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

13993 - Rahul slams ‘insecure dictator’ for assault on right to privacy - Telegraph India

Congress rejected the government’s defence that the notification followed the IT Act 2000, which was amended in 2009
By Sanjay K. Jha in New Delhi

  • Published 22.12.18, 3:00 AM
Congress president Rahul Gandhi accused Narendra Modi of trying to convert India into a police state.
Prem Singh

Congress president Rahul Gandhi on Friday saw symptoms of an “insecure dictator” in the government’s surveillance order as a joint Opposition vociferously protested what it described as the spectre of an Orwellian state and an assault on the right to privacy.

As the political storm gathered and general Internet users resented the snoop plan, Rahul tweeted: “Converting India into a police state isn’t going to solve your problems, Modi Ji. It’s only going to prove to over one billion Indians, what an insecure dictator you really are.”

The Congress firmly rejected the government’s defence that the notification was the continuation of rules framed under the Information Technology Act 2000, which was amended in 2009.

The Congress asserted that the latest notification went far beyond the scope of the law and was unconstitutional if viewed against the backdrop of the new legal scheme created by the right to privacy and Aadhaar judgments of the Supreme Court.

“If there is no change, what was the need for this notification by the home ministry now?” asked Congress spokesperson and lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi.

He told The Telegraph: “The Supreme Court has fundamentally changed the legal framework with the right to privacy and Aadhaar judgments. This order is illegal, apart from being draconian.”

Arguing that the 2009 rules allowed phone tapping on a case-to-case basis, Singhvi said: “The list of agencies have now been expanded and given sweeping powers. It goes beyond telephone tapping and call interceptions and there is no judicial or parliamentary oversight.

“What was needed is reform of the rules in the light of privacy becoming a fundamental right and the Aadhaar judgment stipulating judicial oversight, but the government brought a draconian notification without any consultation.”

Many Congress leaders claimed that the order would be scrapped by the court in a minute and hoped the majority of the people, particularly youths, would revolt against any attempt to place them under surveillance.

Bringing other political parties on the same platform to oppose the move, the Congress aggressively launched a social media campaign to spread the message. It promptly coined a slogan — “Abki baar/Stalker sarkar.”

The Opposition staged a boisterous protest in both Houses of Parliament.

Appearing before the media along with other Opposition leaders, the Congress’s Anand Sharma said: “We are seriously concerned over the home ministry order of December 20 that authorises security and intelligence agencies for the purposes of interception, monitoring and decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource.

“This is a very serious development. Through this order, the BJP government is converting India into a surveillance state. It is the ultimate assault on the fundamental rights and the right to privacy. It is also in direct conflict with the Supreme Court judgment that the right to privacy is a fundamental right.

“The government has done it by stealth. We collectively oppose it because this gives unlimited powers to all these agencies to monitor every information. Such surveillance is unacceptable in our democracy.”

Sharma said the Opposition had been expressing concern for the past three-four years that phones of political rivals, top officials, judges of high courts and the Supreme Court, and big industrialists were being tapped.

“This poses a big threat to our democracy and this is not acceptable. We will fight it collectively,” he said.

Other Opposition leaders, including the Samajwadi Party, Trinamul Congress, RJD, NCP and the DMK, also opposed the move, describing it as an attempt to create an “Orwellian State”.

Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee sought public opinion on the matter. She maintained that “blanket surveillance” was not favoured by law.

At another media conference, Congress spokesperson Jaiveer Shergill said: “The Modi government has a notorious track record of devising ways to infringe upon the privacy of citizens and this order is also violative of the IT Act, the right to privacy judgment and the Aadhaar judgment. Now we understand the meaning of the 2014 slogan ‘ghar-ghar Modi’.”


When the BJP said "Ghar Ghar Modi", we didn't think they'd take it so seriously. #chowkidarJasoosHai




According to Shergill, Section 69 of the IT Act, under which the order was issued, grants the power to the government to intercept computers on a case-by-case basis only on the ground of protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, in public interest and preventing the commission of any offence.
“The new order is completely silent on the reasons for equipping the investigating agencies with vast powers,” the Congress leader said.

He added: “The order has bulldozed the right to privacy granted by the Supreme Court through its 547-page detailed judgment. The order has the potential to demolish the constitutional firewall created by the Supreme Court between the government and the citizens with respect to their informational privacy, bodily privacy and data privacy.”

Shergill insisted that the new order, instead of permitting interception of calls or data, allows agencies to tap calls, read online communication, access data stored in computer as well as intercept any digital information shared with others.