Two articles in this week's Economist, The magic number and Reform by numbers. One response among many:
From the very start, we know that this article of the Economist's must be wrong. Next door to India, Pakistan's NADRA has been issuing biometric ID for over 10 years and that hasn't led to the sunny benefits predicted by the Economist.
Using the brilliant Indians abroad, rather than the presumably dim ones at home, according to the Economist, doesn't necessarily help.
Computerising the welfare system opens the way to computerising its corruption. The managers of ghost employees will find it much easier under UID to automate their claims and to collect payments from the conveniently created bank accounts -- altogether cleaner than the currently "filthy" process the Economist decry.
The Economist believe that Indian politics hinge on patronage. A few old-fashioned idealists may abhor that but, to the extent that the Economist are right, presumably the suggestion is that UID is a new patronage system seeking to dole out opportunities to rob its own countrymen in competition with the more established gangs. The Economist may well be right there.
Skimping on security is acceptable for the Indians, as far as the Economist is concerned, although presumably they wouldn't be too pleased if anyone skimped on the security of their bank accounts and their tax payments. Why is security less important for the Indians?
Time was when the Economist had a strong grasp of technology and a sensible scepticism in the face of snake oil claims made for magic numbers. No more. Now the magic numbers appear in the title of the article and the Economist credulously swallow all the unsupported claims made for the reliability of mass consumer biometrics by its salesmen.
Time was when the actions of the Executive beyond the control of Parliament and outside the reach of the common law would have raised the odd question at Economist Towers. No more. It's been fun knowing you but now it's goodbye, the Enlightenment.
How much did UID pay the Economist to publish this article? Let's hope it's enough to make up for the newspaper's loss of reputation as an intelligent commentator. Welcome to the corps of useful idiots (UID).
----------
David Moss
Business Consultancy Services Ltd