[Venkat_Figo]

Originally Posted by ajmat

The question is - who discloses the criiminal act to the employer - the police or employer!

In a country where flouting traffic rules is the norm & the law is totally disregarded by a lot of people, given the option, the probability of the crime being reported by the one committing it negligible. Better the cops report it.

[Malyaj]

We seem to have double standards when it comes to usage of data by govt agencies versus private firms. Slightly OT but this reminds me of the debate that raged on ‘misuse’ of Aadhar data some months ago. The most vociferous of the lot were the privileged class, safe to assume that most of them users of multiple apps on their mobile phones. Now there is no need to write a chapter on how apps use your personal data. Heck, you can’t even install an app these days without giving all sorts of permissions. We still allow it for the sake of convenience these apps bring. And here we are talking of safety to life and limb.

Self regulation just does not work in our country. In fact enforcement also doesn’t work unless the fine is extremely heavy. I remember when the fine for drunken driving was a paltry sum like for other traffic violations, most offenders could get away by bribing Rs 100. When the law was changed and fine ran into thousands, with possible imprisonment, the bribes proportionately became more prohibitive. This did lead to some people avoiding drunken driving while some continued to push their luck. For such people there needs to be a different deterrent. I don’t know if sending letters to HR department is a solution, but there is a need for severe punishment. Ask families who have lost a member to drunken driving. Or people who have to live life with a permanent handicap.

It’s all very nice to quote thinkers and liberals but there is a need to frame laws in accordance with the ground realities in society. To someone who mentioned that there are other bigger problems in the country, sure there are. But we have several mechanisms and institutions to tackle each one of them. One of traffic police’s responsibilities is to stop the menace of drunken driving. If they were to advise me on how to have good relations with my parents and wife I would smile and get on with my life. But this is clearly their area and certainly their share of the pie among the ‘many bigger problems in the country’.

[hserus]

Originally Posted by Malyaj

We seem to have double standards when it comes to usage of data by govt agencies versus private firms. Slightly OT but this reminds me of the debate that raged on ‘misuse’ of Aadhar data some months ago. The most vociferous of the lot were the privileged class, safe to assume that most of them users of multiple apps on their mobile phones.

Please figure out the difference between opting in vs opting out of information disclosure before you continue the discussion.

Beyond that - remember, if your gmail password is compromised, you can change it. What do you use to authenticate yourself for Aadhaar verification - and can you change these if there's a data leak and compromise? Finger plastic surgery and an eye transplant I guess.

This book is worth a read - https://www.amazon.in/Dissent-Aadhaa...AReetika+Khera

[Malyaj]

Originally Posted by hserus

Please figure out the difference between opting in vs opting out of information disclosure before you continue the discussion.

I understand very well the difference between opting in and opting out of information disclosure. The point was not about the technicality of it, but the consequence. To say that when we are allowing apps to use our personal data is out of some conscious knowledge and faith that these companies will not use it for commercial benefit is just delusional. We give these permissions because we are lazy and feel the app brings more convenience than problems.

At no point did I condone the misuse of Aadhar data. I just pointed out the double standards. Nor did I say that public shaming is the way to go. Punishment has to be in proportion to the severity of the offence and its potential to cause damage. Current laws for drunken driving are severe enough, but enforcement is lacking.

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by binand

The "leak" (as visible in the first post in the thread) has PII redacted. How can privacy be violated then? In any case, whose privacy was violated by just restating matters that are part of public record (even the existence of this letter is)?

The unmasked complete letter was floating around on WhatsApp, am not referring to the image here. Public records Vs being publicised rampantly are two different things.

Which two parties? The cops and the company? Where is the expectation of confidentiality in the letter? If the DyCP writing the letter wants it to be treated as confidential, he has to mark it as such and provide reasons for doing so. I don't think any reason other than the ones mentioned in the RTI Act would fly.

Like I said our country is way behind in these matters.

Also if you read the letter - it only (a) in para 1, mentioned matters that are part of public record, and (b) reiteration of the law and obligations in paras 2-3. It is hard to see how anyone can claim all this is confidential information.

Again does the letter have To and From? what does that imply? anyone and everyone have a free look at it? and malign further. As per law once someone has gone through the punishment it is end of the matter. Infact it tries to offer help to get back to normal civil society. Such shaming just messes that up.

This is the pertinent question. I have been reading about naming-and-shaming schemes, and what I have been able to make out so far is that:

Yup this is the proven fact, but hey this is India! We have our own quirks! lol

[the_skyliner]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

There is a world of a difference between default on debt and being a risk to life and limb.

It doesn't take much time for the difference to diminish.

Originally Posted by Jaggu

Such shaming just messes that up.

Spot on. Public shaming, like mob mentality, has no limits and takes little time to go out of control.

[srishiva]

I think even for this we need SC to tell us if its right or wrong ! Confiscating the vehicle itself is more than enough for violator and people close to the violator to know about the incident

[hserus]

That argument is like "X gets to do this with impunity so why not Y?"

Which doesn't quite work. That's sort of like asking a traffic cop who stops you for overspeeding why he isn't going after that youngster roaring past on a Pulsar.

Originally Posted by Malyaj

I understand very well the difference between opting in and opting out of information disclosure. The point was not about the technicality of it, but the consequence. To say that when we are allowing apps to use our personal data is out of some conscious knowledge and faith that these companies will not use it for commercial benefit is just delusional. We give these permissions because we are lazy and feel the app brings more convenience than problems.

At no point did I condone the misuse of Aadhar data. I just pointed out the double standards. Nor did I say that public shaming is the way to go. Punishment has to be in proportion to the severity of the offence and its potential to cause damage. Current laws for drunken driving are severe enough, but enforcement is lacking.

Originally Posted by binand

3. Such schemes could be challenged under libel laws. Depending on the jurisdiction, these might be fruitful.

There's a legal protection in place for police officers who are engaged in legitimate performance of their duty.

[binand]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

Again does the letter have To and From? what does that imply? anyone and everyone have a free look at it? and malign further. As per law once someone has gone through the punishment it is end of the matter.

It implies nothing. If a letter is to be treated as confidential it has to be marked as such; otherwise the recipient is free to use it as they deem fit. This is the standard common law position; with certain exceptions where confidentiality is implied (lawyer-client, doctor-patient etc.).

And your understanding of the "punishment is the end of it" doesn't reconcile with state of affairs worldwide. Practically every society understands that certain kinds of offences need to be treated differently; from sex offenders' registries to "KD lists" there are worldwide examples where "I've paid my dues to society, now leave me alone" isn't considered a valid excuse.

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by binand

It implies nothing. If a letter is to be treated as confidential it has to be marked as such; otherwise the recipient is free to use it as they deem fit. This is the standard common law position; with certain exceptions where confidentiality is implied (lawyer-client, doctor-patient etc.).

Relax buddy! I have underlined the part that matters most and seems to have gone bonkers in this case. What is the source that "leaked" the letter? and is it the right thing to do. That is my contention.

And your understanding of the "punishment is the end of it" doesn't reconcile with state of affairs worldwide. Practically every society understands that certain kinds of offences need to be treated differently; from sex offenders' registries to "KD lists" there are worldwide examples where "I've paid my dues to society, now leave me alone" isn't considered a valid excuse.

Honestly... neither your understanding also hold a candle anywhere in my opinion. So please let go, I have made my views which are very generic societal etiquettes. If you don't agree, just say so and move on. I don't see any issues in your opinion, you are entitled to have them but please don't expect everyone to say yes to it.

[binand]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

What is the source that "leaked" the letter? and is it the right thing to do. That is my contention.

For all you know it could be the person who's the subject of it, too. :-) But yeah, far more likely someone did this to embarrass them.

Originally Posted by Jaggu

I have made my views which are very generic societal etiquettes. If you don't agree, just say so and move on.

Only in matters related to DUI. As someone who clocks about 20K km on roads a year, and someone who lost a dear friend in a DUI incident, en encounter with one is my single worst nightmare. Not haphazard bikes/badly driven buses/rowdy sand trucks/... all of which I can prepare for, spot and avoid.

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by binand

Only in matters related to DUI. As someone who clocks about 20K km on roads a year, and someone who lost a dear friend in a DUI incident, en encounter with one is my single worst nightmare. Not haphazard bikes/badly driven buses/rowdy sand trucks/... all of which I can prepare for, spot and avoid.

I can understand! over the years I have also come across such. And really sorry to hear about your friend.

Our roads are dangerous, far more than many countries and driving under influence is just one issue. The others that you have mentioned have taken toll on me personally. But I still believe in courts and rule of the land. If we expect other ways (including public shaming) to resolve it, I would be grossly hallucinating in temporary state of excitement. Especially since the stats are against it.

We have to work really really hard on basics, educating, instilling the right things in children... then maybe after couple of decades we would be at a better place when it comes to road safety.

cheers
Jaggu

[sachinpk]

Sec 185 of MV. Act is actually a simple and straight forward section. The punishment listed in this section is for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence, if committed within three years of the commission of the previous similar offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both .

This is all the "punishment" which is prescribed by the written law. Violation of this section is not considered a "cognizable offence" so for the police personnel to take action, the event (i.e drunken driving) should have happened in front of their eyes and the said policemen should be in uniform.

This offence is also not "compoundable" (i.e both parties; drunk driver and the police cannot mutually come to an agreement, pay a fine and get away with it). A court appearance is mandatory; and generally it is at the magistrate's court. The quantum of punishment (which even includes acts like writing to the employer of the guilty party) has to be then decided by the magistrate (and not the police).

That being said the act of Cyberabad police seems to be "high handed". Did the magistrate who sent the guilty for 4 days simple imprisonment ask the the police to inform the employer of the guilty party? If that is not there in the guilty verdict on whose authority did the police send this letter? "Naming & shaming" does work in India, but the police force is bound to follow the rules which they are there to uphold. IT companies do ask for all sorts of information (now how many of that violates the privacy of an individual, we don't know), and that information only needs to be given when asked for. The police (or better the judicial court) can share the information on an individual if an authorised party asks for it.

These moves can be easily thwarted if the police tries the trick on i) their own colleagues i.e police men ii)lawyers iii)businessmen who also have contacts with lawyers. Looks like the police also knows this and they have actually targetted the "sitting ducks" in Cyberabad. That is the IT/ITES employees. Generally have a better pay scale - more disposable income & unsecure jobs, and do not have the social networking skills (outside their own IT/ITES groups) and very little legal knowledge. Think about it this move of the police can not even work with a plumber, mason or a carpenter . Because they are all "self employed" people who don't have fancy titled overseers sitting on their heads.

[binand]

Originally Posted by sachinpk

Sec 185 of MV. Act is actually a simple and straight forward section. [...]

Did the magistrate who sent the guilty for 4 days simple imprisonment ask the the police to inform the employer of the guilty party? If that is not there in the guilty verdict on whose authority did the police send this letter?

The MV Act is not the only one that gives police officers their powers. There is the IPC, the Cr PC and each state has its own Police Act that appoints officers above a certain rank (DCP sounds right) as judicial officers (district magistrate equivalent) with responsibility for maintaining public order - they can issue orders and directions to the general public and specific individuals in this capacity.

[hserus]

Originally Posted by binand

The MV Act is not the only one that gives police officers their powers. There is the IPC, the Cr PC and each state has its own Police Act that appoints officers above a certain rank (DCP sounds right) as judicial officers (district magistrate equivalent) with responsibility for maintaining public order - they can issue orders and directions to the general public and specific individuals in this capacity.

IPC 279. Rash driving or riding on a public way:

"Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

This offence is Cognizable—Bailable—Triable by any Magistrate—Non-compoundable.

There's additionally IPC 337 if someone gets hurt by a drunk driver

337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.—Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.