According to reports published on social media in the past weeks, security forces have displayed another form of violence against women by violating their privacy at metro stations and continuing the enforcement of compulsory hijab. According to these reports, passengers are confronted with officers who, without their consent, confiscate and search their mobile phones under the pretext of verifying ownership. Officials of the Tehran Metro Company claim that this is related to the discovery of stolen phones and has no connection to the registration of iPhone 14 and 15.

In recent years, the Islamic Republic has made decisions and created restrictions for the use of new generation iPhones, in which citizens or importing companies had no role in determining these policies. It is completely illogical that people are persecuted for buying and using a specific phone that is available in the market. It seems that this issue has nothing to do with registering mobile phones and there are other hidden motives behind this plan that need to be seriously examined and criticized.

The reality is that it is not clear to people why the plan for inspecting and checking passengers’ phones on the metro is being implemented and for what purpose; what is clear is the performance of the police at metro stations. Officers ask people to prove ownership of their mobile phones by entering a code, known as the “IMEI” (this code is a 15-digit number that serves as the identification of each phone and is one of the most effective tools for obtaining information and tracking mobile phones) to the officers. With the start of the mobile phone registration plan, a national system for registering mobile phones, called “Hamta”, was also launched. This system provides facilities to determine who has activated a particular phone by entering its identification number. According to Iranian laws, all mobile phones must be registered in the Hamta system immediately after purchase. Forgery of phone identification is illegal and carries a penalty. One of the advantages of registering phones with a specific identification number for individuals is that in case

It seems that the police, in implementing this plan, have focused on monitoring and controlling citizens instead of protecting their rights and privacy. This concern is heightened when the police, with a accusatory attitude, violate the privacy of citizens and search their personal belongings. This is while according to Article 25 of the Constitution: “Inspection and eavesdropping and any form of espionage are prohibited, except by law.” Article 37 also explicitly states: “The principle is innocence and no one is considered guilty under the law unless their crime is proven in a fair court.” In addition, the Iranian Penal Code emphasizes that searching people’s property and belongings without any accusation is considered a violation of the rights of the nation and is prohibited from the perspective of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic. The police are only authorized to search and inspect citizens if there is a clear crime or a judicial order has been issued for this purpose. However, in practice, these legal principles are ignored and the police violate and restrict

Neglecting laws is not considered unusual in totalitarian systems and absolute rulers. Usually, in the belief of such rulers, where the issue of “national rights” is raised, acting and being indifferent towards it is considered part of “sovereign rights”. The abundant facilities that mobile phones create for relatively secure communication for users, especially critics and opponents, are important for these regimes in two ways: on one hand, mobile phones and virtual spaces create the possibility for opponents to find each other, agree on common positions, and ultimately coordinate for practical actions, which is considered a potential threat as it can undermine the foundations of power. On the other hand, these tools can also help maintain power and suppress opponents. Governments can track, control, and even arrest opponents by monitoring their calls, messages, internet searches, and activities in virtual spaces. They target opponents proactively and maintain their obedience by creating a climate of fear, or by accessing their content production in virtual spaces and private conversations, providing the necessary

Advanced technology allows for the installation of spyware, hacking of devices, and mass collection of data without the consent or knowledge of individuals. The issue at hand is that in such systems, the line between law enforcement and political suppression is ambiguous. Instead of protecting citizens, the police act as enforcers of the regime’s will and use the information gathered from mobile phones to suppress dissenters. Legal frameworks in these countries often give the government broad and unchecked powers to conduct such surveillance under the guise of national security or public order, claiming to protect citizens from intrusive government surveillance. It should be noted that surveillance and control of citizens’ mobile phones also occurs in modern systems, where it is carried out by police and government officials in a widespread, systematic manner with different objectives.

Now that the police have announced their goal of implementing this plan to discover stolen phones, the legal and logical procedure is to use legal and specialized methods to arrest the phone thieves. This can be done by implementing surveillance and preventive measures, as well as installing smart cameras in the transportation system, to identify the thieves and manage the risk factors. It is illegal and unethical for the police to violate people’s privacy and conduct illegal inspections under the pretext of fighting theft. Is it logical for the police to consider all citizens as suspects and search all homes in a city where many thefts occur? The answer is clear…

It seems that assigning roles such as dealing with mandatory hijab or inspecting and examining personal tastes to the police is a type of oppressive surveillance role of the government that is carried out with the desire and will of specific factions. In the existing laws regarding the duties of the law enforcement forces, the purpose of this institution is to establish public and individual order and tranquility for the people of Iran, and there is no mention of individual or factional behavior in the law of the law enforcement forces. The police in Iran is under the supervision of an executive authority and is obligated to abide by the laws.

Unfortunately, in recent years, the police have been involved in implementing plans that, instead of being related to public safety, pursue political and ideological goals. Interestingly, to justify their unlawful behavior, they refer to addressing this issue as a part of society in order to avoid being held accountable to public opinion. This issue shows that these plans not only lack widespread support, but also serve as temporary tools of suppression under specific political pressures. It is clear that the police cannot create fear and terror in the hearts of the people as the executive arm of certain factions, and spread delusions of control and social surveillance in society to make citizens believe that they are under police control and surveillance. As we have seen in the so-called “modesty and hijab” plan, by showing footage from smart cameras, they intended to create the perception that the police center has access to personal information and can identify and arrest individuals based on their faces and subject them to legal consequences.