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

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

2983 - Google Says Electronic Snooping by Governments Should Be More Difficult




By CLAIRE CAIN MILLER
If a government wants to peek into your Web-based e-mail account, it is surprisingly easy, most of the time not even requiring a judge's approval.

That is a problem, according to Google, which said it had received 21,389 requests for information about 33,634 of its users in the second half of last year, an increase of 70 percent in three years. Google handed over some personal data in two-thirds of those cases.

The vast majority of the requests came from the United States government. In the last six months, United States officials made 8,438 requests for data, and Google complied with at least part of the request 88 percent of the time. (One of those, most likely, was for access to the Gmail account of Paula Broadwell, which ultimately revealed her affair with David H. Petraeus, formerly C.I.A. director.)

To mark Data Privacy Day on Monday (a holiday that, no doubt, you have highlighted on your calendar in eager anticipation), Google is trying to rally support against broad government access to personal online data.

"We want to be sure we're taking our responsibilities really seriously, protecting our users' information and being transparent about it," David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, said in a rare interview.

"We want people to know that we are not going to just roll over but we are going to make sure that governments around the world follow standards and do this in a reasonable way that strikes the balance," he added.

The heart of the issue is that the law grants more protection to a piece of paper on your desk than it does to an e-mail stored online. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act was enacted in 1986, years before widespread use of e-mail or cloud storage, or the invention of social networking.

"People probably assume that all their communications, whether it's physical letters or phone calls or e-mails, are protected by the Fourth Amendment and the police have to go to a judge to get a warrant," said Trevor Timm, a privacy advocate studying surveillance at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "In fact, that's not the case."

For instance, the law says the police do not need a search warrant, which requires a judge to agree there is probable cause, to read e-mail messages that are more than 180 days old.

Congress is expected to consider amendments to the 1986 law this year. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has been pushing for Web companies to allow easier electronic wiretapping.

In the United States, 68 percent of requests for Google users' information come in the form of subpoenas, which do not require a judge's approval. The rest are search warrants or other types of court orders.

Google said it had been fighting the broad use of subpoenas by requiring search warrants for detailed personal data -- beyond things like a user's name, location, phone number and time that an e-mail was sent -- even if the law seems to say a subpoena is enough.

In a primer published on Monday, Google says it requires a search warrant to share Gmail messages, private YouTube videos, stored voicemails or text messages on Google Voice and private blog posts on Blogger.

Though Google has sometimes struggled over the years to earn users' trust in how it handles personal data, the company stands out in its efforts to protect users against government requests for data.

"Google's been kind of a pioneer," Mr. Timm said.

Since 2010, it has published its transparency report, outlining the number of government requests it receives for users' data or to remove content from the Web. Companies including Twitter, which employs several former Google lawyers, have followed suit. Mr. Drummond says he wants other Web companies to do so, too.

Google says it scrutinizes each government request, narrows the scope if possible, and notifies users of the request if it is not prohibited by law.