Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

thewire.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 215 posts

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#191

Post by wtmt »

satbyy wrote: post #150
programmer_dude wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An Aadhar card is just an identity document. You don't have to get one if you don't want any benefits linked to it. Just use some other ID.

There are already "benefit" cards like LPG card, ration card, BPL card, etc to get those benefits. Why bother with Aadhar then? The answer is, consolidation. Aadhar is meant to be the identity card. I don't want to carry big passport book, etc. wherever I go.

That consolidation, when combined with biometrics, means you can never get it replaced. Your only recourse to identity theft with your biometrics, or the fact that biometric error rates are very high, is to just live with it.

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#192

Post by srean »

wtmt wrote: post #152
sn41 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a fantastic document. Quotes from John Stuart Mill, precedents from India, UK, US, South Africa, Canada, and the European charter. Looks like a very scholarly judgment, worthy of study, worth every one of the 597 pages!!

I've read only a few parts of the judgment, but it reads like poetry while at the same time being crisp and powerful! Even when the hearings were on, there were many references and discussions that showed the broad scope of accepting and considering jurisprudence from elsewhere and seeing what would benefit people. That this was an unanimous verdict makes it even better. I was apprehensive until today morning, and af…

Sorry that someone down voted you. I used to get puzzled by such behavior, now no more. I just upvotes it back to compensate, if only partially.

Lot of partisan voting going on here

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#193

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

kenjackson wrote: post #148
moduspol wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we really to the point where Nazi ideologies are spreading like wildfire, to the point that their "intolerance" will be seized by our "tolerance?" To me it seems like the opposite is happening. Nazi ideologies are marginalized and meaningless, yet propped up like some huge threat to us... like they might take over. And this is being used as justification for limiting free speech, in a hyper-politically correct so…

I suspect actually Nazis may be a rounding error, but Nazi believers are probably much more. And in some regions maybe even approaching double digit percentages.

If we have data let's go with the data. If all we have is opinions, let's go with mine.

What are we to do? One way of dealing with the problem would be to ask the question at census time: Do you believe in Nazi or Nazi like ideologies? and then round those people up and put them to death. This has it's own problems.

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#194

Post by dieterrams »

icebraining wrote: post #110
dieterrams wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right not to be unfairly tried is easily satisfied by not having a trial at all. The right to a fair trial is about two things: you must be tried before being found guilty and punishment/sentencing is administered, and that trial must be executed fairly. In effect, you have the right to a (fair) trial. A trial and especially a fair trial are undeniably interventions on how things would otherwise proceed. But I ag…

A trial and especially a fair trial are undeniably interventions on how things would otherwise proceed No, because otherwise it would just be aggression. A trial is a method for the accusers to be able to show that their subsequent aggression (imprisonment, removal of property, etc) is justified.

No, it is to prevent the defendant from being unjustly blamed and punished.

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#195

Post by jogjayr »

jawns wrote: post #119

I was a bit surprised by the fact that all of the judges' opinions, which are embedded in the article, were in English. But it turns out that English is the official language of the Indian Supreme Court, and the court has even gone so far as to rule that it need not provide a Hindi translation of its rulings: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation... It seems kind of bizarre to me that as an Ame…

Language is political in India and I don't claim to understand half of it. Probably since the establishment of the republic after attaining independence there's been a tension between Hindi-speakers (who were the plurality of the population) and others. English was a "neutral" language and it helped that a lot of the administration, bureaucracy, and law carried over from the British already used it. Not to mention that the most influential leaders of the independence movement (Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel) were lawyers educated in England.

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#196

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

bluGill wrote: post #173
moduspol wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we really to the point where Nazi ideologies are spreading like wildfire, to the point that their "intolerance" will be seized by our "tolerance?" To me it seems like the opposite is happening. Nazi ideologies are marginalized and meaningless, yet propped up like some huge threat to us... like they might take over. And this is being used as justification for limiting free speech, in a hyper-politically correct so…

I would argue we have gone the other way: we are so busy stomping down Nazi like ideologies that the stomping it down has become as bad of hate speech as the Nazis were.

I'm not convinced.

If we're going to tolerate Nazi and Nazi-like speech, don't we also have to tolerate those who would should them down?

Until we start rounding up Nazis, and Nazi sympathisers, and politely asking them to reside in this here concentration camp and eat this rotten-fish-head-with-cabbage soup, shouting them down seems quite reasonable.

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#197

Post by sqeaky »

ameister14 wrote: post #185
rsync wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Are we really to the point where Nazi ideologies are spreading like wildfire, to the point that their "intolerance" will be seized by our "tolerance?"" You're thinking about it a little backwards - here's a fascinating example of the paradox of tolerance: Proposition 8, in California (2008)[1] was a ballet initiative that proposed that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". P…

I don't understand how that is the paradox of intolerance.

It is not, but it is still interesting and closely related.

The minorities in question were welcomed into society and empowered with votes then promptly voted to oppress another minority. There are clearly problems with this.

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#198

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

humanrebar wrote: post #106
bckygldstn wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many countries have limitations to free speech (e.g., Germany banning holocaust denial, Sweden banning hate speech) but have a free and open culture in spite of this. It's a hard balance to strike, but freedom of speech doesn't have to be all or nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

If dissenting speech is stopped, how will the public ever know when an argument is illegitimate and when it is merely dangerous to the ruling class? People don't find this to be convincing: "Don't worry, the ruling class makes sure only the dangerous speech is stopped". Especially with free speech rules, we have a "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" situation.

> how will the public ever know

Because the public isn't stupid.

Does the slippery slope argument work here?

I'm sure German's have their own opinions about it all, in private, and in public to the extent allowed under their laws, and they seem to have a relatively coherent sense of how to go about having a society. Perhaps even more coherent than the US.

In 2015 Germany rated higher (aggregate score 95) than the US (aggregate score 90) for freedom of the press.[1]

1. Refer chart commencing page 20 - https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FITW_Report_...

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#199

Post by sqeaky »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #193
kenjackson wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect actually Nazis may be a rounding error, but Nazi believers are probably much more. And in some regions maybe even approaching double digit percentages.

If we have data let's go with the data. If all we have is opinions, let's go with mine. What are we to do? One way of dealing with the problem would be to ask the question at census time: Do you believe in Nazi or Nazi like ideologies? and then round those people up and put them to death. This has it's own problems.

I agree that we shouldn't tolerate intolerance, right up until you said "round those people up and put them to death". Any state run mechanism for this will be abused and infringes on a whole bunch of other rights.

Doing things like clamping down speech that incites violence or otherwise directly harms people is working. More options are open for almost all members of minorities than ever before (in terms of jobs, opportunities, legal recourse, etc... ). The nazis are just being loud about it now because they think trump will somehow protect them.

Convict and arrest people advocating for the death's of others, financially fine those empowering that one specific kind of speech and the people will continue to get smaller. Without the violence hate speech cannot grow.

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#200

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

noufalibrahim wrote: post #95
sametmax wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The limit is action. Words are not important. But a lot of words are mixed with actions: harassments, segregation, etc. Those should be clearly identified so that free speech don't protect them.

This is tricky. I think a workable solution is to create zones where free speech is unrestricted and where new ideas can be incubated. They themselves would have some restrictions (e.g. you can't physically hurt the person you lost a debate to) but would, by and large, be free speech zones. The idea was described in this speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJktQiZRa5A The rest of society can have different rules w…

It's worth noting that "kill all the Jews" isn't a new idea.

Edited to add: But, okay, I suppose "kill all the Jews with Zyklon B"[1] was a novel form.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B

Post reply on HN