AADHAAR RELATED ARTICLES: 14009 - DNA technology bill raises serious concerns over right to privacy Lok Sabha passed the bill on Tuesday

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, January 13, 2019

14009 - DNA technology bill raises serious concerns over right to privacy Lok Sabha passed the bill on Tuesday - The Week

DNA technology bill raises serious concerns over right to privacy

Lok Sabha passed the bill on Tuesday

By Rekha Dixit January 09, 2019 17:34 IST

Representative image | Reuters

The Lok Sabha has cleared the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019. Union Minister for Science and Technology Dr Harsh Vardhan said steps have been taken to ensure that provisions of the bill do not get misused. However, there are still several issues in the bill that are fuzzy on protection of privacy. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, who opposed the bill, said the bill will enable creation of a 'big brother state', and that enacting it without bringing in a robust data protection law would have a bearing on the right to privacy.

So what is the bill all about? A DNA technology legislation has been in the work since 2003. The aim is to regulate the DNA technology in solving criminal as well as civil cases. As Harsh Vardhan said, ministries, namely, home, defence, external affairs, women and child development, as well as agencies like Central Bureau of Investigation and National Investigation Agency would benefit with the a passage of the bill.

One aspect of the bill is to maintain a national as well as regional DNA database banks. These databases will have samples registered under various heads: victims, undertrials, missing persons, deceased persons, offenders and suspects. The fears of privacy violations come in various ways. One issue is of data collection itself. The bill mandates that DNA material can only be collected by consent. The exception is in the case of an individual who is accused of a crime that carries a sentence of more than seven years, or death. One clause in the bill, however, says that in case the consent is not given, a magistrate can decide that the material is necessary for the case, and then it can be collected even without the consent of the individual. The bill is fuzzy on how a magistrate could decide the imperativeness of the material.

The bill says that the DNA collection centres have to hand over all data to the national and regional databases. The DNA material is, however, also collected for civil cases such as parentage and also for medical cases like assisted reproduction and organ donation. While there are regulations on how DNA profiles, which were collected for criminal cases, can be deleted from the database (through police or court orders or written permission), there are no provisions for removing DNA profiles that were collected for civil or medical cases. Also, there is no provision for removing DNA profiles of deceased persons. All these, say observers, could violate the right to privacy.

The bill makes provisions for removal of data from the database, but has not made rules for removing profiles from the collection centres. This again leaves the DNA data prone to misuse.

Harsha Vardhan noted that all laws can be misused. However, these loopholes in the bill could make its passage in Rajya Sabha difficult.

However, the need for a DNA technology regulation bill is not contested. The technology is a useful forensic tool. At present, according to the government, there are just 3,000 cases of DNA profiling, barely three per cent of the total need. Laboratories, too, do not have standardised rules and regulations to abide by. This means that not only is the potential of DNA technology underutilised, but that in the absence of standardisation, it is unreliable, too.