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 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

Friday, May 4, 2018

13456 - Aadhaar: Centre quotes SC order on seeding of mobile SIMs - The Hindu


NEW DELHI, MAY 03, 2018 21:58 IST

A-G insists that earlier move for seeding of mobile SIMs with Aadhaar was based on court directive

The Centre insisted on Thursday that its earlier move for mandatory seeding of mobile phone SIMs with Aadhaar was based on the Supreme Court’s initiative.

Recently, the Aadhaar Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, had questioned the government’s line that its efforts to mandatorily link SIMs with Aadhaar was based on a February 6, 2017 order of the Supreme Court.

In response, Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal read out the February 6 order of a Bench of then Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice N.V. Ramana. This order was based on a PIL petition filed by Lok Niti Foundation, highlighting the need for a “definite mobile phone subscriber verification scheme, to ensure 100% verification of the subscriber.” The petitioner had argued that such a scheme was necessary to prevent the use of unverified mobile phone SIMs in domestic crime and terror acts.
Mr. Venugopal said the February 6 order had the Bench “congratulating” Lok Niti Foundation for raising such a “commendable cause.” Mr. Venugopal said the court had realised the grave security risk posed by the casual distribution of SIMs to all and sundry without proper verification.
Demographic data

To buttress his point, Mr. Venugopal read out portions of the order which records the government’s response to Lok Niti Foundation. He said the order recorded that the government had launched the “Aadhaar based E-KYC for issuing mobile connections” on August 16, 2016 wherein the customer as well as Point of Sale (PoS) Agent would be authenticated from Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) based on their biometrics and their demographic data received from UIDAI.
Mr. Venugopal said the government had also conveyed to the court that the Aadhaar-based e-KYC process would nullify the chances of delivery of SIMs to wrong persons and ensure “traceability” of the customer to a large extent.

But Justice A.K. Sikri, on the Constitution Bench, responded by saying that the February 6 order only records the plea of Lok Niti Foundation and the government’s response to it. There was no positive order from the Supreme Court, directing the government to seed SIMs with Aadhaar.

On this, Mr. Venugopal drew the court’s attention to the concluding paragraphs of the two-page order.

Existing subscribers
Here, he pointed out that the court had described the Aadhaar e-KYC process as an “effective’ one for new mobile phone subscribers. It had also further expressed “hope and expectation” that a “similar verification” would be completed in the case of existing subscribers soon, possibly within a year.
At this point, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, on the Bench, asked why then did the government come out with a recent statement to telecom companies to not insist on Aadhaar from subscribers.
Mr. Venugopal said this was done in response to the recent statements from the Constitution Bench and the government has now decided to wait till the final judgment of the court on the validity of the Aadhaar scheme.

The Attorney-General concluded his rejoinder arguments by dismissing allegations of mass State surveillance and “conspiracy” using Aadhaar data. He said it was preposterous to allege that a democratically-elected government would “collude” with Aadhaar officers to mount surveillance on the doings of other political parties in order to “prevent them from going into a coalition.”

Mr. Venugopal said he strongly objected to terms like “concentration camp,” “totalitarian regime” and “electronic leash” used by senior advocate Shyam Divan and advocate Vipin Nair, in relation to the Aadhaar scheme.


“No single person can be put on electronic leash… leash is a word used for dogs. I strongly object,” Mr. Venugopal concluded for the Centre.