TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Conquering Pegasus: We must embrace the spirit of Bellerophon
We need a system that can regulate fair wiretapping procedures, respect the citizens' right to privacy, protect personal data and strengthen the judiciary's role in overseeing wiretapping powers.
Change Size
A
n investigative report in Tempo magazine (June 12 to 18 edition) raised the issue of the use of the Pegasus wiretapping tool, a product of the Israel-based NSO Group, in Indonesia since 2018, although some believe the zero-click method of eavesdropping has been in place in the country further back since 2010.
Based on the report, there are allegations about the State Intelligence Agency (BIN) and the National Police using this wiretapping device. The National Police’s head of technology, information and communications division, Insp. Gen. Slamet Uliandi, has denied the accusation. An article in The Jakarta Post titled "Israeli-made spyware used in the nation since 2018, says IndonesiaLeaks" (June 15) also raised similar concerns about wiretapping technology.
Pegasus is a leading technology in the world of spyware. It does not require interaction with the target, is able to listen in on telephone conversations, controls and disrupts phone connections, and consumes data on electronic devices, leaving no trace behind.
Based on journalistic reports, there are three concerns. First, covert surveillance or communication interception, intentionally or not, against a citizen’s right to privacy is a crucial issue in the rule of law because this is unlawful.
Second, interception tools such as Pegasus, which adopt the zero-click method, threaten freedom and activities in journalism or public policy advocacy. Furthermore, the zero-click technology can be accessed not only by the state but also the private sector and organized crime.
Third, as a consequence of the rule of law, the wiretapping mechanism must be within the framework of law enforcement. Therefore, wiretapping authority entrusted to law enforcers such as the police, prosecutors and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), should be conducted measurably and based on definite procedures. Hence, the latest controversy concerning Pegasus is a good opportunity to rearrange wiretapping procedures, which are currently uncoordinated and depend on each agency's policies.
More profoundly, a strong justification on control over the use of Pegasus, or other covert surveillance equipment that employs zero-click technology, is mandatory. This should encourage us to deepen the spirit of Bellerophon for two reasons.
In Greek mythology, Pegasus is a winged horse that can fly swiftly and gracefully across the sky. Because of its speed and grace, Pegasus symbolizes freedom, the power of imagination and creativity, and the ability to overcome worldly limitations. In the context of spyware technology, Pegasus symbolizes a liberating force that frees the barriers that hinder espionage and covert surveillance work quickly and efficiently, which the zero-click technology offers.
Because of these advantages, we need Bellerophon to conquer Pegasus' advantage. This Greek mythological hero embodies unique virtues: courage, strength to achieve constructive goals, balance and self-control, discipline, responsibility and extraordinary skill. In this context, Bellerophon personifies not only law enforcement, but a legal system that can minimize efforts to intercept unauthorized communications; hence, a system that can regulate fair wiretapping procedures, respects the citizen’s right to privacy, protects personal data and strengthens the judiciary's role in overseeing wiretapping powers.
To tame Pegasus, Bellerophon needed Athena's help in getting the golden brittle so he could ride Pegasus to fight the Chimera. Athena and the golden brittle are symbols of justice, fair judgment, strategic acumen, intellectual prowess and creativity.
In today’s setting, Athena and the golden brittle represent a law capable of providing strategic assessment and control of “the dark side” of information technology, which can exploit a citizen’s right to privacy and allow the potential abuse of power.
Fundamentally, there has been an opportunity to formulate a law capable of controlling wiretapping and directing it toward constructive goals. The first is as stipulated in the provisions of Article 28 J, paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which provides a constitutional basis that the existence of a law is the basis for every action related to the limitation of mandatory rights and freedoms.
Constitutional Court Decision No.5/PUU-VIII/2010, which is also based on legal considerations in Decision No.6/PUU-I/2003, is needed to deliver a strong key message that wiretapping and recording conversations constitute a limitation on human rights, and only through the enactment of law are these restrictions limited.
Then, to prevent the possibility of abuse of wiretapping authority, it is necessary to stipulate regulations to formulate the terms and conditions for wiretapping and recording.
The legal considerations of Constitutional Court Decision No.5/PUU-VIII/2010 have opened up a space for compiling legal policies that comprehensively regulate wiretapping to legal wiretapping equipment and wiretapping procedures for each authorized institution. Sadly, there is no synchronous regulation regarding wiretapping.
At least seven laws relate wiretapping to national security issues: The Telecommunications Law (1999), the Corruption Eradication Commission Law (2002 as amended in 2019), the Narcotics Law (2009), the State Intelligence Law (2011), the Electronic Information and Transaction Law (2016), the Law on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Terrorism (2018) and the Criminal Code (2023).
Apart from the provisions in the laws, there is also the National Police chief Regulation No.5/2010, which governs the police’s wiretapping procedures at the monitoring center.
The police’s wiretapping mechanism is found in regulations, rather than law, as mandated by Article 28 J, paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the acceleration of the formation of a wiretapping umbrella law is an urgent need to protect the citizen’s right to privacy and their personal data.
Constitutional Court decision No.5/PUU-VIII/2010 can be a driving force to accelerate the preparation and discussion of the wiretapping bill, which was included in the 2015 to 2019 National Legislation program. Furthermore, the draft law is pivotal considering that in addition to preventing the abuse of wiretapping authority by law enforcement officials, it goes beyond to prevent people or organizations that are not law enforcers from wiretapping.
The passage of the wiretapping bill is a form of rejection of the Orwellian or surveillance state. The rejection of unlawful oversight, which has the potential to occur in the 2024 election, is an effort to undermine the quality of a constitutional democracy.
Wiretapping is prone to abuse a citizen’s right to privacy. It should be the constitutional mission of the presumed legislative and presidential candidates to improve the governance of wiretapping.
***
The writer is a researcher specializing in law and security at the Department of Politics and Social Change at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
