24-07-2017 (Important News Clippings)
To Download Click Here.
Date:24-07-17
Dumber than Darwin
Research shows human intelligence is falling since the 19th century
TOI Editorials
Darwin’s theory of natural selection has been proffered as an explanation: post-Victorian advances in medicine and nutrition meant that people with lower IQs could also have more children who survived into adulthood. This is usually celebrated as emphatic proof of civilisation, as is our current drive towards automation which will allegedly make greater convenience and leisure available to humanity. But Woodley et al force us to think about what it means if genes driving intelligence are becoming less common.
Aren’t worrying signs all around us? It’s not just that computers already tell healthcare providers what drugs to prescribe and absolutely nail Super Mario. It’s also the ‘ludic loop’ of the modern work day – check email and SMSs, then WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, then repeat and repeat. Rather than getting their news from trusted news brands, people are greatly excited by fake news these days. This business of becoming stupid intuitively feels connected to ducking real challenges, not doing work that’s actually difficult. Maybe that’s why modern day Da Vincis spend their weekends climbing mountains or running marathons. For them, there’s no take it easy policy. Growing up in premodern times required many different skills. A lazier life may be making us dumb and dumber.
Date:24-07-17
Lack of privacy laws is an invitation for everyone into our private lives
By Milind Deora (The writer is former Union minister of state for communications and information technology)
Although conceptions of privacy have since radically transformed with paradigm shifts in technology, the essence of Warren’s and Brandel’s argument remains steadfast: privacy must be a fundamental right. These paradigm shifts, and a world inundated with digital technology, legitimises —indeed, demands — a reconceptualisation of what constitutes a ‘right’.
Cyber Cyborg
Judicial intervention, time and again, has reinterpreted and expanded the fundamental rights secured in the Constitution of India to accommodate these evolving conceptions of rights, as it should be with the right to privacy — without which the constitutionally guaranteed right to personal liberty would be severely compromised. During my tenure as Union minister of state for communications and information technology, I launched India’s first National Cyber Security Policy in July 2013. The policy was aimed at tackling some of the threats that a rapidly digitising and information-driven world poses for individual privacy and national security in order to create a safe and secure cyber world.
But merely six years since I first assumed charge at the ministry, and four years since the introduction of the policy, the breakneck pace of evolution in the digital ecosystem has compelled me to restructure my opinion on this issue in order to assimilate those changes. I hope that our government and courts take cognisance of this evolution as they debate the fate of privacy rights in India.
The debate on privacy extends far beyond the Aadhaar-fuelled rhetoric within which it is currently ensconced in the country, and the images of an ‘Orwellian State’ that it conjures. Privacy in constitutional or legal vocabulary eludes a concrete definition precisely because of its vast and ever-evolving scope.Addressing issues of consent and autonomy, the most obvious implication of privacy rights is a safeguard against unlawful surveillance, including an intrusion into different forms of personal correspondence, medical records, financial records and biometric and other kinds of personal data. Courts in the US have invoked the right to privacy in diverse cases, ranging from abortion and contraception to homosexuality, free assembly, defamation and identity theft.
The EU, on the other hand, has some of the world’s most comprehensive privacy laws for its citizens, including the rather unconventional ‘right to be forgotten’, which grants an individual the freedom to erase her digital footprints.Canada has a dedicated Privacy Commissioner to ensure oversight and implementation of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. The lack of such regulations in India is essentially akin to inviting the State, or any private player, into our homes and lives, granting them access to our private conversations, chats, emails, phone calls, gym schedules and dinner plans.In the absence of a privacy law regulating the collection, storage and use of private information, we are essentially surrendering control of our data, completely vulnerable to misuse and exploitation without connotations of illegality or mechanisms for redressal. A larger, more dangerous threat looms in potential attacks on sovereign data, the consequences of which could range from economic loss to a paralysis of essential government services such as electricity and transportation.
Privacy, Not Pry-vacy
This is why privacy laws are crucial. When we provide for strong privacy regulations, we create the infrastructure necessary to implement those laws, and this becomes our first line of defence against cyberattacks from hostile internal or foreign entities. This lacuna is analogous to leaving our national borders unmanned.
Opponents — that is, law enforcement agencies — who cite the ‘existential terrorist threat’ argument as the basis for rejecting the right to privacy must understand that this is an extremely slippery slope. We must strike the delicate balance between safeguarding national security and sovereign interest, and ensuring that individual privacy is not imperilled.Taking inspiration from the EU, we can circumvent the problem by establishing lawful mechanisms to intercept terrorist threats and prevent criminal activity, rather than subscribing to a blanket surveillance policy.
There is a larger philosophical debate to be had here, however. What is lawful may not always be ethical. Sensationalised exposés of ‘scandalous’ information, even if obtained through means technically within the legal ambit, are still unethical in the context of privacy rights of the individuals involved. Any structures we establish for surveillance and monitoring of suspected anti-social elements must, therefore, be accountable not only to a legal framework but also to a moral one.There is a compelling need to introduce accountability into the system, where stakeholders are able to seek legal redressal for violation of their right to privacy and offenders are brought to justice. As the band Pearl Jam sang in their song ‘Pry’, ‘P-R-I-VA-C-Y is priceless to me.’
Date:24-07-17
Privacy matters far beyond Aadhaar
ET Editorials
The ongoing hearing before a nine-member bench of the Supreme Court on the right to privacy should focus more on the conditions that would warrant its infraction than on its constitutional validity. As Abhishek Manu Singhvi argues in the current issue of ET Magazine, India is party to international conventions that uphold the right to privacy, making it a part of the country’s jurisprudence until a specific piece of legislation explicitly contravenes it. The right to free speech and assembly are fundamental rights, but subject to conditions. Hate speech or child pornography would not pass muster and a mob gathering to lynch someone would be unlawful, not an exercise of the fundamental right to assemble. Thus, even if a right to privacy exists, it would not be an absolute right, but allow similar constraints.
It is ridiculous in a country where it is increasingly routine for employees to log attendance pressing their thumb against a flashing electronic reader and for individuals to blithely use their fingerprints to unlock mobile phones to restrict privacy considerations to Aadhaar. The unique identity scheme promises immense benefits, particularly for the less-well-off and the health of the fisc, which outweigh the potential costs of its misuse. But Aadhaar is a minor part of digital intrusions into privacy. People sign away their consent to collection of their own and their contacts’ data, when they download and instal assorted applications on their phones. India lacks any legal requirement for those who collect such data to safeguard the data.
The focus of judicial engagement with privacy should be the degree to which individuals can have control over their personal data and the complex trade-offs in the digital world between having behavioural data of an entire population analysed, say, to train better artificial intelligence algorithms, than the existence of a right that, in any case, can be qualified.
That calls for a separate law on privacy that allows collection and portability of data while safeguarding people against the misuse of personal data.
Date:24-07-17
चीन के उठान पर समंदर के रास्ते लगाम मुमकिन
सीमा पर चीन की भड़काऊ गतिविधियों से पार पाने के लिए समुद्री ताकत बढ़ाने की रणनीति भारत के लिए मददगार हो सकती है। इस संबंध में विस्तार से बता रहे हैं नितिन पई (लेखक लोक नीति के स्वतंत्र शोध एवं शिक्षण संस्थान तक्षशिला इंस्टीट्यूशन के सह-संस्थापक और निदेशक हैं)
हर कदम पर सफलता ही है
देवदत्त पटनायक लेखक,मायथोलॉजिस्ट
स्कूल केदिनों में हमें प्राचीन ग्रीस के कथाकार ईसप की कहानी में बताया गया था कि लोमड़ी लूज़र थी यानी अपने मकसद में उसे कामयाबी नहीं मिली तो वह अंगूरों को ही दोष देने लगी। उसने आसमान छू रहे वृक्ष की शाखाओं पर लिपटी बेल पर लटके और आकर्षित करते उन स्वादिष्ट नज़र रहे अंगूरों तक पहुंचने की बहुत कोशिश की। बहुत प्रयासों के बाद भी जब वह उन तक नहीं पहुंच पाई तो यह कहकर वहां से चलती बनी कि अंगूर तो खट्टे हैं। लूज़र! नाच आए आंगन टेढ़ा जैसी स्थिति। इस कहानी में लोमड़ी को नाकामयाब बताया गया। उसकी नकारात्मक छवि पेश की गई।
लेकिन, इस कथा को लेकर मेरे अपने संदेह हैं। क्या यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि अंगूरों तक पूरे प्रयासों के बाद भी पहुंच पाने के बाद उन्हें खट्टे बताकर लोमड़ी अपनी खुशनुमा जिंदगी में लौट गई? वह प्रयास ही नहीं करती अथवा आधे-अधूरे मन से करती तो और बात थी पर प्रयास तो पूरे हुए थे। क्या हम यह कह सकते हैं कि उस लोमड़ी को शेष जिंदगी इसी पर खेद जताते हुए बिताते रहना चाहिए था? नाकामी पर गुस्सा जताती, शर्मिंदा होती। खुद को ठगा-सा महसूस करती। लगातार यही सोचती रहती है कि वे बंदर कितने खुशकिस्मत हैं कि वे जब चाहे तब छलांग लगाकर उन स्वादिष्ट अंगूरों तक पहुंच सकते हैं, जो असामान्य रूप से ऊंचे पेड़ की शाखाओं पर मजबूती से लिपटी बेल पर मुंह चिढ़ाते-से लेकिन लुभाते हुए लटके हैं। क्या उसे अपने इस दर्द को कविता में व्यक्त करना चाहिए या उसे किसी साहित्यिक बिरादरी का सदस्य बन जाना चाहिए था? क्या इसे किसी कला का रूप देना चाहिए था अथवा अपनी भविष्य की पहचान का आधार बना देना चाहिए था? अथवा उसे पूरी स्थितियों को नए संदर्भ में ढालकर खुद को प्रकृति के उन खुशकिस्मत प्राणियों की तरह देखना था, जो भयावह रूप से खट्टे अंगूरों को खाने से बच गए? हो सकता है वे विषैले भी हों?
कौन तय करता है कि अंगूर मीठे हैं या खट्टे? वह जो खाता है या जो इसे खा नहीं पाया? यह ईसप हैं कौन, जो उस लोमड़ी का आकलन कर रहे हैं, जो अपनी कल्पनाशक्ति का इस्तेमाल करके खुशनुमा जिंदगी में लौट जाना चाहती है? हम क्यों दूसरे लोगों को वे पैमाने तय करने देते हैं कि सफलता क्या है और क्या नहीं है? क्या यह सबसे बड़ी नाकामी नहीं है कि यह मानकर कि हर लिया गया फैसला सफलता की तरफ बढ़ा हुआ कदम है, अपनी शर्तों पर अपनी कथा लिखने की योग्यता हम जान-बूझकर गंवा दें? मेरा मानना है कि अपनी जिंदगी की इबारत किसी दूसरे को लिखने के लिए सौंप देना असली नाकामयाबी है। एक तरफ तो हम जिंदगी की विविधता के गुण गाते हैं और दूसरी तरफ अपनी और आसपास के लोगों की विविधता की तुलना करके दुखी होते हैं, खुद को असफल और नाकाम समझते हैं। यह प्रयासों, कर्मों और व्यक्तित्वों की विविधता ही है, जिससे इतने विविध और दिलचस्प परिणाम आते हैं। यह विविधता ही तो जिंदगी को खूबसूरत और दिलकश बनाती है।
यह सबकुछ इस बात पर निर्भर है कि हम आज अपनी जिंदगी के साथ क्या करते हैं। यदि आज हम दुखी हैं तो फिर यह सही है कि हमें जिन अच्छे संस्थानों में प्रवेश नहीं मिला, जिन मित्रों से हम नहीं मिलें, वे जॉब जो हमें नहीं मिले- सारे मीठे अंगूर हैं, जो अन्य किस्मत वालों को मिले हैं। लेकिन, यदि आज हमारे पास जो भी है उससे हम खुश हैं तो हम राहत की सांस ले सकते हैं कि हमें वह सब नहीं मिला जिनका हमने ऊपर जिक्र किया है। कौन जानता है कि जाने कैसा खट्टा स्वाद वे हमारे में मुंह में छोड़ते? हो सकता है कि हमारी बिल्कुल अलग किस्म की जिंदगी में वे हमारे लिए पेरशानियों और दुख का कारण ही बनते। मानव के पास कल्पनाशक्ति का अनुपम उपहार है। हम इसका उपयोग सफलता के पैमाने तय करने में करते हैं और इसीलिए नाकाम हैं। कल्पनाशक्ति हमें ये पैमाने खारिज करने और ऐसे पैमाने तय करने की शक्ति भी देती है, जो हमें अद्भुत खुशी से भर दें। कोई वास्तविक पैमाने नहीं होते और ऐसे पैमाने बनाने वाला कोई ईसप जैसा शख्स ही है। पैमाने हमें ही तय करने हैं। हमारा पैमाना भी हम और चुनौती भी हम हैं।
हैं तो सिर्फ लोमड़ी और वे अंगूर जो बहुत लुभावने तरीके से उस बेल से लटके हैं, जो बहुत मजबूती से असामान्य रूप से ऊंचे वृक्ष की सबसे ऊंची शाखा पर लिपटी हुई है!
Date:23-07-17
Individual vs group
Maharashtra’s Social Boycott Act is a welcome step to curb ‘community justice’. Its message must be politically reinforced
EDITORIALS
The Maharashtra Prohibition of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (2016), which received presidential assent last week, is an acknowledgement of a basic principle of citizenship and justice: The social contract in a modern democracy is between the state and the citizen, and crime and punishment must be defined between these two parties.
Like in many other parts of India, caste panchayats in Maharashtra have wielded extra-judicial authority and Indian citizens have been ostracised, even killed by “community” actors despite breaking no laws. That the BJP-led Devendra Fadnavis government has criminalised such actions is a welcome first step. Moving forward, it needs to politically address the climate of prejudice and intolerance that forms the backdrop of a community justice that encourages vigilantism and exclusion.
The Social Boycott Act was brought in in response to sustained movements provoked by atrocities against individuals by gaviks or caste panchayats in Maharashtra. A large number of these incidents were in response to inter-caste marriages. Four years ago, the “honour killing” of Pramila Khumbharkar sparked outrage and murdered rationalist Narendra Dhabolkar was among those who led the movement demanding legislation that specifically tackles feudal forms of mob and vigilante justice.
The new law addresses loopholes in existing laws that were used to thwart justice. For example, it ensures that trials are completed within six months from the date a report is first filed. The Act also penalises individuals or groups who try to prevent others from accessing places of worship, certain professions or even certain forms of dress and public behaviour. In essence, the law asserts the freedom of the individual over the social group they belong to. The legislation does, however, fall short when it comes to addressing inter-community social ostracism — for example, the denial of housing to minorities, or attacks on them for their diet and dress.
While the Indian Constitution has given a pride of place to individual rights, the unit of public discourse and political practice has often been the social group. In debates on caste injustice, secularism, women’s rights and even access to public spaces, it is the ascriptive identity rather than the notion of the individual liberty that is often at the forefront.
The Fadnavis government, in addition to legislation, must now take the lead in changing the tenor of public discourse. It cannot be seen to, for example, legitimise, even tacitly, vigilantism and violence in the name of cow protection, or impose dietary restrictions in the name of “community sentiments”. That, as much as the law itself, will display a political will to safeguard the rights of every citizen.