How ethical is secret recording of calls?

Former MP Ranjan Ramanayake who is undergoing a four-year rigorous imprisonment over a case of contempt of court, has signed a letter requesting Presidential pardon, media reported recently. It was earlier reported that the President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has requested the Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa to make a written request in this regard. 

Retired Air Force Officer Sunil Perera and Rev. Magalkande Sudatta Thera have filed two petitions in the Supreme Court alleging that Ranjan Ramanayake has insulted the Judiciary, by making defamatory comments on 21 August 2017 at Temple Trees. The case was heard before a three-judge bench, and on 21 January, the Supreme Court sentenced the former Parliamentarian for four years.

During the arrest of Ranjan Ramanayake in January 2020, Police had taken into custody a large number of CDs which seemingly contained private telephone conversations secretly recorded by Ramanayake. After few hours of the arrest, recordings of a number of these private conversations were available on social media platforms. 

These telephone chats were said to be taken place between the former MP and a number of prominent persons in the country, and Ranjan Ramanayake has recorded them without the knowledge of other person. Highly-sensitive private information was available in these telephone calls, and the incident has become a big scandal and even earned the name ‘Ranjangate’. 

The Police has denied that they released the contents of CDs to the media. Ranjan Ramanayake has also denied that he has leaked the call recordings, but justified his act of recording the calls, saying that he had done this to gather evidence for his lone fight against corruption. However, former Speaker Karu Jayasuriya has reportedly said that recording telephone conversations secretly and broadcasting them (illegally) demonstrates the moral degradation of our country. 

Accordingly, Ranjan’s secret telephone conversations or the so-called ‘Ranjangate’ incident has raised an important theme for public dialogue. However, as it is the usual practice among Sri Lankans, including our media, the incident has forgotten soon. 

Though the COVID-19 pandemic also has diffused this theme to a certain extent, in our opinion, a wider and in-depth discussion on this is still needed. The questions such as how legal and how ethical to record telephone conversations without the knowledge of the other person (or persons) need to be answered. The question whether such secret recordings can be justified by saying that was done for the fight against fraud and corruption needs to be answered. 

We have to have a dialogue on the impending threat to one’s privacy by such acts. This cannot be justified by pointing out that the ultimate aim is a great one, as done by Ranjan Ramanayake. It is absolutely unethical to record a telephone call without informing the other party to the conversation. Such behaviour clearly indicates the ill-mannerism and insolence of the particular person. Such an act is indecent and offensive to say the least, and non-professional as well. If you intend to record any telephone call, you should obtain the permission from the other party in advance, and otherwise, you are not only insulting the other person but abusing his rights as well. 

In many other countries, there are robust rules and regulations regarding the recording of telephone calls, and these laws differ from country to country. Of course, with the rapid development of the ICT, telephone recording laws have become a pressing need.

The general rule in Australia is that a telephone call may not be recorded. Australian Telecommunication Act of 1979 prohibits intercepting a telephone call, and the interception is defined as recording of a telephone call without the knowledge of the person(s) making the communication.

In case any organisation in Australia intends to record a telephone call, then the other party to the conversation must be informed at the beginning so that other party will have the opportunity to continue or end the call. However, in the state of Queensland it is not illegal to record a telephone call by a party to the conversation. 

According to the German criminal code, telephone call recording without the consent of all the parties to the conversation is a punishable offence. Further, telephone tapping in Germany should to be approved by a judge. In neighbouring India, telephone tapping has to be approved by a designated authority and otherwise it is illegal.

In comparison with many other countries, we Sri Lankans have very little awareness about our right to privacy. The right to privacy includes the right to make personal decisions regarding our lives, and the right to live our lives according to our personal decisions.

The experts have identified three spheres of privacy, namely physical or spatial privacy, informational privacy and the decisional privacy. Firstly, people should have the right to live freely in their own environment (space) without any external interference. Entering one’s living environment, and filming or recording his behaviour without permission is a violation of physical or spatial privacy. 

Secondly, stealing and storing personal information, of course without the knowledge of the relevant person, is a violation of informational privacy. Thirdly, any person should have the right to make decisions regarding their own lives, without harming the common interests of society and the country. 

However, we should clearly understand that the right to privacy is not an unlimited, absolute one, and might be restricted due to public interests. For example, in the case of identified potential threat to the national security, the relevant authorities should be allowed to record telephone calls or video some incidents, as the case may be. But, in this regard, it is important that clear rules and regulations are in place.

As mentioned above, there are robust laws regarding the recording of telephone calls in many countries and telephone tapping has to be approved by a legal authority. Likewise, any provision for violating one’s privacy should be clearly identified in the law of the country.  

So, it is clear that Ranjan Ramanayake’s telephone recordings point toward the moral and ethical deterioration of the country. This indicates the insolence and impudence of some people in the country.

Though we often boast about our rich cultural heritage, some of us have the habit of digging into other people’s personal lives. Some of us have the habit of putting our nose into the neighbours’ personal affairs, and being happy when there is a small argument or a fight in the neighbour’s family. 

Moreover, some people in organisations, public as well as private, have the habit of digging into other employee’s personal lives instead performing their own duties. In fact, their main duty is collecting, creating and spreading gossip. Some of these people have the habit of secretly recording telephone calls using freely available apps gadgets. Undoubtedly, this type of unethical behaviour clearly indicates the ill-manners, impudence and insolence of these people. 

Thus, it is clear that secret recordings of telephone conversations is a complex social phenomenon. It is clear that the concept of right to privacy is also a complex social phenomenon. It is obvious that there should be appropriate laws regarding recording of telephone conversations, and the right to privacy as a whole. However, introducing laws will not be sufficient unless we all accept the right of each and every one to their privacy. We all should get accustomed to respect other persons’ privacy all the time.

(The writer is Vice Chancellor, Uva Wellassa University.)