[rdl]

I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an Indian lawyer, but if Razorpay received a Section 91 order (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/788840/) they wouldn't have much choice on turning over any records. It looks to be the rough equivalent of third party doctrine in the US (which is also horrible).

It can come from "any Court or any officer in charge of a police station".

Banks and fintech in many countries are even more exposed to data demands than regular data processors.

Pitchforks may be justified here, but perhaps not directed at Razorpay.

[randomperson_24]

Razorpay did receive a Section 91 order according to their tweet: https://twitter.com/Razorpay/status/1544313411621646338

[dang]

Ok, I've edited the title above to include this detail. (Submitted title was "Tell HN: Razorpay a YC company shared donor data without court order".)

This is less moderation than we would normally do. Under normal circumstances, we would not allow a submitter to use a text post to put their own tendentious spin on a story like this—especially when the account seems politically driven (e.g. bringing up past partisan tweets to bolster a political case, which is not in the intended spirit of HN). Most probably we'd change the post to point to the most neutral third-party article we could find—or, if someone had already posted one, we might merge this thread into it.

However, the first principle of HN moderation is that we moderate less, not more, when YC or a YC startup is involved (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). So I'm suspending normal practice in favor of this relatively small intervention.

Edit: I suppose I should add that none of what I've written here has to do with the specific details of the story, which I haven't personally looked into. Commenters in this thread seem to be doing a reasonable job of discussing it, with the exception of some veerings into religious/political flamewar, which we've done the usual moderation with.

I suppose I should also add that we haven't downweighted the submission—its ranking is being determined by user voting and flagging. And we haven't pinned any comments, except the moderation replies in flamewar subthreads like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32000788 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32000252 (standard practice).

[ridiculous_leke]

This is an important detail that OP missed in their post.

[jacquesm]

That wasn't an accident.

[maatrson]

Agree

[actuator]

I don't think @dang will pin the above comment, but this needs to be higher here as the reply includes that they received a legal order. This is maligning the company unjustly.

[maatrson]

Exactly! They received a legal order and company has press release which completely justify action taken.

[semanticvector]

exactly. Only intent is to malign Razorpay, so OP also chose to create a throw away account. Razorpay didn't really have much choice in this.

[throw_away_1042]

The account I have used is more than a year old. I would be harassed by Hindutva goons online and offline if I use my real identity. Maybe also a false police case.

Also Razorpay is not innocent here. They could have disputed the demand in the court. Could have informed the users that their data was shared with government. Could have shared only the transactions that originated in a foreign country.They did none of these.

Also note that donations could not have been done with a foreign credit card. So the intent is to harass the individuals that supported the fack-checking website.

Also, note that the founder and the company has been fans of the current nationalistic government. More reasons why they did not dispute the police demand.

https://twitter.com/shashank_kr/status/1175974410202697728

https://imgur.com/a/ZDRZZ87

[maatrson]

Razorpay is innocent here. What kind of language is Hindutva Goons? Indian law is applicable at Indian soil as American law is applicable soil. American financial law are very similar for 3rd party companies. You have clear intent to hurt Razorpay brand value.

Let’s say if a CEO support country top leader and there is nothing wrong in it. He is Indian citizen and it’s his choice to do so.

I have donated several foundations in India from US via razorpay gateway and it works for few VISA cards.

You can’t dispute with police under this section given section 91 is a rare section. Your intent to harass, malign YC brand name and its companies. Please do read about section 91 and it’s implications.

Please check your claim and facts. Be a positive member to YC community. Any topic associated politics and hate should not be discussed here.

Let’s make better world talking about latest technology trends.

I think YC in future to flag post like this if they see motivation towards politics and false information.

Just updating the title doesn’t help much. The post owner pretended and presented a false and half narrative. He used only links that would be beneficial to his claim or final purpose.

[throw_away_1042]

>You can’t dispute with police under this section given section 91 is a rare section.

This is not true. There is enough precedence where this was successfully disputed. Including by Google and Amazon in India. Would Apple turn in all the records if a police officer asks for any data they seem fit for an investigation?

Re Hindutva:, there is enough literature online to educate you about it. https://cjp.org.in/tag/hindutva/

[fellellor]

OPs fact checking gives you a good idea of the kind of “fact checking” the person in the center of this story (Zubair) used to do as well.

They hate the ruling party, who to be honest are amoral assholes like most Indian politicians and bureaucrats, so facts don’t really matter to them.

[boruto]

> They could have disputed the demand in the court.

Why just that, they might as well fight the case for the accused.

> Could have shared only the transactions that originated in a foreign country.They did none of these.

We re sorry but it doesn't work like that. I am not sure if you understand that its not in hands of razor pay to bargain what they would like to share.

[zinekeller]

Without knowing what is written on the Section 93 order, you and I don't know if the company in question can even limit the requests to what you propose. On the contrary, it could be written in no uncertain terms to give all transactions related to a certain organisation including domestic donations.

[randomperson_24]

And unfortunately you are getting downvoted :(

[akshaybhalotia]

Would they care to share a copy of the order, in that case?

[colechristensen]

I would be upset if an American company was enabling this kind of government abuse in a foreign country. A local company complying with local laws? Ok I recognize that it is bad but I don't blame a company with following their local laws. You can only expect so much rebellion.