21–30 of 215 posts
Not sure what will happen, I want both this and Aadhar.
Could you elaborate on your definition of 'Aadhaar', or stated in other words what is it that you want 'Aadhaar' to provide ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you elaborate on your definition of 'Aadhaar', or stated in other words what is it that you want 'Aadhaar' to provide ?
The plea is also about invalidating Aadhar, if that is also done it would be a huge setback to all developmental activities. A safeguarded, private Aadhar is the way to go in my opinion.
Here's what the Attorney General - the government counsel - argued > He said that in developing countries, something as amorphous as privacy could not be a fundamental right, that other fundamental rights such as food, clothing, shelter etc. override the right to privacy. It's a question which has alway bothered me. What happens when two fundamental rights clash with each other?
I think it comes down to whether citizens are coerced to part with their personal information or not. If I need access to state programs of food, clothing, shelter, I should be willing to abide by regulations that make it easier to deliver these benefits. Aadhaar as of now is a direct coercion to part with biometrics and has inadequate features to protect against identity theft. Not having aadhaar means not getting d…
As an aside, this is a decent example of why some people oppose bills of rights. As I understand it, the argument is that a bill of rights is considered exhaustive; if it's not in the bill, it's not protected. By contrast, countries without a bill of rights are free to interpret their constitutions through implied rights, in ways that make sense in the context and allow the constitution to adapt to new or developing…
At least in the U.S., that is not the real issue. Nobody disputes that the Bill of Rights is not exhaustive. But just because the Bill of Rights is not exhaustive does not mean that the Supreme Court may make up new rights over time. Legal conservatives in the U.S. adhere to the idea that for a right to exist, society must have recognized it as a right at the time the Constitution was written. In other words, you do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The plea is also about invalidating Aadhar, if that is also done it would be a huge setback to all developmental activities. A safeguarded, private Aadhar is the way to go in my opinion.
Any development activity that can be done with Aadhar, can be done without it too.
Will this help push more privacy centric companies toward operating out of India?
As an aside, this is a decent example of why some people oppose bills of rights. As I understand it, the argument is that a bill of rights is considered exhaustive; if it's not in the bill, it's not protected. By contrast, countries without a bill of rights are free to interpret their constitutions through implied rights, in ways that make sense in the context and allow the constitution to adapt to new or developing…
At least in the U.S., that is not the real issue. Nobody disputes that the Bill of Rights is not exhaustive. But just because the Bill of Rights is not exhaustive does not mean that the Supreme Court may make up new rights over time. Legal conservatives in the U.S. adhere to the idea that for a right to exist, society must have recognized it as a right at the time the Constitution was written. In other words, you do…
Unfortunately, that is not true. Robert Bork famously disputed it, even going so far as to deny the validity of the ninth amendment. Many conservatives support Bork's position today, e.g.:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/336142/judge-borks-ink...
They do this because it's a logical pre-requisite for overturning Roe v. Wade.
But they also prohibit use of strong encryption, so that internet traffic could be snooped upon...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any development activity that can be done with Aadhar, can be done without it too.
That has been tried for decades with rampant corruption and needy missing the aid.
Corruption is hardly a technology issue, especially in an environment where corruption is so passe and enjoys patronage from the entirety of the polictical spectrum. Example, to disrupt the blackmarket of kerosene they started dyeing it, and that mattered zilch, because people were selling and buying dyed kereosene in the blackmarket without batting an eyelid. Everyone looked the otherway... wink wink.
Asserting it as a "fundamental right" raises the bar on what restrictions can be put. But reasonable restrictions can still be put.
A separate bench of the SC is now going to test the validity of the Aadhaar Act on the basis of whether the restrictions are reasonable in the light of privacy being a fundamental right.
Edit: The Aadhaar Act is an act that allows for the government to collect biometric and other personal data that can be used to identify an individual for various services (including but not limited to governmental benefits).