India's Attorney-General: Privacy 'Not A Fundamental Right'

from the I-am-not-a-12-digit-number dept

Last month, we wrote about attempts by the Indian government to make Aadhaar, the country's identity number system, mandatory. This was despite repeated rulings by the Indian Supreme Court that it should not be compulsory for government schemes. Last month, another application was made to the court, asking it once more to forbid the Indian government from requiring the Aadhaar card and a unique 12-digit identification number for its services. During the case, India's Attorney-General, Mukul Rohatgi, made the following remarkable assertion, reported here by Hindustan Times:

"[India's] Constitution makers did not intend to make right to privacy a fundamental right," Rohatgi told the bench, during the hearing of petitions opposing a government order that made the 12-number unique identification number mandatory, especially for seeking government welfare benefits.

As the site Scroll.in explains:

The Attorney General quoted two decisions in support of his proposition -- from 1954 and 1963. Those opposing his argument contended that these decisions had been overtaken by the constitutional jurisprudence that had since evolved.

But as well as his purely legalistic arguments, Rohatgi took another, very different angle, telling the court:

It should balance the petitioner's rights against those of the roughly 700 million people, whose subsidies and welfare benefits were dependent on the "fool-proof scheme."

Despite this emotional blackmail -- give up your privacy, or 700 million people will go hungry -- the Indian Supreme Court's interim order confirmed that:

It is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhaar card

and

the production of an Aadhaar card will not be a condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen.

However, the Supreme Court did allow the Aadhaar card and number to be used for a few specific government schemes: those for "distributing foodgrains and cooking fuel, such as kerosene." So perhaps people won't want for food or fuel even if campaigners continue to insist that privacy most certainly is a fundamental right, and that making Aadhaar mandatory would infringe upon it.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: aadhaar, inda, mukul rohatgi, national id, privacy, rights

Congressman Mistakes Two Senior US Gov't Officials For Foreign Indian Gov't Officials

from the ouch dept

This is one of the most painful Congressional videos you'll ever see. A freshman Congressman, Curt Clawson, was in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Thursday, where two senior US government officials -- one from the State Department and another from the Commerce Department -- were testifying. Nisha Biswal and Arun Kumar are both Americans. But apparently Clawson had absolutely no clue -- even though he was in the hearing and both of the panelists were introduced as US officials. Spotted by Foreign Policy, Clawson was apparently so confused by the color of their skin and their names, that he just assumed they represented the Indian government. The video is... just painful. Clawson starts out by talking about how much he loves "your country." He also, apparently, talked about his favorite Bollywood movies. But when he wanted Biswal and Kumar to "commit" to better relationships concerning investment from the US into India, a very, very awkward pause followed. Finally, Biswal says:

"I... I... I think your question is to the Indian government. We certainly share your sentiment, and we certainly will advocate that on behalf of the U.S."

In response, Clawson, with a very awkward smile says "Of course! Ok. Let's see some progress!"

We've seen some awkward Congressional testimony situations before, like when a Senator walked into the wrong hearing and asked an unrelated question for a witness who wasn't there. But that was just reasonably laughed off. Just this morning, we wrote about Rep. John Conyers mid-question epiphany that his stance on copyright conflicted with his stance on preventing overcriminalization. But Clawson's confusion is really at quite another level of ridiculousness. People make mistakes, of course, but if you're in a Congressional hearing, you should at least know who is testifying and if you don't know, you probably shouldn't assume their nationality based on the color of their skin and their names.

Filed Under: arun kumar, assumptions, commerce department, congress, curt clawson, house foreign affairs committee, inda, nisha biswal, state department, testifying

Indian Official Promises India Won't Censor The Internet... Except, You Know, When It Has To Censor The Internet

from the funny-how-that-works dept

One of the frustrating things about the SOPA/PIPA debate was the way that defenders of the bill tried so hard to dodge the censorship label. However, as Professor Derek Bambauer helpfully pointed out months ago, any form of content blocking by the government is censorship. It's just a question of whether or not it's acceptable censorship -- and, most people are comfortable with some level of censorship. But SOPA/PIPA defenders often refuse to admit this... hiding behind some claim about how since infringement is illegal, it's not censorship.

But this misses the point: every form of government censorship is based on the claim that the censored content is "illegal" in some manner.

Witness the situation in India. A few months ago, we wrote about Indian Minister of Communications and Information Technology, Kapil Sibal, who had apparently been pushing internet companies to pre-screen all user-generated content to stop jerks. Then, last month, some Indian courts similarly told internet companies to block content. Apparently, recently, another official -- Minister of State for Communications & IT, Sachin Pilot, (whose title seems to overlap quite a bit with Sibal's) -- said that internet companies "must comply."

Well, now, Sibal is back, insisting that the government won't censor social media at all:

"I want to say once and for all, without any obfuscation, no government in India will ever censor social media."

Except, that's not true. In clarifying his earlier remarks to those same companies, Sibal said he saw "the need for a new system to be enforced for dealing with content that is in breach of Indian law." But what is that, other than censorship? Sibal is playing the same game as SOPA/PIPA defenders -- insisting that as long as certain content is declared illegal, it can be censored, but leaving out the fact that they get to decide what is and is not declared illegal. The defenders of these kinds of things like to pretend that it's universally obvious what's "illegal" and what's not, and that it could never ever happen that legitimate content -- such as critical political commentary -- would ever get falsely flagged as being illegal. But, having seen exactly that happen too many times (including through the use of bogus copyright claims), it's a very legitimate concern.

What Sibal is really saying here is that the government won't censor content that he thinks is okay. But if people in the government don't think it's okay, it'll get declared illegal and get censored. That takes away greatly from his unequivocal statement about no censorship, doesn't it?

Filed Under: censorship, free speech, inda, kapil sibal