Totally agree. And much of the violence being attributed to Burmese forces is just hearsay attributed to Islamists.
Western media/NGOs seems to buy it at face value and support these said Islamist, but hey they also supported ISIS affiliates in Syria against secular Asad regime so that's not surprising to me at all.
This apart from the fact that anyone from subcontinent will tell you that these are not Rohingyas, but Bengalis speaking Bangladeshis who have flooded rakhine and made ethnic rakhines a minority in a few decades.
We've banned this account for violating the HN guidelines, which state that this site is not to be used for political or ideological battles—let alone national and racial ones.
If you want to commit to keeping such poison off this site in the future, you're welcome to email us at hn@ycombinator.com.
On the contrary, I imagine a lot of the nuts are planted by squirrels! In either case, many plants have an implicit bargain with animals: eat my fruit, but you must carry my seeds out beyond where I can reach and deposit them there.
Which happens when they pass through the gut, essentially.
Yes. Area doesn't consume energy, people do. Otherwise Russia would be the most eco-friendly country in the world, and something like Luxembourg should be considered an abject failure of environmental policy.
I am just stating that more pollution per square foot will destroy that part of earth more and therefore damage environment more. So objectively speaking you are correct, social issues aside, Luxembourg should be considered an abject failure of environmental policy. But the issue of pollution is complicated and involves social issues so my perspective is not very helpful when you make policy decisions or include fairness towards people, etc.
I am just stating that more pollution per square foot will destroy that part of earth more and therefore damage environment more.
CO2 does not care about which piece of land it gets emitted from: As far as the main subject under discussion goes (in contrast to, say, air quality), pollution per square foot is an utterly meaningless metric.
Some pollution impacts are felt locally (heavy metals), some regionally (acid rain from upwind sulphur oxides), and some globally. CO2 is one of the global ones. It's very well-mixed in the atmosphere.
If we could point to a plume of obviously-warmed land downwind of a city, it'd be a much easier sell to the layman.
The problem with not doing per capita is that you valuing each person differently arbitrarily basis their nationality...
You can for example combine EU into one entity and say they pollute a lot. Or split china/india/US into 50 countries and say they don't contribute much individually.
In effect favouring being born lucky.. in any random sample of the world population you have 33% chance of being born in just 2 countries . Do these people get fair representatation in any international forum ? It is either 1 vote per country or powerfull ones have all of it.
Landmass also is not effective measure . You will end up with Australia, Canada and Russia driving the agenda
Pop density has more to do with ability to grow food and energy efficiency of food consumption - comparing pop density and talking about over population has to factor that in saying china and india are overcrowded is not a sensible argument(they are over populated but not to extent people think) .
We need fresh perspective on how we see the world , arbitrary national boundaries , Mercator projections and biased schooling makes our world view very distorted
All of the above applies to the US as well . State borders are arbitrary. People in Pop dense centers like california do not get even the 10th of the representatation as say Wyoming.
California could be 8th largest country in terms of economic output and has a pop larger most countries in the world yet people living there do not have a say proportional to their impact in domestic or international politic is that fair ?
ok, seems like we are looking at this from different perspectives. You look at it from fairness to people and I look at it from fairness to earth. I argue that because pollution is so concentrated within the area, it destroys that part of earth more, this does not include anything to do with fairness towards people. But you are absolutely right if you look at it from perspective of being fair towards people. I am not at all against helping people though, I totally support destroying parts of the environment if it reduces overall suffering and progresses wellbeing of individuals in need. But my initial argument was that, social issues aside, looking specifically from environmental impact, per capita is not a good way to judge impact of the country.
I agree per capita/ per country is not the best way. Ultimately it comes to each individual don't you think ? . What does each every one of us directly or indirectly contribute . Any other grouping like country is always going to be arbitrary.. we need to each individually, in local, regional, national government, vote for the people who care and do the best we can irrespective what any one is doing or not. We need make them reduce too yes, but getting our shit together should be the priority
You are correct environment is not reason we should be worried . it is about the people, not the planet. 99% of the all species are already extinct one more large scale extinction event while terrible is not the end of life on this planet and the planet has seen far worse, life will survive long after we are gone. Sea level raise will adversely 60 % of the human population who live in the coast many of whom are poor. Changing weather patterns and climate change will affect the developing countries far more than first world countries who will have the resources to manage the effects . There are whole island countries that will disappear within the turn of the century. This is why developing countries are in very touch spot, they will need to balance both development of basic services and also find a meaningful solution to the problem.
You can ask aadhaar to dispatch notifications to you every time an authentiction happens.
Non govt agencies need your consent to get your data, if you don't want that just don't authenticate.
The article suggests that government is selling your data to private companies, which is such a big misrepresentation I wonder how Mozilla let its name be used for it. Do they not care for their reputation anymore?
Private companies can access your data only if you give them you consent by authenticating, and all they get is name/dob/gender/address-if-avialable. Which they would have anyways since you are their customer - mobile provider, bank etc.
There should be an overarching privacy law in India covering disclosure, insurance, etc; but that's a separate debate.
Right, and them getting that it self is a huge change in the Aadhar act
Aadhar was originally sold as just an ack this number matches those finger prints.
Now in the 2016 act, it provides all those details. All of which are enough to determine your religion, caste and more.
The issue is not about the tech, it is about trust and about rights.
None of which are directly responsible for increasing GDP, just the same way GDP is not responsible for making the difference between being a bunch of companies and being a nation.
I assume you are implying someone can determine your religion, caste and more by using your name.
If you signup for a bank account or a mobile company, they would have your name/dob in any case - Aadhaar or No-Aadhaar. Like in any other country on this planet.
This isn't textbook definition of causing FUD? And it's shocking that Mozilla is at forefront of it.
Also, using buzzwords like "trust", "rights" doesn't augment your arguments, if it's missing a coherent rational structure.
Sorry, court documents and legislature say otherwise.
There's a problem with banks as well, but they are private bodies which are not in the business of exercising power.
Is your bank responsible for your peacekeeping and policing ? It is not.
You misunderstand the stakes here, this is the house on fire and someone is mildly saying "oh that's a terrible idea"
Accusations of lack of rationality are valid when you have the locus standii proven by base knowledge of subject matter. Your various assertions here and in other parts of the thread do not suggest that
But if you cn prove that those words do not augment the argument I'll concede.
So how is this not a matter of rights and trust. Please demonstrate.
> Is your bank responsible for your peacekeeping and policing ? It is not.
So you are fine with the bank having your name/dob/gender. But don't want the government to have it?
In case you don't know, govt already knows these attributes about you. Birth certificates, passports, PAN for high value transactions. FUD.
> Accusations of lack of rationality are valid when you have the locus standii proven by base knowledge of subject matter. Your various assertions here and in other parts of the thread do not suggest that
Oh, I think I do! Along with overwhelming majority of a billion+ Indians who are very happy using Aadhaar, doing millions of transactions each day, and want the program further expanded.
> So how is this not a matter of rights and trust. Please demonstrate.
That is for you to demonstrate, since it's your argument. Not me! Hence I said devoid of rational arguments.
I have an issue with all privacy norms in the country at the moment. I would want far more stringent norms in place.
I definitely relatively less issue with a private entity than a govt.
The Govt is in the business of making laws and exercising power over me. The business I can chose.
The govt in turn controls the laws which control the business.
If the Govt gives no care, then for sure - the business will not either.
Therefore, Govt control and behavior is paramount. Next is private.
The fact that the Govt controls these things without biometrics over multiple different databases is OK.
The fact that aadhar is
1) a biometric data base (and biometrics I decry in particular)
2) which is being used to unify all databases
3) including things which it is not supposed to,
4) with the architecture underlying Aadhar
5) while removing all options to opt out
6) For demonstrably false gains (the AP results, their false reduction in costs claims)
Are immediate and clear over step of Govt power over Citizen rights.
This over step creates the levers and mechanism for the Govt to influence and control citizens at a scale at which our laws and constitution are not designed to protect.
Even now - there is no law for privacy, and the govt has claimed that we have no ultimate right over our bodies, or that there is any right to privacy.
These are not FUD as you keep claiming, but fact.
Let me bold that for you -
The GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS SAID TO THE SUPREME COURT THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE A FINAL RIGHT TO YOUR BODY AND YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
These are fundamentally true - there is no framework for privacy in India.
I would like to see a framework which prevents companies from compiling surnanmes or caste information, or bundling address information and other such data into lists which can be used.
This data should fundamentally be blocked and broken up, without ability to be connected easily.
People who do create such lists should be worried, not resting easy.
> Oh, I think I do! Along with overwhelming majority of a billion
And Ancient Rome thought Lead vessels were the best vessels.
The fact is that a majority of Indians do not know what the constitution is, what their protections are, and do not have recourse to it.
However - when Indians do learn their rights, they value them and fight for them.
It is instead people like you - who sell their rights for cheap pennies, who are considered craven, and who they despise.
Do not go around attributing that billion+ to anything when you have no proof.
As it stands, more evidence of the utter failure of aadhar to achieve its ends keeps being brought up.
> That is for you to demonstrate, since it's your argument
I state that it is a matter of my right to privacy and trust in governance. I state it is so, and for evidence bring forward the Case of Aadhar and Privacy currently being studied by the Supreme Court of India.
The SC of India, is a far higher and learned body than you, and if they consider the case to be a matter of the right to Privacy, then it is so legally.
Now please, show me how Aadhdar is not about Rights and Trust.
> 1) a biometric data base (and biometrics I decry in particular)
true
> 2) which is being used to unify all databases
false. And also FUD. PAN can be used for more tacking that Aadhaar.
> 3) including things which it is not supposed to,
false, strictly what's mandated by parliament in the Aadhaar bill. In a democracy parliament is suprement, not some privacy-wallahs.
> 4) with the architecture underlying Aadhar
not relevant to argument
> 5) while removing all options to opt out
true, so? It's mandated by parliament. It's like a mandatory tax ID.
6) For demonstrably false gains (the AP results, their false reduction in costs claims)
false
Bottom line, Aadhaar is just like any other ID or Tax ID, and no amount of disinformation will change that. It stores and 4 attribues about you name/dob/gender/address and two biometrics.
Biometrics actually make the system more secure, since it's driven by a biometric based consent driven architecture with stuff like instant notifications whenever you data is assessed. Only you can allow who accesses these 4 attributes by authenticating via biometrics or by OTP.
It's mandated by the parliament. If you don't like it, please try to get a party in power which would dismantle it next time. If that doesn't happen I'm afraid the only other option for you is to move.
> The fact is that a majority of Indians do not know what the constitution is, what their protections are, and do not have recourse to it.
> It is instead people like you - who sell their rights for cheap pennies, who are considered craven, and who they despise.
Another example of the quality of demeaning discourse peddled by Anti-Aadhaar lobby.
But doesn't matter. As long as the overwhelming majority of billion+ Indians keeps backing Aadhaar and keep on doing millions of transactions everyday, all this online FUD wouldn't count for anything.
I thought my tone was civil and matter-of-fact. Please let me know if it seemed otherwise.
> unsubstantiated claims
I substantiated my hypothesis and acknowledged its uncertainty. Of course there is no clear proof of astroturfing, unless it's very clumsily done. The whole point of it is to look like legitimate users.
Would you please stop going on about this? You've done it a great deal and we've now explained to you that (unless you have actual evidence) it's off-topic.
If you have concerns about abuse on HN you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com so we can look into it, but you're not welcome to dilute HN discussions with what amounts to nothing more than tedious fantasy.
> (Looking up in internet) Latest use of aadhar seems to be in mobile internet via Jio telecom - they've used aadhar as identification. How is this not dystopian ? with most of country relying on mobile internet alone and state knowing their entire web activity - how is not dystopian?
Aadhaar has nothing to do with you web activity. It's used as KYC - Know your Customer - for getting the JIO connection. It's optional, and as an alternative you can submit a xerox of any ID documents for your KYC. Most european countries require an ID document to get a mobile connection as well - Italy for example.
> Going by a similar analogy - Should a US citizen use SSN to get a home-woker-robot from a private company like (Google,SpaceX) to help with all daily chores ? BIG NO
More apt analogy would be that should a US citizen use SSN to to get a bank account at Citibank? BIG YES
> India has also been known for its infamous caste society (read prejudice) for few millenia - will unique identification help eradicate or increase the problem further ? can anybody explain which applies here and how ?
That has nothing to do with Aadhaar so I would ignore it.
> Where does the state in questions stand in corruption ratings, human development index ? very low.
It's also one of the freest countries in Asia according to Freedom House, and has robust institutions. It's the world's biggest democracy for 70 years now - during which western countries like Spain and Portugal were rules by dictators.
Please keep you condescending attitude to yourself. Indias are well informed to make an informed choice in this matter, and they have.
EDIT IN RESPONSE TO YOUR EDIT:
> How is with aadhar and facts above help prevent a state or private-company or mix-of-both-them not become big brother ?
Because Mister it's only used for KYC. Aadhaar system only stores a few attributes - Name/DOB/gender/address-if-available. That's data every goverment in this world keeps of its citizens. Do you understand now how you and Mozilla are fear mongering?
> Aadhaar has nothing to do with you web activity. It's used as KYC - Know your Customer - for getting the JIO connection. It's optional, and as an alternative you can submit a xerox of any ID documents for your KYC.
You forgot to mention that if you take xerox you will be charged 200 rs and a delay of at-least a week and if you provide Aadhaar you will get almost immediately.
"Also JIO will not use Aadhaar for spying on users browsing activity" is based on trust and not by design. Not everyone trusts Reliance or any corporation because it is run by many people and one human is sufficient to abuse.
>> It's used as KYC - Know your Customer - for getting the JIO connection
Ok, I am Jio SIM company. So I have your aadhar KYC or a xerox of your aadhar card as well. How as a citizen, can you trust me (a private company) to not pass your web activity to state. eg: say you are an NGO using JIO sim and is working for getting rid of big corruption in state. How will you ensure my company and state will not track your every web activity ? It all sounds familiar when you know privacy concerns of Chinese humanitarians - read great firewall of internet.
>> It's the world's biggest democracy for 70 years now.
How does being biggest in numbers help in democracy ? Democracy is pretty old my friend. 70 years is again a very small age in democracy.
> It all sounds familiar when you know privacy concerns of Chinese humanitarians - read great firewall of internet.
That has nothing to do wit Aadhaar or India. All European nations require an ID to get a mobile connection. That risk would exist in any country Aadhaar or no Aadhaar. What's your point?
> How does being biggest in numbers help in democracy ? Democracy is pretty old my friend. 70 years is again a very small age in democracy.
Mister because it show the strength of democratic institutions and freedom in a country. Even when compared to richer european nations like Spain/Portugal. Please look at freedom house rating for asian nations before being so condescending.
Also payment startups are at the fore front of the Anti Aadhaar lobbying effort, since Aadhaar based payments + UPI essentially cut the middleman out - NO MDR anymore!
And it makes sense. Would you want a private company like ApplePay/PayPal/AliPay control payments, and be able to block merchants at will like apple does, or a public agency you can drag to court.
> Second, lets talk about privacy. Fine there is a new card. Why do they need iris scans and finger prints? What is the need? That too in a government infrastructure which is surely not protecting it properly - http://www.livemint.com/Industry/73F92SKvUKxyngjfx7O0aJ/UIDA....
For the same reason a bank requires your signature. To authenticate you. But in India because we still have some illiteracy signatures won't do. That's why it uses Biometrics. This didn't come to your mind? Does it not reflect poorly on you?
> So it is a system which can be compromised by a motivated employee? What was the benefit again? Oh right stamping out corruption. Lets see how long that lasts.
Mister, in the alternative system - signature/xerox - there's no audit trail. So anyone with a pen paper can forge you signature for example. With Aadhaar you at least get notification anytime authentication happens.
You seem to believe that those who have built Aadhaar, haven't thought through all this, while you can. Classic case of arm chair analyst I may assume from you arguments.
> People praising direct benefits, was it not possible using raashan card? If your answer is well they could be fakes? Then wake up to the fact that there can be fake Aadhar cards too.
How exactly would you fake BM to get an extra Aadhaar card? Make an fake eye in a lab, and get someone at enrollment center to register that?
The problem with ration cards was that not only fakes, but also that they were not well organized sructured at all. Have you every walked into a tehsildar's office?
Wow are you for real? The amount of passive aggressive-ness in the post is through the roof. I am not sure I can get into a conversation with someone who can only thinking of attacking people.
Mister, I just made a point by point rebuttal to the obvious and glaring flaws in your arguments. If you can't stand when someone does that to you, I apologise.
Aadhaar was supported by the previous government. This government continued it. Most of India is unwavered in their support, since they see the benefits of getting instant bank account or food subsidy. And not being forced to stand in a line for such simple stuff in 40C+ temperature and wasting your entire day.
There are more anti-aadhaar green accounts in this thread than pro-aadhaar. If your only argument is to bring thowaway statements like Nationalism/Russia etc into it, then it just reflects poorly on you.
Western media/NGOs seems to buy it at face value and support these said Islamist, but hey they also supported ISIS affiliates in Syria against secular Asad regime so that's not surprising to me at all.
This apart from the fact that anyone from subcontinent will tell you that these are not Rohingyas, but Bengalis speaking Bangladeshis who have flooded rakhine and made ethnic rakhines a minority in a few decades.