The recent High Court ruling declaring live location sharing for bail as illegal and a violation of privacy is a significant moment, a legal affirmation that resonates deeply with concerns I've expressed for years. It's a clear statement that even in matters of justice, the state's powers are not absolute when it comes to an individual's fundamental right to privacy Live location sharing for bail is illegal and violates privacy: HC | India News - The Times of India.
For a long time, I've observed the relentless erosion of personal privacy in the wake of technological advancement. I remember well the debates surrounding the very definition and scope of privacy, such as those held by the Supreme Court, where eminent legal minds like Justice Chandrachud wrestled with questions of what privacy truly entails in an age unforeseen by our Constitution's drafters. Lawyers like Shyam Divan and Gopal Subramanium (LinkedIn) eloquently argued for the 'right of informational self-determination' and the link between liberty, dignity, and privacy, as I reflected in my blog, "Supreme may Propose : Technology will Dispose" Supreme may Propose : Technology will Dispose.
This ruling immediately brings to mind my concept of 'ARIHANT' and the 'MIND READER Of HUMAN INTENTIONS', which I first introduced in "Fast Forward to Future ( 3 F )" Fast Forward to Future ( 3 F) and later revisited in "Jeff Bezos may save mankind" Jeff Bezos may save mankind. This was a hypothetical (or perhaps not so hypothetical) future where omnipresent AI, embedded in our devices, would record every word spoken, every intention, transmitting it to a central database. The purpose, I argued, would be to detect 'evil intentions' – a concept that, while aiming for societal good, undeniably obliterates personal privacy. The High Court's stance here draws a line, asserting that even for those on bail, continuous surveillance through live location sharing crosses a constitutional boundary.
I've seen the arguments unfold, from the differing perspectives of tech titans like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg (LinkedIn), who embraced AI's potential for enhancing life, as I discussed in "Artificial Intelligence: Destroyer of Privacy?" Artificial Intelligence : Brahma , Vishnu or Mahesh ?. These conversations underscored the delicate balance between innovation and individual rights. The acquisition of companies like Bee AI by Amazon, with its founder Jeff Bezos's (LinkedIn) strategic vision, further illustrates the commercial drive to gather user data and build 'Databases of Intentions,' as articulated by Maria de Lourdes Zollo (LinkedIn) and confirmed by Amazon spokesperson Alexandra Miller. This makes a clear statement that there is no free lunch in the world.
Indeed, the insights from Eric Schmidt (LinkedIn, email: eschmidt@relativityspace.com) and Jared Cohen (LinkedIn, email: jared.cohen@gs.com) in their book, The New Digital Age, that "People will share more than they’re even aware of" and that it would be "impossible to control what others capture and share," have proven prescient. My blog "Privacy does not live here !" Privacy does not live here ! detailed the sheer volume of personal data now openly available, from our credit rankings to our eating habits, often without explicit consent. Even public figures like Nandan Nilekani, whose work on Aadhaar brought these privacy concerns into sharp relief, would agree that the digital footprint we leave is vast and often beyond our control. While I didn't directly discuss Prof Jhunjhunwala's (LinkedIn, email: ashok@tenet.res.in) specific contributions to privacy, his involvement in advancing internet signals and technology highlights how technological innovations, while beneficial, inevitably open new avenues for data collection and, potentially, privacy erosion.
The core idea I want to convey is this — take a moment to notice that I had brought up this thought or suggestion on the topic of privacy, surveillance, and the implications of pervasive technology years ago. I had already predicted this outcome or challenge of balancing societal good with individual rights, and I had even proposed a framework for considering these issues. Now, seeing how things have unfolded with this High Court ruling, it's striking how relevant that earlier insight still is. Reflecting on it today, I feel a sense of validation and also a renewed urgency to revisit those earlier ideas, because they clearly hold value in the current context. The court's decision is a crucial reminder that legal frameworks must strive to protect individuals from the ever-expanding reach of data collection, even as technology continues its unstoppable march forward.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
Of course, if you wish, you can debate this topic with my Virtual Avatar at : hemenparekh.ai
No comments:
Post a Comment