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 19, 2010

290 - Protecting Aadhaar against opposition

Protecting Aadhaar against opposition
Posted: Sun, Jul 18 2010.  


The resistance is not surprising; any good idea that seeks to change status quo in the delivery of government services and subsidies is bound to be challenged by the entrenched order
Capital Calculus | Anil Padmanabhan 



Last week, the finance ministry denied reports, citing unnamed government officials, on the front pages of two national dailies claiming that the government had decided to prune the budgets for India’s marquee initiative to provide every resident with a unique identity (UID) number.

While the formal denial put the lid on a potential controversy, it is unlikely to have dampened resistance to the project from within sections of the government as the programme, Aadhaar, begins to gain critical mass. Some sections of the government have for long been bristling against the project, but have been unable to come up with a credible counter argument.

Also Read Anil Padmanabhan’s earlier columns

The resistance is not surprising; any good idea that seeks to change status quo in the delivery of government services and subsidies is bound to be challenged by the entrenched order. So far, the supporters of Aadhaar in the government have been ahead of the opposition. But from two recent challenges faced by the project, it is clear that the resistance cannot be taken lightly and is likely to recur as the project comes closer to fructification.

Aadhaar is barely a year old. Its mission is to develop and implement the requisite infrastructure that will enable allotment of unique identity numbers to Indian residents that can be verified online. The roll-out is expected to begin sometime after August.

The first serious challenge came from a group of non-profit organizations that warned that they would make out a legal case to spike the initiative they perceived as a threat to individual privacy. The basis of this was rendered redundant after the government signalled its intent to enact, for the first time, a law to safeguard individual privacy. It will include specific rules that will fix the criminal liability of offenders.

The government then followed up by including similar penal provisions in the draft National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010, that it proposes to introduce in the monsoon session of Parliament due to begin on 26 July. To protect against misuse of an individual’s data, including fingerprints and eye scans, the legislation lays down that misuse can lead to a three-year jail term and a fine of Rs10,000; further unauthorized collection or dissemination of an information pertaining to an individual will invite a similar jail term or a fine of Rs1 lakh, or both.

The latest challenge, however, may have resulted in some indirect damage to Aadhaar. The inspired leaks from some government officials sought to convey that the plug was being pulled on Aadhaar. For one, they have definitely flagged attention to the underlying costs of the programme. In the process they have raised the stakes for Aadhaar; unsuccessful implementation is not an option any longer. This is unfair, yet a clever strategy on the part of those opposed to the initiative.

It is something that has never been attempted before; and, the sheer scale of the operation in providing a UID based on biometrics to over one billion residents is staggering by any standards. Already the odds are against it, raising expectations only increases the stakes involved.

At the same time, worryingly so, an idea has gained ground that Aadhaar would be like the proverbial magic wand that would in one stroke resolve everything that is wrong with the public delivery system. Theoretically yes, but in practice there are imponderables. The risk to Aadhaar is that given the build-up of expectations, this failure, too, would accrue to it.

This is because it depends on what the growing list of stakeholders—ranging from state governments and the Reserve Bank of India to arms of the Central government that are paying out subsidies and funding the rural employment guarantee scheme—in Aadhaar seek to do with the information. All that Aadhaar does is to provide a unique identity number to every resident and it is for the concerned agency to use that information. For example, it is for the home ministry to verify whether a foreign national holding a unique number is a legal resident of the country. If it chooses not to do so, then it is the home ministry’s failure and not that of Aadhaar.

The proposal has gone through several hoops before being articulated as a formal initiative under the leadership of Infosys Technologies Ltd co-founder Nandan Nilekani three years after it was first initiated. The concept was first discussed as a “Unique ID for BPL (below poverty line) families” on 3 March, 2006, and was entrusted to the information technology ministry to execute in a year. However, on 3 July 2006, a processes committee was set up under the chairmanship of Arvind Virmani, then principal adviser in the Planning Commission and at present executive director for India at the International Monetary Fund. Thereafter, it went back and forth between various committees and got its stamp of approval from an empowered group of ministers in 2008, setting the stage for the notification to be issued for the formal creation of the Unique Identification Authority of India on 22 January, 2009; Nilekani took charge after the United Progressive Alliance retained power in the 15th general election in April-May 2009.

At this stage, despite the challenges, the odds look just about stacked in its favour, suggesting that Aadhaar is an idea whose time has come.