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

Sunday, May 14, 2017

11332 - Criticism without aadhaar - Indian Express

The unique identification number empowers the people, not the state

Written by Ajay Bhushan Pandey | Published:May 13, 2017 1:42 am

Jean Dreze’s article, ‘Dissent and Aadhaar’ (IE, May 8), and other articles recently published in The Indian Express, have argued that with Aadhaar, India is at risk of becoming a surveillance or “Orwellian” state. With due respect to the critics, these apprehensions are unfounded. Aadhaar has emerged as a powerful instrument which enables people to establish their identity, receive their entitlements and exercise their rights without fear of being excluded or having their rights taken away. People use Aadhaar to open bank accounts, avail of doorstep banking, make digital payments and receive benefits under the PDS, MGNREGA, Ujjawala and the LPG subsidy, pensions, and scholarship schemes directly from the government without middlemen usurping them.

Aadhaar has thus brought transparency in governance and cleansed delivery databases of fakes, duplicates and con men/intermediaries, which have yielded savings of about Rs 50,000 crore in the last two years. In an independent study by the World Bank, ‘Digital Dividend 2016’, it has been estimated that Aadhaar can potentially save Rs 72,000 crore every year by plugging leakages. The transformational potential of Aadhaar has been recognised by the Supreme Court which has directed the use of Aadhaar to address the problems of leakages, fakes and duplicates.

No doubt, Aadhaar has also enhanced the government’s ability to directly connect, reach, and serve the people, which unfortunately is being projected as an increase in the state’s power and has led to Aadhaar being perceived as an instrument of state surveillance. The critics tend to forget that Aadhaar empowers the people, not the state. India’s effort to provide unique identification to its people and digitise its citizen databases, public or private, is mistaken as an exercise towards invasion of privacy. They must realise that non-digitisation of databases is not an option in the digital era. Often, the current debate reminds us of Europe’s Luddite movement in the 19th century when mechanisation was opposed due to fears of job loss.

It is pertinent to know how other developed democracies have used unique identification numbers to cleanse their system. The US introduced the Social Security Number (SSN) through an enactment in 1935 for the limited purpose of providing social security benefits during the Great Depression. However, in 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt expanded the scope through the historic Executive Order No. 9397 which mandated all federal agencies to use the SSN in their programmes.
In 1962, the SSN was adopted as the official Tax Identification Number (TIN) for income tax purposes (just as India’s Parliament recently introduced Section 139 AA in the Income Tax Act to mandatorily require Aadhaar for PAN and Income Tax returns). In 1976, the Social Security Act was further amended to say that any state may, in the administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver’s licence, or motor vehicle registration law, utilise the social security account numbers for the purpose of establishing the identification of individuals and may require any individual to furnish the SSN. Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act seeks to do the same in India.

The mandatory use of the SSN by the state did not go unchallenged in US courts which eventually held it to be constitutional. In Doyle vs Wilson, it was held that “mandatory disclosure of one’s social security number does not so threaten the sanctity of individual privacy as to require constitutional protection.” In the UK, too, almost every important service requires the National Insurance Number (NIN).

Critics will say that neither the SSN nor NIN is based on biometrics. But critics need to specify what they are objecting to — collection of biometrics or the system of a central number which can potentially link all the databases or both? Collection of biometrics for a legitimate purpose is an established practice sanctioned by law in India. If you want a driver’s licence, sell or buy properties, or want a passport, you are statutorily required to give your biometrics.

As regards objections to the state creating a central number in a central database, critics of Aadhaar need to ask themselves whether widespread mandatory usage of the SSN in the US or the NIN in the UK and the presence of these numbers in most citizen databases which potentially empowers the state to track every person from cradle to grave has made these countries surveillance states. They would say there are safeguards which prevent such things happening there.

So, now let us examine what the safeguards are in Aadhaar which will prevent it from being used as an “electronic leash” or an “instrument of state surveillance”. Aadhaar accords the highest importance to privacy. Since its inception, it has adopted the principle of privacy by design which is achieved through minimal data, federated databases and optimal ignorance which in turn ensures that no agency is able to track and profile any individual. The UIDAI during Aadhaar enrolment collects minimal data — that is, name, address, date of birth, gender and biometrics. When people use Aadhaar for accessing services, their information remains in silos of federated databases of those agencies. No one agency can have a 360 degree view of a person. Each agency remains optimally ignorant.

But critics have apprehensions that an agency, particularly the state, may not choose to remain optimally ignorant forever and start connecting the silos of databases through Aadhaar. It will serve them better if they read the Aadhaar Act 2016 and the Regulations. The Act covers the basic tenets of privacy protection measures relating to informed consent, collection limitation, use and purpose limitation and sharing restrictions. I am yet to see another law in India which accords such importance to privacy and data protection.

The restrictions on use and sharing imposed under the Act are equally applicable to the state or a private entity. Any violation is a criminal offence punishable with three years imprisonment. The UIDAI will welcome any constructive debate or suggestions to further strengthen the legal provisions, but to say that there is no privacy law and therefore Aadhaar cannot be allowed to go ahead is not correct.

Aadhaar is also criticised for failures and issues relating to implementation. Here, too, the UIDAI remains open to constructive suggestions and will continuously review and strengthen its system. 

Finally, Aadhaar is India‘s technological marvel which, while empowering people, will enable India to leapfrog towards the status of a developed nation.