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, April 11, 2018

13252 - Government denies The Tribune breach and refuses to withdraw FIR against journalist - Medianama

Government denies The Tribune breach and refuses to withdraw FIR against journalist

Vidyut

By Vidyut ( @Vidyut vidyut@medianama.com ) April 10, 2018
Share This: Share via Email

The government again denied that a breach of the Aadhaar database had taken place in response to starred question no 421 by Ravi Prakash Verma in the Rajya Sabha on April 6, 2018.

Verma had asked

Will the Minister of ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY be pleased to refer to answers to Starred Question 5, Starred Question 155 and Unstarred Question 1690 given in the Rajya Sabha on 2 February, 2018, 9 March, 2018 and 9 March, 2018 respectively and state:

the basis on which Government is claiming that reports regarding leakage of Aadhaar details of millions of people on WhatsApp for Rs. 500/- only is completely false, without any investigation so far;

whether Government is aware that there is foolproof evidence of such Aadhaar details leak and it has not been investigated till date;

if so, whether Government would withdraw the FIR against journalists and newspapers in view of freedom of press and claim by Government without any proof;

if so, the details thereof; and
if not, the reasons therefor?

To questions a and b, the reply was “There has been no leakage of Aadhaar data from UIDAI database.” and to the remaining the reply was “Do not arise”

MediaNama’s take
There are no surprises here. At this point, it is clear that the government is narrowly defining Aadhaar data as the data contained within the Aadhaar database and consider a breach as strictly the data being accessed on the CIDR. Therefore any breaches involving passwords, or authorized access (even if the authorization was given illegally) are being denied as breaches. Any data that has exited the CIDR is fair game for exploitation by design and not seen as a crime. Given that these databases have no legal basis, there is no law governing them. Breaches of data provided by the UIDAI to various states is also not being considered to be Aadhaar data.

The safety of the CIDR database is the only security in question and the data of citizens being leaked from entities the government gave it to does not appear to be a concern for the government.

This raises an important question – why is the governmnent refusing to withdraw the FIR against the journalists and newspapers, given that there is no breach according to the government? Surely one does not file cases against people for crimes that did not happen? That such an action has been taken against a journalist and news publication as a consequence of reporting they have done definitely implies that the government would punish specific kinds of reporting.