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 14, 2011

1970 - Facebook Likely Only One Of Many Companies To Face Privacy Scrutiny - Huffington Post

First Posted: 11/11/11 

Facebook and the Federal Trade Commission are reportedly near a settlement over the company's privacy policies.
 
But Facebook is not the first social network to capture regulators' attention, and it is unlikely to be the last, experts say.
 
As companies use controversial methods to identify users and share their information, they are drawing increased scrutiny from the FTC and consumer advocates who say their privacy practices are not just deceptive, but also unfair.
 
"It's clear that any company that changes its privacy policy and doesn't afford consumers the ability to opt-in to such changes is going to be in the commission's crosshairs," said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.
 
The settlement talks between Facebook and the FTC, which were first reported by the Wall Street Journal, stem from complaints two years ago over privacy changes made by the social networking site. Instead of just disclosing users' names and networks, Facebook also began disclosing their profile photos, gender, and where they are from. Several privacy groups, led by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission alleging the changes violated federal law.
 
Since then, the FTC has accused other social networking sites of violating users' privacy. Last year, Twitter settled with the FTC over charges that it put customers' privacy at risk by failing to safeguard their personal information.
 
In March, Google settled with the FTC over claims it forced Gmail users to opt-in to the short-lived social network Google Buzz. As part of the settlement, Google agreed to undergo yearly privacy audits for the next 20 years.

But last month, federal regulators settled a lesser-known case that may have paved the way for settlement talks with Facebook, privacy advocates say. The FTC settlement with Frostwire, a peer-to-peer file sharing application, involved charges that Frostwire's default settings caused consumers to unwittingly share data on their mobile devices.
 
While the FTC claimed that Google and Twitter used privacy practices that were "deceptive," regulators said Frostwire's default privacy settings were also "unfair" -- that users could not have been expected to know that their privacy was being violated. That separate argument set a precedent, giving regulators another legal avenue for going after Facebook and other social networking sites whose default settings have been controversial, privacy advocates say.
 
Some observers said a possible settlement between FTC and Facebook could actually benefit the social networking site by assuring users that a third-party will protect their personal data from exposure. Like the settlement with Google Buzz, Facebook would reportedly undergo annual privacy audits for the next two decades.
 
"It provides consumers and users of Facebook with a sense of security that the FTC is watching over these guys and they could be audited at any time so maybe my data's a little safer," Forrester analyst Fatemah Khatibloo said.
 
But Facebook may face further scrutiny for its use of facial recognition technology, which suggests friends' names to tag in pictures. The software has drawn complaints from privacy advocates who say it can be used for police surveillance or by marketers who want to track Internet users without their consent.
 
In June, EPIC filed a complaint with the FTC regarding Facebook's use of facial recognition software, claiming Facebook "will routinely automate facial identification and eliminate any pretense of user control over the use of their own images for online identification." Regulators in Germany have said they plan to sue Facebook over its facial recognition software.
 
Apple has also used the technology to automatically tag users in photos. And while Google recently pulled facial recognition from its "Google Goggles" app amid privacy concerns, it uses the technology to allow users to unlock the Galaxy Nexus, a new Samsung phone that runs on Google's Android operating system.
 
Next month, the FTC plans to hold a workshop on the privacy and security implications of facial recognition technology. In October, U.S. Sen. John Rockefeller, (D-W.Va.), chairman of the commerce committee, wrote a letter to the FTC, asking for a report from the workshop with suggestions on legislation.
 
"As in many fast growing and changing sectors, public policy has not kept pace with the development of this sort of technology," Rockefeller wrote. "The privacy concerns are evident."
 
Social networking sites are not the only ones whose privacy policies may find themselves in the FTC's crosshairs. Some experts say companies that offer cloud storage, like Amazon and Apple, may also get a closer look from regulators over privacy concerns.
 
Last month, EPIC filed a complaint with the FTC after Verizon changed its business practices to reveal detailed personal information of its customers, including location data, web browsing and search histories, to other companies. Verizon said the information it discloses can't be linked to individual customers, but EPIC said Verizon failed to establish techniques to protect customers' identities.
 
Despite greater scrutiny from regulators, some predict businesses that collect user data will continue to put company profits before consumer privacy.
 
"It's potentially impossible to run a media company and care deeply about privacy," said Michael Fertik, CEO of Reputation.com, an online reputation management firm. "It doesn't mean you don't care -- but you can't care first because the only thing you have to sell is access to information."

Huffington Post reporter Bianca Bosker contributed reporting to this story.