Hacker News Reader

Comment by ruytlm | Hacker News Reader

I assume the counter-argument would be that a way should be found to provide food, clothing, shelter, etc., without violating privacy.

The implication seems to be that it's the collection of personal information in excess of that needed to perform the function appropriately - why do you need iris scans and fingerprints, when a name and a photo would arguably be sufficient?

View on HN

How can you provide food/clothing shelter without violating privacy ? The person has to identify that he is needing assistance from the state for the state to be able to provide. The state needs iris/fingerprint because that is the only way for them to check your claim of who you are and you do not already have the means to access food/shelter by yourself.

Uh huh, and what if I do not want to depend of the government to provide me with food, clothing and shelter since I am able to earn those for my family and me (reducing the social security burden on the government), should I not have the freedom to excuse myself from these alleged social benefit schemes.

Your argument and many similar ones are now boring and have been countered enough times already.

Actually, I completely agree with your position. If you dont want ANY benefit, you should absolutely have the freedom to excuse yourself. The problem is that in a country like India 99% of the people do depend on some benefit or the other.

Not sure if you are aware, but the context around this specific discussion in India is around the use of Aadhar for targeted govt. assistance. The govt. position is pretty much that we need Aadhar for any subsidy and the courts are arguing against it.

Right to Privacy is the cornerstone of Liberty - which is the founding principle of democracy. Government was brazenly trying to push aadhaar for anything and everything - not just subsidies - and this ruling put paid to such authoritarian sureveillance tendencies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com