Logo

Defender of your Digital Freedom

All Posts | Oct 07,2020

Science American Debate on Global Warming

The Science American discussion Team was formed in 1970 from James M. Inhofe to examine the notions of local climate modification.

It is hosted by James Inhofe and includes well known experts from all over the Earth, including several Nobel laureates. Additionally, it aims to show the science behind the claims which global warming is man-made and also not simply an all natural happening.

There Are Assorted teams involved with the Science American Debate Team, including the Worldwide Heating Skeptics, Global Warming Alarmist Workforce along with the International Warming Alarmist Group. All of different views on global warming and the effects and causes of it.

The worldwide Heating Alarmist staff consists of various scientists that are well-known. They include Roger Pielke Jr., Judith Curry, William Collins, Naomi Oreskes, William Briggs, Lennart Bengtsson, Roger Pielke Sr. along with Richard Lindzen. These scientists have all made similar statements about global warming. Their remarks on the issue are conflicting.

The international Heating Alarmist crew believes there is signs of global warming. According to these, the Earth is getting warmer and that this warming will create changes in the sport. Several of those predictions include things like improving sea levels, increasing the frequency of both hurricanes and more.

Another member of the International Heating Alarmist Team, Tom Harris, Insists the Planet Earth is warming. He considers it is caused by human actions, such as fossil fuel burning. In addition, he believes that there are specific compounds that are released in to the atmosphere due to human actions, which induce the earth to heat.

James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma believes that global warming is just a hoax. He states that there is no evidence that people are causing the warming of the planet. He also believes there are natural cycles that affect the temperature of the planet, also it doesn't affect the all-natural cycles. His opinion on the subject is not supported by any scientific truth, but he depends upon his very own personal impression and beliefs.

The worldwide Warming Alarmist Team does not feel that James M. Inhofe's hypothesis that global warming is currently man-made. Inhofe does not feel that he is able to prove or disprove the hypothesis, but rather makes use of https://www.iamnotthebabysitter.com/is-family-at-the-core-of-education/ their own faith and concepts regarding the cause of the international warming, along with his private observations to confirm his claims.

Global Warming Alarmist Group Can Be a https://asianmoviepulse.com/2020/07/everything-you-need-to-know-about-asian-cinema-education/ part of Science American Debate. This group Was Made by James M. Inhofe and comprises the Subsequent: Roger Pielke Jr., Judith Curry, William Briggs, Naomi Oreskes, William Collins, Lennart Bengtsson, Roger Pielke Sr. along with Richard Lindzen.

Science American Debater is a organization that enables visitors to participate in arguments regarding the topics of science and also the surroundings. This organization takes a broad range of candidates and topics from different areas. They acknowledge questions in researchers, teachers, environmental activists and other interested parties. There are likewise a large number of pros that bring about this Science American Debater blog.

Science American Debater is really a respected company, each about the scientific side of the conversation, and also the political side. They really do a whole lot of function in education and research. They have been one of the Primary sponsors of this March https://kiev.vgorode.ua/news/sobytyia/a1125643-bakalavriat-za-hranitsej-pljusy-minusy-i-podhotovka-k-postupleniju for Science. They have been also a host of the international Heating Alarmist staff, an organization that asserts that there is no scientific evidence that humans are causing global warming.

Science American Debater has a reputation for offering fair arguments and presenting wide array of inquiries and thoughts to get debate. They also offer you an after show chat-room.

It seems that James M. Inhofe and Tom Harris are on an identical page once it regards global warming. Both of them believe there is an issue with global warming, and so they are both on an identical page with their particular beliefs. Both men believe it is manufactured. Although James M. Inhofe states that people are a big cause, Tom Harris thinks that organic bicycles are to blame.

1 thing that https://delo.ua/business/tak-breksitu-ce-kategorichne-ni-programam-366677/ is evident is the fact that both adult males usually do not take what exactly is educated within mainstream science concerning how our planet operates. They both believe that we have https://armchairarcade.com/perspectives/2020/02/12/implications-of-digital-technology-for-education-system/ a lot more than one way of visiting the Earth. This means that there may be a lot more than one of the ways for unique people to observe that the Earth, and the sky and what .

All Posts | Apr 01,2020

Open letter for restoration of 4G internet in Jammu and Kashmir in wake of COVID-19

Open letter for restoration of 4G internet in Jammu and Kashmir in wake of COVID-19

SFLC.in wrote an open letter to the Principle Secretary of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir as well as Home Minister Amit Shah on March 31 requesting them to restore 4G internet speed in Jammu and Kashmir.

Kashmir has been facing an internet blackout since August 4, 2019 and it is only recently that citizens have gained access to the internet at 2G speed. The current order issued by the Centre following the top court's ruling states that the speed of the internet will be restricted to 2G till April 3, 2020 after which the order will be pending a review.

COVID-19 is an unprecedented pandemic which has resulted in public health chaos. As of March 31, 2020, the number of cases of COVID-19 in Jammu and Kashmir has reached 55. To fight this global pandemic, timely information is needed which isn't possible without reasonably high speed internet access. Restricted internet has led to citizens of the UT, not being able to download informative videos as well as resource material for dissemination of necessary and accurate information, when a lot of rumours and misinformation are doing the rounds. Timely information both to the general public, medical professionals and media is needed to fight the pandemic.

In order to contain the spread of infection and monitor patients, telemedicine is important along with access to high speed internet for doctors to be able to access material online and to do video consultations with other healthcare practitioners as well as patients.

There is a severe lack of information among the citizens in Jammu and Kashmir owning to the fact that information cannot be accessed without proper internet. Multimedia content including that issued by the Health Ministry and WHO cannot be accessed as well. There are a number of students, working professionals and other citizens who have been asked to work from home due to the lock down in view of the corona virus, and this is possible only if unrestricted internet access to internet is allowed.

Sub- clause (d) of Clause 4 o the Annexure to order no. 40-3/2020 dated 24-03-2020 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs states that telecommunications, internet services, broadcasting and cable services, IT and IT enabled services are exceptions to lock-down for essential services. Functional high speed internet is a pre-requisite to contain the pandemic as well as to mitigate the damage both in terms of health of the citizens and economy.

In our letter, we have requested the government to consider the prevailing extraordinary circumstances and restore 4G internet in Jammu and Kashmir on an urgent basis.

About SFLC.IN

SFLC.IN is a donor-supported legal services organisation that brings together lawyers, policy analysts, technologists, and students to protect freedom in the digital world. SFLC.in promotes innovation and open access to knowledge by helping developers make great Free and Open Source Software, protect privacy and civil liberties for citizens in the digital world by educating and providing free legal advice and help policy makers make informed and just decisions with the use and adoption of technology.

For further communication:
Prasanth Sugathan
Voluntary Legal Director, SFLC.IN
prasanth@sflc.in

All Posts | Mar 31,2020

Joint Letter to the Central and State Governments on Unwarranted, Excessive, Collection and Processing of Personal Data of Individuals during the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic

March 31, New Delhi: Delhi-based non-profit legal services organization SFLC.IN along with a coalition of non-profit organisations, civil society groups, lawyers, public policy professionals, technologists, social activists, entrepreneurs, and citizens voice their concerns urging the government to resort to strict legal measures to regulate and supervise the collection, and subsequent processing of personal data of individuals during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. A joint letter was sent to Shri Amit Shah, Home Minister, Shri Harsh Vardhan, Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad, Minister of Electronics and Information Technology, as well as heads of various State Governments urging them to process the personal data of individuals within the territory of India, and conduct the monitoring of persons, only as per the law laid down through various judgments of the Supreme Court of India and the norms and principles enunciated therein. Any unwarranted, excessive, collection and processing of personal data can cause irreversible harms or violations of informational and bodily privacy of an individual. The organisations who have signed are CCAOI, Digital Empowerment Foundation, Free Software Movement of India, Internet Democracy Project, Internet Freedom Foundation, Internet Society-Delhi Chapter, IT For Change, SFLC.in and Swathanthra Malayalam Computing. Prasanth Sugathan, Voluntary Legal Director, SFLC.in said that “Central and State Governments are taking various steps like publishing information of patients and persons under quarantine and are coming out with apps that collect and process personal information. Although this is an extraordinary situation, care should be taken to ensure that the personal information of individuals are handled securely and with due care respecting their privacy rights. Any measure adopted for public health purpose should be the least intrusive and should not violate the privacy rights of individuals. Publishing of route maps and contact tracing should be done without publishing the personal details of patients” The letter highlights the following principles that the governments should follow while processing data during the ongoing Covid-19 Pandemic: Time-Limited: All measures related to the public emergency response to COVID-19 should be temporary in nature and limited in scope and should not become permanent features of governance. The personal data collected for the purpose of public health should only be retained during the response to the pandemic and deleted automatically without maintaining any copies, once the pandemic has been declared to be over. Necessity and Proportionality: Any collection, processing of personal data, including health data, shall be necessary and proportionate for the purpose of combating the pandemic and public health. In some states the list of persons who are under quarantine have been made public in the guise of public monitoring. This is excessive and a disproportionate invasion into the privacy of the individuals under quarantine. Transparency and Accountability: Processing of personal data must be conducted transparently, and appropriate notices must be provided about use, collection and purpose in an easy to read, plain language format. Individuals must be informed as to the volume, extent, and purpose of the personal data belonging to them being collected, processed, stored or transferred to any person. Use Restrictions: No use of the data unconnected to public health should be allowed. Use of such data for advertisement and commercial purposes unrelated to public health should be completely prohibited. No discrimination shall be meted out to individuals in the collection and processing of personal data during this pandemic and such personal data shall not be used to discriminate any individual in the future. Security:Security protections for data processing during the Covid-19 pandemic should not be compromised and the data must be maintained securely and must be exchanged only through secure platforms and hardware.  Any apps related to COVID-19 promoted by the Government should be secure and their data collection should be in tune with the principles mentioned herein. No Surveillance without Due Process:Any surveillance required to respond to the pandemic should be temporary and only to the extent and degree allowed by provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the rules notified under these statutes. Any surveillance pursuant to the aforementioned statutes and other relevant laws such as the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1987, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 used for the monitoring of individuals during this pandemic are subject to judicial review. About SFLC.IN SFLC.IN is a donor-supported legal services organisation that brings together lawyers, policy analysts, technologists, and students to protect freedom in the digital world. SFLC.in promotes innovation and open access to knowledge by helping developers make great Free and Open Source Software, protect privacy and civil liberties for citizens in the digital world by educating and providing free legal advice and help policy makers make informed and just decisions with the use and adoption of technology. For further communication: Prasanth Sugathan Voluntary Legal Director, SFLC.IN prasanth @sflc.in +91 9013585902

All Posts | Mar 12,2020

Report from the panel discussion on the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (SFLC.in)

Report from the panel discussion on the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (SFLC.in) SFLC.in hosted a panel discussion on the ‘Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019' on 27th February 2020. The panel included Justice B. N. Srikrishna, an Indian jurist and retired judge of the Supreme Court of India, who also delivered the keynote address before the panel discussion. Justice Srikrishna has earlier headed the committee that published the Draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018. Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change; Ashutosh Chadha, Vice President, Public Policy, Mastercard; Rama Vedashree, CEO, Data Security Council of India and Shashank Mohan, Volunteer Counsel, SFLC.in were also part of the panel. The discussion aimed to draw clear conclusions on the key and critical issues in the PDP Bill, 2019 and was moderated by Saikat Datta, South Asia Editor at Asia Times. These are excerpts from the conversation:

All Posts | Feb 18,2020

Panel Discussion on the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019

Panel Discussion on the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (2019 Bill) was introduced in the Lok Sabha in it's previous session on 11.12.2019. The 2019 Bill is a reworking of the Draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 published by the Justice Srikrishna Committee which was an expert committee constituted by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“Meity”) to conduct a study on the data protection framework for India. The panel discussion intends to convene different stakeholders of the Data Protection regime under one roof to discuss, and draw clear conclusions on the key and critical issues in the 2019 Bill. To confirm your presence, RSVP Here

All Posts | Jan 17,2020

The Future of Intermediary Liability in India

This report is our third in the series on Intermediary Liability. The first two reports can be downloaded from - here and here.  This report analyses four of the key changes recommended by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to the Intermediaries Guidelines under India's Information Technology Act, 2000 - upload filters, traceability, local office threshold, and 24-hour take down timeline. The report does a legal and technical analysis of these recommendations, captures global perspectives and insights from stakeholders. Download the report

All Posts | Jan 15,2020

Our Submission to the National Cyber Security Strategy 2020

Our Submission to the National Cyber Security Strategy 2020

The National Security Council Secretariat had invited submissions/comments for the proposed National Cyber Security Strategy, 2020 recently. SFLC.in had submitted its comments which are published hereunder. The 2020 strategy is an attempt to revise and strengthen the National Cyber Security Policy 2013 and was based on the following vision to "ensure a safe, secure, trusted, resilient and vibrant cyber space for our Nation’s prosperity."

The Secretariat sought comments based on the following "Pillars of Strategy"
      a. Secure (The National Cyberspace)
      b. Strengthen (Structures, People, Processes, Capabilities)
      c. Synergise (Resources including Cooperation and Collaboration)

SFLC.in's submissions were as follows:

 

India ranks second among the top countries that were affected by targeted cyber attacks during the period 2016-2018 as per Symantec's Internet Security Threat Report 2019. At the same time, it is a matter of great concern that India’s rank fell from 23 (in 2017) to 47 (in 2018) in the Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) 2018 published by the International Telecommunication Union. Five designated areas form the basis of the indicators for the GCI which are legal, technical, organisational, capacity building, and cooperation. Therefore, a ‘whole-of-nation’ strategy demands nothing but state-of-the-art infrastructure which includes hardware and software components that constitute the cyberspace within the regulative control of the State; strength of internal and external co-operation within and among agencies and entities involved in national cybersecurity; and a comprehensive legal and policy framework.

 

India faces the following challenges in formulating a robust, and futuristic cyber security strategy:

1. Low awareness among stakeholders

With the proliferation of digital devices in the Indian market and with the lowering of charges for Internet connectivity, people from economically lower backgrounds have been able to use smart devices and 4G connectivity. However, there is a need to raise awareness among these users to use the devices securely. This is sometimes also the case with educated and affluent consumers, who have low awareness in cyber/digital security. This calls for grassroot level awareness and training for consumers of digital devices and services. Similar is the case for government offices (whether Central or State) where best practices are not followed when it comes to secure use of digital devices and the Internet. When treading into grassroot levels, language is also a barrier in conveying concepts to consumers. So, any awareness or training programme must be delivered in vernacular languages.

2. Emerging Technologies

The 2013 National Cyber Security Policy lacked due concern to emerging technologies such as Blockchain, Internet of Things (IoT), 5G and most importantly, Artificial Intelligence. With IoT products slowly creeping into the market, India awaiting 5G connectivity, and artificial intelligence being relied on, there are greater challenges in securing the cyberspace. It is also alarming that with IoT standards easily available, these may be implemented by mid-level enterprises which do not give much care to security, or cannot implement strong safeguards because of lack of expertise or resources. The cyber security strategy must consider including highly secure technical standards for digital devices and services which employ emerging technologies.

3. Lack of Wider Public Private Partnerships

The 2013 Policy spoke of public-private partnership to facilitate collaboration and cooperation among stakeholder entities; however such partnerships should not be maintained only with private sector entities but also with academia, civil society and independent security researchers. This should lead to formulation of policy encouraging independent security researchers, white hat hackers and ‘bounty hunters’. Wider engagement with the community can also be increased by engagement with communities involved in free and open source software (“FOSS”). Moreover, the adoption of FOSS into the national cyber security framework will increase contribution from the community. Opening up the source code of abandoned projects/products by corporates needs to be encouraged to better understand legacy systems and products and their vulnerabilities.

4. Lack of Comprehensive Legal Framework

Perhaps the biggest challenge is the lack of a comprehensive sector neutral legal & regulatory framework in India pertaining to cyber security. The Data Protection Law is still in the draft stage. However, even the enactment of the Data protection law would not satisfy the need of a legislation specific to cyber security. The present Personal Data Protection Bill does mention reporting cyber incidents in the form of reporting data breaches. However, there are other issues pertaining to cyber incidents which needs addressing such as post incident investigation (forensics), evidence acquisition etc. which are nascent in terms of being regulated by law or policy. This also calls for revision of the existing rules under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

 

Recommendations

1. Steps should be initiated to roll out comprehensive cyber security awareness programmes for all stakeholders.

2. A comprehensive legal framework should be planned with a data protection law and cyber security specific legislations.

3. Partnerships should be planned with various stakeholders including private sector entities, academia, civil society and independent security researchers.

4. Government should adopt FOSS software and open standards so that the software used is auditable and verifiable.

5. Government should place special emphasis on protecting critical infrastructure.


Note: Minor edits, such as modifications to words and deletion of certain characters within the text were made at the time of submission to cater to the requirement of the Secretariat to keep the submission within 5000 characters. However, no substantial changes were made to the arguments and recommendations made.

All Posts | Jan 11,2020

SC judgment – Safeguards for shutdown, limited relief for Kashmir

SC judgment – Safeguards for shutdown, limited relief for Kashmir

The Supreme Court pronounced judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v UoI [WP(C) 1031/2019] and Gulam Nabi Azad v UoI [WP(C) 1164/2019] on January 10, 2020. The judgment has laid down the law on the issue of Internet shutdowns.

Case in brief:

Mobile and broadband Internet services were suspended in Jammu and Kashmir on August 4, 2019 prior to the repealing of Article 370 of the Constitution of India. A petition was moved by Anuradha Basin, the executive editor of Kashmir Times. This petition challenged the curbing of media freedom in the state. The petition claimed that the media in the erstwhile state cannot practice their profession owing to the internet as well as telecommunications shutdown in the state. A similar petition was moved by Gulam Nabi Azad seeking issuance of an appropriate writ to set aside, quash any orders, notifications, directions or circulars issued by Government of India under which all/any modes of communication have been shut down. Further an appropriate writ was asked to be issued which would immediately restore all modes of communication including mobile, internet and landline services throughout the state. so that the media could practice its profession

Issues:

The Main issues framed by the Apex court were -

  • Could the Government claim exemption from producing all orders under Section 144 of CRPC?

  • Does Practice of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India over the internet constitutes a fundamental right?

  • Is the exercise of Prohibiting internet service by the Government valid?

  • Were the imposition of restrictions under Section 144 of CRPC valid?

  • Was the Freedom of the Press of petitioner(Anuradha Bhasin) violated due the restrictions imposed on the State?

What the Court held?

1. Access to the Internet and exercise of fundamental rights: The Court did not express any view on declaring the right to access the Internet as a fundamental right as this was not canvassed by the counsel for the petitioners. However, the Court held that “the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), and the right to carry on any trade or business under 19(1)(g), using the medium of internet is constitutionally protected”. This declaration would entail that any curtailment of internet access have to be reasonable and within the boundaries laid down by Art. 19(2) and 19(6) of the Constitution.

2. Orders to be published: The apex court directed that all orders under S.144 of Cr.P.C as well as under the Telecom Suspension Rules have to be published. The Court held that although the Suspension Rules does not provide for publication or notification of the orders, a settled principle of law, and of natural justice, is that an order, particularly one that affects lives, liberty and property of people, must be made available. This will go a long way in ensuring that the suspension orders can be challenged under Art.226 of the Constitution before the concerned High Courts. Many applications under the RTI Act filed by SFLC.in were rejected by the authorities in various states, including the state of Jammu and Kashmir, citing national security as a reason.

3. Reasoned order to be passed: The Court held that Rule 2(2) of the Telecom Suspension Rules, 2017 requires every order passed by the competent authority to be a reasoned order. The Court further held that if an authorized officer is passing the order in unavoidable circumstances, the officer should indicate the necessity of the measure as well as the “unavoidable” circumstance necessitating his passing such an order.

4. Proportionality principle: The Court held that any curtailment of fundamental rights should be proportional and that the least restrictive measures should be resorted by the State. Although the state opposed selective access to internet services based on lack of technology, the Court held that if such a contention is accepted, then the Government would have a free pass to put a complete internet blockage every time and that such complete blocking/prohibition perpetually cannot be accepted. The Court further held that complete broad suspension of Telecom services, be it the Internet or otherwise, being a drastic measure, must be considered by the State only if ‘necessary’ and ‘unavoidable’ and that the State must assess the existence of an alternate less intrusive remedy.

5. Suspension to be temporary in nature: The Court held that suspending internet services indefinitely is impermissible. It directed that the review committee must meet within 7 days of the previous review and look into compliance with requirements of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act as well as the proportionality of orders.

6. Orders under Section 144 of Cr.P.C to state material facts: The court held that power under Section 144 of CRPC is remedial as well as preventive and can be exercised when there is both a present danger as well as apprehension of danger. The danger should be in the nature of Emergency. Further, Section 144 cannot be used to suppress expression of opinion. Any order passed under Section 144 should state material facts to enable judicial review. The Court further stressed that principles of proportionality should be used and the least intrusive measure applied. The Court held that there shouldn't be repetitive use of Section 144 as well as it would amount to abuse of power.

Relief for the aggrieved

The contentions advanced by the respondents regarding terrorists threat and law and order seems to have swayed the court as the extensive treatise on proportionality in the judgment was not applied in the case of the prolonged shutdown in Kashmir. Although the Court held that suspending internet services indefinitely is impermissible, this was not applied to the shutdown in Kashmir that has been continuing for more than 5 months. The only relief granted was a direction given to the State review all orders suspending internet services forthwith. A further direction was given to allow government websites, localized/limited e-­banking facilities, hospitals services and other essential services, in those regions, wherein the internet services are not likely to be restored immediately.

Looking forward

The positive aspect of the judgment is that the Apex Court has laid down the law on Internet shutdowns with emphasis on proportionality and reasonableness. The need to issue reasoned orders along with the mandate to make all orders public could result in reduction of arbitrary shutdowns. Removing the veil of secrecy from shutdowns itself could help in reducing the number of shutdowns. The Kerala High Court Judgment talks about Right to Education and Right to Privacy. These rights are not considered in the Judgment. The number of shutdowns in 2020 would determine whether this judgment has helped in protecting the rights of the citizens.

All Posts | Jan 10,2020

Statement about SC judgment on Internet Shutdown in Kashmir

Statement about SC judgment on Internet Shutdown in Kashmir

SFLC.in welcomes the judgment pronounced today by the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v Union Of India(W.P(C) no. 1031 of 2019) wherein the Court has directed that shutdown orders must adhere to the principle of proportionality and must be temporary in nature. SFLC.in maintains the only internet shutdown tracker in India and has been trying to raise awareness among citizens in general and policymakers in particular about the need to prevent Internet shutdowns. In the present age, Internet is a medium that is necessary for citizens to meaningfully exercise their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, right to education and right to life. SFLC.in has always argued for considering right to internet access as a fundamental right and the High Court of Kerala had upheld this contention in Faheema Shirin v State of Kerala(WP(C) 19716/2019) while holding that right to access internet is a part of right to education and right to privacy. The Supreme Court has recognised that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), and the right to carry on any trade or business under 19(1)(g), using the medium of internet is constitutionally protected. This declaration would make it easier to challenge shutdown orders in future. The Court also emphasised on the need for transparency and has mandated that shutdown orders need to be published. The biggest obstacle in challenging shutdown orders in the past was the lack of transparency. Most of the applications under the RTI Act filed by SFLC.in for obtaining shutdown orders were rejected citing national security as a reason. Publishing shutdown orders could enable citizens to approach High Courts to challenge these orders. The direction to have reviews of suspension orders every 7 days could place a check on long shutdowns. However, the fact that the review committee is also composed of members exclusively from the executive could make this a futile exercise. Although the judgment has not given any immediate relief to the people in Kashmir affected by the shutdown, we hope that the Internet blockade in Kashmir will be lifted at the earliest based on the law laid down in the judgment.