Government in search of volunteers to report cyber content for specific violations could draw parallels with oppressive regimes—the Gestapo infamously relied on ‘citizen informants’ as did the Soviet state. But the truth is that Twitter, Facebook et al ask the very same of customers: Report abuse or flag any post that violates policy. So, there is a benevolent, even effective, modern day-day parallel of such civilian monitoring.
As per , MHA has notified a programme permitting persons to register as cyber-volunteers, and report to the government illegal and unlawful content, which includes youngster pornography, rape threats, terrorism, ‘radicalisation’ and ‘anti-national activities’. But, broad sweep, catch-all categories is exactly where factors could go terribly wrong—and even lead to oppression (the state has substantive penal powers, a Facebook, at the worst,can impose a ban). If differing ideologies, lawful dissent action, and, as current history shows, even sharp criticism, is to be termed as ‘radicalisation’ or ‘anti-national’, the government will have no leg to stand on.
There are sufficient situations from the quick and distant history of ruling political dispensation abusing the powers to shut up critics.
As far as prosecution is concerned, the government will have to exercising cautious discretion, beyond just the face-worth. The Justice Srikrishna committee report shows that in spite of an anti-abuse process governing phone-tapping, the critique committee has to deal with 15,000-18,000 interception requests every single meeting.
So, the possible for abuse is higher. The government wants to stroll a tightrope a misstep and the fall would be absolute.