 We need to begin with a little bit of history in the way that the Supreme Court interpreted the fundamental rights chapter of the constitution. Initially there was this case called AK Nopala versus State of Madras, where this key issue was preventive detention. There's an article in the constitution 22 which talks about the procedure of preventive detention. And one of the things that the Supreme Court said was that the fundamental rights, each of them are their own separate silos as they were and they don't overlap. So when you challenge preventive detention, it is to follow 22 and it doesn't matter if it violates any reasonable test of reasonable under Article 19 which is the freedom of the right to freedoms. Which is observed because 22 just talks about procedure. So if you have all the only requirement is that preventive detention has to be done according to a law. So the Parliament passes a law saying we sort of make the preventive detention of people legal to prevent the throwing of frisbees. It could be anything. I'm just throwing my frisbees, just an example. So obviously it's observed and thankfully it was overturned in even the Arje Omereshwar RC Cooper which said no, they overlap. And that was taken forward with another case, Manikagati, where it says not only do they overlap but they feed into each other. And it sort of highlighted three fundamental rights which are especially important which are 14 which is the right to equality, 19 which is the freedom of speech, movement, business and 21 which is the right to life. And Parikagati also used this overlapping of rights to read in a lot into the right to life and basically said that the right to life is not just the right to life but it's the right to life with dignity. And then using sort of that language said that means you know right to livelihood, right to education, a lot of rights within through Manikagati in the decision rational use of Manikagati, a lot of additional rights within 21. So it is coming back to the right to privacy. The two judgements were Karat Singh and AP Sharma. None of them actually dealt with privacy as a specific topic they were sort of just answering it with the actual process matter. And more importantly both of them were delivered before RC Cooper. So it was still in the fundamental rights or independence cycle approach to interpreting the constitution. And AP Sharma the major issue was it was the company was acting illegally and in the course of the investigation sort of offices were taken. So the typical argument made in front of AP Sharma was using US constitutional law which specifically the fourth amendment which is the search and seizure laws which a lot of you may be familiar with from TV shows which basically talks about your probable cause. You can't just like go into someone's car, you need to have a reason. And but like the Supreme Court has even though it has a tenuous history with citing foreign judgements because on one hand the fundamental rights chapter is very directly influenced by the middle class in the US. But at the same time you want to be different. So we don't want to just say we copy-paste it, we want to apply it differently. So they said the fourth amendment does not apply, we don't have searches usually here. So in this sort of one highlighted paragraph they say no right depends. Correct thing was the major issue was surveillance. There was some criminal who was let go and under some provision I would go to the law exactly or some UP police act or some such you could allow surveillance which among other things included a history sheet where the police could follow the person document their movement as well as go up to them in the night and like knock on the door and like come on. And so the in characterizing the Supreme Court said that the man's house is his own castle. So the second way on knocking the door was declared as a violation of privacy. So you see some repeating of a US judgment who are good versus Colorado about how every man's house is his own castle and so that way it was struck down as unconstitutional. But everything else about following the person and creating a sort of history sheet as it were. So that was what corrects inside. But then both of these were before RC Cooper. So basically what the Supreme Court had to decide in this case was given all these judgments before do we have a privacy in terms and like other was part of the history of why we got in this position. But they had to think of the larger issue just is there a fundamental right to privacy. And thankfully the affirmative but it should be clarified that if you look at constitutional history and the constitutional assembly in a way that is famously said then no fundamental right is absolute even in the US which is considered there are some fundamental rights like freedom of speech are considered so to say. So I think all of us is still going through this 547 page judgment to find out what the qualifications are. Because the Supreme Court is definitely not saying that you can't violate someone's privacy no matter what. They could test the proportionality of purpose and the discussion. The Supreme Court's qualifications and what they should be at least. Because even though the Supreme Court has made this decision I think any discussion on the boundaries of privacy should be normative and should be constrained by those judges going to say that this is a decision of the Supreme Court from a national order. I thought it was going to be more serious in terms of how you wanted the discussion. Yes, I think of course this is saying that if you want to reduce access to privacy. Yes, so the law could go on. There was one second issue and it went on and forth. No, I'm happy to have you just wondering if you have something to say. No, I'm not sure if I'm fine. I think the Supreme Court is very calm. Okay. No, this is the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court said that when it's a society decision she's work. She's not part of the Supreme Court. So that's significant I think that is what's going to happen. So I think I work at the centre for internet and society. And actually yesterday when we saw that I was a bit confused because CS has been doing some fantastic work in this field for eight years. A lot of my colleagues in London are really, really good at drafting a privacy bill. They've been from important work with the AP Shack Committee that one of the principles of privacy. So it's nice to be part of that big family that we've been working on different aspects of privacy that have also happened and they've been one of them. So what is it? They've actually quoted three things that we've written. So one was the piece on, okay, I can talk about that in my intervention. So that is a nice one. So I think what I'd like to do is kind of talk about what the judgment says and why it's specifically important. Because we've had many cases where the right to privacy has been discussed. What makes this particular one very special. And then also talk about some immediate implications that it has. So the judgment finds that we do have an intrinsic right to privacy under Article 21. That it's an integral part of the right to life and liberty, which is really happening actually. But I think what's really interesting about this case, yes, it was a nine judge bench, which is very rare. And yes, it was a unanimous decision, which is just completely, I don't know anyone who expected a unanimous nine zero judgment on the right to privacy in India. But it's great that they have it. What's interesting in how the court comes to that conclusion is that they don't attempt to define what privacy is. Instead, what they do is they attack the different arguments that undermine privacy or that have undermined privacy through the years. So a lot of literature that you read on privacy, whether in India or, you know, from other jurisdictions. My favorite sort of definition of the normal privacy is that it suffers from an embarrassment in meetings. An embarrassing number of legitimate definitions of privacy. And there are also so many different cultural aspects to privacy that often have been lost in Jewish presence in India. And also in other parts of the world, specifically in India. So for example, you know, European privacy law is less concerned about bodily privacy. You have new beaches in France, but you can't, you're not supposed to ask people how much money they make per month in Europe. And you move over to the U.S. and you don't really have new beaches. And they're more intensely private about their bodies, but talking about their income is a normal feature. So this represents this tension between what cultures of privacy exist in different countries. And that's something that's been missing in India so far. So one of the, in 2010, the government had an approach, a paper on the legislation on privacy. And what that paper says is India is not a particularly private nation. We give our personal data very often. In fact, sharing personal data is a way of showing government transparency. You know, this is our privacy culture. And so that was begging to be challenged. I'm very glad that the Supreme Court did look at that. So they don't actually attack that particular statement from the report. But what it does do is look at whether privacy is in fact an elite construct, whether it's something that should accrue to any individual, whether it's a part of, whether the minority or majority thought on privacy matters at all. And so I was just telling Martin before we started, like it was like an intellectual, a wonderful, better word, like an intellectual slap on the idea that privacy is an elite construct. So what the court finds in its judgment, and this is Justice Chandruchu, who finds that privacy is being elite is not something that is a sustainable argument. But the simple reason that we don't understand privacy to be something that accrues to your basis, on the basis of how you are born and certain types of nature of all. And it also says that, so one of the arguments in the case was that, you know, only elite Indians care about privacy and like, let's look at the poor people and the millions of poor people who don't have shelter and who don't have food and why you're giving so much importance to this one argument by many people. To which the court says that first of all, no, they make many arguments. So the first thing that they say is that this undermining of civil and political rights in favour of economic well-being is often done by states who want to undermine human rights systematically. And that's a really beautiful framing of the problem and the tension that exists between, that exists in the statement like, oh you know your privilege and so you kind of, you care about privacy, I don't care, the poor man doesn't care about privacy in years and at least a month. And that's a really, well, like a really clear breaking of that argument. And they also say that it doesn't matter whether it's a small minority or a huge majority that wants it, you look at the merit of the right and not the people who are claiming it. So that was one, that was one issue that I thought the Supreme Court has sort of like blocked for the foreseeable future because it's something that sort of pervaded privacy discussions in the country for a long time. Yeah, and the exact language is that it's intrinsic to the poor future of life and personal liberty, which is also very important because then that ties that one finding into Article 21, which is very important. Also there's this idea of privacy being a western construct, or that, you know, it's being imported into India by these elite people, and that's actually where our research was cited to show that privacy is well rooted in traditional Hindu and Islamic law. And so they may not call it privacy in the Atta Shastra, or they may not call it autonomy in the Quran, but the ideals of privacy that we're looking at exist squarely within traditional law that, you know, has kind of given life stress to the nation. And by recognizing that, what the Supreme Court also does is say that there are different types of privacy and there are different cultures of privacy. So you have communications privacy, you know, like I may not want people to be able to read the messages that I have on my phone. That's different from the privacy that I expect in terms of my body. That's different from the privacy that you expected somebody knocks on your door before they come into your room. That's more of a territorial privacy. You also have communications privacy. I don't know why you said that. You also have informational privacy, like, you know, what aspects of your personality that you're going to share. And so by recognizing that, I think what they've done is also set up to stage very well for cases that are going to fall. And immediate impact for some of these cases is one, I think one of the main things, I won't talk about the elephant in the room, but apart from that, there's also the determinization of homosexuality. And these are actually some of my favorite paragraphs in this huge judgment. I skimmed through it and I mean, this is the one that really popped up for me because they said, so in the case that actually criminalized homosexuality and arguments there, they say, you know, these are so-called lies and so few Indians are actually from the LGBT community and it doesn't matter any protection. And the court breaks that down so beautifully by saying two main things. The first is that it's not a so-called right and they actually use inverted commasation to me. It's a so-called right but it's actually founded on very sound constitutional doctrine and it's squarely revealed that like autonomy and dignity and without the right, privacy cannot have liberty. So this interplay between liberty, privacy, freedom is very nicely tied together there. And they also say that it doesn't matter the minority or majorities from the LGBT community. I wish I had the court, I think I wrote it down somewhere but they say that the, oh yeah, I have it, the purpose of elevating certain rights to the stature of guaranteed fundamental rights is to insulate their exercise from the disdain of the majorities. And so like this, I think it would have a direct implication on the courtship judgment because if an high-charge bench and it's kind of effectively overruling, the court has come up with a law and we'll know what happens in this case when the review petition is held. As for Adha, honestly, I don't exactly know the extent of, like my cynical lawyer brain is telling me there's a catch, there's a big catch somewhere that we need to sort of find. I mean one obvious observation would be that the actual effect of this judgment will only be found at the time that application of laws and application of government regulation, the time that we actually see a data protection law, that's the one time that we're going to be able to see the effect of the judgment. And also Chinmai, Arun Bhuswamy, CCG, wrote a really good op-ed today talking about how the value of a right can be seen in how it's restricted as well, not just in how it's articulated but what are the restrictions we place on it. So at one point, I'm not sure exactly which judgment, which judge, but at one point they do say that the right to privacy is not absolute like any other fundamental right and it is subject to using both restrictions. But the problem I think with this judgment is that the court believes a lot to the data protection law that we have to see it. That is the court order that I prefer to try to... Yeah, so... The judges have courted, it's not absolute. That's the court. Yeah, they supported us, that's the court. Yeah, exactly. So I don't know, I mean, I think we can only know at the time. The data protection thing is going to be a nightmare. Yeah, exactly. The composition of the committee, just the institutions. Yeah. Yeah, it's like this, so there is one on one time there is a conversation committee, and the committee is talking about it, and there are no symbols of the idea of the nation. The second part is also who's got the comments here on what technology can be used to solve data protection. Exactly. And right now that's the idea of the people who have, from my main point of understanding, no sense of security at all with data protection. Yeah. How are you learning this type of thing? I'm sorry, for instance, what's actually there is a thing that has been proved that they have no security boundaries at all. And so, when you click on the instance, the CIDR is not connected to the internet. This is completely false. CIDR has more internet connections than any of us do. The simple fact that of the 100 odd agencies that are authorized to connect to the internet, how many users do they have? Or ASAs? I think there are like 15 major ASAs and you know, seven doesn't work in the US. Now, every single ASA has internet connection to CIDR directly. Yeah. So, even if there are only 15 ASAs, there's 15 internet connections, not zero, which is what they claim. It just takes one of them to the right to get the data out. And that's what ASA proved. Because the fact that they were in ASA and in the UA and the ASA and the KUA, all in one agency, and they were basically giving merit back and access to CIDR from their Android app, which was how they got high. What they thought is, I thought basically, hey, I just couldn't extract the API key from the Android app, which is the real simple proof because I decompiled it against the API key. Call the API and it's like, here it is, here it is. Six months and they did not know that this was going on. Until the court case was filed, until the police case was filed. The fact that until the police case was filed, for six months the app was in the app store. Data was being accessed and nobody had a clue that essentially there was that open access to this area So now, this is one issue that these guys do not know how to do operation security. The second part is that they don't even have active security as you can find out when EKIC gets broken, this is going to happen in the next couple of weeks because we are working on it. It's already broken, it's not published because you know what you could jail for that. Another thing I wanted to mention was that what this, I think the significant implication of this judgment apart from everything that has said so far, is that it allows for vertical as well as horizontal application of the law. So in non-lawyer speak, that means that the right to privacy is not just against the state which is our duty to understand in the fundamental rights, but also against non-state actors. And given everything that Kiran just said and also the fact that most of our data is now with non-state actors, this is an important thing. We can only fully understand what that means at the time of application and the time that we actually see a representation of but that's an important issue. What stood out for me in the limited reading that I read was about the liberal interpretation. No generation including this generation, if you were to author a constitution it cannot come out with everything that could ever come passed for everyone and therefore word-to-word constitution that we always need to interpret what is relevant to the current society. That was very nice. That's exactly the opposite of the technical nature. These are exactly the opposite of the very technical nature word-to-word how lawyers normally operate. Sir, like religion says, if it comes out, go back to the source. The source is because so this is what it's going taking down what I was saying is inapplicable at least in India. It's a jurisprudence of this way of approaching a constitution called Constitutional Prodigy and the most famous proponent of this is recently died using the US at UNICEF Kenya and who basically said we don't care about the changes we want to just end up with an institutionalizing which is absurd and very explicitly said that is not right. It's also super popular. The local application was important because we don't concern for privacy issues personally because we don't yet have this one like your haters in conference I mean I think through my literature and my vocation and I go for a fact I don't want to be approached by a dancing that all metadata of our customers you can tell me what they want and now you have analytical tools like Cambridge Analytica which can go through your Facebook, social media have everything on the data you don't have a ketoblacket it's like an Instagram account no but I'm saying the job they can also yeah it's a sort of government character they were in the government if you already have a Facebook and a Gmail account how how are you going to protect yourself because the analysis maybe they have nothing more information but privacy is not there even if you ask a spoke or any social media it's a good choice but you can't just stop the access it's not just your space I'm not a Facebook and not a bunch of social media because I have the choice not to be there no but if you're on social media it's not as simple as that because now on Facebook there's a saying that when the product is free you are the product so Facebook is taking all the data it gets and is selling it to third party so whatever that you may have with Facebook in terms of that doesn't mean that they don't have your data they have my past data absolutely they may even have your whatever future data just because how they can have a future data no if you if you change your privacy my point is you can stop the data creation you can opt out of it it's not just out in the net even that is a bunch of things to offer stay in your traffic I mean Kiren would be able to there's a bunch of tools that you can use to direct your privacy on the internet that is where like governments actually block usage of those tools so it's not bad so this is one thing one of these companies having access to data what are the local ISPs they always have access to your data that is my primary concern I'm more concerned with the internet because I know literally a consensus of people working here internet is a personal thing we have the data and I know also that internet's internet's security is not very high so with just about as little as 500 rupees you can go to an internet called Zip and get metadata about customers so and then the problem is even say if you have like consent structures opt out structures for data it's personal the amount of consent agreements that people sign every day is I'm sorry the study was in 2008 which was before like the smartphone and actor only kicked off the way that it has 25 days a year every privacy policy which we read so like a consent structure is definitely not working it needs to be trained only to think of another structure on the internet because if you look at there are three responses by law sort of new technologies especially in informational communications one is to take some old principle just copy and paste it the other is to take the old principle and treat it so like privacy is being treated and the third is to come up with a new regulatory structure and framework so I think right now the debate is whether we go on an option to just using consent privacy and tweaking it when we come up with something new I think something new is accountability framework would be more important just because people can interface with all the various data transactions that happen I want to understand the absolute part they say that we don't have absolute right to privacy but we have absolute right to anything so therefore this statement is by the way it is a result of that I mean it was important but no fundamental right such thing as an absolute there is no such thing there is no such thing there is no such thing there is no such thing there is no such thing there is no such thing there is no such thing there is no such thing it is first amendment I mean the fundamental rights come in part 3 of the constitutional and part 3 has reasonable restrictions so for example after 19 2 talks about the reasonable restrictions I mean so like that that was actually I mean I think the court did that just to make sure that like okay you don't have absolute right you still do what the state needs to do which is like I think they have something like the vital interest of state can be a reasonable restriction national security national security was one of the national security vital interest of state let you say let you say the filipines and social institutions it is really interesting if a violent right of privacy helps the state allocate limited resources that's a lot that is totally not a good thing exactly which is why a lot of people are quite critical of the of this judgment so there yes but then they don't don't have the capability to safeguard it well enough as you have demonstrated that is why that is the ground in the question that can be fought not in the ground that there is some security question not strong rights there is also a risk problem one of the big problems actually is that the privacy is both legal as well as technical considerations and I think right now a lot of the thinking of the legal considerations and the technical considerations are happening also inside of us so in fact they do the first time data citizens can be shared without consent that's how we serve so why keeping the UI and the others ISR of innovation today ask the company what private data of mine they have in Europe you do but in Europe in the UK they are working on because that's a law that's not a competition okay say for example my ISP or my internet provider or even a third party for intelligence they do have some of my data but do if I need to know what data do they have of me is there any as of today what has happened in the in these judicial proceedings is the court is not dealing with these kinds of issues because the government has told them to take a data protection it's good we can see what form and how many restrictions and exemptions are going on even if they have the data how will they use the data is what I would be wondering because if they have the data of you know they know my type they know all the details about me and they would need to follow me for security reasons or whatever to be the state reasons I want to know how they are going to how will I control and how will it affect me you can have it but how do they use it is what I would be wondering there is it's a purpose limitation which is like data protection law if you collect my data from purpose A you are limited to that purpose so like if I give if I give the government my data you know if I give the government my data for because I want some services or I see benefits and if they sell that to an insurance company then limited by that purpose of collecting the data to give me that service but then there is a lot of I mean to be honest I haven't fully wrapped my head around this limitation considering my machine learning considering the opacity of how data is stored it's such an asymmetric relationship like the government knows everything about us but we have no idea how to pierce what the government does with it it's not an equal relationship at all so I think that's a complicated question that's what I would like to predict myself what would they do with that I mean I guess the only good thing is that now we have a base earlier we were arguing this because we didn't even have a recognized constitutional policy so like what this does is like sets the one because of the technology and machine learning so this is a good article back in Gajil the great British country so this relates to how the Brexit campaign and the Trump campaign are basically related by the same data forms controlling the Trump interests and Brexit had another thing which was a Canada office it's a very nice investigative article and this is having great implications on the interworld right now whatever data orchestration data influence Facebook has a proper political branch where the political people you put as a party approached them that hey I want to talk to my demographic and they would arrange a proper Facebook campaign for you using people's data which did not really concern to get to be influenced and I'm a Facebooker connected with my friends I'm not there to be influenced by political parties right but each of these companies have their own data and it's very efficient for them because the state actor the kind of revenue that they would generate for any such big data company is very less than let's say even like even if you use big data for commercial purposes the revenue generated from that is very low but when state actor we just say that I'm going to use this data to influence a very mass population they're huge these consultancy funds who basically do this they are huge revenues and they feast on our data that's about it that we are having a real world implication of this because it is a real world implication from getting elected through Peter Thiel cell and bunch of other things that's a real world implication that's one thing I did it for I would play this in a political agenda but from that commercially getting influenced getting sealed into options that they want you to have not really having an option that's one part definitely sir this I could quote you the actual article you could just I just searched right now with 4 keywords let's say data candidate Trump that was the first thing you know what I meant do they have like a specific program or like these booklets they respected the project what they call it they basically had a visionary 10% more shoes that's the program Facebook and Google and cell but that mystery that they have you can so clearly be rendered for political motivation it's also offensive to political special program because they don't need anything different what they have built already there have been documents about this reports about the fund that Facebook does offer it so in this case they probably offer it for Trump yeah he should technically apologize after we got elected then he has to kind of facilitate the it's not it's a very it's not it's not it's not propagating a lot of fake news during that period but this particular idea actually goes into the fake news generation farm which he backs on the customer data and targets fake news to a certain bunch of demographics what is it influence so there was the the Macedonian bunch of Macedonians it's simple if you know a person he reads 10 different articles same information from 10 different sources he can have a perspective right but if you are targeting a person who you know that reads only one single source everyday and if you get to that source to give him information you can feed that person anything you want so there is no limit to how you can structure that person's opinions going ahead political, social, everything, commercial everything you can influence is there a is there a technique who reads to look at this how is the common hand what is survivalism fake news, real news how is that going into how they are going into the problem asking facebook to check fake news is that what is saying facebook we are an editor that's what it says you know what I am saying the this is fired back also so recently you do facebook they actually have even google for your view purpose they have a company a bunch of people employed who go through manually a lot of things like hate speech and stuff they have written it out then it is something that happened was a certain video from youtube called remove for a sort of something it showed terrorist attack it was a critical bit of information it was like an witness account of that thing happening it was a reporter who uploaded the video and not like someone propagating violence to the video so how do you judge that if you see very recently after google introduced after the fake news thing happened google introduced a bunch of new algorithms and new teams to stop fake news propagation inadvertently a lot of traffic the traffic for leftist and liberal websites started going down a bit this is it it is very subjective to review and other things but a lot of people say our traffic is going down their traffic is not going down so it is very subjective they have a mix of ML they have a mix of people who are actually reviewing stuff and trying to get an answer it is basic the problem is a lot of this judgment has been done by a lot of people not really there is actually a human farm sitting down curing at these things so it is a random check but a lot of the analysis gets done ML as you guys would think it is not such a good thing we are not there yet going ahead yes we are not there yet no companies do absolute ML business if they did if you buy a TV of amazon you would not get another TV recommendation there is a book called weapons of math destruction which actually talks about there are humans managing the algorithms but the extent to which they are able to assess things so how many of these algorithms are for example built up racial biases just because for making insurance assessments on the basis of zip codes they don't have so it is only after all it is called but it is also because the reviewers buy ads yeah the algorithm magnifies the reviewers so all of the algorithms are human oriented and if a human wears a bias the algorithm picks it up is the sample said that is biased if you want to look at that it is definitely more now for example I had a couple of things to say on this I think it is really important to kind of think about the different types so there is disinformation and misinformation is false information the problem with I mean that I have with like the articulation of fake news is that it creates a problem because we don't know what is fake news fake is false but we don't know what the truth is how do you edit or recreate that and also then you are asking platforms to now become content regulators because that is even more problematic if I start asking Facebook to tell me what is true or not essentially they can decide what happens in India in 2020 in the next elections on the algorithm I think and I know a lot of you are machine learning experts so the human has a lot of input in that like we decide these are the features that this program will train on these are the weights that I give different features to train on so like look at the base of this person so look at the location of where this person is and give that much importance but I think that's where the vast feature so it could be race, it could be gender that is one problem but also I usually go to somebody at Google to ask them this countering violent extremism online like what are you doing apparently they have bots that take down extremist content automatically that's not true because machine learning does not understand contents, it cannot understand nuance, it cannot understand relationships unless you teach it unless the training is like teachable so for example if I have 100 million images of a bed a TV and a chair and I tell it this is a living room there are very little chances that it can tell the difference between a living room and a hospital that because it doesn't understand contents it will get there eventually it's not there yet we don't know how to train for that it's good as bringing down the data set the human data set but there are issues that these kind of problems that have been given in countries the data set has been recognized as a fundamental right for a while so it's not that the situation changes here because we don't know that's actually I think like an ethical question that kind of transcends what you see I think the good point is we have symmetric the state has these agences and the power to use these tools which takes a lot of money to use I as an individual or as people we don't have anything to counter that thing the only way to do that is through digital managers and the government actually predicting our interests in some way which would be a prediction law which would basically ask these companies to do a certain thing, a certain way where we would have more control of sharing our data we could still do that in exchange of the service we could do that but we have to have control over how that data is being used which currently we have because control we don't have the knowledge of basically so basically what the question what I will do is what place is concerned about so all of these people are based if they came back and sent to the companies and they were done in time it's assumed that they have made it they came back and sent to the the legal legal device was created on the basis of tickets in the 19th century if you have a ticket saying when you go to the spot it says you lose your baggage you only pay 10 pounds and it was written on the back they have to say terms and traditions on the back would have to be written on the back and if you show, bring logistic if you don't look at them then it's your fault for them but that's a ticket which actually comes to the point that do we have privacy as a culture in India because reading the fine print is very correlated with privacy as a culture lot of things to know if you ask it I have tried asking people that why don't you do when you update your app when it sees Google Explanations this app has updated PNC go through with it and some good apps actually with platforms make you scroll down to the end of it then only you can create access nobody actually goes through no but that's amazing it's good it's both ways what does that cut to do with privacy it's just about time people don't just take the time because then if you're not writing a legal document but you are asking for protection under it I'm actually consenting so that the demand is once again it's a contract ultimately and when most people sit out of a contract outside of this situation both parties have bargaining power over here it's a take it or leave it so say I'm in some working in some company this way and I have to create a Twitter and Instagram account because my company is a social media marketing I don't have a choice I have to sign the contract because my work demands I don't have the knowledge to sit through a 20 page document with the movies I have two questions the first is sorry we don't want to go back to facebook how does facebook suffer if it is to give us a more nutritious news diet versus affirming our beliefs so maybe a red and a blue feed versus just a movie that doesn't mean I don't go on for the site as much yes and number two is what is this right to practice meaning the lead bank so the lead bank there is it's a collective principle which means the demand for the god saint passes law but if parliament is a legislative assembly passes the law that's constitutional the article 14 is supposed to be in principle of economic rationality but often that's just what kind of constitutional protection is this what does constitutional protection mean constitutional protection it just means that so that article 14 says that the collective principle is a state policy it was a bunch of articles in principle wanted to put it in common but it is too complicated so they have to keep the road down the bucket and send it they keep the bucket down sorry and said that these are not impossible but there is a duty of the state to pass it so what is constitutional protection does that mean that for instance fundamental rights aren't things that the state must do generally but things that the state must protect that is rights of the citizens, rights of individuals which is how they can so when you say that they get some sort of constitutional protection it almost seems as if they are immune from being challenged under any other fundamental rights the constitution was amended to by saying that no the collective principle anything we know pass it the collective principle would be sort of and then it reversed obviously it doesn't follow the fundamental rights chapter I am not saying it was it but I am just saying that it gives it an additional layer of sort of protection that you are not passed under the collective principle to state policy really have some sort of inalienable it is an inalienable right inalienable right so it can't take away from you I am just I am just discussing laws that are passed under the collective principles and laws I am not saying that it is just because it is passed under the collective principles it is in you so the question is how can the we can be challenged now in court what happened from the collective practices can people be protected to have I will have beef in my home and nobody has the right to ask me what I can have there so can that be done so beef consumption has already so what is the merit of that challenge is probably the question so the consumption of beef under the Maharashtra beef can which is what started all these 8 of these plans because none of them existed before I have a thing against consumption which was then removed by the Bombay High Court it is the same argument whether can I say I don't want to wear helmet helmet doesn't prevent anybody doesn't hurt anybody because my choice not to wear helmet I just wanted to think here to kind of clarify what has already been said so we now end up in a situation in a strange situation where certain kinds of things when done in the privacy of your house are fine potentially the Bombay High Court verdict for instance but things that enable the doing of that for instance the actual sale of beef it might actually not be protected so it is the same it is the same it is the same it is the same so here is the situation where many of the laws across many states and in there now prohibit not just the slaughter of cattle not just the sale of slaughter cattle within the states but also the transport of slaughter cattle across state borders into a state so it is not even as you can say fine as long as the evil deed doesn't happen within the confines of this state jurisdiction that is fine so it is quite comprehensive so the privacy privacy carve out there I think it only goes so far and we have a history of cases along these kinds of bans being challenged for on the grounds of freedom of trade and profession freedom of commerce because all butchers are affected by it commerce is affected by it but it is a messy line of cases but essentially the supreme court hasn't looked at on it too favorably looked at on these challenges too favorably so far I am a private property farm rent so I can get better access to the the the the the the limitation but it doesn't stop laws laws that the the the the the the the the the the the nationwide thing the the regulation the the what you are saying is only would be an exception to that because that is targeted at places where sale happens and exchange happens and markets are there and that's what that prevents but the state level prevention of slaughter capital acts which are including that those who still have the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the Now, if I look at the idea of the land use plan, which is a very fundamental base in a tool of urban planning, and if I take the smallest residential site in the back door, which is 24 square meters, take the fact that they have no social housing program, but talk to you more than if I take the market value of land of 24 square meters, I take on the capital value of purchase, but the rental value that is used for that. And I map it against median incomes. 60% of the population of the city, roughly, cannot legally locate themselves on the land use plan, because they don't have access, they have to live outside the system. The poor have survived because master planning is weak, both in ideation and implementation. That's given in that space outside the system to create the informal methods of planning. So, they cannot govern themselves in the city. But that means out of any doctrine of rights, because the doctrine of rights can be based on citizenship of nations. But most of the rights, most of the rights do attach to an individual. If I take, for example, the left over is between the right of the city and what David Harvey has picked up, it's not just the right to access the city, but the right to change the city and to change ourselves in the process of inhabiting the city. That is, through our practices, actually we construct ourselves as citizens. So that definition is something that is, in our doctrine of rights, abstracted from the messy practices of everyday life. I think that's a very fundamental unresolved problem. If you're in a homemade plan, if you're flexing totally socially completely, so how does the citizenship is the kind of thing still in the country? That might be our choice if you want to do that, but we want to... But the problem is if I want to lead an average life, which is embedded in society, now if I want rights, rights are of two kinds here, what are called negative rights and positive rights. Negative rights just require that everyone else does nothing, so like my right to free speech, to be honest. But if I say I have a right to education or a right to health care, then that requires that someone, basically the state, someone does something and it can't be a call for progressive realization, which can't be achieved in this country. So the thing is as soon as I'm tied to the practices of everyday life, I'm tied into this network and dependent on many actors who are enabling these positive rights also. These are the services, the so-called services that the government provides you. I'd like to point out that explicitly in multiple opinions issued yesterday, the right to privacy is seen not just as a negative right, the right for you to be free from interference by the state. But it's also seen as a positive right, so a duty is cast upon the state to ensure that you can have a right to privacy, not just, and this, you know, play that is supposed to right, finds place in the judgment of four judges delivered by Justice Chan Chu. And corroboree students in terms of expanding the meaning of that against private persons and the need for privacy for self-actualization. There is a very good treatment of that in Justice Paul's opinion. So I kind of feel that what you're saying is addressed and the right that... I was talking at a general level of rights, not just specifically the right of privacy. And let me give you another example that I've written about elsewhere. Let's say you'll have a woman who is conditioned, a Muslim woman who is told she must wear a bukkha. So there is a fundamentalist who tells her you have to do it, because that's who you are. And there's a liberal who says project yourself as an individual because, you know, you should be free. Now actually both of them are carrying out the same crime. They're not giving that woman the freedom to define her own identity and they're telling her what identity she should follow. Both the liberals and the fundamentalists are in a way doing the same thing. So what that woman needs is actually a shared blood space by which she can work this out. So that's what I'm saying is eventually something that has to be tied into the practices of everyday life. So she needs an assurance of that space, the assurance that whatever she does in that space will be accepted. So in some ways you can't talk about privacy without defining what the public realm of the city is. And you have to bring this down to a level of everything. So just very specific to your example, historically DPC of Pakistan's evolution into fundamentalism and Iran's evolution into fundamentalism. Very relevant of how their culture changed. This is because Octavia Bach makes a mention of it in the Nobel Prize lecture, where he says we have pushed the quest for significance into the private realm. And that is what is great fundamentalism. Is this something that changed the discussion into an allied with different areas? Before it changed, right? Just to answer your question, in mechanism yesterday's judgment, a very interesting finding was that the role of the state is not to dictate your decisions, but protect your ability to take decisions. And it is a testament in the example of the woman that you gave us just now. The role of the state is not to dictate what she decides. But the role of the state is to ensure that she has the ability to take that decision, whatever that decision may be and however she may make it. The point I'm going to make is that just saying that she has the freedom, there's a spatial scale I can use that freedom has to be made. One has to have space in the city where I am. And it's not that I have this freedom, I know what to do, I just don't understand. You're actually having to work yourself, so of course that's good. Citizenship is not something that will define yourself. You can stop every day. You can stop every day. I'm saying there's a specialization of rights which is a neglected dimension. Can I just ask a question? I want you to shift it to a slightly different level. This is a simple question. One thing that came out since you mentioned that. So let's say going back to the basic design. Let's say there are 50 people by the same including me. For you to have them decide to control their data to whatever, because they can see and they just want to give their data over to get the services they take. And I don't, but because these folks have done it, then there are outcomes that sort of clash on the list. My practice inadvertently gets compromised because they are leading to me. We're not just individuals inside of me, we're others who have impacted me. So we did the evaluation of their privacy. They weren't a lot of kind of the data, but the evaluation of my privacy because they were my data. But the example is the true color. True color. Because if you don't know what that is called, they're getting a number. So if you're not there or there, the number is gone. But I think this is actually a true color. I think it's an easier example, but I think this is a better example because it puts a tougher problem. The problem is much bigger. It's slightly contracted because of the reason of this algorithm, which you see, people have gone and mown siloed. It's not the other way. You are actually siloed. If you live on Reddit versus if you live on Facebook. That's it. Okay, but you're talking about content consumption. Correct. But let's say using my metadata and they look track where I live or what my schedule practice is. So who is providing a metadata if I'm not there? So there are pieces of me that are out there that I'm willing to give. The pieces and the puzzle can be filled out because of knowledge in your work. Everything is not that perfect. I mean, definitely. I mean, in the Republic of England, we're going to be targeted for it. But then you'd be out there on the block, so sorry. I'm not in a specific situation. I don't know. I don't know. Okay, mother, we're going to put this at the same time. Is there anything that is in your house? Sure. Most of the time, it's just something. I think it's not anything. You can treat me as a friend. You can treat me as a friend. I'm just using my name. I mean, I'm not talking about Facebook, but what about the right to privacy? Is that something that's going to be linked to that? I mean, is it ever going to come that they will control that? I mean, it's very relevant to this. Again, I know it sounds like a definite answer, but a lot of those answers will be found in the data collection law. There are actually grounds right in between. Right now, the right to privacy is telling us is that you have the right, and this is the base of it, but the actual application of it will only be seen in the future. It's the time to celebrate. Laterally, I may not be able to. Well, it depends on the answer. As of now, let's see how private data collection cannot be challenged in both. Like, Facebook, we can challenge Facebook based on the right to privacy. We cannot, because we can't send it all to you. Yeah. Yeah. That's a question. My question would rather be which is, what would the challenge look like? What would the challenge look like? What is the thing that you would challenge? Like, are you being forced to be a member? No. So, is the challenge that my friends are putting up photos of mine, which I don't want in the public domain? Is that the challenge? Then is it right to be aimed at Facebook rather than your friends? So, I think one really, especially when one talks about Google and Facebook etc. doing legal things, which they do, we also need to be a bit more careful in terms of what exactly we are putting them of versus what we are using like individuals of and what we are using the states of in terms of not providing us sufficient rights in India against these actors. Exactly. And that's like a problem with the fake news discussion that we were having earlier. Like, the basic fact is, we humans, whether it's on Facebook or whether it was a thousand years ago, we like to believe bad things about people we don't like. That is not Facebook's problem. That is a human society problem. Yeah. So, that's why I think the fake news debate is a bit like, we need more careful thinking in how we position it, what we want from it. Because if the solution we are looking for is we all look at news objectively and believe what is true, that's never going to happen. It's never happened. If I could just roll one ball into the discussion. I'd like to. So, and I'm sorry for coming late and if this is all you could discuss today. But outside the realm of just the law, into the realm of the political of feminism and privacy I think is an important thing that just judgment does touch upon. But beyond judgment I think it should be acknowledged that that historically there's been a very long fought battle to bring things that are that are always confined to the private into the public. So, marital rape for instance is one such example that is something that the argument against marital rape is that what happens within the confines of their marriage what happens in the confines of their house isn't the government's concern that I as a male should have that kind of power within my castle. Now on the other hand privacy is so privacy claims have historically been harmful but at the same time privacy claims are essential for women for what the integrity in the judgment for instance there's discussion about how abortion and medical they use the term medical term nature of pregnancy is linked to the right to privacy the right to privacy is expressed through that because alongside bodily integrity so on the one hand, so you have this situation and this is what for me the messiness of rights are always about that rights are never just good or bad the privacy rights which you're proclaiming will be used against journalists doing good work will also be used against journalists doing all kinds of terrible work which they shouldn't be doing so that's the nature of these rights that they're never just always positive never always just negative that I was thinking at the same time I've been following the use of the flooding that's been going on in much of northern eastern India, Nepal, Bangladesh and there's very little coverage of it and how the right to privacy or the right to freedom of expression are meaningless in these kinds of contexts so people were actually losing their lives or losing their houses but while these rights don't close on our backs or food in a hundred persons stomach they make life worth living they make life meaningful and society meaningful and to be able to live in society something we can all construct in the region and so these rights are important but it doesn't come without the right for the challenges of how to negotiate these rights are these rights used in ways that aren't progressive when they're used in different rights actually clash and compete for so it's very messy but a lot of this again I don't think is in the realm of necessarily of law a lot of this is in the realm of political so the feminist argument is actually the best and what I really like is the but they say that you can't use privacy to conceal patriarchy tendencies so like you know family honour that's asymmetrically pushed towards women alone and I think it's really important and I don't know if it was even argued before the because I did not read which is quite commendable and also the thing you said about like the flooding we may actually mention that the judgment also best talk about the tension between economic well-being versus civil and political rights and I can really take your point that the flooding wasn't covered in fact I only know because of you because I follow you into it but what the judgment says and I think it's very true is that if we start undermining civil and political rights as something that we have to choose between economic well-being that's most often done by countries who want to undermine human rights and to systematically undermine human rights and filter the important aspects I think it's nice to think of those two things together but also how, what that means of the kind of application of the law this is a statement like that this is done by countries that just actually provide references I mean Singapore? it's often called the leave hypothesis of the leave on it so your actual implementation of how civilisation is happening is that just a feeling that is shared because it's not a routine I mean we see it like I mean any country which places a lot of importance on economic rights but like you can't be chewing on it you know it's a very bad it's a very bad complex but it's that emotion it's not an action the thing is probably like what he said that spatial containment of rights is one thing if you are residing within a space which is owned by someone else he has the right to that but you own a subset of that space or you are in a subset of that space so if you have certain rights within your space with the person who is controlling without the space and you should not be able to violate someone's body rights even though you are residing in your own private space inside your home there are different aspects there's information privacy like I said in the beginning there's bodily privacy so the example that you give is that if I'm sitting in this room and this is actually a kid on the room maybe I don't have the right to expect to knock on the door but does I give him the right to look into my phone? no it's a subset of application basically it's a different manifestation I think the problem we can talk about but also in political and that dimension is extremely important because there's an article written that was in 40-50 years ago by legal philosophers the law says that the law is very bad at helping what he calls polycentric problems he uses the metaphor of a spider's web that if you pull at the tension of one standard redistributes tension throughout the web you can't take something in isolation and culture is inherently polycentric which is something that the law can't handle except in a very slow and expensive process of evolving case law that doesn't happen fast enough for culture to evolve so he says the law can derive a lot of community but you can't derive community out of law and the thing with rights is also that they also have been embedded in polycentric situations so my right to privacy is not something that is very explicitly defined something that continuously negotiates personal relationship it's one where every day I'm negotiating that right and maybe they're defining it in some ways so I think the political so we got to look at the institutional structures not just at the law I fully agree with Fuller in that I think it's asymmetric for sure whether law leads or whether law follows things end up more stable of course if law follows but for very many kinds of things that we see as progress changes in society law actually ends up leading so if you look in India for instance on culture ability the law leads and then the rest of society slowly follows behind in civil rights in the US lots of decisions small decisions more of education in the US law leads judges take a great step forward explicitly saying that things that they have decided in the past explicitly repudiating those because they find themselves on board by what the Supreme Court have held in the past and making the change that society at that time in much of the United States was not ready for and and slowly within a decade things change and if you look at privacy law in its evolution in the US it's actually court-led freedom of expression actually court-led society in most of these situations follows so I think if you want stability if you want harmony and if you want people to actually be able to live with the law well then sure, law should follow changes in society but yes it's a polycentric problem so the idea based on the issue I think is absolutely correct there's no way that law is too blunt a tool to deal with many of the problems people that we try to deal through law it just doesn't work and that's part of a large family of feminist critique of the law as well that law just a law is a reflection of certain things there's no way possible that will leave the kind of progressive aspirations that people have for it but I think even that critique is a bit too overseas I don't absolutely agree that I'm not a lawyer or a social scientist, I'm also a designer I'm a life-saving architect I mean laws are made because there are problems in society and that's why those laws come in so how can law be leading it's the other way the laws have to come up because there's a problem law leads in certain questions of rights I came to know of this polycentric argument in an article about some months ago where he said the rights-based decision law has to be but for the law to intervene about whether the national function should be played in theaters or whether past 500 meters from the highway are closed or not so that is actually into the what is the great part of the argument that's a positive argument it's what I come back to the point that the national and the subsequent being political I agree with that one a fundamental level but then I also wonder if you look at political structures right now I think a lot of them the sort of rationale for them is now at least is a lot more questionable at least we have more data to show that it is questionable for like in terms of just how people vote it's not rationally it's enough data that shows it's cognitive biases and associations with identity so I just wonder when you're talking about these polycentric problems how do you come up with a political solution that one is rational and to also just indicate the information the real informationist process right now that doesn't sort of reduce what should be a very complex debate into bite-sized arguments I don't think there is an answer to that it's not the biggest problem in that there is no answer to it because there one other kind of classification to be as quick as problems right we have that don't lend themselves to easy solutions through regulation through intervention by the government or by intervention by any authority these aren't these are things that involve social consequences, economic analysis multiple it's far too much for us to actually so if you add conditions like rational and other just things I don't think there are answers to them but let me try to please this in a more personal the better law should be in a different kind of setting that I found myself a little bit disturbed by because I hold an unpopular opinion about gay marriage which is that I don't believe that the Supreme Court in decision in the US a few years ago was correct the minority judges were right in holding that it doesn't matter for the legislature and not for the for the judiciary I couldn't see an obvious way in which the 14th amendment could be used to strike down any law that only supported marriage of one kind but at the same time and this is a situation but I realize they're also built this way because the tides were changing in the US because more than 50% of the states at that time were in favor of allowing same sex marriage because tides were changing it just allowed for society to change but if things were different I would say yes the judiciary should step up and this if you think about it makes no rational sense there's no clear rationality about it because it's not that I'm opposed to gay marriage I'm in a way opposed to marriage as an institution then by the state they shouldn't be defining what rights automatically you as your partner get not by cool happening and living together but by being married I think that's ridiculous but that part and I try to tease out why I built this way and this is the best explanation I can come up with I don't think it's a very good sound basis like you know because I support very challenging and different to it just as I'm in different marriage straight people can get married why not gay people but there is that challenge and it's a difficult call for me I think I have a question the police is opening that's not a requirement this is an argument and it's architecture in the sense that we construct since architecture physical space and architecture currently just like that means that there are transparency rules to something and I will make transparency approach to the community in general at the end at the core accountability of state actors make decisions that they take us through how they reach those decisions if I tell you to come with me again I think there are things that we know no machine can decide what to look for unless you tell it for me you still tell it what to train you still tell it for me I mean that you should train on specific features you decide the data set like for example when Google go to London so the issue there is is that A probably the training set was terrible you know like they they label attractive people as blonde blue and female the training set was horrible the person telling them what to do is a confusion white man but I have many explanations to it but I I mean I take it upon myself this is the United States direction but there might be a problem of relationship they are not realizing the problem so if I take the transition for example taking the train international training currency in 1975 percent of the train was right in the real economy and only about 25% was in speculation now the volume of speculation was 96% only about 4% so speculation is now the data that's writing the dollar and it's created a world where sometimes the courts who are driving the algorithmic models to make training decisions are not understood by the managers who are spending the training hours so so the neural learning and all that is still that you know what currency training was in 1975 you know there's a degree things that can't be explained but there are an important degree of things I'm not moderating this by the way I just happened to be sitting here this is the only chair I don't think that I don't think it's necessary that everything be explained or explainable I think it's just important that things which we can't explain aren't used as the basis for government decisions about us aren't used as the basis for decision making I think that's reasonable so if you can't explain why and how an algorithm came so one very famous case that that goes to analyzing pro-public around sorry what's the problem yet? compass yes okay so it was this private compass it was called this software that this company had provided which aim to aid sentencing by judges by essentially telling them predicting whether a person would be recidivist or not I guess the risk score of recidivism now for me that's what I find at the front to everything is not that you know the government never bothered asking for what exactly does this algorithm do and all of those questions that's bad enough and so they don't have a code they don't have a source code for that for me what's horrible is that software is making these decisions oh software can't make these decisions algorithms can't make these decisions so for me it's not just about the fact that it's closed source it should never be it should not be something it should not be like sentencing is not a decision that a human being should be making and there are various competing ideas actually on what pieces should sentencing happen and what is you know punishment meant for etc it's not as old as society itself but for me the problem isn't that it's obscure for me the problem isn't that it's being used at all that's all but you can make an argument sentencing by humans is also absolutely not in many levels so I'm just saying theoretically I mean it's supposed to be construct a hypothetically perfect AI mode that is able to take in all the factors mitigating circumstances and correctly predict it is proved and we just oldest this I don't see from an abstract point of view why it should be done by a machine sentencing this is but they advise for humans to so I have a belief 100% so I think it's more about what they want rather than what they not do this is mother this is type I don't point it out to the open society that we are a reflexive system which means we are part of the system like the example we gave of we kept problems we kept problems of the ones where we are part of the problem so in trying to define the problem we changed our side so nothing is saved which is why he says that you need the open society that's going to be negotiated so it's actually the structures the institutions and the negotiations so there is no such thing as a profit is there in itself whether it is given or measured because it's all part of the reflexive system we don't continue in the same way there's a set of judgments made and then we are changed by those judgments the next round of judgments is a different context so one is that it has its uses it's not the decisions it's not the basic human outcome for sentences it's not the implementation of the algorithm which matters the correctness of the algorithm which is being implemented so here I draw like somehow I felt like machine learning and algorithms are being targeted but it has its uses but not for these things so if our reasons are used as an input in decision making by human being that's one role perfectly comfortable with in which case sets of questions about the nature of the algorithm etc arise and whether they are competing algorithms for the same thing and all kinds of questions arise then but the decision being the human's decision I don't think a computer should ever ought to take that away for for most things relating to justice I think where it's just not an algorithm like justice isn't algorithmic for example in certain cases for example right now few other cases in the US for that it's very different for human to read through all these cases through all the industry and then provides I think that's what it is actually because I think human being is dreaded that's what I was thinking I mean the other side of it is like if it takes 15 years for somebody to get justice versus if it can be done in 5 minutes but you would have no choices to make right are we basing our decisions on any cases or are we basing it on but it's limited by you need all that data you need all that data only because some case was made at that point and that was the judgement but does that have any bearing to what the case is now I mean a lot of time now that's the way lawyers work because they just use the data whichever way it suits them and by the capacity of the lawyer I mean I think at the point in which a machine has a reason for now is that machines do not understand new ones and justice is all about new ones they can understand patterns they can understand but they don't understand content they do not understand content it's very hard for a fake news to distinguish fake news but new ones it's too easy how do you know if you're sitting here doing something about the US you don't know whether it's true or not if humans are making machines and we are embedding our values so I think it comes back to this right so it comes back to the fact that so of course humans are biased of course humans are stupid if we think that we accuse machines of being and of course at times but human beings are not machines I think that that crucial difference still exists so if a human dispenses justice and dispenses justice wrongly questions of accountability can come up in a way that it can't come up with an algorithm what are you going to say that the algorithm actually what was not earned because this was biased and hence should be jailed or in exact time it should be judged now when you find that your written piece of software that does evaluation of your own applications and you know that it's considering 10 factors now you find that there is a case where all these 10 factors whatever and then it didn't actually grant the loan but you as a candidate could give that loan you find that oh there was 11th consideration of the signal that you should have considered you improve that to consider the 11th one and then it works no it doesn't it doesn't the reason it doesn't is on what basis did you say first in fact it should have been given there was some conception of justice embedded there let's say a human decides that it should have been given and now again for me but a human cannot do 10,000 applications at the same level whereas a machine could no but when you are dispensing justice it shouldn't be based on one person's judgment I mean a jury system is there then it's not just one person's it's an aggregate of people's opinions and that becomes a little more it's taking 10 computers or 20 computers so that way at least you've got reasonable justice coming because everybody has their own methodology of thinking and that can be debated that's why open source works for me scores being determined by machines is one thing for me those scores being uncritically applied is a very different thing for me a machine should never decide whether you get a loan or not a machine should never decide whether you go to jail or not a machine should never decide whether you're the most important patient to get admitted to a hospital or not for me those kinds of decisions are human beings bad at? of course we've come up with various kinds of systems I don't know why because we find that we are bad at it so we we iterate we are reflexive now that reflexivity isn't just a given isn't just a magical thing that reflexivity why can't a machine do that not because machines can't iterate of course that's what they do not because machines can't change themselves that's what machine learning is about that the thing that makes us change that consideration of justice in you know saying that this is leading to unjust results that consideration I don't think can be programmed in oh of course it is machine learning is when you give out a decision and you get the feedback to that to see whether it got it right or not is the feedback that drives the next set of learning so if you you're the one who's actually it's not it's not affecting for example a machine can make a machine doesn't know what it's like to have a cold beer on a hot afternoon that's really going to no it is because if a human is doing it I will factor in a lot of things that are not statistical I will factor in a lot of things I will factor in a lot of things I will factor in a lot of things and give you an example of jobs and of the best I have a month's in good principle called people in and you decide what they are dreaming of doing and it's like with their eyes right up on the machine the eyes mean that they are high that's the kind of decision a machine can make that's a different thing So two very easy examples. One, which is something that most law students on like, you know, in the first three months go through, which is they're given an example, okay? They're off a situation. Someone, okay, X stole, you know, whatever from Y's house, okay? What should the sentence be? And then as you start adding layers, as you start giving names to these X's and Y's, start adding back histories to these X's and Y's, the answers that law students give will change, okay? If, you know, Y was a person who was, you know, had immense wealth and did not need that extra banana and X was starving and really, you know, your answer changes. Now that- The sentence with the machines, the answers would change, means some of the signals you'd consider. No, my- Hold on, the sentence with the mistakes. No, for real. The signals I was checking, I think the model is made out of the experiences, right? Which is, again, from the set-up situation. No, but you don't need to be taught this. No, no. A machine comes out, right? No, you don't need to be taught. So when someone, for instance, so the majesty of the law in its equality bans both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges and pissing in public. So now the law, in this case, for me, is very much like a machine, okay? It's not something that- No, it's not what you want. It's good. Yeah, but- Because there's one standard, but better be applying these things. No, but I mean, if it is banned- Yes. There have to be exclusions, right? And you can't just have a- You're thinking you're talking like a machine. No, sir, I think- No, I'm going to make a law, right? And that's what the police or the enforcement or the states do, right? They, once these clauses are not specified, they use it to their benefit, right? Whether it is machines or whether it is law enforcement or whether it's a state. Now, even now, right now, right? I mean, if you talk about privacy, there's so many things that are not specified. Now, as individuals, you can say that, you know, this is what I see, the half-class bull, right? The state sees the half-class bull do, right? Because they said, okay, this is what they have said. It's not absolute. I can do what I want with certain restrictions that I become mine, right? So ultimately- No, don't believe that at all. The government is spinning it. They lost the case. That's it, that's it. But the point is they can still go ahead and say, are there still mandatory because I want it to, you know, have economic gains or social security or whatever, national security, right? Now, they can still do that. So ultimately it's like- We may, maybe we don't know yet, but- I mean, they're still doing it. They haven't stopped and they have been doing it for a while and they haven't stopped. So it couldn't be a challenge to change, to change, to change. They may have to change. Change it at a different time. Yeah, they might have to challenge it, they might have to win, and then, you know, again, it's in future. But the point is that unless these clauses are specified, each one sees what they want to see, right? And so it's obviously that if you give the same signal to machines or humans, they will see what they want to see. I think- No, but just, I just have a question for you. Do you think you can supply the machine with every possible option? We can't- No, you'll know. You'll need all the humans. No, but yes, you are able to adjust at that point. You're able to do it. So he's the only- You mean, for example, if he's too rich, he can't understand the value of banana. Then why doesn't he have banana? That poor? If it is too rich, he has to understand the concept of poor also, right? See, the machine has to understand some concept. We are saying we are not supplying poor input to machines and then expecting people to be behind it. But what I'm saying is that the students are absolutely right. It's a very expensive thing that will go into making the notion of justice that aren't just as you write it, but we need to get it out of there.