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 place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
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.
Our whole society is built on natural rights.
We ignore the wisdom of moral tradition to our own detriment.
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 made by long-dead politicians define the proper scope of such rights actively harmful to efforts to appropriately balance liberty with other concerned for real live people living today.
> It sounds like you're not interested simply because it's redundant.
I'm not interested in efforts to treat political compromise as holy writ.
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.
The concept of natural rights started with philosophers, not politicians. You seem like you need to do a little more reading on this subject.
No, it started largely with politicians who were also philosophers (whether you look at the ancient roots with Cicero and Seneca or people like Locke who were instrumental in crafting the modern view of natural rights.) But, in any case, it is irrelevant to the bit you quote and respond to, which is about people citing particular provisions of the US Constitution as definitive expressions of natural rights, not about the mere concept of natural rights.
They also tend to be disproportionately targeted at particular, inconvenient, segments of the population.
This is the "arc of the universe is long but it bends towards justice" narrative that Obama and MLK have favored; it resonates with me at least, even though I certainly believe there remains much work to be done.
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 figure out some sequence of utterances that made a lightbulb go off in the heads of the judges?
No. What happened is public opinion changed.
The constitution gives you theoretical rights. Whether or not you actually have any of them is a direct product of what the public thinks of you
Another great example of the same phenomenon is how the US Supreme Court ruled that it was OK to record TV shows on home video recording devices, such as VCRs, in 1984.
There were no changes in the Constitution, and copyright law had become even more oppressive. What changed was that VCRs has become widespread by 1984 and the Supremes could sense that public opinion was strongly in favor of home recording. In fact, a couple of the Justice owned VCRs themselves. They were motivated to find an argument to make it legal.
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 protect individual liberties from the powers of the State. Of course, there have always been so-called 'citizens' fond of their own liberty to deprive others of theirs.
Some states still have those laws on the books.
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.
Assault is a crime of violence; I think you’re looking for Battery as the comparison. Lack of consent is indeed one of the elements of Battery.
Personally, I find that an unhelpful approach because the world, and yes, society, change. But it -can- be a helpful guiding star. Those who don't learn from history, etc; well, we have this document that was very intentionally trying to protect against a variety of evils that had been directly observed. Reintepreting it to today gives us value, in that it's a warning against behaviors that are detrimental to society. What exactly is the extent of freedom of speech? The document won't tell you that, or what a good extent of it should be, but it -does- tell you that -it's important-. The countries with the most restrictive speech, the ones where the wrong words routinely get you thrown in jail, where there is little to no free press...there is no document the government is predicated on saying that freedom of speech is important. Etc.
That's precisely why there are ways to amend the constitution. And we have been doing so for a long time - the most recent amendment is only 25 years old. That's the originalist way to dealing with the world and society changing, and the benefit of it is that it makes the change less arbitrary, and more democratic (since it's up to state legislatures, which are elected) than judicial fiat.
You are two centuries too early. (I agree with your post overall.)
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 1985 or 2005. There was no national ban or comprehensive state-based ban on same-sex marriage or eg drug consumption. The states heavily regulating marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon. The US used to have relatively few laws governing society in general, if you go back before the 1930s. The marijuana tax act was in 1937. Until the late 1970s we also didn't aggressively put so many people into prison. ~1970-2010 was an era of incredible regressiveness for the US on many social legal issues.
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.
Do we have to riot in the streets? I thought that was the entire point of the American Revolution! We already fought for our rights, and yet people try telling me that we're losing them because we're not fighting anymore. Apparently it's entirely acceptable that when we become complacent, that the government can steamroll us for our ignorance?
But, what happens if we figure out that the rights we currently enjoy are, in fact, not protected by the constitution?
This hammer swings both ways. There's a big, nasty, vaguely-defined "unreasonable" word in "unreasonable search and seizure."
Who defines what is "unreasonable"? And what are the odds that their definition will agree with what HN thinks is "unreasonable"?
I can completely see a court, in 2021, argue with a straight face, that a ban on "unreasonable search and seizure" does not protect you against <Whatever invasion of privacy>.
Precedent is important. Also, being aware of your rights and theirs precedents in history is important.
The Constitution is entirely written in a manner that grants citizens rights and restrains government power. Someday we might get so ignorant that the government decides pulling a fast one on citizens is possible, therefore they try. (See Patriot Act, NDAA,. etc.)
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 one: government can make no law regarding religion or preventing The practice)
3. Any person can follow any religion in America (as long as it doesn't violate other human's rights.)
4. Create a new religion that allows gay marriage.
Allowing people to marry should and is protected under the first amendment. The Bill of Rights wasn't written in short, easy descriptions so that we could conflate meaning and exclude people of their rights. The truth is exactly opposite of that!
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.
I'm convinced that since citizens don't know their rights, that the government doesn't think we care about them, and uses that against us when we try defending them. It's the idea of... If you don't use them, you lose them.
Alternatively, some people are willing to give up some rights for a feeling of security.
Or some people are willing to curtail some rights because it hurts people they don't like a lot more than it hurts them.
Or some people imagine gutting rights they don't regularly seem to need will never come back to bite them. People aren't going to defend things they don't care about.
Or some people seem to imagine that if a certain right doesn't seem to benefit them directly that it's not worthwhile to defend.
Or some people seem to think that maintaining the status quo is a right that they need to defend, no matter how many people are harmed by the inequality in the current landscape.
I mean you're not wrong. But that's certainly not the only issue issue causing the erosion of liberty.
It doesn't means anything for normal IT work .
Civil law protections are insufficient as they are presently. Govt can put you in jail on flimsy grounds, but you can't sue for damages on wrongful imprisonment, etc. Most things are governed by criminal laws, where only remedy is punishment for the convicted, instead of having a strong tort law, where the aggrieved parties can extricate monetary damage claims.
Though usually the lines are a bit blurry, sometimes secret warrants are issued to access already dragneted data. But those warrants are very far from real oversight.
The issue is that while this order is passed, there is no remedy for the citizens if their privacy is breached in any sense. The power is given to the home ministry, who at this point, think of themselves more as campaigner for next election, rather than an elected govt body, and hence it will be bad for political opponents in elections due in 2019. Since they made it concerning National Security, it is not covered under Right to Information either.
(The order and notification says that the interception and monitor could only be for certain citizens, or group of citizens, if they are deemed a threat for national security. Even Apple might be asked to break the encryption in this case.)
We have fundamental enforceable human rights, democratic government, independent judiciary, (way too much)state-independent media, functional Intellectual Property Rights(IPR) regime while China lacks all of these.
Also, India has not even begun to setup the kind of real-time mass surveillance, through millions of cameras, already in place (to be fair, US is comparable here) or the upcoming dystopian big data-driven, social network-like integrated citizen evaluation program, Social Credit System(SCS) in China.
So, its wildly inappropriate to mention India and China in the same vein here
I don't agree with you here. Maybe you live in a different India.
Democratic government -Yes
Independent Judiciary - Nope. Look up about the recent Rafael Fiasco. Also, a judge was killed and replaced by a Yes man to protect a mafia politician. Search Justice Loya for more details
state-independent media - To some extent. But there are many ruling party pet new channels
Functional Intellectual Property Right ??? Really ?
Oh yes, you mean the one where a journalist is put under draconian NSA for criticizing the government.
> democratic government
Oh right. The one where hate-mongering communal bigot is made the Chief Minister.
> independent judiciary
Absolutely. I guess that' why the 4 senior-most judges of the Supreme Court of India came out and said that the democracy was at stake. Isn't it?
> the upcoming dystopian big data-driven, social network-like integrated citizen evaluation program
By any chance, do you mean like the one used by 40 departments of Indian government to spy on it's citizen?
> So, its wildly inappropriate to mention India and China in the same vein here
Oh it's absolutely appropriate to mention India and China in the same vein here.
But for an historic contrarian view:
Berlin 1931 (Weimar Republic): I don't mind if the government reads my letters. I've got nothing to hide.
Berlin 1936 (national socialism): You writings make you an enemy of the state!
Ironically, they are hiding that from themselves.
Unfortunately, most politicians here don't understand (or don't care about) the impact of any of these even to protect themselves from attack or suppression by authoritarian and untrustworthy people in power. Most states also have laws that allow them to detain people without a court order or presenting them in a court of law for up to a year, and the police can also make several laws and enforce them.
It's just a matter of time that immigration officials and police will start asking people to reveal their social media passwords, go through their personal and private information, etc.
For all the positives that India as a country has, it has a lot to learn from other countries when it comes to privacy, freedom, freedom of speech, etc.
I believe big technology companies have a role to play in India and around the world to help defeat such dangerous (and often futile) moves by governments.
1. A large group of unsuspecting people, about to be hit by something they will take a long time to recover from.
This is detrimental to national security. It's irresponsible and negligence at best. There is no such thing as bullet-proof cyber-security measures and all these data leaks in the last several years are evidence of that. The more data that is mined, the more information for intruders (foreign and domestic) to have access to.
For example Russia could have penetrated America's NSA and used the data mined there to create profiles of people they could effortlessly manipulate in America's 2016 elections.
How do you know they haven't already done exactly that?
Now the chinese would just need to infiltrate single infrastructure.
What did the Indian govt do when it was revealed that the Huawei was siphoning off data from BSNL (state run ISP)? Other countries have started to ban Huawei telecom products.
In India govt just used a loophole to give several government aagencies to access any computer without limitations or hurdles.
I certainly believe this is intended for data analysis for elections & for abuse of people critical oof the government; especially journalists.
This isn't to say that the Indian intelligence agencies do not try and monitor outside the judicial purview ( who really noes ? Without Snowden we wouldn't know about NSA either). Even if they want, the Indian security apparatus simply does not have kind of resources (both money and tech) to implement a dragnet like NSA has, today. Of-course this may change in future as tech may become cheaper, expertise easier.
The security threat for India is also considerably different than first world countries, two neighbors(Pakistan and China)with border disputes, both nuclear armed and not friendly, Pakistan is not exactly stable and also funds/controls proxy agents who use terror tactics and has significant active support and arms from the U.S. GPS. was disabled during last "war" in late 90's so an Indian system with local coverage was developed. If there is serious thought in the intelligence community that because monitoring is not good enough then it is tough not attempt any means necessary.
Police to person: Give password.
Police to company: Give data.
I highly doubt any Indian government wants or even thinks they can do this.
India in all its diversity, consists of a huge number of separate factions. The Government only works due to a mutual compromise from enough factions to form a coalition.
Also, the Indian judiciary and parliament hold genuine power and exercise it too.
It is nearly impossible for a single person to gain enough momentum to even start being dictatorial.
Admittedly, Modi's government has consolidated more power in one person than most of India's past governments. But, even then it only in comparison to the nearly dysfunctional mega coalitions of the INC.
I don't like what is happening but it is far better than controlling the entire government from 10 Janpath.
I highly doubt that this is what the motive is. But I agree that this decision is very irresponsible and can have a disastrous impact. It could surely help in detecting a pattern which may put the nation in some sort of risk, but there is a greater and inevitable chance that it can be easily misused by the granted authorities or some personnel working for those authorities.
So, unlike the Chinese, we (Indians) don't really get to learn much from outsourcing, other than may be lessons on keeping the end customer happy by exploiting the employees.
Cloudflare app link - https://blog.cloudflare.com/1-thing-you-can-do-to-make-your-...
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 clear, I am not condoning India's actions and I have no doubt many people will be hurt by this. I am merely pointing out that there will also be many unintended consequences and I personally believe that their government will ultimately lose more trust, control and visibility than they gain.
They're utterly ineffective at their stated goals. The targets are largely unaffected.
However, the average person is affected. And can be deeply affected.
> innovation around privacy, security and awareness [...]
... in the HN filter bubble. Not in the general public.
Consider yourself lucky to be knowledgeable about IT. Most people are not and they have plenty of other things to think about instead of their IT-education.
Actually if Apple, Goog, FB etc are forced to surrender the key--at the penalty of being excluded from 1.x billion people in India--math works only one way...
They did that with Blackberry few years ago
It would take a large-scale public education campaign to teach people what it means when they see a warning message that reads "Peer key changed. Are you sure you want to proceed?"
If you need to be convinced, go ask your mom or dad whether it's immediately obvious what is going on when they see an insecure connection warning in their web browser. In my experience everyone just clicks through to "proceed anyway" without comprehending it at all.
Apple has great hopes for India https://www.msn.com/en-us/finance/companies/its-been-a-rout-...
I think this is specifically aimed at elections, data from ISP's, set top boxes provide enough data to determine political affiliations such as whether you watch NDTV or Republic.
50% ministers in his cabinet are facing corruption/criminal charges in courts
fulfilled just 9% poll promises http://www.electionpromisestracker.in/governments/central-government
and utter contempt for truth and knowledge https://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/smriti-irani-to-sharad-yadav-8-most-bizarre-statements-from-politicians-in-2018_in_5c18d2dfe4b08db990575cfc
We have general elections next year and the main deciding factors will probably be stuff like demonetisation, rising prices/taxes, perceived arrogance/authoritarianism etc. This issue will go almost unnoticed except by the techically aware minority, just as the wholesale decimation of India's environment by the current govt is also going unnoticed except by the small 'green' minority.
Would you care to expound to here? The last I checked this government has done more on renewable energy front than any other government.
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 recent past. So, no, India does not have weak protections for its citizens.
Finally, India is a place where mere WhatsApp forwards on the basis of rumors or made up stories cause people to go out and riot. Communal violence can be instigated using such means. So such laws are essential to track down the perpetrators.
NSA, CIA also silently spy on Americans without much oversight in the name of security. In fact it is done at a mass scale.
“Uighur detention camps don’t exist and also aren’t that bad.”
People in glass houses should not be pelting stones.
You have a really huge chip on those shoulders.
MITM for iMessage, Whatsapp etc seems to be guaranteed here.
It is end to end encrypted
This is likely aimed at upcoming elections for data analyses via ISP & to target journalists critical of the current govt in India.
But I feel that the International community isn't going to rally up for India like they did for Australia; I doubt even if expats would.
The main opposition party has far worse record of human rights abuses. So please spare us the propoganda
> This is likely aimed at upcoming elections for data analyses via ISP & to target journalists critical of the current govt in India.
Even prior to this government, journalists were being targeted by the regime. It has more to do with India's archaic laws(eg: defamation) than anything else.
It is well known to propagate fake news in support of the ruling right wing political party.
>The Ministry of Home Affairs on Friday clarified that its recent order authorising 10 agencies to snoop on any computer in the country in the interest of national security is based on the UPA-era IT Act and the IT Rules 2009 that allow for surveillance by a competent authority and said all cases of surveillance will be placed before a review committee headed by the cabinet secretary.
I know for sure that "give password or spend 7 years in jail" is not a new rule. It was there for at least a while.
>Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, as amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, empowers the central and state governments to compel assistance from any "subscriber or intermediary or any person in charge of the computer resource" in decrypting information. Failure to comply is punishable by up to seven years imprisonment and/or a fine.
>A major amendment was made in 2008. It introduced the Section 66A which penalized sending of "offensive messages". It also introduced the Section 69, which gave authorities the power of "interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource". It also introduced for child porn, cyber terrorism and voyeurism. It was passed on 22 December 2008 without any debate in Lok Sabha. The next day it was passed by the Rajya Sabha. It was signed by the then President (Pratibha Patil) on 5 February 2009.
UPA ruled India in 2008.