5 ms·

Here's what the Attorney General - the government counsel - argued > He said that in developing countries, something as amorphous as privacy could not be a fun

Here's what the Attorney General - the government counsel - argued > He said that in developing countries, something as amorphous as privacy could not be a fundamental right, that other fundamental rights such as food, clothing, shelter etc. override the right to privacy. It's a question which has alway bothered me. What happens when two fundamental rights clash with each other?

robinphilip1989 9y ago
I think it comes down to whether citizens are coerced to part with their personal information or not. If I need access to state programs of food, clothing, shelter, I should be willing to abide by regulations that make it easier to deliver these benefits. Aadhaar as of now is a direct coercion to part with biometrics and has inadequate features to protect against identity theft. Not having aadhaar means not getting driving license, passport, marriage license etc.
- eklavya 9y ago
  I am sure you meant marriage certificate, everybody has an undeniable license to marry :D
  - devnonymous 9y ago
    While I know you were making fun of the word 'license', what you claim is not true legally in India.
    - eklavya 9y ago
      What do you mean?
      - devnonymous 9y ago
        Well, gay people cannot marry, so that's definitely not everybody.
        eklavya 9y ago
        Right, that's a big blot right now. I am hopeful this is going to change sooner than later, maybe through fierce campaigning.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ruytlm 9y ago
I assume the counter-argument would be that a way should be found to provide food, clothing, shelter, etc., without violating privacy. The implication seems to be that it's the collection of personal information in excess of that needed to perform the function appropriately - why do you need iris scans and fingerprints, when a name and a photo would arguably be sufficient?
- modi15 9y ago
  How can you provide food/clothing shelter without violating privacy ? The person has to identify that he is needing assistance from the state for the state to be able to provide. The state needs iris/fingerprint because that is the only way for them to check your claim of who you are and you do not already have the means to access food/shelter by yourself.
  - devnonymous 9y ago
    Uh huh, and what if I do not want to depend of the government to provide me with food, clothing and shelter since I am able to earn those for my family and me (reducing the social security burden on the government), should I not have the freedom to excuse myself from these alleged social benefit schemes. Your argument and many similar ones are now boring and have been countered enough times already.
    - modi15 9y ago
      Actually, I completely agree with your position. If you dont want ANY benefit, you should absolutely have the freedom to excuse yourself. The problem is that in a country like India 99% of the people do depend on some benefit or the other. Not sure if you are aware, but the context around this specific discussion in India is around the use of Aadhar for targeted govt. assistance. The govt. position is pretty much that we need Aadhar for any subsidy and the courts are arguing against it.
      - anuraj 9y ago
        Right to Privacy is the cornerstone of Liberty - which is the founding principle of democracy. Government was brazenly trying to push aadhaar for anything and everything - not just subsidies - and this ruling put paid to such authoritarian sureveillance tendencies.
vkrm 9y ago
IMO, this is a specious argument, especially in the Indian context. Access to food, clothing, and shelter are NOT fundamental rights[0]. On the other hand, the Aadhaar program (which is the context the above argument was made for) can be viewed as impinging on the fundamental "Right to Constitutional Remedies" as its governing body the UIDAI is set up in such a way that the UIDAI itself has sole authority on whether or not a grievance needs the intervention of the established judicial system[1]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Rights,_Directive_Principles_and_Fundamental_Duties_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Rights,_Directive_... [1]http://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/the-uidai-has-insulated-itself-from-any-blame-or-responsibility-for-leaks-in-the-aadhaar-ecosystem-3702123.html http://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/the-uidai-has-in...
- denzil_correa 9y ago
  > Access to food, clothing, and shelter are NOT fundamental rights This is not true. Food, water, education and shelter are fundamental rights under Article 21.
  - vkrm 9y ago
    IANAL and I could be wrong here, but I think thats only partially right. Although article 21 itself doesn't say anything about food, shelter etc, the courts have established precedent by including those in their interpretation of article 21 and the directive principles in the past. However, I'm not sure there has been a ruling specifically affirming those rights as being fundamental, and the text of the constituion definitely does not mention them as fundamental rights. The full text of Article 21 is simply: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Since the right to education is specifically included under Article 21(A), it is a fundamental right. In the specific case of Aadhaar and UIDAI as they currently exist, I think the "Right to Privacy" which has now been affirmed, and the "Right to Constitutional Remedies" (Article 32) should take precedence. Right to clothing isn't mentioned anywhere as far as I can tell.
    - 9y ago
dominotw 9y ago
i don't understand what 'right to food' means. If I don't get food , can I sue 'the government' ? What if the state is too poor or bankrupt to feed me. who goes to jail for violating my rights.

robinphilip1989 9y ago

I think it comes down to whether citizens are coerced to part with their personal information or not. If I need access to state programs of food, clothing, shelter, I should be willing to abide by regulations that make it easier to deliver these benefits. Aadhaar as of now is a direct coercion to part with biometrics and has inadequate features to protect against identity theft. Not having aadhaar means not getting driving license, passport, marriage license etc.

eklavya 9y ago
I am sure you meant marriage certificate, everybody has an undeniable license to marry :D
- devnonymous 9y ago
  While I know you were making fun of the word 'license', what you claim is not true legally in India.
  - eklavya 9y ago
    What do you mean?
    - devnonymous 9y ago
      Well, gay people cannot marry, so that's definitely not everybody.
      - eklavya 9y ago
        Right, that's a big blot right now. I am hopeful this is going to change sooner than later, maybe through fierce campaigning.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ruytlm 9y ago

I assume the counter-argument would be that a way should be found to provide food, clothing, shelter, etc., without violating privacy. The implication seems to be that it's the collection of personal information in excess of that needed to perform the function appropriately - why do you need iris scans and fingerprints, when a name and a photo would arguably be sufficient?

modi15 9y ago
How can you provide food/clothing shelter without violating privacy ? The person has to identify that he is needing assistance from the state for the state to be able to provide. The state needs iris/fingerprint because that is the only way for them to check your claim of who you are and you do not already have the means to access food/shelter by yourself.
- devnonymous 9y ago
  Uh huh, and what if I do not want to depend of the government to provide me with food, clothing and shelter since I am able to earn those for my family and me (reducing the social security burden on the government), should I not have the freedom to excuse myself from these alleged social benefit schemes. Your argument and many similar ones are now boring and have been countered enough times already.
  - modi15 9y ago
    Actually, I completely agree with your position. If you dont want ANY benefit, you should absolutely have the freedom to excuse yourself. The problem is that in a country like India 99% of the people do depend on some benefit or the other. Not sure if you are aware, but the context around this specific discussion in India is around the use of Aadhar for targeted govt. assistance. The govt. position is pretty much that we need Aadhar for any subsidy and the courts are arguing against it.
    - anuraj 9y ago
      Right to Privacy is the cornerstone of Liberty - which is the founding principle of democracy. Government was brazenly trying to push aadhaar for anything and everything - not just subsidies - and this ruling put paid to such authoritarian sureveillance tendencies.

vkrm 9y ago

IMO, this is a specious argument, especially in the Indian context. Access to food, clothing, and shelter are NOT fundamental rights[0]. On the other hand, the Aadhaar program (which is the context the above argument was made for) can be viewed as impinging on the fundamental "Right to Constitutional Remedies" as its governing body the UIDAI is set up in such a way that the UIDAI itself has sole authority on whether or not a grievance needs the intervention of the established judicial system[1]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Rights,_Directive_Principles_and_Fundamental_Duties_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Rights,_Directive_... [1]http://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/the-uidai-has-insulated-itself-from-any-blame-or-responsibility-for-leaks-in-the-aadhaar-ecosystem-3702123.html http://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/the-uidai-has-in...

denzil_correa 9y ago
> Access to food, clothing, and shelter are NOT fundamental rights This is not true. Food, water, education and shelter are fundamental rights under Article 21.
- vkrm 9y ago
  IANAL and I could be wrong here, but I think thats only partially right. Although article 21 itself doesn't say anything about food, shelter etc, the courts have established precedent by including those in their interpretation of article 21 and the directive principles in the past. However, I'm not sure there has been a ruling specifically affirming those rights as being fundamental, and the text of the constituion definitely does not mention them as fundamental rights. The full text of Article 21 is simply: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Since the right to education is specifically included under Article 21(A), it is a fundamental right. In the specific case of Aadhaar and UIDAI as they currently exist, I think the "Right to Privacy" which has now been affirmed, and the "Right to Constitutional Remedies" (Article 32) should take precedence. Right to clothing isn't mentioned anywhere as far as I can tell.
  - 9y ago

dominotw 9y ago

i don't understand what 'right to food' means. If I don't get food , can I sue 'the government' ? What if the state is too poor or bankrupt to feed me. who goes to jail for violating my rights.