Question Description
Chances are, when the government submits its final ‘intermediary guidelines’ to the Supreme Court later this month—meant for social media firms like Facebook and messaging services like WhatsApp—it will further tighten and reiterate some of the existing ones, like the tracing/origin of messages such as those on WhatsApp. The government needing such information in certain cases is understandable. Theoretically, for instance, WhatsApp forwards talking of a group of Muslims planning to slaughter cows can result in communal violence; so the government needs to know from where the messages originated. And, it would help the Delhi Police immensely if the originators of several WhatsApp messages in the recent JNU attacks can be traced. Logically speaking, if the government can trace/tap phone calls today, there is no reason why this should not extend to newer forms of messaging/communications.Indeed, in October last year, the US Attorney General, the UK secretary of state, and the Australian home minister, among others, wrote to Facebook, asking it to ensure that the police get lawful access to its content for precisely the same reason of maintaining law and order; firms like Apple and Facebook have also been petitioned by the US not to encrypt certain type of data—Apple has just dropped a plan to allow iPhone users to fully encrypt their data backup on the iCloud—as this could hurt their investigations. The problem, however, is what this does to the privacy of individuals, which, the Supreme Court has ruled, is a fundamental right.Q. Which of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument in favour of privacy and against indiscriminate surveillance?a)SC has reiterated that the data being collected needs to meet the tests of “necessity, proportionality and due process” while examining the revised intermediary guidelines.b)There has to be an independent mechanism to monitor breach of privacy—maybe a SC– monitored process—and to see what the government is doing with the data it is collecting.c)Both (A) and (B).d)Neither (A) nor (B).Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Chances are, when the government submits its final ‘intermediary guidelines’ to the Supreme Court later this month—meant for social media firms like Facebook and messaging services like WhatsApp—it will further tighten and reiterate some of the existing ones, like the tracing/origin of messages such as those on WhatsApp. The government needing such information in certain cases is understandable. Theoretically, for instance, WhatsApp forwards talking of a group of Muslims planning to slaughter cows can result in communal violence; so the government needs to know from where the messages originated. And, it would help the Delhi Police immensely if the originators of several WhatsApp messages in the recent JNU attacks can be traced. Logically speaking, if the government can trace/tap phone calls today, there is no reason why this should not extend to newer forms of messaging/communications.Indeed, in October last year, the US Attorney General, the UK secretary of state, and the Australian home minister, among others, wrote to Facebook, asking it to ensure that the police get lawful access to its content for precisely the same reason of maintaining law and order; firms like Apple and Facebook have also been petitioned by the US not to encrypt certain type of data—Apple has just dropped a plan to allow iPhone users to fully encrypt their data backup on the iCloud—as this could hurt their investigations. The problem, however, is what this does to the privacy of individuals, which, the Supreme Court has ruled, is a fundamental right.Q. Which of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument in favour of privacy and against indiscriminate surveillance?a)SC has reiterated that the data being collected needs to meet the tests of “necessity, proportionality and due process” while examining the revised intermediary guidelines.b)There has to be an independent mechanism to monitor breach of privacy—maybe a SC– monitored process—and to see what the government is doing with the data it is collecting.c)Both (A) and (B).d)Neither (A) nor (B).Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Chances are, when the government submits its final ‘intermediary guidelines’ to the Supreme Court later this month—meant for social media firms like Facebook and messaging services like WhatsApp—it will further tighten and reiterate some of the existing ones, like the tracing/origin of messages such as those on WhatsApp. The government needing such information in certain cases is understandable. Theoretically, for instance, WhatsApp forwards talking of a group of Muslims planning to slaughter cows can result in communal violence; so the government needs to know from where the messages originated. And, it would help the Delhi Police immensely if the originators of several WhatsApp messages in the recent JNU attacks can be traced. Logically speaking, if the government can trace/tap phone calls today, there is no reason why this should not extend to newer forms of messaging/communications.Indeed, in October last year, the US Attorney General, the UK secretary of state, and the Australian home minister, among others, wrote to Facebook, asking it to ensure that the police get lawful access to its content for precisely the same reason of maintaining law and order; firms like Apple and Facebook have also been petitioned by the US not to encrypt certain type of data—Apple has just dropped a plan to allow iPhone users to fully encrypt their data backup on the iCloud—as this could hurt their investigations. The problem, however, is what this does to the privacy of individuals, which, the Supreme Court has ruled, is a fundamental right.Q. Which of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument in favour of privacy and against indiscriminate surveillance?a)SC has reiterated that the data being collected needs to meet the tests of “necessity, proportionality and due process” while examining the revised intermediary guidelines.b)There has to be an independent mechanism to monitor breach of privacy—maybe a SC– monitored process—and to see what the government is doing with the data it is collecting.c)Both (A) and (B).d)Neither (A) nor (B).Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Chances are, when the government submits its final ‘intermediary guidelines’ to the Supreme Court later this month—meant for social media firms like Facebook and messaging services like WhatsApp—it will further tighten and reiterate some of the existing ones, like the tracing/origin of messages such as those on WhatsApp. The government needing such information in certain cases is understandable. Theoretically, for instance, WhatsApp forwards talking of a group of Muslims planning to slaughter cows can result in communal violence; so the government needs to know from where the messages originated. And, it would help the Delhi Police immensely if the originators of several WhatsApp messages in the recent JNU attacks can be traced. Logically speaking, if the government can trace/tap phone calls today, there is no reason why this should not extend to newer forms of messaging/communications.Indeed, in October last year, the US Attorney General, the UK secretary of state, and the Australian home minister, among others, wrote to Facebook, asking it to ensure that the police get lawful access to its content for precisely the same reason of maintaining law and order; firms like Apple and Facebook have also been petitioned by the US not to encrypt certain type of data—Apple has just dropped a plan to allow iPhone users to fully encrypt their data backup on the iCloud—as this could hurt their investigations. The problem, however, is what this does to the privacy of individuals, which, the Supreme Court has ruled, is a fundamental right.Q. Which of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument in favour of privacy and against indiscriminate surveillance?a)SC has reiterated that the data being collected needs to meet the tests of “necessity, proportionality and due process” while examining the revised intermediary guidelines.b)There has to be an independent mechanism to monitor breach of privacy—maybe a SC– monitored process—and to see what the government is doing with the data it is collecting.c)Both (A) and (B).d)Neither (A) nor (B).Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Chances are, when the government submits its final ‘intermediary guidelines’ to the Supreme Court later this month—meant for social media firms like Facebook and messaging services like WhatsApp—it will further tighten and reiterate some of the existing ones, like the tracing/origin of messages such as those on WhatsApp. The government needing such information in certain cases is understandable. Theoretically, for instance, WhatsApp forwards talking of a group of Muslims planning to slaughter cows can result in communal violence; so the government needs to know from where the messages originated. And, it would help the Delhi Police immensely if the originators of several WhatsApp messages in the recent JNU attacks can be traced. Logically speaking, if the government can trace/tap phone calls today, there is no reason why this should not extend to newer forms of messaging/communications.Indeed, in October last year, the US Attorney General, the UK secretary of state, and the Australian home minister, among others, wrote to Facebook, asking it to ensure that the police get lawful access to its content for precisely the same reason of maintaining law and order; firms like Apple and Facebook have also been petitioned by the US not to encrypt certain type of data—Apple has just dropped a plan to allow iPhone users to fully encrypt their data backup on the iCloud—as this could hurt their investigations. The problem, however, is what this does to the privacy of individuals, which, the Supreme Court has ruled, is a fundamental right.Q. Which of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument in favour of privacy and against indiscriminate surveillance?a)SC has reiterated that the data being collected needs to meet the tests of “necessity, proportionality and due process” while examining the revised intermediary guidelines.b)There has to be an independent mechanism to monitor breach of privacy—maybe a SC– monitored process—and to see what the government is doing with the data it is collecting.c)Both (A) and (B).d)Neither (A) nor (B).Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Chances are, when the government submits its final ‘intermediary guidelines’ to the Supreme Court later this month—meant for social media firms like Facebook and messaging services like WhatsApp—it will further tighten and reiterate some of the existing ones, like the tracing/origin of messages such as those on WhatsApp. The government needing such information in certain cases is understandable. Theoretically, for instance, WhatsApp forwards talking of a group of Muslims planning to slaughter cows can result in communal violence; so the government needs to know from where the messages originated. And, it would help the Delhi Police immensely if the originators of several WhatsApp messages in the recent JNU attacks can be traced. Logically speaking, if the government can trace/tap phone calls today, there is no reason why this should not extend to newer forms of messaging/communications.Indeed, in October last year, the US Attorney General, the UK secretary of state, and the Australian home minister, among others, wrote to Facebook, asking it to ensure that the police get lawful access to its content for precisely the same reason of maintaining law and order; firms like Apple and Facebook have also been petitioned by the US not to encrypt certain type of data—Apple has just dropped a plan to allow iPhone users to fully encrypt their data backup on the iCloud—as this could hurt their investigations. The problem, however, is what this does to the privacy of individuals, which, the Supreme Court has ruled, is a fundamental right.Q. Which of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument in favour of privacy and against indiscriminate surveillance?a)SC has reiterated that the data being collected needs to meet the tests of “necessity, proportionality and due process” while examining the revised intermediary guidelines.b)There has to be an independent mechanism to monitor breach of privacy—maybe a SC– monitored process—and to see what the government is doing with the data it is collecting.c)Both (A) and (B).d)Neither (A) nor (B).Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Chances are, when the government submits its final ‘intermediary guidelines’ to the Supreme Court later this month—meant for social media firms like Facebook and messaging services like WhatsApp—it will further tighten and reiterate some of the existing ones, like the tracing/origin of messages such as those on WhatsApp. The government needing such information in certain cases is understandable. Theoretically, for instance, WhatsApp forwards talking of a group of Muslims planning to slaughter cows can result in communal violence; so the government needs to know from where the messages originated. And, it would help the Delhi Police immensely if the originators of several WhatsApp messages in the recent JNU attacks can be traced. Logically speaking, if the government can trace/tap phone calls today, there is no reason why this should not extend to newer forms of messaging/communications.Indeed, in October last year, the US Attorney General, the UK secretary of state, and the Australian home minister, among others, wrote to Facebook, asking it to ensure that the police get lawful access to its content for precisely the same reason of maintaining law and order; firms like Apple and Facebook have also been petitioned by the US not to encrypt certain type of data—Apple has just dropped a plan to allow iPhone users to fully encrypt their data backup on the iCloud—as this could hurt their investigations. The problem, however, is what this does to the privacy of individuals, which, the Supreme Court has ruled, is a fundamental right.Q. Which of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument in favour of privacy and against indiscriminate surveillance?a)SC has reiterated that the data being collected needs to meet the tests of “necessity, proportionality and due process” while examining the revised intermediary guidelines.b)There has to be an independent mechanism to monitor breach of privacy—maybe a SC– monitored process—and to see what the government is doing with the data it is collecting.c)Both (A) and (B).d)Neither (A) nor (B).Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Chances are, when the government submits its final ‘intermediary guidelines’ to the Supreme Court later this month—meant for social media firms like Facebook and messaging services like WhatsApp—it will further tighten and reiterate some of the existing ones, like the tracing/origin of messages such as those on WhatsApp. The government needing such information in certain cases is understandable. Theoretically, for instance, WhatsApp forwards talking of a group of Muslims planning to slaughter cows can result in communal violence; so the government needs to know from where the messages originated. And, it would help the Delhi Police immensely if the originators of several WhatsApp messages in the recent JNU attacks can be traced. Logically speaking, if the government can trace/tap phone calls today, there is no reason why this should not extend to newer forms of messaging/communications.Indeed, in October last year, the US Attorney General, the UK secretary of state, and the Australian home minister, among others, wrote to Facebook, asking it to ensure that the police get lawful access to its content for precisely the same reason of maintaining law and order; firms like Apple and Facebook have also been petitioned by the US not to encrypt certain type of data—Apple has just dropped a plan to allow iPhone users to fully encrypt their data backup on the iCloud—as this could hurt their investigations. The problem, however, is what this does to the privacy of individuals, which, the Supreme Court has ruled, is a fundamental right.Q. Which of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument in favour of privacy and against indiscriminate surveillance?a)SC has reiterated that the data being collected needs to meet the tests of “necessity, proportionality and due process” while examining the revised intermediary guidelines.b)There has to be an independent mechanism to monitor breach of privacy—maybe a SC– monitored process—and to see what the government is doing with the data it is collecting.c)Both (A) and (B).d)Neither (A) nor (B).Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Chances are, when the government submits its final ‘intermediary guidelines’ to the Supreme Court later this month—meant for social media firms like Facebook and messaging services like WhatsApp—it will further tighten and reiterate some of the existing ones, like the tracing/origin of messages such as those on WhatsApp. The government needing such information in certain cases is understandable. Theoretically, for instance, WhatsApp forwards talking of a group of Muslims planning to slaughter cows can result in communal violence; so the government needs to know from where the messages originated. And, it would help the Delhi Police immensely if the originators of several WhatsApp messages in the recent JNU attacks can be traced. Logically speaking, if the government can trace/tap phone calls today, there is no reason why this should not extend to newer forms of messaging/communications.Indeed, in October last year, the US Attorney General, the UK secretary of state, and the Australian home minister, among others, wrote to Facebook, asking it to ensure that the police get lawful access to its content for precisely the same reason of maintaining law and order; firms like Apple and Facebook have also been petitioned by the US not to encrypt certain type of data—Apple has just dropped a plan to allow iPhone users to fully encrypt their data backup on the iCloud—as this could hurt their investigations. The problem, however, is what this does to the privacy of individuals, which, the Supreme Court has ruled, is a fundamental right.Q. Which of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument in favour of privacy and against indiscriminate surveillance?a)SC has reiterated that the data being collected needs to meet the tests of “necessity, proportionality and due process” while examining the revised intermediary guidelines.b)There has to be an independent mechanism to monitor breach of privacy—maybe a SC– monitored process—and to see what the government is doing with the data it is collecting.c)Both (A) and (B).d)Neither (A) nor (B).Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.