The Supreme Court today told social media firm Facebook and its messaging app, WhatsApp, "You may be two-three trillion dollar company but people value their privacy more than the money," the Supreme Court told WhatsApp on Monday as it sought the US-based instant messaging firm's reply on a fresh plea challenging its new policy to share users' data with parent company Facebook and others. that it will have to intervene to protect people's privacy in the wake of the latter's new policy in this regard. Issuing a notice to the Centre, along with the two platforms, the court is now set examine the popular service's fresh course on this front. It is the duty of the judiciary to protect citizens' privacy, the top court said, asking WhatsApp as also the Centre to file replies on affidavit within four weeks on the plea which alleged that lower standards of privacy are being applied by the firm for Indians in comparison to its European users of the app. A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde issued notice to the government and the Facebook-owned app on an interim application filed by Karmanya Singh Sareen in a pending petition of 2017. The apex court said people value their privacy more than the value of the company which might be in trillions.
WhatsApp told the top court that Europe has a special law on privacy and it will also follow if India has a similar statute. "People have grave apprehension about. You may be two or three trillion company, but people value their privacy more than money," CJI Bobde said. Both, WhatsApp and Facebook have refuted the Centre's allegation of users' data sharing and told the court that such fears were baseless.
A bench of Chief Justice Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian said, People have grave apprehensions that they will lose their privacy and it is our duty to protect them.
"You may be two or three trillion dollar company but people value their privacy more than the money. People gave grave concern about their privacy, the bench said, adding that there is apprehension that WhatsApp will share the information and data about their circuit of message with others. Earlier this month, the Delhi High Court issued a notice to the Centre and WhatsApp Inc. on a plea seeking direction to provide with an option to opt-out of sharing personal data with Facebook as mandated by the new policy of WhatsApp. The petition also sought a direction to the Centre to frame guidelines/regulations for safeguarding the privacy of the citizens. It stated that the fissures in law with respect to data are quite conspicuous and a framework to regulate the same is the need of the hour.
They have to follow the law of the land. They cannot be allowed to share data of users with anyone, Mehta.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for WhatsApp, said there is no discrimination in the new privacy policy.
In January, WhatsApp renewed its terms of service and privacy policy, which were to come into effect on February 8. According to it, users must agree to its new data sharing norms, which includes business conversations, with Facebook. Since this is not optional, users have been left confused and concerned over privacy.
"You (Facebook and WhatsApp) may be two or three trillion (dollar) company. But people value their privacy. It is our duty and we have to protect people's privacy," the Supreme Court said today.
"People have great apprehension over loss of privacy," Chief Justice of India Sharad A Bobde said. "People think that if somebody messages to someone then...the whole thing is disclosed to Facebook."
Both Facebook and WhatsApp, through their counsel Kapil Sibal and Arvind datar, respectively, told the court that such fears were not based in reality.
The court was hearing a plea by one Karmanya Singh Sareen and others seeking a stay on WhatsApp's new privacy policy. Their lawyer, Shyam Diwan, told the court that WhatsApp was differentiating between European countries and India in its policy.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta then told the court whether there was a law or not, privacy must be protected as it was a fundamental right. He also said the court's apprehension over data was shared by the nation.
0 Comments