The recent move by the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) against DreamHost, a service that hosts the website disruptj20.org, raises some critical questions about safeguards that Indians may not have in protecting themselves from state surveillance.

DreamHost was allegedly used to organise protests against President Trump on Inauguration Day. DoJ, on the pretext of investigating these offences, sought email lists and correspondences between website managers and third parties relying on a generally worded search warrant. A state court granted this request, and DreamHost’s appeal against the same awaits hearing.

While this has occurred within a different legal and political setting, the Indian State is no better in its desire for mass surveillance of online communications and internet behaviour. Look no further than the various provisions contained in the Information Technology Act, 2008 and the rules thereunder.