6 ms·

I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an Indian lawyer, but if Razorpay received a Section 91 order (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/788840/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7888

by rdl 4y ago

I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an Indian lawyer, but if Razorpay received a Section 91 order (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/788840/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/788840/) they wouldn't have much choice on turning over any records. It looks to be the rough equivalent of third party doctrine in the US (which is also horrible). It can come from "any Court or any officer in charge of a police station". Banks and fintech in many countries are even more exposed to data demands than regular data processors. Pitchforks may be justified here, but perhaps not directed at Razorpay.

randomperson_24 4y ago
Razorpay did receive a Section 91 order according to their tweet: https://twitter.com/Razorpay/status/1544313411621646338 https://twitter.com/Razorpay/status/1544313411621646338
- ridiculous_leke 4y ago
  This is an important detail that OP missed in their post.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    That wasn't an accident.
    - maatrson 4y ago
      Agree
- dang 4y ago
  Ok, I've edited the title above to include this detail. (Submitted title was "Tell HN: Razorpay a YC company shared donor data without court order".) This is less moderation than we would normally do. Under normal circumstances, we would not allow a submitter to use a text post to put their own tendentious spin on a story like this—especially when the account seems politically driven (e.g. bringing up past partisan tweets to bolster a political case, which is not in the intended spirit of HN). Most probably we'd change the post to point to the most neutral third-party article we could find—or, if someone had already posted one, we might merge this thread into it. However, the first principle of HN moderation is that we moderate less, not more, when YC or a YC startup is involved (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20moderate%20%22less%2C%20not%20more%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). So I'm suspending normal practice in favor of this relatively small intervention. Edit: I suppose I should add that none of what I've written here has to do with the specific details of the story, which I haven't personally looked into. Commenters in this thread seem to be doing a reasonable job of discussing it, with the exception of some veerings into religious/political flamewar, which we've done the usual moderation with. I suppose I should also add that we haven't downweighted the submission—its ranking is being determined by user voting and flagging. And we haven't pinned any comments, except the moderation replies in flamewar subthreads like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32000788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32000788 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32000252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32000252 (standard practice).
actuator 4y ago
I don't think @dang will pin the above comment, but this needs to be higher here as the reply includes that they received a legal order. This is maligning the company unjustly.
- semanticvector 4y ago
  exactly. Only intent is to malign Razorpay, so OP also chose to create a throw away account. Razorpay didn't really have much choice in this.
  - throw_away_1042 4y ago
    The account I have used is more than a year old. I would be harassed by Hindutva goons online and offline if I use my real identity. Maybe also a false police case. Also Razorpay is not innocent here. They could have disputed the demand in the court. Could have informed the users that their data was shared with government. Could have shared only the transactions that originated in a foreign country.They did none of these. Also note that donations could not have been done with a foreign credit card. So the intent is to harass the individuals that supported the fack-checking website. Also, note that the founder and the company has been fans of the current nationalistic government. More reasons why they did not dispute the police demand. https://twitter.com/shashank_kr/status/1175974410202697728 https://twitter.com/shashank_kr/status/1175974410202697728 https://imgur.com/a/ZDRZZ87 https://imgur.com/a/ZDRZZ87
    - boruto 4y ago
      > They could have disputed the demand in the court. Why just that, they might as well fight the case for the accused. > Could have shared only the transactions that originated in a foreign country.They did none of these. We re sorry but it doesn't work like that. I am not sure if you understand that its not in hands of razor pay to bargain what they would like to share.
    - zinekeller 4y ago
      Without knowing what is written on the Section 93 order, you and I don't know if the company in question can even limit the requests to what you propose. On the contrary, it could be written in no uncertain terms to give all transactions related to a certain organisation including domestic donations.
akshaybhalotia 4y ago
Would they care to share a copy of the order, in that case?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
colechristensen 4y ago
I would be upset if an American company was enabling this kind of government abuse in a foreign country. A local company complying with local laws? Ok I recognize that it is bad but I don't blame a company with following their local laws. You can only expect so much rebellion.

by rdl 4y ago

randomperson_24 4y ago

Razorpay did receive a Section 91 order according to their tweet: https://twitter.com/Razorpay/status/1544313411621646338 https://twitter.com/Razorpay/status/1544313411621646338

ridiculous_leke 4y ago
This is an important detail that OP missed in their post.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That wasn't an accident.
  - maatrson 4y ago
    Agree
dang 4y ago
Ok, I've edited the title above to include this detail. (Submitted title was "Tell HN: Razorpay a YC company shared donor data without court order".) This is less moderation than we would normally do. Under normal circumstances, we would not allow a submitter to use a text post to put their own tendentious spin on a story like this—especially when the account seems politically driven (e.g. bringing up past partisan tweets to bolster a political case, which is not in the intended spirit of HN). Most probably we'd change the post to point to the most neutral third-party article we could find—or, if someone had already posted one, we might merge this thread into it. However, the first principle of HN moderation is that we moderate less, not more, when YC or a YC startup is involved (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20moderate%20%22less%2C%20not%20more%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). So I'm suspending normal practice in favor of this relatively small intervention. Edit: I suppose I should add that none of what I've written here has to do with the specific details of the story, which I haven't personally looked into. Commenters in this thread seem to be doing a reasonable job of discussing it, with the exception of some veerings into religious/political flamewar, which we've done the usual moderation with. I suppose I should also add that we haven't downweighted the submission—its ranking is being determined by user voting and flagging. And we haven't pinned any comments, except the moderation replies in flamewar subthreads like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32000788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32000788 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32000252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32000252 (standard practice).

actuator 4y ago

I don't think @dang will pin the above comment, but this needs to be higher here as the reply includes that they received a legal order. This is maligning the company unjustly.

semanticvector 4y ago
exactly. Only intent is to malign Razorpay, so OP also chose to create a throw away account. Razorpay didn't really have much choice in this.
- throw_away_1042 4y ago
  The account I have used is more than a year old. I would be harassed by Hindutva goons online and offline if I use my real identity. Maybe also a false police case. Also Razorpay is not innocent here. They could have disputed the demand in the court. Could have informed the users that their data was shared with government. Could have shared only the transactions that originated in a foreign country.They did none of these. Also note that donations could not have been done with a foreign credit card. So the intent is to harass the individuals that supported the fack-checking website. Also, note that the founder and the company has been fans of the current nationalistic government. More reasons why they did not dispute the police demand. https://twitter.com/shashank_kr/status/1175974410202697728 https://twitter.com/shashank_kr/status/1175974410202697728 https://imgur.com/a/ZDRZZ87 https://imgur.com/a/ZDRZZ87
  - boruto 4y ago
    > They could have disputed the demand in the court. Why just that, they might as well fight the case for the accused. > Could have shared only the transactions that originated in a foreign country.They did none of these. We re sorry but it doesn't work like that. I am not sure if you understand that its not in hands of razor pay to bargain what they would like to share.
  - zinekeller 4y ago
    Without knowing what is written on the Section 93 order, you and I don't know if the company in question can even limit the requests to what you propose. On the contrary, it could be written in no uncertain terms to give all transactions related to a certain organisation including domestic donations.

akshaybhalotia 4y ago

Would they care to share a copy of the order, in that case?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

colechristensen 4y ago

I would be upset if an American company was enabling this kind of government abuse in a foreign country. A local company complying with local laws? Ok I recognize that it is bad but I don't blame a company with following their local laws. You can only expect so much rebellion.