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

Indian government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt citizens’ computers

venturebeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 170 posts

Re: Indian government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt citizens’ computers

#111

Post by dgzl »

dragonwriter wrote: post #94
dgzl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well are you trying to be surprised, or are you trying to defend your natural born rights? It sounds like you're not interested simply because it's redundant.

> Well are you trying to be surprised, or are you trying to defend your natural born rights? False dichotomy much? I find the idea of natural rights to be of mixed value (beyond perhaps the case of a single natural right to something that might loosely be stated as that degree of liberty which does not intolerably impinge on the liberty of others), and the idea that the particular details of political compromises mad…

If I'm understanding you, it sounds like you don't necessarily consider "natural rights" to be the best facilitator for "liberty", and that you're dissatisfied with people who praise that kind of idea. Am I close?

If so: what's your point? I'm trying to defend the rights we have, and it seems like you're just arguing about the method at which we assign rights and liberty? You seem really smart, can you give us some tips on saving/changing the system for the better?

By the way, those long-dead presidents who created the world's most liberating government framework, were alive less than 300 years ago. That's not long at all.

Re: Indian government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt citizens’ computers

#112

Post by amitamb »

dgzl wrote: post #37

And here is the natural born right to privacy that Americans have, as well as the rest of the world in my own opinion: Bill of Rights, amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the…

India's Supreme Court Upholds Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/indias-supreme-court-u...

These are new powers and they are intrusive but they will likely get challenged in the court based on above judgement. Honestly though very few of average citizens care for government to take notice.

Re: Indian government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt citizens’ computers

#113

Post by a11595 »

dgzl wrote: post #107
AndrewGaspar wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, that's a pretty simplistic assessment. It wasn't the ability to say you were married that was under contention, as I understand it. It was whether homosexual couples should be conferred all the same privileges as heterosexual couples. Those privileges don't really fit under a "free speech" view.

> that's a pretty simplistic assessment The bill of Rights was written simplistic for a reason, my friend. So regular folk could understand their rights without a lawyer. This was my assessment, in steps: 1. Marriage exists because it's a religious ceremony for Christians. 2. The government got involved and gives religious marriage authorization, certification, and tax discounts. (unconstitutionally, see amendment on…

waaat...

1. Marriage exists because it's a religious ceremony in pretty much every religion since man started talking.

2. The government got involved and provides a non-religious marriage.

3. this has nothing to do with religion

4. government marriage was defined and commonly understood to be a partnership between a man and a woman. this needed to be redefined, as any government thing does.

?? you are completely wrong 6. Profit for me. My taxes are a lot less after I got married (wife makes less), and will be even higher discounted if we have kids.

Getting married is not speech - it's a government status with limitations and rules, which needed to be updated and did. Getting married religiously is protected speech, and no one ever prevented anyone from doing that - man+man or man+dog. we had civil unions, and most had the same rights as marriage, for gay people. they didn't like that and redefined a dictionary and legal meaning of a word. who cares. let's redefine straight as inclusive of gay also just like a woman can now be born w/ a dick. I personally don't care. crazies do crazy stuff - effects me zero - I know my language and my world.

the truth, dear sir, is exactly opposite of what who wrote.

Re: Indian government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt citizens’ computers

#114

Post by vkou »

adventured wrote: post #87
vkou wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The success of fighting it only works as well as 'where does public opinion on the issue currently lie'. The constitutionality of a law is a political red herring. My favorite example of this is gay marriage. All the way between 1776 and 2015 it was illegal - yet somehow, magically, in 2015, banning it became unconstitutional. Did the Constitution change in 2015, without us noticing? Did the lawyers advocating for it…

> All the way between 1776 and 2015 it was illegal - yet somehow, magically, in 2015, banning it became unconstitutional. That's historically incorrect. Same sex marriage wasn't illegal in nearly any of the US until the 1970s. States including California and Florida enacted bans on same-sex marriage in the 1970s. And if you're talking about 1830 or such, the US was a liberal paradise (if you were white) compared to 1…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_Stat... seems to indicate otherwise.

A liberal paradise, except for the part where in some states, you could be put to death for being in a homosexual relationship. The other, more enlightened ones, mere considered it a felony, with a reward of a few years of hard labour for it.

Re: Indian government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt citizens’ computers

#115

Post by vkou »

8bitsrule wrote: post #64
vkou wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The success of fighting it only works as well as 'where does public opinion on the issue currently lie'. The constitutionality of a law is a political red herring. My favorite example of this is gay marriage. All the way between 1776 and 2015 it was illegal - yet somehow, magically, in 2015, banning it became unconstitutional. Did the Constitution change in 2015, without us noticing? Did the lawyers advocating for it…

"All the way between 1776 and 2015 it was illegal..." The legality of SSM was decided by individual states. While not 'sanctified' (up to religions ... for those who cared) or 'state-certified' (for those who cared), millions of same-sex relationships existed during those two centuries. Most of them un-persecuted. I don't see any prohibition in my reading of the Constitution, which I'm pretty sure was designed to pro…

Every state, prior to the second half of the 20th century had sodomy laws - which made being in a homosexual relationship a felony, at best, and a death sentence, at worst.

Some states still have those laws on the books.

Re: Indian government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt citizens’ computers

#116

Post by dgzl »

vkou wrote: post #115
8bitsrule wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"All the way between 1776 and 2015 it was illegal..." The legality of SSM was decided by individual states. While not 'sanctified' (up to religions ... for those who cared) or 'state-certified' (for those who cared), millions of same-sex relationships existed during those two centuries. Most of them un-persecuted. I don't see any prohibition in my reading of the Constitution, which I'm pretty sure was designed to pro…

Every state, prior to the second half of the 20th century had sodomy laws - which made being in a homosexual relationship a felony, at best, and a death sentence, at worst. Some states still have those laws on the books.

And I would hope that a respectable court would consider sexual acts to be acts of expression between parties, which is a protected right.

Re: Indian government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt citizens’ computers

#117

Post by shakna »

LinuxBender wrote: post #103

This will be an unpopular opinion, but I personally like highly oppressive and intrusive governments trying to impose their will on the internet and technology. Usually when this happens, it results in substantial innovation around privacy, security and awareness. Such movements will ultimately force many people underground and into various forms of VPN's, non standard operating systems and custom hardware. To be cle…

This is why I don't like laws like these.

They're utterly ineffective at their stated goals. The targets are largely unaffected.

However, the average person is affected. And can be deeply affected.

Re: Indian government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt citizens’ computers

#118

Post by le_clochard »

techie128 wrote: post #65

This is basically part of a smear campaign against the government in power (NDA). The law was designed under the previous government and has been in existence before this government came to power. Nothing new was introduced since 2008. As far as constitutional protections go, Indians have a right to privacy which has been held up in the courts as recently as this year. This has been affirmed several times in the rece…

If anything, the current government has restricted the use of this law to a handful of agencies. One bureaucrat I know of -- in the Postal Department -- had been abusing this for a few years.

Re: Indian government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt citizens’ computers

#119

Post by vkou »

dgzl wrote: post #116
vkou wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every state, prior to the second half of the 20th century had sodomy laws - which made being in a homosexual relationship a felony, at best, and a death sentence, at worst. Some states still have those laws on the books.

And I would hope that a respectable court would consider sexual acts to be acts of expression between parties, which is a protected right.

Well, the courts weren't respectable, and tended to see it as an abominable perversion, and a crime against nature and public decency.

At the end of the day, you are convicted by a jury of your peers, and if your peers are God-fearing 19th century Puritans, some of whom, among other things, keep human beings as chattel slaves, you are not going to have a good time.

It wasn't some rogue politicians passing unpopular laws. The law reflected the opinions of the times.

Post reply on HN