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.
Would you trust any government with a complete profile of your every move or transaction?
Here, FTFY.
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
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.
"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
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.
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.
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."
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
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
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.
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!”