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

Saturday, October 1, 2011

1652 - Making sense of the UID controversy - Live Mint

On its first anniversary, Nandan Nilekani’s transformational project has made it to the front pages of newspapers and prime time TV
R. Sukumar
 UIDAI chairman Nandan Nilekani. (File Photo)

The surprising thing about the  ongoing controversy surrounding the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI, which turned one on Thursday, is not that there is one, but that it has taken as long as a year for it to gather enough momentum to make it to the front pages of newspapers and prime time news on TV.

By far the most legitimate concern about the Unique ID project, even if it is one that is relevant largely to the urban middle class that doesn’t gain much by being on the grid, is the one that deals with privacy and security. Without the right safeguards, including progressive legislation, it is frightening to think of what an absolute state can do with information in the UIDAI database.

• • •
Video Story
Montek firmly in favour of UIDAI autonomy
• • •

While some activists have raised this issue (and while UIDAI has proffered its defence), these points and counterpoints have been drowned by other non-issues surrounding the project. More debate and discussion is needed on this.

UIDAI is headed by Nandan Nilekani , who is a lightning rod for controversy. While there is enough anecdotal evidence on the merits of maintaining a low profile in government, Nilekani’s past – he was a successful tech entrepreneur in his last avatar – and his personality ensure that this isn’t really an option for him. As a result, over the past year, he has, arguably, got more good press than anyone else in government. That couldn’t have gone well with some ministers, politicians, and bureaucrats. Earlier this week, viewers of national TV were fortunate to see the strange sight of a serving bureaucrat, the Member, Secretary of the Planning Commission criticizing UIDAI (it is rare to get a serving bureaucrat to comment on the record on something). 

This was followed by an e-mail from the Member, Secretary’s boss, the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission to this newspaper – it formed the basis of a story that appeared on Friday – basically saying that UIDAI was empowered to do what it was doing and that he didn’t really have a problem with the way it was functioning.

Nilekani also provokes extreme reactions from left-leaning liberals who do not trust either technology or market interventions. Unfortunately for him, the UID programme is a combination of both.

The biggest challenge to the project, however, arises from the perception that UIDAI is, in some way, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee’s baby. Over the past year, India’s home and finance ministries have been playing a zero-sum game behind the scenes, so this makes the unique ID project suspect in the eyes of the former. Coincidentally, the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India (part of the home ministry), is opposed to the project. The Registrar General’s argument is that its National Population Registry (which is yet to start in any meaningful way) will compile the same biometric information that UIDAI is doing. The population registry can’t use UIDAI’s data, he says (no one knows why), so, UIDAI should use the population registry’s. This is a reasonable argument (after all, it makes no sense to duplicate and effort collection biometric data), as long as the information is available when it is needed. UIDAI has been given the mandate of collecting data for 200 million people. Maybe the population registry can collect it for everyone else and the two can share information? For this to happen, however, two databases, two government departments, and maybe two ministers will have to speak the same language.

Nilekani’s biggest advantage is that not many people expect him to succeed. If he does manage to, he will be feted as a hero. If he doesn’t, he, and everyone else will merely write it off as another instance of a well-meaning initiative scotched by a rigid system.