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, May 14, 2014

5529 - White House’s ‘Identity Ecosystem’ spurs suspicion of national ID registry - RT.COM

Published time: May 06, 2014 03:40



screenshot from youtube by National Institute of Standards and Technology

Tags

The US government is reportedly considering a so-called “Identity Ecosystem” that, while promising to save time and money, has already riled privacy advocates worried about the government having too much biometric information at its disposal.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology awarded $2.4 million in grants to two states ($1.3 million to Michigan and $1.1 to Pennsylvania) to help them launch pilot programs aimed at testing “new online technologies to improve access to government services and the delivery of federal assistance programs to reduce fraud.”

While the programs differ in minor ways, each is essentially trying to help citizens who rely on public assistance but are overwhelmed by the application process.

In Michigan, for instance, many people often have their benefits delayed because of a small mistake in enrollment or registration. Pennsylvania residents often find themselves in the same unfortunate situation, sometimes because they need to verify their identity multiple times, both in person and through paperwork.

Private companies already use a variety of more efficient approaches to correctly identify customers – most often with usernames and passwords.

The complexity of this approach is a burden to individuals, and it encourages behavior – like the reuse of passwords – that makes online fraud and identity theft easier,” the White House report announcing the initiative stated.

At the same time, online businesses are faced with ever-increasing costs for managing customer accounts, the consequences of online fraud, and the loss of business that results from individuals’ unwillingness to create yet another account. Moreover, both businesses and governments are unable to offer many services online, because they cannot effectively identify the individuals with whom they interact,” the report reads.

To avoid the same fate, the Identity Ecosystem promises privacy protections, convenience, efficiency, security, and choice, among other confidence-boosting measures.
A Michigan aid recipient would need to appear in person to verify their identity before being given a “trusted credential” via a smart card, cell phone application, or a similarly connected option. The credential is endorsed by the federal government and no longer requires users to employ passwords or usernames. The federal credential is advertised as completely voluntary, and does not need to be used for all online activity.
For example, the Identity Ecosystem will allow a consumer to provide her age during a transaction without also providing her birth date, name, address, or other identifying data,” the announcement said.

The pilot programs have earned early praise for taking the simple, if flawed, system favored by the private sector for government verification. Avivah Litan, a Gartner security analyst, told Venture Beat that the effort will be a refreshing change for residents tired of waiting in line for hours.
It’s easy to tell you this is a terrible idea and it’s the end of the world,” she said. “But it’s nice to see someone finally trying to implement this idea,” which “has been around since the ‘90s, but the main reason no one’s done it is because no one stepped up to the plate.”

Others, perhaps not surprisingly after the National Security Agency leaks, are far less enthused. Civil libertarians have been quick to note the potential for abuse, citing the Taiwanese government’s plan to give citizens smart cards to implement a similar system while failing to adequately protect all of that data from hackers.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) admitted the strategy is a reasonable solution to a growing problem, but noted that the National Institute of Standards and Technology did not mention how drastically the plan could go off course.

The draft NSTIC now calls for pervasive, authenticated digital IDs and makes scant mention of the unprecedented threat such a scheme would pose to privacy and free speech online,” the EFF said.

And while the draft NSTIC ‘does not advocate for the establishment of a national identification card,’ it’s far from clear that it won’t take us dangerously far down that road. Because the draft NSTIC is vague about many basic points, the White House must proceed with caution and avoid rushing past the tricks that lay ahead.”

Like the failed Taiwanese idea, the EFF warned about the potential implications that a national online ID could have, especially the privacy risks that would exist if multiple ID cards are linked together under a single credential.

Pervasive online ID could likewise encourage lawmakers to enact access restrictions for online services, from paying taxes to using libraries and beyond,” the digital rights group noted.

Website operators have argued persuasively that they cannot be expected to tell exactly who is visiting their sites, but that could change with a new online ID mechanism. Massachusetts recently adopted an overly broad obscenity law; it takes little imagination to believe states would require NSTIC implementation individuals to be able to access content somehow deemed to be ‘objectionable.