[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.