In 2009, I became extremely concerned with the concept of Unique Identity for various reasons. Connected with many like minded highly educated people who were all concerned.
On 18th May 2010, I started this Blog to capture anything and everything I came across on the topic. This blog with its million hits is a testament to my concerns about loss of privacy and fear of the ID being misused and possible Criminal activities it could lead to.
In 2017 the Supreme Court of India gave its verdict after one of the longest hearings on any issue. I did my bit and appealed to the Supreme Court Judges too through an On Line Petition.
In 2019 the Aadhaar Legislation has been revised and passed by the two houses of the Parliament of India making it Legal. I am no Legal Eagle so my Opinion carries no weight except with people opposed to the very concept.
In 2019, this Blog now just captures on a Daily Basis list of Articles Published on anything to do with Aadhaar as obtained from Daily Google Searches and nothing more. Cannot burn the midnight candle any longer.
"In Matters of Conscience, the Law of Majority has no place"- Mahatma Gandhi
Ram Krishnaswamy
Sydney, Australia.

Aadhaar

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 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

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

Monday, January 15, 2018

12751 - Aadhaar Law is inadequate to deal with privacy issues THE ASIAN AGE.

Published : Jan 14, 2018, 3:33 am IST


Aadhaar ecosystem is unsafe as there are no parameters for protecting cyber security and privacy of its users.


People have many doubts about the safety of their information and the adequacy of current laws in addressing the issues that may arise from any future breach of privacy or data theft from Aadhaar database or its vast network.

The unauthorised access to the Aadhaar database that was obtained by a journalist to prove how unsafe the system was, has only increased concerns about the safety of personal data of nearly 120 crore people — the largest database available with a single authority anywhere in the world. Contrary to assertions of the government, this incident proved that the database is available on demand.

Though the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the body responsible for Aadhaar, proposed the concept of Virtual Identity on January 10, whereby people would not have to share their actual Aadhaar number, the damage has already been done.

People have many doubts about the safety of their information and the adequacy of current laws in addressing the issues that may arise from any future breach of privacy or data theft from Aadhaar database or its vast network.

The legal framework for Aadhaar is the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Servi-ces) Act, 2016 and a January 10, 2018, circular that seeks to introduce virtual identity. The Aadhaar Act, however, does not envisage a virtual identity.

If we look at these legal frameworks, we find that the Aadhaar Act is not adequate to deal with the challenges thrown up, due to the increased breaches in the Aadhaar ecosystem. The offenc-es under the Aadhaar Act are defined under chapter VII.
Section 48 of the said Aadhaar Act makes the act of unauthorised accessing or extracting data from the Central Identities Data Repository, downloading, copying or extracting data therefrom, introducing or causing to be introduced any virus or computer contaminant, damaging or causing to be damaged the data in the Central Identities Data Repository or disrupting or causing to be disrupted the access to data in the Central Identities Data Repository as an offence punishable with three years imprisonment and Rs 10 lakh fine. The elements of hacking of Aadhaar database could be brought under Section 38 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016.

In addition, the provisions of Section 66 read with Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to computer related offences could also be invoked. The said provisions make the act of hacking an offence that is punishable with five years of imprisonment.

 As of now, the Aadhaar Act is almost two years old and outdated, given the increasing focus of the government on making Aadhaar mandatory for most services. The obvious result is that there are almost no convictions under this law.
Therefore, the Aadhaar ecosystem is completely unsafe as there are no parameters for protecting cyber security and privacy of Aadhaar holders. Rights, duties and obligations of service providers and stakeholders need to be defined clearly. On top of it, the new concept of Virtual Identity, which is introduced on an optional basis, makes the entire exercise not very effective in the long run.

 India cannot take inspiration from advanced countries as there are no specific model laws in other countries in this regard. Some countries have tried to experiment with national biometric identity systems but have chosen not to implement it, given the huge security and other legal challenges that were in store.
Despite all the shortcomings in Aadhaar, there is no denying the fact that it has become the central point of our day-to-day life. Hence, all efforts must be made now to make Aadhaar more secure and safe. The government needs to revise and amend the Aadhaar Act, 2016 to mirror existing ground realities. While the Supreme Court judgment on Aadhaar law violating privacy is awaited, the government must proactively work on protecting cyber security of the Aadhaar ecosystem as a whole.

(The author is an advocate of the Supreme Court of India and the chairman of the International Commission on Cyber Security Law)