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

Showing posts with label Sameer Kochar-Chairman SKOCH Group. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sameer Kochar-Chairman SKOCH Group. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

11456 - What the Aadhaar authority needs to learn from Zomato’s response to hacking - Scroll.In


Far from being open to questions, UIDAI has chosen to go after anyone who raises genuine concerns about the security of Aadhaar data.

Published 21 hours ago.  


The Unique Identification Authority of India does not take kindly to criticism. The body, which issues India’s 12-digit unique identity numbers known as Aadhaar and administers the centralised database with biometric scans of more than 100 crore Indians, has in the past filed complaints against a journalist and a think tank head for pointing to flaws in the storage of Aadhaar details. This week, UIDAI sent a letter to Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society suggesting that its report, which revealed that government websites were giving easy access to 13 crore Aadhaar numbers, was in fact potential evidence to prove that the Centre had been involved in illegal hacking.

The letter from UIDAI asked for CIS’ help in bringing to justice those involved in “hacking such sensitive information,” and said that it had asked for the centre to respond to UIDAI by May 30. The letter also asked CIS to specify “how much (of) this data have been downloaded by you or are in your possession, or in the possession of any other persons that you know.”

Easily accessible
The Centre for Internet & Society had on May 1 published a report claiming that around 13 crore Aadhaar numbers and 10 crore bank account numbers were easily accessible on four government portals connected to welfare schemes. The report pointed out that, though the Aadhaar Act makes it illegal to publish a citizen’s Aadhaar number, government websites were making it easy for just about anyone to access a vast number of these numbers as well as other data such as bank account numbers. It added that this sort of information could be used for financial fraud and profiling, among other things.

Although access to the numbers may not have been as simple as just going to the portals, the report pointed out that anyone with a basic awareness of technology would easily be able to get to the documents storing these Aadhaar details. “Sensitive personal identity information such as Aadhaar number, caste, religion, address, photographs and financial information are only a few clicks away and suggest how poorly conceived these initiatives are,” the report said.

The report was officially published and publicised, with the aim of bringing to the attention of the state and the wider public the fact that such information was readily available, and that too on government websites. The letter from UIDAI, however, seems to suggest that, far from being concerned about the lax standards at government websites, the authority instead wanted to go after CIS for pointing to these weaknesses in the Aadhaar architecture.

UIDAI’s complaints
This is not the first time UIDAI has chosen to act this way. When CNN-News18 journalist Debayan Roy attempted to demonstrate that a person could obtain two separate Aadhaar enrollment numbers with the same biometrics, the Delhi Police filed a First Information Report against him. And when think tank head Sameer Kochhar pointed to the potential use of stored biometric data to carry out unauthorised transactions, the UIDAI registered a complaint against him as well.

It seems evident that the authority does not recognise the difference between public interest efforts to point out weaknesses in the government’s massive scheme, which involves biometric data of more than 100 crore Indians, and actually malicious hacking. Indeed, it would be hard for the government to argue that the CIS’ work, which was published in an official report, could possibly be analogous to that of a hacker who was trying to grab data that should otherwise be secret.

CIS added an update to its report on May 16, clarifying some of the questions that had been raised about its effort. It pointed to a number of reasons why it cannot be said to have violated the hacking sections of the Information Technology Act. Those reasons include
  • the fact that CIS informed all the government departments mentioned, including UIDAI, about the data that was easily accessible, before publishing its report.
  • the fact that the datasets had been uploaded by the government departments themselves and were publicly available via search engines,
  • and that they were not guarded by any passwords or access protocols. In one case, anyone could just change the URL from ‘nologin’ to ‘login’, to access details, even without the use of a password.
“If what CIS researchers did violates the law, then every single person visiting a government website without taking prior approval from the site’s owner would be violating the law as well. Clearly this is not what the law is meant to do and has not been done in this case.” 

Chilling effect
UIDAI’s behaviour seems likely to have a chilling effect on anyone who raises concerns about the very genuine security problems that have plagued one of the largest government-mandated data collection and storage efforts in history. Its decision to pursue criminal cases, rather than work with an organisation that, in CIS’ case, even gave it prior information about the problematic websites, makes it clear that the authority has little interest in ensuring the secrecy of Aadhaar numbers, despite the Aadhaar Act making it illegal for them to be displayed.

The body’s behaviour seems even more egregious because it came around the time of two other news breaks. There were allegations that one of the influential think tanks closely associated with the UIDAI was resorting to trolling critics of the Aadhaar project through anonymous Twitter profiles.

The other was the news of a massive data breach at Zomato, a company that lists restaurants and allows people to order food online.

Sunday, May 7, 2017

11261 - Is India's Aadhaar System an Instrument For Surveillance? - Global Voices


Posted 5 May 2017 7:37 GMT 

Taking fingerprints for Aadhaar, photo via Wikimedia Commons, by Kannanshanmugham. CC BY 3.0

The first part of this report talked about the background and the security concerns with Aadhaar, the unique ID database of India, the largest of its kind in the world.

As questions emerge around flawed security measures being used to protect India's digital ID database, government authorities are defending the system — and even taking action against those who are revealing its flaws.

Developed by the Union government of India in 2009, the plan called for the creation a Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that would issue Unique Identity numbers (UIDs) to all residents of India. Under this scheme, now known as Aadhaar (which means “foundation” or “base” in Hindi), the UID number ties together several pieces of a person's demographic and biometric information, including their photograph, ten fingerprints and an image of their iris. This information is all stored in a centralized database. According to the UIDAI, a UID is meant to be “robust enough to eliminate duplicate and fake identities, and can be verified and authenticated in an easy, cost-effective way.”

The scheme has so far enrolled 1.13 billion Indians and residents of India, making it the largest biometric database in the world.

In a 2016 report entitled Digital Dividends, the World Bank included “digital identity” among the four so-called digital enablers for development. With strong identification systems, the report's authors argue, it is possible to “deliver vital services to people, govern effectively, eliminate duplicative or inefficient programs, make efficient use of limited resources, and produce statistics accurately.”

But thus far, India's Aadhaar system has not achieved these aims and has in some cases increased obstacles for citizens seeking to take advantage of basic public services, such as food subsidies. The system also has not actually reached all Indians: A Right to Information (RTI) application filed by Ujjainee Sharma and Trishna Senapaty revealed that as of June 2015, 0.03 per cent of all Aadhaar numbers issued were to people without any pre-existing identification documents. The applicants suspect that the total number of residents of India who do not possess ID numbers is much higher.

Authorities take action against critics, researchers
Apart from challenges of outreach, data mismanagement and machine errors, recent events have proven that Aadhaar numbers can be easily disclosed, posted online and used for malicious purposes. On May 1, researchers at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore reported that an estimated 135 million Aadhaar numbers had been leaked online from four separate government databases.

While the government has warned that publishing UID data on portals can lead to three years imprisonment, a rule that likely deters some from posting UID numbers online, those reporting security flaws have also faced consequences.

When Skoch Group chairperson Sameer Kocchar showed in a February 2017 video blog post how the UID can be hacked, the UIDAI responded by accusing him of violating Section 37 of the Aadhaar Act.

Section 37 says,”Whoever, intentionally discloses, transmits, copies or otherwise disseminates any identity information collected in the course of enrollment or authentication to any person not authorized under this Act or regulations made thereunder or in contravention of any agreement or arrangement entered into pursuant to the provisions of this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or, in the case of a company, with a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.”

In another incident, a case was filed against a journalist who showed on television how it was possible to obtain two separate UID numbers. To further complicate the issue, one may never know if their data has been breached, as the UIDAI refuses to disclose this type of information through Right to Information requests.

On Twitter, multiple users have tagged the @ceo_uidai and @uidai on relevant tweets, raising alarms against potential misuse of biometrics and leaks of UID data. But the Twitter handles of some of those who voiced the criticism have been blocked by government accounts. In responding to a subsequent RTI application asking the UIDAI whether they have banned anyone from their Twitter accounts, officials claimed otherwise.

A tool for surveillance?
Another concern of privacy and security experts is that UID can be used as a tool for mass surveillance by government or other actors.
Various government spokespersons maintain that UIDAI collects minimal information. While that is true, services based on UID collect more than minimal information. @kingslyj provides an example of two state government entities that do precisely that:

@pranesh Look at the difference in Aadhaar application forms between Karnataka -
… and Kerala -

he tool may also be further developed to collect more information in the future. Revelations by legislative researcher Meghnad from a debate in the Lower House of the Parliament earlier in 2017 indicated that DNA data might one day be included:

Fun Fact: when asked whether DNA would be a part of Biometric data collection in #Aadhaar, the FM said they might do so in the future.
Fun Fact: when asked whether DNA would be a part of Biometric data collection in #Aadhaar, the FM said they might do so in the future.
Centre for Internet and Society Executive Director Sunil Abraham has openly described Aadhaar as a surveillance tool:

Repeat after me: Aadhaar is surveillance technology masquerading as secure authentication technology.
Multiple national experts on law, privacy and technology have raised concern about the program's fraud and surveillance implications. New Delhi lawyer Apar Gupta, who has argued multiple privacy-related cases before the Supreme Court, explained in an interview with BuzzFeed News:

If your data is compromised in any way, there is absolutely nowhere that you as a citizen can turn to. There are no judicial remedies built into the Aadhaar program in case of identity theft.

Some of the worst fears of Aadhaar's critics were confirmed when a private company tweeted out a picture of what they could do with UID. The tweet has been deleted, but the original image has continued to circulate online:

If you don’t understand the full import of the phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”, take a good look at @India_Stack
In one of seven open letters to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance that was scrutinizing what was then known as the National Identification Authority of India Bill, the Centre for Internet and Society laid down the inherent problems and pitfalls of using biometrics as an instrument of authentication, offering technical recommendations intended to help avoid exploitation of the system.
Billionaire Nandan Nilekani, who is UID's main architect and the co-founder of IT company Infosys, has acknowledged that privacy regulation is an “afterthought” of innovation and that India needs strong privacy laws after claiming for years that the scheme had built-in privacy and security features. Upper House MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar did not fail to miss Nilekani's 


Views "evolve"
2015 - #Aadhaar ensures privacy by desgn ;
2016-2017 massve data leaks n breaches ;
2017 - Need a data privacy law
In the background of this ongoing debate, the Attorney General of India has argued in court that ‘privacy is not a fundamental right’ and has even referred to it as a concern of the elite or the corrupt.

It is worrying to see the government not respond adequately to concerns raised by the citizens, and even to punish those who have shed light on Aadhaar's flaws. This combined with a broad-based denial of privacy as a fundamental right gives the impression that they do not have plans to stop or even address the problems with the system.


Written by

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

10887 - The man in UIDAI’s crosshairs tells us about the biggest threats of Aadhaar


Ramarko Sengupta March 2, 2017 4 min


Lately, Aadhaar seems to have been in the news for all the wrong reasons. Internet activists and lawyers have been raising security concerns about the central biometric database of over a billion Indians.

Meanwhile, one individual — Sameer Kochhar, an entrepreneur-writer who runs a Gurgaon-based think tank called Skoch Development Foundation — has reportedly attracted the ire of the authorities. According to an Asian Age report, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has filed an FIR against Kochhar for violating the Aadhaar Act. UIDAI is the body that issues 12-digit Aadhaar numbers to citizens for targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services.

We could not independently verify which clause of the Aadhaar Act Kochhar has “violated”. Delhi Police and UIDAI officials did not returns calls or respond to emails sent by FactorDaily.

Sameer Kochhar

According to an Asian Age report, the police complaint was regarding an article published in Kochhar’s magazine, Inclusion. 

It talked about security loopholes in Aadhaar and also contained a video showing how unauthorised transactions can be carried out on the system  

According to the Asian Age report, the police complaint was regarding an article entitled ‘Is a deep state at work to steal digital India’ that Kochhar had published in his magazine, Inclusion, on February 11. The article, which talked about security loopholes in Aadhaar, also contained an embedded video showing how unauthorised transactions can be carried out on the system. In the video, a woman demonstrates that it’s possible to save the biometric data of an Aadhaar cardholder and later use without that concerned person being physically present.

Recently, the UIDAI also filed a complaint with the Delhi Police against Axis Bank, its business correspondent Suvidhaa, and eMudhra (a firm that issues digital signature certificates) over concerns that the they had saved biometric data. The Aadhaar Act bars storing of biometric data in any system or device. Violation can attract jail time of up to three years along with a fine.

ABP Pandey, UIDAI CEO, in a series of tweets, however, claimed that “the video is fake” and went on to say that Aadhaar is “fully secure”.

The Twitterati is aghast at the UIDAI filing a police complaint rather than rewarding the person who tried to expose loopholes in the system for it to be strengthened.

FactorDaily spoke to (and emailed) Kochhar, who finds himself in the middle of a storm, and here’s what he had to say.

Q: You have been pointing out security loopholes in Aadhaar for a while. Is that why you’re being targeted and the FIR was filed against you by an UIDAI official?
A: I don’t know if I am being targeted. I have only read that there is a FIR. As per one newspaper, I have already been arrested.

Q: Do you think the FIR could have anything to do with the recent Axis Bank-Aadhaar incident that was exposed. Could it have acted as a trigger?
A: Absolutely.

Q: Have you been approached by the police yet?
A: No one has approached me, neither police nor the UIDAI.

Q: You have apparently violated the Aadhaar Act. Do you know which clause in the Act the FIR refers to? Surely, the Act can’t penalise citizens for raising security concerns.
A: My knowledge of the act is limited and you’d surely hope that there is no provision about the media and citizens reporting concerns (about Aadhaar).

Q: In a nutshell, what are the biggest threats that Aadhaar poses in its current form? And what can the UIDAI do to plug the holes?
A: The omnipresence of Aadhaar and the resultant security issues. I believe now even Skype may require Aadhaar.

Q: In your article ‘Is a deep state at work to steal digital India?’ you raise a number of questions. Are the authorities trying to stop you from following up on these questions and do you think the FIR is a veiled threat to you?
A: I have nothing to say on the subject currently. The authorities have been apprised of my concerns and I am awaiting their response to my confidential letter.

Q: Do you feel free speech is under threat in the country?
A: Well, no one has stopped me from speaking yet.

Q: In this backdrop, how important do you think is the speech bill, which Odisha MP Tathagata Satpathy has been trying to push in Parliament? Also, India does not have a privacy law yet — what are your thoughts on that?
A: India needs to have the strongest possible privacy and cybersecurity laws and yet uphold civil liberties. It is a tough one to balance.

Sameer Kochhar’s image is from his Twitter handle.

Friday, March 3, 2017

10874 - Security of Aadhaar's data is under question, but pointing to the gaps could lead to a police case - Scroll.In


The official UIDAI has filed a criminal complaint against a writer-entrepreneur for an article demonstrating how stored biometric data could be misused.

Published Yesterday · 10:30 am

Anumeha Yadav

In the past week, reports of two criminal complaints related to the security of the Aadhaar database – a centralised database of biometric scans of over 100 crore Indians – has raised concerns about a bigger data breach.

On February 24, the Times of India reported that the Unique Identification Authority of India – which issues the 12-digit Aadhaar numbers that ensure targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services – had on February 15 lodged a complaint with the Delhi Police Cyber Cell against Axis Bank Limited, its business correspondent Suvidha Infoserve, and esign provider eMudhra for illegally storing biometric data and performing unauthorised Aadhaar authentication.

The Authority alleged that the firms performed multiple transactions using replay of stored biometrics – for instance, one individual supposedly performed 397 biometric transactions between July 14, 2016 and February 19 this year. It described this as a violation of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits, and Services) Act, 2016, as the law does not allow the storage of biometric data.

Announcing additional safety measures, Authority officials stated that they have submitted a proposal to the IT Ministry on February 22 that from now on till May, all biometric devices would be registered with it, and an Aadhaar encryption key would be introduced in their hardware to ensure the data received was “captured live”.

Gaps in the system
While the investigation into the complaint is still on, the Asian Age reported on February 28 that the Authority had registered a separate police complaint against an individual, Sameer Kochhar, who heads the Gurgaon think tank Skoch Development Foundation. The complaint was in connection with an article, “Is a Deep State at Work to Steal Digital India”, Kochhar had published on February 11 in his magazine, Inclusion, about security vulnerabilities in Aadhaar systems. The article included a video demonstrating how unauthorised transactions were possible using replay of stored biometrics – the same malpractice for which the Authority had taken action against Axis Bank, Suvidha and eMudhra.

Two days after the article was published, the Authority’s chief executive officer, ABP Pandey, responded to it on Twitter by calling it a fake video and asking Kochhar to stop spreading rumours. Two weeks later, the agency registered the police case against Kochchar.




@SkochSameer @narendramodi @arunjaitley @TimesNow @ashwani_mahajan Video is fake. No evidence of connection to Aadhaar server. @amitabhk87

Confirming this, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime-South) Bhisham Singh said, “We have received a complaint from UIDAI that an individual Sameer Kochhar had floated a video and an article on Google, saying Aadhaar was not foolproof, the UIDAI says this is against Aadhaar Act, and we have registered a First Information Report.” Singh added that the FIR was not yet public and the police had not contacted Kochhar. “UIDAI says his claims are false, and we will investigate if this is so,” he said.

Another senior police official, who did not wish to be identified, said the case against Kochhar was registered under Sections 37 of the Aadhaar Act and several other provisions of the Act as well as the Indian Penal Code.

Section 37 says:
Whoever, intentionally discloses, transmits, copies or otherwise disseminates any identity information collected in the course of enrolment or authentication to any person not authorised under this Act or regulations made thereunder or in contravention of any agreement or arrangement entered into pursuant to the provisions of this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or, in the case of a company, with a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.

On February 22 – before the police complaint against Axis Bank and the two other firms were reported – Kochhar leaked a letter purportedly sent by the Authority to one registered authentication user agency (whose name was masked) asking how it had performed multiple concurrent Aadhaar authentications on January 11 through the unauthorised use of stored biometrics of one individual.




The letter also stated that the Authority had detected a firm that was illegally using a “licence key”. Section 15 (2) of the Authentication Regulations of the Aadhaar Act — the Aadhaar Regulations are currently in Parliament — say a requesting entity can permit another agency or entity to perform a yes/no authentication by generating a “separate licence key”. In this instance, the second entity performs electronic know-your-customer requirements for financial transactions, even though it had no permission to do so.

The letter leaked on Twitter by Sameer Kochhar on February 22.
In an emailed response to Scroll.in, Kochhar said he had found out about the FIR against him from the Asian Age report, and that he had not yet been contacted by the Unique Identification Authority of India or the Delhi Police. “The story is available on www.inclusion.in and whatever other information and documents I have shared are on my Twitter timeline,” he stated. “I look forward to find out which parts of Aadhaar Act 2016 prohibit media reporting on its vulnerabilities.”

He also pointed out the Authority had not denied having issued the letter leaked by him.

Unique Identification Authority of India officials refused to share a copy of the police complaint or the basis of their action against Kochhar. “It may have been part of the original complaint against Axis Bank, and other, but we cannot share any details on this,” said Vikash Shuka, senior manager, communications and public outreach, at the Authority’s headquarters in Delhi. Shukla added that the Authority did not have a spokesperson who could publicly comment on the details of the complaint against Kochhar.

Shooting the messenger?
Prasanna S – a lawyer for petitioners who have challenged Aadhaar in the Supreme Court – said it was not clear that what Kochhar demonstrated was related to information gathered in authentication or enrollment, as Section 37 of the Aadhaar Act, which has been mentioned in the FIR against him, suggests. He accused the Unique Identification Authority of India of using Section 37 to stifle criticism and curtail speech. “If you criticise Aadhaar project, the government says ‘you are just saying so, you do not understand the project’,” the lawyer said. “Here, someone has demonstrated evidence of a security flaw and they are saying ‘how dare you expose its vulnerability’.”
“Do we now have to be worried about sedition against UIDAI?” he added, expressing concern at the Authority registering an FIR against a citizen for exposing a security vulnerability in Aadhaar.

Chinmayi Arun, executive director of the Centre for Communications Governance at the National Law University, Delhi said that “threatening concerned citizens who identify holes and errors that the authority should be fixing is foolish”. She added, “The UIDAI should be rewarding those who find its breaches – instead, we have attempts to intimidate them into silence through the abuse of the state’s police powers. The Aadhaar Act enables this intimidation and it is high time the Supreme Court put a stop to it.”

Kiran Jonnalgadda, co-founder of HasGeek, a community for start-ups for software development in Bengaluru, said Kochhar’s complaint and the Authority’s action against the three firms showed it had failed to provide sufficient technical protection against such attacks. “Replay attacks are a well-known problem, and the Application Programming Interface should not be storing the fingerprint on the device itself,” he said.

“The irregularities detected show they did not have sufficient technical protection, only legal protection against this,” he added. “The UIDAI provides for SMS, email alerts on authentication, but even this is optional.”

Jonnalgadda pointed out that new technical protection — of introducing registration of biometrics devices — was, in fact, added after Kochhar’s article. “The new technical protection kicked in after Kochar, a high profile individual, made an accusation, the video went public and UIDAI CEO replied on Twitter publicly saying, ‘Aadhaar is secure, do not spread rumours’, and then, after all this, they bothered to investigate,” he said.
He, too, said that someone raising a security issue in the system should be rewarded and not punished.
We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.

Thursday, March 2, 2017

10871 - FIR AGAINST THREE FIRMS FOR MISUSING STORED AADHAR BIOMETRICS - Daily Pioneer

FIR AGAINST THREE FIRMS FOR MISUSING STORED AADHAR BIOMETRICS
Tuesday, 28 February 2017 | Souvik Mitra | New Delhi

In a first, an FIR has been registered against three firms and the chairman of SKOCH group Sameer Kocchar and other individuals for attempting unauthorised authentication and impersonation by using stored Aadhaar biometrics and spreading false rumour about the Aadhar ecosystem .
The firms under the scanner are Axis Bank, Mumbai-based Suvidhaa Infoserve and Bengaluru-based eMudhra. The three firms have been served a “notice for action” under Aadhaar regulations. The individual booked in the case has been identified as Gaurav Vasant Nikam.
On the basis of UIDAI Assistant Director General Yashwant Kumar’s complaint with the cyber cell, FICN, Crime Branch of Delhi Police, the FIR was registered under sections 409, 419, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 66 and 66C of the Information Technology Act. 
The complaint was filed after UIDAI detected an exact biometric match in multiple consecutive transactions which the authority said was not possible without the biometrics being stored and their unauthorised use.
Kumar in the FIR alleged that an article published by chairman of Gurgaon based Think Tank Skoch group, Sameer Kocchar, claimed that Aadhar Authentication system is flawed and vulnerable. The article also claimed that it is possible that the authentication of the resident can be done by using stored biometric.

To substantiate the claim, Kochar had posted a video as a demonstration. On the evening of 13th February, Kochar used Twitter to spread false information/rumours that Aadhar has been hacked wherein he also referred to the said article.
The issue was enquired by the UIDAI Headquarters and it was found that the video posted in the said article presumably demonstrated a woman performing authentication under the name of Gaurav Vasant Nikam.

Thereafter the authentication records of Gaurav Vasant Nikam was checked and UIDAI officials noticed that he performed 397 biometric transactions between July 14, 2016 and February 9, 2017. Out of these, 194 transactions were performed through Axis Bank, 112 through eMudhra and 91 through Suvidhaa Infoserve.

But the question that popped up was that multiple transactions were performed concurrently with different Authentication Using agencies (AUA) — Axis, eMudhra and Suvidhaa — which suggested that these type of transaction were replayed by the developer, who is common for all the three AUA and attempted the illegal operations.
It was also observed that only one device was used per AUA, suggesting that only one developer performed the authentication, read the FIR.


Further the profile of Nikam was checked on Facebook and Linked-In, and his biometrics which were used, showed an address which matched the demographic records of Aadhaar. Police said they are investigating to establish the whereabouts of Nikam and there are indications that there could be more persons involved in this racket.