People with nothing to hide need not be bothered about surveillance, Supreme Court says

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/people-with-nothing-to-hide-need-not-be-bothered-about-surveillance-sc-says/article70415585.ece

cross-posted from: https://discuss.online/post/32477353

This is in India, but coming soon to a country near you (or the one you are in already).

135 points · 18 comments · view on lemmy.world

18 Comments

yesman@lemmy.world · 51 pts · 279d

This is in India

PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 279d (1 reply)

Ah, the old "nothing to hide, nothing to worry about" fascist argument

floofloof@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 279d

Thing is, at all times but especially under fascist governments, everyone has something to hide. Having something to hide is a normal part of being a human being among others.

oeuf@slrpnk.net · 17 pts · 279d

It's not about whether someone has things to hide, it's about that person having the power the right to choose what is known about them.

Privacy is a facet of power, which is why it has been codified as a right; to prevent exploitation and abuse.

Kn1ghtDigital@lemmy.zip · 14 pts · 279d

"I need privacy not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgement and intentions are." - Stéphane Bortzmeyer

deadymouse@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 279d (1 reply)
[ removed ]
floofloof@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 279d

Even then, I expect there are things for anyone that you wouldn't want generally known after you're gone. And that's normal and unproblematic.

nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · 7 pts · 279d

Translation: "Anonymous, please doxx my pr0n history"

Lexam@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 279d (2 replies)

So they'll unredact the Epstein files right?

floofloof@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 279d (1 reply)

India can't do this.

jwt@programming.dev · 2 pts · 274d

So they'll remove their ban on "India: The Modi Question" right?

ThePantser@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 279d

If you are doing nothing wrong then you don't need to hide your face or need guards.

not_me@piefed.social · 3 pts · 279d (1 reply)
[ removed ]
Zaktor@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 279d

The United States does all of those things except have sacred cows.

4grams@awful.systems · 3 pts · 279d (2 replies)

From the same group of assholes doing everything possible to assist with the blockade of the turnip pedo-files.

I’m an idiot.

floofloof@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 279d (1 reply)

The Supreme Court of India, or the State of Telangana?

4grams@awful.systems · 4 pts · 279d

Ha, what an asshole I am. My apologies.

FEIN@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 279d (2 replies)

Did anyone read the article first before commenting

ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online · 3 pts · 278d (1 reply)

I made sure to read enough of it to know that it is in India, and that it is a bullshit heavily fucked decision that will absolutely attract the attention of all the wrong people.

FEIN@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 278d

That's not as bad as what I read, could you fill me in on the issues? From what I can understand, the SC of India claims the stupid yet very widely accepted opinion of "you have nothing to hide so don't be afraid" but the state is taking a strong opinion against it. I read many good arguments for privacy by the state, while the SC just parroted the same opinion over and over again.