Supreme Court hears the writ petition filed by CPI Rajya Sabha MP Binoy Viswam @BinoyViswam1 seeking data protection measures for Unified Payments Interface (UPI).

Krishnan Venugopal for Binoy Viswam : The system of Whatsapp is not secure. Whatsapp is using the platform of the messenger service to allow payments.

#SupremeCourt
Krishnan Venugopal refers to the 'Pegasus' issue to argue that Whatsapp's system is not safe and secure.

#SupremeCourt
Krishnan Venugopal : Another issue is data localization. Problem with whatsapp, amazon & google is that when they allow payment to happen, data goes abroad. RBI justifies this process by saying that it is fine for data of Indians to go abroad without any formal protection.
Krishnan Venugopal : Critical financial data is allowed to be accessed by companies abroad and RBI justifies it. This is violation of Privacy judgment as my data is being grossly misused as these companies then collect this data and use it for advertisement purposes.
Krishanan Venugopal : All the data is being shared with the parent companies in violation of the NPCI guidelines. The data is being processed by the infrastructure of the parent company.
Krishnan Venugopal : Respondents have allowed Whatsapp, even when the case is pending, to go ahead and share this data with companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook etc without any circular or formal regulation
CJI tells Sibal (for Whatsapp) : Mr. Krishnan Venugopal made a serious allegation that your (Whatsapp) can be hacked by something called 'Pegasus'.

Sibal : Absolutely baseless. There is no such pleading. It is just an oral submission made across the bar without basis.
Krishnan Venugopal : This (Pegasus issue) has been reported in newspapers.

CJI : You make the statement on affidavit.

K Venugopal : It is on affidavit.

The bench to take up the matter on the 4th week of January.

NPCI asked to file reply.

More from Live Law

More from Law

This is what he wants to do.

No matter how this trial plays out, the US will remain divided between those who choose truth, Democracy, and rule of law and the millions who reject these things.

1/


The question is how to move forward.

My mantra is that there are no magic bullets and these people will always be with us.

Except for state legislatures, they have less power now than they have for a while.

2/

The only real and lasting solutions are political ones. Get Democrats into local offices. Get people who want democracy to survive to the polls at every election, at every level.

It’s a constant battle.

3/

Maybe I should tell you all about Thurgood Marshall’s life to illustrate how hard the task is and how there will be backlash after each step of progress.

4/

Precisely. That's why Thurgood Marshall's life came to mind.

We are still riding the backlash that started after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

That's why I keep saying there are no easy

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.

Always. No, your company is not an exception.

A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.

Listen to Aditya


And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.

I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.

You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.

Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]