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

Thursday, April 7, 2016

9763 - Labour demands more privacy safeguards in new surveillance laws - The Guardian

Andy Burnham says party will withdraw its support for investigatory powers bill if its privacy concerns are not resolved

Andy Burnham has written to Theresa May setting out Labour’s seven areas of concern over the bill. Photograph: Lynda Bowyer/Demotix/Corbis

Rowena Mason Political correspondent
Monday 4 April 2016 17.44 AEST

Labour has written to Theresa May, the home secretary, setting out seven areas of concern about the government’s new laws handing more surveillance powers to the police, security services and other public bodies.

Andy Burnham, the shadow home secretary, said if the party’s objections to the new investigatory powers bill were not resolved, Labour would withdraw its support.

Labour’s letter comes after the legislation passed its first stage in the House of Commons last month; Labour and the SNP abstained in the vote, while the Liberal Democrats voted against.

As more detailed parliamentary scrutiny of the bill gets under way, Burnham warned May: “I hope you will accept that the seven points I have outlined are legitimate concerns and that you will work with us to address them properly.

Apple and Google among firms calling for changes to snooper's charter

“If I determine that our concerns are not satisfactorily dealt with during the passage of the bill, then we will be unable to support a timetable that puts the bill on the statute book by December this year.

“I hope that is not necessary and that we can together produce a bill that commands a high degree of confidence and trust.”
The bill would give authorities access to internet connection records showing the website domains that people have visited. It will also tighten controls on interception of content, with judges required to give approval to warrants signed by ministers.

Top of Labour’s list of demands is a request for an amendment stating there should be a presumption in favour of privacy.

Burnham also wants a higher threshold for authorities to be able to access the records, arguing it should only happen when serious crimes are suspected and that a smaller range of public bodies should be allowed to make use of the powers.

The shadow home secretary said there should be additional protections for sensitive professions such as lawyers, MPs and journalists communicating with clients, constituents or sources.

In a debate for the second reading of the bill last month, some Tories echoed Labour worries.

'Snooper's charter': Theresa May faces calls to improve bill to protect privacy

Ken Clarke, the Conservative former home secretary, and Dominic Grieve, the Tory former attorney general, suggested there could be improvements to the new laws that overhaul the state’s surveillance powers.

The government argues the bill is necessary to address a gap in the surveillance capabilities of law enforcement agencies because of technological advances.

Previous attempts to close the gap with the communications data bill were dubbed the snooper’s charter in the last parliament and blocked by the Lib Dems.

Ministers could bow to some of Labour’s demands due to a desire to get the legislation through parliament before emergency surveillance laws expire at the end of this year.