Call Record Leaks Raise Bigger Questions About Privacy, Law and State Power

The publication of leaked audio recordings and call records involving senior figures of the previous government, political leaders and, in some cases, ordinary citizens has become increasingly common across social media and other platforms. Some of these recordings may contain evidence of serious crimes, abuse of power or matters of significant public interest. In such cases, investigation and public-interest considerations are certainly important.

But another fundamental question has emerged: If the call records of powerful people today are being made public, what guarantees that the private conversations of today's government officials or power holders will not be exposed tomorrow?

And if a future government, after a change of power, releases the private conversations of today's powerful figures, would we consider that justified?

This is not a question of being for or against any particular person or political party. It is a question of the state, law, citizens' rights and democracy.

What Does the Constitution Say?

The Constitution of Bangladesh recognizes the privacy of citizens' communications as a fundamental right. Article 43(b) guarantees every citizen the privacy of correspondence and other means of communication.

In other words, phone conversations, letters, emails and other modern means of communication are forms of private communication, and even state interference with them has constitutional limits.

One important point must be remembered: the right to privacy is not a special privilege for criminals; it is a right of every citizen.

If someone commits a crime, there must be an investigation, and their communications may legally become subject to investigation. But the need to investigate a crime and the indiscriminate collection or publication of private communications are not the same thing.

Can the Government Ever Collect Call Records?

No. The issue is not that simple.

There may be legitimate reasons for the state to conduct surveillance in matters of national security, serious criminal investigations or law enforcement. Bangladesh has the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulation Act, 2001 to regulate the telecommunications sector.

But in a democratic state, the real questions are:

• Under what circumstances can surveillance be conducted?
• Who will authorize it?
• How long can it continue?
• What information can be collected?
• Who can use that information?
• When must the information be destroyed?

The state having surveillance powers and the state being able to use those powers without restriction are two different things.

The fundamental principle of the rule of law is that state power itself must have limits.

Personal Data Protection: How Much Protection Does the New Law Provide?

In response to the realities of the digital age, Bangladesh has introduced an important change through the Personal Data Protection Ordinance, 2025. The ordinance adopts the principle of treating personal data as belonging to the individual and establishes a legal framework for collecting, processing, storing and using such information.

This is undoubtedly an important development. But the existence of a personal-data protection law does not automatically make citizens safe.

The real test is how independently the law is enforced, how accountable state agencies are, and what remedies citizens have against unlawful surveillance.

Organizations working on rights and good governance have also raised concerns about the existing framework. In 2026, Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) expressed concern about some provisions of the Personal Data Protection Ordinance, arguing that broad grounds such as crime prevention, national security and public interest could create risks of misuse.

In other words, having a law is positive; the limits placed on that law's powers and independent oversight are even more important.

Does the State Own Citizens' Data?

Under modern concepts of information rights and data protection, the state is not the unrestricted owner of citizens' personal data.

An important principle of Bangladesh's new personal-data protection framework is recognition of individuals' rights and control over their personal information. A 2026 government policy document also referred to rights such as access, correction, erasure and withdrawal of consent under the Personal Data Protection Ordinance, 2025.

This represents a significant policy shift.

The fact that the state may collect citizens' information when legally necessary does not mean that it can freely use that information for political, personal or promotional purposes.

Will today's government be safe tomorrow?

This is perhaps the most important question.

If the current government says, “We will not misuse citizens' call records,” that may be a political assurance. But in a democratic state, citizens' rights should not depend on the goodwill of any particular government.

Because governments change.

People in power change.

Political parties change.

But laws and fundamental rights should not change with them.

The government in power today may not be in power tomorrow. An official who controls information today may no longer hold that position tomorrow.

Therefore, the question should not be:

“Will the current government behave well?”

Rather, it should be:

“Have we created a system that prevents whichever government comes to power from violating citizens' privacy?”

In my view, this is where we have a major shortcoming.

Is Publishing Call Records Part of Press Freedom?

A balance is necessary

Possessing a call recording does not automatically make publishing it an essential part of press freedom.

Freedom of the media is important, but so is citizens' right to privacy.

If a recording contains credible evidence of corruption, abuse of power, serious crime or significant wrongdoing involving the state, the question of verifying and publishing it in the public interest may legitimately arise.

But publishing an entirely private conversation to socially humiliate someone, politically discredit them or expose their personal life to the public should also be examined in terms of responsible journalism.

Public Interest Is Not the Same as Public Curiosity

People may be curious to hear the private conversations of a famous individual.

But satisfying public curiosity and serving the public interest are not the same thing.

The power of journalism lies not only in deciding what information should be published, but also in exercising the ethical judgment to determine what should not be published.

What Does International Law Say?

International human rights law makes the issue even clearer.

Bangladesh acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on September 6, 2000, and it entered into force for Bangladesh on December 6, 2000.

Article 17 of the ICCPR states that no person should be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence. It also provides legal protection against unlawful attacks on a person's honour and reputation.

Two words here are particularly important:

Unlawful — meaning unlawful interference is prohibited.

Arbitrary — meaning that even where a legal basis exists, it must not be applied arbitrarily, unreasonably or without proper controls.

The United Nations human rights framework also recognizes privacy in the digital age as a fundamental human right. The UN human rights office has emphasized that privacy, both online and offline, is important to the enjoyment of human rights and is a foundation of democratic societies.

The UN General Assembly has likewise adopted separate resolutions concerning the right to privacy in the digital age.

In other words, the more advanced technology becomes, the more important the question of privacy becomes.

State Security vs Citizens' Privacy: Where Is the Balance?

The state may argue that surveillance is necessary for national security.

Citizens may argue that their private lives must be protected.

Both concerns are legitimate.

The solution is neither to make the state completely blind nor to give it unlimited power over citizens.

The solution is:

Law + judicial authorization + necessity + proportionality + time limits + independent oversight + accountability.

If surveillance of a citizen's phone becomes necessary, the reasons should be established in writing. Only as much information as necessary should be collected. Once the purpose ends, the use and retention of the information should stop. If unlawful surveillance takes place, citizens must have access to effective remedies.

Most importantly, information collected by state agencies must never become the property of a political party.

Who Is Responsible for Leaked Call Records?

Responsibility does not rest solely with the government. Several parties have obligations.

First, state agencies and law-enforcement institutions must ensure that collected information remains strictly secure.

Second, telecommunications companies and relevant technology providers also have a responsibility to protect information.

Third, effective action must be taken against any official or individual who unlawfully releases state-held information.

Fourth, media organizations and social-media users must understand that receiving information does not automatically give them the ethical right to publish or share it.

Making a private conversation viral can damage a person's social standing, family, career and even personal safety.

What Kind of Laws Are Needed for the Future?

Bangladesh now needs more than a personal-data protection law. It needs a clearer, stronger and judicially controlled framework governing communications privacy and state surveillance.

What should be done?

1. Citizens' private communications should not routinely be subject to surveillance without judicial authorization.
2. Where exceptional surveillance is necessary in an emergency, mandatory judicial review should take place within a specified period.
3. Specific grounds and maximum time limits for surveillance should be established.
4. Information collected for one purpose should not be used for another purpose.
5. The use of state surveillance data for political purposes should be completely prohibited.
6. Effective penalties should apply to the unlawful collection, storage, transfer or publication of call records.
7. Unnecessary personal data should be destroyed after an investigation is completed.
8. Citizens should have access to remedies and compensation when they are subjected to unlawful surveillance.
9. Independent judicial and parliamentary oversight should monitor surveillance systems, alongside regular transparency and accountability concerning state agencies' use of information.

A Political Consensus Is Needed Now

This issue does not belong to the Awami League, BNP, Jatiya Party, Jamaat, NCP or any other political party.

It concerns the relationship between the state and its citizens.

The party in power today may be replaced by another tomorrow.

Someone who is in the opposition today may enter government tomorrow.

An official who occupies a position of power today may become an ordinary citizen tomorrow.

Therefore, political parties need consensus on one fundamental principle:

A change of government must not mean a change in citizens' right to privacy.

If someone from the previous government has committed a crime, they must face justice.

If there is evidence against them, there should be an investigation. The evidence should be presented before a court. If the crime is proven, punishment should follow.

But that process must not establish a precedent whereby a future government can say:

“The previous government did it, so we can do it too.”

The greatest test of the rule of law is whether we can protect even the rights of our political opponents.

The person whose call record is being published today may have been powerful. Tomorrow, they may be powerless.

But losing political power does not mean losing one's rights as a citizen.

Likewise, today's head of government may become a former head of government tomorrow.

So the question today is not merely:

Whose call record was published?

The questions should be:

• Why was it published?
• Who published it?
• Through what legal process was it obtained?
• Where is the public interest?
• And if the same thing happens to us tomorrow, where will our protection be?

The beauty of democracy is that the same law applies to the powerful and the ordinary citizen alike.

The strength of the state is not that it can listen to everything its citizens say.

The true strength of the state is that even when it has the ability to listen to citizens' private conversations, it does not cross the boundaries of law and ethics.

Governments come and go.

Centres of power change.

Political identities change.

But citizens' rights remain.

Therefore, we must decide today:

Do we want a state where those in power can collect and publish citizens' private conversations whenever they deem it necessary, or do we want a state where crimes are investigated, corruption is prosecuted and national security is protected—while every citizen's private life, communications and personal data remain under the strong protection of law?

I believe the second path is the path of democracy.

Because governments change, power changes and rulers change; but citizens' rights are not a government's favour—they are a legal and constitutional obligation of the state.

And if we do not speak up today to protect someone else's privacy, then when our own privacy is exposed to the public tomorrow, our moral authority to protest will be weakened.

If we normalize the leaking of someone else's call records today, tomorrow it may become a normal feature of the state system for all of us.

So the time has come to establish a clear principle:

Crimes will be prosecuted, but citizens' privacy will not be put on trial.

The state will remain secure, and citizens' rights will remain secure.

Governments will change, but citizens' fundamental rights will not.

Author: President, Bangladesh Mobile Phone Consumers Association.

Note: The entire opinion published in the Opinion section represents the author's own views and has no association with the Digital Bangla Media authorities. As an expression of diverse views is one of the indicators of a media outlet, the article has been published without editorial intervention. Any person who feels offended or agitated by its contents does so solely on their own account.