No illegal surveillance should be allowed

With the growth of modern technologies, countries have been increasingly tempted by the use of surveillance tools to monitor or intercept communications. The situation in Bangladesh has been no different, especially during the authoritarian rule of Awami League. As per a report by The Daily Star, between 2016 and 2024, the National Telecommunications Monitoring Centre (NTMC), police, and Rab collectively purchased surveillance equipment worth over Tk 1,382 crore. The legality of using such equipment has always been a hotly debated topic, and the risks in countries like Bangladesh, with poor safeguards and rights records, are particularly dire.

Against this backdrop, the interim government's drafting of a new ordinance to penalise unauthorised surveillance and abolish all pre-existing interception platforms, including the NTMC, marks a major shift. If approved, the Bangladesh Telecommunications Ordinance 2025 will not only criminalise unlawful interception—with prison terms of up to 10 years for perpetrators—but also place all "lawful interception" under a Central Lawful Interception Platform (CLIP), which can only act on behalf of authorised agencies based on court directives or orders issued by an Independent Oversight Council. We welcome this initiative. For a country reeling from years of arbitrary surveillance, this is a necessary first step towards restoring trust and protecting citizens' rights.

Read more

Performative privacy in a surveillance economy

That said, we must recognise that laws alone cannot change a system. Previously, when surveillance was used to target dissidents, journalists, and activists, it happened not because laws permitted it, but because there was impunity, lack of oversight, and a political culture that saw citizens as subjects to be controlled. We must not repeat this. The new law must not become another statute that looks good on paper but fails in practice.

For it to be effective, meaningful institutional constraints as well as constant parliamentary oversight are crucial. The draft ordinance proposes that the five-member Independent Oversight Council be formed by representatives nominated by the president, prime minister, and parliament speaker each, along with two retired judges. But unless parliament—including opposition voices at the relevant parliamentary standing committee—exercises constant oversight, and unless the judiciary performs the role envisaged for it in the ordinance, the oversight structure risks becoming ceremonial. We urge civil society groups to closely study the draft and ensure there are no loopholes that can allow any state actor or agency to exploit the CLIP and conduct clandestine surveillance.

We must also safeguard against weaponisation of "national security" as a catch-all justification. Necessity, proportionality, legality, and accountability must be treated as binding principles. The authorities, present and future, must ensure that any surveillance is treated as an exception, not the norm, and is always conducted within the legal framework and by preserving the rights, privacy, and dignity of citizens.