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, November 29, 2010

891 - Would Ratan Tata Challenge Aadhar And UIDAI Also?

Posted on 29th Nov 2010 by Pritesh Munjal


Privacy violations in India is rampant in the absence of any legal framework and unconstitutional projects. For instance, Aadhar project of India or UID Project has been in controversies since the time it has been launched. This happened due to the faulty planning, shoddy management, absence of any legal framework and the suspicious manner in which the project has been imposed upon Indian citizens.

Aadhar project is managed by Nandan Nilekani as the head of unique identification authority of India (UIDAI). The main purpose of Aadhar project is to facilitate the e-surveillance exercise of India. It has nothing to do with improvement and reforms of public distribution (PDS) system of India. Even the National Food Security Bill 2010 has no mention of the Aadhar project or similar project as a tool to reform PDS and effectuate right to food in India.

Meanwhile in an important development, that has far reaching consequences, Ratan Tata has shown his displeasure over phone tapping and surveillance exercises of Indian authorities. He is going to file a writ petition under article 32 of Constitution of India at the Supreme Court of India for violation of his right to privacy.

This is a “Golden Opportunity for the Supreme Court of India to “Reaffirm” what it has specified in the PUCL Case regarding Right to Privacy and Prohibition against Illegal Phone Tapping, says Praveen Dalal a Supreme Court Lawyers and leading Techno Legal Expert of India.

According to Praveen Dalal, the Indian Government conferred upon itself Vast, Unregulated and Unconstitutional E-Surveillance Powers and Internet Censorship Powers through the Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 (IT Act 2008). The way E-Surveillance and Internet Censorship Powers have been given to Indian Government and Its Instrumentalities and Agencies under the IT Act 2008 is simply “Unconstitutional” and is going to “Violate” the Civil Liberties of Indians in the future, informs Dalal.

Now is the right occasion for the Supreme Court of India to test the “constitutionality” of Aadhar project/UIDAI, national intelligence grid (Natgrid), crime and criminal tracking network and systems (CCTNS), etc.

Similarly, it would be a good idea if the scope of writ petition by Tata is widened from privacy violation to e-surveillance and internet censorship issues as well. Similarly, the “constitutionality” of the IT Act 2008 and Indian Telegraph Act must also be challenged by the lawyers of Tata.

Supreme Court of India has always protected the Civil Liberties of Indians and if this case is filed by Mr. Ratan Tata we can witness a “Historical Moment” in the realm of Civil Liberties Protection in Indian Cyberspace, opines Praveen Dalal. Let us hope for the best and wish all the best to Tata for his case as in his case lies our own fate regarding civil liberties protection in Indian cyberspace.
CLICK ON TITLE TO SEE ORIGINAL ARTICLE - Posted by