Actually, I was just about to say if the west happens to be lying through their teeth, they would be emboldened to spread countless other lies about other countries and get away with it.
Or even better, they are already quite emboldened and have experience with lying categorically thinking it would work all the time.
Lawrence Bishnoi did claim responsibility for the 2nd killing. But what makes you so sure that the Indian government is contracting the hit squad? The big problem that Canada has is they have not even identified the killer. Even if Bishnoi makes big claims, how are they going to prove them? And then they will have to estabilish the link between GoI and Bishnoi. All that if at all their 'conspiracy theory' that India has a hand in killings holds any water. Which I honestly doubt.
> It was reported that Pavan Kumar Rai posted a hit on Nijjar on some deepweb website used to hire assassins.
If that is the case, I'd have hoped it would be viral by now. But anyhow, they would have to establish the link between the Pavan Kumar Rai's activities and the killer. The killer who they have not identified.
It's similar to when Biden said Russia's Nord stream gas pipelines will be no more if Russia invades Ukraine. When the sabotage was done, no one could blame the US since there was no evidence linking it to them.
Why the hell should the Indian government trust Canada's so-called evidence that they are not even willing to reveal? Anyone with two brain cells will call bs on something like this.
Why not? If the evidence can be fact-checked on both sides, then its credibility can be established. All this depends on what kind of evidence Canada has (if at all they do).
I don't get how you folks believe Canada's allegations right off the bat, when there is no factual proof or evidence provided by them.
As long as there is no evidence provided by Canada, India is the victim here, with Canada leveling baseless allegations on her.
That's why I said, India has to confirm Canada's factual evidence first, because it can be any politically motivated bullshit for all we know.
Or the attacks may have been carried out by a rogue agent, with no hand of the Indian government in it. But even then the Canada has jumped the gun and claimed that the killings were state sponsored. In that case too India is the victim with Canada making false accusations against her.
> I don't get how you folks believe Canada's allegations right off the bat, when there is no factual proof or evidence provided by them.
I don't get how you infer support of Canada's allegations from a statement that the Indian government doesn't need to rely on Canada's evidence to determine whether or not they carried out an assassination, since they either know that they did it or know that they didn't do it.
> Or the attacks may have been carried out by a rogue agent, with no hand of the Indian government in it.
What do you think I meant when I said, "Third party evidence is relevant only to the extent that they didn't do it as a matter of state policy but a rogue agent or group might have done it."
It would be nice if your responses to other people's posts showed some sign that you were actually reading those posts rather than going off on a canned tirade that isn't in any meaningful way relevant to what it is nominally a response to.
If India is guilty, it knows that it is guilty. If India is innocent, it knows that it is innocent.
In either case, India wouldn't need evidence from anybody else to determine its own innocence or guilt, because surely it knows whether it did what it is being accused of doing.
That's because India is not 1 person, if you haven't noticed.
Even if this murder thing is true, it could have been some rogue agent in the government. In that case the evidence would flush them out. India does have a lot to lose, reputationally, in this case. But not enough to lose that they would simply accept whatever Canada says.
From the Indian point of view Canada has also brushed off situations where India approached them with evidence against Canadian citizens. So if Canada now approaches with demands of their own, dismissing these is perfectly alright without precise evidence.
India has no obligation to preserve whatever sources some 5 eye(I) country has within their government, and just cooperate with Canada no questions asked.
I have indeed noticed that a government is not a single person, but I simply would not think of a rogue agent as representative of the said government, and what they did as what the government had done.
From my perspective, the crime would need to be officially sanctioned by the person or people in power, for it to be called "done by the government". Just like if a US government employee is turned rogue, deciding to act against the US government, I wouldn't say that the US government is now against the US government.
CSIS destroyed evidence in that Air India 182 bombing case. Of course, Canadians have the prerogative to preach the world about free speech, the rule of law, etc. Why did CSIS destroy the evidence in that bombing case? Surjan Singh Gill was a CSIS agent and one of the co-conspirators of Air India and Narita bombing cases.
These right-wing, left-wing terms have come from the west and violated with a negative connotation from the west. Don't defile anything in the east with these vile implications that the western nazis have come to associate with. We in the east are civilized people, not genocidal barbarians. Thank you.
I was not sure how you concluded that "A lot of cybercrime comes from India".
But looking through the same lens as the example you provided, it makes sense that since 1.4 billion people stay in India, it is natural for the volume of cybercrime to be high.
While the article and research states that majority of fraud comes from UPI (47.1%), it seems as though the fraud involves the victim voluntarily entering their pin to transfer funds to the perpetrator.[1]
Perhaps this could be a good time for UPI apps to educate their users on fraudulent transactions.
But a part of me thinks this is also trying to boost the credit/debit card industry which has slumped due to UPI's success. I just saw a VISA ad today showcasing their tap to pay feature, which is a strong contender to UPI.
Before UPI, debit cards were there. And people were social engineered to tell the scammer the One Time Password received in their cells required for the withdrawal/transfer.
As a person who receieved ~20 such calls and has known half a dozen victims personally, and my dad being a previous public sector bank administrator, I assure you UPI has not changed anything when it comes to scams.
The calls go like this:
"I am the branch manager of your bank. Your account will be closed in 24 hours due to <totally made up, unplausible problem>. I need you to tell me your 16 digit Debit Card number. Now your CVV, now the OTP. Okay thank you."
Thus, less educated and even educated people are scammed. They just ignore (or something) the money amount in the OTP messages.
When I receive such calls, I just ask back- "Okay, Mr. Resepected Branch Manager, which branch are you the manager of?", and they mumble or disconnect. One time a guy said, " the main branch". I was like, dude, the "main branch manager" sits with the Prime Minister and such, doesn't call small-time customers like me. And he disconnected. These tell me that the number leaks from not the bank employees/db, but elsewhere.
I threatened to call the police on one scammer. He asked to have mercy and not to call the police because it was their business. :') It was 4-5 years ago.
Even bank employees and admins receive calls from scammers identifying as bank employees.
And, yeah, the government spends a huge amount of money spreading awareness. But the kind of people susceptible to this don't ever learn.
Article 1 of the Constitution states that “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” It's crucial to emphasise that Article 1 of the Constitution recognises both 'India' and 'Bharat' as official names for the country.[1]
If there was a thread about a mass shooting in the US, and a non-American asked something like "people in the US are allowed to own assault rifles?!?" and someone answered with the literal text of the 2th amendment and no other explanation, would you think that's a good comment?
Yes, I think it is a good comment because it answers the question exactly to the point. However, if there is an implied question as to 'why' people should be able to own arms, then of course it's better to elaborate further.
Welcome to HN, my friend. People here self-claim to be of high intellectual standards and follow facts. But what I see is a network embroiled in degeneracy. Unfortunate.
The context is that the current government have been pushing for the name change from India to Bharat, to appease the hard line hindutvas India ... or, at least, the, nationlists.
I don't care if it has support of 80% Indians. And even you know that's objectively not true. Any party which does not care about democratic principles is a shithole party.
It would be a whole lot better if people on HN spend their time reading news and garnering information rather than vomiting their half-baked knowledge and immaturely formed opinions on issues they have no idea about.
Ok, Not 80%, but 79% percent! You actually think a party that doesn't care about democratic principles can gain so much popularity, that too in the largest democracy in the world?
All media outlets are biased. The point is to extract the facts and not get swayed by biases. No matter which news outlet you go to, you'll still see the same facts, but the opinions may differ.
HN's moderation does tend to kick in, though not immediately. And on topics in which there is specific expertise comments can be gold.
I'm not suggesting that happens all the time, or even most of it. But relative to other online discussions it does quite well.
The next step up would probably require limited access and verified qualifications. Or something along the lines of StackExchange (which does, yes, have its own problems).
> The next step up would probably require limited access and verified qualifications.
I am half expecting someone to come up and say it goes against their freedom of speech. No, but I like StackExchange, it provides helpful information many a times. How many times have I visited HN if I wanted to know something versus how many times [...] StackExchange. There's definitely value there even for those not participating, but it takes away the back-and-forth of a discussion.
Even people who don't have the qualifications on paper but who have done sufficient research can add good content.
The problem is people disparage and speak in a condescending way under the pretext of facts, which makes it look legitimate, but there's racism and bigotry hiding underneath. I think people need to be more selective and careful with their usage of words if they want to maintain a scientific decorum, and not politicize matters.
One trope I've been mulling over for a while is that of the "marketplace of ideas", which is literally baked into US jurisprudence.
So far as I've been able to trace the origins, it's actually an adaptation of free-market ideology and promotion, and was likely suggested to Oliver Wendell Holmes by Francis Wrigley Hirst, former editor of The Economist, a publication literally founded to promote free-market ideals.[1][2]
But ... is a marketplace really the forum in which ideas are best formed and developed? Or even transmitted? Because ... my understanding is that this takes place far more often in studies, libraries, workshops, laboratories, and academies. Usually amongst a small set of people qualified in the task they are undertaking. Yes, there's often correspondence amongst that group, and there may be distributed work or teams. But one thing it distinctly is not is the absolute hubbub and all-comers-invited nature of the marketplace.
I've yet to see a full critique of the notion, though Jill Gordon's "John Stuart Mill and 'The Marketplace of Ideas'" comes quite close. Among other points, she makes clear that Mill never actually used the phrase, and had some sharp concerns with what are now key elements of it.
Ultimately, markets reward characteristics which are strongly at odds with information in various ways. This appears both in how markets for information goods are tremendously skewed and have enormous deadweight losses (actively impeding access to information to virtually all), but also in what types of information are promoted and advantaged by marketplaces --- rarely that which has a strong truth valance, or which stands against orthodoxies.
(Markets aren't the only structures which stand against information, but given that they're often portrayed as the essence of informational genesis, the conflict is highly notable.)
________________________________
Notes:
1. Holmes didn't quite coin the modern form, but came quite close and strongly influenced the ultimate formulation. The Hirst connection is revealed in Thomas Healy's book The Great Dissent: <https://www.alumni.columbia.edu/content/great-dissent-how-ol...>
2. See The Economist's Prospectus: "[A] weekly paper, to be published every Saturday, and to be called THE ECONOMIST, which will contain— First.—ORIGINAL LEADING ARTICLES, in which free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day" <https://www.economist.com/unknown/1843/08/05/prospectus>
