I want to tell you two things in this paper. One is about the collection of the Scottish session papers and the other is about the technical challenges that we're grappling with at Edinburgh. So this starts with stuff. This is a cross-section of a typical section of session papers. About ten years ago I came across a run of about 600 volumes of these things, all uncataloged. They intrigued me and that's led to this obsession to get them all available, which I'll tell you about now. So the session papers have been described as the most valuable unstudied source for Scottish history in existence. And so it's worth saying a little bit about Scotland and its legal system and why that's different. So Scotland has a separate legal system to that of England, which was maintained after the 1707 Union. And it does mean that the materials we have are very different in many ways. The Supreme Court in Scotland is the Court of Session, which meets in Edinburgh. Up to the mid-19th century every paper which came before the Court had to be printed in a small number of copies for the lawyers.  It's also instrumental for understanding print culture in Enlightenment Edinburgh. James Boswell, who was the biographer and advocate, he said, as is a court of papers we are never seriously engaged but when we write we may be compared to the Highlanders in 1745. Our pleading is like they're firing their musketry which did little execution. We do not fall heartily till our work till we take to our pens as they do their broadswords. So here you have some of the facts. I won't read all of these out but basically we have a big challenge. A quarter of a million bibliographical items, no mark records, no digital suricates, massive potential for all areas of study. Three surviving collections, this is the Advocates Library in Edinburgh which is the largest part. So we very quickly started discussions with the Advocates Library as one of the main holding bodies. It was obvious to us that this needed to be a partnership project between the three holding institutions. The second collection is the Signet Library coming up here which is the other professional institution that has session papers. Each of these libraries has multiple series of session papers on the location within and between libraries. The scale and complexity rules out traditional retrospective cataloging. Without metadata and index or even shelf lists, how were we going to start? So we felt with this project we should really test what digitisation could do. We already had a large thesis digitisation projects on the go. All three partner libraries were keen to see what we could do in-house rather than going down the commercial route. And we all wanted to work together to produce outputs that were free for everyone to use. So last year we ran a pilot project which captured over 13,000 images from the three collections. Here you can see some of the interesting formats that we're dealing with. The pilot showed that digitisation was feasible with the right investment in equipment and binding repair and that the variety of documents meant that we needed high quality photography as well as cheaper book scanning. We had then had some Eureka moments. The first Eureka moment was that a digitised first approach did seem feasible. The pilot included technical development to look at the formulaic structure of the documents, the options for text recognition and machine learning to see if we could use the digital images as the source for the lacking descriptive metadata via optical character recognition. The second Eureka moment was around the international image interoperability framework and the realisation that we could serve up these high quality images from across all the holding institutions allowing us to virtually reunify all the surviving documents telling the story of Scotland's session cases. However, we needed more content to test so we started a second pilot which is beginning this month and this will digitise a further 300 volumes including volumes in poor condition from across all the collections with dedicated conservation support. It will also look at tools to automatically harvest metadata from the scanned text so that we can tag the documents with names with minimal human intervention. I don't think there's been enough incomprehensible diagrams in this conference so far. So to address this, this is one of our early attempts to represent the work flows. So we do need to join up the different image creation streams, the OCR processing and the IIIF presentation and we'll be doing more work on this. The third Eureka moment was when we realised that despite these being library collections, actually an archival approach might work best. So this is a screenshot from the archives catalogue of the University of Virginia Law School which also has a small collection of session papers and they have been creating archival metadata starting with records for the actual legal cases. So we are now looking at putting records for all the reported session cases in a shared instance of archived space as hooks on which we can hang the records for the case documents and all the relevant digital images. However, we're still going to need to extract metadata from the OCR text as we can see here. So these are screenshots showing some of the approaches that we're taking to these documents to improve the OCR including reduction of noise and identifying standard features of a layout. The inversion of black and white here you can see is to ease the visual understanding of the process. The masking helps the machine to understand where the text is on the page allowing for a crop that makes the work of the OCR engine easier. At the moment we're focusing on training the OCR engine which in this case is Tesseract once we've taken the steps described above to reduce noise we still need to deal with all the issues of 18th century print. Variant spelling, unfamiliar fonts, damaged type, thin paper. The aim is obviously to create an accurate text transcription to underlie a digital facsimile. One of the tools we've developed is this GeoParser which picks out place names in which the session papers very rich. We're really excited in the potential of this project to link the digitised OCR contact to other datasets. Maps, statistical records, records of births and deaths and all sorts of other things. So we think this project is really exciting it's going to require significant resource but there are huge benefits for other collections and for collaborative digital scholarship. Developing workflows and tools for text mining and automated indexing will open up some really interesting opportunities for archives and libraries to work together. So your interest is very much appreciated in any comment, very welcome. Thank you.


I work with the research wing of the sector and I was one of the researchers for this study and I'm also a part of the dry course and depth research that I'm also involved in. My colleagues, Lubiti Rambarajan, Preeti Pratishruti Das, Rahul Raman and I were the lead researchers on the project. We did most of the interviews when halfway to the project when we had an interview in Bangalore and an interview in Delhi. That's when the entire team sort of joined in and the entire office was travelling all across the country and this was for about a period of nine to ten months and it's been a very rewarding experience. So George Gatboy in an exceptional study of England's Supreme Court in 1970 spoke about how the justices of the Supreme Court occupy a unique place among the public policy decision making elite of India and how they're very esteemed by the public. He spoke about how their exemplars of honesty and integrity and probably they're the only political group on whom, probably the only group in the political system on whom trust can be claimed and whose motives and actions the public can be perceived as beyond the approach. Just like this great work, there are very few studies on judicial thought processes that have been undertaken in India and this study matters of judgement with 60 former Supreme Court judges is an aim to take a small step in that direction in the context of the criminal justice system and the decency. I would like to thank Justice Vijesh Kumar for joining us today. Sir was one of the 60 participants in the study. Thank you so much, sir, for raising us. As stakeholders who have participated in and observed the administration of criminal justice, the thought processes of former judges are immensely valuable. So how we started off the interview was that first we prepared a comprehensive list of all the former Supreme Court judges. That was not a very difficult task because the Supreme Court directly, we had access to the Supreme Court directly. Once we had made that list, we wrote all the Supreme Court judges. The number was 60 out of those 86 judges consented to be interviewed. Judges who refused to participate were mainly because of physical inability, busy schedule or lack of criminal law included. Today with the Supreme Court judges continuing to undertake high-value dispute resolution, holding important tribunal positions and heading important institutions, they continue to remain very active and busy even after denying it from the best. Since this was a time-bound study, the busy schedule of some judges did not form an interview with them. Some judges who were unwilling to participate because of lack of criminal law experience, with them we pursued another round of communication because we felt that the study would nonetheless benefit from their experience and the position that they held within the decision. This did convert from no to yes and we ended up interviewing each other. Another interesting aspect was that when we were calling up judges to get their consent to participate in the study, some judges refused because of lack of criminal law experience. But these judges had in fact adjudicated criminal law cases. It was a conscious decision on our part to not limit the sample size to judges who had only administered criminal law cases or death penalty cases because I mean once you read the report and once I don't share the findings, you realize that the scope of the study was not limited to the question of death penalty, but it also addressed systemic issues within the criminal justice system. So like I said before we travelled across the country, this was between September of 2015 to February of 2017. We carried out in-depth, semi-structured interviews. So we had a questionnaire to guide us that was generally for us to keep the interviews on track and to get information around the three broad themes which have emerged as the chapters in the report. So the first chapter is Investigative and Trial Processing. The second chapter is Inventing In-depth and Educational. And the third chapter is Judicial Attitudes Towards the Resilent. All interviews were conducted by two interviewers, one lead the interviewer and the other is the interviewer of the report. It was either at their residential or office space and most interviews lasted for an average of 90 minutes. But in fact, Rahul did an interview with last year for six hours. I mean they were brave to be brave but in last year for six hours. So because we had varying time availability to different judges, that's why we couldn't obtain responses from every question. So if you read the report, not on every question, we have 60 responses. So it depended on the time availability. Some judges were busy and could give us only one hour whereas there were judges who were very kind and would give us as much as they could. The interview experience I would say was a varied one. Some were extremely rich than the others. And all of us felt that silence was a very important tool which encouraged judges to answer or expand on brief answers with anecdotes. We pressed judges for richer details of the case and it was fascinating for us that these judges remembered my new details of cases that they had exudicated decades ago. It was really fascinating. I mean there were anecdotes about how the judges went about deciding the case, what were the thoughts that crossed their mind and was fascinating for us. The most important takeaway and the general feel that we got after these interviews which I don't think the report can capture and only all my colleagues who did these interviews can understand was the universality of these interviews, these conversations which is extremely difficult to capture before. Judges lamenting over the broken truth of the justice system like ineptigative mass practices, the regret over enforcing a death penalty or generally the discomfort in the death penalty. These were some of the emotional parts of the interviews that were truly moving and the content of the emotional part was a general feel of the immediate research encounter rather than a quantifiable feeling. And we find it important to talk about it today because it's reflective of judges perspectives and their accounts. The dynamics between the judges and us also played out differently in different interviews. Some interviews were unidirectional while others offered us the space to go back and forth and to ask follow up questions. It was quite evident that some judges had thought a lot about the issues than the others. And as far as the level of preparation for the interviews is concerned, some judges were fully aware of the major legal developments like the law commission, the 60 second report of the death penalty, the constitutional bench judgment of Shri Haran v. The preparation in some cases was so good that they had print out all these materials and they constantly kept referring to it while they spoke to us. When we started the interview process, we offered anonymity and when I say anonymity, I mean anonymity was to judges to say that none of the findings will be attributed to their names. And also that they could choose to not be identified as one of the 60 participants. But it was great that almost all judges did not want the anonymity. However, as researchers we understand and we realize that the burden was on us to not let the focus of the finding shift to individual judges and who said what. And we wanted the focus to be on what was said in the context of evaluation of the criminal justice system, which is why we have anonymized all the findings. So you do find a list of all the 60 participants, the former judges, but no findings are attributed, no quotes are attributed to any of the judges. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort the former judges put into this. Their willingness to speak candidly, the intellectual challenges they posed was thoroughly rewarding. As researchers, I think for the all, I mean, I think everyone from the center did all most of the interviews. Everyone did either, I mean, at least one interview and I think just this unique opportunity to interact with judges with judicial career across 27 years from 1975 to 2017. That was a very unique opportunity. The manner in which the judges responded to us and the way they facilitated the interviews is testament to their humility and commitment to taking forward some extremely difficult conversations about the criminal justice system. These conversations encouraged us to think about a wide range of issues and I do hope that most of the participating judges found the conversations to be thought provoking as well. The experience of interviewing the judges demonstrated to us the value of such conversations in understanding judicial thought and activity processes. These were very valuable lessons and we've discussed this multiple times internally as well that there are many things that we would do differently if we were to do such a study of it. So my task now is to very briefly take you through the findings before we have Rebecca and Anuj comment on it and I promise to be as brief as possible. As we said there are 60 former Supreme Court judges, the idea was very much to ask them about the criminal justice system in general as well as ask their views on the debt penalty and we wanted to see how each informed the other. In terms of the profile of judges, eight of the participants were former Chief Justices. Between the 60 judges they had decided 208 debt penalty cases and had confirmed 97 of those. And the first track of conversation was on the investigative and trial processes. We wanted to get the judges' views on what they thought of investigation, trial, legal representation and wrongful convictions. And I think it was very interesting to see that on all of these issues, be it torture, access to legal representation or fabrication of evidence and wrongful convictions, the perception that a large majority of the judges had was very close to what we might understand as the ground realities of the criminal justice system. And it was rather nuanced and well informed. In terms of fabrication of evidence, judges acknowledged the misuse of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act through which recovery evidence is brought in and how evidence is planted and the kind of conversations they had about the instances in which it had happened before them and how they could identify when evidence was fabricated was all very interesting. And on torture, out of the 39 judges who spoke about torture, 38 acknowledged that torture was a rampant reality of the Indian criminal justice system. And there was, of course, there was only one judge who said that torture does not take place within the Indian criminal justice system. But interestingly what were the perspectives on torture, even though there was acknowledgement among the 38 out of the 39 judges who spoke about it, that torture does happen. They necessarily didn't feel that there was certain helplessness about torture and a certain willingness to acknowledge its importance or its role in the criminal justice system to say that if we didn't have that, we would struggle to find convictions. And of course there was another group of judges who actually felt that it was completely useless to go down that route and to think that torture was of any utility and that it created more problems for us than it solved. And therefore that engagement with a certain frustration and an inevitability of torture was quite revealing for us. They said that it's expected that something like that will happen within a system like ours. On legal representation, there wasn't a single judge who was happy with how legal aid was functioning, how the legal aid system is working. And the judges who had a lot of criminal law experience felt that the quality of legal representation, particularly what was coming from the legal aid, was quite unsatisfactory. But interestingly, not all of them made that connection between poor legal representation and poverty and socioeconomic discrimination. That connection did not seem to exist as strongly as one would have expected. On wrongful convictions, again, out of the 49 judges who spoke about it, 43 of them acknowledged that wrongful convictions was a reality of the Indian criminal justice system. But again, when they discussed wrongful convictions, one concern that seemed to be operating was that, well, it's not wrongful convictions that we really need to worry about, that it's also the wrongful acquittals. And so there was this dynamic where the wrongful conviction was pitted against the wrongful acquittal. And that tendency not to view both of these as separate issues, that we need not reduce the seriousness or the undesirability of one by citing the other, did not seem to operate for all of them. That somehow there was a set off between wrongful convictions and the other problem of wrongful acquittals. And even in terms of wrongful acquittals, wrongful convictions, the concern seemed to be even within that group of people who said that's something that's unacceptable within a criminal justice system. The concern seemed to be rather focused on a narrow understanding of wrongful conviction to say that it was an innocence-related issue, that it was not as much a wrongful conviction on faulty processes, on faulty convictions. That understanding of wrongful conviction, that wrongful conviction could mean two things, that you've got the wrong person and that you're punishing the innocent. And secondly, that we are getting convictions through processes that are illegal, that are unconstitutional, that did not seem to influence the understanding of what we might call a wrongful conviction. And I think these two quotes sort of explain and I thought particularly this one that if you're asking me whether I'm concerned about unmerited acquittals, I'm not worried about them. I'm worried about unmerited convictions because a criminal jurisprudence is designed only to prevent an innocent from being convicted. A criminal jurisprudence can afford to have a guilty person's escape but not to have an innocent person proven guilty. Again, as we said, I think it's very important in studies like this to remember that there's no single narrative, the grand meta narrative of how Supreme Court judges think. That's just not possible. But it's important to understand the strands within which they exist and that's what's quite revealing as we went into the section on the debt penalty when I come to that, we'll discuss that. So I think while reading the report, please avoid the temptation and that's again, as I said, it's not the purpose of the study to say that there's a certain way in which Supreme Court judges think. That's a far more complicated exercise and you will see why I'm saying that once we get into the debt penalty section. In the debt penalty section, we started with sentencing in debt penalty cases and how they understood sentencing to be done in debt penalty cases. And of course we went into meaning of rarest of rare, what they understood as aggravating and mitigating and the role they saw for judicial discretion. And I think it's very important to unpack many of these things, particularly the aggravating and mitigating factors. Around which there's very little discussion, there's an assumption that aggravating factors have to be presented, mitigating factors have to be presented. But what does each of that mean? And there's very little discussion particularly on what is a mitigating factor and I'll discuss that in slightly more detail. On meaning of the rarest of the rare, again we saw different views on that, particularly if you look at the court to your right. If in my mind I think that a case is rarest of rare, I can write many things to show that. If I think it is not, then I will write things to show it is not. That is the flaw of the formulation. You award death in cases where you think it should be given. And that seemed to be a very dominant worry with the judges, that the rarest of the rare meant that the law stopped being a guiding factor at some point. That legal principles stopped being the guiding factor, that it came down to what individual judges thought. Now in terms of, and if you look at the problem on the left, but at the end of the day, every judge has his own concept of what is rarest of rare. Of course up to five to seven things will be common for everybody. But being from a farming family, I think if somebody kills to save his land, you might have a different approach. In the sense that there is some justification, self-defense or whatever. But I have noticed judges who are not from farming families, their approach is totally different. And we contrast these two course only show as to what plays on judges' minds when they start discussing the death penalty. We did three sentencing exercises with the judges, where we presented and the report towards the end tells you what was the fact scenario presented before them. They were given in each of these three cases, they were given a card first which spoke about the case on conviction and the evidence and asked whether they would convict on the evidence. After that they were presented consolidated mitigation evidence and to say what are the circumstances of the accused person. It was very interesting to see their responses to the sentencing exercise and a couple of things to notice on that. They said that A, there was a lot of disagreement on what is a mitigating factor. And you will see that playing out in many of the court decisions, the inconsistency in whether X factor, whether young age, is it a mitigating factor or is it not a mitigating factor? Is no prior conviction, is it a relevant factor or is it not a relevant factor? And it played out quite evidently in the sentencing exercises that A, among certain judges there was a certain doubt about is mitigation relevant at all. It should be even get into questions of mitigation and two, even if we got into questions of mitigation, which factors are relevant and there seems to be widespread disagreement on that. In terms of the rarest of rare itself, it was quite interesting to see the various formulations of the rarest of the rare. That it literally was a case of each judge having his or her own understanding of what the rarest of rare meant or what the rarest of rare required, right from some judges believing that it's only about category of crimes that the moment it is a certain category, it is rarest of rare. It does not require any further consideration to saying that if certain aggravating factors exist, then that's it. There's no further investigation that's required. So in terms of these 60 judicial minds, many of whom had decided death penalty cases, their own understanding, and of course we might argue that what they knew at that point and what they were talking to us now might be very different and acknowledge that. But this is the closest we can get to how judges think because I don't think such a study with sitting judges is going to be possible, right? So in terms of their own understanding of rarest of rare, I think there's a lot to be concerned about that there seems to be a lot of legal confusion as to what the doctrine requires under Bachchan Singh, right? In terms of, I mean, of course, it almost appears as though that the doctrine is completely empty and every judge is free to fill that doctrine with whatever content they feel fit, and if you just contrast it to what Bachchan Singh requires. On judicial attitudes to the death penalty, I guess the big ticket part of this, we went in assuming that most of the judges would be in support of the death penalty and they were, right? But I think the idea was to sort of have a much deeper understanding of why they support the death penalty or even if they don't support it, why they don't support it. So that was the conversation that was important. We asked all judges irrespective of what we felt from their judgments and we, of course, before interviewing every judge, we would read all their death penalty judgments irrespective of whether it was a confirmation or commutation or within the High Court or in the Supreme Court. All judges were asked abolitionists and what they saw as reasons for abolition and what they saw as reasons for retention. Even 30 out of the 44 retentionist judges who ultimately thought that we must retain the death penalty did identify abolitionist reasons, right? They did say that there are certain strong reasons that we must consider for abolition despite them being retentionists themselves. And three out of the 11 abolitionist judges felt there was absolutely no reason to retain the death penalty. So in that sense to show that certain abolitionist arguments have a certain force that is inescapable and since these are attempts at driving the conversation forward on the death penalty, to show that there are certain abolitionist justifications that seem to resonate even with judges who believe that the death penalty should be retained. Very quickly on the abolitionist justifications and the retentionist justifications, it seemed that if you look at the abolitionist justification on your left, you will see that there are certain key elements that are missing that are part of a dominant abolitionist discourse. One is the disparate impact of the death penalty absolutely found no mention, that the discriminatory impact of the death penalty on socio-economic groups and marginalised groups absolutely found no mention or purchase. And the second was there was no real discussion of the system as such within which the death penalty is being administered. So while most of the others get accounted for and the report tells you how many of them spoke up on each of these, but these two aspects about the criminal justice system and its interaction with the death penalty and the discriminatory impact of the death penalty found no real purchase. On the retentionist justification it was a very, it was an approach focused on the gravity of the offence and the nature of the offence and the particular needs of Indian society and a sense that we are not ready for it just yet and certainly backed by different logical purposes. For some it was deterrence, for some it was retribution that certain persons who did certain kinds of actions had deserved to die. So in that sense it was not as much a deterrence argument as a just desert kind of argument. And thoughtfully that as judges they feel that as long as there's legal sanction they've got to give it in some case or the other and the burden to do away with the death penalty is not that of the judge, is that of the political system. And the report has many other of these courts you can look at. The main reason for abolition is it is very difficult to judge in which case the death penalty should be given and which it should not. If you look at the case law sentencing in death penalty cases become confusing. On the other hand you have another judge who said death penalty has to be retained because the law is still there. It is up to the parliament to take it away but according to me it would be too dangerous to abolish the death penalty. As I say there are many kinds of criminals, some of them are blood thirsty and cannot be reformed. If the death penalty is abolished there will be a menace to the society. And I think very quickly having gone through what they said on the criminal justice system and the death penalty, for us the biggest takeaway really was when we spoke to judges about the criminal justice system there was a great understanding and sensitivity to the realities of the criminal justice system. In terms of torture, in terms of fabricated evidence, wrongful convictions, very poor legal representation. But when it came to the death penalty the conversation seemed to suddenly turn very retributive in nature. That it seemed to focus that the only issue that we need to concern ourselves with when it comes to the death penalty is the heinousness of the offence. That we don't need to account for the systemic realities to worry about the fairness of the administration. And this is different from just the judicial arbitrariness kind of discussion. It seems that there was this very neat disconnect that when we came to discussing the death penalty it became about what crimes are we talking about. That needs to be the determining factor. There was very little place in that sense for all those systemic issues about the criminal justice system that we spoke about in the initial parts. I'm sure there will be a much greater chance to discuss this with Rebecca and Anuji as well and I'll stop here with my summary of what we have found. And I haven't had the chance to discuss how judges understood judicial discretion and arbitrariness but I hope I'll have some time to just ask some questions on that during the discussion phase. So thank you very much. Careful in the way in which he presented the findings of this report. And I think one of the advantages of being a criminal lawyer is that you can occasionally leave the realm of being correct and careful and really address the issue in the manner in which it should be addressed. When I read this report it actually validated what I felt over the years and that is both judges and certainly most lawyers actually have no understanding of the law and particularly of judicial precedence. And very often we have judgments which are passed which are in complete violation of judgments which were earlier passed of constitution benches and or benches of higher strength. This report also validated the fact that in fact most judges did not understand the constitutional guidelines and the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in 1980 in the famous case called Bachchan Singh versus state. What I will now seek to do is actually I'll try and map out this journey from Bachchan Singh to Yakub Mehman where conflicting judgments have been given by the Supreme Court. On account of the fact that there has been very little understanding of what previous judgments and judgments with higher constitutional bench judgments have said on the subject. Now in Bachchan Singh's case which was decided in 1980 the constitutionality of the death penalty was challenged both in substantive as well as procedural grounds. A five judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the death penalty passed judicial master but with respect to the procedural challenge it felt that section 354 sub clause 3 of the Court of Criminal Procedure invested courts with unguided discretion and allowed the death sentence to be arbitrarily almost freakishly imposed. Let me just pause here and explain the section 354 3 of the Court of Criminal Procedure was something that was introduced by the new Court of Criminal Procedure and it required judges imposing the death penalty to give special reasons before they did so. Now in Bachchan Singh's case the Court made it clear that death penalty should be imposed only in extreme cases, life imprisonment was a rule, death penalty was the exception. And to award the death sentence it held and this was very important that the Court was required to examine the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the crime as well as the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the offender. Most importantly it emphasised that the scope and concept of mitigating factors in the area of death penalty must receive a liberal and expansive construction by courts. In fact I'll quote from Bachchan Singh, it's a very interesting quote. It says, judges should never be bloodthirsty, hanging or murderers has never been good for them, a real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law's instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option of life is unquestionably foreclosed. So this was the mandate of the constitution bench of the Supreme Court. It continues to hold, it has not been overruled by a bench of a higher strength. However, three years later in 1983 a three judge bench of the Supreme Court in Machi Singh versus Data Punjab while playing lip service to the Bachchan Singh formulation introduced an inconsistency which has caused chaos in all subsequent judgements. It listed five categories of cases in which, and I quote, the community's conscience was so shocked that it would expect the holders of judicial power to inflict death penalty and the categories listed in Machi Singh's case were manner of commission of murder, motive for commission of murder, antisocial or socially abhorrent nature of the crime, magnitude of the crime, personality of the victim of murder. Now Bachchan Singh had refused to list out these categories of cases but Machi Singh on the other hand and that's the biggest departure it made. It focused on the crime and not on the criminal. It upheld the jurisprudence whether nature, manner, motive of the crime took precedence over the circumstances of the criminal and the possibility of reform. So from Bachchan Singh which talked about the need to assess the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the crime as well as the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the criminal the criminal actually vanished in Machi Singh's judgment. We went through a period of further judicial confusion in the application of the rarest of rare formula and it led us to a judgment of the Supreme Court in 1995 called Rabji was the state of Rajasthan where a two-member bench virtually overruled the constitution bench's formulation in Bachchan Singh versus state of Punjab and came to the conclusion that it was the nature and gravity of the crime alone that mattered, nothing with respect to the criminal and the criminal was not germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. In 2006 another two-member bench in Aloknath Patta's case said that different benches of the Supreme Court have adopted different criteria and awarded death penalty and it lamented that there was no sentencing policy in clear cut terms that has been evolved by the Supreme Court. In 2008 in Swami Shraddhanan's case a three-member bench laid down that the categories carved out in Machi Singh were not inflexible and were itself a deviation from the Bachchan Singh formulation. But it took almost ten years for Rabji's judgment to be declared per incurium by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in a judgment delivered in May 2009 it's called Santosh Kumar Bariya's case. It attempted to derive further guidelines from Bachchan Singh's case and once again focused on the requirement that in order to award the death penalty the alternative punishment of life has to be unquestionably foreclosed. And it noted with some concern that the deviation made in Rabji versus state of Rajasthan in 1995 from the Bachchan Singh formulation was in fact per incurium and it went on to say, and this is what really stuns me that Rabji's case had been followed in six decisions by the Supreme Court where the judgment, where the death sentence had been awarded in the last nine years. So in Bariya's case the Supreme Court held that capital sentencing is one field where safeguards continuously took strength from the constitution and on the other hand public opinion had no role to play. What is interesting about Santosh Kumar Bariya's case was the fact that it noted that for ten years the judgment of Rabji versus state held center stage it was based on an incorrect understanding of the Constitution Bench's judgment and that six decisions by the Supreme Court where death penalty had been awarded based on Rabji in that period. Had taken place it declared the law laid down in Rabji versus state to be per incurium. In 2009 a two member bench of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Farooq Abdul Ghafoor versus state of Maharashtra held that the swinging fortunes of an accused in our criminal justice system accentuated due to inherent imperfections of the system, delays, cost of litigation, inadequate legal aid, access to courts and inarticulate information on the socio-economic and criminological context of crimes greatly resulted in the imposition of the death penalty. So it talked about the swinging fortunes of an accused in our criminal justice system and it endorsed the view that invariably the marginalized and the destitute suffer the extreme penalty. In 2012 in Sangit versus state the Supreme Court felt that the aggravating and mitigating circumstances approach needed a fresh look particularly because the circumstances of the criminal had over the years taken a back seat in the sentencing process. And then finally just as Madan Lakour's judgment in Shankar Kishan Rao Khade versus state of Maharashtra's case where the Supreme Court visited the entire all the judgments of the court since Pachan Singh and held that aggravating circumstances of the crime were not exhaustive and the test that had to be applied was one the crime test, two the criminal test, three the rarest of rare test. And it's almost like a mathematical formulation they said that the crime test had to be fully satisfied that is there should be no mitigating circumstances as far as the crime was concerned only then you move on to the criminal test. And there must be no mitigating circumstances as far as a criminal was concerned and then you looked into whether you award death penalty on the basis of the RR test or the rarest of rare test. This is perhaps the closest we've come so far to some kind of intelligent guidelines that the Supreme Court has given on the subject. So really in this landscape what we see is that the Supreme Court itself has not followed the law it has laid down in Pachan Singh. And therefore the confusion that we see in this report with judges not really understanding what was the ratio of Pachan Singh's case is partly because over a period of time the Supreme Court has not revisited, has not gone back in Red Pachan Singh's case and has not really understood what that case meant. Let me reiterate Pachan Singh made it absolutely clear that while awarding the death penalty you have to look at the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the criminal as well as the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the crime. Unfortunately in most cases and I noticed that even in the Yakup Mem and Judgement there was about a page and a half discussion on sentencing and there was absolutely no procedure that was followed whereby the aggravating circumstances were listed, the mitigating circumstances were listed and certainly nothing about the criminal, the fact that he had suffered this long period of incarceration. The fact that he was a model prisoner, the fact that he had psychiatric problems post his conviction and solitary confinement none of that found mention in the discussion leading to the imposition of the death penalty on Yakup Mem. So really what do we have here? We have a completely confused bag where we are not really sure what is expected from judges. In a way lawyers presenting cases are also to be blamed. Defense lawyers take sentencing as one of the easiest appearances in the entire criminal case and it's over in five minutes. My client is innocent, my client has been wrongly convicted, I will be filing an appeal if the sentence has been awarded by a subordinate court. And no attempt is made by the lawyer to introduce facts which will be important for the judge to come to an ultimate formulation. I've always maintained that in death penalty hearings there must be compulsory evidentiary hearings. You have to, and if the state is seeking death penalty like you have the probation officer's report, you must call for a report. We must know how long this prisoner has been incarcerated. What is his mental health status? What is his background? Is there possibility of reform? How has he conducted himself in jail? What does his family look like? Something on the basis of which courts can then determine whether or not there are mitigating circumstances. That is completely absent from our jurisprudence and that is really the tragedy of our system today. I know we will subsequently talk about the other problems of the criminal justice system where we really can never be sure whether we are coming to a right verdict or not. Given the fact that so much of our system is based on torture, is based on illegal collection of evidence, is based on lack of adherence to procedural requirements. In such a system when you are awarding the highest penalty, then I think it is important for us to remember the tests laid down both in Bachen Singh's case as well as in the subsequent judgement of Shankar Khade where the Supreme Court talks of the crime test, criminal test and the RR test. There was a period in the Delhi High Court when we had a bench headed by Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Murli Dhar where they were dealing exclusively with murder references which are death penalty cases where they insisted on compulsory evidentiary hearings for purposes of deciding whether the death penalty needed to be confirmed or not. I think it was a very, very good practice but that stopped even in our court today and we no longer have compulsory evidentiary hearings for death penalty. I think that is a requirement which must never be ignored. I think lawyers must and particularly, I mean there is this case which the centre has asked me to deal with where we are dealing with a couple who were involved in human sacrifice. One of the interesting things that comes out is that it was a horrific crime but they made no attempt to hide the fact that they had done what they had done and they surrendered as soon as the police came and as soon as the neighbours came. Some of these things are important for purposes of sentencing. Did they resist arrest? Did they try and hide the crime? Did they run away? They simply said look we have done this, we believe we had to do it to attain whatever we had to attain. These are factors which are important but even in that case we noticed that the evidence was very sketchy. There was absolutely no attempt made by defence lawyers both in the trial court as well as in the high court to present the mitigating circumstances of the criminal. And that really is at the heart of this discussion. Both judges and lawyers need to know the law. All judges and lawyers have to revisit Bacchan Singh and have to find innovative ways in which they can present the evidence with respect to there. I think we are obsessed with the fact that we should say nothing which will in any way add to the fact that he may be guilty. So we are not going to discuss the fact that he did this because he was in a difficult mental space because then there is a tacit admission of the fact that we committed the crime. While that may be relevant I will still say that attempts must be made at all times to track the mental health record of criminals, the fact that they have behaved in a particular manner in jail, their families, the background they come from. None of this is done and as a consequence we really argue death penalty on an empty slate. We have nothing to go by and we have nothing to present to the court when we plead that there are in fact mitigating circumstances which do not justify the imposition of the death penalty. So this report is revealing but I am not surprised because I have seen that in 30 years of my practice. Long ago Justice Krishna Iyer said that bail is really the hunch of the bench. It is quite similar with respect to all other cases. Some judges feel this is a heinous crime, others don't. It really depends where your case is listed on which day and that could be the difference between life and death but that is the way our system is. And so that is something which is very worrying and that is something which has come out very beautifully in this report. Thank you. I remember about almost 18 years back I was as a law student involved in organising a seminar here in India International Centre in the main one on death penalty and I was wondering what has changed. What has changed has been the kind of research that people like your group have done and which has completely changed the way we think about this at some level. And I really want to congratulate you and your team the entire centre on death penalty to have brought out this report and the report that you did last year as well. Because you really provide us a kind of empirical background to think about this issue because I was thinking about the difference. The difference is the kind of material that we put together 18 years back was almost entirely from not from India actually. It was actually the kind of material that we put together from Amnesty International working in the UK or much of the material coming from the US. And that is really the strength of the research that you guys have done and Amnesty International in India before you guys have. So congratulations again. Now to my mind the report that you guys produced last year and this report. You know it seems to be and it is really about the problem of death penalty which is what your mandate is. But really for me what unsurprisingly brings us to think about much more carefully is the absolute pathology of the criminal justice system in almost every aspect. And as you say that is the principal challenge of this report, the disconnect as you ended with. The disconnect of the fact that all these judges, I mean most of the judges, 39 out of the 60 judges agreed that the fundamental flaws in the criminal justice system that we have today. And we talk about that in some detail as you do in your first chapter. But at the same time they were able, many of these same judges were able to convert the debate on death penalty into the standard modes of tropes of retentionist versus abolitionist mode. So that is really interesting this kind of, you call it double speak or you can call it schizophrenia. I will just read out the conclusion of the report so you can see what I am trying to gesture towards. Just because that is I think one of the central challenges that this report really throws at us. Among the starkest outcomes of this study is the negligible impact of the skepticism concerning the criminal justice system on the support of the death penalty. This is page 141 of the report. So there is a widespread skepticism among these same judges about the criminal justice system but that does not seem to affect their position on death penalty too much. While the arguments in support of the death penalty in abstraction may seem attractive, the normative coherence of the arguments in fear of the death penalty begins to thin when applied to the realities of the system. This near inexplicable double speak on the one hand explicitly acknowledging the crisis within India's criminal justice system. On the other hand articulating such strong support for death penalty creates a peculiar situation where the death penalty starts to appear as a perfect distraction from the criminal justice system chronic malaise. And that's really the central problem at some level I think which we have to somehow learn to grapple with. And maybe one way to think about it and I'll try to hazard a guess or two about this particular possibility of speaking two different languages about something which are closely tied. And let's think about this. I mean if we were having this debate on death penalty like we were having 18 years back, what is the difference, or are we having now? What is the difference in this debate on death penalty in India versus it happening in any other jurisdiction? What is the specificity of the death penalty debate in India? At some level of course there are fundamental criminal justice system everywhere but what happens very often with these standard death penalty debates and as law students in particular are very familiar in writing articles and having these familiar debates on death penalty is that it becomes like an abstract question with those pedagogical issues about retribution, deterrence, reformation, standard troops in which we can have these debates in law school classrooms as well as amongst us on TV rooms etc. Whenever there is some high-profile person being hanged, which is muscifully not as often as it could be. So it's interesting that this could happen because we could have that abstract debate. At the same time there's this problem which everybody knows and that's precisely the interesting fact that everybody knows that this is the nature of the criminal justice system and the kind of public secrecy aspect of this. So as the first chapter of this report discusses which is on really the systemic crisis of the criminal justice system which Mojad is cognizant of and that's really interesting because they all know that the entire process which the criminal trial is supposed to represent the kind of ideas of fairness is actually doesn't work for most people who, especially for people who come from poor backgrounds. So the four particular issues that are highlighted in this first chapter, first which is around fabrication of evidence which is really the big issue on which they talk about planting of evidence which has been made possible by section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. So as we know, most of us know that confessions to a police officer is inadmissible in general except for when there's a kind of an exception under Indian Evidence Act section 27 which allows for evidence which is to put it very crudely which is discovered on that part of the confession which leads to discovery of evidence which is material to the case is deemed to be admissible. So this has really led to a chronic case of planting of evidence, this is an absolutely standard practice and that's a really interesting part of this report because they would talk about the section and they would start talking about the practice in every aspect and that is a really interesting the question of law in books and law in action that we all are familiar with and the interesting thing is that judges know exactly what's going on and they are extremely familiar with the kind of modus operandi of these processes that almost all of these instances of section 27 confessions basically by back dot section 27 allowed confessions to be admissible and evidence is routinely planted by the police etc. So and this by the way section 27 was challenged and in another in this segment called Devman Upadhyay in 1963 I think Jaisa Subarao gave a minority opinion, he according to him it should have been struck down and there was a majority which obviously upheld it and we hope that like Jaisa Subarao's other minority opinion and right to privacy maybe this will also be some day struck down but there's no reason to hold your breath on that but so this is obviously a chronic problem which judges are well aware of the other is of stock witnesses, again a well-known instance of how stock witnesses in case of recovery are created, of recovery documents how they are made now these are all issues that are familiar most of us many of us who are not from legal background familiar through Hindi cinema or other you know regional cinemas about these kind of practices are absolutely routine and judges are well aware of this and they are well aware of the problem of torture, torture is widespread and they most of them are you know know exactly what's going on so it's not like they are not on it, they are you know even judges who don't come from a criminal background aware of what's going on and the fact of legal representation the fact that many of these people as the prior report that they produced the center produced last year in a provide example evidence how it's the most of the people on death row are people from poor backgrounds who have not had adequate legal representation at the trial level and the fact of the kind of the problem of legal aid which the fact that it's so poorly you know staffed etc is the judges are well aware of this and the fact that they are also well aware of the fact that wrongful conviction is rather more common than you think that they are aware of all these pathologies and frankly these pathologies are all pathologies of the police even the question of legal representation is really the question of the fact that they don't especially the poorer folk don't have representation at the investigation stage when they really need to you know to make sure the police don't do what they usually do so it's really the fact that at one level they are aware of the materiality of police investigations and what goes on in these trials the judges supreme court judges the same time when it comes to these debates on what the position on death penalty is they will go into abstract arguments about why you know there are kind of standard positions that many of you are aware of these issues of retribution or of deterrence or of all of those things which you know which we are familiar with so what is remarkable is this kind of a disconnect between these two and the fact that you know you can have this kind of a philosophical abstract debate on this issue and speak in bromides in general terms about it while you can constantly aware that the system itself which has made this possible is fundamentally broken you know so and this is by the way I don't know whether this is peculiar to the judges alone many of us who clamor for new criminal statutes if it newer criminal remedies for social problems we don't seem to understand that you know that until we deal with the problem of it's not just the judges you know that at one level we are talking about more and more statutes of criminal remedies at the same time you know the fundamental problems of criminal procedure the fundamental facts that you know the fact that how police functions is not just about terror offenses or capital crimes but and of course in those cases it's fairly clear I mean in the sense that those cases are obviously most deserving of attention because the severity of sentence obviously of death penalty itself but the fact that this problem of criminal procedure and the fact of dysfunctionality which is really about police functioning or malfunctioning really because again we are talking about misuse of 1627 1627 is created to be misused you know it's basically it is there asking for it to be misused so you know that the term itself is again you know kind of it doesn't help us understand this better so it's really about the fact that we also not just the judges I mean we also continue to have these abstract debates on criminal justice in order of criminalization introducing death penalty for newer offenses or not or severe penalties for them without really necessarily discussing the dysfunctionality of the police functioning or of investigative procedure and it seems like we are able most of us including judges are and it is really remarkable that they are completely on the ball with regard to all of this but the same time many of them consider it a necessary evil many of them think that you know that this is perhaps you know how it is and so in a sense they have to be pragmatic with this so I think this is really a kind of a pathology which really infects not just it infects many of us who who are trying who try to understand the problem of criminal law in India in general you see it's not just and for me this is precisely the merit of the work that the centre has been doing which that while the you know it looks through the axis of death penalty it really shines a light through on the entire criminal justice system and show us the sheer extent of the problem that we are dealing with on this I have a couple of suggestions also just to take this further one would be that along with this report it would be really useful if you know some of the interviews especially you can publish in more detail if they are willing judges are not averse to it because some of them are really instance of this judge who Supreme Court judge who used to be a district just talking about another district judge being taken as a recovery witness and who refused to re-narrate the police story and then constable immediately wanted to arrest him and threaten him etc but luckily another policeman recognized him as another district judge so these are really interesting stories to bring us a little I am sure there is so much more that you can do with the material that you have got the kind of research that you have been able to do and the kind of access you guys have been able to achieve is really you know unparalleled in legal research in India so that would be wonderful and another aspect which maybe some more detail would be useful would be some of many of these judges have backgrounds in criminal law as public prosecutors or as you know as district judges etc so that would be really useful to kind of disaggregate this material because obviously it makes a major difference because you know and the stories are much more rich and it's interesting to contrast that also that's another variable to keep in mind but really I think I think for me the principle take away was really on this question of the disconnect and I think I mean I cannot I mean for me it's just beginning to think about it and I think we really need to think about this together thank you


Item number SCP-456 Object Class Safe Special Containment Procedures The SCP-456 colony is to be kept in a sealed containment room. Personnel entering the containment area should wear Level 1 Biohazard suits to avoid being bitten by SCP-456, and the suits must be treated with insecticide upon leaving the enclosure. When not being used in experiments, SCP-456 must be fed 70 milliliters of human or animal blood per 100 insects weekly. Description SCP-456 is a variety of the common bed bug. Cymics Lactilarius In addition to an anticoagulant, SCP-456 injects ██████ and biting its host, causing the brain to produce adenosine, endorphins, and a narcotic identified as an analogue of fentanyl. As a result, victims of SCP-456 infestations experience increasing euphoria and sondolins as the number of insects increases, eventually sleeping 24 hours per day. SCP-456 was identified after a number of individuals were found dead in their homes, suffering from varying degrees of malnutrition, blood loss, and narcotics toxicity. SCP-456 continues to be a problem in the wild. To reduce the number of infestations, the CDC has issued a false report that bed bugs carry malaria and must be exterminated when found. Addendum 4D class were requisitioned for exposure to SCP-456 to determine long-term effects. Experiment 4-56-1 D-175-14 Exposed to SCP-456 and fed standard rations, but given no other special treatment. After 17 days of exposure, D-175-14 slept constantly and was unable to care for himself. Subject expired from malnutrition ██████ days later. Experiment 4-56-2 D-175-15 Exposed to SCP-456 and fed intravenously when unable to care for herself. Subject expired from blood loss after ████ days. Experiment 4-56-3 D-175-16 Exposed to SCP-456 fed intravenously and given periodic blood transfusions as needed. Subject expired from narcotic overdose after ████ days. Experiment 4-56-4 D-175-17 Exposed to SCP-456 fed intravenously and given periodic blood transfusions in addition to small doses of a narcotic antagonist. Subjects expired for ████ days and was supporting a colony of ████ D-175-17 remanded for amnestic treatment and reassignment on ████, 2000 ████ Addendum Mobile Task Force Iota-10, Damn Feds, is investigating a report that a drug cartel located in ████, Mexico, is kidnapping members of the public breeding SCP-456 and extracting an narcotics produced by the victims under the cover of DEA operatives. Anyone found to be using SCP-456 in its manner is to be terminated.


Item Number – SCP-332 Object Class – Euclid Special Containment Procedures – Observation Station 55B has been constructed to monitor and study SCP-332. Fences designed to contain SCP-332's stationary effect have been demolished and replaced by a research station dedicated to observing SCP-332 in its dormant state. When SCP-332 enters its active state, all site personnel are to monitor the length and intensity of the sound produced by SCP-332 from soundproofed observation areas until the active state ceases. Any affected civilians are to be detained indefinitely under the cover of an infectious disease outbreak. SCP-1833 has been placed under constant observation in case of any alterations. Description – SCP-332 is the class of 1976 Kirk Lawnwood High School Marching Band, located in the town of Roe. The band is composed of 30 humanoids known as SCP-332-1-30, all 30 instances of SCP-332 wear 1976 band uniforms and play instruments manufactured before 1976. The words, Sincope Symphony, have been engraved into each instrument. Individuals within SCP-332 do not display normal human behavior and will stand at attention in the center of the former Kirk Lawnwood High School football field. Occasionally, individual instances of SCP-332 have been known to suddenly begin struggling with an unseen force before returning to their normal stance. The reason for this behavior is unknown. No instance of SCP-332 has ever attempted to communicate with Foundation personnel. Instances of SCP-332 do not appear to feel hunger, pain, or suffer from exposure to the elements and were observed to stand in the same location for over 30 years. Once every 48 hours, SCP-332 will enter an active state. While active, SCP-332 will perform a marching routine. Music played by SCP-332 varies, but it primarily consists of marching arrangements popular between 1967 and 1976. Sounds produced by SCP-332 have a consistent volume throughout the active zone, with the sound fading abruptly outside of that zone. If a subject is able to hear the music played by SCP-332, they will attempt to obtain any instrument near them and join SCP-332 in playing. Subjects affected in this manner, hereafter known as SCP-332-B, will report high amounts of anxiety if unable to obtain a musical instrument within 10 minutes of coming under SCP-332's effect. If they are unable to join SCP-332 within 10 minutes, they will walk with the band and begin miming an instrument as they march with the band, and will attempt to replicate the sound being produced by SCP-332 with their voice. Instances of SCP-332-B who join with SCP-332 will march and play until they pass out from exhaustion or hunger, at which point they will be trampled by other instances of SCP-332-B and SCP-332. For every 10 SCP-332-B instances who join SCP-332, the area of effect will increase by 300 meters. This radius of effect will expand until all instances of SCP-332-B are terminated or incapacitated, at which point SCP-332's active state will immediately cease. SCP-332 was contained following Incident-332-A, the incident during which SCP-332 was initially activated. Between the point from when it activated to being disabled by Foundation agents, Incident-332-A resulted in the deaths of 40% of Kirklawn Wood High School's staff and students. The school was closed down under the pretense of fire damage, with students, locals, and survivors being issued Class B amnesics. Successful containment for SCP-332 was achieved on 7 19 1976 with a classification of Euclid. Addendum-332-B, transcript of Incident-332-A. During initial cleanup operations following SCP-332's containment, a 16mm camera was discovered outside what would have been the first story window of Kirklawn Wood High School. The transcript of this video, although highly corrupted, is the only record of Incident-332-A. Begin log. 0-10 Seconds The camera is pointed out a large window, believed to be in the school's front office. Several members of SCP-332 can be seen preparing their instruments on the field. There is no sound. 0-10 Seconds to a minute-34 The camera swings towards unidentified woman number one. It is believed that the cameraman is speaking to her, although no sound can be heard. One of SCP-332's clarinet players can be seen walking by in the background. 0-34-4 Minutes and 55 Seconds Section of the tape is damaged. No identifiable content present. 4-55 Seconds to 5 Minutes Picture and sound briefly become clear, and a voice believed to belong to unidentified woman number one remarks about one band member's outfit, having an unusual attribute, although what was unusual about it is not heard. 5 Minutes to 6 Minutes and 2 Seconds Static 6 Minutes and 2 Seconds to 8 Minutes and 4 Seconds Sound and picture return with greatly improved quality, with the cameraman chatting with unidentified woman number one. Unidentified woman number two is heard off-screen at 7 Minutes and 9 Seconds, referencing a band equipment supplier known as Syncope Symphony and remarking that she was unable to find it with the information that was provided to her. Unidentified man number one, also in the background, claims that he will investigate it at a later date. 8 Minutes and 4 Seconds to 16 Minutes and 22 Seconds Sound cuts out again. Camera is pointed out to the field as SCP-332 begins to perform. At the 11-minute mark, several persons in the audience begin to exhibit signs of distress. At the 11-30 minute mark, the camera is violently jerked away from the floor and dropped. Several persons, including the cameraman and unidentified woman number two, are seen to move around the office in a state of distress. At the 11-45 mark, SCP-332 enters an active state. Unidentified woman number one is seen to exit the office to go outside at the 16-minute mark. 16 minutes 22 seconds to 18 minutes and 45 seconds. Static. 18-45 to 19 minutes. The camera is picked up and pans around the room. Several seemingly deceased persons are visible in frame, including the original cameraman. The camera is briefly pointed out the window, where SCP-332 can be seen playing. The tape ends at the 19-minute mark. End log. Lesson complete. If you missed the previous orientation, go watch SCP-331. Tumbles right now. Or for the complete course, watch this playlist.


Wait, I'll fix that. Yeah, so first of all, thank you so much for sticking around until now. We all had coffee, so try to stay awake while I talk about security. Before starting, I'd like to ask all of you a question. So for the answer, just try to be loud. Just yes or no question. How many of you love Google? Yes? OK, so we see they are more lovers than haters. So I'll start with another question. How many of you know who is Sundar Pichai? Do you know? Well, I know.  And at that time, I was very confused when I heard that. Because till then, all that my parents told me was that there is some god who does this. So all my life till now had been a lie. But now we all know that he was right. Data is everywhere. You all came here because you had the data about DevFest.  OK, let's try it with a question. How many of you can count the number of times you come across the word data in your day? Can you? We cannot, right? Data is everywhere. Data is one of the most important and repetitive word we all hear daily. Today, we are generating more than 2.5 quintillion bytes of data daily. And I was told that 90% of this data was generated in the last few years, which is really massive. We are generating data more than ever. And obviously, this massive data contains a lot of sensitive information like passwords, user names, credentials. And those folks are either trying to protect this data or to gain access to this data. Not everyone who loves data uses it for good. And we don't want the data to get into wrong hands. So this is the time the need of the R is to protect the data. And this is exactly what data loss prevention API is designed for. DLP API can automatically detect, classify, and secure sensitive information and personally identifiable information like names, credit card numbers, passwords. I'm sorry. Yeah. Like names, credit card numbers, and passwords. OK. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's screwed up. Yeah. Yeah. It's data. So what DLP API can do, it can automatically detect, classify, and protect sensitive data and personally identifiable information like names, credit card numbers, and phone numbers using various techniques. Let's look at it with an example. Suppose you have a file with all information like phone numbers, email address, credit card numbers. And you want to share the data with your analytics team. Obviously, you cannot share the whole file as it is. Half of your company will be playing around with this data. So this is where DLP API comes into the game. DLP API will automatically detect and classify the sensitive information and secure it. So this is what happens at the front end of the API. Now let's see what happens at the back end. DLP API can classify data based on over 100 predefined detectors and can protect data using techniques like masking, secure hashing, tokenization, and formal preserving encryption in real time. And that too before writing it on the disk, after which the data can be safely used for sharing purposes in app development or analytics or machine learning. The API comes built in with many Google products like Google Drive, Google Cloud, Gmail. And after all this processing, DLP API then provides a report of the quantity and the type of data it classified right into your Cloud Command Center. And that's how it works. So that's how it works. Now let's see a quick demo on DLP API. So this is a demo provided by Google itself. As you can see, it provides a good help text which you can see it automatically detects credit card numbers, email addresses, URLs, driver license numbers. So DLP API recognizes precisely 107 infotypes which include general infotypes like age, email addresses, credit card numbers, and some country-specific infotypes for some countries like NRIC number in Singapore or permanent account number in India. So yeah, so another advantage of DLP API is that it protects the data even at rest. So your data is safe even if it's not getting translated anywhere. So in conclusion, DLP API is a great tool to reduce human effort in detecting and securing data, providing another layer of security to the data. And to use this next level security, all we have to do is either to submit the data to Cloud DLP or to specify where the data is stored on Google Cloud BigQuery or Cloud Data Base Instances. Is that simple? Thank you.


Yo, what is up you guys it is Friday, so happy Friday to everybody I hope you all have an amazing weekend by the way We are on a humor waffles channel and we're gonna be reacting to his body the average dinosaur Hey, I remember when I see what party Why do they look like little potatoes? Oh She's just got snatched by the pterodactyl. Oh, how about over here? Hey, my name is Tyrone Tiberius Jr. The second what you looking for dog? Oh for real, I've been looking for that dude too. This is a whole debacle Barney, oh, why is that girl? Oh, she's like so Oh Hello there kids, it's me Barney. Do you guys want to go on an adventure? Hey, yeah, Barney. That's exactly what we've been waiting for well I'm sure glad to hear that I have the perfect place for us to visit and the cost is real cheap What's the cost to get there Barney?  I just whipped up kids Everyone everyone wait wait wait.  Everyone must see You better sing dude Well, I promise you here. Hey, I'm a bit good now once again Fear has no place here to me soon you will be consumed by darkness Don't worry though.  We saw it like two days ago on game Joe now. I was browsing through game Joe I don't know what to record today. It was either this Barney exe or bubbles dot exe which is from Powerpuff Girls and I saw this I was like, oh Why not let's go revisit our old purple friendly dinosaur. You can never go wrong with some Barney, right? But then I clicked on it and it was exe now The last time we saw Barney on the channel was down when we did see a humor waffles video Barney the Eldredge the dinosaur. Yeah, that thing was freaking terrifying That being said make sure to strap on to your seats and let's enjoy the video All right, so it seems like we're sort of like in some some Mario type beat of world I don't know what the heck is going. Oh Barney got hops though. Look at that. Oh My gosh, all right Dude, why does his face look like that all the time? Kind of freaking me out. Okay, y'all. Let's try not to fall All right, this is pretty easy so far. I feel like I'm playing some Mario some OG Mario type of game Okay, come on Barney Did not fall down.  Oh come on Oh, I thought we were about to fall there. Oh My goodness, come on Barney you can run faster chaos shift. Oh, there's a kid. Hello there child Come give me a hug. Oh Barney's gave you the child. This is my very own game You do not have permission to use this application. So please close the game immediately. What thank you and have a nice day Barney what is he kicking me off his game? The heck was that man? I thought he was kicking us off the game Like what the heck? Okay, that was a bit odd Okay, jump across. Oh, is he gonna make it? Okay.  You lose some weight. You need to cut some weight. Oh my god. That was way too close Okay, I'm getting kind of scared now Kind of terrified is not gonna make it and all you have to do is try and try again Yes, Barney, I know while I have to just try to like get it. Dude. How do you how are we supposed to make it across there? Like he barely makes it. Okay.   I am trying bro.  I was I was if I fell there. I'm gonna probably rage quit or something man. I ain't lying Okay. Oh, come on make it. Yes. Okay, sweet. So we managed to get up here now. We jumped down here Please don't fall.  I hereby urge you to do so now Otherwise there will be severe consequences for you. So close the application immediately Dude, he is threatening me. Hey, the further the more we play the game. He's threatening us I'm not sure we should keep playing but whatever, you know, it's just my life on the line. Nothing big You know, okay. Oh a balloon. Oh, we're flying Up up away and we go Um, oh Barney you missed the uh, oh Okay Okay, whatever now we're in the sky. Dude, where the heck is this balloon taking us?  That's not so smart Okay, um Remember your dinosaur not a frickin bird.  I Didn't make it.  You thought I was about to fall, but I did it. Yep. I Knew that was gonna happen a hundred percent. Okay. Um, hey, oh My god, they're putting all the throwback jams from when I was a child Dude, I didn't make it Yes, I did. I'm just saying that so you guys can laugh at yourself for laughing at me Okay, come on Another kid. Oh, bro. Why do you want to hug this kid, bro?  Oh, he's mad. Oh, he mad man I will draw my consequence now close the application. Otherwise. I will get very angry Hey, oh Barney, do we got a problem here my boy, huh? This one I thought man. Oh my gosh, okay. Oh make it make it make it make it. Yes Okay, wait, there you go. There you go. There you go. Oh my gosh These jumps are very crucial Okay, am I supposed to go up now? Wait, are you telling me I can't climb? Oh my gosh, you're kidding me, right? Okay, I feel like the background is moving it is moving, right? I'm like totally tripping me out this tripping me out. Oh Come on What do you got those legs for I didn't make it again, dude? I can just like see these things coming from a mile away Okay, and jump I didn't make it yo It's like right there this thing this thing has to be trolling Okay, now I made it now I made it Yeah Thank you.  It's not even cool. Oh My gosh Yes, okay Okay, we got it. Just keep it steady man. Come on I used to be a pro at obbies bro like legit I could beat obbies with my eyes closed before now I can't it's been so long I Didn't make it. Oh, yes, I did come on dude. Look at this. This is worse than Mario Mario ain't got nothing on Barney, bro. Oh Oh my gosh, I thought about a fall. Oh, here goes another child Barney stop it man. No, I'm very angry Close the application now It's next time Barney you gotta chill bro. Oh My gosh, okay, this is our final warning according to Barney. I ain't scared of no purple dinosaur Boy, if anything you'd be scared of me. You're the one that's pretty thick. Oh, so I don't know man Alright. Oh, and now we're just dropping Okay, oh what the heck now there's like things shooting out the water Bro, I'm telling you guys. This is like some Mario type beat Like a lie that kind of scared me That they look so demented and demonic man. You can't blame me. Oh my gosh. Oh Great now there's spikes. Yeah, why not just have some spikes of the To the frickin match, huh?    Okay, go. Oh Oh my gosh No, bro I didn't even touch it. Why can't it save right here, bro? It legit has to save them. We're already over there Yes, I made it. Oh my gosh.  Okay What the heck Bro, that's a new Pokemon Okay, now we're Barney now. Oh now we're in the EXE world. Okay, cool. Oh my gosh No, no Okay, I'm kind of scared now I'm kind of scared now.   That thing is bigger than Barney. How am I supposed to land there? Okay, there you go. Yes and more spikes awesome just what we needed more spikes. Oh Nice dude, how am I supposed to make it there? Okay. Oh, I almost fell there Okay, we got this bro. It's pretty easy once you get the hang of it, you know pretty breezy Everything just falls into place.  That is good Did I make it? Yes. Okay, sweet.  Oh My god, that is not the Barney I remember man. I am terrorized now Rip childhood rip childhood everything. Okay, is it gonna stop? What Okay Bro, oh, it's alright you guys well that was Barney exe you guys want me to do another exe game Let me know down below in the comments Or if you guys let me know what you guys want the next video to be in the comments down below Just so we can see a ratio of what's going on what you guys want to see on the channel and all that good stuff And yeah, we'll just see where it goes from there. All right, you guys Well, thank you guys for watching. Thank you guys for the major support as always and I will catch you all in the next one Then I'm getting nostalgia man. I'm about to cry right now. I'm tearing up Junior Junior show them show them bro. Show them the shirts, bro We just got this bad boy in look at this Amazing I have a different one on it's sort of similar sort of not On the back Go show mother go exe mom bro. Go show them how to go.  Real is the gaming here. It is Friday the merch got here Another day of life man life is good and check it out You guys already saw the shirts obviously from the intro. Well, let's get another glance at it You guys can have a better look. This is a one of Two shirts, I believe one of three designs we have so far. This is a yellow one, which is currently my logo I believe if I'm not mistaken and then we got this one. I got I'm wearing This is pretty cool because it has a logo and it has like the exe on the back to show you. Oh my god Dude, it is epic and then the other one mickey's wearing it That one just has a exe logo in the front and on the backside as this one does It is awesome You guys can check it out if you want to support your boy, of course If you truly love me You guys can go ahead on my on my youtube channel or on my video on my about like under the video There's a showcase of the store or you can either find the store on my youtube channel on this store tab You can see the merch we got on here. We got two shirts We got a sticker a face mask and a hoodie as of yet So if you guys want to go ahead and support your boy go check it out man It would truly mean the world to me today. We're being a guy some scary Barney videos for barely getting into this barney around where we see scary stuff of barney and all that sick stuff That ruins your childhood Yes, sadly, so let's go ahead and react to our first video by horror versions Oh my god, dude, this thing is all demented and horrific Yeah Dude imagine you turn on the tv at 7 a.m.  He's scared Dude, I would be so terrified of this Okay, the kids love him. Wow I'm a little shocked and surprised now. We find ourselves here on grouchy's channel and we're gonna be watching Now we get an actual little movie of barney All right, let's check it out. Let's see how it goes All right, let's start and grab your snacks and popcorn guys hurry up On the 14th of march 2016 a near extinction event occurred the children of the world disappeared It was referred to as the pied piper event. Here is what remains Wait, isn't this like a barney cartoon? I mean an episode They just feel like scary music. They put the recording layout to make it scary I like it In 1954 We'd awakened something By 1954 is that when Barney started or what? He's gonna send us back to the Stone Age Not that serious my guy Dude, I'm getting like spine chill chills. I don't know why Fun is the music the on exe mode, man Did it follow the kid I would be so horrified Wait that was Godzilla right Godzilla screech That was creepy his laugh, but that's pretty cool and creative I'd say Barney All right, it seems like that is a barney horror film Dude, you can still see the white from the image You always paid the piper. They always pay to the pipe piper Oh, no, man. All right, peace childhoods and for our final clip We find ourselves here on reverse our pants channel. Oh my god. Look at that.  I love you What the heck is going on?  Oh my gosh It's awesome And we got the creepy demented song Oh, this is epic man epicness at its finest All right, I think it's just a background image With the song played in the background Not much of a video All right, and there we have it ladies and gentlemen Some scary Barney videos now if you guys have like any character in mind or any cartoon character Whatever you guys want me to look at some scary videos. Let me know what character you guys want me to do next Like a childhood character to be more precise just so I can ruin your childhood You know if it wasn't ruined I'll get a chance to ruin it myself Well, thank you guys for watching. Thank you all for the amazing support and once again Make sure to check out the store for you boy If you want to support me make sure to go check it out Buy a shirt if you can if you do I appreciate you. You're awesome. You're the best And I will catch you on the next one. Peace


When you don't eat enough carbohydrates, you force your body to burn more fat. However, this rise in fat burning is often misconstrued as a greater rate of net fat mass reduction on the body.   You can't empty a tub by widening the drain if you're cranking up the faucet at the same time. Low carb advocates had a theory, though, the so-called carbohydrate insulin model of obesity. Proponents of low carb diets, whether a ketogenic diet or more relaxed form of carbohydrate restriction, suggested that the decreased insulin secretion would lead to less fat storage, and so even if you were eating more fat, less of it would stick to your frame. So we'd be burning more and storing less. The perfect combination for fat loss or so the theory went. To their credit, instead of just speculating about it, they decided to put it to the test. Gary Taubes formed the Nutrition Science Initiative to sponsor research to validate the carbohydrate insulin model.  Much of Nina Ticholtz's book, The Big Fat Surprise, is simply recycled from Taubes' earlier work. In response, some of the very researchers Taubes cited to support his thesis accused him of twisting their words. The article was incredibly misleading. One said, I was horrified. He took this weird little idea and blew it up, and people believed him, said another. What a disaster. It doesn't matter what people say, though. All that matters is the science. Taubes attracted $40 million in committed funding for its Nutrition Science Initiative to prove to the world you could lose more body fat on a ketogenic diet. A contracted noted NIH researcher, Kevin Halt, performed the study. 17 overweight men were effectively locked in what's called a metabolic ward for two months to allow researchers total control over their diets. For the first month, they were placed on a typical high carbohydrate diet, 50% carbohydrate, 35% fat, 15% protein. And then they were switched to a low carb ketogenic diet, only 5% calories from carbohydrate, 80% fat for the second month. Now both diets have the same number of daily calories. So if a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss, then there should be no difference in body fat loss on the regular diet versus the ketogenic diet.  What happened instead in the very study funded by the Nutrition Science Initiative was that body fat loss slowed upon switching to the ketogenic diet. Wait, why do people think the keto diet works if it's actually slowing fat loss? Well, if you just looked at the readings on their bathroom scales, the ketogenic diet would seem like a smashing success. They went from losing less than a pound a week on the regular diet in the two weeks before they switched to losing 3.5 pounds within seven days after the switch to the ketogenic diet. But what was happening inside their bodies told a totally different story. Their rate of body fat loss was slowed by more than half. So most of what they were losing was just water weight. The reason they started burning less fat on a ketogenic diet was presumed to be because without the preferred fuel carbohydrates, their body started burning more of its own protein. And that's exactly what happened. Switching to a ketogenic diet made them lose less fat mass and more fat-free mass. They lost more lean mass. That may help explain why the leg muscles of crossfit trainees placed on a ketogenic diet may shrink as much as 8%. The vastus lateralis, your biggest quads muscle in your leg, shrunk in thickness by 8% on a ketogenic diet. Yes, the study subject started burning more fat on the ketogenic diet, but they were also eating so much more fat on the keto diet that they ended up retaining more fat in their body despite the lower insulin levels. This is diametrically opposite to what the keto crowd predicted, and this from the guy they paid to support their theory. In science speak, the carbohydrate insulin model failed experimental interrogation. In light of this experimental falsification of the low carb theory, the nutrition science initiative effectively collapsed. But based on their tax returns, not before Tabs and his co-founder personally pocketed millions of dollars in compensation.