People with nothing to hide need not be bothered about surveillance, Supreme Court says
(www.thehindu.com)
from ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online to privacy@lemmy.ml on 20 Dec 15:56
https://discuss.online/post/32477353
from ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online to privacy@lemmy.ml on 20 Dec 15:56
https://discuss.online/post/32477353
This is in India, but coming soon to a country near you (or the one you are in already).
threaded - newest
Until they do. What is legal today could be illegal tomorrow.
this is key to tell the folks who think the constitution matters. they’re called “amendments” for a reason lol.
Military is a good example.
First people who were gay were removed.
Then don’t ask don’t tell.
Then it was okay.
Now it’s not and they’re being removed and many outed themselves once it was okay.
One day, you’re not a terrorist. Then on Sept 22 2025 you are because you don’t support fascism.
Supreme Court of India was sold out to the ruling party long ago.
As is a lot of other countries. It’s a growing trend that should alarm everyone.
And countries like Russia, North Korea, and China should all serve as examples of what happens when ruling parties get their way.
So true.
China is awesome, what do you mean?
Blink twice if you’re behind a firewall
Funny seeing comments here assuming the post is about the Default Country instead of India.
I presume they’re okay with the first surveillance cameras being in their bedrooms then.
I feel like the best way to combat this is to dig up info on politicians and release it all publicly. Nothing illegal about that. If I knew how, I would.
Didn’t Jon Oliver threaten to do that in an episode about data brokers? Not sure if he ever did.
That is a very rapey mentality
That’s India in a nutshell, unfortunately.
I don’t get why they never suggest making it completely public every email, phone call and bank transaction of politicians and judges then… also, please, force them to wear a chip so we can always know their location… it’s ok to give it some hours of delay for security reasons, we just need to know where you have been to, no need to worry if you have nothing to hide.
Of all the people in the world that need or should have it mandatory to have round the clock public surveillance … it should be our political leaders
They claim to be working for the people … yet the people never really know what the fuck these leaders are doing
Blowing Bubba not good enough for you?
We still don’t know who bubba is. Is he Bill Clinton? A horse? A fictional shrimp tycoon? Who knows?
This goes for the supreme court too, right?
Watch dogs type shit bruh
If you are doing nothing wrong then you don’t need to hide your face or need guards.
Posts like this are a great test for whether people read the article (or even the first paragraph) before commenting.
Hell, even the URL.
Yeah I just figure UI can factor into that a bit more, like some apps don’t show it.
As if misleading headlines are the audience’s fault.
Would this title be misleading if it was about the US Supreme Court?
And in any case the point is YES as an audience we need to make sure we know what we’re commenting on. It’s basically your one job as an audience member - think critically about what you’re reading. Otherwise you get whatever hell Facebook is.
Given that everyone’s first assumption is that it’s about the US Supreme Court, obviously no. You have to meet people where they are.
Even for domestic US news, the same shit happens for state versus federal governments. Sometimes on websites that namedrop cities and politicians but don’t bother mentioning what fucking state they’re in.
Do you honestly think that everyone outside the US sees the words “Supreme Court” in a news article title and automatically thinks its the US Supreme Court instead of the Supreme Court for their own country?
I think the majority of Lemmy users are American or expect American news to dominate. The thing you’re complaining about only happens because of that.
The first paragraph:
<img alt="Screenshot_20251220-175100_Cromite" src="https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/1e0a58e9-7374-48da-96b7-df63155e720c.jpeg">
it appears decision upheld the right to privacy, even though some, perhaps dissenting, judges and prosecutor made the headline’s argument.
I’d like to go to one of their houses and tell them I want to search the place. After all, they shouldn’t mind if they have nothing to hide, right?
Probably a bluff.
I’m sure they’d not want you to find their dungeon, or evidence of their corruption and bribery.
[Edit: nor just all the usual parts of privacy and data integrity.]
“I have nothing to hide” people when I stalk them through city in dark:
Yeah, jeez. Why wont all these people just fully doxx themselves already? :3
these things were so commonly used to outline poor thinking skills and apparently these supposedly learned men argue this. this is just the worst timeline. I remember at one point early in the millenium I was like wow. India is really getting somewhere. Unfortunately everyone seems to be going down. from the article:
“The question is can it [illegal surveillance] be done? The question here is not whether a person is ‘bothered’ or whether he has something to hide,” Mr. Mehta submitted.
The State had sought an extension of the police custody of former Telangana Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) chief T. Prabhakar Rao, who is an accused in the snooping phone-tapping case during the previous BRS government in the State.
“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.
Daunting confirmation bias and epistemological ineptitude there from Nagarathna.
I had this conversation about privacy a week ago with a colleague. Not sure if it matters but she’s 21. She’s addicted to TikTok and was wondering why I did not use it.
I told her, I don’t trust the makers of it and don’t trust the country the app comes from (China, CCP). I half explained it was because of privacy issues. She looked me dead in the eyes and said “I don’t have anything to hide”.
So I simply said something along lines of;
“of course you don’t. The messages you sent to your boyfriend are not of intimacy things right? Certain pictures you send. Political conversations, your behavior patterns, religion. None of that matters right? Until it can be all used against you. If you care enough, I recommend to just research a couple of things up. Like for example Facebooks Cambridge scandal and Meta’s meddling with politics. Now imagine that from your own government”.
But of course, she shrugged it off and said she did not care.
Getting people to care is strangely hard. I think it’s because accepting some of the things we want people to care about means grappling with how the world is unfair and fucked up, and people are emotionally just not ready for that. People are stupid cowards.
I think it has more to do with not enough civil values.
Cognitive dissonance. “I dont care” is much easier to say then “wow, Im a fool that has shared way too much personal information and that has put me at risk”. The latter literally attacks your own identity.
These people do care because 5 minutes later they will be sharing their pet conspiracy theory that Siri is listening to their conversations.
People’s inability to grapple with cognitive dissonance, and how people often go with “I’m a good person making good choices” instead of the more difficult path of changing, is part of why everything is so horrible.
My goto response when someone says “I have nothing to hide” is to ask them to hand me their phone unlocked so that I can go through their messages, pictures and financial stuff.
This usually does the trick of reminding them that you do have things to hide.
That’s actually a good one! I’ll do that too from now and see their response.
vimeo.com/218966342
Cool. Let me install these cameras in your house, including your bedroom and bathrooms. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear
Estonia just sentenced a political activist to 14 years for treason for challenging the EU’s collective suicidal warmongering Russophobia propaganda. Political parties that are against NATO are being persecuted, and having election results overturned with a ban of the winners, even while “legitimate right wing parties” adopt racists laws that were part of the “illegitimate right wing party” platform.
If you have a view that your ruling establishment could have better policies, you are a threat to them. Because you have a good idea. Having nothing to hide means accepting the full supremacy of the establishment, which also means full acceptance of any corruption or mere unoptimalies. The US, with the highest pretenses of free speech, is openly targeting visas and citizens for sentiment against the new ultra fascist establishment.
You have everything to hide, if you’d like to do something right.
Years ago, I read about a guy who rode his bike past a house that was being robbed. The police acquired data from Google placing him in the area at that time. While he didn’t do anything wrong and had nothing to hide, I assume he had to hire a lawyer and go through a time-consuming and stressful process to prove his innocence. That was the turning point for me where I began focusing heavily on privacy.
He is far from the only one who went through a scenario like that.
Also one thing I fucking HATE with a vengeance is how some people say ‘the process will eventually work and his/her innocent will get asserted’. That isn’t a guarantee, but even if it did… after what? Spending days or weeks in a jail cell? Being treated like a non-human criminal by guards and the system? Spending large amounts of money you won’t get back and huge amounts of stress pommelled onto you and your family (and I have heard of some people’s family getting so stressed during the process that they had heart attacks and died). Your reputation in society being crushed even if you are acquitted beyond all doubt.
And what if something goes wrong? What if the ‘system’ fails anyway and you spend years in prison writing appeals to get a second chance. Some people have spent many years, even decades, behind bars doing this, and meanwhile their accusers got to go on with their lives and 100% forgot about everything while you had to take a shit in a cell in front of another cellmate and vice versa. In the TV show Law & Order they had the smug ass prosecutor say that ‘mistakes can still be corrected’ or something to that effect when talking about a man who was wrongly convicted of a rape he had nothing to do with and spent 30 years behind bars before being acquitted.
That shit made me want to puke. You know what 30 years looks like? 30 years ago was 1995 (or almost 1996, it is December after all). If a person was wrongly accused of rape in December 1995 and they were a 20 year old trade/college student, they would be 50 years old when they are released when the truth comes out. What will life be like for them? Being told that the system ‘worked’ but basically their lives are utterly destroyed anyway.
I remember reading comments on cracked.com whenever they had an article about how the legal system is so skewed and so fucked that a user would comment with their experience as a lawyer that his sheer disgust at not only the system, but how incredibly petty people can be and how often they get away with it. Like the story of a black guy who was constantly falsely accused of stealing by an elderly white woman who even went so far as to talk to police as to how to convincingly come up with ways to put that n-word in jail. This is even though that black guy was not a thief, drug dealer, drug user, or any other such thing. He was just a guy with a simple job and living a quiet life. But she didn’t like him for racist reasons and other crap.
The result? This guy was dragged through the legal system multiple times, but was acquitted each time. In the end the court and the judges realized just what a racist bullshitter the white woman was and put a restraining order against him and dismissed all charges with prejudice, meaning they cannot be brought back up again under any circumstances.
Happy ending? Nope. The black guy lost his job, his home, his car, all his money, his wife divorced him, and when he was let go from the jail he was held him he literally only had the clothes on his back and no money and was on the other side of the state from where he lived. But hey, at least he didn’t have a criminal record… but in many places simply having an arrest record is just as bad. Exactly nothing happened to the elderly white woman who did this to him. She got to live on her life exactly as she did before.
Stories like these never leave my mind.
I feel like there should be circumstances where if you’re accused of something and found innocent, you need to be made whole. Maybe that’s a huge payout. Maybe you get all your stuff back.
If the police bring you in for questioning because you were riding your bike, and you’re shown innocent, they should pay out like $500/hour to you.
Government is bleeding money left and right on military and foreign policies. There’s no money left for the citizens. (At least in the US; here in Spain the big money sink is retirement pensions)
The US prints money, that’s not how it works.
As you should know, printing money is bad for existing money. For a reserve currency, all around the world.
Not printing money is also bad for existing money. Deflation is a very bad thing.
It’s supply and demand, and supply creates its own demand. That’s why the US economy grew so fast and became the reserve currency after it got off of the gold standard, it no longer had to be constrained by the limitations of gold and could just print whatever it needed. As long as there is demand, the supply can grow. When the supply grows, demand grows with it.
You can’t just print infinite money, but it’s a lot looser than you seem to think. There’s plenty of money left.
They just hate their citizens and want them to suffer.
How is your money having more value a bad thing short-term?
In Canada in 2006 someone was arrested and accused of burglarizing a jewelry store. The police arrested him even though there was no conceivable way he could have committed the crime. He was interrogated by the police in the usual way you see in any interrogation video on YouTube, telling him that his guilt is beyond question, that they only wanted to know if he was regular evil or just super evil and it would be better if he confessed and saved everyone a lot of time.
So what was the biggest giveaway that he wasn’t the burglar? The 911 call that reported the crime said that the burglar was a below-average height white man with hair… and the guy they arrested was a very tall (6 foot 3 inch) BLACK man with NO hair (he shaved his head). The idea that this was a simple hiccup is so monumentally stupid it beggars belief. The interrogators did not even review the damn 911 and realize they had the wrong guy.
So what happened? The guy spent 3 days in jail before his bail hearing/conditional release and he spent the next year (not in jail thankfully) with his lawyer to sue the police over their incredibly stupid mistake. He won and was given around 45,000$ Canadian in compensation, but it should have been much higher.
The interrogation is on JCS’s youtube channel and he reveals one very harrowing fact: If an officer gets a confession out of a suspect through deceit (as in, they say ‘we got all the stuff! Fingerprints, DNA, video footage, cell tower metadata,etc, etc’ when they in fact have jackshit) it is actually very good for the officer’s career and could get them fast-tracked on promotions. This is even when many of those cases get overturned or proven false.
As usual: ‘Don’t Talk to the Police’.
Couldn’t agree more with all of that. Then there are the scumbag bail bond companies where you’re out a substantial sum to borrow enough money to make bail if you’re unlucky enough not to have the full bail amount sitting in the bank.
The extent that pigs will go to in order to put literally anyone away should cause everyone to want to revolt/hunt all the fucking pigs. Too many people are completely fine with giving up all privacy if it “stops even one guilty person.” No one is ever innocent 100% of the time. They just haven’t been caught for things (especially super low level shit) and only think about big level crimes as being what pigs/prosecutors/feds are going after. By their own logic, they better know every single law at every second of the day. They truly can’t conceive of being forced to confess just so a case can be closed to keep arrest stats looking good.
The recent-ish story about that one guy that was broken down so badly that he confessed to murdering his own father after so many hours of interrogation and threats made by the pigs to kill his fucking dog. AND they kept going towards that confession even though his father was found to be completely alive by the same pigs. That shit scared the shit out of me, and that is just ONE example out of the ones you mention and so fucking many others.
The biggest crimes are rarely prosecuted. White collar crimes that crash entire companies and cost people millions, or even billions, of dollars, probably causing more than one suicide and ruined livelihoods are simply ‘whoopsies’ nowadays. Even in the old days when they were prosecuted the penalties were light. Nick Leeson in the 90s was a rogue trader who singlehandedly destroyed Barings Bank in the UK. Barings was the biggest merchant bank in the UK, and like many British institutions it was very old and very established… they brokered the deal between Thomas Jefferson and Napoleon over the Louisiana Purchase, that’s how old and influential they were.
But Nick? He fucked up an entire bank of massive proportions in a few years. All while trading in the casino that is the Stock Market in Southeast Asia. His penalty? A few short years in a fancy prison, and he didn’t even serve his full sentence. His post-prison life was prosperous. He has (or is) managing sports teams, written well-received books, and overall is doing quite well for himself. Compare this to some teenagers who did some stupid vandalism out of youthful stupidity and ended up with records that haunt them for decades.
It should be innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. Unfortunately, the latter seems to be how it tends to shake out.
Supreme Court outlaws clothes. What criminal acts are hiding in those robs? Only the guilty would hide it
This was posted in another thread yesterday, and I found it particularly persuasive: thompson2026.com/blog/deviancy-signal/
When powerful people (government or not) have a record of every little thing a person does for decades retrospectively, just watch inconvenient people you like suddenly start disappearing from public discourse.
People aren’t being “disappeared” for nebulous and secret reasons. They’re being disappeared because they’re brown, they speak a non-English language, or they have some minor criminal citation in the public record.
We’re making up hypotheticals to be afraid of surveillance when the modern state is already snatching people up for very superficial and arbitrary reasons
When they have to filter people by whatever undesirable trait they make an enemy out of next week, where will the information come from?
It’s literally just guys in vans cruising around town snatching people. You don’t need anything particularly high tech for that
Yes you do. If you’re trying to find gays, it’s not like they walk around in rainbow skin colors. How would the be identified?
Two men holding hands? A line of people marching in a pride parade? Anyone with Grindr installed on their phones?
Take your pick.
That scope will narrow as time passes.
Now it’s brown poor people. Soon it will be trans people. Maybe next brown rich people, or Muslims, or Socialists. Y’all know the poem.
They’ve already “declared” Antifa a terrorist group and fentanyl as a WMD, that’s all the justification previous republican presidents have needed for starting wars and civil terror campaigns.
You don’t think they are already using the surveillance state/surveillance capitalism in this process? Its not hypothetical, its just that the scope is narrow this moment.
A lot of people are being picked up at their immigration hearings, at traffic stops, and at their jobs. This is all information already in the public record. You don’t need surveillance to be marked as a legal immigrant.
“I have nothing to hide” is such a dumb argument.
Are you always going to have nothing to hide?
Because it’ll be too late to start caring about privacy when you do.
The problem is this: You don’t know what you need to hide or that you even needed to hide it until it is too late.
Look at what is going on in the United States right now, LGBTQ rights are taking a massive beating. While hate crime laws are still in place, that is not a guarantee. Transpeople who revealed they are trans under safer conditions can’t take that shit back when someone like Trump and his cronies are in power and abso-fucking-lutely will put transpeople in extermination camps.
I, like many people on many Lemmy platforms, have been anti-Trump for a very long time. I thought Trump was an absolute fool well before his 2015 bid for presidency and I was honest to god shocked that he was taken seriously and actually won! Now basically any criticism of Trump is being prosecuted and Trump critics can and have been violently attacked.
I made numerous posts all over the internet criticizing and mocking Trump. Many have been made using temporary email, but my OPSEC online was eased into, meaning there was a lot of stuff from the past that I used under ‘real’ emails. My facebook page, which I never wanted (my family made it for me without any concern of what I wanted many years ago) is still active even though I cannot remember the last time I logged in and posted, and it does contain anti-fascist, anti-Trump comments and posts. Deleting the FB page might make denial a little easier, but if they decide to demand any information from FB (who will comply without a warrant) they will see it.
Given that the United States WILL NOT ‘go back to normal’ once Trump kicks the bucket, there is no telling how the regime would use this data against its opponents.
I heard a lawyer argue something like this once in court, regarding the the fourth and fifth amendments:
These laws are not meant to protect the innocent, they are meant to protect criminals. The founding fathers who penned it were traitors and seditionists who fought a war against their own country. They wrote these laws so that guilty people would be able to avoid punishment if proper procedures aren’t followed, and certain rights aren’t upheld.
I’m not sure how much I agree with that, but it was definitely an interesting take.
‘Don’t Talk to the Police’ is about exactly that.
Everyone should watch that lecture, but TL;DW is ANYTHING you say to the police will be used against you and NOTHING you say to the police will ever help you.
If you’re not convinced, you really need to watch that lecture.
Whoever said that is full of shit. The right to silence was born out of the religious persecution that was rife in Europe in the 16th and 17th century, where coerce confessions and forcing people to incriminate themselves, even if it was bullshit, was commonplace. Also religion played a role. Lying in some circumstances was a mortal sin, but at the same time people acknowledged that people would naturally lie in order to protect themselves. So in order to make it possible for people to not commit mortal sins and not lie to authorities, the simple right to not answer questions and not have their silence used against them was eventually mandated.
If people did not have the right to silence, all the authorities have to do is just coerce a confession out of a suspect and not investigate anything else. This happens all the time in China and Japan. Japan technically does have the right to silence in their constitution, but in practice it does not exist. If you refuse to answer questions and clam up during interrogations, they will take it as an admission of guilt and as far as I know, no judge refused that.
In China you are required to answer any ‘relevant’ question posed by police, you only have the right to deny irrelevant questions. So basically if they accuse you of robbing and murdering some shopkeeper, you have to give an account of yourself, but if they ask you what you had for lunch today, you can decline to answer that question. Stupid, but it is what it is.
I think that’s what he was talking about. His argument is that the Founders did things that could incriminate themselves to their old government, and there were no protections in place to shield them from, for instance, self incrimination. The ‘validity’ of the law, I think, isn’t particularly germane.
Hmmm. Wonder how much they have to hide
Being private as obidient protects being private as disobidient.
<img alt="I am spartacus" src="https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/85d1c041-e07a-454c-be88-8e82dca32c7a.jpeg">
To them I’d say, Define “nothing”, and then tell me that’s a constant.
They’d probably think they’re all smart and respond, “0…? Of course”
But there are no such people with nothing to hide.
It came here first
Which is…?
“Cheery was aware that Commander Vimes didn’t like the phrase ‘The innocent have nothing to fear’, believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like ‘The innocent have nothing to fear’.” ― Terry Pratchett, Snuff
Oh dear god, I thought this was the US Supreme Court, which is bound by the 4th Amendment. Turns out this is the Supreme Court from the State of Telangana in India.
It’s the Supreme Court of India not Telangana which is a state in India.
I have a lot of things I want to hide from every single government.
Damn straight. I mean people in the US who live in states were weed is legal might end up crossing statelines to places where weed is still illegal. Also many people who live in countries that have either decriminalized or legalized drugs have forgotten that possession of those drugs in other countries is often very harshly punished.
I have seen multiple accounts of Canadians and Americans going into the UAE with medicinal THC/marijuana on them and not realizing that simple possession of any of that drug is punishable by up to life in prison there. There was a guy a long time ago who was jailed for a long time for literally a microscopic bit of weed on the sole of their shoes. That last one was some utter bullshit. I live in Canada and there are TONS of marijuana smokers and THC users here, I probably have stepped on more than one thing that has had THC or weed in it, so I might have some of the stuff on my clothes/shoes without even knowing it.
Nothing to hide = nothing to show.
Everyone should be bothered by surveillance, it ain’t about wrongdoing, it’s about further empowering the people who think us suffering and dying for their profits is perfectly acceptable.
The Stasi said the same thing, and similar levels of surveillance are significantly cheaper now.
Fun fact: According to an ex-CIA spy, most spy gear that real spies use are bought directly off amazon and other online stores. While there are some guys who do craft custom items, they aren’t nearly as common or as fancy as the James Bond films.
Good point, I was more thinking of digital surveillance as so much is online now.
I can show the Indian Government whats inside if they wanna watch
Conservatives in the states have been saying exactly this for decades.
You have nothing to hide?
I used to work in advertising.
I was just doing my job, and striving to do it well, to the very best of my abilities, to serve my client, by maximally getting into your mind, manipulating you, manipulating your perceptions, your preferences, your purchases, by insidiously shaping your associations and implanting suggestions you would not realise happening.
This was over 20 years ago, before Bill Hicks saved me by telling me to kill myself, and I left advertising for good, promising to never do it again.
The things I would have done to you, without your ken, had I then had access to the data-mining available today… … just the same as those who are still in advertising are doing to you now. [And the resources my team of 2 had, were miniscule, compared to those with millions and billions to invest, and we still managed to shape the culture and prevailing perceptions, so think what kind of influence they have…]
Nothing to hide?
Sure, let advertisers know everything about you, to ease their way playing you like a puppet without you realising.
Nothing to hide?
Why are you not walking around naked then? Just thermal regulation? Or to preserve your dignity? By preserving your privacy? Are you sure you have nothing to hide? If still sure, by all means, invite every perverted voyeur into your bathroom and bedroom and beyond.
You surely have at least two things to hide.
Not hiding them does not just harm you and cause you loss, it harms everybody else too. Your duty to poke big brother (or big baron or big bot or big blight or big bully or big bank) in the eye, is not just to yourself. It’s to everybody, each and all.
You have much to hide.
It is almost incredible how advertising has contributed so goddamn much to the erosion of privacy. If data collection was used entirely to do things like improve aiding people (such as language learning. Many apps, like Duolingo and others absolutely use user data to improve their software and develop better ways of teaching languages) it wouldn’t be so bad. But to sell people shit? That is just disgusting.
Thank you
I’m sure they’re fine with a live camera stream of their bathroom and bedroom? If not, then they are hypocritical pieces of shit.
What about if a person working for the public sector contacts a journalist about corruption? Or if a nurse contacts a journalist on how bad a hospital (owned by public sector) is controlled? Are those things that are worth hiding? And how should a normal person hide it if everything is monitored?
And what about the future? Even if it is currently legal to be positive to radical ideas such as trans-people, immigration or environment, how will they ensure that a future government doesn’t make one of those things illegal and then comes after people who endorsed the radical idea?
Why does this meth still persist? Do people not realise that you could be doing good but the government might not want you to?
Myth* but the error is funny
Fuck that. RFK wants me to work on his plantations for daring to be born with autism.
A lot of countries are increasingly overreaching with privacy. There is global-wide coordination going on that we haven’t seen since the leftist international during Cold War, but this time it’s coming from the right.
Ok so let’s get those files and only redact the victims
One of many countries who have recently decided that basic liberty is more trouble than it’s worth. Our governments all just need to admit that we are engaged in informational WW3.
There is a problem… during ww2 we had the allies who fought against the Axis and eventually did want to enshrine basic freedoms (only for a few countries and selectively though). Who is fighting for us now?
China, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam…
Ugh!
I see a lot of “camera’s in their bedroom” arguments.
That’s a bit unfair, because the Indian government doesn’t have camera’s installed in your bedroom.
May I instead suggest to Indians to buy Huawei/ZTE phones, routers or camera’s in your own bedroom that point outside to public places?
I mean the public has nothing to hide right?
Right?
Meanwhile we can’t release the voter booth footage because privacy of the voters, destroying Right to Information Act because privacy, if you have a lot of money then only do you start to need privacy after all!
That’s the thing though…
…everyone has something to hide.
Ugh, so tired of this old argument. Nothing to hide doesn’t mean everything to show. There, now let’s get on with our lives.
Back in the late 90s when people started saying that to me, I’d just say ok, get naked RIGHT NOW. What, now you’ve got something to hide?
A few people took me seriously from that but it usually just fell short.
Always bad when the net policy is made by old people which confuse an remote control with an smartphone.
People with nothing to hide have the most to lose.
Saying ‘I have nothing to fear because I have nothing to hide’ is like saying ‘I don’t care for free speech because I have nothing to say’.
The Supreme Leader’s court supports a whole justice system of redactors. So I guess there is lots to hide while hypocritically telling us that everything is okay.
Then why are the Epstein files being heavily redacted? Does the government have something to hide?
I may have nothing to hide, but I have absolutely NOTHING I want any govt to see.
I wouldn’t want people to know what financial transactions I had in 2008, not because they were suspicious, but because the type of person who wants to know should scare anyone. Imagine if someone came up to you and listed every grocery item you bought in the last ten years I would be very concerned.
Feels like editorialization to me. The author could at least have titled it “Supreme court asks”, rather than making it seem as if the court passed a judgement enabling free surveillance.
The judge posed an oral argument, and the Solicitor General provided a counter. It’s good that these comments were recorded as it takes the debate forward and shows that a respected lawyer is taking the side of privacy, even if for the sake of winning his case.
There is a lot to criticize about India (my country), but headlines like these just make people angry or assume that it’s hopeless to fight back, because “it’s the same everywhere”. Recognize the harm that it does to our collective mental health and morale. This article could have been titled “Solicitor General upholds the right to privacy in the Supreme Court”, and people would have felt more optimistic and ready to tackle related issues in their own lives. It’s all about the way you spin it.
===================================
Article text: The Supreme Court on Friday (December 19, 2025) reasoned that people with nothing to hide need not be bothered about or afraid of surveillance, even as the State of Telangana batted for citizens’ right to privacy, emphasising that even the President of India cannot direct anyone to be put under illegal snooping.
The State reminded the court of its own nine-judge Bench judgment upholding privacy as part of the fundamental right to life under the Constitution.
The top court, the sentinel on the qui vive of fundamental rights, which includes the right to privacy, justified that citizens lived in an “open world”, indicating that those with clear hearts and minds need not be scared of snooping.
The State defended that the question involved was not about an “open or closed world”, but the basic right to be protected against illegal surveillance by the state machinery.
The debate in the court room between the Bench, headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Telangana along with senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, occurred during a hearing in the Telangana phone-tapping case.
“The question is can it [illegal surveillance] be done? The question here is not whether a person is ‘bothered’ or whether he has something to hide,” Mr. Mehta submitted.
The State had sought an extension of the police custody of former Telangana Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) chief T. Prabhakar Rao, who is an accused in the snooping phone-tapping case during the previous BRS government in the State.
“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.
Mr. Mehta asked whether the court was saying if “every government will have a free hand in putting people under surveillance”. He said illegal snooping by the government the Supreme Court was simply not permitted. It was plainly against the law.
“The Supreme Court knows the difference between an ‘open’ world and being under illegal surveillance. My personal communications with my wife… I have a right not to be under surveillance,” Mr. Mehta pointed out.
The top law officer referred to the court’s judgment in the Puttaswamy case, which had upheld privacy as integral to human dignity, liberty and autonomy, encompassing personal intimacies, family life, and sexual orientation.
Though acknowledging at one point that “ideally” surveillance should not be done, Justice Nagarathna’s oral remarks continued to focus on the logic that a person above board personally and professionally had nothing to conceal or feel guilty to fear from the state targeting them through snooping.
“Why should anyone be scared of surveillance? If you have nothing to hide, why should you be afraid?” Justice Nagarathna queried.
The prosecution case against Mr. Rao concerned an alleged conspiracy to “misuse” the resources of SIB for political purposes by putting citizens from different walks of life under surveillance. Those named as accused in the case had allegedly developed profiles of several persons without authorisation. They were accused of monitoring their subjects secretly and illegally, using the information gleaned from snooping in a partisan manner to favour a political party. The accused were also suspected of a conspiracy to destroy records and evidence of their crimes, according to police.
“This was an illegal surveillance without any authority of law under the guise that they were being monitored in connection with left-wing extremism. The information obtained through these illegal means included personal and medical records… This was profiling. It has to stop here. Thereafter they tried to destroy the data and eviden
‘People with nothing to hide’ don’t exist. All of us have something that we’d like to keep private or even secret.
Sometimes it’s little silly things we do when nobody’s watching, like tasting our pets’ food. Other times it’s porn and what specific kind we read/watch/play. And in a tiny, miniscule minority of cases it’s crime. Even fewer of those cases are crimes that actually hurt anyone.
Depriving 99.99% of the population (the remaining 0.01% are politicians) of basic rights just to pretend you’re stopping crime that 0.001% of the population is comitting. Pretend, because we know it doesn’t even work anyway.
Nearly 25 years of mass, global surveillance by the NSA, CIA and FBI, and they failed to catch even a single terrorist or terrorist-to-be. Meanwhile there’s a public shooting almost every day.
It’s not just about basic human rights or fundamental principles of society. These programs simply don’t work. It’s a waste of resources. The only result is bulk data gathering on the citizens. I wonder what that could be used for…?
And when they did catch mass shooters or terrorists it was usually due to an informant or someone who knew the would-be criminal and reported on them.
Meaning a trick that dates literally to antiquity is still the main way they are thwarted.
You hear that? As long as you agree with everything that’s going on and don’t want to change any of it, then you shouldn’t be worried about surveillance.
Just wait until we develop psychic powers.
Let’s see how private your thoughts will be then.
This is just to get us accustomed to the idea that privacy will be nonexistent at some point.
The CIA already tried that. It isn’t going to work.
First attempts almost never work. Just wait until they make it better and develop more powerful psychic abilities like in Stellaris.
Not their pathetic attempts from project stargate