Government Faces Criticism Over Smartphone Satellite-Tracking Proposal

A recent government proposal that would require smartphones to maintain continuous satellite-based location tracking has triggered significant backlash from digital-rights and civil-liberties organisations. The mechanism, reportedly aimed at enhancing national security, emergency response, and tracking of illicit activities, has raised serious concerns over privacy, data misuse, and constitutional rights.

Concerns Raised by Civil Liberties Groups

1. Threat to Privacy & Constitutional Rights

Activists argue that continuous, mandatory location tracking constitutes a form of intrusive surveillance. Following the Supreme Court’s Puttaswamy (2017) judgment, the right to privacy is a fundamental right, and any such mandate must satisfy:

• legality,
• necessity, and
• proportionality.
  Critics contend that blanket tracking fails these tests.

2. Risk of Mass Surveillance

Civil society groups warn that such a system could create the infrastructure for large-scale surveillance, enabling the state—or unauthorized third parties—to monitor citizens’ movements in real time. This, they say, mirrors global debates on digital authoritarianism.

3. Potential Misuse of Sensitive Data

Continuous location data is highly sensitive. Concerns include:

• hacking of centralised databases,
• tracking of political dissidents or journalists,
• profiling of citizens, and
• commercial misuse by private entities.
  Without strong data-protection laws, critics argue the risks multiply.

4. Lack of Transparency & Public Consultation

Activists highlight the absence of clear guidelines, including:

• who controls the data,
• retention timelines,
• access restrictions, and
• oversight mechanisms.
  Civil society groups argue that such a sweeping policy requires wider debate, parliamentary scrutiny, and technical evaluation.

Broader Governance Implications

The controversy revives the long-standing debate on balancing security objectives with individual freedoms. Experts stress the need for:

• robust data-protection frameworks,
• independent oversight bodies,
• transparent technical standards, and
• narrowly tailored, purpose-specific monitoring policies.

Conclusion

The criticism reflects a broader concern that technological mandates must not compromise fundamental rights. As discussions continue, ensuring privacy-preserving design, clear legality, and democratic oversight will be crucial for any future digital-governance policy in India.