uid

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


Special

Here is what the Parliament Standing Committee on Finance, which examined the draft N I A Bill said.

1. There is no feasibility study of the project]

2. The project was approved in haste

3. The system has far-reaching consequences for national security

4. The project is directionless with no clarity of purpose

5. It is built on unreliable and untested technology

6. The exercise becomes futile in case the project does not continue beyond the present number of 200 million enrolments

7. There is lack of coordination and difference of views between various departments and ministries of government on the project

Quotes

What was said before the elections:

NPR & UID aiding Aliens – Narendra Modi

"I don't agree to Nandan Nilekeni and his madcap (UID) scheme which he is trying to promote," Senior BJP Leader Yashwant Sinha, Sept 2012

"All we have to show for the hundreds of thousands of crore spent on Aadhar is a Congress ticket for Nilekani" Yashwant Sinha.(27/02/2014)

TV Mohandas Pai, former chief financial officer and head of human resources, tweeted: "selling his soul for power; made his money in the company wedded to meritocracy." Money Life Article

Nilekani’s reporting structure is unprecedented in history; he reports directly to the Prime Minister, thus bypassing all checks and balances in government - Home Minister Chidambaram

To refer to Aadhaar as an anti corruption tool despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is mystifying. That it is now officially a Rs.50,000 Crores solution searching for an explanation is also without any doubt. -- Statement by Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP & Member, Standing Committee on Finance

Finance minister P Chidambaram’s statement, in an exit interview to this newspaper, that Aadhaar needs to be re-thought completely is probably the last nail in its coffin. :-) Financial Express

The Rural Development Ministry headed by Jairam Ramesh created a road Block and refused to make Aadhaar mandatory for making wage payment to people enrolled under the world’s largest social security scheme NRGA unless all residents are covered.


Search This Blog

Thursday, October 1, 2015

8783 - Why the Draft National Encryption Policy is likely to return - News Laundry


Posted by Saikat Datta | Sep 29, 2015 in Criticles, Featured | 0 

Just three over-worked officials occasionally meet in the corridors of power in Delhi to ensure that the Indian Republic does not turn into a police state. These officials – the Cabinet Secretary, the Union Law Secretary and the Union Telecom Secretary – are tasked with the onerous mission to ensure that the power to intercept private communications is not misused. 

Currently, there are 10 law enforcement agencies that are authorised to intercept private communication in India.

The burden that these officials carry would have increased exponentially if the Draft National Encryption Policy, issued by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), had come through. Designed by junior officials of the DoT, the policy is meant to protect the privacy of communications between common citizens. Instead, it emerged as a deliberate road map to strengthen the government’s right to snoop proactively on private communications under the garb of “national security”.

Fortunately, the order came and vanished in less than 48 hours following a widespread online protest, forcing the government to beat a hasty retreat.

A government that’s all ears

The Centre may have withdrawn the proposed rules for now. But if senior government officials are to be believed, this is a tactical retreat.

The rules will return under the guise of opaque frameworks that will be slipped in licensing conditions that allow companies to set up communication networks. “Rest assured, the government will not give up its right to intercept all forms of communication. If this is not included in the proposed encryption policy, then it will be included in a new set of rules and regulations that govern over-the-top [OTT] applications,” a senior government official overlooking cyber security issues in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) told me on the condition of strict anonymity.

A few months ago, when a furious debate erupted on Net Neutrality, major telecom companies fought back by raising the bogey of security threats posed by OTT services like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger. Telecom companies claimed that OTTs were eating into their revenues and giving consumers a means to use Internet services for free, at their cost. What they conveniently avoided mentioning was the fact that, according to telecom companies’ declared revenue earnings, their earnings had actually gone up owing to greater use of data services.

With their backs to the wall, telecom companies, then, raised the issue of “regulating OTTs” so that “national security” was not compromised. According to them, since OTTs were based abroad and used high levels of encryption, this would prevent Indian security agencies from listening to conversations taking place between terrorists planning major strikes against India. While most experts rejected the argument as alarmist, officials in the DoT took the bait.

“Telecom companies had a point,” a senior DoT official familiar with security-related issues told me last week. “If OTTs can’t be intercepted, how will our security agencies listen into terrorists using them,” he said.

This article is made possible because of Newslaundry's subscribers.CLICK HERE AND PAY TO KEEP NEWS FREE

In the name of national security

While surveillance is a necessity for counter-terrorism, there is no data to establish how effective it really is. A fact that is cleverly kept vague so that the government of the day can retain its right to tap into the private communications of its citizens at will.

A year ago, in response to a Right to Information (RTI) application, which I had filed earlier, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs admitted to an astounding number of phone calls being tapped every year. It admitted that, on average, the Union Home Secretary would sign on 7,000 to 9,000 orders every month allowing some agency or the other to tap phone calls.

This meant that the Union Home Secretary had to sign nearly 300 such orders every day, amid the hundred other official duties he has to discharge. Clearly, the process is a mechanical ritual with little or no scope for applying any judicious thought.

Worryingly, the only safeguard against the Union Home Secretary’s authorisation orders is a three-person committee that was set up in 1987. This committee, headed by the Union Cabinet Secretary along with the Union Telecom and Law Secretaries, is supposed to review the orders signed by the Union Home Secretary authorising phone and email interceptions.

But faced with such massive numbers, this committee routinely clears all such orders, and refuses to reveal any data about the anomalies they may have spotted in their review meetings. I filed several RTI applications seeking this data, but I was repeatedly told that revealing the data on any possible misuse would be “prejudicial to the national interest”. I fail to see how revealing meta-data on instances of misuse of interception powers could be “prejudicial to the national interests” of India.

Under the existing laws, Indian citizens are already vulnerable to the state’s intrusion. Here’s a sample of the powers and mechanisms that already exist. The United Progressive Alliance government introduced the Central Monitoring System (CMS) that makes surveillance even more opaque than what it was earlier. They also created NATGRID, a body that would connect 22 databases of information that can be used by security agencies to track citizens. The Aadhar programme, a passive surveillance programme, which was never cleared by Parliament, ended up collecting biometric data of citizens.

Conversely, India does not have a privacy law that could offer some protection to Indian citizens against the passive and active forms of surveillance to which they are currently subjected. A few years ago a Privacy Bill was circulated by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) but it never surfaced again.

In May last year, it was reported that intelligence agencies, which have the powers to legally intercept communications, had sought a blanket exemption under any future privacy law.

More recently, on Sunday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave public assurances in Silicon Valley that his government would give the “highest importance to data privacy and cyber security”. Judging from his government’s actions, he seems to be addressing “data privacy” and not privacy per se. This means there are no assurances on the privacy of citizens against surveillance, but data security and privacy of corporations investing in India would be guaranteed.

The proverbial Big Brother flexing its muscle

Under this existing opaque and intrusive regime comes the now withdrawn the Draft National Encryption Policy that would have added to the vast intrusive powers that the government already holds. It proposed that “…users in India are allowed to use only the products registered in India”. Which meant that OTTs like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger would have to be registered in India if they are to be used by Indians.

Ironically, while the NDA government came to power on the promise of “maximum governance and minimum government”, this policy would have ensured maximum government in even private and personal WhatsApp messages between citizens.

It also threatened that the “…government reserves the right to take appropriate action as per Law of the country for any violation of this Policy”.

Understandably, common citizens are outraged. Law researcher and a veteran privacy activist, Usha Ramanathan, was horrified at what the government had almost enacted. “What is this? An attempt to be a know-all state? It would be a mistake to not see this desire to control the thoughts and conversations of people as a privacy issue. And, maybe those who think privacy is irrelevant as a value today will also baulk at a state that is saying ‘I want to know everything about you and if you don’t let me know all, it must mean you have something diabolic to hide’.”

A few months ago the NDA government submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court rejecting privacy as a fundamental right for citizens in India. Clearly, this was more than coincidence.

To be fair, security agencies do have a difficult task at hand. Two years ago, when the Intelligence Bureau (IB) launched an operation in neighbouring Nepal to nail Yasin Bhatkal, one of India’s most wanted terrorists, it was left groping in the dark. Bhatkal was a clever fugitive, and as his subsequent interrogation revealed, he was adept at using different forms of encrypted chat platforms to communicate key messages with his compatriots.

For the IB, the only means to get this information was by using the Mutually Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) to get the information from servers in the United States of America. “Everyone accepts that the MLAT process is irreparably broken. The information we seek is rarely shared and even if the Americans do share something, it is too late before it arrives,” a senior intelligence official told me last week.

While this argument has merit, it fails to address the dangers that unfettered surveillance powers can pose to a democratic polity. Information is power and a rogue government could easily use legitimate laws, such as those proposed by the Draft National Encryption Policy to snoop on citizens. Every totalitarian state has always used the bogey of national security and national interest to accumulate such intrusive surveillance powers. The results have always been disastrous.

In India, had this policy gone through, it would have taken a step closer to becoming a police state where citizens spy on citizens.


The author can be contacted on Twitter @saikatd