AADHAAR RELATED ARTICLES: 4973 - Aadhaar's foundation questioned

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

Friday, January 10, 2014

4973 - Aadhaar's foundation questioned - Business Standard

Aadhaar's foundation questioned

Seeks response of states for making Aadhaar mandatory for some schemes

BS Reporters | New Delhi November 27, 2013 Last Updated at 00:36 IST

The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday asked major states that have linked government services or welfare schemes to the Unique Identity (UID) number to also present their "justification" for using Aadhaar. The apex court was hearing a review petition, filed by the government, of its past order on the petition filed by retired judge of the Karnataka High Court K S Puttaswamy.

The SC had passed an interim order on September 23, stating that no one should suffer due to unavailability of Aadhaar. Later, some central ministries, three public sector undertakings requested a modification of the order, along with UID Authority of India (UIDAI). Several activists like Aruna Roy joined the petition against the Aadhaar over issues such as privacy.

Around 11 states, including Delhi, Jharkhand, Karnataka and Maharashtra, have made Aadhaar mandatory for availing some government services. While hearing the arguments put forward by senior advocate Shyam Divan, who was representing one of the petitioners, the court said the states should also implead in the matter. The next hearing is slated for December 10. At the end of the almost daylong hearing, Justice S A Bobde said the court is inclined to "modify" and "save" the scheme. However, the challenge is that UIDAI which is a current party to the case has made Aadhaar voluntary. However, it is the states which have made the use of Aadhaar mandatory and so the "stings remain."

During the hearing, Divan presented before the court that UIDAI is "almost running a private show" and is collecting biometric - a sensitive personal information - without any statutory backing. He called the authority unconstitutional and evoked the privacy concerns involved with the project. The bench of judges, comprising B S Chauhan and Bobde, said the privacy arguments had to be made "keeping the harsh realities of life in mind", as somebody who doesn't have access to food and water may not be very much concerned about their privacy.

The next date of hearing may give a window of opportunity to the government to pass the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 which will give UIDAI a legal backing. After being approved by the Cabinet, the Bill will be moved in Parliament during its winter session, which begins on December 5. This may dilute some of the arguments about the unconstitutionality of the authority.

Divan also said the Aadhaar project was based on untested and unproven technology and was being outsourced to private operators who could misuse the data by "duplicating and selling" it for commercial use.

While Solicitor General of India Mohan Parasaran said the allegations about misuse of data by private operators was incorrect, as there were enough checks and balances, the bench highlighted this issue needed to be addressed in detail when the government's lawyers present their counter-agreements.