Secret Recording, Who's Safe?

The Attorney General's Office's move to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on wiretapping with four telecommunications operators has raised red flags. On paper, this agreement is for law enforcement. However, in practice, it could become a gateway to mass surveillance that violates citizens' privacy.

Attorney General ST Burhanuddin said this is for the effectiveness of investigating major cases. "We want to ensure transparent and accountable law enforcement," he told the media. That statement is convincing. We certainly agree. But behind the scenes, greater dangers lurk.

This agreement was born without a solid legal basis. A special law on wiretapping does not yet exist. Technical regulations remain unclear. Even the Ministry of Communication and Digital Technology warned, "This MoU must comply with applicable regulations," said Wayan Toni Supriyanto, Director General of Postal and Information Technology, as reported in the media.

This is the root of the problem. Wiretapping is not just about tools. It's about the right to privacy. The Civil Society Coalition called the Attorney General's move a violation of the Constitution. "This is a serious threat to citizens' constitutional rights," ICJR asserted in its official release.

Law No. 19 of 2016 concerning the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) does grant law enforcement the authority to wiretap. However, the conditions are strict. A court order is required. The process is proportional. There is independent oversight. Without a specific law, all procedures can be ambiguous.

Who guarantees this authority won't exceed its limits? What is the public oversight mechanism? To date, there has been no answer. A member of Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) also reminded that this MoU "must be strictly monitored" to prevent violations of citizens' privacy. But the term "strict supervision" must be carefully considered.

Indeed, and we agree, wiretapping can help uncover corruption, narcotics, or terrorism. But the experiences of other countries provide bitter lessons. In the United States, the PRISM and XKeyscore programs extensively tapped citizens' communications in the name of national security. The UK also has an Investigatory Powers Act, nicknamed the Snoopers' Charter because it opened up loopholes for mass surveillance.

Communication data isn't just numbers. It's a slice of human life. Love messages. Trade secrets. Family conversations. This MoU provides the opportunity for interception without strong barriers. Without strict regulations and independent institutions, citizens have no protection.

The government has been actively campaigning for personal data protection since 2019. The Personal Data Protection Law was passed in 2022. The President has repeatedly emphasized the importance of maintaining data confidentiality. However, the MoU appears to be opening the door to practices that could potentially violate the privacy of millions of people.

Members of the House of Representatives (DPR) and civil society organizations have issued warnings. The Chairman of the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) has also made similar comments. Commissioner M. Choirul Anam, when providing recommendations on the draft Wiretapping Bill in 2019, emphasized three main principles of wiretapping.

First, there must be no discrimination between law enforcement officials. Second, governance must be clear. Investigators must immediately seek court permission. Third, the requirements for wiretapping must be strict. It only requires the identity and substance of the information sought.

He emphasized the importance of specific regulations for law enforcement before conducting wiretapping.

What is worrying, however, is that the public seems to be lulled by the narrative of law enforcement. It seems that anything is legitimate as long as the goal is to hunt down criminals. Yet, democracy does not rest solely on the success of solving cases. Democracy thrives on freedom and respect for basic human rights.

How long will private space continue to be slowly eroded? How long will we willingly surrender our freedoms to the mercy of officials? Without a Special Law on Wiretapping, all of this is like a blank check. Power will always find loopholes to exert more pressure.

The wiretapping MoU is not simply an administrative procedure. Without legal safeguards, without transparency, without independent oversight, it only gives the green light to abuse of power.

Perhaps one day, recordings of our conversations will land on investigators' desks. Private conversations can be twisted into tools of pressure. Our privacy becomes merchandise.

And when that happens, we will realize. This seemingly technical MoU is actually a gateway to a spying state. A state that pats its chest while recording every heartbeat of its citizens. At that point, there may be no safe place other than the courage to refuse to remain silent. This is why the Wiretapping Law needs to be enacted expeditiously.