Why this Blog ? News articles in the Wide World of Web, quite often disappear with time, when they are relocated as archives with a different url. Archives in this blog serve as a library for those who are interested in doing Research on Aadhaar Related Topics. Articles are published with details of original publication date and the url.
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
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
278 - Letter to UIDAI Chairman from Mathew Thomas,Secretary, Citizens Action Forum, Bangalore
To: The Chairperson, UIDAI, New Delhi
Dear Sir,
This is in response to your call for public comments / suggestions on the draft NIA Act. The proposal to issue identification numbers to every individual residing in India is a scheme of humongous proportions. The Bill seeks to provide statutory sanction to the Authority that is to oversee the scheme and implement it. This needs extremely consideration. Time provided for such consideration and public discussion is woefully inadequate. I request extension of the time by a month. During this period, public discussions may be held to apprise people about the scheme.
Given below are my views.
It appears congruous that you are now proposing an Act of Parliament, when the "Authority" has been functioning for almost a year and expending public funds. Does this mean that the "Authority" has so far been functioning without a legal mandate?
I presume that an "Authority" is one, which exercises authority on behalf of government, which in turn is accountable to the people of this country through the Parliament. The need for UID numbers and hence an "Authority" for implementing such a scheme to issue numbers for all people residing in the country called, UIDAI, has not been discussed in Parliament. This is a typical case of "acting first and thinking later".
Attaching UIDAI as an office of the Planning Commission and functioning as such is circumventing Parliament.
It show scant regard for the institution of Parliament and democratic processes. I suggest that you withdraw the Bill and first discuss in Parliament the need for UID numbers linked to biometrics, justify the need and then come up with the Bill.
In such a discussion, financial prudence and respect for norms for expenditure of public monies, would call for a feasibility study of the UID project and a cost-benefit analysis. If such study and analysis has not been done, then I suggest that you carry out the same before bringing up the proposal for discussion in Parliament.
The objective of the Bill is the "To provide for the establishment of the National Identification Authority of India for the purpose of issuing identification numbers to individuals residing in India --- to facilitate access to benefits and services to such individuals ----". Implicit in this statement of objectives is an assumption that identification numbers (and biometric information of individuals) are necessary for facilitating access to benefits and services. This assumption needs to be established by a transparent and scientific process. This is especially true when the expenditure involved is immense. I suggest that you do not proceed with the Bill or the project until the assumption is found true.
Clause 3 of Chapter II of the proposed Bill says, Every resident shall be entitled to obtain Aadhaar number on his (this gender specific) demographic information and biometric information to the Authority ---". The wording of the Clause makes it appear the this is a voluntary act of individuals residing in India. If the objective of issuing identification numbers is to facilitate access to benefits and services, but obtaining the identification number is voluntary, does it mean that the people who do not desire to obtain the number would or could be denied the benefits and services? If such benefits and services could be denied merely because the individual chooses not to obtain the number, would this not be a violation of the individual’s constitutional rights and the claim that this is voluntary, a mere facade? I therefore suggest that a clause be incorporated in the Bill if, when and after Parliament approves the necessity of issuing identification numbers to individuals, and the need for the Bill arises.
In view of the above, I suggest that UIDAI cease all operations until, the necessity for identification numbers is accepted by Parliament, and feasibility study establishes the cost-benefits of the scheme.
Thanking you,
Yours truly,
Mathew Thomas