9132 - Parliament Standing Committee Seeks Legal Status for Aadhaar - NDTV

Parliament Standing Committee Seeks Legal Status for Aadhaar

All India | Press Trust of India | Updated: December 03, 2015 21:12 IST

According to UIDAI website, 94.14 crore Aadhaar numbers have been issued so far.

NEW DELHI:  The government has been asked by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance to provide a statutory backing to Aadhaar at the earliest and take immediate steps to address issues pertaining to the project.

"The committee, therefore, once again reiterates that the government should immediately address the key issues relating to UIDAI and initiate measures for early legislation on the subject," said the panel headed by senior Congress leader and former union minister M Veerappa Moily.

It noted that the reply of the Planning Ministry on the pending legislation on UIDAI has been repetitive.

In its reply to the panel, the Planning Ministry said, "In view of the recent steps taken by the government to universalise Aadhaar enrolments and to utilise it for several service delivery initiatives, the government recognises that there is an urgent requirement to pass the bill. Further steps, that are required to be taken to take the proposed legislation further, are being taken."

The panel said, "The Committee had time and again urged the government to address the key issues related to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) Bill, particularly in the light of recent Supreme Court Judgement."

In October, lifting its earlier restriction, the Supreme Court had allowed voluntary use of Aadhaar for welfare programmes including MGNREGA, all pension schemes, provident fund and Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna.

Before the order, the use of Aadhaar was restricted to public distribution system (PDS) and disbursal of cooking gas subsidy.

Last month, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had said the draft legislation to give a statutory backing to the unique identification number is ready and a decision would be taken at an appropriate time.

However, the bill was not listed on agenda for the Winter Session of Parliament which began on November 26.

According to UIDAI website, 94.14 crore Aadhaar numbers have been issued so far as against the country population of 121 crore as per 2011 census.

Story First Published: December 03, 2015 21:12 IST

TRENDING

• 
  

4799 - UPA ready for Aadhaar battle on two flanks - The Hindu

NEW DELHI, October 8, 2013

Updated: October 9, 2013 10:48 IST

UPA ready for Aadhaar battle on two flanks

NITIN SETHI

The Union Cabinet approved the bill it had earlier sent to Parliament with just a few amendments

On Aadhaar, the UPA has decided to take on the Supreme Court as well as the Opposition. The government on Tuesday defended Aadhaar before the Supreme Court asking for relief from the interim orders. It has decided to argue that the judiciary has encroached upon its executive decision-making space with the order. In parallel, the Union Cabinet cleared the National Identification Authority of India Bill on Tuesday, rejecting all key reservations of the Parliament Standing Committee which had studied the original 2010 version of the bill.

The standing committee had made scathing comments on the bill as well as the functioning of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) without a parliamentary mandate.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court decided not to alter its interim orders on Aadhaar as pleaded by the government and oil PSUs. The order had put critical restrictions against the use and distribution of the unique identity numbers. But the government has prepared a brief to fight it out aggressively in the court claiming that the court orders are impinging on the powers of the executive, which includes the right to make the identity numbers mandatory for the government’s targeted social schemes, if it so wishes.

In a move that is designed to also provide more solid grounds for the government to continue with its policy on Aadhaar, the Union Cabinet approved the bill it had earlier sent to Parliament with just a few amendments even as it endorsed the position that the current model, policy and processes of the UID are foolproof, adequate and legally sound.

If the two-pronged attack works and the government is able to get a nod for the bill in the winter session of Parliament, it could secure a legal mandate of the UIDAI that has been lacking so far and quell dissent and litigation.

With the court agreeing to hold an early final hearing in the case on October 22, the government plans to make the case that there is no credible proof of a wide-scale denial of benefits to people without Aadhaar numbers. The government will claim there are only some aberrations at worst and that the government is ensuring that those without cards do not get left out while the distribution of cards is not complete. At the same time the government will defend its right to make the cards mandatory for its social security schemes. It will equate the Aadhaar card to a ration card or a driving license arguing that the government can choose what measures it takes to identify beneficiaries. It will distinguish between government schemes and other programmes or services that do not require to be targeted, such as opening of bank accounts or telephone connections.

It will also argue in detail that it is not the UIDAI’s job to identify illegal migrants and block any chances of these individuals of securing Aadhaar cards. It will claim that work is done by the Ministry of Home Affairs and Aadhaar will act as proof of identity and residence. Again its line of argument would be that there may be stray cases and aberrations but there is no hard proof of systematic leakage in their ‘robust’ verification methods.

With the UPA still keen to push the cash transfer scheme through Aadhaar, calling it Direct Benefit Transfer, the government also has taken the position that LPG connections are not linked to the UID cards.

While clearing the bill in the cabinet too the UPA has decided to reinforce its power to make the aadhaar cards mandatory when it so desires. It has rejected the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s observations on the matter along with all other recommendations. The background note for the cabinet on the bill records the government’s assertion that once the UIDAI programme is fully rolled out it “would only be logical to make it a necessary condition for availing public benefits and services. Without this linkage, the total investment in the UIDAI project would be infructuous.”

The amendments the cabinet affirmed on Tuesday include an explicit mention right up front in the title of the bill that the UID shall act as proof of identity and residence proof.

Through a second amendment the bill made provision for people to use the identity number through electronic channels as well for confirming identity and residence.

Another amendment permits the UIDAI to share data with authorities without explicit consent of those holding the aadhaar numbers if the Central government so mandates it under specific directions or if another law requires data sharing. The government has contended that issues of data leakage can be handled under general laws such as the Information Technology Act, 2010.

There are several other amendments but most of them are technical and legal corrections and do not alter the provisions substantially.

In fact the government has summarily rejected all the objections of the standing committee. It has backed the UID system as being robust against criticism that it did not account for leakages.

Defending its operations even as the bill remained pending in the Parliament, the government has cited a legal opinion of the Attorney General to claim that UIDAI could work through executive orders without falling foul of the Constitution.

3277 - Parliamentary Panel asks govt for fresh law to give legality to UIDAI

Parliamentary Panel asks govt for fresh law to give legality to UIDAI

By PTI | 22 Apr, 2013, 07.22PM IST1 comments |Post a Comment

NEW DELHI: Concerned over the functioning of UIDAI in its current form, a Parliamentary Panel today asked the government to come out with a fresh legislation to provide legality to the Authority.

"The Committee strongly feel that in the absence of legislation, Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is discharging its functions without any legal basis," the Standing Committee on Finance headed by BJP leader Yashwant Sinha said while presenting a report in Parliament.

The Committee in its earlier reports had urged the government to reconsider and review the UID scheme to bring a fresh legislation before Parliament.

The Committee said it is also concerned that during the last three financial years (up to January, 2013), a huge sum of Rs 2,342 crore has been spent on the scheme and Rs 2,620 crore has been allocated in BE 2013-14, out of which Rs 1,040 crore is earmarked for 'Enrolement Authentication and Updation' pending legislative sanction of the scheme.

The Committee has asked about cost per card incurred by the government to generate Aadhaar cards by UIDAI.

That apart, the report said, despite an average growth rate of 7.9 per cent in the 11th Five Year Plan, there was no substantial increase in employment opportunities.

"The Committee are of the view that skill development is a highly serious area of concern and need to be given priority ... The mismatch in terms of demand and supply of skilled workforce is widening rapidly."

It said the government needs to more than double its existing skill training capacity of 45 lakh to achieve the ambitious target of skilling 5 crore people in the 12th Plan (2012-17) including 90 lakh in 2013-14. "The Committee also recommend that like Right to Education there should be compulsory skill development programme," it said.

The Committee was, however, satisfied that 173 of centrally sponsored schemes (CSSs) at the end of 11th Plan will be restructured into 70 schemes. It will help streamline, restructure and rationalise such schemes to enhance their productiveness, it added.

Also, the Committee supported the 12th Plan's goal for faster, more inclusive and sustainable growth. It said that to achieve the goal of sustainable growth, various schemes in field of health, education, water and protection of environment should be reviewed. It added that more funds should be allocated for treatment of cancer. 

Among others, the Committee observed that the targets in the field of electricity generation, coal production and gas production could not be met during the 11th Plan. "The Committee also desire that an Action Plan may be formulated for giving thrust to renewable energy as an alternative source of power," it said. 

It also observed several deficiencies in implementation of Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana ( RGGVY) aimed at providing electricity to all rural households. It said that in certain states, even the minimum required hours of supply of six to eight hours of electricity could not be met. 

"The Committee, therefore, recommend for the comprehensive review of the Scheme and rectification of deficiencies to ensure...improvement in supply of electricity.

2666 - ‘Aadhaar’ is Reaching India’s Poor, but at What Price? - World Bank

 ‘Aadhaar’ is Reaching India’s Poor, but at What Price?

Submitted by Johanna Martinsson on Tue, 07/17/2012 - 10:46

Since the Unique Identification Authority of India embarked on its unique identification project (UIDAI) in 2010, an estimated 200 million people have voluntarily enrolled.  As discussed in a previous blog, the UIDAI aims to administer some 1.2 billion unique identification numbers by the end of this decade.  The 12-digit online number, also referred to as Aadhaar (“foundation” in Hindi), is issued upon completion of demographic and biometric information by the enrollees. The number will give millions of Indian residents, previously excluded from the formal economy, the opportunity to access a range of benefits and services, such as banking, mobile, education, and healthcare.  The UIDAI specifically aims to extend social and financial services to the poor, remove corrupt practices plaguing existing welfare databases, eliminate duplicate and fake identities, and hold government officials accountable.


According to a recent study, the UIDAI is on the right track in "bringing entirely new segments of the population into the mainstream economy". The data shows that more than 56% of the enrollees did not previously carry a formal identification, “and 87% of those households have an annual income below $2,000 a year”. The study, led by Professor Arun Sundararajan of NYU Stern and Professor Ravi Bapna of the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management, with support from the Indian School of Business, is an ongoing multi-year national survey carried out by India’s National Council for Applied Economic Research and will measure socioeconomic impact over the next decade.  The professors predict that if enrollments continue in its current pace, 300 million citizens will be enrolled by the end of this year. They believe that progress so far “is an extremely important first step towards tackling India’s persistent socioeconomic inequalities and bringing the country’s recent progress to the masses.”

While the UIDAI has made great progress in enrolling residents, challenges persist. The legislation that would have enforced the Aadhaar on all Indian residents was rejected by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance in December, 2011.  It was rejected due to a number of reasons, including: lack of clarity, security of data, enrollment of illegal immigrants, identity theft, duplication of efforts in collecting biometric information, lack of coordination among government agencies, and difference of opinion on Aadhaar within the government  (for the full report, click here).  While the Committee asked for a “new fresh” legislation, the UIDAI has continued implementing Aadahaar.  It’s not clear what the status of a new bill is and what steps the UIDAI is taking in addressing some of the issues raised by the Committee. However, they have worked with the National Population Register to minimize duplication in collecting data.

The UIDAI has sparked a lot of controversy in the public space from various groups.  This has not stopped the project’s leader, Mr. Nandan Nilecani, who is determined to make a change and to better the lives of the poor.  His perseverance must be admired. The project’s communication strategy (“Aahdaar – Communicating to a billion”) has clearly been effective considering the high enrolment rate in a very short period of time and the fact that it’s reaching intended segments of the population.   However, one can’t help but speculate whether some of the challenges and concerns raised by opposing groups could have been minimized had the UIDAI conducted a sound analysis of the political economy and stakeholders before implementation. In a recent interview by Fareed Zakaria, Mr. Nilecani addressed dealing with political obstacles. As opposed to the private sector, in which Nilecani used to work, he recognizes that there are far many more stakeholder groups to respond to in the public space, and the amount of time it takes to craft a strategy that reflects everyone’s views.  Also, while opposition to any change is a fact, Nilecani is focused on building alliances with those supporting the change. For example, the UIDAI has signed a Memo of Understanding (MoU) with a number of states, banks, and other partners. However, for Nilecani the greatest allies are the people themselves, as they see their lives improving with access to financial and social services.

The UID is a fascinating story, and one to watch in the years to come. There will certainly be many lessons to learn from this program and the outcome could be monumental.


Picture credit: benoit.crouzet

Follow PublicSphereWB on Twitter

2559 - Growing Mistrust of India’s Biometric ID Scheme

May 4, 2012 | By Rebecca Bowe

Growing Mistrust of India’s Biometric ID Scheme

In India, a massive effort is underway to collect biometric identity information for each of the country’s 1.2 billion people. The incredible plan, dubbed the “mother of all e-governance projects” by the Economic Times, has stirred controversy in India and beyond, raising serious concerns about the privacy and security of individuals’ personal data.

The plan is moving ahead at a clip under the auspices of the National Population Register (NPR) and the Unique ID (UID) programs, separately governed initiatives that have an agreement to integrate the data they collect to build the world’s largest biometric database. Upon enrollment, individuals are issued 12-digit unique ID numbers on chip-based identity cards. For residents who lack the necessary paperwork to obtain certain kinds of employment or government services, there’s strong incentive to get a unique ID. While the UID program is voluntary, enrollment in the NPR program is mandatory for all citizens.

The NPR program's stated objectives are to streamline the delivery of government services such as welfare or subsidies, prevent identity fraud, and facilitate economic development, but some critics contend that the plan has its roots in an agenda focused on national security. Indian journalist Aman Sethi argues in a New York Times Op-Ed that the NPR originated with a 1992 government campaign to deport undocumented Bangladeshi immigrants, and that the creation of a comprehensive identity database was intended “exclusively to assist law enforcement.” And while UID was originally created to target India’s poorest 200 million citizens to facilitate service delivery, it has since been expanded to cover the country’s entire population.

The UID program is administered by the Unique Identity Authority of India (UIDAI), an executive body created to oversee the issuance of unique ID numbers for the stated purpose of facilitating access to benefits and services. At the helm of UID is Nandan Nilekani, a billionaire who made his fortune in the tech industry before ascending to his current role as chairman of the UIDAI.

While the NPR program has been moving ahead since 2004 with a relatively low level of public opposition, the more recently introduced UID project has sparked controversy. UID took center stage during a political feud last December when Parliament’s Standing Committee on Finance rejected a bill establishing the National Identification Authority of India, which would have granted the UID program statutory mandate. Although the bill was submitted in 2010, the UIDAI had already begun processing individuals and issuing numbers pending Parliamentary approval of the legislation, operating under the authority of the executive branch. The committee rejected the reasoning that they had the authority to do so, calling the program’s legality into question.

In late January, a compromise deal was struck between the NPR and the UID program administrators following a political turf war, when officials announced “the NPR and UID projects would proceed side by side to ensure that all Indian citizens have a unique number by June 2013.” Project administrators from UIDAI and India’s Ministry of Home Affairs, which oversees the Indian Census and the NPR program, announced that they would collaborate to de-duplicate the data to eliminate overlap for integration purposes.

Collecting Biometric Data

To date, some 170 million individuals have been registered in the UID program. To perform the data collection, the UIDAI has executed Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with partners -- including states, union territories and 25 financial institutions -- to act as registrars for implementing the scheme, according to a Parliamentary committee report.

The registrars, in turn, contract with tech firms such as Wipro, a company that has issued at least 6 million UID numbers in Maharashtra. Agents gather the data by going from village to village to set up processing camps, toting laptops and scanning equipment along with them and scrambling to process as many individuals as possible each day. In addition to demographic information, individuals’ biometric information is collected with iris scanners, fingerprint scanners, and face cameras that employ facial recognition technology. Morpho, a technology company, is a primary UID contractor that develops and maintains systems to crosscheck new applications by sifting through the biometrics database and prevent actual or fraudulent duplication.

The UID program is known as Aadhar, which also refers to the unique 12-digit number citizens are issued upon enrollment. According to recent news reports, a pilot program will link Aadhar with financial and banking services in 50 districts in a move that the UIDAI program director says will “change the financial landscape of the country.” 

Nilekani has championed the UID program as a tool that can aid low-income sectors of India’s population by streamlining the delivery of public services and creating a system that is more inclusive to the poor. Yet R. Ramakumar of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences in Mumbai pushes back against this point in an op-ed in The Hindu, charging, “the UID would be an alibi for the state to leave the citizen unmarked in the market for social services.”  

And if the interviews with Delhi’s poorest residents in this report is any indication, there’s also a danger that some marginalized individuals could slip through the cracks altogether.

An issue of greater concern, however, is that the biometric database could open the door to significant violations of personal privacy. The Aadhar system became mired in controversy last December surrounding the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance’s rejection of legislation that would have given it statutory mandate. In a report, lawmakers based their disapproval on concerns about security, data theft and the fact that that a national data protection law has yet to be enacted.

“The collection of biometric information and its linkage with personal information of individuals without statutory amendment appears to be beyond the scope of subordinate legislation,” committee members wrote.

They also seized on the risk, uncertainty, and potential for privacy violations that would be ushered in under the massive scheme:

“Considering the huge database size and possibility of misuse of information, enactment of a national data protection law, which is at a draft stage, is a prerequisite for any law that deals with large scale collection of information from individuals and its linkages across separate database…The committee is afraid that the scheme may wind up being dependent on private agencies…”

Despite these concerns, the UID program continues, while at the same time, biometric data collection for the NPR moves ahead on a separate track. Mandatory registration for all citizens in the NPR went into effect with the 2004 amendment of the Citizenship Act, providing that “the Central Government may compulsorily register every citizen of India and issue National Identity Card[s].”

Civil Society Responds

The Center for Internet and Society (CIS) has criticized the system due to design flaws that pose security and privacy concerns.

"We don’t need Aadhar because we already have a much more robust identity management and authentication system based on digital signatures that has a proven track record of working at a ‘billions-of-users scale on the Internet with reasonable security,” CIS Director Sunil Abraham noted in a Business Standard op-ed. “The UID project based on the so-called ‘infallibility of biometrics’ is deeply flawed in design. These design disasters waiting to happen cannot be permanently thwarted by band-aid policies.

"Biometrics are poor authentication factors because once they are compromised they cannot be re-secured unlike digital signatures. Additionally, an individual’s biometrics can be harvested remotely without his or her conscious cooperation. The iris can be captured remotely without a person’s knowledge using a high-res digital camera." (For more detailed information on CIS's work on India's UID program, see here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Delhi-based NGOs have also condemned UID as an affront to civil liberties that violates citizens' basic constitutional right to privacy.

In his Op-Ed, Ramakumar echoes Indian economist Amartya Sen in arguing that the system could open the door to abuse by law enforcement:

“There is a related concern: police and security forces, if allowed access to the biometric database, could extensively use it for regular surveillance and investigative purposes, leading to a number of human rights violations. As Amartya Sen has argued elsewhere, forced disclosure and loss of privacy always entailed ‘the social costs of the associated programs of investigation and policing.’ According to him, ‘some of these investigations can be particularly nasty, treating each applicant as a potential criminal.’"

Meanwhile, famed activist Arundhati Roy voiced scathing criticism against India’s biometric collection scheme, saying, “The UID is a corporate scam which funnels billions of dollars into the IT sector. To me, it is one of the most serious transgressions that is on the cards. It is nothing more than an administrative tool in the hands of a police state.”

It is irrationally excessive to collect this sensitive biometric data in a centralized nation-wide ID scheme. The massive collection of biometric information in a centralized ID scheme is not necessary nor proportionate in a democratic society.

EFF has documented (here, here, and here) the function creep risks that this data collection poses to privacy and security, including in those countries with data protection laws like the European Union. Informed analysis of the long-term consequences of the misused and secondary uses of this data collection and its impact in people’s lives should have been given to all citizens before the collection even started. There is still time to ask the Indian government to dismantle that colossal database, like the UK did.

2469 - Unreliable Aadhar data to be used for Food Bill - Sunday Guardian

Unreliable Aadhar data to be used for Food Bill

SAGNIK DUTTA  New Delhi | 18Th Mar

While the government is banking heavily on the Aadhar data supplied by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) for the implementation of the National Food Security Bill (NFSB) and better targeting of fertiliser subsidies, the reliability of the data is in itself in question.

A customer pushes a shopping trolley down an aisle at a retail supermarket in Mumbai on Friday. ‘It is unlikely that UIDAI will improve the efficiency of the government’s welfare schemes this year.’ REUTERS

In fact, a Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on Finance had questioned the legality of the collection of biometrics for creating a citizen database in December 2011. Also, the process of creation of a citizens' database was outsourced to a third party with no means of adequate monitoring of their activities. The Union Finance Minister seems to have placed immense faith in this one-technology driven initiative to deliver many ambitious fiscal targets. But most of the UID-based delivery schemes will be pilot projects to be rolled out in a few chosen districts. It is unlikely that they will improve the efficiency and accuracy of the government's gargantuan welfare schemes this year.

Pranab Mukherjee, in his Budget speech, said, "To ensure that the objectives of the National Food Security Bill are effectively realised, a Public Distribution System using the Aadhar platform is being created." The Finance Minister also mentioned, "The recommendations of the task force headed by Nandan Nilekani on IT strategy for direct transfer of subsidy have been accepted." 

Speaking to this newspaper, Anupam Saraf, a former Governance Advisor to the Government of Goa and an independent leadership, strategy and innovation mentor, said, "The process of registering individuals under Aadhar was assigned to third parties. There is no way to ensure that the third parties will not register non-existent individuals. This leaves a lot of room for massive scams, corruption and leakages if the data is used for distribution of subsidies. Thus the proposed Food Security Bill and targeting of fertilizer subsidies will be based on data which is not reliable. Instead of better targeting of subsidies, it will only lead to more leakages."

Saraf added, "A population register is already maintained by the Registrar General of India at present. The registration of citizens and the issuing of national identity cards are already provided for under the Citizenship Act 1955. This population register could have been used as a database for targeting subsidies instead of the Aadhar data."

"Also, there has been no audit of the UID project by an independent authority. The CAG should audit the entire process of creation of a people's database," Saraf said.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance in December 2011 had said, "The collection of biometric information and its linkage with personal information without amendment to the Citizenship Act 1955 as well as the Citizenship (registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards Rules 2003, appears to be beyond the scope of subordinate legislation, which needs to be examined in detail by the Parliament."

2391 - UIDAI takes on parliamentary panel on Aadhaar project - Hindustan Times

Chetan chauhan, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, February 20, 2012

Taking a Parliamentary committee head-on, Nandan Nilekani-headed Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has asked a Cabinet committee to reject its recommendations on the project saying it was not based on facts.

A parliamentary standing committee headed by BJP leader and former finance minister Yashwant Sinha in last December had asked the government to stop the unique identification project and rejected a draft bill to provide legal backing to UIDAI.

In a stern rejoinder, the UIDAI has reportedly said the committee's projection that providing unique identification number to each citizen will cost around Rs 1.5 lakh crore was incorrect and highly exaggerated. The UIDAI project would cost Rs 18,000 crore to the government.

"The parliamentary committee failed to cross check the basic facts from us before putting them in the report," a senior government official, requesting anonymity said. "The report did not say on what basis they reached the figure".

The parliamentary panel first asked the UIDAI to make a presentation after which civil society activists such as Usha Ramanathan, an independent legal researcher and Gopal Krishna of NGO toxicwatch presented the case against UID.

What has irked the UIDAI was the fact that the Parliamentary committee never called them to give their view regarding claims made by activists. "The entire report has their activist version," an official said.

The UIDAI was also amazed to find the committee did not deliberate much on the draft bill, its mandate, and instead, presented recommendations on the government's policy to provide a 12 digit unique number to each resident of India.

Sinha's committee, in fact, said the government should give UID only to Indian citizens and not all residents as decided by the government. The committee also raised the privacy issues and safety of data regarding each Indian resident.

The UIDAI, through the Planning Commission, has finalised a proposal for the Cabinet Committee on UID seeking rejection of most the recommendations of the parliamentary committee.

The Cabinet committee is also likely to seek approval for the draft bill, which proposes setting up of national unique identification authority of India.

2207 - Reform by numbers - Economist

India’s UID scheme
Reform by numbers
Opposition to the world’s biggest biometric identity scheme is growing

Jan 14th 2012 | DELHI AND UTTAN GAON | from the print edition

FOR a country that fails to meet its most basic challenges—feeding the hungry, piping clean water, fixing roads—it seems incredible that India is rapidly building the world’s biggest, most advanced, biometric database of personal identities. Launched in 2010, under a genial ex-tycoon, Nandan Nilekani, the “unique identity” (UID) scheme is supposed to roll out trustworthy, unduplicated identity numbers based on biometric and other data.

Any resident who wants one can volunteer. The scheme combines work by central and state governments and a number of other partners—largely technology firms that capture and process individuals’ data. The goal, says Mr Nilekani, is to help India cope with the past decade’s expansion of welfare provision, the fastest in its history: “it is essentially about better public services”.
 
All that should have been the recipe for a project mired in delays, infighting, empire-building, graft and bad results. Few expected UID to hit its ambitious targets. A year ago, only a few million had enrolled and barely 1m identity numbers had been issued. Warnings about fragile technology, overwhelmed data-processing centres and surging costs suggested slow progress.

Instead this week saw the 110-millionth UID number issued. Enrolments (which precede issued numbers by some months) should reach 200m in a couple of weeks. Mr Nilekani, eagerly hopping about his office to call up data on his laptop, says that over 20m people are now being signed up every month. He expects to get to 400m by the year’s end.

That is an astonishing outcome. For a government that has achieved almost nothing since re-election in May 2009, the scheme is emerging as an example of real progress. By 2014, the likely date of the next general election, over half of all Indians could be signed up. If welfare also starts flowing direct into their accounts, the electoral consequences could be profound.

To get a sense of the scale of UID’s achievement, linger at a mosquito-ridden enrolment centre in Uttan Gaon, a coastal village north of Mumbai. Huddled in a damp fire-station a young man connects a laptop, a binocular-style iris scanner and a glowing green machine that records 30 points from a set of fingerprints. In the gloom, his contraption could be a robot from an early Star Wars film.

Employed by Wipro, a technology firm and agent for the UID project, he has to get through 40 to 50 residents a day. His hassles, and those of armies of others deployed all across India, look endless. At times no one comes to enroll. Local government is supposed to run campaigns to lure them in, but indifference, bad weather and non-stop religious festivals keep them at home or partying.

Other days, as when a (false) rumour crackles through a nearby slum that 100-rupee notes will be dished out to those who sign up, hordes pour in. Nerdy technicians are ill-prepared to manage frustrated and even violent crowds.

To hit his targets, the agent in Uttan Gaon must process each of the residents, who perch in turn on a red plastic chair, in 12 minutes or less. That is fine—but only for the young and educated. The day’s first arrivals are a barely literate rickshaw driver, an elderly couple and a call-centre worker. Each one overruns. By mid-morning a long queue has formed, but the pace picks up.

Wipro and the rest work fast, since that is the only way to turn a profit. One of 35 agents active in Maharashtra state, it bid to be paid just 26 rupees (50 cents) for each person processed, with a higher rate in rural areas. It supplies all equipment and staff, and uploads the huge amounts of data to central processors. It also copes with thefts, damp cables that break the iris scanners, and labourers’ fingers so worn that their prints do not show.

Still, contractors look far nimbler at solving myriad problems than civil servants, who are still hampered, for example, by rules ordering that all official communication be done on paper (e-mails will not do). Speed matters. An agent hitting targets can bid to take work off laggards. This flexible “ecosystem”, designed with help from Indians working in Silicon Valley, thus lets the most efficient prosper. To fund it, the central government dishes out 100 rupees, which various partners share, but only once each identity number is issued: “we have built a system where everyone has an incentive to get results”, says Mr Nilekani. And these are striking: Wipro alone has had nearly 6m numbers issued, of more than 22m issued in the state as a whole.

As it grows, however, the project is drawing fire. Most pressing, the mandate of the UID authority will expire within weeks—once the 200 millionth resident is signed up. The cabinet has so far failed to extend it, though reformers are keen. Montek Singh Ahluwalia, the powerful deputy head of the national planning commission, for example, says he will allocate billions more rupees to UID as “the money will be more than fully covered from efficiency gains from government schemes”.

Total costs are rising as UID expands: its budget has more than doubled from nearly 32 billion rupees ($614m) for the first five years, to over 88 billion rupees for the next phase. But the government’s chief economic adviser, Kaushik Basu, among others, agrees that savings by “plugging leakages”—that is, stopping huge theft and waste in welfare and subsidies—will be “very big, very beneficial”.
The real difficulties are political. They fall into two areas. Most immediate is the home minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram, who is blocking the new mandate. He says he worries about national security. He also looks annoyed that a rival biometric scheme to build a National Population Register (for citizens, not just residents) has been cast into the shade. Run by his home ministry, by late last year it had only issued some 8m identity numbers. He also has a longstanding rivalry with the finance minister, Pranab Mukherjee, who is associated with UID.

The prime minister, Manmohan Singh, will probably have to tell the home minister to give way. Then officials need to respond to a second, much broader, band of critics. Last month, for example, parliament’s powerful finance standing committee issued a 48-page report attacking UID, calling it hasty, directionless, ill-conceived and saying it must be stopped.

Headed by Yashwant Sinha, a stalwart of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, the committee was eager to throw all criticism possible at the scheme. Yet the report contains testimony from a range of experts with legitimate objections. Some were procedural, including a demand that UID be based on law passed by parliament, not, as now, on a mere executive order.

Other worries, such as cost, should abate as the unique identities are tied to bank accounts of welfare recipients, and so help track the flow of public money. The omens are good. Last week Karnataka state claimed that by paying welfare direct to bank accounts it had cut some 2m ghost labourers from a rural public-works project.

Yet there are also tougher accusations from activists and development economists, such as Jean Drèze and Reetika Khera, in Delhi. They worry that the voluntary programme will turn compulsory, that individuals’ privacy is under attack and that biometric data are not secure.

Along with others, they also oppose the logical next step in welfare reform that UID enables. Once recipients have bank accounts, India can follow the likes of Brazil and replace easily stolen benefits in kind, such as rations of cheap food and fuel, with direct cash transfers. Not only do these cut theft, but cash payments also let beneficiaries become mobile—for example so they can leave their state to seek work, while not jeopardising any benefits.

Yet Ms Khera is wary of change. She points out that well-run southern states get rations efficiently to the poor, and cites a survey which found many recipients, especially women, would prefer to keep getting rations over cash. They fear money is more easily wasted, say on alcohol. Worse, in the most remote places, cash welfare is no use since food and fuel markets do not even exist.
Such fears need answering. India will have to pass a law on data protection and privacy. A shift to cash welfare would have to ensure that mothers benefit most, not feckless fathers. And perhaps only as Indians grow more urban, mobile and well-connected will they see the full advantage of cash over rations. But for all the headaches, applying the UID to an expanding and reforming welfare system opens the way for profound social change. Indians need to get ready.

from the print edition | Asia

2206 - Bihar Government Should Put A Stay On The Execution Of The Aadhaar Related Projects By Gopal Krishna - Counter Currents

12 January, 2012
Countercurrents.org

Patna: A compelling logic has emerged for the Bihar Government to put a stay on the execution of the aadhaar related projects in the state following a revealing report of a multi-party Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Finance that considered the National Identification Authority of India (NIDAI) Bill, 2010 and following the grave concerns expressed by eminent citizens, former judges and academicians. Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) had signed a MoU with Bihar Government on August 20, 2010 without any legal and constitutional mandate.

This disdain for the law has been characterised by the Standing Committee as `unethical and violative of Parliament's prerogatives'. Citizens have been protesting against the UID and NPR based MINIC project across the country from the very outset but prior to PSC’s report it was ignored. By now it is clear that it is an unnecessary project which must be stopped.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance considering the National Identification Authority of India (NIDAI) Bill, 2010 presented its report to the Parliament on December 13, 2011. The report rejects biometric data based identification of Indians. The report is a severe indictment of the hasty and `directionless' project which has been "conceptualised with no clarity of purpose". Even the functional basis of the Unique Identification Authority of India UIDAI is unclear and yet the project has been rolled out. The Standing Committee found the biometric technology `uncertain' and 'untested'. As early as December 2009, the Biometric Data Committee had found that the error rate using fingerprints was inordinately high. In a recent interview to the press, the Director General and Mission Director of the UIDAI had admitted that fingerprints are likely not to work for authentication. The error rate could end up excluding up to 15% of the population. Yet, the UIDAI has gone on with the exercise.

There is no data protection law in place. Even though the government had recognised the need for a law to deal with security and confidentiality of information, imposition of obligation of disclosure of information in certain cases, impersonation at the time of enrolment, investigation of acts that constitute offences and unauthorised disclosure of information, the Unique Identification (UID) project was allowed to march on without any such protection being put in place.

The Parliamentary Report has raised questions of great severity about the legality and constitutionality of the Unique Identification (UID) project. It has acknowledged the many concerns that have been voiced in the past two years about the absence of a feasibility study, no cost-benefit assessment, uncertain and untested technology, an enrolment process that has national security repercussions, the lack of data protection and privacy legislation and the disrespect for Parliament by going ahead with a project that was pending parliamentary approval. It is also noticed that the data that is being collected is not being held by a government agency, about which the National Informatics Centre has expressed anxiety.

Prof. D M Diwakar, Director, ANISS said, in the aftermath of this report of the PSC, the continuance of the project as also the ongoing collection of demographic and biometric data needs to be rigorously examined, as also its ramifications for the project in Bihar. UIDAI has been trying to push for the adoption of the UID through multiple committees of several ministries and for the re-engineering of current systems to fit the requirements of the UID. There have been attempts to withdraw services such as LPG if a person has not enrolled for a UID. The creeping of voluntariness into compulsion through threat of discontinuance of services has been roundly castigated by the Standing Committee.

There has been an extraordinary amount of duplication of work. The NPR is doing the same exercise, except that the Ministry of Home Affairs has found that the excessive outsourcing and the methods used by the UIDAI for enrolment make the data inaccurate and insecure. The multiplicity of Registrars with whom the UIDAI has entered into MoUs produces their own problems of duplication. The Standing Committee is categorical that the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) constituted for the purpose of collating the two schemes namely, the UID and National Population Register (NPR), has failed.

The project has been replete with unanswered questions. The 17 eminent citizens, as also other civil society activists and academics, had asked that the project authorities acknowledge that many countries had abandoned identity schemes such as had happened in the UK, China, USA, Australia and the Philippines. The Standing Committee has taken on board studies done in the UK on the identity scheme that was begun and later withdrawn in May 2010, where the problems were identified to include "(a) huge cost involved and possible cost overruns; (b) too complex; (c) untested, unreliable and unsafe technology; (d) possibility of risk to the safety and security of citizens; and (e) requirement of high standard security measures, which would result in escalating the estimated operational costs."

Echoing citizens’ concerns, the Parliamentary Committee has noted that the government has “admitted that (a) no committee has been constituted to study the financial implications of the UID scheme; and (b) comparative costs of the aadhaar number and various existing ID documents are also not available.” It discloses that while the UIDAI was constituted on January 28, 2009 without parliamentary approval, and UID numbers were begun to be rolled out in September 2010, the Detailed Project Report of the UID Scheme was done much later in April, 2011. The Standing Committee expressed its anxiety that, the way the project had been run, “the scheme may end up being dependent on private agencies, despite contractual agreement made by the UIDAI with several private vendors.” The report records the views of Dr Usha Ramanathan, a noted jurist saying, “It is a plain misconception to think that the executive can do what it pleases, including in relation to infringing constitutional rights and protections for the reason that Parliament and legislatures have the power to make law on the subject.” In view of the above, the Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) signed by UIDAI with the partners including all the States and Union Territories, 25 financial institutions (including LIC) to act as Registrars for implementing the UID scheme has become of doubtful legality.

Prof. (Dr) Mohan Rao, Centre for Social Medicine & Community Health, Jawaharlal Nehru University said, UID is dangerous for public health. It should be rejected unequivocally because it violates confidentiality and privacy which is considered sacred in medical practice and is sought to be used for accuracy in clinical trials". At the meeting J T Dsouza, Expert, Biometrics Technology, Mumbai said, "Both the UID and NPR project has been about technology that is flawed, with risks to national and individual security, ill conceived in its aims and uses, and has attempted to occupy a place where it can be above the law." In relation to biometrics, the NPR too is guilty of going beyond the mandate give to it by law. Neither the Citizenship Act 1955 nor the Citizenship Rules of 2003 permit the collection of biometrics. The Standing Committee, recognising this, has asked that the use of biometrics in the NPR be examined by Parliament. Till then the collection of biometrics must be suspended. “It is apprehended that once the database is ready it can be used to eliminate minority communities, migrants and political adversaries by some regime which finds them unsuitable for their political projects. The fact is a centralized electronic database and privacy both are conceptually contradictory; it is advisable to let it remain in decentralized silos something which even the central government’s Discussion Paper on Privacy implied,” said Gopal Krishna, Member, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties.

Taking cognizance of these concerns, Indo-Global Social Service Society (IGSSS), a civil society organization based in Delhi working with the homeless, has disassociated itself from UID Number project which was being undertaken under Mission Convergence in Delhi. Withdrawal of IGSSS that works in 21 states of the country merits the attention of all the states and civil society organisations especially those who are unwittingly involved in the UID Number enrollment process. In its withdrawal letter IGSSS said, “we will not be able to continue to do UID enrolment, as we discussed in the meeting of 10th May 2011.” It is clear that both Mission Convergence and UIDAI have been hiding these crucial facts. The letter reads, “IGSSS like many other leading civil society groups and individuals are opposed to conditional cash transfers and the UID will be used to dictate it.”Most manual workers of both organised and unorganised sector lose their finger prints. The project claimed to work for them but it is they who would get excluded. It is not the question of onetime cost being incurred but also of the recurring cost of the UID and NPR project that reveals its character which does not have any constitutional or rational basis.
 
A Round Table on the PSC Report and its implications for the Unique Identification (UID) project and for the Union Home Ministry's National Population Register (NPR) and the issuance of Multipurpose National Identity Cards (MNIC) was organised on January 10, 2012 at AN Sinha Institute of Social Studies (ANISS), Patna. It was organised jointly by A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) and CFCL. This meeting was a follow up to the Round Table on Unique Identification (UID) project & Bihar Govt's role held on 3rd January, 2011, the National Seminar on Idea of Unique Identification (UID) Project held on February 21, 2011 held in the state capital. Several eminent intellectuals from various sections of society expressed their concerns about the effect of this project on the liberty of citizens and sovereignty of the country.

It emerged that journalists appear to have been compelled to accept biometric identification in the offices where they work. They have been made to accept it as a fait accompli. As a consequence they have not reported about violation of privacy rights due to biometric identification of citizens and residents of India under UID and NPR.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, Member, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties, E-mail:krishna1715@gmail.com

2091 - The Lowdown: India’s Unique ID Project Unraveled By Standing Committee - MEDIA NAMA

By Nikhil Pahwa on Dec 13th, 2011  



A Parliamentary Standing Committee report on Finance has detailed out significant issues with the way India’s Unique Identity project was conceptualized and executed, stating that there was no clear purpose, lacked proper study before being approved, conflicted with existing initiatives, had issues related to privacy, circumvented Parliament, among other issues. It has recommended, on finding that the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 in its present form unacceptable, that the data collected so far be transferred to the National Population Register, and the government reconsider and review the UID scheme and bring forth a fresh legislation before Parliament. With this, the UID project, which might have addressed the high cost of Know Your Customer verification, risks delays and perhaps even cancellation. The observations of the Standing Committee:


1. Circumvention of Parliament: That the clearance came from the Ministry of Law & Justice for issuing aadhaar numbers, while the Bill is pending passing by Parliament, “on the ground that powers of the Executive are co-extensive with the legislative power of the Government and that the Government is not debarred from exercising its Executive power in the areas which are not regulated by the legislation”. The committee has called the governments action as unethical. This issue was raised by Rajya Sabha MP Justice Dr. M. Rama Jois. Dr. Usha Ramanathan points out “It is a plain misconception to think that the executive can do what it pleases, including in relation to infringing constitutional rights and protections for the reason that Parliament and legislatures have the power to make law on the subject.”


2. Residents, not Citizens: Given issues of illegal immigration and infiltration, the committee is “surprised” that the bill proposes to entitle residents and not just citizens an aadhaar number.


3. Directionless, no clarity of purpose, hasty: The committee also points out that the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) failed to take a concrete decision on: 
(a) identifying the focused purpose of the resident identity database; 
(b) methodology of collection of data; 
(c) removing the overlapping between the UID scheme and National Population Register; 
(d) conferring of statutory authority to the UIDAI since its inception; 
(e) structure and functioning of the UIDAI; 
(f) entrusting the collection of data and issue of unique identification number and national identification number to a single authority instead of the present UIDAI and its reconciliation with National Registration Authority.


In addition, “The Committee note that the Ministry of Planning have admitted that 
(a) no committee has been constituted to study the financial implications of the UID scheme; and 
(b) comparative costs of the aadhaar number and various existing ID documents are also not available. The Committee also notes that Detailed Project Report (DPR) of the UID Scheme has been done much later in April, 2011. The Committee thus strongly disapprove of the hasty manner in which the UID scheme has been approved.”


4. Privacy: “The collection of biometric information and its linkage with personal information of individuals without amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955 as well as the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, appears to be beyond the scope of subordinate legislation, which needs to be examined in detail by Parliament”. In addition “In the absence of data protection legislation, it would be difficult to deal with the issues like access and misuse of personal information, surveillance, profiling, linking and matching of data bases and securing confidentiality of information etc.” The law is at a draft stage, and the UIDAI began collecting data without protections being in place.


5. Multiple Identity Proofs: “Continuance of various existing forms of identity and the requirement of furnishing, other documents. for proof of address, even after issue of aadhaar number, would render the claim made by the Ministry that aadhaar number is to be used as a general proof of identity and proof of address meaningless” “In addition to aadhaar numbers being issued by the UIDAI, the issuance of smart cards containing information of the individuals by the registrars is not only a duplication but also leads to ID fraud as prevalent in some countries”


6. Benefit? It’s worth noting that even if the identity is established, the UIDAI will not have information on the statistical information related to the individual (rural, semi-urban and urban areas, persons with disabilities etc), and that database will have to be prepared separately by government agencies. Dr. Reetika Khera, an Expert, points out in comments that exclusion is more on account of poor coverage of government schemes.


7. Technological issues: estimated failure of biometrics is expected to be as high as 15% due to a large chunk of population being dependent on manual labour. “The Committee finds that the scheme is full of uncertainty in technology as the complex scheme is built up on untested, unreliable technology and several assumptions. Further, despite adverse observations by the UIDAI’s Biometrics Standards Committee on error rates of biometrics, the UIDAI is collecting the biometric information. It is also not known as to whether the proof of concept studies and assessment studies undertaken by the UIDAI have explored the possibilities of maintaining accuracy to a large level of enrolment of 1.2 billion people.”


8. Issues with other government departments: The Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) pointed out that “lack of coordination is leading to duplication of efforts and expenditure among at least six agencies collecting information (NPR, MGNREGS, BPL census, UIDAI, RSBY and Bank Smart Cards)”; Ministry of Home Affairs are stated to have raised serious security concern over the efficacy of introducer system, involvement of private agencies in a large scale in the scheme which may become a threat to national security; National Informatics Centre (NIC) have pointed out that the issues relating to privacy and security of UID data could be better handled by storing in a Government data centre; Involvement of several nodal appraising agencies which may work at cross-purpose; and that several Government agencies are collecting biometric(s) information in the name of different schemes.


9. Voluntary? Reliable? Comprehensiveness? “The Committee are also unhappy to observe that the UID scheme lacks clarity on many issues such as even the basic purpose of issuing ‘aadhaar’ number”. It also points out that while the claim is that it is voluntary, there is apprehension that services or benefits including food entitlements would be denied in case people do not have aadhaar number. There is also concern that beneficiaries may not have been correctly identified, and the present problem of proper identification would persist, and if the government doesn’t give further mandate, beyond the coverage of 200 million, the whole exercise would become futile.


10. Verification & National Security: “The Committee feel that entrusting the responsibility of verification of information of individuals to the registrars to ensure that only genuine residents get enrolled into the system may have far reaching consequences for national security. 


Given the limitation of any mechanism such as a security audit by an appropriate agency that would be setup for verifying the information etc., it is not sure as to whether complete verification of information of all aadhaar number holders is practically feasible; and whether it would deliver the intended results without compromising national security. As the National Identity Cards to citizens of India are proposed to be issued on the basis of aadhaar numbers, the possibility of possession of aadhaar numbers by illegal residents through false affidavits / introducer system cannot be ruled out.


11. Registration issues: “the Ministry of Home Affairs have alleged that some of the registrars have not adhered to the laid down procedures under UIDAI which renders the Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) signed between the UIDAI and the registrars meaningless; and it compromises the security and confidentiality of information of aadhaar number holders. Even, according to the latest media reports, controversies between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the UIDAI over issues such as the manner and processes followed by the UIDAI, duplication of efforts between NPR and aadhaar, and security of data still remain unresolved.”


Download the complete report here, courtesy PRS Legislative

2090 - Why Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance rejected the UID Bill - IBN Live

India | Updated Dec 13, 2011 at 04:55pm IST

New Delhi: The much hyped Unique Identification (UID) project led by Nandan Nilekani has run into trouble after the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance rejecting the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 in its present form.

The committee headed by Yashwant Sinha pointed out several anomalies in the existing bill and urged the government to "reconsider and review the UID scheme as also the proposals contained in the Bill in all its ramifications and bring forth a fresh legislation before Parliament." 

The committee also suggested that the data already collected by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) could be transferred to the National Population Register.

The committee was of the stand that when the legislative process was already underway to shape the bill, the executive action of going ahead with its implementation was "unethical and violative of Parliament's prerogatives"

The provision of illegal immigrants being entitled for an Aadhaar number also met with strong objections. 

The committee could not also comprehend the rationale of expanding the scheme to persons who are not citizens.

Members were of the opinion that the UID scheme was conceptualised with "no clarity of purpose and leaving many things to be sorted out during the course of its implementation; and is being implemented in a directionless way with a lot of confusion."

Many existing laws including Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, would need to be amended for the UID to achieve some of its goals. This process would need to be examined in detail by the Parliament.

As other forms of identity documents will continue to be accepted even after issue of aadhaar number renders meaningless the claim that aadhaar number will be used a general proof of identity and proof of address.

The committee raised concerns about privacy, identity theft, misuse, security of data and duplication during the implementation of the UID scheme and also noted the serious difference of opinion within the government. Global examples of rejection of similar schemes were also highlighted.

The Committee strongly disapproved of the hasty manner in which the UID scheme was approved and also raised fears that the inclusion of non-citizens can have far-reaching consequences for national security. 

READ FULL 48 REPORT AT IBN LIVE URL FOR THIS ARTICLE

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/why-the-parliamentary-panel-rejected-the-uid-bill/211597-3.html