439

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

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] cy_narrator@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 18 hours ago

I can show the Indian Government whats inside if they wanna watch

[-] LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago

To them I'd say, Define "nothing", and then tell me that's a constant.

[-] qualia@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

They'd probably think they're all smart and respond, "0...? Of course"

[-] HoleSailor@feddit.org 39 points 1 day ago

Supreme Court of India was sold out to the ruling party long ago.

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day 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.

[-] HoleSailor@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

This is in India, but coming soon to a country near you

It came here first

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] libre_warrior@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago

Being private as obidient protects being private as disobidient.

I am spartacus

[-] whelk@retrolemmy.com 23 points 1 day ago

Cool. Let me install these cameras in your house, including your bedroom and bathrooms. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear

[-] ModernRisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 10 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

I think it has more to do with not enough civil values.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Stern@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago

I presume they're okay with the first surveillance cameras being in their bedrooms then.

[-] artyom@piefed.social 12 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] rageagainstmachines@lemmy.world 0 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Didn't Jon Oliver threaten to do that in an episode about data brokers? Not sure if he ever did.

[-] sidebro@lemmy.zip 19 points 1 day ago

That is a very rapey mentality 

[-] itkovian@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

That's India in a nutshell, unfortunately.

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Hmmm. Wonder how much they have to hide

[-] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

Posts like this are a great test for whether people read the article (or even the first paragraph) before commenting.

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

it appears decision upheld the right to privacy, even though some, perhaps dissenting, judges and prosecutor made the headline's argument.

[-] RheumatoidArthritis@mander.xyz 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The first paragraph:

Screenshot_20251220-175100_Cromite

[-] grte@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago
[-] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

Yeah I just figure UI can factor into that a bit more, like some apps don't show it.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Kintarian@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

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?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago

This goes for the supreme court too, right?

[-] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

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

[-] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Supreme Court outlaws clothes. What criminal acts are hiding in those robs? Only the guilty would hide it

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Una@europe.pub 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

"I have nothing to hide" people when I stalk them through city in dark:

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2025
439 points (98.5% liked)

Privacy

43898 readers
973 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS