In 2009, I became extremely concerned with the concept of Unique Identity for various reasons. Connected with many like minded highly educated people who were all concerned.
On 18th May 2010, I started this Blog to capture anything and everything I came across on the topic. This blog with its million hits is a testament to my concerns about loss of privacy and fear of the ID being misused and possible Criminal activities it could lead to.
In 2017 the Supreme Court of India gave its verdict after one of the longest hearings on any issue. I did my bit and appealed to the Supreme Court Judges too through an On Line Petition.
In 2019 the Aadhaar Legislation has been revised and passed by the two houses of the Parliament of India making it Legal. I am no Legal Eagle so my Opinion carries no weight except with people opposed to the very concept.
In 2019, this Blog now just captures on a Daily Basis list of Articles Published on anything to do with Aadhaar as obtained from Daily Google Searches and nothing more. Cannot burn the midnight candle any longer.
"In Matters of Conscience, the Law of Majority has no place"- Mahatma Gandhi
Ram Krishnaswamy
Sydney, Australia.

Aadhaar

The UIDAI has taken two successive governments in India and the entire world for a ride. It identifies nothing. It is not unique. The entire UID data has never been verified and audited. The UID cannot be used for governance, financial databases or anything. It’s use is the biggest threat to national security since independence. – Anupam Saraph 2018

When I opposed Aadhaar in 2010 , I was called a BJP stooge. In 2016 I am still opposing Aadhaar for the same reasons and I am told I am a Congress die hard. No one wants to see why I oppose Aadhaar as it is too difficult. Plus Aadhaar is FREE so why not get one ? Ram Krishnaswamy

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.-Mahatma Gandhi

In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.Mahatma Gandhi

“The invasion of privacy is of no consequence because privacy is not a fundamental right and has no meaning under Article 21. The right to privacy is not a guaranteed under the constitution, because privacy is not a fundamental right.” Article 21 of the Indian constitution refers to the right to life and liberty -Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi

“There is merit in the complaints. You are unwittingly allowing snooping, harassment and commercial exploitation. The information about an individual obtained by the UIDAI while issuing an Aadhaar card shall not be used for any other purpose, save as above, except as may be directed by a court for the purpose of criminal investigation.”-A three judge bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar said in an interim order.

Legal scholar Usha Ramanathan describes UID as an inverse of sunshine laws like the Right to Information. While the RTI makes the state transparent to the citizen, the UID does the inverse: it makes the citizen transparent to the state, she says.

Good idea gone bad
I have written earlier that UID/Aadhaar was a poorly designed, unreliable and expensive solution to the really good idea of providing national identification for over a billion Indians. My petition contends that UID in its current form violates the right to privacy of a citizen, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This is because sensitive biometric and demographic information of citizens are with enrolment agencies, registrars and sub-registrars who have no legal liability for any misuse of this data. This petition has opened up the larger discussion on privacy rights for Indians. The current Article 21 interpretation by the Supreme Court was done decades ago, before the advent of internet and today’s technology and all the new privacy challenges that have arisen as a consequence.

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP Rajya Sabha

“What is Aadhaar? There is enormous confusion. That Aadhaar will identify people who are entitled for subsidy. No. Aadhaar doesn’t determine who is eligible and who isn’t,” Jairam Ramesh

But Aadhaar has been mythologised during the previous government by its creators into some technology super force that will transform governance in a miraculous manner. I even read an article recently that compared Aadhaar to some revolution and quoted a 1930s historian, Will Durant.Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Rajya Sabha MP

“I know you will say that it is not mandatory. But, it is compulsorily mandatorily voluntary,” Jairam Ramesh, Rajya Saba April 2017.

August 24, 2017: The nine-judge Constitution Bench rules that right to privacy is “intrinsic to life and liberty”and is inherently protected under the various fundamental freedoms enshrined under Part III of the Indian Constitution

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the World; indeed it's the only thing that ever has"

“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” -Edward Snowden

In the Supreme Court, Meenakshi Arora, one of the senior counsel in the case, compared it to living under a general, perpetual, nation-wide criminal warrant.

Had never thought of it that way, but living in the Aadhaar universe is like living in a prison. All of us are treated like criminals with barely any rights or recourse and gatekeepers have absolute power on you and your life.

Announcing the launch of the # BreakAadhaarChainscampaign, culminating with events in multiple cities on 12th Jan. This is the last opportunity to make your voice heard before the Supreme Court hearings start on 17th Jan 2018. In collaboration with @no2uidand@rozi_roti.

UIDAI's security seems to be founded on four time tested pillars of security idiocy

1) Denial

2) Issue fiats and point finger

3) Shoot messenger

4) Bury head in sand.

God Save India

Thursday, July 30, 2015

8393 - #dnaEdit: Negative profiling - dna


Wednesday, 29 July 2015 - 6:50am IST | Agency: dna | From the print edition

In its present form, the government’s plans to institutionalise DNA profiling invest authorities with far too many powers and too few institutional checks

The Human DNA Profiling Bill, as recommended by an official panel, and reportedly slated for introduction in the ongoing session of Parliament, requires wide debate and threadbare analysis, before it is enacted. In a country with lax regard for privacy concerns and a poor track record of policing and forensic agencies, it is necessary to arm this legislation with ironclad privacy and regulatory safeguards before it is deployed in collecting DNA samples and creating DNA profiles. 

The legislation envisages a DNA Profiling Board to oversee national and state DNA data banks, and to prescribe standards for authorities and laboratories in collection, storage, and analysis of body samples and DNA profiles. 

The Bill moots the use of DNA profiles in criminal cases, civil disputes, tracing missing children, and identifying unclaimed bodies. It will make DNA evidence admissible in court, and lead to the creation of databases storing information on crime scenes, convicts, suspects, missing persons, unknown deceased persons, and volunteers. Admittedly, DNA profiling has led to solving of crimes, overturning flawed convictions, and resolution of a variety of civil disputes. But it also comes with concerns that cannot be overlooked.

DNA profiling will involve large databases storing sensitive information that many agencies and entities would wish to gain access to. 

In this context, the absence of constitutional safeguards against privacy violations must be addressed first. 

Only last week, the Centre told the Supreme Court that right to privacy is not a fundamental right despite this being an internationally accepted tenet. The insulation of data banks and laboratories storing DNA profiles and samples from investigating agencies is non-negotiable. 

We already have the example of the Aarushi Talwar case where India’s premier institution, the Hyderabad-based Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, admitted in 2013 to “typographical errors” in its 2008 DNA profiling report. 

The Talwars claim there were no errors and that the CDFD belatedly made the corrections to bolster the CBI case against them. Though the Bill provides penalties for abusing the DNA database, the minimum punishments are in the order of a few months and not an adequate deterrent. Moreover, the Bill does not address the storage of body samples used to extract DNA, which offers tremendous scope for abuse.

Recently, the Unique Identification Authority of India moved court against a CBI application seeking access to its biometric data on people enrolled in Goa to probe a criminal case. The CBI’s request violates the rights of citizens who voluntarily enrolled for Aadhaar but never authorised unrestricted access to their personal information. The draft Bill invests the DNA Profiling Board with an array of discretionary powers, which the government defends, noting that the technology will evolve over time and it is impractical to approach Parliament with amendments. 

Allowing the DNA Profiling Board to manage the data and then function as a regulator engenders conflict of interest. 

The Bill also allows the collection of intimate body samples “from the genital or anal area, the buttocks and also breasts in the case of a female” from victims, convicts and suspects. Besides being intrusive, such sample collection violates the principle of self-incrimination. Presently, suspects cannot be compelled to participate in test identification parade, polygraph or narco analysis tests without their consent. 

The legislation also proposes DNA profiling for “issues relating to pedigree”. Whether this is an attempt to ascertain caste information must be suspected. Further, one wonders what connection pedigree can have with civil or criminal disputes. 

DNA profiling will certainly boost crime-fighting capabilities, but the hurry to introduce a flawed Bill — without publishing on the government’s excellent MyGov.in citizens’ ideation portal — beats reasoning.