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, August 2, 2015

8421 - Privacy law: Panel examines global practices - TNN


Manoj Mitta,TNN | Aug 2, 2015, 12.33 AM IST

The ensuing uncertainty underscores the need for India to enact a privacy law in keeping with a trend in the US, Europe, Canada and Australia. 

With its dramatic declaration before the Supreme Court that it did not regard privacy as a fundamental right, the government has challenged what has long been taken to be a settled position in law. The ensuing uncertainty underscores the need for India to enact a privacy law in keeping with a trend in the US, Europe, Canada and Australia. 

In fact, drawing from global best practices, an officially constituted group of experts headed by former chief justice of the Delhi high court, A P Shah, has already prepared a blueprint for the privacy law which holds irrespective of the fundamental rights question. 

The highlight of the 2012 report submitted by Shah, who is now chairman of the Law Commission, is an enumeration of nine "privacy principles" underlying the proposed legislation. The now-defunct Planning Commission had set up this group of experts to analyse the impact made on privacy by a slew of data-related initiatives including Aadhar card, NATGRID, CMS and human DNA profiling. 

The group of experts recommended that all existing and future legislation and procedures should comply with these privacy principles, which hold data controllers, whether public or private, accountable for the collection, processing and purpose for which the data is used. The regulatory mechanism proposed in this regard is a "privacy commissioner" at the national level and four such authorities at the regional level, each with the power to impose fines on data controllers for violations of privacy principles. 

The nine privacy principles thus adapted to the Indian context are: 

Notice: Every data controller is required to give a simple-to-understand notice of its information practices to all individuals, in clear and concise language, before any personal information is collected from them. Such notices should specify, among other things, the reasons for collecting personal information, whether it may be disclosed to third parties, security safeguards for the data and processes available to data subjects to access and correct details concerning them. 

Choice and Consent: Barring exceptional situations, the data controller should give everyone the choice of agreeing or refusing to provide their personal information and seek their consent only after giving due notice of its data practices. The consent should not be an induced one, as has been alleged before the Supreme Court in the Aadhar card case on the ground that people are being forced to enrol as the scheme has been made an integral part of various services. 

Collection Limitation: The data controllers should collect only so much personal information as is necessary for the purposes cited for such collection, regarding which notice has been provided and consent obtained. The method of collecting personal information should be fair and lawful. 

Purpose limitation: The manner in which personal data is processed, applied or disclosed should not go beyond the stated purposes for which the information had been collected. If there is a change of purpose, this should be notified to all the individuals concerned. After the personal information has been used for the stated purposes, it should be destroyed and not remain in any database. 

Access and Correction: Apart from rare exceptions where such transparency may defeat the very purpose of the collection, individuals should have access to their personal information as held by the data controller. They should also be able to seek corrections and obtain copies of their personal data. 

Disclosure of Information: The data controller should not disclose personal information to third parties without giving notice and seeking informed consent from the individual concerned for such disclosure. Third parties are also bound to adhere to relevant privacy principles. 

Security: For the information collected or otherwise in their custody, the data collector should provide adequate security safeguards against unauthorised access, destruction, use, modification or disclosure. 

Openness: The data collector should be transparent in its functioning even as it ensures compliance with the privacy principles. 

Accountability: The data controller is liable to be penalised by the statutory regulator for any breach of privacy principles. In any event, the data controller shall comply with the orders of the privacy commissioner, whether specific or general.