39;s mass surveillance programs and flee the country after the government filed espionage charges 
against him. 
 
He was granted asylum in Russia later that year, and has lived there since with his girlfriend, Lindsay Mills.&nbsp;&quot;When there is enough in the public record, you don&#39;t really get to decide whether or not the movie gets made,&quot;&nbsp;Snowden&nbsp;said.&nbsp; 
 
The film follows&nbsp;Snowden&#39;s discovery of the US&nbsp;government&#39;s mass surveillance programs that digitally monitor unaware citizens.&nbsp;It fictionialises and condenses some events, such as how&nbsp;Snowden&nbsp;smuggled the data out of the NSA - dramatised with a Rubik&#39;s Cube in the film - and got it to documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras and Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald in Hong Kong.

 
&quot;I admitted that I did not have a plan beyond getting straight out of there (Hong Kong), I planned to ask the world for justice and see what happened. It was kind of surprising how that worked out,&quot; he said.

Asked by an audience member if he was happy,&nbsp;Snowden&nbsp;said: &quot;I actually live a surprisingly free life,&quot; working with organisations such as the American Civil Liberties Union that Gordon-Levitt donated his &quot;Snowden&quot; acting fee to.&nbsp;&quot;Every day, I&#39;m working on something now that I can be proud of. I love my country, I love the things that we try to do,&quot; he said.&nbsp;&quot;The fact that Lindsay&nbsp;has been with me for ten years, is still with me, that&#39;s something that just makes me happy every day.&quot; 
 
(Reuters)

The movie, due out in September, will follow the 2013 events that led Snowden to expose the US government's mass surveillance programs

When former NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden met with Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone to discuss a movie on his life, he never thought he would be making his own film debut. Stone had initially interviewed Snowden to include him in DVD outtakes, Snowden said via video link on late Thursday in San Diego after a screening of Stone's "Snowden", which stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the title character. But Snowden and Stone ended up filming nine takes for a scene in which he talks about his fears stemming from his actions. "I spoke at length just about personal values and just what it meant to me with the things that were happening since 2013," said Snowden. "I guess he liked it. People do seem to respond to that." The movie, due out in September, follows the 2013 events that led Snowden, a former contractor with the National Security Agency, to expose the US government's mass surveillance programs and flee the country after the government filed espionage charges against him. He was granted asylum in Russia later that year, and has lived there since with his girlfriend, Lindsay Mills. "When there is enough in the public record, you don't really get to decide whether or not the movie gets made," Snowden said. The film follows Snowden's discovery of the US government's mass surveillance programs that digitally monitor unaware citizens. It fictionialises and condenses some events, such as how Snowden smuggled the data out of the NSA - dramatised with a Rubik's Cube in the film - and got it to documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras and Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald in Hong Kong. "I admitted that I did not have a plan beyond getting straight out of there (Hong Kong), I planned to ask the world for justice and see what happened. It was kind of surprising how that worked out," he said. Asked by an audience member if he was happy, Snowden said: "I actually live a surprisingly free life," working with organisations such as the American Civil Liberties Union that Gordon-Levitt donated his "Snowden" acting fee to. "Every day, I'm working on something now that I can be proud of. I love my country, I love the things that we try to do," he said. "The fact that Lindsay has been with me for ten years, is still with me, that's something that just makes me happy every day." (Reuters)

Edward Snowden talks film debut and dramatising his life in 'Snowden'

The Essar leaks &mdash; a series of damning revelations on the illegal phone-tapping of politicians and industry leaders by the corporate giant &mdash; have wreaked the sort of havoc that the proverbial Pandora&rsquo;s Box would find difficult to match. The victims, some of the most influential names in the country, were clueless that the erstwhile Hutchison Essar Limited, a mobile service provider, was eavesdropping on their conversations at the behest of its major business partner. For once, the high and mighty appear as vulnerable as the common man who is equally in the dark about his breach of privacy. The Essar tapes &mdash; limited in scope of operations &mdash; offered merely a sneak peek into the clandestine world of surveillance, where every move, every spoken word, every detail of a person&rsquo;s life is recorded and stored for future use. The reality of mass snooping, carried out on a global scale, is too horrifying to contemplate. It is immensely expansive and mind-bogglingly complex, constituting a parallel universe that&rsquo;s frighteningly close to our everyday existence. Let&rsquo;s just say that a supreme Eye-Ear power is the new god. It has silently entered the home and workplace and planted itself bang in the middle of our lives. In this age of electronic surveillance entire populations are subject to intense scrutiny through extremely sophisticated devices. At the top of the game is the United States of America, keeping an eye on every pie. 
 
Surveillance is neither new nor exclusive 
 
Months after British writer George Orwell&rsquo;s dystopian novel 1984 was published, the Orwellian nightmare had started to unravel. The notorious seven-year McCarthy era, beginning in 1950, set into motion the witch-hunting of thousands of US citizens accused either of being a Communist or of being a &lsquo;fellow traveller&rsquo;. The bastion of free speech and democratic ideals had fallen to scaremongering. A paranoid nation had revealed itself, and over the years this fear has returned to the haunt successive US governments with alarming regularity. Simply put, America&rsquo;s obsession with surveillance, both within the country and way beyond its shores, stems from the apprehension of losing its domineering role in geopolitics. 
 
Two watersheds in American history have generously contributed to the understanding of modern-day surveillance: 9/11 and Edward Snowden&rsquo;s unmasking of US&rsquo;s global intelligence operations. The former, an unprecedented assault at the heart of US, had given birth to a new enemy &mdash; Islamic fundamentalism &mdash; and ushered in a new era of hostilities, with the Cold War being buried. The latter struck at the heart of US&rsquo;s spy programmes, carried out through extensive internet and phone surveillance of millions of Americans. US&rsquo;s National Security Agency (NSA) tapped into the servers of nine internet firms, including Google and Facebook, to sweep up information. The Right to Privacy in the most robust of democracies had been completely disregarded in the name of national security. 
 
Barring UK &mdash; the Sancho Panza to US Don Quixote&rsquo;s misadventures &mdash; the rest of Europe is still relatively inexperienced in matters of surveillance. But, the shift to greater governmental supervision has begun in the light of recent terror attacks. 
 
Indian spooks 
 
In an increasingly integrated world, India couldn&rsquo;t have remained immune to the temptations and the so-called imperatives of intelligence gathering, especially in view of the rising threat of Islamic terror attacks. The absence of privacy laws made it easy to create an elaborate apparatus that would enable the government to peer into the lives of its own people. Most surveillance in India is carried out through mobile networks, given that 78% of the population have access to mobile phones. Armed with five laws, especially the Information Technology (IT) Act, the government has gone about collecting information on an extraordinary scale. The four sections of the IT Act, namely 44, 66A, 69, 80 pose a serious threat to a person&rsquo;s freedom from governmental interference. The maze of licensing agreements &mdash; evident in a jamboree of abbreviations such as ISP, UAS, MLATS with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Technology Service Providers (TSPs) &mdash; satiates the government&rsquo;s appetite for information. Ironically, the government stores these data in a manner that&rsquo;s vulnerable to cyber attacks. All this while the country&rsquo;s intelligence agencies have complete access to your profile; they are privy to details that you might hesitate to share with your spouse. How&rsquo;s that for guarding your life against hostile forces? 
 
Moving ahead, your banal life is of avid interest to other organisations as well who are hungry for details that might throw light on your consumption patterns. You have unwittingly given up your privacy when you opted for a mobile connection or a bank account or sent your first email. 
 
Privacy Index data 
 
Perhaps not the most exhaustive of sources, but the EMC Privacy Index can be a starting point for a robust discussion on a crucial right. In its 2014 study that covered 15,000 people across 15 countries to rank nations &ldquo;based on consumer perceptions and attitudes about data privacy, and willingness to trade privacy for greater convenience and benefits online&rdquo;, Indians seemed particularly eager to share their details for improved online experience. This is a marker of our lack of awareness about the far-reaching consequences of such actions. No wonder, elected governments of the most populous democracy have encountered feeble resistance against surveillance. It&rsquo;s a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. 
 
Drawing the line 
 
Two years ago, the UPA government was busy giving final touches to Right to Privacy Bill, 2014, which aims at protecting individuals against misuse of data by government or private agencies. It had invited various stakeholders, including its ministries, to air their concerns and misgiving. The bill is still being discussed and debated. 
 
The Big Question: Where does the government draw the line in its quest for national security? Without the requisite checks and balances, it will only function in an autocratic manner, silencing voices that raise the uncomfortable issue of privacy. Are we then increasingly heading towards a police state?

Absence of privacy laws has made it easy for governments to snoop on citizens, it helps the state machinery

The Essar leaks — a series of damning revelations on the illegal phone-tapping of politicians and industry leaders by the corporate giant — have wreaked the sort of havoc that the proverbial Pandora’s Box would find difficult to match. The victims, some of the most influential names in the country, were clueless that the erstwhile Hutchison Essar Limited, a mobile service provider, was eavesdropping on their conversations at the behest of its major business partner. For once, the high and mighty appear as vulnerable as the common man who is equally in the dark about his breach of privacy. The Essar tapes — limited in scope of operations — offered merely a sneak peek into the clandestine world of surveillance, where every move, every spoken word, every detail of a person’s life is recorded and stored for future use. The reality of mass snooping, carried out on a global scale, is too horrifying to contemplate. It is immensely expansive and mind-bogglingly complex, constituting a parallel universe that’s frighteningly close to our everyday existence. Let’s just say that a supreme Eye-Ear power is the new god. It has silently entered the home and workplace and planted itself bang in the middle of our lives. In this age of electronic surveillance entire populations are subject to intense scrutiny through extremely sophisticated devices. At the top of the game is the United States of America, keeping an eye on every pie. Surveillance is neither new nor exclusive Months after British writer George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 was published, the Orwellian nightmare had started to unravel. The notorious seven-year McCarthy era, beginning in 1950, set into motion the witch-hunting of thousands of US citizens accused either of being a Communist or of being a ‘fellow traveller’. The bastion of free speech and democratic ideals had fallen to scaremongering. A paranoid nation had revealed itself, and over the years this fear has returned to the haunt successive US governments with alarming regularity. Simply put, America’s obsession with surveillance, both within the country and way beyond its shores, stems from the apprehension of losing its domineering role in geopolitics. Two watersheds in American history have generously contributed to the understanding of modern-day surveillance: 9/11 and Edward Snowden’s unmasking of US’s global intelligence operations. The former, an unprecedented assault at the heart of US, had given birth to a new enemy — Islamic fundamentalism — and ushered in a new era of hostilities, with the Cold War being buried. The latter struck at the heart of US’s spy programmes, carried out through extensive internet and phone surveillance of millions of Americans. US’s National Security Agency (NSA) tapped into the servers of nine internet firms, including Google and Facebook, to sweep up information. The Right to Privacy in the most robust of democracies had been completely disregarded in the name of national security. Barring UK — the Sancho Panza to US Don Quixote’s misadventures — the rest of Europe is still relatively inexperienced in matters of surveillance. But, the shift to greater governmental supervision has begun in the light of recent terror attacks. Indian spooks In an increasingly integrated world, India couldn’t have remained immune to the temptations and the so-called imperatives of intelligence gathering, especially in view of the rising threat of Islamic terror attacks. The absence of privacy laws made it easy to create an elaborate apparatus that would enable the government to peer into the lives of its own people. Most surveillance in India is carried out through mobile networks, given that 78% of the population have access to mobile phones. Armed with five laws, especially the Information Technology (IT) Act, the government has gone about collecting information on an extraordinary scale. The four sections of the IT Act, namely 44, 66A, 69, 80 pose a serious threat to a person’s freedom from governmental interference. The maze of licensing agreements — evident in a jamboree of abbreviations such as ISP, UAS, MLATS with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Technology Service Providers (TSPs) — satiates the government’s appetite for information. Ironically, the government stores these data in a manner that’s vulnerable to cyber attacks. All this while the country’s intelligence agencies have complete access to your profile; they are privy to details that you might hesitate to share with your spouse. How’s that for guarding your life against hostile forces? Moving ahead, your banal life is of avid interest to other organisations as well who are hungry for details that might throw light on your consumption patterns. You have unwittingly given up your privacy when you opted for a mobile connection or a bank account or sent your first email. Privacy Index data Perhaps not the most exhaustive of sources, but the EMC Privacy Index can be a starting point for a robust discussion on a crucial right. In its 2014 study that covered 15,000 people across 15 countries to rank nations “based on consumer perceptions and attitudes about data privacy, and willingness to trade privacy for greater convenience and benefits online”, Indians seemed particularly eager to share their details for improved online experience. This is a marker of our lack of awareness about the far-reaching consequences of such actions. No wonder, elected governments of the most populous democracy have encountered feeble resistance against surveillance. It’s a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. Drawing the line Two years ago, the UPA government was busy giving final touches to Right to Privacy Bill, 2014, which aims at protecting individuals against misuse of data by government or private agencies. It had invited various stakeholders, including its ministries, to air their concerns and misgiving. The bill is still being discussed and debated. The Big Question: Where does the government draw the line in its quest for national security? Without the requisite checks and balances, it will only function in an autocratic manner, silencing voices that raise the uncomfortable issue of privacy. Are we then increasingly heading towards a police state?

In the name of surveillance