ForumIAS announcing GS Foundation Program for UPSC CSE 2025-26 from 19 April. Click Here for more information.
News: Recently, Amnesty International raised concerns that extensive surveillance of Hyderabad is putting human rights at risk.
How surveillance is carried out in Hyderabad?
It largely follows a three-pronged approach.
– Wide web of CCTV cameras: For example, CCTV coverage in two cities (Kala Pathar and Kishan Bagh) is 53.7% and 62.7% respectively according to the surveys of Amnesty.
Moreover, Telangana’s Nenu Saitham project aims to transform the Hyderabad City Police into a Global City Police. To help achieve this aim, the public has been encouraged to install CCTV cameras and share footage when required.
Further, the construction of a Command-and-Control Centre, has the capability to support the processing of 6 lakh CCTV cameras from the tri-commissionerates.
– Facial recognition technology
– Cordon and search operations
What are the issues/challenges associated with the surveillance measures that were undertaken in Hyderabad?
Firstly, according to Amnesty, facial recognition technologies can act as a tool of mass surveillance and pose a risk to disadvantaged communities.
Secondly, it leads to alleged violation of privacy by the police. For instance, during a crackdown against ganja, the Telangana Prohibition and Excise Department teams checked the phones of people to verify if the word ‘ganja’ was used in their chats. Such incidents underscore crucial issues, the need for a data protection law and the concept of informed consent.
Thirdly, Cordon and search operations target lower rungs of society, and are an infringement of privacy. A fact-finding team from Hyderabad which probed cordon and search operations in some areas recently underscored the vulnerability of residents.
Fourthly, policing and surveillance is done when no prohibitory orders were in force. For example, Operation Chabutra.
Chabutra is a raised surface outside houses where people gather for social interactions. The police have stopped and “counseled” youths to not to take part in such activity. Though there were no prohibitory orders were in force.
What is the way forward?
While upkeep of law and order is paramount, the right to privacy and informed consent cannot be compromised. They need to be protected by a law that defines the limits of use of citizen’s data by the state.
Source: This post is based on the article “Surveillance as governance” published in The Hindu on 8th Dec 2021.
