Talking Shop: Trail Mail. Nail.

“Employers have no business

in employees’ personal space.

A job is just a contract calling

for a specific performance.

Attempts to go beyond that

line are an abuse of power.”

― Peter Drucker

For those who feel the above analogy is out of place here, I can but state one simple truth—paying taxes is akin to a form of employment. Employment carries a sole responsibility—to fulfil a specific contract and provide a specific performance, as discussed and agreed upon. Similarly, tax-payers have a duty to pay their dues to the authorities, so that ‘Governance’ has the wherewithal to govern. In turn, ‘Governance’ has its own duty—to provide amenities and benefits to the ‘Governed’. That’s how companies, countries, even households run. Everyone does their bit, pays their dues and life chugs along. It is when any of the entities reneges on the ‘contract’, falling short of or going overboard in performance, that things start vacillating.

Things are vacillating. A proposal by the authorities seeks to allow the ‘tax-man’ easy access to emails and social media accounts of tax-payers, making for a very smelly pitch. Ostensibly, the move is aimed at enabling the tax department to scrutinize financial transactions of assessees, ensure compliance and crack down on evasion. So far, so good. Except for two issues. One, it raises concerns about privacy, security and the possible abuse of power. Two, tax authorities already have legal frameworks in place to access personal accounts of ‘deviants’ on a case-by-case basis, after obtaining requisite court orders.

The move to grant indiscriminate and blanket access may open the door to misuse, especially by officials lower down in the chain of command. If the proposal goes through, it would set a dangerous precedent in the already done-to-death discourse on privacy. The implications may not just expose citizens to harassment, they could violate guaranteed fundamental rights.

What of my girlfriend?

Before we talk of taxes and open e-mails, let’s imagine a blissful fantasy where I am about to embark on a getaway with my girlfriend. Hint 1: No one knows about my girlfriend, especially not my wife. The secret woman and I are packed and about to take off for Lalaland till… My best half appears, cutting short my dream like a rude truth. Worse, the wife knows about my shenanigans and jaunts. How? Someone checking if I have paid taxes on the pittance I made in the plunging stock market happens to see mails from my secret woman to me, online ooohs aaahs and all. Result: I am monetarily violated, romantically screwed and formally separated.

Hint 2: My lovely wife is smiling as I write this; matrimony lives on to bicker another day.

Let’s leave jest aside. Do spare a thought for the businessman who speaks to colleagues about a hostile takeover worth crores, only to find the competition beat him to it because his personal accounts are accessed. What of the infrastructure firm whose tender quotation gets pipped by a paltry sum because someone manages to grease the right palms to get his exact pricing? Or the chai-waalah whose grand plan to branch into coffee and samosa is stolen by his counterpart across the yard because he got wind of it? What of the ‘surprise’ gone from a friend’s birthday gift because he knew beforehand?

Personal stuff going public can get rough. Privacy experts such as Shalini Shukla warn that the e-mail access proposal could have stern consequences. “The blanket proposal raises concerns about privacy. Power without checks can lead to unprecedented misuse,” she says. Her concern is not baseless, for the line between legitimate tax enforcement and intrusive surveillance can get blurry, especially when mid- and low-level officials gain access.

The Proposal, Its Fallout

To be fair, the proposal is part of a broader effort to strengthen tax enforcement and combat financial fraud. It aims to provide IT officials with the ability to monitor email exchanges and social media activity linked to individuals’ financial transactions. In its conception, it is a step toward reducing financial corruption. In its implementation, it could end up representing a serious infringement of personal privacy. The move would not just allow access to information such as bank transactions and e-commerce receipts, it may also include access to private conversations, social media posts and personal correspondence.

Legal eagles stress that the move would significantly stretch the powers already vested in the IT Department. Under present norms, officials can request access to personal online accounts only with a court order, ensuring that individuals’ rights are protected. The new proposal could potentially sidestep these safeguards, making it easier for enforcement agencies to obtain sensitive information without proper oversight.

The problem lies not only in the possible misuse of powers, but in the implementation of such powers at the ground level. Lower-level officials, often with minimal oversight, could misuse the new-found clout to access personal data for purposes unrelated to official duties. Such breaches could lead to harassment, blackmail or exploitation of personal information, leaving citizens vulnerable to the misuse of the very institutions that are supposed to protect them.

Breach of Privacy

The core issue is the violation of an individual’s right to privacy, enshrined as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a landmark judgment in 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed that the right to privacy is a ‘basic human right’. If it is allowed, access to personal communications without consent or judicial oversight could undermine a core guarantee.

India is not alone in its pursuit of stronger online monitoring and a new surveillance regime. However, the extent to which personal online activity is monitored varies across countries. In the United States, the government has long held the power to monitor emails and social media accounts under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and other ‘National Security’ laws. However, such monitoring is reserved for cases involving national security or potential threats, and access is subject to approval from a FISA court. Checks and balances ensure safeguards against abuses.

In contrast, the European Union has strong privacy laws to protect personal data. Introduced in 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation imposes restrictions on how companies and governments can collect and use personal data. While exceptions are allowed for enforcement agencies, surveillance or data access must be justified and subject to strict oversight. Many a time, EU officials have criticized attempts to gain blanket access to personal online communications, saying it infringes on basic privacy rights.

Australia inadvertently provided a stark example of such overreach. In 2018, it passed the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act, allowing the government to compel tech companies to provide access to encrypted communications. The law was passed with the aim of combating terrorism and criminal activity, but ended up setting a dangerous precedent for privacy erosion. Human rights organizations, including the Australian Human Rights Commission, expressed concerns about potential abuse, particularly given the lack of judicial oversight in many instances.

Risk of Harassment

A concerning aspect of the proposal is the possibility of lower-level officials gaining access to personal data. Such powers could be exploited for personal gain or to harass individuals. Globally, such risks are not hypothetical. In authoritarian regimes, similar surveillance powers have been used to monitor and intimidate political opponents. In countries like China and Russia, where surveillance is used as a tool to control the population, dissidents and journalists have faced state-backed harassment. India is not an authoritarian regime, but the concentration of power in the hands of a few agencies could allow such abuses, especially when the checks and balances are weak.

Countries around the world, from the US to the EU, have grappled with similar issues, and in many cases, safeguards have been put in place to ensure that surveillance powers are not abused. India, a country where privacy has long been a contested issue, must prioritize transparency, accountability and the protection of individual rights.

It is essential that personal freedom is not eroded in the name of tax enforcement and that those who follow the law are celebrated, not exploited or put under the microscope of suspicion. As the doctrine ascribed to William Blackstone in 1769 says: “Let a hundred guilty be acquitted, but not one innocent should be convicted.”

The writer is a veteran journalist and communications specialist. He can be reached on narayanrajeev2006@gmail.com. Views expressed are personal