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

Thursday, May 24, 2012

2588 - Let’s Make a Citizen Out of You: The Rise of Biometric Identification in India - Blogal Prosperity


Let’s Make a Citizen Out of You: The Rise of Biometric Identification in India

January 26, 2012

Source: Ruth Fremson, New York Times


In many developing countries, lack of documentation can be a major obstacle for people who want to claim their rights to citizenship. India, in particular, has as many as 400 million people unaccounted for.
In the book Paper Citizens, Kamal Sadiq explores India’s over-dependence on documentary citizenship and the difficulties created for the government to distinguish between who is a legal citizen and who is not. The current national identification card (NID) leads to problems such as “blurred citizenship” where many natural-born citizens (unable to receive government benefits without NIDs) resort to fake documentation in order to receive benefits such as access to government welfare programs, the ability to open a bank account or enroll in school, and protection from wrongful deportation from their homes.
This problem is most common in poor, isolated areas that the government cannot reach. In such areas, it is difficult to acquire something as simple as a birth certificate because the nearest hospital may be miles away. As a result, this makes it increasingly difficult for the child to obtain legal documentation as s/he grows older. An added dilemma is that paper documentation is easily lost. For those have legal documentation, one unforeseen natural disaster could easily wipe out everything, leaving many unaccounted for.
AADHAAR logoIn an attempt to rectify these problems, a recent private-public partnership in India has developed the unique identity (UID) scheme. This project electronically stores biometric data, such as thumbprint and iris scans, in order to establish national identity. After registering with UID, each person receives a 12-digit AADHAAR number that serves as their ID. Since its inception in 2009, UID has recorded 200 million out of India’s 1.2 billion people. The program plans to scan 600 million people into its database by 2014.
UID could have major benefits for India. For one, if UID reaches its goal of scanning the entire Indian population, it would make it difficult for illegal citizens to falsely acquire government benefits. The poorest would benefit greatly from the system as they would be allowed those rights from which they were previously barred and be safe from the threat of deportation. Another major benefit of the program is that it allows the government to electronically send money to banks and village shops, allowing for easier distribution of government welfare benefits. It must be asked, however, how this program determines who is a rightful citizen and who is not. Many illegal citizens have been successful in acquiring real documentation through fake means and could easily be put into the system. This could seriously undermine the validity of UID and level it to that of the current NID program.
However, if a country does choose to implement biometric identification schemes, Alan Gelb of the Center for Global Development (CGD) explains that, “enabling citizens to establish an official identity is a crucial part of the development process.” It allows for everyone to be accounted for, especially in instances of natural disasters or conflict. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, two countries with documentation problems similar to those of India, biometric scanning ensured that over 200,000 returning refugees received only one repatriation payment. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, biometric scanning has been useful in demobilization grants. According to CGD, there are already eleven African countries taking part in some type of biometric identification (a complete list can be found here).
Tom Cruise in Minority Report getting an iris scan.
This may be a bit reminiscent of Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report, a film based in a 2054 Washington D.C. that is dependent on retinal scanning to track its citizens. Similarly, the UID scheme has met resistance as many feel that the program may lead to misuse of private information for government benefit. Opponents frequently cite countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States and France, which did away with their own biometric identification programs because they impeded on the rights of their citizens.  In addition, a major concern is that the UID is linked with the National Population Register rather than the national census, allowing information gathered for the UID program to be widely shared (information sent to the national census is confidential). Many fear that because there are a number of U.S. corporations involved in the project, Washington will also have access to this information.
While such concerns may be warranted, this is not reason enough to do away with biometric scanning just yet.  Perhaps in order to ease such doubts, India could invest in stronger data-protection laws in order to better protect its citizens and dismiss any fears of breaches in confidentiality.