ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online to Privacy@lemmy.ml · 2 months agoPeople with nothing to hide need not be bothered about surveillance, Supreme Court sayswww.thehindu.comexternal-linkmessage-square57fedilinkarrow-up1286arrow-down14file-text
arrow-up1282arrow-down1external-linkPeople with nothing to hide need not be bothered about surveillance, Supreme Court sayswww.thehindu.comArmchairAce1944@discuss.online to Privacy@lemmy.ml · 2 months agomessage-square57fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareJohnnyCanuck@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up7·2 months agoPosts like this are a great test for whether people read the article (or even the first paragraph) before commenting.
minus-squarehumanspiral@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up3·2 months agoit appears decision upheld the right to privacy, even though some, perhaps dissenting, judges and prosecutor made the headline’s argument.
minus-squareRheumatoidArthritis@mander.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·edit-22 months agoThe first paragraph:
minus-squareJohnnyCanuck@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up2·2 months agoYeah I just figure UI can factor into that a bit more, like some apps don’t show it.
Posts like this are a great test for whether people read the article (or even the first paragraph) before commenting.
it appears decision upheld the right to privacy, even though some, perhaps dissenting, judges and prosecutor made the headline’s argument.
The first paragraph:
Hell, even the URL.
Yeah I just figure UI can factor into that a bit more, like some apps don’t show it.