The Delhi High Court begins hearing Chaitanya Rohilla's petition challenging Whatsapp's updated privacy policy.

Court asks the petitioner: What is your grievance? It's a private app, don't join it.
Court: What is the data you feel is going to be compromised?

Petitioner: Whatsapp shares information globally. Everything they gather from us is shared.
Court: Mr. Lal, there are two issues. One is that your personal messages are looked into and shared. Two is that your browsing history is shared.

Petitioner: They analyze browsing history and form an opinion about the user and share that.

Court: All apps do that.
Petitioner: In Europe and the US, Whatsapp gives an option to accept or reject the updated policy. But here in India, no such option is given.

Court: You have an option, don't use the app.
ASG Chetan Sharma appearing for the I & B Ministry says this issue needs analysing.

Sr. Adv. Mukul Rohatgi: I am appearing for Whatsapp.

Sr. Adv. Sibal: I am appearing for Whatsapp, you're appearing for Facebook.
Rohatgi: Either way, I am submitting that the app is completely safe to use. Let the petitioner be reassured that all chats between friends, relatives, etc will be encrypted and safe.
Sibal: Users have the option to engage with the business app or not.
Sibal submits for Whatsapp: This petition itself is not maintainable.

Court: List the case for 25th.
Counsel for Petitioner persists.

Court: I doubt that you have read any of the policies of any of the apps, you'll be shocked as to what all you consent to, and it is all voluntary, if you don't want, don't use the app. I am yet to understand your concern.

More from Live Law

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x