http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0414/p06s01-wosc.html
byline: Vir Singh Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor
(NEW DELHI) Harsh Pathak was thrilled to get a cellphone. The young
corporate lawyer could stay in touch with friends and family while on
the move. And he found it easier to schedule meetings.
Then he started getting calls from a lot of people he did not know. His
number, it turns out, had been acquired by telemarketers -- thanks to a
highly organized network devoted to collecting personal information --
who peppered him with calls. Banks wanted him to take out loans.
Insurers wanted to send out sales representatives. Ironically, even
cellphone companies called, asking him to switch to their service.
"They would call in the middle of a meeting when you were trying to
explain something to someone," he says. "Then, after the call, you
lost your thought and had to start explaining the thing all over
again." What made these intrusions even more irritating were the
steep "roaming" charges he incurred for receiving calls outside his
local network.
As India's economy booms, the rising ranks of cellphone users find it
hard to enjoy something already rare in this country of 1 billion
people: privacy. But that may change after a landmark action by the
Supreme Court in February, based on a complaint Mr. Pathak filed.
That court asked the government and a clutch of major telephone
companies and financial institutions named as defendants in the suit
to take steps to protect cellphone users from unsolicited calls. The
suit called for a new law and asked that financial institutions and
telephone companies protect their clients from an "endemic invasion of
privacy." In his petition, Pathak suggested that India consider
adopting privacy-protection measures similar to those in other
countries, including the federal do-not-call registry in the United
States.
The Supreme Court can only advise the government on the need for
legislation, but India's parliament responds often to these requests.
Before it can, however, the government agencies and private parties
named as defendants will have to provide an official response to the
Supreme Court. That means a cellphone privacy law is at least two
years away. For now, though, the court's action is compelling
executives to consider the consequences of actions that have long been
a standard practice in the financial-services industry.
According to Vivek Tankha, the attorney who argued the case for
Pathak, one defendant, a cellphone service provider, has placed
full-page ads in newspapers assuring customers that it would help them
to block unwanted calls.
"I have never been thanked so much in my life as I have for this
case," he says.
Cellphone companies say they support customer privacy. The Cellular
Operators' Association of India said it is "in full support of the
Supreme Court's notice and will offer all cooperation."
The case received major media coverage in one of the world's
fastest-growing cellphone markets, where unwanted calls and text
messages are a nuisance for tens of millions of subscribers.
Cellphone users here in India's capital say the number of calls from
telemarketers has fallen a bit during the past year to about two or
three a week.
But Reva Singh, a magazine editor, still finds them "inexcusable."
"I don't know who gives them the right to claim my time," she says,
adding that she felt "obliged to listen and be polite" before saying
no to sales pitches.
In the absence of a law, privacy advocates say, there can be no
effective controls on telemarketers. Cellphone users risk having their
numbers leaked from the moment they sign up with a provider.
Banks deny that they share information about clients, yet they can
hardly be accused of going out of their way to protect privacy. One of
Mr. Tankha's encounters with a sales agent reveals just how serious
this problem can be.
"I was shocked when I got calls from a company stating that I should
invest in mutual funds, as I had excess funds in my bank account," he
says.
Some users don't allow themselves to get upset by the calls. "I'm sort
of indifferent, but I try to be polite," says Gitanjali Sethi, a law
student. "I'm not going to buy anything over the phone."
Ms. Sethi knows a thing or two about telemarketers, having worked for
one part-time. She says numbers are culled from forms filled out by
customers.
For example, someone opening a bank account provides a lot of personal
information. Often, there is a box the person can check so as not to
receive sales calls and promotions by mail. "But this is not always
mentioned or displayed prominently."
She says even "respected companies" share information with one another.
Businesses with complementary products -- such as a cellphone service
provider and a cellphone maker -- often do this, because both firms gain
from reaching each other's clients.
Stopping such practices will require a huge effort, even with the
Supreme Court's backing, and even if India adopts a law, acknowledge
Pathak and Tankha. But for now, they are happy that the top court has
set the ball rolling.
"At least the debate has started," said Tankha. "Once we start a
debate, the solutions also start to emerge."
(c) Copyright 2005 The Christian Science Monitor.
The Christian Science Monitor-- an independent daily newspaper
providing context and clarity on national and international news,
peoples and cultures, and social trends. Online at
http://www.csmonitor.com
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, The Christian Science Publishing Society.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Lisa Minter (lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com)