AADHAAR RELATED ARTICLES: 267 - Is “Aadhaar”, a shaky foundation? by Mathew Thomas

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, July 12, 2010

267 - Is “Aadhaar”, a shaky foundation? by Mathew Thomas

Is “Aadhaar”, a shaky foundation?

By Mathew Thomas
“Aadhaar”, meaning foundation, is the “brand name” given to The Union Government's Unique Identity program, abbreviated as, UID. About a year back, The Government announced its launch. It is to cover all people of the country. The program envisages identifying each person residing in India uniquely with fingerprint and iris scan biometrics and allocating a unique number to each. A national database with this information is to be set up. The program, although touted out as one that would eliminate leakages of welfare monies spent in MGNREGS, PDS and subsidised LPG schemes, seems to have ulterior motives. Media reports suggest that the UID database would be linked to NATGRID, a national information grid for criminal investigative and anti-terrorism activities. The police, IB, RAW and such agencies are to be provided access to the database. A government authority, the Unique Identity Authority of India, UIDAI has been set up, with Nandan Nilekani as its chairperson, through a notification. UIDAI was allocated a budget of Rs. 120 Crores last year and Rs. 1950 Crores this year. Neither UIDAI nor The Government has stated that combating crime or fighting terrorism is an objective of the UID program. The silence of both these on this objective raises suspicions regarding their true intentions. While so, UIDAI has claimed savings from preventing leakages of welfare funds of Rs. 20,000 Crores per annum. Strangely, the project has been launched without any feasibility study or detailed project report.
Identical programs in the US for combating terrorism and in the UK for preventing illegal immigration, met with strong public resistance, and disapproval from political parties. These programs have since been given up. A London School of Economics [LSE] study of the UK program found the project not feasible and opined that such a database would itself become a target for terrorist attack. The UK initiative was for controlling illegal immigration. In the US, the objective was counter-terrorism. Resistance from public in both countries was caused by fears that the database could become a surveillance tool in the hands of government. LSE added that the database would not serve its intended purposes. LSE estimated it cost at over £ 10 Billion. Extrapolating this estimate to arrive at probable costs of the Indian UID program would lead to a figure of Rs. 1.5 Lakh Crores.
There has been no discussion in Parliament. Evidently, The Government appears keen on pushing this program through surreptitiously, as it anticipates public and political resistance, should its real purposes become known. There are dissenting voices within The Government from those who caution that this tool could very well be used against them, when out of power. Media has been carried away by the public image of the chairperson. Press and TV interviews have largely carried his version of UID. It started out as a national ID card. When this was found infeasible, UIDAI changed tack and announced that UID would be a mere number. He said that it would be voluntary, and added that it would be “demand-driven”. The idea is that banks, phone companies etc could use the database for identifying their customers by paying a fee to UIDAI. What was left unsaid was that these institutions could make it compulsory to have a UID number – a rather crude or deft ‘sleight of hand’, depending on the hearer’s ability to decipher the hidden message.
Public resistance is now building up. NGOs have started questioning The Government’s intentions. Articles and interviews have been published in a number of publications, voicing concern. Experts have questioned the technical feasibility. Several questions of legality and fundamental rights are involved. The Supreme Court has held that the right to privacy is inherent in the right to life enshrined in Art 21 of the Constitution. The propriety and financial prudence in embarking on a project with such a huge public expenditure, without so much as even a feasibility study, needs serious questioning. The one who heads the project is from the private sector, where not a paisa would be spent without justification. The cavalier fashion in which, both he and The Government are proceeding on UID, makes a mockery of government’s accountability. Is it that private sector expenditure needs shareholder approval, whereas public monies could be squandered? The very credibility of both UIDAI and The Government is in question and they would do well to answer the questions raised here. Both of them need to ponder on the need and advisability of attempting this rather foolhardy venture in a country of this size, with its hugely illiterate and poverty-stricken people. ‘Aadhaar’ is certainly a shaky foundation