Slashdot Mirror


India Sleepwalks Into a Surveillance Society

An anonymous reader writes "ZeroPaid has a fascinating roundup of news stories surrounding the latest surveillance laws passed in India, including a first-hand account of someone writing from inside India. The legislation in question is the Information Technology Act's amendment bill 2006, which was recently passed in the Indian parliament. Things you can't do with the new legislation include surfing for news in Bollywood and looking up porn on the internet. The legislation also allows all transmissions over the internet to be monitored for any form of lawbreaking and permits a sub-inspector to break into your house to make sure you aren't browsing porn on your computer."

64 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The internet is really really great...

  2. Shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A government wanting to decrease people's access to information, bit by bit. What a surprising turn of events.
    Seems that a good government ass-kicking is may be in order. Course, that seems to be the case in several places.

    1. Re:Shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is this mod'd insightful/interesting? What's interesting is that many 'governments' are made up of people - like you and me. What's interesting is that as soon as you and me take on this civic duty, we somehow morph into some sub-lifeform who are automatically declared corrupt and tossed into the gutter by every half-wit with an internet connection.

      Same with police officers etc. Hint: they may actually live and have a family right in your neighborhood -- they're not bred in some mill by the 'government' and 'grown' specifically to prevent you from doing whatever you feel like.

      The statement above is no better than a hardcoded MOTD -- it does nothing constructive to address the matter at hand.

    2. Re:Shocking by wisty · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have you read about the Stanford Prison Experiment? Normal people like you and me can do atrocious things, if we feel justified. Police take a lot of training and talent to *not* act like thugs. Government officials don't have this sort of training.

    3. Re:Shocking by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's because most people who get into a position of power got plenty of courting from the big lobby groups before getting the job.

      Besides, some philosophies automatically declare any human as corrupt and it's no surprise that this becomes more of a problem as the human's power increases.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:Shocking by gweihir · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think in Germany "Staatsuntreue" (disloyalty to the state) is a major crime, on the level of murder. Except that I can't remember a single case where somebody actually got sued.

      You are completely clueless. First, there is no such crime in Germany. There is treason, but that exists in practically every country. And second, if it existed, you could not be sued, since it would be criminal law, i.e. you would be prodecuted.

      Note: Get information first, then think, then shoot off mount.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Police take a lot of training and talent to *not* act like thugs.

      Really? Adding 'Sir' to the end of threats of violence doesn't make them less unpleasant.

      They always remind me of the dim school bullies who use threats of violence because they really don't have anything else.

    6. Re:Shocking by knutkracker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's interesting is that many 'governments' are made up of people - like you and me

      Er... no.

      'You and me' are not currently in political office or trying to be. This is for a reason, i.e. we don't care enough about getting power to make a serious attempt. Those who do, are by definition different to the rest of us.

      This gets interesting when you realise that there is a stable prevalence of about 1% for clinical psychopaths in any population and that being able to not give a shit about [torture/mass unemployment/civillian casualties/back stabbing your colleagues/puppies dying] (delete as applicable) is pretty much a job requirement for many political figures. Put simply, you will likely find a larger proportion of psychopathic individuals as you move higher up any command heirarchy. This why surveillance society is a bad idea - the people in charge are less likely to have a moral conscience than the rest of us.

      See this film if you need further information/spine chills.

    7. Re:Shocking by dryeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Power attracts the corruptible.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:Shocking by Dripdry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but I have to speak up here.

      I have 3 friends who have all gotten starting jobs as police offices in different districts in the last 4 years.
      2 of them quit after a few months when it became obvious that the acts they were asked to commit were not even close to being in line with serving the public interest and safety. The third person is seriously questioning his career choice.

      I say that without proper oversight and regardless of training, people with too much power often do despicable, selfish things because they can a) Get away with it and b) the justification for these acts comes from having that power in the first place.

      just my 2 cents

      --
      -
  3. You know the old saying... by Caboosian · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they took all the porn off the internet, there would be only one website left: www.bringbacktheporn.com

    1. Re:You know the old saying... by strack · · Score: 5, Informative

      that joke was funnier when dr cox said it on scrubs.

    2. Re:You know the old saying... by wisty · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope, it's already registered. And it's a porn site, so it would go too. I guess every domain name morphs into a porn site with an asymptotic probability of 1.0: non-porn sites can morph into porn sites (with a finite probability), but porn sites tend to stay porn forever. QED.

    3. Re:You know the old saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Really? I find the joke suddenly losing its humour now that I know it was on Scrubs.

  4. FOR PORN! by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've got a fast connection, so I don't have to wait...

    1. Re:FOR PORN! by NoobixCube · · Score: 4, Funny

      Normal people don't sit at home and watch porn on the internet!

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    2. Re:FOR PORN! by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ooooooooooooooooooh? YOU have NO idea. Ready, normal people?

      Ready!
      Ready!
      Ready!

      LEMME HEAR IT!

    3. Re:FOR PORN! by Gracenotes · · Score: 5, Funny

      Normal people have just issued a reminder that this isn't reddit.

  5. This is how terrorism works by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Make the idiot masses panic with a spectacular, loud, but in all honestly tiny (a few psychopaths with boats and guns) action. Foolish laws are drawn up despite everyone "knowing" where they go. If there's any sign that the society is not going there, repeat to set it back on course to its own destruction if possible.

    1. Re:This is how terrorism works by the_womble · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most terrorists outside the Middle East are doing it for purely secular (usually wanting a seperate state or something simlilar) causes. Examples:

      Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam: the masters of suicide bombing. Want a separate state with a secular consitution.
      IRA, INLA, UDF, UVF etc. Loosely affiliated with religious groups because the ethnic groups they represented followed different religions, but no religious content to their nationalist ideology.
      Basque separatists: want a separate state.
      FARC: Marxist Leninist
      Abu Nidal Organization: Secular Palestinian
      Shining Path: Maoist
      Various spin offs of the Revolutionary Organization 17 November (Greek communists)
      Various separatist groups in India: some may have a religious motive, most are nationalists.

      Defenders of many of the above may say that they are not really terrorists (e.g. because their main activity is fighting against armed forces). however all have made some use of undoubted terrorist tactics (i.e. bombs targeted against civilians without the sanction of a state party)

    2. Re:This is how terrorism works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You forgot one:

      CIA: Feudal Corporatocracy

    3. Re:This is how terrorism works by radtea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most terrorists outside the Middle East are doing it for purely secular (usually wanting a seperate state or something simlilar) causes.

      No, false, wrong.

      No terrorist anywhere cares one whit about achieving any end except to blow things up and kill people. Anyone who argues otherwise must have failed to notice something: that terrorism routinely and completely fails to achieve the stated aims of the people who commit it.

      The British are still in Ireland. The Jews still in Palestine. Every one of the groups you list have been around for DECADES and not one of them has come remotely close to getting what they claim to want.

      Everyone who belongs to or supports any of those groups has chosen a method that is known to fail pretty much 100% of the time--and some pedantic idiot is already writing a reply to me claiming that the Galambosians or someone were successful with terrorism in the early 1800's, having utterly missed my main point, which is that TERRORISM IS NOT THE METHOD OF CHOICE FOR ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY WANTS TO ACHIEVE THEIR STATED END, BECAUSE TERRORISM ALMOST ALWAYS FAILS.

      Choosing terrorism as your method for political change is like choosing winning the lottery as your method of retirement savings. I can't prove it won't work, and you can point to a tiny handful of cases where it has, but you're still an idiot if you do it, and if you're stupid enough to defend anyone doing it or suggesting what they are doing is remotely rational then you need either your mental or your moral capacity checked.

      So why do people continue to believe that terrorists are interested in ANYTHING other than simply killing people, given that terrorism is such a failure at achieving anyone's stated ends? We have examples from people like Gandhi as to what actually works, and the first question anyone should ask a terrorist is, "Have you thought of creating an ashram?"

      Wake up, people! Terrorism is committed and supported by people for whom KILLING PEOPLE IS A DEEPLY SATISFYING ACT, and nothing more.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    4. Re:This is how terrorism works by Chih · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, yes, yes... but could you explain how any of these groups have been using pictures of nude people to terrorize society?

      Goatse. It's a grand conspiracy of the highest level.

      --
      For best results, avoid doing stupid things.
    5. Re:This is how terrorism works by zenyu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wake up, people! Terrorism is committed and supported by people for whom KILLING PEOPLE IS A DEEPLY SATISFYING ACT, and nothing more.

      I think you need to visit some conflict zones and talk to people on both sides. And you need to read a little history. While there may be a larger than average representation of sociopaths in terrorist groups, they are far from the majority within any cohesive, and hence long lasting, terrorist group. Also, no terrorist group can survive long without a support base. Throughout history these have melted away as soon as fairly basic human needs are met. Do you really think George Washington could have operated very long without the 30% of the colonists supporting him in his fight against the government and the rule of law?

      I'm not saying the hatred goes away as soon as basic needs are met, just talking to some average Turks and Kurds will quickly convince you of that, but in a generation or two it does. How much do we still hate German Americans, or Irish Americans, or Italian Americans? I think you would have a hard time finding anyone under thirty who has any sort of deep seated hatred in America for those groups. Yet many people were bombing, rioting and subverting the US government because of their hatred for these new groups; and this was within my grandparent's lifetime. Most importantly the hatred does not HAVE to go away for there to be peace, the overwhelming majority of people just want to live ordinary boring lives, once they have seen the horrors of war they will fight to keep the peace if the peace allows them to live ordinary boring lives.

      BTW I also disagree with the previous poster that most terrorist wars are purely secular. The underlying reasons for the conflicts come down to the same basic human needs, but almost every war is supported by the local deities. The only exceptions I can think of are the American Anarchists and the Russian Communists. I'm sure there are more, but if only because most people believe in some imaginary being, most wars are supported by one or more of them.

    6. Re:This is how terrorism works by jackbird · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I would argue that terrorism in Israel/Palestine, through the overreactions it intentionally provokes from the other side, has been extremely effective at effecting an almost 180 degree shift in public perceptions of Israel in Europe and the USA. "The Jews still being there" is not a rational yardstick for Palestinian success or failure unless you think genocide is an acceptable political goal - there are millions of Jews in Israel, and most of them, most of their parents, and a lot of their grandparents were born there. And don't tell me that Hamas, and the PLO before them, ruling Gaza and part of the West Bank; and Hezbollah the de facto government of large parts of Lebanon, isn't a measure of success by most yardsticks.

      The sad reality is that terrorist/guerrilla tactics are the only way to fight an opponent with a technologically modern army if you don't have one yourself - bleed the enemy and your own civilians until civilians in the enemy country and the rest of the world make it politically impossible for the enemy to continue on their course.

    7. Re:This is how terrorism works by speedtux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I would argue that terrorism in Israel/Palestine,"

      You're treating the situation as if it were symmetric, but it is not. Israel doesn't commit terrorism against the Palestinians. That may sound better, but it's actually worse: the Israeli army implements the will of Israeli citizens, so every citizen is responsible for their acts. In contrast, Palestinians are not responsible for the acts of Palestinian terrorists, since they have no control over them.

      "there are millions of Jews in Israel, and most of them, most of their parents, and a lot of their grandparents were born there"

      Who lived where and when is irrelevant at this point. Jews and Arabs live in the same region now, and Israelis have power over Palestinians. Israel has used this power to implement a system of apartheid and create a democracy with citizenship based on religion and ethnicity. It is historically understandable why that happened, and I wouldn't presume to suggest a solution, but that doesn't change the fact that what Israel is doing is wrong.

    8. Re:This is how terrorism works by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Look at a map of Israel as created by treaty, in comparison to the areas occupied by Palestinians. Then look at a similar map of the current areas.

      Who are terrorists? Who are not? The issue really is debatable.

      Palestine needs its own established state borders, if only to prevent further encroachment by Israel. (Note: this would also benefit Israel, by eliminating disputes over territory.)

    9. Re:This is how terrorism works by Omestes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hm...

      You are correct, suicide bombers obviously don't have any desire but to cause destruction.

      Actually no. Why would that be the motivation if they could not see it? They must be killing themselves for something they perceive to be bigger than themselves. I doubt that this is just the whim to.. er.. not see destruction.

      Why do you attribute different internal motivation to others and not yourself? When we invade countries because we don't like how they look at us (assuming your an American), do we do it just because we like destruction? Or do we have some (generally half-baked) rational for doing it? Was our "shock and awe" campaign at the beginning of the Iraq War v.2 just for wanton destruction? The name belays the fact that it was a violent act used to psychologically overwhelm and demoralize the enemy, and thus an act akin to terrorism (definition wise).

      I would posit that terrorism is probably a flawed approach, but I think its easy to grasp for the desperate. How are you supposed to tell the worlds antagonistic bullies to go away when your a poor country, without a standing military, and lacking the 30 years of advances we have (and impart to our equally antagonistic allies)? What do you do when you actually think that someone much bigger and more powerful than you is actively trying to destroy you, your way of life, and your home? What do you do when there is no chance whatsoever of an equal playing field?

      I'm not saying these people are correct in this (though I'm beginning to suspect it), but put yourself in their shoes. Or at least analyze the violence that you deem as acceptable because it is your own.

      Were the Americans "terrorists" in the Revolutionary war?

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  6. Re:Welcome to the club by __aatgod8309 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering it's India, I'd be more inclined to thank the lasting Victorian influence of the British Empire.

  7. FOR PORN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's always some new site...

    FOR PORN.

    I browse all day and night.

    FOR PORN.

    It's like I'm surfing at the speed of liiiiight...

  8. Morality police by ardor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can already see Indian sub-inspectors extorting people with records of porn they watched. Seriously, a morality police is among the worst things imaginable, it is like the crown of this totalitarian bill.

    --
    This sig does not contain any SCO code.
    1. Re:Morality police by mellon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, the evidence would suggest that the reason for the Mumbai attacks was not to establish a pretext for creating a panopticon state. Rather, it was a strategic move on the part of the Taliban in Pakistan to get Pakistani troops moved to the border with India and away from the Afghanistan border, so that the Taliban could act with impunity there. And that is precisely what has happened.

      Next phase? Get rid of all the non-madrassa schools. Those are the ones that allow girls to attend. Then the entire region becomes a recruiting zone for more suicidal terrorists.

      Meanwhile, back in India, this sounds like a typical piece of crap from the legislature, which often overreacts when bad things happen and writes legislation like this. Then there's a big public cry of outrage, and the legislation is withdrawn.

      Anyway, India is the last place for a panopticon. Do you have any idea how many people there are there? It's simply not feasible.

    2. Re:Morality police by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Especially since there is no relation between sex and morality. It's just so common to use that lie that the churches use to make their believers sinners forever, that everybody thinks there is.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:Morality police by rohan972 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Especially since there is no relation between sex and morality.

      All actions can have moral implications including sex. Sex can be done immorally, people just differ on where the moral line is drawn. Molestation, rape, consensual sex where one party knowingly infects the other with STD's.

      It's just so common to use that lie that the churches use to make their believers sinners forever, that everybody thinks there is.

      I've never heard of any church preaches sex is inherently sinful, just that it should be within marriage and excluding gays. While you obviously disagree with that position it would be appropriate for someone condemning the lies of others to be a bit more diligent with the truth themselves.

  9. [removed] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This post has been deleted by the `Surveillance Task Force Under-ops'. (STFU.)

  10. Meh... by nitsnipe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If there's one thing that you really can't control today is the flow of information.
    Constructing an Orwellian society is impossible because geeks are always going to be many steps ahead.
    Sadly though, the mentallity of many governments is still stuck in the past and most politicians have no clue what PGP is.

    1. Re:Meh... by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know. Depending on how strict the regime gets, I can easily see things being so risky that people simply don't want to mess with the geek-created tools, even if they exist.

      If I'm risking an RIAA lawsuit for breaking some DRM, then who the eff cares. I'll take my chances. If the government is going to break down my door, drag me out and execute me if they catch me looking at porn, then I think I'd be inclined to just not download the stuff anymore, tempting as it might be.

      You can't always rely on technical subversions to get you through this type of stuff. Fight it when it starts, when we still have a chance to beat it (and while fighting any government legislation is still legal).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  11. Thou shall not make up random interpretations by desinc · · Score: 5, Informative

    FTFA:
    "Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device, â" (a) any content that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or (b) any content which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will... shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine."

    >> This provision seems to be a way to enforce acts online which would otherwise be quite serious in person. You can't threaten to kill someone IRL, so don't do it on the internet either...

    "Whoever publishes/ transmits/ causes to be published/ transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either prescription for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.

    If the material is sexually explicit act or conduct then the punishment on first conviction is imprisonment which may extend to five years and a fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees. In the event of second or subsequent conviction imprisonment may extend to seven years and fine to ten lakh rupees."

    >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this one looks like it prevents people from UPLOADING porn, not from looking at it. I am not aware of the current state of censorship laws in India (I'm sure some slashdotter out there does know), but I would assume that this is in place because publishing physical copies of porn is already illegal in India. I am totally just guessing here.

    ZeroPaid has always gotten a boner about sensationalist material though. I'd be quite surprised if this wasn't completely misinterpreted...

    1. Re:Thou shall not make up random interpretations by Calydor · · Score: 2, Informative

      "causes to be transmitted" is a nice blanket term a lawyer can use to argue that by sending the GET request to the server, you've broken the law.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  12. It's time by nightfire-unique · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When are we, as humans, going to learn that we don't have to cater to the whiny religious/moral nutcases out there?

    Politicians: GROW A SPINE. When a whiny anti-sex/anti-drugs/anti-rock-and-roll nutcase writes you, complaining that their sensibilities are affected by the private actions of others, tell them to get bent.

    Please, please, please. For the good of society and the world. Tell those miserable people that they can stick their pathetic little psychosis where the sun doesn't shine.

    We rely on you. You are our leaders. Please act like it!

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    1. Re:It's time by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You do realize you are not the only person in the world, right? Maybe you are pro-sex, pro-drugs, pro-rock-and-roll, but well, let me explain to you how democracy works. Politicians follow the votes (this can be disregarded in cases where people don't care, in which case the politicians are free to do whatever they want.....that's where lobbyists get a lot of their power). If enough people want something, then the politician HAS to vote in favor of it, otherwise he will be voted out of office, and someone else will replace him. Sometimes laws are even put up to vote directly by the people.......this is what happened recently in California on proposition 8, where the majority of voters decided that gay marriage is not something they wanted (for the record, in case you care, I voted against prop 8, although I really don't care much either way). So gay marriage is illegal. Sucks if you're gay and want to get married, but well, you have an option, you can convince enough other people that gay marriage is a good idea and put it up for vote again.

      We rely on you. You are our leaders. Please act like it!

      Where did you get the idea that you can rely on politicians as leaders? You do realize that the whole point of democracy is that we CAN'T rely on our leaders? If politicians always had their subjects' best interests in mind, then a monarchy would be a significantly more efficient way to get things done. But they don't, and thus we have a democracy so we can kick them out if we don't like what they are doing.

      The end result is that in our society, the most powerful way to get something done is to convince enough of your fellow citizens to vote a certain way. Once again, this is what happened in California when lots of people in favor of proposition 8 cared enough about it to go call their neighbors and reason with them why it was a good idea. The opponents of prop 8 didn't have the same ambition, which is why at the end of the day they lost. They didn't convince enough people that they were right. That is how power works in a democracy.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:It's time by FilterMapReduce · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If enough people want something, then the politician HAS to vote in favor of it, otherwise he will be voted out of office, and someone else will replace him.

      I think the GP's point was that politicians tend to act based not on whether "enough" people want it, but on what a particular small group of people wants. The silent majority may be more permissive about the sex-and-drugs-on-the-Internet issue than you think. I don't know either; it's hard to find a real dialogue on these "objectionable speech" issues in this society.

      this is what happened recently in California on proposition 8, where the majority of voters decided that gay marriage is not something they wanted (for the record, in case you care, I voted against prop 8, although I really don't care much either way). So gay marriage is illegal. Sucks if you're gay and want to get married, but well, you have an option, you can convince enough other people that gay marriage is a good idea and put it up for vote again.

      Your example may be undermined by the underlying issues around voters being able to override constitutional principles by passing amendments with only a simple majority. (That is: The supreme court is supposed to be able to make decisions like "equal protection implies that gay marriage is legal" and have it stick even if it's unpopular. A majority vote by the people is not the last word in a constitutional republic; it's subject to checks and balances like everything else. That a 52% majority had the power to circumvent that by amending the constitution is troubling.)

      Once again, this is what happened in California when lots of people in favor of proposition 8 cared enough about it to go call their neighbors and reason with them why it was a good idea. The opponents of prop 8 didn't have the same ambition, which is why at the end of the day they lost.

      That's not true. The campaign for Prop 8 didn't owe its success to grassroots support; most of that work was paid for by out-of-state religious interest groups with deep pockets (who cared very strongly, for reasons I can't fathom, whether people neither from their church nor from their state could get married). The campaign against Prop 8 was quite ambitious, with many impassioned supporters whose lives were changed by its passing, which unfortunately wasn't enough.

  13. India: called a democracy, quacks like feudalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    India, despite honouring itself as the largest democracy in the world, is - on the ground, at least - an exemplar of the class system.

    Your higher classes are the rich families who go to boarding schools then usually foreign universities. The "better" ones may train as doctors, lawyers, etc., but many dabble in politics, where they take advantage of the pretty much universal corruption (especially in poorer areas) and ease with which one can lie to a mostly uneducated set of voters. I have a few family friends in this class.. some have minor royal titles (good enough to get HM The Queen to visit their wedidngs etc.). For them, money by Indian standards is no object, and while they may be socially restricted by tradition - childhood arranged marriage, for example - there's nothing that can't be wrangled out of with $ appropriately channeled to make it look like everyone's still behaving. The unwanted wife becomes a minor tax to pay and ignore.

    What's more interesting, however, is the gap between the small middle class and the often illiterate, uneducated, unhealthy, dirt-poor, often racially inferior (by Indian standards) remainder. If you were you, in India, as a regular middle class Joe, you would have servants. I can't emphasise the extent to which a man's attitude to his fellow man changes when he keeps a gaggle of servants:

    (1) It is not customary to treat your servants as equals in your employ, but as entities who must look up to you and talk to you with deference. From the moment you become aware of your household as a child you are taught to see these humans who are in some way less human than you. Once you can do that with one subgroup of humans, you can do it for any.

    (2) These aren't well paid, well-educated guys with a calling to household service. These are people who need a job and whose fallback on hard times is a dusty street. It is easy to bully a man who cannot talk back.

    In the USA and Western Europe, the significant quibble is - contrary to the perception of the average (Slashdotting) progressive political activist, whose opinions align with only a minority - between working and middle classes. As the blue collar moves up to white, or unionises, he increases costs and competition for the existing white. But in India, there is such a deep, desperate blue collar pool that the whites are under no threat.

    In India, the primary concern is - as in any feudal state - that of the higher classes for the power of the middle. Laws must be written for arbitrary application to any undesirables in this class, while preserving that squeaky clean image for the ignorant voting proletariat that keeps them on your side.

    This is merely one such law.

  14. This is *not* related to terrorism by iammani · · Score: 4, Informative

    I live in India and I can assure you that, there are no think of the children or think of the terrorists laws in India (Except POTA for terrorism, which was repealed two years ago, and a bill which is under discussion right now).

    From a glance at the bill, I believe they wanted to cover all immoral acts and also leave the interpretation wide open. This is partly because of incompetence and stupidity of the person who wrote the law and partly because the law will be passed without a discussion in the Lok Sabha (one of the two parliamentary chambers), where I am sure not a single person would even have a vague idea of what the bill is, and subsequently though the Rajya Sabha(thought it does have few bright and technically sound people)

    As Heinlein's Razor" said, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

    That said, in India, it is always how the laws are enforced that matters; there are a number of laws, which even lawyers, judges, police do not follow.

    And I do hope these change soon.

  15. First they came... by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 3, Informative

    When first they came for the criminals I did not speak

          Then they began to take the Jews

          When they fetched the people who were members of trade unions

          I did not speak

          When they took the Bible students, rounded up the homosexuals

          Then they gathered up the immigrants and the gypsies

          I did not speak, I did not speak

          Eventually they came for me and there was no one left to speak

    Hmm, seems vaguely familiar.

    1. Re:First they came... by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry wrong version


      In Germany they first came for the Communists,
      and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

      Then they came for the Jews,
      and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

      Then they came for the trade unionists,
      and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

      Then they came for the Catholics,
      and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

      Then they came for me â"
      and by that time no one was left to speak up.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
      by: Pastor Martin NiemÃller

  16. Reality is different. Re:Morality police by freedom_india · · Score: 5, Informative

    Reality is much different here:
    Like the stupid ideas of the British Parliamentarians who propose outlandish laws, these are also the same kind of crap.
    The constitution contains a STRONG reference to freedom of speech and expression: Porn being one of them. So the upper house will either return it back or hold it.
    Secondly, the police have lots of other things to do than look at each image and text as porn or not. The ratio is close to 1:1,6333 cops:people. Hence rest assured, this is one law that will not cross the door.
    Thirdly, The Supreme Court is a HUGE people-friendly institution here that does not shy away from arresting and imprisoning even the biggest politician here. Hell, they get a kick out of doing it just for fun. This law will be challenged by an NGO and surely be banned outright, or struck down.
    Lastly, the ruling party is a middle-path: Neither the right-wing BJP nor the extreme left-wing communists. Their priorities right now are the economy and Pakistan, so this law will be forgotten instantly even if passed.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  17. I'm procrastinating quite a lot so ... by nitsnipe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apu's quick guide to cyber-anonymity:

    Buy laptop with cash.
    Buy a tiny 4gb+ usb thumbdrive with it.
    Wipe hard-drive using any linux live-cd.
    Make 2 or more partitions on the hard drive.
    On the last partition setup Windows XP so that authorities have something to work with if they check your computer.
    Setup your preferred linux distro on the first partition.
    If option is offered encrypt your home directory.
    If not use truecrypt and encrypt your entire linux partition. Leave Windows XP naked.

    Setup GRUB so that:
    -WinXP boots by default
    -Grub doesn't show up at all unless desired combination is pressed upon bootup.

    Label the linux partition as Recovery or Backup, be creative.
    Do all your deemed illegal things on linux, and your "civilized" things on windows.
    Use TrueCrypt hidden volumes for storing sensitive information, in case you are extorted.
    Use HotspotShield VPN or Ultrasurf proxy for browsing the web.
    If you can get a hold of a linux box in europe set-up openvpn with it.

    Have a bootable livelinux on your thumbdrive just in case, along with portable truecrypt and stored hidden volumes if necessary.
    Don't ever backup the same thing twice.
    Use sneakernet or snailmail for sharing information with friends.
    GnuPG is your best friend.

    ????

    Profit!

  18. How'd that happen? by davmoo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Damn...Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet and George W. Bush already has a job writing new laws in India...

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
  19. It always been by Boolda · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This reminds me of an incident where a TV show was taken off air because the show parodied Gandhi. It's sad that people of India have to depend on the abysmal incompetency of law-enforcing bodies to keep their privacy and freedom of speech alive.

  20. Why? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Things you can't do with the new legislation include...looking up porn on the internet.

    What moral standard are they claiming compels them to make this restriction?
    I don't get the impression that Hinduism is very strict regarding one's sexual conduct.

    1. Re:Why? by iammani · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't get the impression that Hinduism is very strict regarding one's sexual conduct.

      Actually it is not Hinduism that restricts it. I have seen many hindu temple with erotic statues. It was the British, who considered these objectionable and made it taboo during their century old rule. This opinion unfortunately still continues.

  21. Part of summary is misleading, but still worrying! by cyberjessy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is a copy of The Bill.

    I just read through it, it makes several strong references to child pornography, couldn't find anything on "regular" porn though.

    But anyway, this worldwide erosion of rights and freedom impacts the rich and poor countries alike. Except that in a country like India, you would have fewer voices speaking out because of other issues which are more important (like Hunger for instance). Such laws become tools for any state to silence dissidents.

    You could silence critics by jailing them for looking at Porn. wow.

    --
    Life is just a conviction.
  22. Re:Morality police - surprising? by iammani · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yet another law enacted by the british. This one was written about 148 years ago.

    Its just that no politician wants to risk legalising sodomy. It offers no returns in terms of votes, and is more of a risk.

  23. Re:Morality police - surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why can't they be as enlightened as the United States, where sodomy laws have been off the books for a good five years now?

    (See Lawrence vs. Texas, 2003)

  24. Re:India: called a democracy, quacks like feudalis by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Once you can do that with one subgroup of humans, you can do it for any."

    To a westener in India it stands out like dogs-balls but if you look again you will find all humans spend a lot of time behaving like this, wealth just makes the behaviour more potent. Once you see that, all of the random ass-headed cruelty of the world will suddenly make perfect sense. Not saying it's right or wrong it's just the way our wetware bios works.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  25. Re:Welcome to the club by the_womble · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually he has a point. Modern India (the same is true of Sri Lanka) has much more strict sexual mores than they once did. The change is undoubtedly due to British and Islamic influences: although nationalists will not thank you for pointing it out.

  26. Re:Welcome to the club by Faylone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Considering this is the place that gave the world the Kama Sutra, yeah...things have certainly changed.

  27. It's extortion not surveillance by Uzik2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In India everything is run by bribes. They won't invade your house or monitor your internet usage. It's just another way to add someone to the list of people you have to pay off to avoid being hassled.

    --
    -- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
  28. it's not people "like you and me" by speedtux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People "like you and me" don't run governments, so we don't morph into anything. The reason governments and bureaucracies are so bad is because they attract power hungry people who don't know their own limitations. I mean, would you be callous or stupid enough to order the Iraq war? How can someone like Palin possibly think she is capable of running the country?

    It's the same with police. Who do you think joins the police force? What kind of person do you think wants to deal day-in and day-out with drunks, drug addicts, and violence? What kind of person do you think wants to carry a gun, knowing that they may have to use it occasionally? It's either people who are very naive, or people who enjoy violence, or people who simply don't have a choice.

    No, sorry, police and government are not made up of "people like you and me".

    1. Re:it's not people "like you and me" by edmicman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People that want to help the common good and their fellow man? Lay off the cynicism buddy...

  29. Countercurrents???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The website quoted here, countercurrents.org, is a far-left extremely anti-India hate site full of racist conspiracy theories and assorted bullshit

    Some examples:

    1.Recent Mumbai attacks were a "Hindu-Jewish false flag operation" (Pakistani media propaganda)
    http://www.countercurrents.org/misra031208.htm

    2. The holocaust never happened and 9/11 was "an Israeli onspiracy" - by American neo-Nazi Wendy Campbell

    http://www.countercurrents.org/campbell060108.htm
    http://www.countercurrents.org/campbell240108.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Campbell

    I would not take such websites seriously if I were you. It's disgusting that this vile trash even made it through to a page here. Slashdot's standards are slipping.

    If this were any other country or ethnic group other than India or Indians, this would have been caught out.

  30. Re:Treat the lepers, ignore the porn by synthespian · · Score: 2, Informative

    I believe you were correctly labeled a troll.

    The reasons India is such a poor place are manifold. But a minimal amount of reading and just a little bit more of effort into turning yourself into a well-read individual (instead of a Western prick) would have resulted in you knowing that the most probable cause is that India was a colony of the British Empire and has basically been plundered for centuries, you dickhead.

    So, please, stick your "Christian European/American" sensibility and upbringing and go read some History.

    --
    Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
  31. Re:Treat the lepers, ignore the porn by Skjellifetti · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Get off your high horse and do some reading yourself, dude. If the Brits had truly thrown the full weight of Her Empire into crushing the spine of the people, India would probably look more like the Congo than the flourishing Democracy it is today. If you were capable of following your own advice by trying to understand the world in more hues than black or white you would remember that the Brits brought India an educated civil service and an independent judiciary among other useful tools of government as well as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and other assorted nastiness. And if you had actually done all of that reading you claim, you would be aware that the effects of 100 or so years of Euro colonialism that ended 60 years ago are a tiny pinprick on Indian society and politics when compared to the effects of over 3000 years of human habitation on the subcontinent.