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 Tehelka. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tehelka. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

5519 - The Dirty Underbelly Of Election 2014 - Tehelka



Whether it’s getting thousands to crowd in sweltering heat or lining up to vote, elections in India are an expensive affair. Money talks and crime pays, and the ongoing election is no different

2014-05-10 , Issue 19 Volume 11

Money or fuel? Cyberabad Police Commissioner CV Anand with 8 crore in cash recovered in a raid

The staircase was dark and dingy. Having left behind a line of SUVs parked outside the North Delhi bungalow, we timidly made our way to the second floor. Huge, muscular men stood guard in the shadows, more for intimidation than security, making themselves visible as we edged past. A garland around his neck, Tyagi Bhaiya sat cross-legged, dusty mattresses scattered around him. “Kaisa laga hamara headquarter? (How do you find our headquarters?)” he asked. Right there, in front of our eyes, he broke down his candidates’ election strategy. According to him, the election for the Delhi University Students’ Union vice-president’s post was a mere formality. “We are winning and you are on the winning side,” he assured us.

What followed was a crash course in the money and muscle power that goes into winning an India election. He promised us crates of liquor bottles, an open tab in the college canteen, transportation for our night campaigning, hard cash and, of course, protection (19 stiches later, we realised its futility. He did pay the hospital bill, though). In return, all we had to ensure was our support base voted for a candidate of his choice. A support base, whose temporary loyalty was partially bought with what he and the others gave us. In the end, to some extent, democracy prevailed as we voted for whom we wanted.

For one week, in the September of 2007, the Delhi University North Campus was turned into a political war zone. Many who were first blooded in the university, slowly made their way up the ranks of different national parties. Years later, their acquired suave and sophisticated demeanours apart, the methods have remained largely the same. Despite the hype around a “new breed of politicians”, in India, if you want to win an election, you have to spend money.

As we enter the last leg of the Lok Sabha election, it is clear the gloves are off and things are getting downright dirty. From development, secularism, youth and women empowerment, the level of public discourse has rapidly deteriorated to personal attacks. Crossing the Lakshman rekha, parties have entered a mudslinging match and personal barbs are a politician’s weapons of choice.

Over the past few weeks, the focus has moved from political alliances to baser, more personal issues, like Narendra Modi’s child marriage, the meteoric rise in Robert Vadra’s fortunes to unsavoury monikers like “the butcher of Gujarat”. Even Digvijaya Singh’s personal dalliances have now taken centrestage in what is increasingly becoming the dirtiest election in Indian political history.

As if a sign of things to come, National Conference leader Farooq Abdullah said in a rally that those who voted for Modi should drown in the sea. Abdullah’s shocker had followed that of Bihar BJP leader Giriraj Singh, who had remarked that those who did not support Modi should leave India for Pakistan. Again, in Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh, Priyanka Gandhi, daughter of Congress president Sonia Gandhi and sister of party vice-president Rahul Gandhi, had reacted to the BJP’s allegations on the growing wealth of husband Robert Vadra by likening the BJP to a “pack of rats running amok”. With each passing day, the shrill is only getting higher. Name-calling and dragging relatives and friends in the muck have replaced the politicians’ “gentlemen’s agreement” as fair game.

Still, rhetoric can only do so much. A politician’s impassioned call to his or her supporters will win headlines. Elections, however, are not won by headlines and airwaves; they are won by money. Thousands of candidates are playing the odds, pumping in crores of money into their constituencies in the hope that they can outbuy the opposition.

Donning the role of the watchdog, the Election Commission (EC) has had to step up its expenditure on monitoring the ongoing polls. Starting 5 March, when the moral code of conduct came into force, the EC has seized cash and goods worth 1,110 crore meant to buy votes. That’s more than 50 percent of the cost incurred by the EC to conduct the election. If we break it down, the EC seized 13 million litres of liquor, the equivalent of 43 swimming pools or one 30ml peg for 75 percent of the 815 million registered voters in India. On top of that, it has also recovered a staggering 20.71 lakh kg of narcotics. Drugs worth as much as 550 crore were seized from Punjab alone. Despite their best efforts, it is estimated that the EC has only seized 10 percent of the total black money in circulation to buy votes.

Vijay*, a ragpicker in the Govindpuri area of south Delhi, explains how the system of bribing voters works. “During the Delhi Assembly polls, each house in our jhuggi was offered 1,000,” he says. “The rates would be more if the family had many voters. My neighbours accepted the money from the BJP

I didn’t, as it meant compromising my bargaining power. If you accept money once, you cannot go to their party office with a complaint. They will simply shoo you away, reminding you about the payment they made to you for the vote.” Vijay says that no political party has offered to pay in the ongoing General Election.

According to estimates, a whopping Rs 30,500 crore will be spent on campaigning in this election, second only to the most expensive US presidential campaign of all time. As a trickle down from this expense, according to communications services firm Madison Media, India’s advertising industry is expected to receive business worth a staggering $800 million. 

This, however, is like stating the obvious, when you consider that according to media reports, the BJP’s expenditure on advertising (across all media) alone is a staggering Rs 5,000 crore, just a bit less than the Rs 6,000 crore — roughly $1 billion — that the Barack Obama campaign cost in the 2012 US presidential election.

“It is important to understand that while candidates can spend up to Rs 70 lakh on their political campaign, there is no such restriction on political parties,” explains a senior EC official in Delhi. “So what happens is that most of the legal expenditure is shown as party costs, and, therefore, we are unable to put a stop to it.”

However, the two states that top the list of election expenses are far away from the national capital, down south.

At 42 degree centigrade, the afternoon sun was beating down hard on the crowd gathered at a DMK rally in Chennai. The smell of sweat was overpowered only by the pungent odour of dried fish. Oblivious to the heat and the smell, the crowd in their thousands sang and danced. Two humungous hoardings of DMK supremo and former Tamil Nadu chief minister M Karunanidhi stood facing the stage, where a stocky man, dressed in all-white, sang songs mocking J Jayalalithaa. At some point, a party worker walked up to the microphone and said, “Those who vote for us tomorrow will be given Rs 2,000 each. I know we are not supposed to say this, but you all know how things work.” The speaker laughed as the crowd cheered. The singing and dancing continued.

Tamil Nadu, where cash worth 25 crore and non–cash item worth 51.83 crore were seized by the election authorities, is No. 2 on the list of expenditure- sensitive states. 

With the BJP making a big push in the south, regional parties — the AIADMK and the DMK — have hit the campaign trail hard in a bid to gain enough seats to be considered major players in the seat-sharing equation that is likely to emerge post 16 May. The result is huge expenditures, a manifold increase compared to the 2009 General Election.

According to mid-level party functionaries, Rs 10- Rs 20 crore had been set aside per candidate per constituency. That means that in the days leading up to poll day, over Rs 1,000 crore cash and gifts such as saris, pressure cookers, cooking vessels and liquor were distributed across the state.

The EC has identified more such expenditure-sensitive states, which include Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Nagaland and Mizoram. Such states have received special attention from the EC. It has set up systems to monitor both legal and illegal expenditures. On the legal front, candidates are made to declare their assets. Then through the campaigning process, their accounts go through three audits. Video teams are sent out by the EC, who capture roadshows, rallies, speeches, posters, hoardings and so on. Video observing teams view this footage, carefully calculating the value of each item. For example, if a rally has 50 flags and each flag costs Rs 10 each, the total cost to the candidate is Rs 500. The costs are totalled and then in a heated audit session (well, at least the session TEHELKA witnessed in Chennai got heated), candidates and EC accountant teams thrash out the total costs.

To monitor the illegal expenditure, the EC has put into place an elaborate system. In Tamil Nadu itself, it set up 5,360 zonal teams, many of which were in place a month before poll day rather than the usual week. Moreover, it has 5,000 village-level whistleblowers, three main checkpoints per constituency, flying squads and static surveillance squads.

The EC control centre is always buzzing. A mini call centre is run by a team of four people who attend to non-stop calls on a set of 10 phones. They receive complaints round the clock and set the system in motion. Once registered, the complaint is fed into the system and the closest flying squad or the static surveillance squad, comprising four-five police officers and an EC official, are dispatched to the area where the complaint is from. The teams are monitored by a GPS tracking system to ensure high productivity. While the EC handles immediate complaints, the police handle the subsequent FIRs and investigation. However, this system has only yielded a 1 percent conviction rate so far.
In stark contrast to the buzz and noise of the control room, the media room is silent. A team of four people, wearing headphones, constantly monitor four large TV screens, while two others sift through a stack of newspapers and online articles. Their role is to crack down on paid media.

“Teams work round the clock to ensure that vigil is maintained,” says a senior EC official. “In a country like India, to ensure the proper functioning of democracy, it is very important to create a level-playing field.” However, he concedes that it is easier said than done. “Monitoring expenditure and the work that goes into it has increased our workload by more than half,” he adds. Despite all the effort, despite the relentless 24×7 monitoring, there are gaps in the system, big enough to let the money leak through.

In south India, gifts and cash are distributed openly. Political parties have thought of newer, creative and inventive methods, making it almost an art form, synonymous with the flair and style of the big action movies of the region. In January 2009, in the Thirumangalam byelection in Madurai district, workers of the then ruling DMK resorted to an ingenious way to distribute the bribe money by inserting envelopes into voters’ morning newspapers. The amount of money varied according to the number of voters in each house. So successful was the effort that it has given birth to a new jargon in the election lexicon. The ‘Thirumangalam formula’ is now stuff of folklore.

As the EC develops new systems to track illegal money transfers, political parties constantly evolve out-of-the-box methods to hoodwink them. Parties route the cash through individuals and organisations, who then distribute them to the intended beneficiaries. This way, no direct link can be established with the party even if the cash is seized. Many parties have resorted to innovative methods such as distributing tiffin boxes with cash in them or paying voters’ electricity bills. 

In Hyderabad, money was transferred to bank accounts of Aadhaar holders by a Congress MLA, while in the Nellore district, a YSR Congress Party MLA candidate had allegedly hid 5,000 bottles of liquor worth over 5 lakh by burying them in his agricultural field. Gifts are hidden in secret locations well before an election and then distributed in the middle of the night. Lavish parties — not the political kind — are thrown, where booze and biriyani is the preferred menu.

“At times political parties will call in a bogus complaint. This way, they will know where our team will be and they will distribute cash and gifts in another location,” says an EC official, reminding of ploys smugglers used to distract the police in Hindi cinema of the bygone era.

At times though, being innovative has its downside. An MLA candidate in Nalgona learnt this the hard way, when he was caught travelling with wads of cash. In an attempt to get past the security checkposts, he hid the cash in his car’s bonnet. However, due to the engine heat, the money caught fire and the emanating smoke gave him away.

For the EC, the biggest challenge is the fear instilled in their team of volunteers. The local police, teachers and lower bureaucracy, whom the EC lean on heavily during elections, are terrified of the larger- than- life politicians.

In Tamil Nadu, five policemen and an EC official waved down a scooter carrying two men. The officials had been tipped that an AIADMK politician was attempting to buy votes in a DMK stronghold. The two men were searched by the police, who then recovered a voters list from one of them. The team was continuing its search when within a matter of a minute, five more scooters appeared out of nowhere. These men surrounded the officials and confronted them. Soon, one of the men talked into his cellphone and other party workers appeared on the scene. Outnumbered, the officials had to ultimately relent and let the two men go, before making a hasty exit from the scene.

If Tamil Nadu is bad, Andhra Pradesh is on another level altogether. So far, the EC has seized over 110 crore in cash and 77 lakh litres of liquor in the state, putting it on top of the list of expenditure-sensitive states. Expectedly, the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh has given a new twist — and new incentive — to Andhra- Telangana politics. 

The bifurcation means that there will be a need to develop new infrastructure, a new capital, a new Assembly building, roads and Central funds. So the race is on.

In the past few months, political equations in different regions have changed drastically as parties on both the Telangana as well as the Andhra Pradesh side played the division card to suit their script. While the Congress, in the words of the party’s own members, stands to face a rout in Andhra Pradesh, its fortunes are expected to improve vastly in Telangana. In Andhra, as the favourite to reap maximum rewards, Jaganmohan Reddy is finally seeing hope of becoming the chief minister, an ambition that has been thwarted ever since he left the Congress and was subsequently imprisoned in a disproportionate assets case.

Then there is the Chandrababu Naidu-led Telugu Desam Party (TDP). Out of power for a decade now, the former chief minister is desperate to make a comeback and is leaving no stone unturned to achieve that. Despite the differences in the politics of the two states, one thing has remained unchanged: the ways of winning an election. Year after year, the two regions have been on top of the EC’s list of states that see exuberant spending by political parties.

“The TDP is spending a lot of money, way in excess of what the EC allows,” alleges YSRCP’s Mysura Reddy. “They are getting desperate. I have heard from my sources that Reliance has given them funds.” Reddy is equally brash about dismissing bribery allegations against his own party. “Whatever allegation has been made against YSRCP is yellow journalism,” he adds. However, another senior leader of YSRCP explains that Rs 4 crore is the minimum a party needs to spend these days to contest on an MLA or an MP ticket.

Speaking to TEHELKA on the condition of anonymity, a Congress member from Andhra Pradesh casually mentions the figure of Rs 36 crore as the total expenditure of a Congress candidate in a particular urban seat. “There is no other way,” he explains. “Understand this; it’s a competitive market. Once someone starts it, you just have to keep up with it. I’m told we distributed Rs 11 crore yesterday in a constituency.” He then delivers the shocker. “We stand fourth in terms of expenses,” he says. “The TDP candidate from the same constituency spent Rs 103 crore, much of it in cash and alcohol. These are no elections for the meek.”

True, indeed. Residual Andhra Pradesh has 598 candidates for the Lok Sabha and 3,912 candidates for the Assembly polls that are being held simultaneously. In Telangana, 265 candidates are in the fray for the Lok Sabha and 1,669 candidates are fighting for the Assembly. According to a survey conducted by the Association for Democratic Reforms, over 50 percent of the candidates from Andhra Pradesh are crorepatis and there is a very good reason for that.

There seems to be an established rate card for winning elections in these states. According to media reports, the going rate for a Parliament seat is Rs 50 crore, whereas Rs 15 crore will get you into the Assembly and Rs 15 lakh will get you the post of village sarpanch. This has pushed political parties to look for richer candidates, who then look to make up their investment while in power. This leaves an electorate resigned to corruption, open to the idea of freebies.

Muscle and money power: the two clichés that spring to mind at the mention of Indian elections. The rise in the voter turnout in the ongoing election is being seen as a sign of heightened political awareness in the country, besides a success for political mobilisation. Some see it as a call for a change of the political guard, while others use more glowing terms like “revolution”. And while the coming days promise to bring many more adjectives, some flattering, some objectionable, one area that has remained the same is the way political parties approach elections.

Behind the gloss of the paradigm shift hides the ugly truth: that to win elections in India, you need the two clichés. Whether it is paying people to stand in 45-degree heat in a procession or distributing saris or throwing parties where biryani and booze flow in abundance, gifts and money are still the way to get India inked.

(With additional inputs from Tehelka Bureau)


Saturday, February 9, 2013

3007 - Aadhaar Confusion In Hyderabad



The state bungled up big time on the manner in which an exercise of this magnitude needs to be handled

TS SUDHIR

People at an Aadhaar centre in Hyderabad

You can’t run before you are ready to walk. But the Andhra Pradesh government was trying to do that and more. That is perhaps why a February 15 deadline was set for every citizen living in Hyderabad city and Ranga Reddy district to get an Aadhaar card. Failing which, they were told, they would have to forego subsidy and pay 1030 rupees for a domestic gas cylinder refill. 
Perhaps the government was emboldened by statistics in its records. Statistics that lied. In Hyderabad administrative district, for instance, as per official records, as against a 2011 census population count of 40.1 lakh, over 48 lakh people had enrolled for Aadhar, some 126 per cent ! 

And yet, registration centres across the city have been overfull trying to meet the mid-February deadline to get the all-important unique identification card. Because only those armed with an Aadhaar card could still get the 570 rupees subsidy on each cylinder. Of course, even that was not going to be easy. As a consumer, you were expected to pay up the full 1030 rupees and then the subsidy amount would flow into your bank account. 

Is this a benefit-transfer or a headache transfer riding on Aadhaar, asks Sumalatha, a housewife living in Chikkadpally area of Hyderabad. 
The panic, frustration and fear of being left out in the cold and being excluded has been showing on the streets of the city. 

“Yeh government bilkul waste hai,” declared an exasperated Rajkumar, a businessman in the Secunderabad area of Hyderabad. He was fuming, having been turned away at the Aadhaar registration counter. He had been told no application forms for Aadhaar were being disbursed after 9 am. Pointing to the long queue at the Aadhaar centre, he said, “I will have to waste an entire day away from work to come in early here just to collect the form, fill it up and submit it.”

Carpenter Rajeshwar Chary had submitted his form and had been given a date in June to come again to get his photograph clicked. “So if I get the Aadhaar card so late, will I have to pay more for the gas cylinder,” he asked. No one at the counter was any the wiser to offer an opinion. Not that any of them thought it necessary to address his concerns and queries empathetically. His second problem was he did not have a birth certificate for his two children and had been asked to get the same from the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. How long that would take, neither he nor anyone else here had the answer.

Some others said they had registered, shared demographic details and went through the biometrics formalities several months ago and yet had not received the Aadhaar card. Srinadh who has been waiting for his card since March 2010 wonders if he should register again. Phone calls to Bangalore have given him the routine reply that his card has been despatched. The local post office says it has not got any. 

At this centre in Warasiguda in Hyderabad, there are just four persons to take care of a crowd of nearly 150. This man handles this window alone, as a result of which the queue only gets longer and longer. At Hayathnagar, another area on the city outskirts, kilometre-long queues forced traffic shut on the main road nearby and ultimately the Aadhaar enrolment window had to be shut as the staff was unable to cope with the rush.

This has been the story across the 83 stations in Hyderabad where the long queues, delay, confusion and no result at the end of long hours of wait was leading to frustration, anger and restlessness. At many places, patience was running out, tempers were flying. Government officials thought it wiser to shut the counter rather than face the public mood of anger.

Realising the situation is getting out of hand, Chief minister Kiran Kumar Reddy has promised that 300 new enrolment centres would be opened in Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy district to cope with the rush. Realising that the February 15 deadline is unrealistic, the Andhra Pradesh government has also promised to delay the linkage of subsidy on LPG cylinders with the Aadhaar card. But clearly, the state bungled up big time on the manner in which an exercise of this magnitude needs to be handled.

On paper, Andhra Pradesh is way ahead of other states with 81 per cent either covered under Aadhaar or in the process. Out of the state population of 8.5 crore, some 6.5 crore people are reportedly enrolled. For 5.3 crore people, an Aadhaar number has been generated and another 4.3 crore have already received their numbers. After the numbers are universally issued, they will have to be “seeded”. What that means is that they have to be linked to the database of beneficiaries, in the case of welfare schemes for instance, and also to bank accounts. 

In the first phase, Aadhaar is to be linked to the payment of student scholarships and benefits under Janani Suraksha Yojana for pregnant women. In the second phase, it will link LPG and in the third phase, NREGA payments and pensions. 

So what is the benefit of linking Aadhaar to LPG cylinders for which the subsidy is universal? There are fears among the people that this may become a basis for eventually making it a targeted subsidy. P V Ramesh, principal secretary in Andhra Pradesh’s finance department, however, denies this. “It is a hidden subsidy at the moment. By paying upfront and getting a refund, it becomes more visible. There is no effort to target. It is basically to eliminate duplicates and stop blackmarketing,” he says.

Which raises the question if Aadhaar at the end of the day is meant to benefit the aam aadmi or the government. The jury is still out.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

2535 - ‘Biometrics are not as perfect as some politicians and vendors would like you to believe’ - Tehelka



In 2005, when the Labour Party decided to implement the National Identity Project (NIP) in the UK, it drew severe criticism from many quarters, including the Tories, who later scrapped the NIP after coming to power. A report by the London School of Economics (LSE), which stated the project is “unsafe in law” and should be regarded as a “potential danger to public interest”, was instrumental in buttressing the arguments of those who opposed the NIP. The report’s primary author was Dr Edgar A Whitley, a Reader in the Information Systems and Innovation Group at the LSE and an expert in identity, privacy and security issues relating to Internet-based technologies. On a recent visit to Delhi, Whitley told Baba Umar why such projects could be an intrusion of privacy.

Initially, the UK government was serious about the identity project. Why was it abandoned later?
In May 2010, the Labour Party (which had introduced the ID card in 2005) lost the election. We ended up with a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, both of whom had campaigned against ID cards in their election manifestos. When they decided to form a coalition government, they both reaffirmed their commitment to scrap the scheme. Certainly, the LSE report helped in supporting their stand but the concerns about ID cards also stemmed from the existing political perspectives of both the coalition partners.

What about public opinion?
In terms of public opinion, the support for ID cards dropped markedly when people learnt more about the details of the project: you would have to be enrolled if you chose to renew your passport, there would be a cost associated with obtaining an ID card, you would need to be fingerprinted to enrol, etc. In the UK, fingerprinting has far stronger associations with criminality than other countries where, for e.g., it is used for voter registration.

You said the LSE report helped in buttressing the opinions of the coalition partners. What did the report argue?
The report concluded that the project was too complex, technically unsafe, overly prescriptive and lacked a foundation of public trust and confidence. The proposals missed key opportunities to establish a secure, trusted and cost-effective identity system and the report considered alternative models for an ID card project that may achieve the goals of the legislation more effectively. The technology envisioned for this scheme was, to a large extent, untested and unreliable. We also estimated the likely cost of the 10-year rollout of the proposed project to be between £10.6 billion and £19.2 billion. This figure didn’t include public or private sector integration costs, nor did it take into account possible cost overruns. The report magnified the risk of failure in the proposals to the point where the scheme was insisted to be regarded as a potential danger to public interest and to the legal rights of individuals.

In India, the project was sold on ‘social welfare and development’ arguments. What were the arguments in the UK?
This is one of the areas where the UK and India are more different. There were various justifications given for the scheme and they tended to vary over time. Indeed, for a while, our joke would be: “It is Tuesday, so the justification for identity cards must be to address identity fraud.” There was an element of security associated with the scheme, particularly in relation to making it more difficult/impossible for a UK citizen to obtain more than one passport. This makes it more difficult for them to travel in and out of the country under different identities). However, following the 7 July 2005 attacks in London, Home Secretary Charles Clarke (rightly) admitted that ID cards would not have prevented it (not least because the attackers were all UK citizens and so would have been entitled to an id card). The government also argued that the cards would address benefit fraud, despite the fact that such cases relate to a misrepresentation of circumstances.

What’s your take on India’s Unique Identification (UID) project?
India’s scale (in this as in everything) is so completely different to the UK that I often find it difficult to comprehend. For example, I understand that 200 million people have already enrolled for UID. That is over three times the total population of the UK. However, these scale factors do have ­important consequences. For example, with enrolment, you need to delegate the process to lots of enrolment stations and you need to ensure that the quality (and security) of this process is maintained throughout the country and for all the ­millions of people who are going to be ­enrolled. Similarly, if you are going to do online authentication (i.e. sending Aadhaar number, name/biometric to the UID Central Identity Data Repository) then you will need to have lots of secure terminals (often in geographically remote locations with poor connectivity) and these will need to operate within a reasonable response time.

ID projects are working well in some countries. Then why not in India?
Context is so important that you can’t just take a system that might work in one country and expect it to work in another. Here, issues of scale, levels of documentation — as I understand it, there are huge levels of poor/no documentation for many people — custom and practice: in Germany, you are expected to notify the local council within a few days of moving to a new town. As a result, the new town has a pretty good official record of who lives in their town that can become a source of “proof of ­address”. I suspect the British would never agree to be “managed” in such a way.

You have been critical of the biometrics part of the project. Why?
Not “critical” per se, rather we have raised concerns and claims that biometrics are not as perfect as some politicians and biometric vendors would like you to believe. We just want to make sure that any decisions taken about biometrics are based on an understanding of all the viewpoints, not just a subset of them. By definition, biometrics are never error-free. They all ­operate within particular performance ­levels and there is evidence (including from UID) about the problems of enrolment and verification of various forms of biometrics, for e.g. manual workers whose fingerprints might become worn over time.

The government says UID isn’t compulsory and it’s primarily meant to plug pilferage in welfare schemes. Isn’t there a worry that it will be used for surveillance?
This question of compulsion is often tricky. It wasn’t compulsory to enrol for an ID card in the UK but if you (voluntarily) chose to renew your passport, you would be ­enrolled. The only way it was not compulsory was if you excluded yourself from travel by turning down a passport. In terms of pilferage in PDS, again this is a situation where the detailed evidence needs to be presented. Is most of the pilferage because of identity-related fraud — where a formal use of UID might address it — or does most of the pilferage happen at an earlier stage, i.e. before the food gets to the distribution point, whereby UID would have no effect? 

I’m not an expert on PDS, so can’t provide the evidence on this. To some extent, the same ID number may be found in ­various systems tracking the individual, so this might be an issue (see, for e.g., webcast.gov.in/witfor opening plenary where Kapil Sibal (minutes 56-58) talks about tracking someone using Aadhaar but “not intruding his privacy”).

Some critics tie the UID project to UN Security Council Resolution 1373. They say these are UN-backed projects that also include the formation of the National Counter-Terrorism Centre in all countries (US and now India have it) to which information will be fed by UID projects.
I don’t know enough about the details of this for a sensible comment, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the UID policy was completely unrelated to other ongoing policy issues such as counter-terrorism. That said, it is unclear how much direct benefit there would be in terms of counter-terrorism for collecting biometrics, names and ­addresses of large numbers of relatively poorly-documented individuals.

Baba Umar is a Correspondent with Tehelka.
babaumar@tehelka.com

Saturday, December 17, 2011

2112 - ‘Data is secure. Biometrics ensure uniqueness’ - TEHELKA

From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 8, Issue 51, Dated 24 Dec 2011

Q&A Nandan Nilekani, UIDAI Chairman
‘Data is secure. Biometrics ensure uniqueness’

THE PARLIAMENTARY Standing Committee headed by BJP stalwart Yashwant Sinha has found the National Unique Identification Authority of India Bill “unacceptable in its present form”. More rumblings against the UID or Aadhaar scheme have been heard in the corridors of the Planning Commission and the home ministry. Is UPA-II’s big-ticket idea caught in a turf war? UIDAI 

Chairman Nandan Nilekani tells Rohini Mohan in an email interview that doubts about non-accountability, among other things, are baseless.


But is the data secure, especially when UIDAI uses registrars other than the RGI?
UIDAI permits people to enrol anywhere in India with a wide choice of registrars. But most enrolments to date have been by state governments and nationalised banks, relying on proof of identity/address documents. The data collected is subject to high standards of security. We have well laid out protocols of encryption and data security. This was approved by all government agencies, including the RGI and the home ministry. In fact, RGI has itself adopted biometric standards of UIDAI and its private enrolment agencies.


So why not adopt NPR’s suggestion of subjecting data to public scrutiny?
RGI plans to display NPR data lists in prominent places in villages and towns to invite objections from the public, with local authorities looking into objections. This is a method in our system too.


If all functions of Aadhaar were approved, why is there so much apprehension and conflict today? Is the UID caught in a turf war?
(Nilekani refuses to comment.)


So is UIDAI about establishing citizenship or Indian residency? The Standing Committee draft says the scheme has ‘no clarity of purpose’ and is ‘directionless’ because it includes all residents.

The UIDAI’s mandate as per the government notification is to generate and assign unique numbers to residents. The Aadhaar number is not a proof of citizenship.


What about duplication? The Planning Commission wrote to Home Minister P Chidambaram that it wants to avoid duplication of data and expense.
De-duplication is built into the system already. UIDAI has always considered converging the UID and NPR methods and data as top priority.


The logical order of the whole project seems to be back to front. First, the assurance of unique identity, then the fund allocation, then the feasibility study, and now, after Rs 550 crore have been spent, the Bill to govern it. The Standing Committee draft says the UIDAI project was approved in haste.
The UIDAI is an executive authority created by a notification of the Government of India under the aegis of the Planning Commission. The National Identification Authority of India Bill is not a pre-requisite for undertaking the project. It has been proposed to provide a statutory basis for the UIDAI. The project has been approved by the government under due process.


It is also said that the UIDAI’s financial autonomy is improper.
All proposals and funds for the project have been approved by Parliament. We have followed transparent procedures in procurement.


Those already enrolled have been asking: Are the cards going to be issued at all?
Our mandate is to provide unique identity numbers to the residents of India. The Aadhaar number is communicated by a letter through India Post. We did make an effort to explore possibilities of a card for reasons of improving the quality. However, this decision has been kept in abeyance. The UIDAI has no intention of issuing a smart card/biometrics-based card.


Are you sure all the IDs are unique? The UIDAI feasibility study said there could be a 0.0025 percent of biometric duplication, and 15 percent failure. That is 18 trillion possible mistakes!
The UIDAI is using a combination of biometrics (fingerprints and iris scans). We believe that this combination assures a high degree of uniqueness. Exceptions in any technology would be dealt with by a well-laid out exception-handling process.


Shouldn’t we have had privacy laws in place before UID?
The UIDAI collects minimum data from the people. No profiling attributes are collected. We do not share individual data with anyone.

10 reasons why the standing committee is miffed with UID
1. Since the lawmaking is underway, with the Bill still pending, all executive actions of the UID are unethical and in violation
2. The project was approved in haste. No feasibility study was done
3. The system has far-reaching consequences for national security
4. The project has no clarity of purpose and is directionless. Meant initially for BPL families, it has been extended to all residents in India
5. The Empowered Group of Ministers constituted to collate National Population Register (NPR) and UID didn’t take concrete decisions to avoid duplication. Data collection for UID and national ID should have been entrusted to a single authority only
6. It is built on unreliable and untested technology. Despite UIDAI’s adverse observations of error rates of biometrics, it continues to be used
7. If the project does not continue beyond the present number of 200 million enrolments, the whole exercise becomes futile
8. There is lack of coordination and difference of views between various departments. Controversies between the Minister of Home Affairs and the UIDAI remain unresolved, affecting NPR and Aadhaar schemes
9. The national data protection law, which is being drafted by Ministry of Personnel, is a pre-requisite for this ID law that deals with large-scale information from individuals. It will deal with access, misuse, surveillance, profiling, confidentiality, etc
10. The committee, finally, recommends that fresh legislation be drafted.


Q&A Montek Singh Ahluwalia Planning Commission Deputy Chairman


‘The Planning Commission fully supports UID’
PLANNING COMMISSION Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia tells Rohini Mohan that the UID scheme needs solutions, not an outright rejection.


Excerpts From An Interview


Why is the Planning Commission sending mixed signals about UID?
The Planning Commission is fully supporting the UID. At least I am. If there’s anyone who isn’t supporting the commission’s view, it doesn’t matter.


But in a Cabinet note dated 30 August, you had expressed worries about duplication of data.
Yes, I had concerns about duplication between UIDAI and the home ministry’s data, but I also suggested four different solutions to avoid it. The home ministry is not ready to accept those options. From the beginning, NPR and UIDAI were supposed to use each other’s data, but the home ministry has finally taken a position that they will not use UID material. I don’t support this.


But why this change of stance when the UIDAI is already underway? Is it a turf war?
The home ministry’s objective is not the same as the UID. For them, it’s security. They clearly say so in the Cabinet note. What they were supposed to do didn’t involve biometrics, etc. The UID objective is different — it’s about identity, enabling people to access government schemes. The difference is important and they don’t believe the UIDAI fits in this goal. I’m going to present to the Cabinet that we shouldn’t scrap the UID.
Rohini Mohan is a Special Correspondent with Tehelka.
rohini@tehelka.com