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.

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

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.


Saturday, February 13, 2016

9357 - Britain's Home Secretary is about to be grilled by a committee over her new spying laws - Business Insider



SAM SHEAD0JAN 13, 2016, 04.29 PM



Reuters
Britain's Home Secretary Theresa May.



Home Secretary Theresa May will put forward the case for introducing new UK spy laws this afternoon when she addresses a parliamentary committee in Westminster.

The Investigatory Powers Bill, dubbed the snooper's charter by critics, wasunveiled by the Tory government last November and is currently being reviewed by a joint committee made up of 14 MPs and peers.
May's appearance before the committee comes a week after Silicon Valley heavyweights including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple urged the UK government not to follow through with the bill as it stands. The companies want to protect their users' privacy and are therefore reluctant to sign up to a number of proposals in the 299-page bill, including bulk surveillance, weaker encryption, and measures that could force them to hack their own customers.
Former NSA technical director William Binney also criticised the bill last week, saying mass surveillance does not work as intelligence agencies become overwhelmed by too much information.
The committee will ask whether the Home Secretary is confident that the current definition of an "internet connection record" is sufficiently clear for the internet service providers, which will be tasked with retaining them for 12 months.
According to a page on the committee's website, May is also likely to be asked:
  • Does the value of communications data outweighs the privacy risks associated with the accessing of such data?
  • Why does the current definition of telecommunications providers and services potentially include Wi-Fi services operated by coffee shops and hotels, and do you think it should?
  • On what basis does the Home Office believe that the bulk powers will be seen as legal in the context of recent EU Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights decisions?
  • Should communications data definitions be specified further?
  • Why does the draft bill weaken the protection given to journalistic sources under PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence) Act and the Terrorism Act?
May's appearance this afternoon also comes after the Home Office rejected a Freedom of Information Act request from The Independent newspaper to see the Home Secretary's online history, including every email the home secretary sent, every Skype call she made and every website she visited during October and November.

Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, is quoted in The Guardian saying: "Theresa May wants access to our entire web browsing histories, what she calls 'internet connection records', but when the public asks to see hers the Home Office decides that the request is vexatious. I would argue that her policy is not only vexatious but Orwellian."