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

Sunday, June 23, 2013

3443 - For Their Eyes Only - Computer World


By Arun Kumar, 19-Jun-2013

Most governments and some organizations are using IT to play Big Brother. Are technological advancements and legislative indifference pushing privacy to extinction?


With the progress in technology, which admittedly no one should grudge, what hope does the common man have about protecting his or her individual privacy?
In the movie Ocean’s Eleven, there is a scene towards the end when Julia Roberts tells Andy Garcia, “You of all people should know that in your hotel there is always someone watching.” How ironic that what happens in reel life is transpiring in real life.

For those of you not fully acquainted with the latest happenings, here is a primer on some recent revelations. The US government, through a top-secret programme called PRISM, has got direct access to the servers of Internet giants such as Apple, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Skype, AOL, Facebook etcetera, which allows government officials to collect material—including search history, e-mail content, file transfers, live chats, and more. Not just that. There is also a top-secret court order compelling telecom provider Verizon to turn over the telephone records of millions of US customers. 

These details were revealed by the UK newspaper The Guardian. And what is interesting is that this program is not something new. It has been in existence since 2007. It’s just that we are finding about it after six years.

Though all the companies whose servers are being tapped for private or confidential data—according to The Guardian—vehemently deny knowledge of any such program, the fact is that with or without their knowledge, such an operation has been going on for the last six years.

However, make no mistake. This kind of snooping is not just limited to the US government—which ostensibly in its quest to gather all possible information to track terrorist activities is—trampling all over an individual’s privacy. 

Almost every government worth its salt does similar things. The only difference is that while some are sophisticated and secretive in their approach, others, like the Indian government, are simply blatant and arrogant about it. And we would be naïve to believe that only governments engage in these kinds of activities. Businesses are not far behind and are equally guilty of the same.

However, what makes this kind of a “Big Brother” activity possible is the advancement in technology, which enables faster, easier, and ironically, even secure communications. At the same time, the very technology also provides governments or big businesses with deep pockets and even deeper connections with access to personal and private communication details of unsuspecting citizens.

This was highlighted about a dozen years ago in 2000 by A. Michael Froomkin, professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law, in a paper aptly titled The Death of Privacy?, published in the Stanford Law Review. In his paper, Froomkin states, “The rapid deployment of privacy-destroying technologies by governments and businesses threatens to make informational privacy obsolete.”

He goes on to describe a range of current technologies and activities to which the law has yet to respond effectively, which include routine collection of transactional data, automated surveillance in public places, and deployment of biometric technology among others. He concludes by saying, “Given the rapid pace at which privacy-destroying technologies are being invented and deployed, a legal response must come soon, or it will indeed be too late.”

And since the paper was published, the use of technology to monitor, track, and analyze almost every movement and communication of people has only increased. Just imagine the number of cameras that are installed at airports, traffic signals, inside and outside public and private buildings, the various databases like National Population Register, UID, and wiretaps like Radia tapes. And surely, there are more such examples.

But, in which direction have the legislations progressed since then? Unfortunately, in the exact opposite direction. Governments are only enacting laws that require citizens to divulge more data or give the government the right to snoop—such as the FISA Amendments Act in the case of the US government.
So, with the progress in technology, which admittedly no one should grudge, and no hope in sight as far as laws and regulations are concerned, what hope does the common man  have about protecting his or her individual privacy? 

Well, the answer is simple—in today’s world there is no such thing as privacy. It's dead. You can only run, but can’t hide.Remember, there is always someone watching, and perhaps even listening.