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

Friday, May 27, 2011

1348 - The ham hand of the state - Source - Tehelka

The government’s new Internet Control Rules is a shocking and hare-brained attempt to muzzle the Internet

Mahesh Murthy


AS I write this, The Times of India announced breathlessly that “Siddharth and Shruti Haasan are living in!” While its sister publication, the Economic Times, in an apparent effort to balance that with slightly more serious news, declared that “SKS Microfinance stock plunge faces regulatory probe”. Not to be outdone in dourness of reporting, its rival, Mint, from the Hindustan Times stable, headlined an article “CPM’s last-ditch efforts may fail to turn the tide”. Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, the Ministry of External Affairs provided to all comers a “thumbnail sketch of the principal Pak-sponsored terror outfits operating in J&K”.

There’s something interesting about all these otherwise perfectly boring pieces. Each one of them also appeared in the online avatars of their publishers and in each case these otherwise bland pieces can be censored without notification, rhyme or reason by any complainant in India without even involving a legal authority.

This feat of spectacularly irresponsible insanity is under the ambit of a set of hare-brained Internet Control Rules that have just been framed and passed under India’s Information Technology Act. Rules that allow anybody to simply tell a website or blog to take down any content that is in your eyes “grossly harmful, hateful, invasive of others’ privacy, blasphemous, threatens friendly relations with foreign States or threatens the unity of India” among a milelong list of potential no-nos.

I’m certain any odd person can find the Shruti Haasan article “invasive of privacy”, the SKS Microfinance news “grossly harmful” to the company’s prospects, the CPM news “dangerous to State unity” and the government’s own anti- Pak claims as “threatening to friendly relations with foreign states”. And if you happen to be one of those who decides that your sentiments are hurt, all you need to do is to send a signed letter to the publisher and bingo, they are rule-bound to take it down. No legal authority to decide whether your claim is right or not but hey, the content goes down right away.

This feat of idiocy is hard evidence that the government is increasingly trying to muzzle the online spread of news. It has managed to rein in television and print media rather well. But online has evaded the government’s grip.

Indeed, the BarkhaGate story was not touched by mainstream media for many months even though they had the tapes. One magazine had the cojones to print the story — but it really spread like wildfire online through Twitter, email and Facebook. And only after it blazed online for weeks did the newspapers and channels pick it up and re-amplify it reluctantly.

Online is the medium that is scaring authority   everywhere, from Tunis to Tripoli to 10, Janpath

The first thing to do is to put this in perspective. Online is now the mainstream medium and ‘they’ know it. They are doing this because digital is now bigger than traditional media. There are already about 108 million Internet users and only about 103 million households have access to cable and satellite television.

Second, use a loophole. If you are scared about what you might say online, do so on a website that has no office in India — our laws can’t touch them.

Third, popularise the controversial content. Spread it around to friends. ‘Like’ it or retweet it.

Fourth, use it against the government. Put a thousand complaints against the government’s own websites. Start with India.gov.in and congress.org.in

Fifth, fight it. I do wait for the right case and civil society lawyers who can help stop this silly piece of legislation from changing the way we live and share information online. The Internet, as our babus will soon understand, cannot be controlled.

Mahesh Murthy is Founder, Pinstorm and Co-founder Seedfund.
Follow @maheshmurthy on twitter


CLICK ON TITLE TO SEE ORIGINAL ARTICLE - Posted by