Garima Sharma, Pune
The Information Technology rules have been amended by the Central Government, and now the power of destroying records of interception has been handed over to the Union Home Secretary or other Central Bureaucrats.
As per a report by the Indian Express, the power to destroy such records was with security agencies like law enforcement bodies.
On Monday, in a gazette notification it was mentioned that the IT Ministry has said that it was going to amend Section 23 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009. “Security agency” has been replaced with “competent authority and security agency”.
This shift marks a noteworthy change in the landscape of digital surveillance and data security. This movie can be seen as an effort to strike a balance between national security concerns and individual privacy rights. The Centre’s power to regulate the destruction of digital evidence will be broadened with this amendment. It empowers authorities to efficiently manage and eliminate digital records that may pose security risks or compromise national interests.
With this rule being implemented the records of interception, monitoring, or decryption of information will be destroyed every six months by the security agency except for the information that can be used in the future.
The Civil rights advocates are closely scrutinizing these changes, emphasizing the need for clear guidelines and safeguards to prevent abuse of surveillance capabilities.
The National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre (NCIIPC) is going to be responsible for the cybersecurity of the National Investigation Agency (NIA). NCIIPC is a unit of the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) which comes under the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). This cybersecurity is mainly to protect the computer sources used by NIA for its information and office management system.
The evolving landscape of digital governance and surveillance continues to be a subject of intense scrutiny, as stakeholders navigate the complexities of safeguarding both the state’s and the fundamental rights of its citizens. Also, as these modifications unfold, the delicate equilibrium between security imperatives and citizen’s rights remains a focal point.