That's a huge issue. Most people don't realize that headlines have an entire article attached to them and that's where the information actually is. It's really misleading and disrespectful for journalists to expect you to read anything for details or pay attention to the work they're doing.
Better than making assumptions based on the title, assuming an understanding of the news, and then posting opinions on it from a position of ignorance.
It honestly pissed me off to an extent. BUT! I already knew something like this would happen so im not surprised. The fact they even got released as redact heavy as they were is a step
For the same reason they're taking our privacy. Oppression. I was really born into a world where dogs can sunbathe their balls, but humans can't. I need my God damn vitamin D.
Actually - since this is the Indian Supreme Court -, a major religion in India (Jainism) makes it a virtue to get rid of one's cloths. "Being clothed with space" is a highly respected status in their religion, although it's only allowed for men.
It's one small sect of holy men within one minor religion (Jainism is practised by 0.4% of India's population. I guess that's still 4-5 million people 🤔)
While hearing a case regarding snooping phone-tapping case Supreme Court of India Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned “Now we live in an open world. Nobody is in a closed world. Nobody should be really bothered about surveillance. Why should anyone be bothered about surveillance unless they have something to hide?”
The lamest argument for surveillance ever is used by top court of India. This shows the mindset of Supreme Court towards the privacy of it's citizens, few days ago it was the same supreme court who suggested AADHAAR(national id) linking of social media!!
Back in '17, SC said privacy is a fundamental right. (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India)
"The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution."
Yeah, Solicitor Genera Tushar Mehta appearing for Telangana did refer to this judgement, though acknowledging this, Justice Nagarathna still queried "“Why should anyone be scared of surveillance? If you have nothing to hide, why should you be afraid?”"
I know I'm preaching to the choir in this sub, but it's just really icky. Just as if someone was reading my mail or checking my medical or bank records.
It’s not just icky. Frankly we should all hide as much as we can, because you never know when bigoted despots will be in power, eager to persecute people over things they “shouldn’t need to hide”.
Though this case is about the legality and practices of specific state wire tapping etc, people here seem to think that the right to privacy supersedes warrant surveillance which of course is not the case anywhere in the world and that this was the matter at hand.
What the plaintiff was saying is that this specific gov practices are illegal, as is also blanket mass surveillance, not that the state or law enforcement have no such right under any circumstances.
The DPDA has been put in place to prevent the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy decision from gaining too much momentum. Not that it particularly matters when it takes years to get a hearing in the first instance and the Indian Government absolutely shits on the idea of privacy irrespective of the law/precedent.
So lame considering this is from the highest court. A classic snowden reply to this dumbo statement is, "Most people don't have anything to say, should we remove freedom of speech as well?".
It might drill the line of thought into the head of mr. Nagaratna.
She is (or was) seen as progressive on many issues (including protecting fundamental rights), and is on track to become India's first female Chief Justice.
I'm not pointing any fingers, but it's also widely believed in India that judges:
a) can be easily bribed with a big enough pile of cash. One Delhi judge was recently caught with piles of unaccounted for cash when a fire broke out at his estate. He was just transferred to another state, even though there was talk of impeachment when the outrage was fresh.
b) usually tend to avoid going against the Modi government unless they feel there's sufficient public support. Sadly, most of the Indian public has more immediately critical issues to think about than unlawful govt surveillance.
So many people forget that the issue isn’t that simple.
Assume a good regime is in place when this happens; that doesn’t always work… sometimes citizens vote for a fucking tyrant without actually understanding it. What happens in those cases?
I heard a statistic the other day that more Jews were killed during The Holocaust in The Netherlands than in France because The Netherlands kept better records - they could just locate EVERYONE.
This same principle applies here. We don’t know what could happen in the future. Not to mention, the government has NO business telling anyone anything or monitoring anyone’s anything.
That’s called being born a free human. This is getting ridiculous. Society is so weak, man.
Exactly this. Data captured now because you lean a certain political way, or belong to a certain group which they "know" because subreddit you visit and YouTube videos you watch and products you buy, etc etc.
This won't be deleted even under GDPR, and because people "who have nothing to hide" don't really care, until that political party becomes too large and will use that information to find dissidents and do what they want (jail, discredit, worse) in a future that is not written.
That's rich, considering that politicians are exempt from surveillance laws to begin with. We all have nothing to hide, right?
Listen here. I've said this before, and I'll say it again - the vast majority of us really do have nothing to hide as we are just ordinary people. Maybe some memes shared in the group chat, some banter with the family, a few photos shared on social media - all of that is benign and it would never raise any alarm.
But that doesn't mean that people don't deserve the right to privacy. In fact, that's why it's enshrined in Article 8 of the Charter of Human Rights. The fact that you don't have anything to hide does not make you exempt from it. Imagine you're chatting with your significant other, thinking that conversation is between only the two of you, when in fact some AI algorithm is logging every single word for review. Isn't that terrifying? Isn't that unethical? I don't want to text my girlfriend "Could you wear the red one tonight? It's my favourite" and some agent in a data centre somewhere nodding along, going "Hell yeah, bro, the red one is my favourite as well".
Not to mention that we have always been giving examples of journalists, whistleblowers, victims of abuse, that need these safeguards in place in order to communicate safely and no one ever mentions them when these laws are discussed. And these need to be drummed out every time this discussion happens. There are vulnerable groups that will suffer immensely if these laws get passed.
some agent in a data centre somewhere nodding along
Snowden tried to tell everyone this too as a last ditch attempt to make people notice. Turns out people just don't care, they accept it as the price of using the web.
Politicians in India do not have explicit legal exemptions from surveillance that are different from those afforded to ordinary citizens.
But the existing laws grant the government itself unchecked powers to conduct surveillance on any individual, including politicians, with limited independent oversight.
At least India had ratified the UN Charters you refer to, US has never ratified anything binding, not even their own attempts (ICESCR, ACHR) and when they did, they culled most of the relevant wording (ICCPR).
You could get them in the past, the addresses of public officials would all be public by default. I'm sure it caused some of them a little fear but then again - maybe a little fear can be a good thing for a lot of these people, get them thinking about what they're doing a bit more rather than being in their ivory towers.
We should install cameras in all rooms and have people wear cameras at all times like cops. Let's start with politicians. Every lobbyist brunch, lunch and dinner should be broadcast live on Youtube. They have nothing to hide, I'm sure they'll agree.
I know you're not really serious but just want to point out here for others that overloading their capabilities is not a thing. The more video data exists, the more scarily accurate machine learning models can be churned out.
In an ideal world, that'd be a good thing (immediate emergency responders, accurate census, targeted litter collection, optimized road construction, automated fraud/corruption detection, etc.).
But that's not the way data is used in the world we live in.
I thought that phrase was fucking stupid when a relative said it to me when I was in middle school, to hear it from any Supreme Court is a terrible sign.
So then, to begin with, make everything publicly available about all politicians, ministers, billionaires, and officials in power, etc. If they are consenting and happy with this, and all the info is released to the public, then there should be no problem about surveillance.
Because politicians, ministers, billionaires, officials, etc. have nothing to hide and need not be bothered by surveillance, right?
The next time someone says “they have nothing to hide” in person, ask them for their wallet and start looking at cards and numbers. Let them know an infinite amount of information is out there much more nefarious than a physical wallet.
That is the most ridiculous line and most annoying. I might not have anything to hide but I don't want someone noting when I arrive and leave my house and what I carry in or out with me, even if it is only my kitchen rubbish and my golf clubs.
This year there were enough hacks, data leaks, nefarious apps released, bugs, and glitches that I can't believe the internet is even still working. And the supreme court says we don't need privacy? All of our data was harvested by all of our enemies this year and only now is this administration thinking about cyber defense. The incompetency is mind blowing.
“Now we live in an open world. Nobody is in a closed world. Nobody should be really bothered about surveillance. Why should anyone be bothered about surveillance unless they have something to hide?” Justice Nagarathna questioned.
LOL. How is this not a violation of Article 21? Supreme Court even made it very clear that privacy is fundamentally right a few years ago. Does she not know about it?
Justices who can't comprehend privacy should keep their mouths shut. And she’s going to be Chief Justice in a few years. Wonderful times ahead..
It’s much deeper than that, sure, it is about to who wants to look, difference being that now, AI models chew on all that data and spew out very precise, and also sometimes completely false and hallucinated information. The problem is that no-one will first question the validity of what the machine spits out before acting nowadays. We’ve now seen how gutless LE and military have become, they’ll do anything even for the worst butcher.
He’s just saying in general to “politicians” and elites, and how they’re scrambling like cockroaches to hide from being held accountable. It’s not a regional thing. These parasites are everywhere
The Supreme Court bending the intent of the Constitution when it comes to government intrusion, is neither surprising nor new. In 1990, the Supreme Court found in "Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz" that sobriety checkpoints, while technically a seizure, were not a violation of the 4th amendment, even though they were conducted without suspicion. They wrote that the intrusion to motorists was "slight" and that the states interest outweighed this intrusion. Evidently, no one balked much (outside of the state of Michigan, where the state court ruled they were unconstitutional, and where they remain illegal) because everyone hates drunk driving. I don't expect that internet privacy will be perceived differently by either the court or the public at large.
I hope you're right. My doubts are predicated on the common person's acceptance of anything the government/media promotes as "for the children" of the "public good".
Me too. Yeah, I hear ya and have similar sentiments. Maybe I’m being naive. I have a sliver of hope people will wake up. This whole situation just sucks man. I don’t like the route the world is going
“If you have nothing to hide, you don’t need to worry about it,” is a common argument for surveillance. Here are some counterarguments:
I have nothing to hide but my business is none of your business.
Inverse argument also valid, using same logic structure: i have nothing to hide, hence YOU have nothing to worry about. (“If you don’t trust me, why should I trust you?”)
Surveillance is for gathering evidence against criminals and crime deterrence. You cannot then also surveil innocent people in a similar manner—unless your intention is to treat everyone as if they’re criminals.
Guarantee. IF people with nothing to hide have nothing to worry about, then guarantee it, since no risk is assumed here. IF surveillance is ever found to be abused under our laws, CONSENT NOW to having your hands removed as remedy. (This means, if surveillance powers are ever found to be used abusively, then you get to cut off the hands of all persons who’ve approved that use. If there is genuinely nothing to worry about, this is a no-brainer, since there is genuinely nothing to worry about.)
What about people who are "different" or have non mainstream political, religious, social or economical views?
Do theybalso not have to worry?
Because I am sure there areblotsbo people who would want to use every method and information available to act against such people to "restore traditional values" or bullshit like that ...
It's kinda funny because this is the exact dumbass argument large company simps make. "Oh, I don't care if Google is spying on me because I have nothing to hide."
Absolute madness, are these people aware that their input couldn’t be more wrong and short-sighted? I mean what kind of an imbecile does it take to believe in that crap and how in the world can an entity like the Supreme Court hold that many decerebrated newts? Appalling declaration, this is the age of mediocrity, no doubt.
This is so wrong in many ways and this is how dictatorship and age of terror works.
During communism in my country more than 30 years ago, wiretapping where common and people were just terrified to not listen to forbidden radio stations or saying something wrong or a joke otherwise they'll face serios punishment.
Also many people faced jail as innocent because neighbors hated them and reported to the state police, false accusations of course.
Is that what we want? People should learn from damn history as this is extremely dangerous and leaving room for abuses.
So then the Justices don’t need privacy or any discretion, since if they haven’t done anything wrong then they have nothing to worry about from the general public.
Tell that to the immigrants who have been coming to the country and doing everything by the book, only to get picked off when they show up for their required hearings.
Seriously, get your nose out of my business. Go fuck yourselves.
Clarence Thomas has stated outright that Americans do not have a constitutionally guaranteed reasonable expectation of privacy, and that he wants the court to hear cases that will allow it to erode citizen privacy even further. He's always been a festering cancer.
Unfortunately he's a Trump loyalist, and there are 5 others, so what you think doesn't matter anymore. They are coming for everyone's rights, Soviet/CCP/DPRK-style.
I didn't consider the consequences of exercising my right to freedom of speech until we elected fascists and I started having people threaten me so... they can go get fucked.
Once you establish the surveillance state, it's really just a matter of who's in charge to determine whether or not you have something worth hiding. Because you can turn something normal into something taboo real damn quick.
“His first answer called for a reform of government policies.
Some people take the position that they “don’t have anything to hide,” but he argued that when you say that, “You’re inverting the model of responsibility for how rights work”:
When you say, ‘I have nothing to hide,’ you’re saying, ‘I don’t care about this right.’ You’re saying, ‘I don’t have this right, because I’ve got to the point where I have to justify it.’
The way rights work is, the government has to justify its intrusion into your rights.”
Exactly what a surveillance state would say to its people where they are targeting people for speaking their minds and literally killing people that speak out against them. This isnt fucking russia.
India has a long and violent history of the majority slaughtering the minority. Is it reasonable for the minority to want to live peacefully? Simply having a different religious belief from the majority was enough to be slaughtered. This notion of "nothing to hide nothing to fear" is absolute BS as it is ALWAYS about what those that collect the data want to do with it.
Historical records document numerous instances of religious violence and massacres in India, often involving the targeting of religious minorities by dominant groups. One of the earliest recorded events is the alleged execution of around 18,000 followers of the Ajivika sect by Emperor Ashoka of the Maurya Empire, following a dispute over religious iconography.
Another early example is the destruction of Buddhist stupas and viharas, attributed to Emperor Pushyamitra of the Shunga Empire, though the historical accuracy of these accounts is debated by scholars.
During the medieval period, several Muslim rulers are associated with large-scale violence against non-Muslim populations. Mahmud of Ghazni's raids on the Somnath Temple in 1024 resulted in the deaths of over 50,000 Hindus, followed by the destruction of the temple.
Similarly, Timur’s invasion of India in 1398 led to mass killings across Haryana, Delhi, and other regions, with estimates suggesting over 4.5 million Hindus were killed, and the skulls of victims were reportedly piled into pyramids.
The siege of Chittorgarh in 1568 saw the massacre of 30,000 civilians by Akbar’s forces after resistance from Rajputs.
The Mughal era also witnessed significant religious violence. Aurangzeb’s reign (1658–1707) is associated with one of the most intense campaigns of religious persecution in the empire’s history, with estimates of up to 4.6 million non-Muslims killed, including the massacre of 150,000 Brahmins in Benares and the construction of a mountain of skulls.
The destruction of Hindu temples and forced conversions were common during his rule.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, religious violence continued. The Goa Inquisition, established by the Portuguese, led to the forced conversion of thousands of Hindus and Muslims, with some executed or burned in effigy.
The British colonial period saw religious tensions escalate, particularly during the 1857 Indian Rebellion, which was partly fueled by fears of forced Christian conversions among Indian soldiers.
"nothing to hide" by whos standard? The person who owns the limitless surveillance and wants me to do something for them? Who doesn't like what I'm doing? Has different political or religious views? Is evil?
Hello u/Doctor-Anonymous1916, please make sure you read the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder left on all new posts.)
Check out the r/privacy FAQ
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I bet top dollar those ghouls will be exempt from the bullshit
Well, seeing the Epstein Files released today, they're surely leading with the example. Tons and tons to hide.
It's not the US.
Pretty bad title to post on a non-country-specific sub then.
Source is the hindu. Under india news.
That information is not in the reddit title.
That's a huge issue. Most people don't realize that headlines have an entire article attached to them and that's where the information actually is. It's really misleading and disrespectful for journalists to expect you to read anything for details or pay attention to the work they're doing.
It is however visible on reddit under the image if one comes here to comment. ;)
Might as well get rid of post titles completely then and tell people to just click on every link they see to judge if they want to read the articles.
Better than making assumptions based on the title, assuming an understanding of the news, and then posting opinions on it from a position of ignorance.
But that's the American Way!
I mean, if you're not going to read an article don't comment on it. That's literally basic media literacy lmao
if you didn't read the article, then don't comment.
Are you literally commenting on assumptions you made by reading a possibly clickbait title?
It honestly pissed me off to an extent. BUT! I already knew something like this would happen so im not surprised. The fact they even got released as redact heavy as they were is a step
Read the article. This isn’t the US.
It isn’t the US yet once they see the people of India not pushing back the regime will add it to the 2027 playbook
Point still stands regardless of country
Surveil the rich minority and everyone on epstains list
Somebody already has all their dirty secrets, they just follow orders like good puppets.
This is not the USA.
By that logic, politicians are definitely dodgy shit they usually exempt themselves from such surveillance.
Exactly.
For “national security” reasons.
Then why should anyone wear clothes?
To avoid being mistaken for the emperor.
For the same reason they're taking our privacy. Oppression. I was really born into a world where dogs can sunbathe their balls, but humans can't. I need my God damn vitamin D.
man just oil yourself fully and whip it out.
they cant take what slips through their hands
Yo wtf 😂
Nah, they insist (to a disturbing degree) on chopping the dog's off, remember?
Ok, squirrels then.
Actually - since this is the Indian Supreme Court -, a major religion in India (Jainism) makes it a virtue to get rid of one's cloths. "Being clothed with space" is a highly respected status in their religion, although it's only allowed for men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
It's one small sect of holy men within one minor religion (Jainism is practised by 0.4% of India's population. I guess that's still 4-5 million people 🤔)
to keep warm.
While hearing a case regarding snooping phone-tapping case Supreme Court of India Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned “Now we live in an open world. Nobody is in a closed world. Nobody should be really bothered about surveillance. Why should anyone be bothered about surveillance unless they have something to hide?”
The lamest argument for surveillance ever is used by top court of India. This shows the mindset of Supreme Court towards the privacy of it's citizens, few days ago it was the same supreme court who suggested AADHAAR(national id) linking of social media!!
Back in '17, SC said privacy is a fundamental right. (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India)
Yeah, Solicitor Genera Tushar Mehta appearing for Telangana did refer to this judgement, though acknowledging this, Justice Nagarathna still queried "“Why should anyone be scared of surveillance? If you have nothing to hide, why should you be afraid?”"
I know I'm preaching to the choir in this sub, but it's just really icky. Just as if someone was reading my mail or checking my medical or bank records.
It’s not just icky. Frankly we should all hide as much as we can, because you never know when bigoted despots will be in power, eager to persecute people over things they “shouldn’t need to hide”.
Though this case is about the legality and practices of specific state wire tapping etc, people here seem to think that the right to privacy supersedes warrant surveillance which of course is not the case anywhere in the world and that this was the matter at hand.
What the plaintiff was saying is that this specific gov practices are illegal, as is also blanket mass surveillance, not that the state or law enforcement have no such right under any circumstances.
The case in question actually had surveillance without warrants.
The DPDA has been put in place to prevent the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy decision from gaining too much momentum. Not that it particularly matters when it takes years to get a hearing in the first instance and the Indian Government absolutely shits on the idea of privacy irrespective of the law/precedent.
So lame considering this is from the highest court. A classic snowden reply to this dumbo statement is, "Most people don't have anything to say, should we remove freedom of speech as well?".
It might drill the line of thought into the head of mr. Nagaratna.
Time to dig and see what
scotusscoi is hiding.This news is of Supreme Court of India
Point still stands: Scoi
This is not an argument for surveillance, but an argument against why a totalitarian state is a bad thing.
This is a legal take from an SC Judge? Did he buy his law degree on the flea market?
She is (or was) seen as progressive on many issues (including protecting fundamental rights), and is on track to become India's first female Chief Justice.
I'm not pointing any fingers, but it's also widely believed in India that judges:
a) can be easily bribed with a big enough pile of cash. One Delhi judge was recently caught with piles of unaccounted for cash when a fire broke out at his estate. He was just transferred to another state, even though there was talk of impeachment when the outrage was fresh.
b) usually tend to avoid going against the Modi government unless they feel there's sufficient public support. Sadly, most of the Indian public has more immediately critical issues to think about than unlawful govt surveillance.
Cool, but neither of these points make it sense to have a legal take thst even a first year law student would be mocked for.
It's not that I have something to hide, I have nothing I want you to see
So many people forget that the issue isn’t that simple.
Assume a good regime is in place when this happens; that doesn’t always work… sometimes citizens vote for a fucking tyrant without actually understanding it. What happens in those cases?
I heard a statistic the other day that more Jews were killed during The Holocaust in The Netherlands than in France because The Netherlands kept better records - they could just locate EVERYONE.
This same principle applies here. We don’t know what could happen in the future. Not to mention, the government has NO business telling anyone anything or monitoring anyone’s anything.
That’s called being born a free human. This is getting ridiculous. Society is so weak, man.
Exactly this. Data captured now because you lean a certain political way, or belong to a certain group which they "know" because subreddit you visit and YouTube videos you watch and products you buy, etc etc. This won't be deleted even under GDPR, and because people "who have nothing to hide" don't really care, until that political party becomes too large and will use that information to find dissidents and do what they want (jail, discredit, worse) in a future that is not written.
The regime is telling us they are making lists
That's rich, considering that politicians are exempt from surveillance laws to begin with. We all have nothing to hide, right?
Listen here. I've said this before, and I'll say it again - the vast majority of us really do have nothing to hide as we are just ordinary people. Maybe some memes shared in the group chat, some banter with the family, a few photos shared on social media - all of that is benign and it would never raise any alarm.
But that doesn't mean that people don't deserve the right to privacy. In fact, that's why it's enshrined in Article 8 of the Charter of Human Rights. The fact that you don't have anything to hide does not make you exempt from it. Imagine you're chatting with your significant other, thinking that conversation is between only the two of you, when in fact some AI algorithm is logging every single word for review. Isn't that terrifying? Isn't that unethical? I don't want to text my girlfriend "Could you wear the red one tonight? It's my favourite" and some agent in a data centre somewhere nodding along, going "Hell yeah, bro, the red one is my favourite as well".
Not to mention that we have always been giving examples of journalists, whistleblowers, victims of abuse, that need these safeguards in place in order to communicate safely and no one ever mentions them when these laws are discussed. And these need to be drummed out every time this discussion happens. There are vulnerable groups that will suffer immensely if these laws get passed.
Snowden tried to tell everyone this too as a last ditch attempt to make people notice. Turns out people just don't care, they accept it as the price of using the web.
Politicians in India do not have explicit legal exemptions from surveillance that are different from those afforded to ordinary citizens.
But the existing laws grant the government itself unchecked powers to conduct surveillance on any individual, including politicians, with limited independent oversight.
At least India had ratified the UN Charters you refer to, US has never ratified anything binding, not even their own attempts (ICESCR, ACHR) and when they did, they culled most of the relevant wording (ICCPR).
Lmao probably the weakest argument for anything ever
Especially in 2025 when loads of people in multiple jurisdictions have something to hide for various reasons.
By that logic, if the Supreme Court has nothing to hide, then why can't I google their home addresses?
You could get them in the past, the addresses of public officials would all be public by default. I'm sure it caused some of them a little fear but then again - maybe a little fear can be a good thing for a lot of these people, get them thinking about what they're doing a bit more rather than being in their ivory towers.
I know that Americans often assume everything on Reddit is for them but SC is usually short for SCotUS... Bad title is bad
Yea like with all the shit going on in the US I wouldn't have blinked if it was them. The title should rlly specify
We should install cameras in all rooms and have people wear cameras at all times like cops. Let's start with politicians. Every lobbyist brunch, lunch and dinner should be broadcast live on Youtube. They have nothing to hide, I'm sure they'll agree.
Actually, you’re onto something - let’s just overload their capabilities with utterly useless and infinitely growing useless data, i’m in!
I know you're not really serious but just want to point out here for others that overloading their capabilities is not a thing. The more video data exists, the more scarily accurate machine learning models can be churned out.
In an ideal world, that'd be a good thing (immediate emergency responders, accurate census, targeted litter collection, optimized road construction, automated fraud/corruption detection, etc.).
But that's not the way data is used in the world we live in.
Yes i was joking and sadly you are absolutely spot-on!
Everybody has something to hide including these dinosaurs
Exactly, like passwords, their identity so it doesnt get stolen, their bank account details etc.
Disgusting
A gov that has nothing to hide must release ALL their policies to the public.
I thought that phrase was fucking stupid when a relative said it to me when I was in middle school, to hear it from any Supreme Court is a terrible sign.
I thought things would get better as time went on and decision makers grew up with the internet, instead it's somehow getting worse in a lot of ways.
That's because people are living longer and in most countries judge appointments seem to be for life instead of a fixed term like 10 years.
Oh, its INDIA, you had me worried for a moment
The lack of comments here about it makes me concerned about how many people in this sub consider India the default.
So then, to begin with, make everything publicly available about all politicians, ministers, billionaires, and officials in power, etc. If they are consenting and happy with this, and all the info is released to the public, then there should be no problem about surveillance.
Because politicians, ministers, billionaires, officials, etc. have nothing to hide and need not be bothered by surveillance, right?
So we can start surveillance of the court, right?
The next time someone says “they have nothing to hide” in person, ask them for their wallet and start looking at cards and numbers. Let them know an infinite amount of information is out there much more nefarious than a physical wallet.
That is the most ridiculous line and most annoying. I might not have anything to hide but I don't want someone noting when I arrive and leave my house and what I carry in or out with me, even if it is only my kitchen rubbish and my golf clubs.
This year there were enough hacks, data leaks, nefarious apps released, bugs, and glitches that I can't believe the internet is even still working. And the supreme court says we don't need privacy? All of our data was harvested by all of our enemies this year and only now is this administration thinking about cyber defense. The incompetency is mind blowing.
They can be the very first to undergo surveillance then.
1984 thought us literally nothing. Us the people unless we do a revolution about shit like this are going to get shafted real hard.
LOL. How is this not a violation of Article 21? Supreme Court even made it very clear that privacy is fundamentally right a few years ago. Does she not know about it?
Justices who can't comprehend privacy should keep their mouths shut. And she’s going to be Chief Justice in a few years. Wonderful times ahead..
Biggest fucking bullshit saying
It's not so much about what you have to hide, but rather about who wants to look.
It’s much deeper than that, sure, it is about to who wants to look, difference being that now, AI models chew on all that data and spew out very precise, and also sometimes completely false and hallucinated information. The problem is that no-one will first question the validity of what the machine spits out before acting nowadays. We’ve now seen how gutless LE and military have become, they’ll do anything even for the worst butcher.
nothing to hide != something to show
Why does someone with nothing to hide need to be under surveillance?
You know what you say to this argument?
"Let me see your phone."
"For what?"
"You have nothing to hide, right? You won't mind if I look through all your photos, texts and emails?"
"..."
saying you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide, is like saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.
Okay, so where’s the Epstein list and transparency from big tech and governing sides? Nothing to hide, right?
Does India have the Epstein list? If they dont im not sure how the Indian supreme court could compel the US to release it
He’s just saying in general to “politicians” and elites, and how they’re scrambling like cockroaches to hide from being held accountable. It’s not a regional thing. These parasites are everywhere
Says the courthouse that famously doesn't allow photography/recording. What are YOU folks hiding?
Fine, let's all install cameras in their homes, then.
Please, someone hack every single judge in existence relentlessly until they understand just how stupid it is to say that out loud.
Doing this would ironically be a public service
India. Not SCOTUS.
The Supreme Court bending the intent of the Constitution when it comes to government intrusion, is neither surprising nor new. In 1990, the Supreme Court found in "Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz" that sobriety checkpoints, while technically a seizure, were not a violation of the 4th amendment, even though they were conducted without suspicion. They wrote that the intrusion to motorists was "slight" and that the states interest outweighed this intrusion. Evidently, no one balked much (outside of the state of Michigan, where the state court ruled they were unconstitutional, and where they remain illegal) because everyone hates drunk driving. I don't expect that internet privacy will be perceived differently by either the court or the public at large.
They will once more of the public finds out about “chat control” and what’s coming. Millions of people still have no clue what’s coming
I hope you're right. My doubts are predicated on the common person's acceptance of anything the government/media promotes as "for the children" of the "public good".
Me too. Yeah, I hear ya and have similar sentiments. Maybe I’m being naive. I have a sliver of hope people will wake up. This whole situation just sucks man. I don’t like the route the world is going
I hate the way it's going. The government overreach has been getting worse and worse for decades.
Same. I wish I paid attention years ago. If only I knew then. So many of us were fooled and lied to.
Yes they were, and most didn't want to hear otherwise. When I pointed some of these things out, people thought I was just being paranoid.
First they come for….
THIS IS INDIAN NEWS, not US news.
“If you have nothing to hide, you don’t need to worry about it,” is a common argument for surveillance. Here are some counterarguments:
I have nothing to hide but my business is none of your business.
Inverse argument also valid, using same logic structure: i have nothing to hide, hence YOU have nothing to worry about. (“If you don’t trust me, why should I trust you?”)
Surveillance is for gathering evidence against criminals and crime deterrence. You cannot then also surveil innocent people in a similar manner—unless your intention is to treat everyone as if they’re criminals.
Guarantee. IF people with nothing to hide have nothing to worry about, then guarantee it, since no risk is assumed here. IF surveillance is ever found to be abused under our laws, CONSENT NOW to having your hands removed as remedy. (This means, if surveillance powers are ever found to be used abusively, then you get to cut off the hands of all persons who’ve approved that use. If there is genuinely nothing to worry about, this is a no-brainer, since there is genuinely nothing to worry about.)
Yes, we need to be bothered because increasing surveillance is paving the path for a future authoritarian government.
Consider me completely convinced
Gross
"People with nothing to say need not be bothered about free speech"
Because things never change, the world is a peaceful uncorrupted place and all the tools are never misused by those in power
What about people who are "different" or have non mainstream political, religious, social or economical views?
Do theybalso not have to worry?
Because I am sure there areblotsbo people who would want to use every method and information available to act against such people to "restore traditional values" or bullshit like that ...
Laws are now written at the behest of the rich and powerful. What happens when mass surveillance is in place and new things become illegal?
Okay then I should be able to set up a camera in the justices' bathrooms, right?
Country ran by bunch of fools. Source: I live here
It's kinda funny because this is the exact dumbass argument large company simps make. "Oh, I don't care if Google is spying on me because I have nothing to hide."
'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy.
They’ll get right on with installing cameras in their bathrooms, right?
RIGHT?
So the government has nothing to hide then?
Say the people trying to deport Native Americans.
[deleted]
Absolute madness, are these people aware that their input couldn’t be more wrong and short-sighted? I mean what kind of an imbecile does it take to believe in that crap and how in the world can an entity like the Supreme Court hold that many decerebrated newts? Appalling declaration, this is the age of mediocrity, no doubt.
Supreme dictatorship Court.
Government and politicians has a lot of secrets. Will they stop hiding things?
This is so wrong in many ways and this is how dictatorship and age of terror works.
During communism in my country more than 30 years ago, wiretapping where common and people were just terrified to not listen to forbidden radio stations or saying something wrong or a joke otherwise they'll face serios punishment.
Also many people faced jail as innocent because neighbors hated them and reported to the state police, false accusations of course.
Is that what we want? People should learn from damn history as this is extremely dangerous and leaving room for abuses.
So it's OK to follow the SC members around 24/7, reporting on everything they do, and monitor them online. You heard it here first.
Privacy does not equal something to hide... Republican side of the Supreme Court is illogical, corrupt and not worthy of their position
India was headed down this path since 2014. Its very sad to see.
Just make sure you keep track of what you might want to hide as the government updates their lists to include you.
So then the Justices don’t need privacy or any discretion, since if they haven’t done anything wrong then they have nothing to worry about from the general public.
Well then, Supreme Court justices, let's see your browser history, phone apps, and photos.
All of it, every single one.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!
Yeah, be as open as Clarence Thomas with your crimes.
The U.S. SCOTUS might as well say this too if they haven't already. That's basically the regime we live under.
What don't they understand about the 4th Amendment?
I mean, that's always the claim, isn't it?
Tell that to all of the trans people whose lives were manageable a year ago, but now are hearing how Pam Bondi wants the FBI to offer bounties for people who support trans rights.
Tell that to the immigrants who have been coming to the country and doing everything by the book, only to get picked off when they show up for their required hearings.
Seriously, get your nose out of my business. Go fuck yourselves.
[deleted]
This news is of Supreme Court of India
Well, it only takes one shift in ideology to suddenly make everyone a suspect...
The whole point of the 5th is that anything can be used against you at any point.
You gotta be stupid if you don't think that's how it works. Just look at history.
As long as politicians and corporate America keep colluding to sell our data to industries that use it against us, they can all get fucked.
Sadly, I could see the U.S. Supreme Court coming to the same decision.
Clarence Thomas has stated outright that Americans do not have a constitutionally guaranteed reasonable expectation of privacy, and that he wants the court to hear cases that will allow it to erode citizen privacy even further. He's always been a festering cancer.
He is wrong.
Unfortunately he's a Trump loyalist, and there are 5 others, so what you think doesn't matter anymore. They are coming for everyone's rights, Soviet/CCP/DPRK-style.
People with nothing to hide need not redact the Epstein Files, right Justices???
unless ai cant plant some, on them---
Always the absolute worst argument
"A police state is a country run by criminals" ― Robert Harris, Fatherland
I declare hereby that I will personally start walking into the toilets of state officials for mandatory stool sample checks for drugs.
However, because I need to make sure that they're actually the one ejecting the sample they need to be present at all times.
This is just a precaution. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about. 🥰🥰
I didn't consider the consequences of exercising my right to freedom of speech until we elected fascists and I started having people threaten me so... they can go get fucked.
Once you establish the surveillance state, it's really just a matter of who's in charge to determine whether or not you have something worth hiding. Because you can turn something normal into something taboo real damn quick.
Supreme Court gaslighting the entire country and world, yes unwarranted surveillance is absolutely something to be worried about.
redacted
"People with nothing to hide [from a corrupt regime that won't tolerate dissent] need not be bothered about surveillance," ftfy
The definition of "nothing to hide" can change in a second. Fuck these surveillance state ghouls.
Bullshit.
Edward Snowden:
“His first answer called for a reform of government policies.
Some people take the position that they “don’t have anything to hide,” but he argued that when you say that, “You’re inverting the model of responsibility for how rights work”:
When you say, ‘I have nothing to hide,’ you’re saying, ‘I don’t care about this right.’ You’re saying, ‘I don’t have this right, because I’ve got to the point where I have to justify it.’
The way rights work is, the government has to justify its intrusion into your rights.”
Exactly what a surveillance state would say to its people where they are targeting people for speaking their minds and literally killing people that speak out against them. This isnt fucking russia.
If the president has nothing to hide, then surely he won't mind releasing the Epstein files, right...?
This article is referring to the Supreme Court of India.
Ah yes, the other "Think of the children" quote. "If you are a good citizen, you don't have to worry (NOW), about us harvesting your data."
Nothing says be CAREFULL more than an "explnation" like this.
Thanks for the archive link, OP 👍🏽
The usual argument no surprise from their end. Our privacy is "OURS" not theirs... Not their decision to make...
I want to hide my data from greedy corporations
"We are sacrificing your freedoms, because if you truly have nothing to hide, there's no need for such freedoms!" /s
Not an actual quote, just what I'm interpreting from them.
Then let's put those judges under constant scrutiny. See how they like that.
Surveillance is a massive help towards social engineering. One world government coming soon.
Supreme court can suck my dick.
These fucks would support mind reading devices if they existed.
Says the people changing what might need to be hidden
India has a long and violent history of the majority slaughtering the minority. Is it reasonable for the minority to want to live peacefully? Simply having a different religious belief from the majority was enough to be slaughtered. This notion of "nothing to hide nothing to fear" is absolute BS as it is ALWAYS about what those that collect the data want to do with it.
Historical records document numerous instances of religious violence and massacres in India, often involving the targeting of religious minorities by dominant groups. One of the earliest recorded events is the alleged execution of around 18,000 followers of the Ajivika sect by Emperor Ashoka of the Maurya Empire, following a dispute over religious iconography. Another early example is the destruction of Buddhist stupas and viharas, attributed to Emperor Pushyamitra of the Shunga Empire, though the historical accuracy of these accounts is debated by scholars.
During the medieval period, several Muslim rulers are associated with large-scale violence against non-Muslim populations. Mahmud of Ghazni's raids on the Somnath Temple in 1024 resulted in the deaths of over 50,000 Hindus, followed by the destruction of the temple. Similarly, Timur’s invasion of India in 1398 led to mass killings across Haryana, Delhi, and other regions, with estimates suggesting over 4.5 million Hindus were killed, and the skulls of victims were reportedly piled into pyramids. The siege of Chittorgarh in 1568 saw the massacre of 30,000 civilians by Akbar’s forces after resistance from Rajputs.
The Mughal era also witnessed significant religious violence. Aurangzeb’s reign (1658–1707) is associated with one of the most intense campaigns of religious persecution in the empire’s history, with estimates of up to 4.6 million non-Muslims killed, including the massacre of 150,000 Brahmins in Benares and the construction of a mountain of skulls. The destruction of Hindu temples and forced conversions were common during his rule.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, religious violence continued. The Goa Inquisition, established by the Portuguese, led to the forced conversion of thousands of Hindus and Muslims, with some executed or burned in effigy. The British colonial period saw religious tensions escalate, particularly during the 1857 Indian Rebellion, which was partly fueled by fears of forced Christian conversions among Indian soldiers.
"nothing to hide" by whos standard? The person who owns the limitless surveillance and wants me to do something for them? Who doesn't like what I'm doing? Has different political or religious views? Is evil?
Will you get naked in public even if you don't have nothing to hide??
Nothing except the entrenchment of a corrupt government which enriches the few at the expense of the many.
Then let's have eyes on all of them 24/7/365.
That's hardly the point. Bias in AI surveillance is a huge issue.
With far right activities growing, this kind of words will get you killed
It's not really up to them to decide how people feel about things.
people with nothing to say shouldn't be bothered by censorship...
🙄
Can the government say the same?
Tell that to people getting visits from ICE surveillance based policing it’s very bothersome and troubling just for taking a back road
fk the supreme court.