The UIDAI claims to
have enrolled about 20 crore people so far, but many questions remain
unanswered on the issues clouding the ambitious project to give a number
to every resident of the country, intended for equal social benefits
Chokkapan S
Thursday, April 19, 2012
That
apart, there was also concern over whether the technology would work
and in Whitley's own words, no scheme on that scale had been undertaken
anywhere in the world. "The India project is, of course, even bigger.
Smaller and less ambitious schemes had encountered substantial
technological and operational problems, which may get amplified in a
large-scale national system."
Is Aadhaar similar?
Referring to the U.K. instance, the Parliamentary Panel pointed that the UID project also involved high costs, was complex in nature, had unreliable technology and posed safety risks.
According to Prof. R. Ramakumar, associate professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, who has been vocal in his stance on the UID issue, "Each conclusion in the report should be discussed threadbare in the public domain. Biometrics should be withdrawn from government projects as a proof of identity."
Alternative, and cheaper, measures to provide people with valid identity proofs should be explored, is his solution. "However, it would be a travesty of democratic principles, if the government disregards the Parliament's Standing Committee on Finance report and pushes the project in through the backdoor."
Boon or curse?
In the context of having a common denominator for all people, says Dr N. Seshagiri – who founded the National Informatics Centre and served as its director-general till 2000 – it is a good project for a developing country. But, he adds, the correlation should not be misused thereby amounting to privacy breach and security concerns.
"It can either be a boon or a curse, depending on how you implement and use it. You can't put a bind to technology, if it is implemented properly. Also, maintenance of the project in the long run is important. Those concerned with the project should have the foresight for the times to come and think right now about updation and other issues that might crop up in future."
What if the project gets eroded in about 10 years, as there is a strong possibility that those involved at present might not be around by then? questioned Seshagiri.
Like Maneka Gandhi, who went to get her UID number only to find to her dismay that someone else had signed on her behalf, many concerned people – but less affluent – are awaiting their cards, with a lot of hope that it might make a difference to their lives.
Will it or will it not? Is it facing a similar fate as the UK identity project? Only those entrusted with rolling out the project can ensure. Not through their words, but by deeds.
Is Aadhaar similar?
Referring to the U.K. instance, the Parliamentary Panel pointed that the UID project also involved high costs, was complex in nature, had unreliable technology and posed safety risks.
According to Prof. R. Ramakumar, associate professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, who has been vocal in his stance on the UID issue, "Each conclusion in the report should be discussed threadbare in the public domain. Biometrics should be withdrawn from government projects as a proof of identity."
Alternative, and cheaper, measures to provide people with valid identity proofs should be explored, is his solution. "However, it would be a travesty of democratic principles, if the government disregards the Parliament's Standing Committee on Finance report and pushes the project in through the backdoor."
Boon or curse?
In the context of having a common denominator for all people, says Dr N. Seshagiri – who founded the National Informatics Centre and served as its director-general till 2000 – it is a good project for a developing country. But, he adds, the correlation should not be misused thereby amounting to privacy breach and security concerns.
"It can either be a boon or a curse, depending on how you implement and use it. You can't put a bind to technology, if it is implemented properly. Also, maintenance of the project in the long run is important. Those concerned with the project should have the foresight for the times to come and think right now about updation and other issues that might crop up in future."
What if the project gets eroded in about 10 years, as there is a strong possibility that those involved at present might not be around by then? questioned Seshagiri.
Like Maneka Gandhi, who went to get her UID number only to find to her dismay that someone else had signed on her behalf, many concerned people – but less affluent – are awaiting their cards, with a lot of hope that it might make a difference to their lives.
Will it or will it not? Is it facing a similar fate as the UK identity project? Only those entrusted with rolling out the project can ensure. Not through their words, but by deeds.
©CIOL Bureau
