AADHAAR RELATED ARTICLES: 13991 - DNA law needs safeguards

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

Tuesday, December 25, 2018

13991 - DNA law needs safeguards - Telengana Today

DNA law needs safeguards

There is certainly a need for a law to enable state agencies to collect biological material but not without putting in place stringent mechanism

AuthorTelanganaTodayPublished: 22nd Dec 2018 12:12 amUpdated: 21st Dec 2018 10:50 pm

A thorough and ideology-neutral debate is necessary over a Bill that allows law enforcement agencies to collect DNA samples and create DNA profiles of people and special databanks for forensic-criminal investigations. The DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2018, which is before the Rajya Sabha for consideration, raises many ethical and sociological questions that need to be addressed properly before it becomes a law.

It is the modified version of a Bill originally framed by the Department of Biotechnology. The aim of that draft legislation was to set in place an institutional mechanism to collect and deploy DNA technologies to identify persons based on samples collected from crime scenes or for identifying missing persons.

However, there were some justifiable objections over the manner in which DNA information was to be collected and the way they were to be stored by forensic laboratories because they amounted to violation of privacy.

However, several clauses of the Bill have since been tightened to make it stronger and immune to data abuse. The data banks can only store information related to criminal investigations and the DNA details of suspects will be deleted.

The Bill also seeks to create a DNA Profiling Board that would be the final authority to authorise the creation of State-level DNA databanks, approve the methods of collection and analysis of DNA-technologies.

Creating large databases could raise questions similar to the raging debate over Aadhaar. Though the government maintains that the move is to merely expand the application of DNA-based forensic technologies to support and strengthen the justice delivery system, there are genuine concerns over privacy and security issues.

In the light of the August 2017 Supreme Court judgment ruling that privacy is a fundamental right, the new law must be in tune with the spirit of the verdict. Before enacting such laws, there has to be a significant improvement in capacity building regarding collection and use of DNA for forensic purposes.

The genes encoded in the DNA, which can be collected from blood, hair, skin cells and other such bodily substances, have proven to be an important tool in forensic science. Across the world, the use of DNA evidence has helped solve many complex criminal cases.

While there is certainly a need for a law to enable state agencies to collect biological material, stringent mechanism must be put in place to regulate the extraction of DNA evidence and the extent and scope of such extraction must not disproportionally contravene a person’s right to privacy. Before proceeding further on the new legislation, the government must address concerns regarding the chain of custody of DNA samples between crime scenes, labs and data banks and expansive powers of the DNA Regulatory Board.