“Are you being watched?”

Radia tapes controversy is about the tapping of tele-conversations of Nira Radia by the informant agencies, the celebrated lobbyist had with a cross section of powerful people from industry, politics, press and a host of other power brokers. This incident has raised a host of questions.

Is it right to tap private conversations? We can say that when there is serious suspicion about possible legal violations, the law enforcing bodies have the right to eavesdrop to help them in their enforcement or to protect the sovereignty of the country. On the other hand how do we ensure that this right is not misused for political gains and industrial espionage? What kind or processes do we put in place to ensure that this is not a means to suppress dissent and democratic processes?

Then the next question is whether it was right to have leaked this information to public domain? These were not private conversations or business secrets or even some escapades which have no social relevance except for satisfying the voyeuristic inclinations of a perverted few. These were conspiracies by people in power, to defraud the public. Don’t the public have a right to know?

The ‘wiki leaks’ has established a forum for the whistle blowers to bring to light conspiracies, corruption and machinations of very powerful people which otherwise would not have been possible because of possible repercussions. It has got kudos and criticisms.
‘The organization won a number of awards, including The Economist's New Media Award in 2008 and Amnesty International's UK Media Award in 2009. In 2010, the New York City Daily News listed WikiLeaks first among websites "that could totally change the news", and Julian Assange was named the Readers' Choice for TIME's Person of the Year in 2010. Supporters of Wikileaks in the media have commended it for exposing state and corporate secrets, increasing transparency, supporting freedom of the press, and enhancing democratic discourse while challenging powerful institutions. At the same time, several U.S. government officials have criticized WikiLeaks for exposing classified information, harming national security, and compromising international diplomacy.[Human right organizations such as Amnesty International criticized WikiLeaks for not adequately redacting the names of civilians working with the U.S. military. Some journalists have criticized the lack of editorial discretion when releasing thousands of documents at once and without sufficient analysis. Among negative public reactions in the United States, people have characterized the organization as irresponsible, immoral, and illegal.’ [1]

Incidences like this and revelations of this magnitude were once only occasional occurrences. But the progress in technology has gradually been chipping away the concept of privacy and secrecy the way we are familiar.

The ubiquitous availability of electronic communication and electronic recordings are giving a different dimension to private conversations. I am not talking about spying which is still considered illegal (except if it is by the authorities who have the right to do so) I am talking about stronger evidences that can reveal the truth about what transpired in a meeting where you and I were present.

For example, although oral contracts always were recognized by law, it was often difficult to prove the validity of the contract. We addressed this by having more people to participate our discussions who could act as witnesses. But even then it was your word against mine. So in critical meetings we started the practice of signed minutes. But this again had the limitation of doctored minutes, ingenuity of the minute writer and limitation of human memory or event the minutes getting lost. It also could not capture the nuances of the conversations which are discernable only when we listen to the way dialogues were delivered. Now the technology provides us with tools to have voice notes, voice minutes and even video notes. It is perfectly legal and even moral if you are not eves dropping or if you are not sharing it with those who are not meant to have access to it. It is ‘the true minutes of meeting’ that can better represent the truth.

Earlier paper documents could vanish could not be traced and would have been too painful to track. But today the mails and files are stored for eternity at very low cost and computer can help us to trace and track these with ease based on key words, dates and so on.

More and more of our friends are going online and share photos and videos of events where we were a part. More people are going to blog about us, more people are going to study, dissect and publish opinion about what we do. We have limited control over these. The higher we go, the more publically relevant what we do, the more open is going to be our acts of commission and omission.

Wiki leaks and the likes of it are going to make whistle blowing easier. Legal enablement of the right to information reduces our ability to hide and obfuscate under official secrets act. Cheaper storage, stronger searches, powerful algorithm to match and generate profiles will make it easier for anybody to obtain a much better understanding of what we are and what we do. As the Economist observed in an article, Wiki Gaga, “Such freedom may test the limits of democracy, in which rights to speech are balanced by duties to privacy and security” [2]

All these are nudging us to change the way we talk and behave. Be more honest in our dealing and more truthful or at least careful in our uttering and behaviour. Bluffing our way through is not the obvious option any more. When we mess up, remember it may not remain a secret all the time. On the other hand we must also learn to be less judgemental about human follies often revealed out of context in the digital world and learn to forget and forgive

As Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University has pointed ‘Our character, ultimately, can’t be judged by strangers on the basis of our Facebook or Google profiles; it can be judged by only those who know us and have time to evaluate our strengths and weaknesses, face to face and in context, with insight and understanding. In the meantime, as all of us stumble over the challenges of living in a world without forgetting, we need to learn new forms of empathy, new ways of defining ourselves without reference to what others say about us and new ways of forgiving one another for the digital trails that will follow us forever.’[3]

I am not making any value judgement of whether this is right or wrong. I am only pointing out that we are moving towards a more open society and whether we like it or not there is a pretty high chance that what we thought to be confidential may not remain so and we have no option. (Read up “Privacy Fantasies” for some futuristic thoughts on this topic)


“You already have zero privacy - get over it” Scott McNealy, Cofounder of SUN Micro System

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks
2. http://www.economist.com/node/16335810
3. The Web Means the End of Forgetting. The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/magazine/25privacy-t2.html?_r=1)