FB on WhatsApp privacy: It's our way or highway
|
Dhananjay Mahapatra
|
|
New Delhi
|
Pending possible scrutiny of
WhatsApp's new privacy policy on the constitutional touchstone of right
to privacy , owner of the popular messaging platform, Facebook, told
the Supreme Court that those feeling aggrieved could quit WhatsApp.
WhatsApp counsel Kapil Sibal assured the court that messages and voice
calls over WhatsApp were end-to-end encrypted ensuring complete privacy.
However, he said since the contract between a user and WhatsApp was
completely in the private domain, the policy could not be tested
constitutionally by the apex court and that the petition filed by
students, Karmanya Singh Sareen and Shreya Sethi, was not
maintainable.
If Sibal mixed persuasion with legal technicality before a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra, A K Sikri, Amitava Roy , A M Khanwilkar and M M Shantanagoudar, Facebook counsel K K Venugopal was more blunt. He said; “Those who find the new privacy policy irksome or violative of their fundamental rights, they can quit. We have given full freedom to users to withdraw from Facebook and WhatsApp.“
The bench was quick with a rejoinder that this would amount to forcing a citizen to make a negative choice. Ap pearing for petitioners, Harish Salve said under the new policy users were unwittingly made to give consent to, both WhatsApp and Facebook could snoop on messages privately circulated between users of WhatsApp.
“They claim that this is being done to improve the services to be given in future to the users. Whether the snooping is done electronically or manually, the right to privacy of users get breached. The government is duty bound to protect the fundamental rights of every citizen. If it is failing, then the SC can surely issue appropriate di rections,“ Salve said.
Appearing for Centre, additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the government was committed to protect the freedoms and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and informed the court that a regulatory regime for internet-based messaging and voice call platforms would soon be put in place.
The bench wanted to hear the issue at length, including the preliminary objection on maintainability of the petition, during the summer vacation.But, both Sibal and Venugopal protested vehemently . While Sibal cited his requirement for argument in petitions challenging triple talaq to indicate his non-availability, Venugopal said lawyers like him work hard throughout the year and use the summer vacation to “visit children and relatives residing abroad“. He also said it is the tradition of the SC to list cases during vacation only with the consent of the counsel.
“Why would you deprive the litigants the freedom of choice of counsel,“ Venugopal said. The bench said the lawyers are at “receiving end“ in terms of money from the clients. Sibal said, “in triple talaq matter and in Assam illegal migrant citizenship issue there was receiving end“ to indicate that he was arguing those two cases pro bono before Constitution bench during vacation.
But, the bench had the last laugh when it said, “those matters have a larger receiving end“, indicting that Sibal could reap much bigger political mileage by arguing those cases.The bench fixed May 15 for preliminary hearing.
If Sibal mixed persuasion with legal technicality before a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra, A K Sikri, Amitava Roy , A M Khanwilkar and M M Shantanagoudar, Facebook counsel K K Venugopal was more blunt. He said; “Those who find the new privacy policy irksome or violative of their fundamental rights, they can quit. We have given full freedom to users to withdraw from Facebook and WhatsApp.“
The bench was quick with a rejoinder that this would amount to forcing a citizen to make a negative choice. Ap pearing for petitioners, Harish Salve said under the new policy users were unwittingly made to give consent to, both WhatsApp and Facebook could snoop on messages privately circulated between users of WhatsApp.
“They claim that this is being done to improve the services to be given in future to the users. Whether the snooping is done electronically or manually, the right to privacy of users get breached. The government is duty bound to protect the fundamental rights of every citizen. If it is failing, then the SC can surely issue appropriate di rections,“ Salve said.
Appearing for Centre, additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the government was committed to protect the freedoms and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and informed the court that a regulatory regime for internet-based messaging and voice call platforms would soon be put in place.
The bench wanted to hear the issue at length, including the preliminary objection on maintainability of the petition, during the summer vacation.But, both Sibal and Venugopal protested vehemently . While Sibal cited his requirement for argument in petitions challenging triple talaq to indicate his non-availability, Venugopal said lawyers like him work hard throughout the year and use the summer vacation to “visit children and relatives residing abroad“. He also said it is the tradition of the SC to list cases during vacation only with the consent of the counsel.
“Why would you deprive the litigants the freedom of choice of counsel,“ Venugopal said. The bench said the lawyers are at “receiving end“ in terms of money from the clients. Sibal said, “in triple talaq matter and in Assam illegal migrant citizenship issue there was receiving end“ to indicate that he was arguing those two cases pro bono before Constitution bench during vacation.
But, the bench had the last laugh when it said, “those matters have a larger receiving end“, indicting that Sibal could reap much bigger political mileage by arguing those cases.The bench fixed May 15 for preliminary hearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment