SC asks WhatsApp, why did you change your privacy policy after FB takeover

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the WhatsApp online messaging service why it changed its policy of non-sharing data from its users after its acquisition by the social networking site Facebook in 2016 to allow sharing of the attributes of its users.

“You did not share it in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015. Why do you want to share it in 2016?” Asked the court of confinement of Judge Dipak Misra, Judge A.K. Sikri, Justice Amitava Roy, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Judge Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
“There is a third also on your network,” said Judge Misra, as it was pointed out that although the user’s name is not shared, “people’s attributes are shared.”

In defending the new privacy policy, senior advisor Sidharth Luthra, who appeared for the service, told the banker that they did not even know what was shared between two people using the online messaging service and it was ” Free and voluntary “.

He stated that the petitioners and others, including the intervener, wish to use WhatsApp but do not wish to comply with its terms and conditions.

“We have a billion users, there is not a single complaint that part of the encrypted message was shared,” said Kapil Sibal, a senior lawyer.

The court was informed during the hearing of a plea by the applicants Karmanya Singh Sareen and Shreya Sethi who challenged the Delhi High Court’s order of 23 September, allowing WhatsApp to implement its new privacy policy But preventing it from sharing data from its users were collected until September 25, 2016, with Facebook or any other related company.

Appearing for Internet Freedom Foundation, Senior Advisor KVViswanathan told the court that “the unregulated and brown data and metadata collection and collocation by WhatsApp, Facebook and their class … create a cooling effect on their Freedom of thought and expression, directly affecting their fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution “.

Referring to the rights guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) and Article 21 of the Constitution and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he stated: “… these guarantees not only create A negative right against the State of interference but also imposed a positive obligation on the State to enact the necessary measures to ensure that these freedoms are exercised in a meaningful way “.

Senior lawyer K. K.Venugopal, who belongs to Facebook, questioned the maintainability of the petitions by Sareen and Sethi, as he began his arguments that will continue on Tuesday

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *