Connect with us


Sharad Yadav says ‘state of undeclared Emergency’ in India, attempts being made to weaken Constitution

Chandigarh: Rebel Janata Dal (United) leader Sharad Yadav on Tuesday lashed out at the Centre, saying a state of undeclared Emergency exists in the country and all democratic institutions are under threat.

He also alleged that attempts were being made to weaken the Constitution.

“The country is passing through difficult times…A state of undeclared Emergency exists in the country. The only difference between this Emergency and the one imposed four decades earlier is that it was visible and we fought it then,” Yadav told reporters.

The minorities in the country were also being subjected to attack on various grounds, he alleged.

In the name of ‘love jihad’, a divide is being created among communities while people are being killed in the name of cows, he said, adding “This is dangerous for the society”.

File image of former JD(U) leader Sharad Yadav. PTI

“In a democratic country, everyone has a freedom of speech and religion,” he said.

Yadav described BJP’s policies as “disastrous which have made the lives of people difficult”. “We have a composite culture and this should not be changed for the sake of politics. There are various cultures, religions and they have co-existed for centuries,” he said.

He claimed the BJP has miserably failed to fulfil any of the promises it made before the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.

“They promised two crore jobs to youths and the unemployed each year. They promised to bring back black money stashed abroad. People were promised that Rs 15 lakh will come to their bank accounts,” he said.

Yadav said even the farmers were promised that their income will go up by one and a half times.

“They promised better days ahead. But after nearly four years of their rule, they stand exposed. They sold dreams to people and befooled them,” he alleged.

Yadav castigated the BJP for the demonetisation move and the way they implemented the GST in the country.

He alleged that the BJP-led government does not have an “economic mind”.

Yadav was here to interact with his sympathisers and activists ahead of floating a new party. He said he is touring different parts of the country.

His ‘Sanjhi Virasat Bachao’ events are aimed to bring unity “maximum possible unity” among Opposition political parties ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.

“We are uniting to oust this government,” he said.

Yadav further said Congress president Rahul Gandhi was a capable leader who could lead any grand alliance which is formed in future.

Touching upon Bihar politics, he said the country runs on issues and principles.

“They (Nitish-led faction) have insulted the mandate of 11 crore people of Bihar by joining hands with BJP. They have compromised with the issues and principles. We will continue our democratic fight,” Yadav said.

Published Date: Feb 13, 2018 22:27 PM | Updated Date: Feb 13, 2018 22:27 PM

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply


A simple solution to end the encryption debate

Criminals and terrorists, like millions of others, rely on smartphone encryption to protect the information on their mobile devices. But unlike most of us, the data on their phones could endanger lives and pose a great threat to national security.

The challenge for law enforcement, and for us as a society, is how to reconcile the advantages of gaining access to the plans of dangerous individuals with the cost of opening a door to the lives of everyone else. It is the modern manifestation of the age-old conflict between privacy versus security, playing out in our pockets and palms.

One-size-fits all technological solutions, like a manufacturer-built universal backdoor tool for smartphones, likely create more dangers than they prevent. While no solution will be perfect, the best ways to square data access with security concerns require a more nuanced approach that rely on non-technological procedures.

The FBI has increasingly pressed the case that criminals and terrorists use smartphone security measures to avoid detection and investigation, arguing for a technological, cryptographic solution to stop these bad actors from “going dark.” In fact, there are recent reports that the Executive Branch is engaged in discussions to compel manufacturers to build technological tools so law enforcement can read otherwise-encrypted data on smartphones.

But the FBI is also tasked with protecting our nation against cyber threats. Encryption has a critical role in protecting our digital systems against compromises by hackers and thieves. And of course, a centralized data access tool would be a prime target for hackers and criminals. As recent events prove – from the 2016 elections to the recent ransomware attack against government computers in Atlanta – the problem will likely only become worse. Anything that weakens our cyber defenses will only make it more challenging for authorities to balance these “dual mandates” of cybersecurity and law enforcement access.

There is also the problem of internal threats: when they have access to customer data, service providers themselves can misuse or sell it without permission. Once someone’s data is out of their control, they have very limited means to protect it against exploitation. The current, growing scandal around the data harvesting practices on social networking platforms illustrates this risk. Indeed, our company Symphony Communications, a strongly encrypted messaging platform, was formed in the wake of a data misuse scandal by a service provider in the financial services sector.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

So how do we help law enforcement without making data privacy even thornier than it already is? A potential solution is through a non-technological method, sensitive to the needs of all parties involved, that can sometimes solve the tension between government access and data protection while preventing abuse by service providers.

Agreements between some of our clients and the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYSDFS”), proved popular enough that FBI Director Wray recently pointed to them as a model of “responsible encryption” that solves the problem of “going dark” without compromising robust encryption critical to our nation’s business infrastructure.

The solution requires storage of encryption keys — the codes needed to decrypt data — with third party custodians. Those custodians would not keep these client’s encryption keys. Rather, they give the access tool to clients, and then clients can choose how to use it and to whom they wish to give access. A core component of strong digital security is that a service provider should not have access to client’s unencrypted data nor control over a client’s encryption keys.

The distinction is crucial. This solution is not technological, like backdoor access built by manufacturers or service providers, but a human solution built around customer control.  Such arrangements provide robust protection from criminals hacking the service, but they also prevent customer data harvesting by service providers.

Where clients choose their own custodians, they may subject those custodians to their own, rigorous security requirements. The clients can even split their encryption keys into multiple pieces distributed over different third parties, so that no one custodian can access a client’s data without the cooperation of the others.

This solution protects against hacking and espionage while safeguarding against the misuse of customer content by the service provider. But it is not a model that supports service provider or manufacturer built back doors; our approach keeps the encryption key control in clients’ hands, not ours or the government’s.

A custodial mechanism that utilizes customer-selected third parties is not the answer to every part of the cybersecurity and privacy dilemma. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that this dilemma will submit to a single solution, especially a purely technological one. Our experience shows that reasonable, effective solutions can exist. Technological features are core to such solutions, but just as critical are non-technological considerations. Advancing purely technical answers – no matter how inventive – without working through the checks, balances and risks of implementation would be a mistake.

News Source =

Continue Reading


Delhi Max Hospital twin baby case: Police seek legal opinion after DMC rules out hospital's negligence

A senior officer, privy to the probe, said they were studying the report to ascertain the future course of action.

Continue Reading


More than two child rape cases daily in Delhi, experts call for policy for rehabilitation

Till April 30, 282 cases of child rape were reported as opposed to 278 last year during the same period.

Continue Reading

Most Shared Posts

Follow on Twitter