Bharat Bhushan: Government as hacker / Proof of Pegasus use on phones, Cyber experts tell SC panel
Investigative journalists Ronen Bergman and Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times (NYT) have revealed that the cyber-weapon Pegasus was part of a $2 billion defence package the Narendra Modi government purchased from Israel in 2017. A government minister has sought to dismiss it as a motivated conspiracy by calling the highly respected NYT, “supari” media, a colloquial term for contract killing in the Mumbai underworld.
Described as the
“largest defence contract” ever signed by Israel, the deal for medium-range
surface-to-air missiles, launchers and communications technology was awarded in
April 2017 ahead of the first visit by an Indian head of government to Israel (July
4-6, 2017). The NYT report claims Pegasus was a “diplomatic sweetener” Israel used
to win international support from recalcitrant countries and to “knit together
right-wing nationalist governments around the world”.
Proof of Pegasus use on phones, Cyber experts tell SC panel
A retired Indian
diplomat has denied allegations in the NYT report that the deal involved a
quid-pro vote by India in the UN against a pro-Palestine NGO. Despite this
India’s deep strategic embrace of Israel is undeniable. The Modi government
makes no bones of its admiration for Israel’s muscular militaristic ethos and
sees it as a role model for its own majoritarian project of
India-as-Hindu-homeland.
However, the ouster
and marginalisation of right-wing nationalist regimes around the world has
brought the Modi government’s chickens home to roost. The diplomatic cushion he
enjoyed because of Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump’s support has been
punctured after their political defeat and legal prosecution in their
respective countries.
Netanyahu’s
negotiations for a plea bargain with a nominal sentence may not succeed.
Israel’s Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit appears insistent on pressing
stronger charges that would bar Netanyahu from politics for 7 years. He has
ordered an investigation into the illegal use of Pegasus technology by Israeli
police for monitoring leaders of a protest movement against Netanyahu.
The democratic
administration in the US has put NSO on
its “entity list”, effectively black listing it and preventing it from
accessing American technology, including Dell computers
and Amazon cloud storage services critical for its
functioning. The Biden administration has clarified that these measures are
directed towards “reining in a dangerous company and nothing to do with
America’s relationship with Israel.” The US knows what Pegasus is capable of as
its Federal Bureau of Investigations had acquired and tested Pegasus for two
years before deciding against its use.
Following the momentous political reversals in the US and Israel the Modi government has since recalibrated its public stance on Pegasus. Instead of the earlier flat denials its spokespersons began to give ambiguous responses and speak half-truths. In November 2019, then Information Technology Minister, Ravishankar Prasad told Parliament, “No unauthorised interception has been done”, leaving open the option of authorised use.
His successor Ashwini
Vaishnav told Parliament in July 2021 that, “Any form of illegal surveillance
is not possible with the checks and balances in our laws and robust
institutions.” This suggested the possibility of reading existing laws in a
manner making its use ‘legal’. Minister of State for Defence Ajay Bhatt replied
to a Rajya Sabha question in August 2021, stating that “Ministry of Defence has
not had any transaction with NSO Group
Technologies.” This did not foreclose the possibility that the cyber-weapon was
purchased by a separate government entity.
On August 16, 2021,
when the Supreme Court was hearing a clutch of PILs on the
misuse of Pegasus, citing “national security”, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta
said the government “cannot let terrorists know which software is used” and
refused to reveal whether Pegasus was purchased and used against Indian
citizens. A month later on 13 September, Mehta once more refused to file a
categorical denial before the Supreme
Court. This was the closest the government came to signaling that it
may have used Pegasus but would not say so under oath.
Mehta further
suggested that there was a legal framework for surveillance and interception of
communications in the statutory provisions of the IT (Procedure and Safeguards
for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009.
However can the Attorney General’s claim of a legal umbrella for surveillance
stretch to activities amounting to hacking?
The rules that permit
surveillance by the government under the IT Act do not allow hacking. Hacking
enables remote tampering with communication devices, switching their features
on and off, compromising apps and most perniciously, it permits implanting
files on the device under attack. Hacking remains illegal under Section 43 of
the IT Act with no exceptions. “State sponsored illegal hacking” is the
complaint made by the PILs before the Supreme
Court.
The government’s offer
to set up an expert committee to examine the issue provided the information
disclosed by the government was not made public was not agreed to by the
Supreme Court. It set up its own committee in October 2021. This technical
committee’s mandate has become redundant in the public mind after the NYT
report’s claim that India did purchase Pegasus in 2017. The Supreme Court
should now ask the government for a fresh affidavit in view of the recent media
disclosures. It must seek clarifications on who purchased Pegasus, which agency
used it, who authorised its use, which individuals were put on the hacking list
and why.
If the government does
not comply the Court should question the chiefs of government agencies who held
office from April 2017 onwards (when the Pegasus deal was allegedly executed).
The agencies which would necessarily come under suspicion include the
Intelligence Bureau, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), National Technical
Research Organisation (NTRO), Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIA), Military
Intelligence (MI), and any other special agency created for the purpose. The
then home secretary, who would have been empowered to give permission for
surveillance under the Telegraph Act, must also answer to the court.
The Opposition must
haul up the Modi government for misleading Parliament. The prime minister will
find it difficult to ignore the latest revelations since they strengthen
accusations that his government has hacked into phones belonging to the
Opposition, the judiciary, an election commissioner, the media and civil
society critics -- in effect illegally subverting every institution of
democracy.
Bharat Bhushan - Pegasus impact: Loss to Indian Republic and government is much greater
Proof of Pegasus use on phones, Cyber experts tell SC panel
YANN PHILIPPIN - Sale of French Rafale jet
fighters to India: how a state scandal was buried
Anne
Michel and Simon Piel - Rafale case: Fresh moves towards a corruption
investigation
Bharat
Bhushan - Scania Scandal: Need to step up to the challenge
Edward Snowden - Everything Going Great: Bad Faith, Worse News and Julian Assange
Samar
Halarnkar: The lights begin to wink out in India’s democracy
Bharat
Bhushan: BJP losing the narrative in UP
Bharat Bhushan - 'Entire political science'
lesson: Peoples' power trumps people in power
Bharat
Bhushan: Burden of bigotry may break Indian democracy's back
Bharat Bhushan - Incitement to violence:
When will Supreme Court take note?
Bharat Bhushan - Save the Election
Commission: Common electoral roll can wait
Bharat
Bhushan: Frontier of warfare? Wrong to securitise civil society discourse
