News Headlines

No Breach Of Privacy, Not Sharing Data Even With Parent Company Meta: WhatsApp Tells SC

Swarajya Staff

Feb 02, 2023, 12:36 PM | Updated 01:03 PM IST


WhatsApp (DDNewslive/Twitter)
WhatsApp (DDNewslive/Twitter)
  • A five-judge Constitution Bench is currently hearing a petition challenging the 2016 privacy policy of WhatsApp.
  • Social Media Intermediary WhatsApp on Wednesday (1 February)  informed the Supreme Court that it does not possess any sensitive data of its users, and doesn’t share it with any others, including its parent company Meta (earlier Facebook).

    WhatsApp assured the Supreme Court that all messages on its platform are encrypted, which can’t be seen even by WhatsApp itself, and assured that it would not remove any user from its platform in case they do not consent to its controversial privacy policy, challenged in the top court.

    A five-judge Constitution Bench is currently hearing a petition challenging the 2016 privacy policy of WhatsApp. It contends that after Facebook’s purchase of WhatsApp, the company provided access to calls, photographs, texts, and videos shared by users on Facebook. The petition alleges that this is a violation of free speech and the right to privacy.

    WhatsApp submitted to the court that the company does not possess any sensitive data of its users except their names and phone numbers. It further added that the concept of sharing data comes into question only if the user is on both Facebook and WhatsApp.

    The bench nonetheless directed WhatsApp to publicise the undertaking it sent to the Centre on 22 May 2021, which stated that WhatsApp will not limit the functionality of the app for users in India who do not agree to its revised privacy policy, until the data protection law is enacted.

    The bench was also informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the government intends to introduce the Data Protection Bill in the second half of the budget session and will address the grievances raised on breach of privacy by social media intermediaries.

    Lawyers appearing for various intermediaries seconded that court should defer the hearings, and that it would not have to adjudicate the case since the grievances would be addressed by the law itself.


    Get Swarajya in your inbox.


    Magazine


    image
    States