Django, python 3, PostgreSQL, and vue.js. Its what Im using and works good enough to to let my little team compete with bigger ones (sometimes run circles around them).
"Reasonable restrictions" are not very well defined in the Indian constitution. They are quite broad and open to interpretation on a case-by-case basis.
"... the State can impose reasonable restrictions in the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
States, public order, decency or morality or in relation
to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an
offence."
Justice A.P.Shah panel had recommended principles for privacy which goes into quite a bit of detail. So there is a guiding light and not everything will be case-by-case basis.
Can reasonable restrictions be put on fundamental rights as well? So you are suggesting that the right to life has reasonable restrictions -- that in order to be friendly to a foreign state, the nation state can murder their citizens?
Sorry for being off topic but I believe fundamental rights do not and should not require a citizenship test. If we hold these rights to be fundamental, we must not be willing to tolerate violations of such rights of any person in our jurisdiction.
I'm not suggesting anything, the Constitution of India specifically allows for "reasonable restrictions". The right to life does have restrictions - the death penalty is still legal in India.
This is currently a grey area. All ISPs in India have to abide by their licensing terms with the Department of Telecommunication which restricts encryption to 40 bit RSA or equivalent. Any higher grade encryption can only be used with special permission and requires the decryption keys to be submitted to the DoT.
Whether or not this restriction also applies to end users and non-ISP organizations hasn't yet been tested in the judicial system AFAIK.
You have a link to that? Either way, I'm not sure how that would be implemented, other than outright blocking sites that are HTTPS-only. But I don't think blocking Google, Facebook, Whatsapp and other major websites is going to fly. I have no doubt that the Indian government would like to read people's communications and internet history, but that's not possible today.
AFAIK, the government has not attempted to prosecute anyone for using stronger encryption, and other government departments/organizations have made conflicting recommendations, especially when it comes to online banking and capital markets. Barring new regulations that clarify the government's position, the status quo is that ISPs cannot apply strong encryption themselves, but are not obligated to prevent their users from doing so.
At least one ISP has gone beyond this mandate and tried to block the use of stronger encryption by their customers[0].
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].
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.
> 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
Yes, there are rulings specifically affirming food, water etc. as fundamental rights.
I'll wait for the full text of the judgements before celebrating. The ruling apparently consists of 6 judgements and should be available shortly. Hope this reins in the Aadhaar monster without leaving any wiggle room for the government to exploit.
What a fantastic document. Quotes from John Stuart Mill, precedents from India, UK, US, South Africa, Canada, and the European charter. Looks like a very scholarly judgment, worthy of study, worth every one of the 597 pages!!
I've read only a few parts of the judgment, but it reads like poetry while at the same time being crisp and powerful! Even when the hearings were on, there were many references and discussions that showed the broad scope of accepting and considering jurisprudence from elsewhere and seeing what would benefit people.
That this was an unanimous verdict makes it even better. I was apprehensive until today morning, and after hearing the verdict, I've been ecstatic!
Thanks. I'm kinda used to that on HN since many people who read my comments seem to be absolutely pro-Aadhaar/pro-government and don't seem to like any critique of the system and how it's putting people in danger (existentially and otherwise).
Not at all, although there are some similarities at a lower level (First class notion of time).
Datomic has a much tighter focus on immutability, auditability, and database-as-a-value. Datomic isn't a good fit for use as a general purpose time series db where you have billions of observations.
