In India, people are being arrested for voicing disagreement with politicians and influential people on social media. You could even be arrested for liking a Facebook post criticizing a politician.
Yes, this is true. We are definitely not near the US standard on the defense of free speech.
But the case you mentioned is one of the small number of such cases (I remember one from the state of West Bengal). And in this case, the over eagerness of local authorities was criticized by both the government and public.
As of now, I would place India somewhere between UK (with its defamation laws) and US (gold standard of free speech) on the free speech issue. I do hope that the government takes steps to make sure that local authorities do not have power to override the right of free speech.
It does not help that it is just a small number of cases, as even a small number of cases will have have a chilling effect on free speech.
The "somewhere between UK and US" comment is theoretical and is about what the written law says. The way it is practised is clearly worse than both. You don't have to watch your back when you criticize a politician in the UK, and certainly not when you "like" someone doing that. Even if it was later criticized later on, it did happen, and I would guess it got no consequences for the people that prosecuted the two women.
I don't know how you could compare India to UK. If you seriously believe there are a "small number of such cases", I must conclude you're ignorant. In most developed countries people would be shocked if issues such as this [1] are seriously considered in court cases, instead of getting thrown out immediately for being frivolous.
I think it's absolutely nuts that you're being downvoted into oblivion. The fact that these crackdowns were criticized widely is a good contribution to the debate.
It appears that there's people in this thread who downvote anyone who's from India and doesn't think things are as bad as suggested.
Or maybe people downvoting him don't think that saying the UK is worse than a country that jails people for liking facebook posts is a sensible addition to this conversation. YMMV.
He is being downvoted because he is in a denial mode, not because he is from India. I am from India as well, I didn't get downvoted.
Many Indians think this way: "Freedom of speech, it's not that bad in India. Modi will change everything."
Shocking thing is that a lot of Indians also believe that these people deserve to be jailed for speaking against politicians. Even worse.. they are beaten by a mob and their house is ransacked.
This is an unsurprising extension into the electronic realm of India's notoriously weak support of free expression. They were the first country to ban the Satanic Verses; its import, I believe, is still illegal there. Citizens are routinely persecuted under laws that literally prohibit hurting people's religious feelings (recently invoked against a researcher who exposed another fake Catholic miracle[0]).
India is the most prominent example of a country with plenty of voting but no democracy.
> India is the most prominent example of a country with plenty of voting but no democracy.
Second you on that one! I lived in various parts of rural India for a little over 12 years, and the deeper I went, the more I saw people there actively voting in droves. And the harder their life and generally poor state of affairs!
sadly democracy in India only has the voting part implemented fairly well. It's a monarch until the next election. Even the voting is neck deep in corruption [1]
What do you mean its a monarch until next election. Head of state is often elected for the term period. Also it maybe one of the cases reported, it doesn't imply voting is entirely corrupt.
My guess is that he meant "dictatorship" rather than "monarchy". You took umbrage with his mistake rather than forgiving that and recognizing his intent, which is that the PM role in India has way too much power.
That is simply not true. We do have a President but he/she is just a titular head, or a namesake. He cannot exercise his powers at will. Prime Minister is the executive head for all purposes but in no way is there monarchy/dictatorship. Anyone who says so just wants to bash Indian legislative system and democracy.
I think those in the West could argue that the poorest in their countries often vote against their personal interests. Not quite the same hardships, but an example of how easily people can be convinced to vote against what might serve them best.
> Citizens are routinely persecuted under laws that literally prohibit hurting people's religious feelings
It would be interesting to hear from Indians on these issues. I'm not a citizen nor do I live there, but religious conflict often has cost many lives in India. For example, there were the 2002 religious riots in Gujarat which made Modi, now Prime Minister of the country, so controversial; 1,000-2,000 people died and there were brutal gang rapes, people being burnt alive and other horrors. Going back to the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, up to a million people died and many millions were displaced.
In Germany there are laws against free expression of Nazi ideas. Perhaps in India it is appropriate to minimize religious conflict. I don't know enough to offer an opinion but it's a very serious consideration.
Expressing Nazi ideas is prohibited in Germany because of what following Nazi ideas can lead to, not just to avoid conflict.
If you forbid peoples' expression in the name of avoiding conflict then you simply allow the ideas of the most bloodthirsty, conflict-minded group to dominate, as this group is the group most likely to get offended, and hence suppressing any ideas that offend this group necessarily leaves this group's ideas unchallenged.
To whoever downvoted me, was it in objection to my implied description as bloodthirsty of the group behind the religious riots in which "1,000-2,000 people died and there were brutal gang rapes, people being burnt alive and other horrors"? If so, I'd be interested to hear by what standards such behaviour could be considered anything other than bloodthirsty and conflict-minded.
>>Expressing Nazi ideas is prohibited in Germany because of what following Nazi ideas can lead to, not just to avoid conflict.
Yes. Expressing Nazi ideas can lead to violence, extremism, racial and religious discrimination, anti-democratic activity among other things. That's pretty much what the OP said, and is also the original motivation behind India's censorship laws. I am of the opinion that the case for censorship is more justified in India than in Germany. As the Gujarat 2002 riots and Assam 2012 riots (where Indian govt. temporarily throttled sms traffic to prevent spread of rumours) have pretty much proven - tactless media coverage or the spreading of rumours during tense situations could result in the deaths of thousands.
Of course whether those laws are being abused (in ways including the one you described) is a whole nother question.
>Expressing Nazi ideas can lead to violence, extremism, racial and religious discrimination, anti-democratic activity among other things.
I didn't say Nazi ideas were banned because of this, I said they were banned because of what _following_ them can lead to. For contrast, compare an idea like "group X treats women like second-class citizen". Following this idea does no harm, it doesn't even do anything, as it's not a prescription that can be followed, it's just a statement. Expressing it could however still lead to a violence if group X is aggressive and conflict-minded. If expressing this idea is banned, then public discussion of the poor treatment of women by group x would be banned, and there wouldn't be any pressure for group x to improve its treatment of them.
As much as I hate it, I think in the case of India, preventing religious conflicts is best compared to defending free speech. The amount of police force needed to protect people who in the name of free speech offend religious sentiments and the community that gets affected because of the speech would be prohibitive. Plus, Indians are in general too sensitive about religion in general though that is slowly fading away. We need more success stories of satellite launches and corruption free bureaucracy to start believing in science, democracy, judiciary more than religion. Even now, there are different family laws based on what religion a person is hailing from. This is done so people can still apply their religious morality when it comes to family matters. For many western folks, this can be confusing. I for one have long wanted a uniform civil code in India. When I was raised, I was not told about the indian judicial system and what it means to break country's laws. I was taught about not breaking the hindu code of law. So religion is part of pretty much everyone's upbringing. I know very few strong atheist Indians. (I am transforming from being a theist to an agnostic.) With religion and God, there seems to be a constant hope. With other things, especially in India, people do not have that hope. As far as the modi example goes, supreme court of India did not find Modi guilty. So as per the country's laws, he is allowed to contest elections. He did so and won. People voted for him because he gave them a hope of development. He has been elected chief minister thrice in the state of Gujarat even winning elections after the riots. There is also a number's game here. 80% of Indians are Hindus and only 15% are muslims. The media coverage often cited the burning of Hindu pilgrims in train as the starting point of the riots which probably swayed the voters. What happened in Gujarat is completely wrong but I'd say it happened because some religious fanatics decided to throw propaganda speeches (in the name of exercising free speech) worsening the problem.
I do believe however there is in general liberty to free speech as long as it doesn't involve religious flame wars or speeches filled with national hate (You may want to read up on arrests of pro-LTTE speakers) . The isolated examples quoted in the original article can be argued case by case and as far as I know convictions have not been obtained. So the law is taking it's course. The very act of arresting them is violating civil liberties but there is no strong organization like the ACLU in India (there is PUCL but it's pretty dormant) to help citizens. And common people do not want to spend the money on lawyers and courts. So police force will continue to abuse their powers because no one keeps them in check. I've personally faced police excesses and it was more of a taboo to explain it to your family that you were picked up for questioning. In India, the very act of you being questioned by police is seen as a character issue.
Long story short, when I see first world struggling with civil liberties (I live in USA now), I do not expect India to do better. It is also unfair to compare a much younger democracy with an older democracy that still hasn't figured out civil liberties in digital age completely. I also do not expect India to lead the world in terms of civil liberties in next 20 years (either digital or regular). I do hope the remaining humanity in Indians don't vanish. Otherwise, we'd implode.
I think you're confusing "democracy" with "secular humanism." India is a deeply conservative, religious place. The people voting don't have any problems with laws that prohibit hurting peoples' religious feelings.
Westerners don't understand that Eastern societies place far greater emphasis on respecting existing social norms/ structures and the idea of "order" .
This is there even in the Indian Constitution. The govt. is allowed to impose restrictions on fundamental rights in order to maintain order and harmony. First Amendment absolutism is totally out of the question in the Indian context.
Even if I could understand disagreeing with "first ammendment absolutism", there are few words that scare me as much as "harmony" when uttered as the reason behind "actions to maintain order".
No, we understand it. It doesn't mean it's a good thing to do, or that we agree with it and won't criticise it.
Also, I am from the East though I grew up in the West, and the attempt to deflect criticism just on the basis of "it's a different society" is disgusting, a hindrance to progress, and frankly quite racist. There is an ongoing campaign in India against the practice of dowry, I guess you also want to argue "Westerners don't understand that India just traditionally has dowry"??
I was with you until you started talking about dowry, proving once and for all (literally, for everyone who reads your comment) that you have no clue about India.
There is hardly any problem related to dowry. Come, have a look. 'Dowry' exists in media which consists of third grade students turned women-right activists.
For mathematically minded people, I will just quote recent supreme court judgment about the reality of dowry and dowry harassment lawsuit (498(a) IPC):
"The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. "Crime in India 2012 Statistics" published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal."
I suppose 85% acquittal rate is just collateral damage, except that dowry was exactly how women used to get their parental property rights in India! But that is too Indian for Indians educated in western schools. So instead of codifying dowry as mandatory to protect women's rights from being infringed by her family, feminists would rather use misandry and enable women to vent their frustration on her husband. So we got ridiculous laws like dowry harassment lawsuit (1983) and dowry prohibition lawsuit, and then they realized that husbands demanding dowry is actually a rarity and reality is not at all as media would like to have use believe. So finally they passed equal property rights for women in 2005.
Bit by bit, you know. There is a reason why villages in India give an impression of being lawless.
Step outside your well. The issues you talk about are very much there in every arranged marriage (which is almost 100% of all marriages in India), they just exist differently.
I am not sure what issues you are talking about. I was talking about how external type of education (western in this case), in general, and specially when conducted over generations, completely changes our moral compass and understanding, by using specific example of dowry.
Do you have any clue about India? You just pasted a long paragraph from one source and gave no explanation of how it backs up your point. What even is your point? You seem to think that dowry harassment lawsuits are all there is to dowry.
I don't get it. If you think supreme court judgement is 'one source' then you cannot be argued with. And complaining about 'long paragraph'... hmm... I think you are just angry and without argument.
Regarding second paragraph, the citation is not handy right now, but this is what Indian feminists actually write. You know, the ones actually involved in drafting government policies. There was a similar article by NCW I read around 3 months ago. You can also talk to the head of http://samajsevasamithy.org/ regarding it (I volunteer there).
No, you cannot make an empty argument and then say I have no argument. Quoting the supreme court randomly, does not argue anything. You fail to explain why the supreme court's quote is relevant to anything you said, or anything I said for that matter. You will need to back up your assertions about "Indian feminists" with actual real data; otherwise it is just an inappropriate generalisation.
The supreme court judgement is not random, it is a judgement from SUPREME COURT which proves that even the most respected institution of India knows that there is hardly any problem of dowry. If, instead, I would have just said that, then you would have given me citations from news articles showing 'how bad the problem in dowry is', and then I would have pasted this same judgement to show you the "real data". I posted it to cut short that argument. There is obviously a difference between our perception of self-infallibility and my attempt to cut short that argument has failed. So why don't you show me some "real data" to prove that dowry is a major problem in India against which there is an 'ongoing campaign', because I have shown you already that there is a 'ongoing campaign' in India to match reality with fictional bullshit (that most probably you learned about India when you were a kid) by curbing down the abuse of the exactly same rhetorical argument you presented in your original post. Seriously man, Dowry Prohibition Act was passed in 1969. You are 50 years late to the party. Now we are passing laws to water it down.
Regarding the second paragraph, that whole argument comes from Madhu Kishwar but because I don't have the exact url I will leave it at that.
Thanks for the more clear explanation. However, just because a law is abused by some women, does not mean "there is hardly any problem of dowry" - you are making a logical jump here. Also, the supreme court isn't important here; they're just quoting statistics from the National Crime Records Bureau. (Does 1,97,762 mean 197k or are we a missing a number here?) Last time I heard there were about 9k dowry-related deaths (also from the NCRB); you'd expect the incidence of non-fatal violence would be higher, but I don't know numbers for that. Regarding the "ongoing campaign" I saw things a while back, possibly it was "Say No To Dowry", and there are others just from a quick web search. I am not a researcher in this area, and perhaps western media is more biased around this topic. But you're not making any good arguments against it.
Regarding your links about feminism, [1] is not relevant to India, [2] is you being very lazy - I'm not going to read through 400 pages just to entertain your whims, you will need to quote specific extracts from it, and [3] is fairly neutral regarding feminists.
You also seem to getting offended personally that I am pointing out problems with your country. I don't know what to do, other than point out that this reaction is not rational, and that I don't mean personal offence.
No problem. India is a shit country and if it were possible for me to give up my citizenship I would have done it without second thought. I have no issues with people pointing out problems, but problems of India are not reported in news unless they happen to be about cultural differences. [2] is not an argument, it is just to give you a direction if you want to find out real structural problems in all colonized countries and the sheer depth of it all. Read it at your own leisure. Orientalism by E. Said is phenomenal book that changed sociology studies. It is a very good read and even first 50-60 pages are enough to make you think.
Regarding dowry related death, any death of wife within 7 years of marriage is reported as dowry related death. Why? So police-lawyer-NCW nexus can make money out of it by harassing husband. A lot of times even women's family jumps in to make money. That is the level of discrimination women face. For example, the dowry harassment lawsuit (498a IPC) is non-cognizable, which means once filed, it cannot be taken back. Then it is Husband vs. The State. The moment a death occurs police and lawyers will convince family members to file 498a. Then they can simply use it to extort lakhs. My friend himself paid 10 lakhs. Is NCW interested in that data? No. It actively hides the real data, instead relying on vague statistics like 'how many dowry related deaths have been reported to police' and not 'how many dowry related deaths actually happened'. And why not? NCW is run by politicians and wives of corrupt IPS officers.
'leephilips said: "India is the most prominent example of a country with plenty of voting but no democracy."
You said: "It doesn't mean it's a good thing to do, or that we agree with it and won't criticise it."
A perfectly well-functioning democratic society can reach conclusions that are worthy of criticism. People have a habit of blaming the process for grievances they have with the substantive outcomes of the process.
E.g. people on Hacker News rant about how democracy in the U.S. must not be functioning because the drug war still rages on. The drug war is, in my opinion, a policy worthy of criticism. Yet, it's undeniable that it enjoys popular support. It was only this year that marijuana legalization managed to carry a (slim) majority of registered voters. As recently as 10-15 years ago, there was a 2:1 consensus against even legalization of marijuana--forget about ending the drug war entirely.
It's easy to blame the process for results you don't like. It's harder to admit that the process is fine, you just don't like what people do with their right to self-determination.
I realize I didn't provide much to take hold of, but this is what I meant by the line that you quoted:
By "democracy" I have in mind what Americans and Western Europeans mean by democracy, which is decidedly not a simple tyranny of the majority enacted through voting. Democracy in any meaningful sense has some means of self regulation that preserves certain rights and perpetuates self-determination for future generations.
I'm not blaming the process. The U.S. still has a serviceable democracy despite the drug war and all the other examples of bad public policy that are desired by the people. Our democracy has even survived the violation of parts of the constitution that makes it possible. My point was that no democracy can exist in any meaningful sense in a society that has criminalized the discussion of ideas and the expression of opinions. Once that line has been crossed it is not a matter of undesirable public policy, but of democracy eating itself. Surely you agree that there can be no democracy if you're not allowed to talk about how people should vote.
India has become a place where you can be jailed for exposing the physical cause of a weeping statue because you've hurt the feelings of the Catholics who want to believe that it's a miracle. I don't believe democracy can exist under such conditions, but I hope things change soon for this great nation.
>India is the most prominent example of a country with plenty of voting but no democracy.
"Democracy" doesn't mean "everything is fair". Democracy is just larger groups having absolute power over smaller groups.
There is absolutely no guarantee that the larger group isn't going to oppress the smaller one. This is why constitutional democracies (where the power of the majority is strictly limited) are a popular compromise.
What you describe is not democracy but tyranny of majority. To curtail it minorities are given extra rights. The ban has to do with hurting religious sentiments of minorities.
Democracy sometimes requires sacrificing a privilege for public benefit. India has a very diverse culture (I would say no other country in world has such a diverse demographic) and co-existence can be uneasy. Non-Indians may not understand the compromises one has to make, to coexist harmoniously.
There are two parts to this as I see it with some bit of overlap.
1. A hard core group (could be religious, person centric (e.g., Mahatma Gandhi)) that act as custodians of "sentiments" of larger population. They act with various degrees of violence if they believe that the sentiments have been hurt [1], [2]. The police force itself generally sides with the mob and they cite oft repeated phrase of "natural reaction by the crowd" as a reason for avoiding taking action.
2. Freedom of expression that's curtailed by law and codified in law books.
For me #2 above is far more serious issue. Various courts routinely invoke this law, which is amazingly ill-defined to start with, to suppress any kind of dissent. I can't cite hard data here but in my life time I can clearly see an uptrend in such cases. There's also a harsher (some say draconian) law around sedition. Even if you are a mere sympathizer with a banned group then you will be treated as an enemy of the state; there's no soft middle ground here and you are treated as a militant [3].
Shiny GDP and development notwithstanding India is fast moving towards dictatorship which is really unfortunate as right to dissent is the core of a democratic society.
I seriously believe we are today reaping the fruits of many of the fruits of feeble defense given to Salman Rushdie following that episode. A murder was commissioned by a head of state and the response was to perhaps consider that some people might be theologically offended by this work of art by a soft spoken man.
Idiotic indeed. Upvoting an article from 2012. In terms of content too it doesn't mention specific content that was targeted for removal. If any content is offensive to an individual e.g. nude pictures of celebrities they should have the right to ask them to be removed. No different for India - or any other country in the world.
India has too much free speech if anything! Anybody can go to the steps of parliament or the presidential palace and blow their horn off on whatever issue they want.
"""India is currently implementing some of the scariest surveillance schemes in the world. This lecture will shed light on India's surveillance industry, its UID scheme which aims at the collection of all biometric data and on various controversial surveillance schemes, such as the Central Monitoring System (CMS).
When it comes to surveillance, the most mainstream argument is that the majority of India's population lives below the poverty line and that surveillance is an elitist issue - and not a "real" issue which affects the masses. Given that the majority of India's population has mobile phones and that the Indian government is currently implementing the Central Monitoring System (CMS) which aims at intercepting all telecommunications (and Internet communications), surveillance does not appear to be an elitist issue. Given that the UID scheme aims at collecting the biometric data of all citizens residing in India and that most BPL cash programmes require UID registration, surveillance appears to be an issue which (unfortunately) affects the 1.2 billion people currently living in India. And this is to say the least. As part of the Privacy Project, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore, India, is investigating surveillance within the country. The project is funded by Privacy International and aims to map out various forms of surveillance in India, ranging from drones, CCTV cameras and GPS tracking equipment to phone and Internet monitoring gear. This lecture aims to present the research that Maria Xynou has undertaken at the CIS so far, which includes data on the various surveillance technology companies operating in India and the type of spy gear they sell to Indian law enforcement agencies. This research also includes the presentation of India's various controversial surveillance schemes, with an emphasis on the Central Monitoring System (CMS) which unlawfully enables the interception of all telecommunications and Internet communications. India is currently implementing the world's largest biometric data collection and interception of communications schemes. The aim of this lecture is to present India's scary mass surveillance and to discuss its implications on the right to privacy and other human rights."""
While I admit the government is trying to censor (or was, I've yet to see any evidence of this from the current government) certain politically critical articles etc. and I am unaware of the true extent of the CMS, the part about the UID program seems rather sensationalist and fear-mongering, since the primary aim of the UID program is the ability to identify the citizens of India similar to the US social security number system.
The reason we need this biomertic data would be to ascertain the identity of over a billion people where unique names, places of birth and the existence of birth certificates aren't the norm, not in order to constantly police the populace.
If you could make more explicit the problems with gathering biometric data of citizens, (which shouldn't be used for security purposes anyway) then I'm sure I would get a better understanding of your position.
Surely there are better ways to identify someone than get their fingerprint, especally if they bothererd to called everyone to the police headquarters to get their fingerprint.
Its not just fingerprint (all 10 finger impressions actually) but also retinal scans. And the govt. is gradually making it mandatory for everything from getting 50% subsidies on cooking gas to opening a bank account. It is probably the most ambitious and encompassing citizen database in the world.
And there is practically zero debate on the issues:
1. Is the govt. capable and competent enough to keep the data safe from external and internal threats ( If I had to put money, I would say all or part of the data has already made its way to at least one foreign govt.)
2. Are there enough safeguards in place to prevent this data from being misused? In a country with widespread and endemic corruption and where there have been incidents of govt. indifference or even collusion in events that cost thousands of lives and/or billions of dollars; Can the govt. be trusted with this data at all?
3. Is such a system (whose capabilities and scope far exceed those of most if not all first-world countries) really a priority in a country with grinding poverty, societal issues, illiteracy, inadequate healthcare, poor sanitation, corruption, decrepit infrastructure.
Right now, the Indian masses are probably not educated enough on the issues to have this debate and the govt. is using this fact to try and deploy it as fast as possible.
The system in the UAE is similar, but if anything more encompassing. You need a government issued ID card for pretty much everything: renting an apartment, opening a bank account, getting a SIM card (unless you are a tourist in which case you just need a passport), renting a car.
Since 2005 to get this you need a medical blood and X-ray test (to ensure you don't have HIV or TB - I wouldn't be surprised if DNA was analysed too), prints of all 10 and the sides of your hands and retinal scans. Last year the relevant authoring announced it had biometrics for 118 million people [0], which considering the population is just under 10 million isn't bad (there is a high turnover in expat workers).
The ID cards are actually quite advanced, they contain the biometrics and PKI. Pretty much everyone (even government authorities) still use signatures and photocopies of the cards for verification though...
Good points. It's not unreasonable to assume the problems you mentioned are reality. It would take a couple of generations for people to even start to notice the harm that has been done
This is the first time I have seen UID scheme being mentioned as a surveillance tool. The aim of the scheme is to replace the outdated mechanisms - signature, name and address papers which can easily be forged. Why poor people are encouraged to register under the UID scheme? So that the benefits provided by India's socialist governments (central and state) can reach them without any corruption or delay. The fear of it being misused is currently unjustified and without any proof.
Secondly, I think most people over-estimate the Indian government's technical ability. We are nowhere near US or China in mass surveillance. No Indian agency has the expertise anywhere near NSA or PLA Unit 61398. And unlike in China where there are many popular local tech companies, Indians use products of American companies (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.). So the government can neither ask the companies for data (like US) nor get the companies to actively participate in any form of censorship (like China). As long as the US companies follow basic security practices (HTTPS, SSL, 2-step verification, etc..) and don't sell out, we should be fine on the internet.
I know at least 22 cases that have been suppressed so far. You can safely assume the number to be much higher, misunderstood and often under-reported. Dig deep and you'll find a lot of unreported reality!
Edit: Cannot reply to "monsterix"'s comment. The only relevant line in the posted link [1] is "However, a complaint regarding misuse of address proof was received". Is there something I have missed?
One of them talks that a NGO has filed a case against UID agency. Government's welfare schemes now require UID. Why? I have given some of the reasons in the first paragraph of the parent comment.
For the second link, government wants everyone to have a bank account. Because now the money from different welfare programs will be directly transferred to the bank accounts. No need to go to government office and collect money. Please read more explanation towards the end of the article you posted!
Edit: Your claim: "I know at least 22 cases that have been suppressed". What you have provided: 3 links from a quick Google search, that too without checking their content.
other governments have proposed similar things - in europe there is a widespread distrust of these systems because they were used very effectively by the Nazi's - record keeping in the Netherlands was very good - 75% of jews were killed, in france the people collecting data conspired to protect jews by not punching the jew slot on the punched card and only 25% were killed
a belgian company sold an ID system to the rwandan government, it was used by one tribe to find people from another tribe so they could kill them
these systems are deadly in the wrong hands - if the info is not there, it can't be abused.
We have had Personal identity number system in Sweden since 1947. Maybe because we where spared most of the atrocities of WWII I don't know of any strong resistance against it. But it is also combined with laws that strongly forbid registration of some types of information, such as ethnic group or political leaning.
And it is oh so convenient! I'm moving in a few weeks, and I had to fill in a form on a website and the tax authorities sent me some papers to sign and return. And that is all! Now all government agencies, the banks and larger companies that I deal with, and all magazines I subscribe to will have my new correct address in their system within days.
> in europe there is a widespread distrust of these systems
What makes you think that? In the UK maybe, but certainly in Spain no one thinks twice about their ID cards. It's just something you have and use to identify yourself - both in public administration and in private transactions, for example paying money into a bank over the counter.
I do not agree with the point that if Nazis used X to kill Jews then we should not use X. For example, Nazis used trains to transport arrested Jews. No government should build railroads then?
"these systems are deadly in the wrong hands" - In the context of this thread, I hope you are not comparing Indian government with the Nazis. Such a comparison would be misusing the Nazi term and insulting the severity of crimes committed against Jews.
"if the info is not there, it can't be abused" - We can't move to the stone age now. Your car registration details at the DMV can be used against you. Your SSN details can be used against you. Information is stored about every citizen, in every country.
I hope that people realize that schemes such as UID present many benefits - reducing corruption, bring transparency, and ultimately, giving power to the people.
i wasn't comparing the Indian government with the Nazi's - but i will say there has been a long history of religious bloodshed in India, it doesn't take a major leap of imagination to see that someone with nefarious intent towards Hindu's, Muslims, Sikh's etc should not have access to extensive information about them - human nature being what it is, and looking at what has happened in those circumstances throughout history.
The HN libertarians, for some reason, have an incredibly strongly held conviction that governments should not be able to identify their citizens, even in person, even for legitimate reasons. If you support any reasonably secure government-operated authentication system on HN, you will be downvoted to oblivion (as you just were).
governments should not be able to identify their citizens
This is subtly different from "citizens can authenticate themselves to the government". Universal identity systems result in no place to hide from the system, which can be used against people that the government (or individual corrupt officials!) doesn't like.
I'm not a libertarian (for HN, in fact, I qualify as a statist) and I have a problem with universal identification. I thought we had a decent balance struck before Hiibel.
UID is clearly surveillance tool. Its aim is to make the citizen's feel powerless. The scheme can be implemented with single fingerprint to prevent duplication, still iris scan is done. The privacy law is still not passed which could limit the access of UID data. It was forced on banks and petroleum marketers undemocratically.
"It was forced on banks and petroleum marketers undemocratically."
Oh, so their elected officials weren't really elected democratically? Because, you know, that's something you have to prove first before you can make assertions such as the one above.
> We are nowhere near US or China in mass surveillance.
Just because no one else in here (or even the original article) has mentioned it: cell phone encryption is illegal in India. All GSM is done in the clear. Think about that for a second. It means any citizen with a few hundred dollars worth of hardware can rival the best abilities of the NSA.
Are you sure? I thought GSM was encrypted by definition. I know it's been used as a NATO backup communications channel. Once the signal hits the base station, though, it's usually sent unencrypted down the wire.
You don't just buy the hardware, you have to maintain a staff of individuals with the related expertise. This is difficult to achieve on a scale that the US Government does with the NSA et al.
Right now a lot of ex-intelligence employees are whoring themselves out to state governments and international businesses, offering their products and consulting services. There's a lot of money to be made, especially since a lot of the expertise is held quite tightly by the incumbents.
Perhaps they don't have the homegrown ability, but when they restrict access to a market of 1b+ consumers, that helps "convince" a lot of companies to do it for them. You probably remember this: http://www.heydary.com/publications/Inside-the-Rim-Decryptin...
Do you even know the context of the speech !! It is from Chaos Communication Congress, a hacker meeting.
From wiki: The Chaos Communication Congress is an annual meeting of the international hacker scene, organized by the Chaos Computer Club. The congress features a variety of lectures and workshops on technical and political issues.
If a hacker community does lecture on political issue, it is not exactly discussing morality of free expression. They are discussing ways in which you can get busted by the police. They are simply paranoid of conviction.
I can't downvote this comment but someone who can please do so.
May I suggest that you stop using the internet until you learn to respect and appreciate the hackers who built it? You should be ashamed of your ignorance. You are launching vicious attacks on hackers, claiming we aren't human-rights activists, that we are criminals, that we are selfish, and that we aren't known for our humanitarian efforts. None of these things are true.
Are you sure you properly understand what "hacker" means in this context? I think it's fair to say that some people in the grey to black spectrum also attend the CCC, but overall, yes, people there are genuinely committed to free expression (by everybody, most importantly of course by innocent people). They are using the word "hacker" in the original sense of the word (tinkering with technology etc.)
What you're saying is like the false claim that Tor is only used by criminals - when in reality, it is used by all sorts of people, including law enforcement themselves!
It is a community meet, hosted by Europe's largest association of hacker. It is not an official gathering of human right leaders, they act on selfish interests. Are they known for their humanitarian efforts, certainly not.
If anything they would break and work against the security measures, malicious or not depends on them. Through the entire meeting, they mocked the laws, quoting from handful cases which you have been able to find and discussing various security measures as they are used now. Bottom line is break the system for freedom of expression! They are just forcing governments hand to enforce more restrictions. The last thing we need is international hacker groups vouching for freedom of expression in India.
Lastly surveillance in India is nothing compared to the surveillance done by NSA or PLA. A few cases may happen here and there, but it will always be a few. The parent comment was unnecessary sensational.
Hacker News has nothing to do with hacking, you certainly know it. Can you prove the same for that community. Can you? Everyone reading the post is hung up on word hackers. People keep playing the word loose. Even if it is for fun can you deny they can do no harm. Kindly imagine the hypocrisy and the irony of them suggesting how we should manage freedom of expression by mocking our internet safeguard. Come on. I believed in Hacker News being a place where you could discuss with open mind, why is it so hard for other people to accept this point.
My wife has left me. And my phone is getting surveilled. Don't ask me how I know it. What do you think I should do? - An Indian in Varanasi. BTW, there is no complaint against me and I am being visited by police every week.
What source you want? You seriously don't expect me to public my identity here, do you?
I was about to give you my case number of anticipatory bail. But seriously, what source you want?
EDIT: On more thought, if you really want to know the ground reality you can call anyone in http://www.saveindianfamily.org/ . Their Bangalore chapter know my case.
As someone living in India, I have considered how to set up a discussion board (like HN) that would be easy to use for users but also easy to be moderated of junk (like HN is) but still be effectively anonymous.
It would allow discussion on such topics without fear of reprisal.
With my lack of coding skills would this even be possible?
My original was a poorly structured question - I should have asked if there was a specifically "anonomisable" discussion platform - something along the lines of phpBB. Something that could be setup to discuss free speech issues in restricted countries while keeping the contributors safe....? Would something like phpBB be safe for this kind of thing?
The primary challenge in creating a successful community like Hacker News is generally not the software (there is lots of free software for running forums), but in actually gathering and cultivating the community of people.
Should I be concerned that my https with https://news.ycombinator.com started wigging out after I posted the original question? Chrome wouldn't load it due to safety concerns
Yes, that does sound concerning, though it doesn't necessarily mean anything in particular. If you do get an invalid cert for HN again, please consider posting the fingerprint and CA, etc.
Have never experienced that before, continued for about 5 minutes after I posted and occurred almost instantly after I posted the question (I tried to make an immediate edit and chrome blocked it because of the https issues).
Do you use any certificate-related extensions? If not, you may want to install one that compares certs to those seen by others, just to see if anything interesting occurs. Also, check for any unexpected trusted CAs. I've seen a system infected by malware that adds a CA that was signed by a leaked Microsoft key.
One of the biggest difference between US and India is the constitution. Indian constitution does not give freedom of speech to its people. So government can pass all sort of laws.
The 1st amendment to US constitution gives people freedom of speech and ensures that government can not pass any laws against it. On the other hand all the "rights" that Indian constitution gives are subject to other government approvals which means you can have Right X to the extent that other existing laws allow.
Despite that several of laws except the IT laws are pretty good and time tested. IT law however is horrible and puts a prohibitive cost on various IT businesses.
Indian classified company Quikr (like CraigList) has hired 200 people just to screen each and every post to make sure it is not "offensive".
Actually Indian constitution does give Freedom of Speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#In... but agree there are some restrictions which I assume are valid and are there for other countries too. There are problems enforcing or protecting these rights when you are up against corrupt politicians and organizations.
There is a big technical difference between Indian Constitution's interpretation of right and say that of American constitution.
When it comes to US constitution, the 1st amendment is the stricter condition that each and every other law should meet. Any law passed that is not consistent with 1st amendment thus becomes invalid.
Opposite is the case with Indian constitution. All the rights given by Indian constitution are totally subject to other laws passed by Indian government. Which means "freedom of expression" is a right as long as no other law prevents it. So basically government can deny you that right any time and in any case it wants.
There are total 8 grounds on which a government can pass a law to further lower the freedom of speech. These 8 grounds cover almost every possible case.
Is Quickr any good? From my experience, craiglist india is full of spam.. Every board is filled with men trying to hook you up with prostitutes.. No matter what board it is..
Indian constitution actually give no rights. The constitution says the govt can make laws that can make restrictions, and so no absolute right is given, and hence freedom is also restricted.
>>Despite that several of laws except the IT laws are pretty good and time tested. IT law however is horrible and puts a prohibitive cost on various IT businesses.
Also India ranks, 140 on world press freedom index 2014, if you move 7 places ahead you will be in Putin land. It became worse in the last 10 years, 120 to 140.
you mean how ICMS continues to operate? How section 66A of the "IT Act" is still valid and you can be sent to jail for writing anything "offensive" on any electronic media?
Nope, nothing has changed, and while everyone had high hopes for the new govt, it will be foolhardy for any government to simply let go of such easy censorship on the public.
In India its okay to burn a bus in `protest', but not post a facebook comment to criticize some politician.
1. This is old (2012). There was a major government change in May 2014. The earlier government censored a lot of stuff. Mainly because their performance was below average and they did not want people talking about it.
2. The new government (led by Prime Minister Modi) is very oriented. (Checkout the central attendance system implemented by them in a couple of months: http://attendance.gov.in/). They have been pushing for broadband internet connectivity in villages.
IMHO This is not as applicable today as it was 2 years ago.
- Government's support to freedom of expression depends considerably on availability of resources. If enough resources are unavailable, government has to give priority to law and order instead of freedom of speech.
- Surveillance is bad but depending on country's internal and external security situation, it may be a necessary evil.
- Removing content offensive to politicians is unacceptable.
This is from 2012 as others pointed, but also if you go to Google's transparency report now, there is nothing after 2012 for India. Not sure why this is trending.
India is a nanny state trying to save its gullible illiterate masses from cyber influences deemed bad in culture. It is not the cyber surveillance capabilities that is the problem (which is coarse anyway), but the condescending attitude of bureaucracy who can send people to jail without bail for a Facebook like or a retweet.
these issues do not get noticed in India because for majority of Indians the attention to and addressing fundamental problems (food, shelter, health) are of utmost importance for time being.
155 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 195 ms ] threadhttp://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/19/indian-woman-arrested-ov...
But the case you mentioned is one of the small number of such cases (I remember one from the state of West Bengal). And in this case, the over eagerness of local authorities was criticized by both the government and public.
As of now, I would place India somewhere between UK (with its defamation laws) and US (gold standard of free speech) on the free speech issue. I do hope that the government takes steps to make sure that local authorities do not have power to override the right of free speech.
(Disclaimer: Indian citizen)
The "somewhere between UK and US" comment is theoretical and is about what the written law says. The way it is practised is clearly worse than both. You don't have to watch your back when you criticize a politician in the UK, and certainly not when you "like" someone doing that. Even if it was later criticized later on, it did happen, and I would guess it got no consequences for the people that prosecuted the two women.
[1] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kerala-student-life-in-ja...
It appears that there's people in this thread who downvote anyone who's from India and doesn't think things are as bad as suggested.
Many Indians think this way: "Freedom of speech, it's not that bad in India. Modi will change everything."
Shocking thing is that a lot of Indians also believe that these people deserve to be jailed for speaking against politicians. Even worse.. they are beaten by a mob and their house is ransacked.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8364841
[0] http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2012/07/sanal-edamarukus-situ...
Second you on that one! I lived in various parts of rural India for a little over 12 years, and the deeper I went, the more I saw people there actively voting in droves. And the harder their life and generally poor state of affairs!
sadly democracy in India only has the voting part implemented fairly well. It's a monarch until the next election. Even the voting is neck deep in corruption [1]
[1] http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/cash-for-vo...
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-07/news...
It would be interesting to hear from Indians on these issues. I'm not a citizen nor do I live there, but religious conflict often has cost many lives in India. For example, there were the 2002 religious riots in Gujarat which made Modi, now Prime Minister of the country, so controversial; 1,000-2,000 people died and there were brutal gang rapes, people being burnt alive and other horrors. Going back to the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, up to a million people died and many millions were displaced.
In Germany there are laws against free expression of Nazi ideas. Perhaps in India it is appropriate to minimize religious conflict. I don't know enough to offer an opinion but it's a very serious consideration.
If you forbid peoples' expression in the name of avoiding conflict then you simply allow the ideas of the most bloodthirsty, conflict-minded group to dominate, as this group is the group most likely to get offended, and hence suppressing any ideas that offend this group necessarily leaves this group's ideas unchallenged.
Yes. Expressing Nazi ideas can lead to violence, extremism, racial and religious discrimination, anti-democratic activity among other things. That's pretty much what the OP said, and is also the original motivation behind India's censorship laws. I am of the opinion that the case for censorship is more justified in India than in Germany. As the Gujarat 2002 riots and Assam 2012 riots (where Indian govt. temporarily throttled sms traffic to prevent spread of rumours) have pretty much proven - tactless media coverage or the spreading of rumours during tense situations could result in the deaths of thousands.
Of course whether those laws are being abused (in ways including the one you described) is a whole nother question.
I didn't say Nazi ideas were banned because of this, I said they were banned because of what _following_ them can lead to. For contrast, compare an idea like "group X treats women like second-class citizen". Following this idea does no harm, it doesn't even do anything, as it's not a prescription that can be followed, it's just a statement. Expressing it could however still lead to a violence if group X is aggressive and conflict-minded. If expressing this idea is banned, then public discussion of the poor treatment of women by group x would be banned, and there wouldn't be any pressure for group x to improve its treatment of them.
I do believe however there is in general liberty to free speech as long as it doesn't involve religious flame wars or speeches filled with national hate (You may want to read up on arrests of pro-LTTE speakers) . The isolated examples quoted in the original article can be argued case by case and as far as I know convictions have not been obtained. So the law is taking it's course. The very act of arresting them is violating civil liberties but there is no strong organization like the ACLU in India (there is PUCL but it's pretty dormant) to help citizens. And common people do not want to spend the money on lawyers and courts. So police force will continue to abuse their powers because no one keeps them in check. I've personally faced police excesses and it was more of a taboo to explain it to your family that you were picked up for questioning. In India, the very act of you being questioned by police is seen as a character issue.
Long story short, when I see first world struggling with civil liberties (I live in USA now), I do not expect India to do better. It is also unfair to compare a much younger democracy with an older democracy that still hasn't figured out civil liberties in digital age completely. I also do not expect India to lead the world in terms of civil liberties in next 20 years (either digital or regular). I do hope the remaining humanity in Indians don't vanish. Otherwise, we'd implode.
This is there even in the Indian Constitution. The govt. is allowed to impose restrictions on fundamental rights in order to maintain order and harmony. First Amendment absolutism is totally out of the question in the Indian context.
Also, I am from the East though I grew up in the West, and the attempt to deflect criticism just on the basis of "it's a different society" is disgusting, a hindrance to progress, and frankly quite racist. There is an ongoing campaign in India against the practice of dowry, I guess you also want to argue "Westerners don't understand that India just traditionally has dowry"??
There is hardly any problem related to dowry. Come, have a look. 'Dowry' exists in media which consists of third grade students turned women-right activists.
For mathematically minded people, I will just quote recent supreme court judgment about the reality of dowry and dowry harassment lawsuit (498(a) IPC):
"The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. "Crime in India 2012 Statistics" published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal."
I suppose 85% acquittal rate is just collateral damage, except that dowry was exactly how women used to get their parental property rights in India! But that is too Indian for Indians educated in western schools. So instead of codifying dowry as mandatory to protect women's rights from being infringed by her family, feminists would rather use misandry and enable women to vent their frustration on her husband. So we got ridiculous laws like dowry harassment lawsuit (1983) and dowry prohibition lawsuit, and then they realized that husbands demanding dowry is actually a rarity and reality is not at all as media would like to have use believe. So finally they passed equal property rights for women in 2005.
Bit by bit, you know. There is a reason why villages in India give an impression of being lawless.
Regarding second paragraph, the citation is not handy right now, but this is what Indian feminists actually write. You know, the ones actually involved in drafting government policies. There was a similar article by NCW I read around 3 months ago. You can also talk to the head of http://samajsevasamithy.org/ regarding it (I volunteer there).
Regarding the second paragraph, that whole argument comes from Madhu Kishwar but because I don't have the exact url I will leave it at that.
As per the effects of feminist media upon Indian villages (where, as Gandhi said, real India lives), I would ask you to go through these: 1. http://fathersforlife.org/pizzey/DV_is_not_a_gender_issue.ht... 2. http://www.odsg.org/Said_Edward%281977%29_Orientalism.pdf 3. http://www.rediff.com/news/special/ls-election-madhu-kishwar...
Regarding your links about feminism, [1] is not relevant to India, [2] is you being very lazy - I'm not going to read through 400 pages just to entertain your whims, you will need to quote specific extracts from it, and [3] is fairly neutral regarding feminists.
You also seem to getting offended personally that I am pointing out problems with your country. I don't know what to do, other than point out that this reaction is not rational, and that I don't mean personal offence.
Regarding dowry related death, any death of wife within 7 years of marriage is reported as dowry related death. Why? So police-lawyer-NCW nexus can make money out of it by harassing husband. A lot of times even women's family jumps in to make money. That is the level of discrimination women face. For example, the dowry harassment lawsuit (498a IPC) is non-cognizable, which means once filed, it cannot be taken back. Then it is Husband vs. The State. The moment a death occurs police and lawyers will convince family members to file 498a. Then they can simply use it to extort lakhs. My friend himself paid 10 lakhs. Is NCW interested in that data? No. It actively hides the real data, instead relying on vague statistics like 'how many dowry related deaths have been reported to police' and not 'how many dowry related deaths actually happened'. And why not? NCW is run by politicians and wives of corrupt IPS officers.
'leephilips said: "India is the most prominent example of a country with plenty of voting but no democracy."
You said: "It doesn't mean it's a good thing to do, or that we agree with it and won't criticise it."
A perfectly well-functioning democratic society can reach conclusions that are worthy of criticism. People have a habit of blaming the process for grievances they have with the substantive outcomes of the process.
E.g. people on Hacker News rant about how democracy in the U.S. must not be functioning because the drug war still rages on. The drug war is, in my opinion, a policy worthy of criticism. Yet, it's undeniable that it enjoys popular support. It was only this year that marijuana legalization managed to carry a (slim) majority of registered voters. As recently as 10-15 years ago, there was a 2:1 consensus against even legalization of marijuana--forget about ending the drug war entirely.
It's easy to blame the process for results you don't like. It's harder to admit that the process is fine, you just don't like what people do with their right to self-determination.
By "democracy" I have in mind what Americans and Western Europeans mean by democracy, which is decidedly not a simple tyranny of the majority enacted through voting. Democracy in any meaningful sense has some means of self regulation that preserves certain rights and perpetuates self-determination for future generations.
I'm not blaming the process. The U.S. still has a serviceable democracy despite the drug war and all the other examples of bad public policy that are desired by the people. Our democracy has even survived the violation of parts of the constitution that makes it possible. My point was that no democracy can exist in any meaningful sense in a society that has criminalized the discussion of ideas and the expression of opinions. Once that line has been crossed it is not a matter of undesirable public policy, but of democracy eating itself. Surely you agree that there can be no democracy if you're not allowed to talk about how people should vote.
India has become a place where you can be jailed for exposing the physical cause of a weeping statue because you've hurt the feelings of the Catholics who want to believe that it's a miracle. I don't believe democracy can exist under such conditions, but I hope things change soon for this great nation.
"Democracy" doesn't mean "everything is fair". Democracy is just larger groups having absolute power over smaller groups.
There is absolutely no guarantee that the larger group isn't going to oppress the smaller one. This is why constitutional democracies (where the power of the majority is strictly limited) are a popular compromise.
Democracy sometimes requires sacrificing a privilege for public benefit. India has a very diverse culture (I would say no other country in world has such a diverse demographic) and co-existence can be uneasy. Non-Indians may not understand the compromises one has to make, to coexist harmoniously.
There are two parts to this as I see it with some bit of overlap.
1. A hard core group (could be religious, person centric (e.g., Mahatma Gandhi)) that act as custodians of "sentiments" of larger population. They act with various degrees of violence if they believe that the sentiments have been hurt [1], [2]. The police force itself generally sides with the mob and they cite oft repeated phrase of "natural reaction by the crowd" as a reason for avoiding taking action.
2. Freedom of expression that's curtailed by law and codified in law books.
For me #2 above is far more serious issue. Various courts routinely invoke this law, which is amazingly ill-defined to start with, to suppress any kind of dissent. I can't cite hard data here but in my life time I can clearly see an uptrend in such cases. There's also a harsher (some say draconian) law around sedition. Even if you are a mere sympathizer with a banned group then you will be treated as an enemy of the state; there's no soft middle ground here and you are treated as a militant [3].
Shiny GDP and development notwithstanding India is fast moving towards dictatorship which is really unfortunate as right to dissent is the core of a democratic society.
[1]: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/muslim-techi...
[2]: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/kerala-police-may-b...
[3]: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/du-profe...
[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/11/world/asia/india-cartoonis...
Here's the video's info:
"""India is currently implementing some of the scariest surveillance schemes in the world. This lecture will shed light on India's surveillance industry, its UID scheme which aims at the collection of all biometric data and on various controversial surveillance schemes, such as the Central Monitoring System (CMS).
When it comes to surveillance, the most mainstream argument is that the majority of India's population lives below the poverty line and that surveillance is an elitist issue - and not a "real" issue which affects the masses. Given that the majority of India's population has mobile phones and that the Indian government is currently implementing the Central Monitoring System (CMS) which aims at intercepting all telecommunications (and Internet communications), surveillance does not appear to be an elitist issue. Given that the UID scheme aims at collecting the biometric data of all citizens residing in India and that most BPL cash programmes require UID registration, surveillance appears to be an issue which (unfortunately) affects the 1.2 billion people currently living in India. And this is to say the least. As part of the Privacy Project, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore, India, is investigating surveillance within the country. The project is funded by Privacy International and aims to map out various forms of surveillance in India, ranging from drones, CCTV cameras and GPS tracking equipment to phone and Internet monitoring gear. This lecture aims to present the research that Maria Xynou has undertaken at the CIS so far, which includes data on the various surveillance technology companies operating in India and the type of spy gear they sell to Indian law enforcement agencies. This research also includes the presentation of India's various controversial surveillance schemes, with an emphasis on the Central Monitoring System (CMS) which unlawfully enables the interception of all telecommunications and Internet communications. India is currently implementing the world's largest biometric data collection and interception of communications schemes. The aim of this lecture is to present India's scary mass surveillance and to discuss its implications on the right to privacy and other human rights."""
The reason we need this biomertic data would be to ascertain the identity of over a billion people where unique names, places of birth and the existence of birth certificates aren't the norm, not in order to constantly police the populace.
If you could make more explicit the problems with gathering biometric data of citizens, (which shouldn't be used for security purposes anyway) then I'm sure I would get a better understanding of your position.
What !? This statement has NO factual basis, and is completely incorrect. (PS: I have a Aadhaar card (aka UID) myself).
And there is practically zero debate on the issues:
1. Is the govt. capable and competent enough to keep the data safe from external and internal threats ( If I had to put money, I would say all or part of the data has already made its way to at least one foreign govt.)
2. Are there enough safeguards in place to prevent this data from being misused? In a country with widespread and endemic corruption and where there have been incidents of govt. indifference or even collusion in events that cost thousands of lives and/or billions of dollars; Can the govt. be trusted with this data at all?
3. Is such a system (whose capabilities and scope far exceed those of most if not all first-world countries) really a priority in a country with grinding poverty, societal issues, illiteracy, inadequate healthcare, poor sanitation, corruption, decrepit infrastructure.
Right now, the Indian masses are probably not educated enough on the issues to have this debate and the govt. is using this fact to try and deploy it as fast as possible.
Since 2005 to get this you need a medical blood and X-ray test (to ensure you don't have HIV or TB - I wouldn't be surprised if DNA was analysed too), prints of all 10 and the sides of your hands and retinal scans. Last year the relevant authoring announced it had biometrics for 118 million people [0], which considering the population is just under 10 million isn't bad (there is a high turnover in expat workers).
The ID cards are actually quite advanced, they contain the biometrics and PKI. Pretty much everyone (even government authorities) still use signatures and photocopies of the cards for verification though...
[0] http://www.id.gov.ae/en/media-centre/news/2013/7/9/emirates-...
Secondly, I think most people over-estimate the Indian government's technical ability. We are nowhere near US or China in mass surveillance. No Indian agency has the expertise anywhere near NSA or PLA Unit 61398. And unlike in China where there are many popular local tech companies, Indians use products of American companies (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.). So the government can neither ask the companies for data (like US) nor get the companies to actively participate in any form of censorship (like China). As long as the US companies follow basic security practices (HTTPS, SSL, 2-step verification, etc..) and don't sell out, we should be fine on the internet.
(Disclaimer: Indian citizen)
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/uidai-gets-first-complaint...
http://kractivist.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/india-your-aadhaa...
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/aadhar-scheme-how-safe-an...
I know at least 22 cases that have been suppressed so far. You can safely assume the number to be much higher, misunderstood and often under-reported. Dig deep and you'll find a lot of unreported reality!
[1] http://www.rediff.com/news/report/uidai-gets-first-complaint...
Edit: I see two more new links.
One of them talks that a NGO has filed a case against UID agency. Government's welfare schemes now require UID. Why? I have given some of the reasons in the first paragraph of the parent comment.
For the second link, government wants everyone to have a bank account. Because now the money from different welfare programs will be directly transferred to the bank accounts. No need to go to government office and collect money. Please read more explanation towards the end of the article you posted!
Edit: Your claim: "I know at least 22 cases that have been suppressed". What you have provided: 3 links from a quick Google search, that too without checking their content.
a belgian company sold an ID system to the rwandan government, it was used by one tribe to find people from another tribe so they could kill them
these systems are deadly in the wrong hands - if the info is not there, it can't be abused.
And it is oh so convenient! I'm moving in a few weeks, and I had to fill in a form on a website and the tax authorities sent me some papers to sign and return. And that is all! Now all government agencies, the banks and larger companies that I deal with, and all magazines I subscribe to will have my new correct address in their system within days.
What makes you think that? In the UK maybe, but certainly in Spain no one thinks twice about their ID cards. It's just something you have and use to identify yourself - both in public administration and in private transactions, for example paying money into a bank over the counter.
"these systems are deadly in the wrong hands" - In the context of this thread, I hope you are not comparing Indian government with the Nazis. Such a comparison would be misusing the Nazi term and insulting the severity of crimes committed against Jews.
"if the info is not there, it can't be abused" - We can't move to the stone age now. Your car registration details at the DMV can be used against you. Your SSN details can be used against you. Information is stored about every citizen, in every country.
I hope that people realize that schemes such as UID present many benefits - reducing corruption, bring transparency, and ultimately, giving power to the people.
i wasn't comparing the Indian government with the Nazi's - but i will say there has been a long history of religious bloodshed in India, it doesn't take a major leap of imagination to see that someone with nefarious intent towards Hindu's, Muslims, Sikh's etc should not have access to extensive information about them - human nature being what it is, and looking at what has happened in those circumstances throughout history.
This is subtly different from "citizens can authenticate themselves to the government". Universal identity systems result in no place to hide from the system, which can be used against people that the government (or individual corrupt officials!) doesn't like.
Do you believe that the government can keep private information on a need-to-know basis? There is a lot of evidence they cannot.[1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT
Oh, so their elected officials weren't really elected democratically? Because, you know, that's something you have to prove first before you can make assertions such as the one above.
Just because no one else in here (or even the original article) has mentioned it: cell phone encryption is illegal in India. All GSM is done in the clear. Think about that for a second. It means any citizen with a few hundred dollars worth of hardware can rival the best abilities of the NSA.
.... But, uh, why would the government require that, when they can just listen to the signal after it's been unencrypted at the base station?
Blackberry threatened with suspension because of encryption: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/blackberry-india/5732
(I guess not all GSM is done in the clear since you can use encryption but must share your keys.)
Right now a lot of ex-intelligence employees are whoring themselves out to state governments and international businesses, offering their products and consulting services. There's a lot of money to be made, especially since a lot of the expertise is held quite tightly by the incumbents.
From wiki: The Chaos Communication Congress is an annual meeting of the international hacker scene, organized by the Chaos Computer Club. The congress features a variety of lectures and workshops on technical and political issues.
If a hacker community does lecture on political issue, it is not exactly discussing morality of free expression. They are discussing ways in which you can get busted by the police. They are simply paranoid of conviction.
I can't downvote this comment but someone who can please do so.
I would reiterate that the parent was just sensational, and it is a far cry from the surveillance done by U.S.
What you're saying is like the false claim that Tor is only used by criminals - when in reality, it is used by all sorts of people, including law enforcement themselves!
If anything they would break and work against the security measures, malicious or not depends on them. Through the entire meeting, they mocked the laws, quoting from handful cases which you have been able to find and discussing various security measures as they are used now. Bottom line is break the system for freedom of expression! They are just forcing governments hand to enforce more restrictions. The last thing we need is international hacker groups vouching for freedom of expression in India.
Lastly surveillance in India is nothing compared to the surveillance done by NSA or PLA. A few cases may happen here and there, but it will always be a few. The parent comment was unnecessary sensational.
Ground reality is a bitch.
I was about to give you my case number of anticipatory bail. But seriously, what source you want?
EDIT: On more thought, if you really want to know the ground reality you can call anyone in http://www.saveindianfamily.org/ . Their Bangalore chapter know my case.
It would allow discussion on such topics without fear of reprisal.
With my lack of coding skills would this even be possible?
NO! (it is only possible WITH the required skills!)
The 1st amendment to US constitution gives people freedom of speech and ensures that government can not pass any laws against it. On the other hand all the "rights" that Indian constitution gives are subject to other government approvals which means you can have Right X to the extent that other existing laws allow.
Despite that several of laws except the IT laws are pretty good and time tested. IT law however is horrible and puts a prohibitive cost on various IT businesses.
Indian classified company Quikr (like CraigList) has hired 200 people just to screen each and every post to make sure it is not "offensive".
When it comes to US constitution, the 1st amendment is the stricter condition that each and every other law should meet. Any law passed that is not consistent with 1st amendment thus becomes invalid.
Opposite is the case with Indian constitution. All the rights given by Indian constitution are totally subject to other laws passed by Indian government. Which means "freedom of expression" is a right as long as no other law prevents it. So basically government can deny you that right any time and in any case it wants.
There are total 8 grounds on which a government can pass a law to further lower the freedom of speech. These 8 grounds cover almost every possible case.
I managed to sell my bike on Quikr so clearly it works. Indian business face trust issues by default.
"Time tested." lol. Many laws in India date from the times of British Raj, and were outdated even then! -http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-29516976
http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West#Democrac...
Nope, nothing has changed, and while everyone had high hopes for the new govt, it will be foolhardy for any government to simply let go of such easy censorship on the public.
In India its okay to burn a bus in `protest', but not post a facebook comment to criticize some politician.
1. This is old (2012). There was a major government change in May 2014. The earlier government censored a lot of stuff. Mainly because their performance was below average and they did not want people talking about it.
2. The new government (led by Prime Minister Modi) is very oriented. (Checkout the central attendance system implemented by them in a couple of months: http://attendance.gov.in/). They have been pushing for broadband internet connectivity in villages.
IMHO This is not as applicable today as it was 2 years ago.
My $0.02
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Black-money-case-Cant-disclo...
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Black-money-case-Govt-not-re...
Bacon article? A Muslim gets offended.
Computer article? A Luddite is offended.
Photos of art? A blind man is offended.
That rabbit hole is infinitely deep. Oops I just offended rabbit lovers.
- Surveillance is bad but depending on country's internal and external security situation, it may be a necessary evil.
- Removing content offensive to politicians is unacceptable.