Slashdot Mirror
India's Top Court Rules Privacy a Fundamental Right in Blow To Government
India's top court unanimously ruled on Thursday that individual privacy is a fundamental right, a verdict that will impact everything from the way companies handle personal data to the roll-out of the world's largest biometric ID card program. From a report: A nine-member bench of India's Supreme Court announced the ruling in a big setback for the Narendra Modi-led government, which argued that privacy was not a fundamental right protected by the constitution. The ruling comes against the backdrop of a large multi-party case against the mandatory use of national identity cards, known as Aadhaar, as an infringement of privacy. There have also been concerns over breaches of data. Critics say the ID cards link enough data to create a comprehensive profile of a person's spending habits, their friends and acquaintances, the property they own and a trove of other information. "This is a blow to the government, because the government had argued that people do not have a right to privacy," said Prashant Bhushan, a senior lawyer involved in the case.
Privacy is a basic right, we don't need TSA/leftist style privacy violations to stay safe.
TSA was created by Dubya. How is that leftist?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Would you trust the Indian government with a complete profile of your every move or transaction?
Would you trust any government with a complete profile of your every move or transaction?
Here, FTFY.
It's a right given to you by the government. What's so difficult to understand about that?
Ezekiel 23:20
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
India ratified this. So what's the big deal, Modi?
Ezekiel 23:20
Google amazon nsa the war is over and privacy lost
It's a right given to you by the government. What's so difficult to understand about that?
There are two ways to look at how a government should work for any group that is being governed:
Both have problems (amusingly, it's the same problem: There winds up too much that the governed has to keep track of to ensure they don't break law), but when it comes to individual freedoms, I'm exceedingly aware of what I appreciate more.
Nice of the Indian Supreme Court to rule in such a correct manner, and good luck to the people in India in taking their privacy back. Now if the US Supreme Court would just do so we can be rid of a whole lot of problems here.
A court in a 3rd world country, full of people that worship cows, is able to make better decisions than the US. Really sad...
Is this the first time a large, democratic government has expressly considered meta-data in a ruling?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
What I rather meant was that without government, you have a right to move slower than light and increase entropy, and some other things, but pretty much anything else is a meaningless distinction for the universe. For nature itself, there's nothing significant about meatbags uttering certain sounds. Until they start to govern themselves and make a big deal out of it. And of many other things.
Ezekiel 23:20
I ain't no lawyer, but I bet that word "arbitrary" leaves a lot of wiggle room.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"Well these can also be obtained by a breach of a front-door, should we then forbid front-doors as well?"
Major non-sequitur. You're in control of your front door, not someone else. Make it as secure or insecure as you wish. Unlike a data breach, breaching a front door requires physical presence - come busting through and expect to get shot. A single breach of a government databank exposes millions of records, making it an attractive target. Breaching millions of front doors would be a lengthy, resource intensive process.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
It's a right given to you by the government. What's so difficult to understand about that?
So if rights are merely given to you by the government, you have nothing to complain about if that government takes away your freedom and makes you a slave just because you're black?
If rights are given to you by the government, slavery must be OK, because there's nothing that makes your freedom special.
So, do you really want to stick with that?
That there's no inherent evil in slavery?
Or do you want to start actually THINKING about what you believe?
And the lowest common denominator has made himself know. I'm sure you're bitter that someone can be more intelligent than you despite not having mummy and daddy pay for their education, you shouldn't beat yourself up for being born stupid but being xenophobic is not acceptable and you can do something about that.
Try a two-dimensional political compass if you want to see something that resembles reality more closely. "Right" and "Left" fail when you look at the fact that Stalin and Hitler were on the opposite ends of the economy spectrum (State-planned economy vs. Fascist corporatism) but resided on the same end on the liberal vs. authoritarian spectrum.
In other words, try something like this if you really want to place people accurately. You might discover that a one dimensional "left" vs "right" scheme isn't able to actually display political reality accurately.
Unless of course this isn't your goal.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Nope you have it backwards.
Nope. It's the way of things. Whether you Admit it or not.
It's the Progressives who only respect a right when it benefits them.
Nope. The way it works is that Conservatives make claims about Progressives, expect us to ignore what they've said and done, and then mysteriously, expect us not to notice the rank hypocrisy that they possess themselves as they do what they want to do anyway.
It is part of their false virtues. When it comes down to it, I'd respect somebody who admitted what they were doing, rather than try to cloak it in sanctimony like Conservatives do.
Privacy is enshrined in the 4th Amendment as any US Conservative will tell you.
The 4th amendment, according to Conservatives only limits the government in its searches, providing no other protection, but you know this since...
We may admit that it's not as all encompassing a protected right as some would like.
Oh good, you admit your principles, if not as earnestly as you might have.
But it is there in our "Precious" Bill of Rights and it most certainly does exist.
Not according to Conservative thought. It isn't there at all. They wouldn't have a problem with this kind of ID, though fortunately, their own abusive acts keep losing in court.
It's a right given to you by the government. What's so difficult to understand about that?
In the United States (I know we're talking primarily about India here) rights are considered to have been endowed in all people by their Creator, not the government. The government is expected to protect rights that we all have naturally. It's a subtle but important distinction.
It's a right given to you by the government. What's so difficult to understand about that?
It's a right given to you by the government. What's so difficult to understand about that?
The part about it not being true is what makes it difficult to understand. The First Amendment to the US Constitution does not give you freedom of speech; it prohibits Congress from making laws that infringe on your freedom of speech.
No, privacy can be respected or violated by the government, but the right to privacy is arguably one of those "unalienable rights" that.people have by nature and can't be given or taken away by the government. It might seem to be a pedantic argument, but it's an important distinction.
Nope you have it backwards.
Nope. It's the way of things. Whether you Admit it or not.
It's the Progressives who only respect a right when it benefits them.
Nope. The way it works is that Conservatives make claims about Progressives, expect us to ignore what they've said and done, and then mysteriously, expect us not to notice the rank hypocrisy that they possess themselves as they do what they want to do anyway.
It is part of their false virtues. When it comes down to it, I'd respect somebody who admitted what they were doing, rather than try to cloak it in sanctimony like Conservatives do.
Privacy is enshrined in the 4th Amendment as any US Conservative will tell you.
The 4th amendment, according to Conservatives only limits the government in its searches, providing no other protection, but you know this since...
We may admit that it's not as all encompassing a protected right as some would like.
Oh good, you admit your principles, if not as earnestly as you might have.
But it is there in our "Precious" Bill of Rights and it most certainly does exist.
Not according to Conservative thought. It isn't there at all. They wouldn't have a problem with this kind of ID, though fortunately, their own abusive acts keep losing in court.
I think both of you missed the point. The fact that the Constitution does not address privacy as a specific right does not mean privacy is not a right. From the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Yeah, and that "attacks upon honour and reputation" clause sounds like a trap for suppressing the criticism of leaders and any other speech that they do not like. Let's not break out the party hats just yet.
The two axis system is useful for a more precise classification of the fringe, but for current politics of most of the first world countries one axis usually is enough because that fringe is usually a tiny (albeit vocal) minority. On the two axis system that one axis would run diagonal from the not quite bottom left (where on that picture democratic socialism and anarcho-communism share their border) to the not quite top right (shared border of capitalism and fundamentalism). For USA this axis wouldn't work, though, because the whole left side is missing, but on the right side there is a much larger variety of options. Hence you can take the two dimensional political compass, remove the whole left half and you are good.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Third World originally meant countries not allied with either the Soviet Union or the USA.
Later, it took on the meaning of a dirt poor country, typically in the tropics.
By *either* definition, India is the definition of THIRD WORLD.
I'm actually pretty surprised, and happily so! Now, if only some Western countries' courts would smarten up!
For the US, a zero dimensional display would suffice because bluntly, there isn't that much of a difference between the two wings of The Party. Only that they cater to different flavors of insanity.
But even for Europe that one dimensional diagonal doesn't work. If you take the socialist and social-democratic parties of various countries alone, you'll find them spread out in the upper left corner. Likewise, taking some of the more economic-liberal parties that border on anarcho-capitalism in some countries, you'll find them in the lower right corner.
Simply drawing a diagonal isn't going to cut it. You will of course find parties on that axis, but it isn't even the "mass appeal" parties anymore that you'll find close to that line. While you do find more and more parties that belong in that upper right quadrant, and oddly people actually vote for them (one would think that everyone has suddenly become the CEO of some multinational concern), the other three are pretty much evenly distributed among the rest.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Bill Clinton is a Democrat
Which leaves all kinds of other authorities the freedom to infringe on your freedom of self expression, including the individual States as well as various private organizations. Even the 1st only allows some types of self expression rather then all types that do not harm others.
The only natural right is for the strong to enforce their will on the weak, often through violence. With people, the strong can be a group working together and they can decide to not enforce their will on individuals but the option is always there and will remove peoples freedoms on various excuses such as national security, think of the children and various others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You clearly don't understand how that works in the US. The government recognizes your rights, it does not give them to you. You have those rights by virtue of existing.
It's always the right that wants to observe what people do in the privacy of their bedroom in case they do something bad like have illegal sex with their spouse. It's always the right that wants to control what substances people use in the privacy of their homes etc.
The idea that the right cares about many individual rights is a joke, at least based on actions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
On a related - or unrelated - note, the same ruling also granted people the right to sexual privacy i.e. to be LGBTQ. Now, if only they overturn the rights of men to rape their wives
It's kind of like "reasonable" in the 4th, open to interpretation. Shit, even things like the 1st are open to interpretation, you have free speech as long as we can't argue national security or as long as it doesn't hurt a child are a couple of exceptions to the rule that Congress can make no law infringing on speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
They're not government, but they have more insidious powers. For instance, they're not required to grant access to anybody who wants it, since they're private companies. But in reality, they are the place most people are, so denying people access is a de-facto denial of facilities based on things like their political viewpoint.
Most Indians use WhatsApp - those not held back on ancient Nokia or Ericsson phones, so FaceBook has its opening, one way or the other
And which progressives say that?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Thank you. It's useful to remind so-called "originalists" that their readings of the Constitution tend to not be very "originalist" at all, and they pick and choose which portions they deem will be pre-eminent, and which parts they feel they can safely ignore. They don't like the idea of expansive rights (even though the 9th Amendment makes it clear the Framers understood the concept well), because that means people "originalists" don't like suddenly get liberties; and since they don't like the idea of a woman being able to make medical decisions without consulting the relig... er I mean Conservative authorities before going through with her decision, suddenly privacy can't be a right.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I assume your major was gender studies?
A country of more than 1 BILLION people just had their highest court rule that people's privacy is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT; SCOTUS, I AM LOOKING AT YOU RIGHT NOW.
Some people always mix up left and right, that is why they shouldn't drive.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
you have a right to move slower than light and increase entropy, and some other things
Exactly. Those are the only inviolable rights we have. Our man made stuff, like the bill of rights, is more properly termed "essential freedoms", which require constant active maintenance in a sometimes brutal fashion.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And spare us the '3 billion clicks this month!' bullshit - you and I both know that your conversion rate to actual purchases is nearly zero.)
If my conversation was zero, why would I bother?
Ever heard of NSLs? They come with gag orders, too, so if a private company is so served, they cannot talk about it.
If rights are given to you by the government, slavery must be OK...
Ah, but slavery is okay! At least in the US
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist..."
That door is wide open.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
No. It is an intrinsic human right.
Would you trust any government with a complete profile of your every move or transaction?
Here, FTFY.
Yes I would. There are plenty of governments out there which are ruled by the people rather than the other way around. There are plenty that don't have incredible sizeable armies. There are plenty that haven't degenerated into a 2 party fuck the voters systems. There are plenty that still aim to please the people.
Yet another nation puts the US to shame on these issues.
Because you enjoy being an obnoxious pest - you're 'paid' in notoriety here.
There are easier ways to piss off the trolls. But I like getting paid in cash better for something I'm already doing.
If rights need explicitly human protection, they aren't natural. Sorry, but human rights need a human with a gun. A natural right would require no such thing, like gravity for example, when pushed off a cliff, you have the right to fall.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sadly, I agree. And the trendline in the US is going the wrong way, to boot.
In the United States (I know we're talking primarily about India here) rights are considered to have been endowed in all people by their Creator, not the government.
But that's quite problematic given the nonexistence of such a creature. Is the default case that you have *no* rights if this is shown to be the case, then? Betting something so essential as setting acceptable limits of basic human behavior in such a way so as to maximize the overall life quality of the society on the off chance that some bronze age nomads had such advanced insight into cosmogony that we have to reach it yet seems extremely careless.
Ezekiel 23:20
If it can't be given by government, who can it be given by? If the government doesn't give it to you and then take steps to ensure that in reality, people enjoy it as intended and nobody prevents them from enjoying it, what do you have? Is the meaning of "a right" actually "whatever you can punch out of anyone who dares to oppose you, if you can"? That would be a sad meaning of "a right".
Ezekiel 23:20
"By virtue of existing", I'm a homeostatic assortment of molecules. Anything above that is a social contract.
Ezekiel 23:20
Perhaps, but the US has also ratified international treaties that positively affirm freedom of speech/expression as a basic human right. Ratifying those treaties involves upholding those principles in US jurisdictions henceforth.
Ezekiel 23:20
Holding slaves was a constitutionally protected right up until the Thirteenth Amendment. So here right away we run up against a problem that plagued the Union for the first seven decades of its existence. Was slavery a natural right, or was it a government-created right, and was its abolition the depriving of some group of an inalieable right, or was it simply the retraction of a previously created "government" right?
Obviously, if you had asked an Abolitionist, they would have viewed the right to hold slaves as being a violation of the natural rights that every man gained from his Creator. If you had asked a slave holder, or any defender of slavery, they would have answered that the Negro was inferior and was not the recipient of those same rights that a white man enjoyed; in other words the institution of slavery and the position of the slave was by nature inferior.
So really, the notion of "natural rights" vs "created rights" is a distinction without a difference; a philosophical position (and a very important one at that), but at the end of the day any liberty is ultimately up to the state and/or polity. If a society refuses to recognize the wrongness of slavery (which a significant number of Americans did up until 1865 (and certainly the sentiment long outlasted the legal end of slavery), then whether the slave's natural rights exist at all, or are being violated, is a moot point.
What makes a democracy work is a general agreement among all its citizens that the democratic, legal and social freedoms are expansive. You can, as most people who believe in God are want to do, ascribe those liberties to a Creator, or if you're an atheist like myself, ascribe them to the inherent rights of sentient beings, but in either case, the belief in those liberties is contingent upon the government and the polity coming together to agree that those are indeed rights at all. If a government or a society at some point decides some of those freedoms are no longer to be recognized, or to be outright rejected, and they have the force and will to retract those rights, then it's irrelevant what some mythical Creator wants or does not, and considering that for most, if not all the history of civilization, the bulk of humans have lived under one form of despotism or another, I'd suggest that the nature of liberty is far less certain than the heirs of Locke would like to think.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It is easy to blame a new system that can easily deliver a lot more than most of the systems in existence. Is it fool proof? No. Nothing is fool proof. Can it be made better? Sure. For any project, you need to execute operations pretty well to take care of day to day problems/inaccuracies. Most of the complaints have politically motivations, bias of India being third world country and can't do anything good in addition to ignorance of reality as motive. We may want it or not, every society is trying to gather more and more data about individuals in any way possible. US FCC is on path to get rid of net neutrality. Knowing who you are in every transaction opens up new usecases in every aspect of social interaction. Privacy, though desired, doesn't exist in any society. There is a false sense of privacy in some parts of the world. No wonder lot of people even wonder why privacy should be basic right. Even Swiss bank's have given up on that goal.
You're probably confused because you can only see "left" and "right" with no subtleties. Strong central governments have been used in both traditionally leftist governments as well as traditionally rightist governments. A libertarian leaning is neither left nor right, and an authoritarian leaning is also neither left nor right.
Example: the Pinochet government of Chile. Very right wing, as trade unions were banned and many state institutions were privatized, while also have a pervasive surveillance with secret police.
The issue I think is that when people self identify as left or right that they do not want to believe that people with similar views can be bad. So, any dictator must be from the opposite side of the political spectrum, any political stance they disagree with must also be from the opposite side, and so on. That's why there's a current ongoing revisionist history to start labeling fascist governments as being socialist despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Of there are only two political sides, then we're much better off even then in throwing out the idea of one being good and the other must then be evil. Instead try to see it as two different views on how to improve life's situations and that cooperation is much more effective than demonization in getting good things accomplished.
Every country is also unique in its political history, and those histories greatly affect modern views. For example, in the US politics has evolved through the original divides of the north and the south. Primarily the key issue was slavery but also as the north become more industrialized there were fundamental differences between industrial vs agrarian values. The slave issue creted idea of states' rights and that concept is still a politial hot button even today. Another key factor in the US were struggles over international trade issues, whereas in Europe such ideas were less vital because borders were very fluid and trade with other regions as vital to survival. US had gold versus silver fights, arising because of regional issues, and today the arguments about having a gold standard are driven more by constitutional issues rather than economic ones, thus being a uniquely American struggle.
Well, first of all I doubt there are that many "progressives" arguing against free speech. Probably there are about the same number as there are "conservatives" who want to ban flag burning.
But as you can see the problem of "natural rights" is not necessarily cut and dried, and really in many respects it's somewhat irrelevant to their application. Prior to 1865, a slave could have all the natural rights imbued by his creator that he wanted, but it did him absolutely no bloody good, as governments in both Free and Slave states seem ill-prepared or outright hostile to the idea that those rights existed or if they did that anything should be done to protect them.
In the end, it's all down to whether the Powers That Be and the polity accept the existence or application of those liberties. In the US, questions of liberties come down to the Constitution, and fortunately, all the players have thus far decided to allow that document and the jurisprudence surrounding it limit their actions. So again, you're down to a consensus in US society that, like it or hate it, the government is self-limiting in this regard. If the government were to turn to tyranny, or was overthrown and replaced by a tyranny, I'm afraid the notion of "inalieable rights" and a dollar could buy you can of pop.
This is why I reject the notion of Natural Law entirely. It's at best a rather wayward philosophical position, at worst it's just simply a theological position masquerading as a philosophical position. But then again, my belief that sentience imbues an individual with some essential freedoms isn't any better, I'm just glad I live in a society where the vast majority of fellow citizens also happen to agree. If I had been a professional Cambodia in the 1970s or a Jew in Poland during WWII, well, my belief wouldn't have done me the least bit of good.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Your "conversation", huh?
Wrong marketing term. I meant conversion rate for turning clicks into sales. Conversation rate is the number of comments per post.
And you do it for the same reasons you do anything on here, to puff up that hollow ego of yours.
You think I come to Slashdot to compensate for something. Meh...
You write like that, and complain about English fluency. Wow...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I think we have to draw a pretty firm line here. While I intensely dislike "no platforming" (although even there it gets fuzzy, as I don't have a problem with a Neo-Nazi being banned from speaking on a campus), I'm not aware of many, if any of these protesters demanding that the State silence their opponents, and so far as I'm aware that is not the position of any mainstream left-leaning to alter the First Amendment.
So when we speak of "limiting free speech", are we talking about various groups wanting to apply social pressure to individuals or groups they view as spreading undesirable speech (by their definition), or are we talking about groups advocating for a constitutional amendment to actual limit or alter the First Amendment's protections? If the latter, then I'd be damned concern, if the former, well, that's their prerogative, and that to is an exercising of free speech.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You compensate for your low salary [...]
The same "low salary" that pays all my bills in Silicon Valley?
[...] coming here to trick people out of a few dollars.
The only trick that is going on is that you didn't think of it first.
Your entire personality is one giant compensation.
Yesterday I was a parody, today I'm compensation.
...and doesn't allow you to eat out
I generally don't eat out and I've taken my lunch to work for decades. Every once in a blue moon I'll get orange chicken and white rice at Panda Express.
buy new clothes
I bought four pairs of pants since I lost 10+ pounds this year.
buy a car
If i needed a car, I pay cash for a used car, drive it into the ground and sell it to Pick-N-Pull for $250.
buy a house
My credit union is offering a $1M mortgage with a 5% down payment. Tempting...
travel
I went to Las Vegas in 2013. I'll be going back next year.
... ???
What was the question again?
Does it occur to decent people to trick other people out of a few dollars?
The art of separating money from people's wallet is called marketing. Not my fault if you let yourself be tricked.
Ha! You say that from a country where the state imprisons people for expressing certain opinions. Most governments in the world run from the left to the right and stay almost completely confined to the top half.
You just happen to like your local flavor of authoritarianism, just like the people in the top right like their flavor of authoritarianism.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
10 pounds on a 360 pound frame is less than a 3% change and given all the fat padding you have, why do you need new pants?
Ten pounds came off the stomach. Old pants fit loose, new pants fit right.
Where would you get 50000$ from, and what could you buy for 1M$ in S.V.?
Savings. Condo.
You can't afford a house, creimer.
Not without drawing a salary from my side business in addition to my regular job.
And wears his pants around his stomach, and not his waist.
That's how "old men" wear their pants with a small stomach and skinny ass. Also more comfortable.
says someone whose country murders its citizens and has more people imprisoned than any other country in the world. i most certainly prefer mine.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
don't worry, soon Trump-genics will fix all inbreeding, in pc-times thats black & white alike unlike the old new york and california version (which was like copyrightally infringed (in my baed ingelsh) by the nazis LATER) i say YAY for india, allen daarheen
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?