On 26th June 2010, Dr Richard L Munisamy made a statement to the police at Pointe aux Canonniers station accusing Mr Sahrat Dutt Lallah, CEO of Mauritius Telecom (MT), of contravening Section 29 of the Data Protection Act 2004.
29. Unlawful disclosure of personal data
(1) Any data controller who, without lawful excuse, discloses personal data in any manner that is incompatible with the purposes for which such data has been collected shall commit an offence.
According to an MT employee, the private database of Orange customers’ phone numbers had been released to the Alliance de l’Avenir who had then requested that MT send a message to subscribers soliciting their support in the general elections of May 2010. Apparently, MT made no charge for this service. It is understood that the case, OB732/10, has recently been transferred to regional headquarters at Piton where the decision to prosecute will be taken.
Below is the video of the conversation between Dr Munisamy and the MT employee:
IMPORTANT UPDATE – investigations reveal it is more likely that the Government SMS Gateway was used to broadcast the message. The Gateway is hosted at the Government On-line Centre at Ebene and was set up to send sms to parents of children who are not in school at the time the register is taken. Who authorised its use?
A meeting with Mr Bhugowon took place on 19th Decemeber, where he revealed that, MT’s response to enquiries was that the sms broadcast as a commercial service. The following questions were then posed to the DPO in the meeting and repeated by email:
1. If the service was offered to the Alliance de l’Avenir, how much was the total bill and who paid it?
2. Who chose the numbers to which the sms was sent, i.e. was it to all Orange numbers or just those on post-paid contracts?
3. If only the latter, what was the intent of sending the messages to registered recipients which are, by and large, corporate entities and therefore cannot vote in an election?
Qu 1 & 2 are important because several candidates were near the limits on their “declared” election expenses. Spreading the cost of the broadcast to across all of them might put some over the limits, especially one NCR 😉
Qu 3, if the assumption is correct, would suggest that the Alliance was seeking bribes from corporates to ensure that they were on “the winning team” and hence shared in the appropriate “benefits” after the victory. Where would such payments have gone, given that most election expenses had already been spent?
Who runs Mauritius Telecom?
UPDATE:
Met with the investigating officers of the DPO on 9.3.12 They have done nothing about the investigation since the last meeting on 19.12.12 They asked for a declaration restating the facts. Third time lucky?
On 1st May 2010, I received an unsolicited SMS on my mobile phone, subscribed to Mauritius Telecom’s (MT) Orange network on a post-paid contract, from a third party purporting to be “LAVENIR”(as shown in the picture that has already been provided to you). The text read as follows:
“LExpress 30/4/10 dire:Lacote LAVENIR Rs470, Coeur Rs70 pou Rs500 -JOIN THE WINNING TEAM, vine en foule Grand Meeting 1 May 9:30, Quatre Bornes. Lavenir Ensam”
I understand from the Data Protection Office (DPO) investigators that MT have admitted that they sent the SMS as part of the commercial services they offer to customers. However, this raises several important questions which the DPO must investigate in accordance with its mandate and report to the appropriate authorities
.
1. Who supplied my number? I am not part of the “LAVENIR”. If my number was supplied by MT (along with others from their subscribers’ database) then they violated Section 29 of the Data Protection Act 2004 along with the Code of Practice of the Information and Communication Technologies Act 2001 and should be prosecuted accordingly.
2. Who paid for the service? If it was provided free of charge or at a discount then this is scandalous as a partly state-owned company was therefore seeking to manipulate the outcome of the election. It would be reasonable to suspect that the CEO was repaying the gratification of being appointed to the position by the then government and main party of the “Alliance de l’Avenir”. This would imply that the Prevention of Corruption Act (PoCA) had been contravened and the matter should be reported to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).
3. If the service was paid for by the “Alliance de L’Avenir” at commercial rates, to which numbers were the SMS sent?
a) If it was to pre-paid as well as post-paid customers then the total cost would have been significant. These costs should have been apportioned to the candidates and included on their expense returns to the Election Commissioner (EC). As these expenses were not listed, the EC should be informed so that he can take the appropriate action against the candidates.
b) If it was to just the post-paid customers then the purpose is likely to have been sinister. Most post-paid customers are commercial entities which do not have the right to vote. They can however, make financial and in-kind donations to political parties. It could therefore be deduced that the SMS was a solicitation for funds with the implicit offer contained in the words “JOIN THE WINNING TEAM” that such action would be rewarded by the “Alliance de l’Avenir” after it won the election. This would be in violation of the PoCA and should be reported to ICAC.