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, November 5, 2017

12279 - Aadhaar unacceptably intrusive by Gopal Krishna - The Tribune


Posted at: Oct 30, 2017, 12:05 AM; last updated: Oct 30, 2017, 12:05 AM (IST)
Aadhaar unacceptably intrusive
Gopal Krishna

The proposal of “draft data protection bill” is part of grossly procedural, formalistic and insincere manoeuvres of the government.

Why UK shelved its identity card project
  • The parliamentary committee recorded the findings of the report on UK's identity project by the London School of Economics stating that "…..identity systems may create a range of new and unforeseen problems……the risk of failure in the current proposals is therefore magnified to the point where the scheme should be regarded as a potential danger to the public interest and to the legal rights of individuals".
  • Taking cognisance of this report, the United Kingdom shelved its Identity Cards Project for a number of reasons, which included: (a) huge cost involved and possible cost overruns; (b) too complex; (c) untested, unreliable and unsafe technology; (d) possibility of risk to the safety and security of citizens; and (e) requirement of high standard security measures, which would result in escalating the estimated operational costs.

Gopal Krishna

AHEAD of the hearing in the Supreme Court today (October 30) amidst the push for biometric gnawing concerns about privacy, the issue of Aadhaar's realistic chances of survival and its acceptance as fait accompli after the imminent verdict in Aadhaar case has assumed huge significance in our national life. If one draws on Justice DY Chandrachud's 266-page order as part of the 547-page right to privacy verdict of the nine-judge Bench in the case related to 12-digit biometric Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar numbers being fed into Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR), it emerges that a right to privacy bill is pending. 

But so far, no agency, including the judiciary, has bothered to ensure that it gets enacted as law.  The order, authored by Justice Chandrachud with approval from Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justices RK Agrawal and S Abdul Nazeer, appears to be the weakest because it puts all its faith in the proposal of a “draft data protection bill” committee. Justice Chandrachud concludes his order, saying, "Since the Union government has informed the Court that it has constituted a Committee chaired by Hon'ble Shri Justice BN Srikrishna, former Judge of this Court, for that purpose, the matter shall be dealt with  appropriately by the Union government having due regard to what has been set out in this judgment." 

The proceedings on record make it clear that the office memorandum dated July 31, 2017 was issued under the signature of Group Coordinator, Cyber Law and Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) ahead of the court's verdict as part of the government's argument underlining that right to privacy is not a fundamental right.

The order of Justice Dr Chandrachud takes cognisance of the fact that it was only during the course of the hearing of the case that the central government brought to light an office memorandum by which it constituted a committee to "suggest a draft data protection bill." He observes, "We expect that the Union government shall follow up on its decision by taking all necessary and proper steps."

He makes this observation despite recording that "the Privacy Bill, 2011 to provide for the right to privacy to citizens of India and to regulate the collection, maintenance and dissemination of their personal information and for penalisation for violation of such rights and matters connected therewith, is pending." He did not take the government to task for failing to enact the right to privacy law before enacting the Aadhaar Act and implementing the UID/Aadhaar scheme. 

The proposal of "draft data protection bill" is part of grossly procedural, formalistic and insincere manoeuvres of the government. The proposal of "draft data protection bill" at this stage is akin to putting the cart before the horse. It is akin to putting a Trojan horse of the Battle of Troy mentioned in Homer's epic Odyssey before the Court. Homer alludes thrice to the Trojan horse even in Iliad towards the end. The court's order missed the opportunity of looking at the composition of the "draft data protection bill" committee, which has given birth to gnawing misgivings. Trojan horses appear harmless, but are, in fact, malicious and deeply destructive.  

The ToR of this committee pertains to "study of various issues relating to data protection in India" and to make specific suggestions for consideration of the Central Government on principles to be considered for data protection in India and suggest a draft data protection bill" after personal sensitive data of the residents of India has contractually been handed over to foreign transnational companies such as Accenture, Mongo DB, Safran Group and Ernst & Young for up to seven years only as per information gained through the RTI.  

It is significant that such revelations have found mention in the verdict of the Court as part of Justice SK Kaul's order saying, "Edward Snowden shocked the world with his disclosures about global surveillance." It is equally significant that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology asked about the surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA) of the US in its Twenty-seventh Report. 

It is apparent that the government is attempting to change the goalpost now by talking about the proposal of the "draft data protection bill" to ignore the existing right to privacy bill. 

It is noteworthy that government has admitted before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance that examined the issue of UID/Aadhaar numbers observed, "there is no law at present on privacy, and data protection". The government told the committee that "Collection of information without a privacy law in place does not violate the right to privacy of the individual." The committee recommended that legislation on UID/Aadhaar would be appropriate "only after passing the legislation on privacy, and data protection so as to ensure that there is no conflict between these laws." 

For how long can a government hide behind Trojan horses? In the light of the findings of the LSE and our parliamentary reports which are quite valid for the UID/Aadhaar project, its realistic chances of survival post the Justice Puttaswamy verdict after November 2017 is quite remote.

The writer is convener, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties. He had appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance that examined the UID Bill 
CLICK ON TITLE TO SEE ORIGINAL ARTICLE - Posted by
Labels: ,