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, February 12, 2018

12933 - Aadhaar Who owns the biometric data? The UIDAI? The companies? Or the Citizens? - Newsclick


Newsclick Report 09 Feb 2018

                    Image Courtesy: Outlook India

On February 7 the hearings on Aadhaar continued in the Supreme Court with Kapil Sibal representing Raghav Tankha leading the arguments. The arguments advanced fell under three broad headings; evaluation of centralized biometrics from a technical standpoint, Aadhaar and e-governance, and centralized biometrics evaluated against particular fundamental rights. Half of the points raised were argued on the next day, February 8 .

Under the heading of ‘evaluation of centralized biometrics from a technical standpoint’, Sibal relied on an RBI report which identified the Central ID Repository (CIDR) as a ‘readily available single target for cybercriminals as well as India’s external enemies.’ The software used for the ‘de-duplication service’ as well as the ‘authentication service’ are software that are owned by foreign companies. As a part of the licensing agreement, the foreign companies would also have access to the biometrics of those enrolled in Aadhaar. It is not clear whether the information has been deleted or not. The next issue he highlighted under this heading was that once data was breached through a ‘hack’ or even though other means such as ‘fingerprint duplication’ by using wax and Fevicol, there is no full proof way to rectify the breach.

Another issue raised was of the vulnerability to ‘man-in-the-middle’ attacks. A man in the middle attack in the case of Aadhaar would mean that the ‘attacker’ would insert a code at the time of authentication to either reject or accept the biometrics entered in order to steal them. A common man-in-the-middle attack is a false Facebook page in which you enter your login details which then get stolen. What makes stealing biometric details different from a hacked Facebook account is that one can always contact Facebook and have the account suspended or re-establish one’s control over the account. In the case of Aadhaar, once the data has been stolen, it is permanent. The arguments also touched upon the issue of the ‘facial recognition’ technology, which would not only violate the privacy of citizens but also compromise the identities of intelligence agencies and military personnel who would then be identifiable to any person who has such details, thus compromising their duties. The last argument under this heading was about the ownership of the information. The question raised was whether the UIDAI, the requesting agency (even a private company can be a requesting agency), or citizens owned the biometric information.

Under the heading of Aadhaar and e-governance, Sibal relied on the EPW report where in the UIDAI admitted that the margin of error increases with the size of the database. Therefore, the more number of people brought under a centralized database, the higher the chance for authentication to be rejected. 

However, the adjudication of such instances of ‘rejection’ would be handled by the UIDAI rather than an independent authority, violating the principles of natural justice which is a mainstay in administrative law. 

On the issue of forgeries, the UIDAI’s claim that forgeries would fall under the same laws as ‘forged signatures’. However, in the case of a forged signature, the person whose signature is alleged to have been forged will be present along with ‘experts’ who will determine the veracity of the signature. 

Sibal also argued that a centralised database would undermine federalism as the State Government would always have to rely on the Union Government to determine the identity of a citizen.

Under the heading of centralized biometrics evaluated against particular fundamental rights, two points were raised. One was on the right to privacy, and the other was on the right to dignity. On the right to privacy, the issue was that biometrics takes away consent. Unlike a password which a person may decide whether to divulge it or not, biometrics does not have that option. An unconscious person is as capable of authenticating their information as a conscious person. While this may not be an issue in a rescue scenario, it also means that a person can be drugged or killed, and their biometrics used to carry out transactions through a bank account linked to their Aadhaar. 

Regarding the right to dignity, the argument raised was that the elderly and other vulnerable groups are often subjected to unwanted physical contact during the process of authentication, such as holding their hands to obtain fingerprints. 

Authentication can also be carried out with smart cards.