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 scholarUsha Ramanathandescribes 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

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

9607 - Aadhaar Bill: Here is how Arun Jaitely justified Lok Sabha's refusal to adopt proposed amendments -dna

Fri, 18 Mar 2016-09:50pm , ANI
The core bio-metric information cannot be shared with any person even with the consent of the Aadhaar card holder, said Jaitley.

Justifying the Lok Sabha's turning down the five amendments to the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial, Other Subsidies, Benefits & Services) Bill 2016 suggested by the Congress in the Rajya Sabha, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on Friday said had the amendments proposed in the Rajya Sabha had been accepted, the encroachment to the Right of Privacy would be much wider.

"The Oversight Committee, on issues of national security, would have consisted of either an auditor or an anti-corruption authority, and the Money Bill would have gone beyond the scope of the Money Bill. These lacunae would have pushed the Aadhaar law to the realm of unconstitutionality. Obviously, the Lok Sabha did not agree with the suggestions, and in my view, rightly so," said the minister.

Explaining the potential ramifications had those five amendments been accepted by the Lower House, Jaitley wrote on his Facebook post, "The 2010 Bill drafted by the UPA had [certain] provisions in chapter VI, which led to debate. The Bill provided for sharing of identity information with the consent of the Aadhaar number holder, or by an order of any court, or a Competent Authority, disclosing the information on the grounds of 'National Security'."

The draft Bill was criticised for making provisions, which could compromise an individual's Right to Privacy, he said, adding: "I have always strongly believed that, notwithstanding the jurisprudential debate on the Right to Privacy, it would be essential to recognize that, Privacy, is an essential aspect of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution."

Arun Jaitley
Why the Lok Sabha did not adopt amendments to the Aadhaar Bill proposed in the Rajya Sabha
The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial, Other Subsidies, Benefits & Services) Bill 2016 came up for consideration before the Rajya Sabha on 16th March 2016. Consistent with the spirit of democratic debate, the Congress in the Rajya Sabha suggested five amendments to the Bill, which were not accepted by the Lok Sabha. This blog explains why? (The Bill has now got Parliamentary appr...

Maintaining that the denial of privacy must, thus, be based on procedure that should be fair, just and reasonable, the minister said, "The 2016 law, therefore, contained stringent provisions both substantially and procedurally with regard to the Right of Privacy."

"The core bio-metric information cannot be shared with any person even with the consent of the Aadhaar card holder. The information cannot be unlawfully shared. Instead of permitting any Court to direct production of any such information, only a Court of the District Judge or above has been given the power to order disclosure of information excluding core biometrics," he said.
Stating that 'National Security' is the only ground on which a competent authority can share this information, he said, every decision of the competent authority has to be reviewed by a committee comprising the Cabinet Secretary, the Law Secretary and the Secretary, Information Technology, before it is given effect, while the period of the direction of this competent authority has been limited to a maximum of three months.
"National Security is a well defined concept. The phrase exists in several legislations and also finds indirect reference in the Constitution in Article 19(2). National security has always been held to be an exception on account of larger public interest, wherein individual's rights give way to larger public interest," said the minister.
This principle is followed in most advanced liberal democracies; for example, in the United Kingdom, Section 28 of Personal Data Protection Act, 1998 provides that personal data are exempt from the data protection principles on grounds of safeguarding National Security, he said. "The Congress, using its superior numbers in the Rajya Sabha, forced an amendment to replace the words 'National Security' with the words 'Public Emergency or in the interest of public safety'. None of these two phrases are well defined. They are vague and can be elastic. It is also not clear as to how Aadhaar information would have been used in dealing with situations of public emergency or public safety. Certainly, they would have provided a scope much wider for encroaching upon privacy than the words 'National Security', which existed in both the 2010 and 2016 law, and would have potentially become the grounds for constitutional challenge at a later date," he maintained.
"The proposed another amendment that the Oversight Committee to review the competent authority's decision should also comprise either the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) or the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). One is an anti-corruption authority and the other audits the government's accounts. Both have no nexus whatsoever with the issues of 'National Security'," said Jaitley.
They, further, proposed to delete Section 57 of the 2016 law, which merely says that if under any other law the use of Aadhaar number for establishing the identity of an individual is permitted, the same law is not being over-ruled, while the proposed amendment wanted all future laws to be over-ruled, said the minister, adding that had a Money Bill started over-ruling future unknown legislations, it would have ceased to be a Money Bill.