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

Thursday, November 22, 2018

13934 - Supreme Court knocks out private sector from India's digital identity program


Date
10/2/2018 7:14:58 AM
  • Tweet on Twitter 
(MENAFN - Asia Times)

Data might be the "new oil," but India's Supreme Court isn't ready to hand it over to the private sector yet. In a judgment delivered last week over a bitterly contested digital identity program, the apex court struck down Section 57 of the identity law that allowed transfer of citizens' details to private entities.
The judgment passed by a five-judge bench had the majority of the judges upholding the constitutional validity of the digital identity project called Aadhaar. One judge passed a dissenting judgment that challenged the majority and called everything about the project and the way it was passed into law "unconstitutional." However, all the judges agreed that any attempt to pass on the data collected by the government could not be used by private companies.

Citizens' data transfer unconstitutional
This poses an immediate threat to a host of financial technology (fintech) companies that have banked on the Aadhaar ecosystem to build their businesses. Other private entities such as online travel and telecom companies have issued statements expressing their worry at this aspect of the Supreme Court's order.
Worried at the fallout, the government has been hemming and hawing on ways to get around this aspect of the judgment.
'My generic answer would be, on private entities, it needs to be backed by law. We have to see what is the rationale that they have given – that's my understanding. I have not had a detailed reading of the judgment yet," Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said soon after the judgment was passed.
His cabinet colleague Communications Minister Ravishankar Prasad even went a step further to point out that the Supreme Court had only disallowed passing on data under a contract. He felt that this would be allowed if there were legislative backing, and a fresh amendment by Parliament could fix this.
But legal experts are quite clear that this is certainly not the case. "Please read the judgment again. It is very clear that any … citizens' data collected by the government cannot be passed on to private companies. It is wholly unconstitutional," said legal researcher Usha Ramanathan. Her extensive work on the Aadhaar issue led to many of the petitions that were filed three years ago challenging the program.
She understands why the government is desperate to bring the private sector back into the Aadhaar program. "The Aadhaar program was built with the idea to pass on our data to private companies. They built the system using public money with private profit in mind. No law can now circumvent what the Supreme Court has labeled as unconstitutional," she told Asia Times.
Audit nightmare looms
While an association of fintech companies are planning to go back to the Supreme Court with a review petition and appeal this, chances are that this order is here to stay. But government officials are concerned with a much bigger and immediate problem at hand.
"The court has declared such a transfer of data as unconstitutional. The big problem for us right now is to figure out who is holding this data," a senior government official who tracks the Aadhaar program and related security issues told Asia Times.
"A little over a billion people have been enrolled into the Aadhaar program and many private companies used it to authenticate their customers. They are holding this data and we have no idea how to figure out how to deal with this."
The same official pointed out that some of the data such as biometrics of the customers was also captured by the private companies at their level. "Since they are storing this data now on their sources, we have no idea how to audit it, or even track it, let alone delete it."
In his dissenting judgment, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud not only declared any such transfer of data unconstitutional, he was also clear that in is opinion the whole program was illegal. The power of the Aadhaar project to enable mass surveillance has been well documented.
As other law experts have pointed out, while surveillance is a fact, the majority of the judges did not take it into consideration and merely accepted the submission of the government that it won't be used for that purpose. "To accept such a submission as a fact without questioning it was quite startlingly strange," another senior lawyer who was part of the case told Asia Times.
<> <> <> <> India Aadhaar UIDAI Supreme Court fintech telecom Unique Digital Identity Usha Ramanathan Nandan Nilekani justice DY Chandrachud biometrics Data Privacy Surveillance 

Comments

MENAFN0210201801590000ID1097517917