Press Release Faith in 12 digit biometric Aadhaar Number is unscientific & is in contempt of Parliament, Supreme Court
Deafening silence of opposition parties in face of ongoing implementation of aadhaar constitutes their dereliction of duty It's a sophisticated intelligence trap; surveillance through aadhaar has been made to sound benign April 28, 2015: Considerations other than truth have given birth to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's faith in 12 digit biometric Aadhaar Number. The faith is based on the unscientific assumption that there a biological material in the human body-constituting biometric data- which is immortal, ageless and permanent. Aadhaar and related schemes are based on the unscientific and questionable assumption that there are parts of human body like fingerprint, iris, voice etc" that does not age, wither and decay with the passage of time. They who support aadhaar and related schemes display unscientific temper by implication. Besides this working conditions, humidity, temperature and lighting conditions impact the quality of biological material used for generating biometric data making them unreliable. The issuance of 82 crore Aadhaar numbers does not make it scientific. The entire government machinery is hiding the fact that fundamentally UID is not a proof of identity, it is an identifier contained in the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) of UID numbers. Aadhaar is the brand name of UID Number. Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)'s contract agreement with the consortium consisting of M/s Ernst & Young Private Limited and M/s Netmagic Solutions Pvt Ltd received through RTI reveals that "biometric systems are not 100 % accurate" and "uniqueness of the biometrics is still a postulate." This startling admission pulverizes the very edifice on which UID/aadhaar. This has come to light from the attached relevant pages of the RTI reply dated December 5, 2013. This establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the ongoing creation of world's biggest biometric database in the history of mankind is based not only on legally questionable foundation but also on questionable technological assumptions of immortal and immutable nature of biometric data. This assumption stands scientifically debunked even as it faces robust legal challenge in the Supreme Court and in the Parliamentary Committee on Finance. The contract agreement admits, "The loss in information due to limitations of the capture setup or physical conditions of the body, and due (to) the feature representation, there is a non-zero probability that two finger prints or IRIS prints coming from different individuals can be called a match." The contract agreement underlines it in bold letters. There appears to be an attempt at verbal gymnastics to hide the key message here. In simple words, "non-zero probability that two finger prints or IRIS prints" turning out to be a match means that there is a probability that biometric data of two different individuals can be identical. With this admission which is rooted in scientific evidence articulated earlier as part of this series, there emerges a compelling logic to abandon the exercise of creating database of biometric data for identification in favour of pre-existing 15 identity proofs on which Election Commission of India relies for elections and which has been giving legality and legitimacy to the Parliament and the Government of India. The description of approach and methodology given the Appendix A: Part C dealing with Contract -UID CIDR Consultant contract agreement with Ernst & Young, a company based in UK, one of the five alliance members of the English-speaking countries (USA, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand) for the purpose of sharing intelligence. Notably, the contract agreement begins with the talisman of Mahatma Gandhi about pondering over how the poorest can get "control over his life and destiny" restored and will have us believe that this is its inspiration to participate in this initiative. The contract agreement with Ernst & Young states that "the Unique ID will be a random 12-digit number with the basis for establishing uniqueness of identity being biometrics". It announces that "we will provide a Unique Identity to over 113.9 crore people." This is evidently a fraudulent announcement because UIDAI with which the agreement has been signed has mandate to provide Unique Identity to only 60 crore residents of India and not to 113.9 crore people. The agreement states that it proposes to adopt Political, Economic, Social, Technology, Legal and Environment (PESTLE) framework to cover all key dimensions of the UID program. This framework merits attention for it tantamount to rewriting the political geography of the country with hitherto unknown consequences for political rights. In an earlier RTI reply dated October 25, 2013, UIDAI shared that Ernst & Young order date was February 26, 2010. By it is somewhat well known that UID number is based on biometric and retinal profile procured from Indians. This is the most repulsive aspect of the project. Any biometric profile directly violates the very dignity and privacy of Indians which is guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. According to Concise Oxford dictionary, surveillance means 'close observation, especially of a suspected person'. Observation based on biometric profiling is surveillance to which each and every resident of India is being subjected to by engineering coercion. What is normally used for terrorists and criminals is now sought to be used against the common citizens of this country. Does it mean that the state has lost confidence in its people and wants a criminal profile of all its citizens? Can there be a more shameful aspect of the state intrusion into individual privacy? Supreme Court's judgement dated 4 July 2011 upheld Right to Privacy as Right to Life. Disregarding this, the government seems to be acting under the influence of surveillance technology companies and biometric technology companies. The vision statement of Aadhaar states: "use of UID to speed up certain businesses, especially in the insurance and credit sectors, may eliminate the need for private sector to set-up parallel identification systems leading to improved efficiency in delivery of their services and a reduction in identity-related frauds in the service delivery." It is an admitted fact that interests of transnational "commercial czars" are behind this project. Is it a coincidence that Lyon, France based INTERPOL, world's largest police organisation too has called for global electronic identity (e-ID) card system? Does this not constitute "illegitimate advances of the state" because the state is complicit in it. Increasingly biometrics and e-Identity co-exist. Capt P Raghu Raman, chief executive of National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), Union Ministry of Home Affairs, says, "the NATGRID is not an organisation, but a tool". It simply routes "information from 21 data sources to 10 user agencies ... it is like a Google of such data sources." NATGRID will function as a central facilitation centre, to "data sources" such as banks and airlines, they are the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the Intelligence Bureau (IB), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Enforcement Directorate (ED), Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) and the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI). These agencies will get access to information from NATGRID. Security agencies can seek the details from NATGRID database. Data from companies like airline and telecom would be uploaded to NATGRID database. All the security agencies will have an access to NATGRID. The fact is Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) of Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar number and UID number generator National Population Register (NPR), Union Ministry of Home Affairs is a subset of NATGRID. Aadhaar is facilitating creation of a "financial Interpol" which is beyond India's jurisdiction like computing cloud on which aadhaar data is being stored as part of Digital India initiative. When asked about the qualification of CEO of NATGRID, the process for appointment of CEO, names and headquarters of the companies and government entities from which the data would be uploaded in the NATGRID and the names of the various government agencies that would have an access with NATGRID database under RTI Act, the Home Ministry on 30 June 2011 replied, "NATGRID/MHA is out of purview of RTI Act, 2005 under Gazette Notification No. 306 dated 9 June 2011". The first RTI application was filed on the 11 May 2011. Clearly, NATGRID was removed from the ambit of RTI Act after the application was filed. How can information be denied based on a notification which was an afterthought with retrospective effect? Notably, when asked whether Council of Union Ministers' have got themselves enrolled for UID number, UIDAI denied the information under RTI application stating that it is third party information. There is nothing on record to show that the original promoters of biometric identification like Pranab Mukherjee, LK Advani, Nandan Nilekani, P Chidambaram, Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Arun Jaitley or Ravi Shankar Prasad got themselves biometrically profiled. It is noteworthy that senior leadership of no political party except Narendra Modi has got themselves biometrically enrolled for such an exercise. In a panel discussion on Rajya Sabha TV, in the matter of biometric Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar number and National Population Register (NPR), this author was a fellow panelist of Dr M Vijayanunni, former Census Commissioner & Registrar General of India, Union Ministry of Home of Affairs. Dr Vijayanunni said, "China has a comparable population. They had attempted and they had given up after spending lots of money. They have found that in a country of such dimensions both geographically and as well population wise it is just impossible. It will never have a satisfactory population register for the whole country. Remember, it is not a onetime exercise. It has to be a continuing exercise forever. It is just impossible for a country of that size. We have the recent example of the United Kingdom. There also this was tried and they had to give up." An official publication of World Bank Group's International Monetary Fund (IMF) reveals, "Surveillance, a central pillar of IMF activities and responsibilities in the modern era, is not an easy concept to grasp." It will have us accept that only the master can grasp and communicate the meaning of 'surveillance'. IMF commiserates with the lesser mortals stating that it knows that 'surveillance' does sound terrible. This is understandable. Jacob A Frenkel, an official of IMF is quoted as arguing that this word 'surveillance' should be made to sound benign. It "should give way to concepts of cooperation, partnership, and consultation; of bringing on board the rest of the world's considerations." This publication states, "In practice, surveillance has encapsulated all of the above notions, but at its best it has been motivated by and has itself promoted a spirit of international cooperation." This publication informs that the first official use of the term came in June 1974. IMF was concerned that "Few, if any countries, however, were prepared to be subjected to surveillance in that strong sense. The 1980s therefore became a decade of experimentation, in which the staff and management of the Fund constantly probed and prodded to see how far they could go in persuading countries to respond positively to Fund analysis and advice." This concern of IMF is deeply touching. But IMF's efforts did yield results and by the mid-1990s, a "silent revolution" had happened in countries like India, it infers. By 2013, at least citizens of 35 countries and their heads know exactly what 'surveillance' means. It does sound terrible. Both National Security Agency (NSA) of the US and World Bank Group have a different and benevolent sounding meaning in mind. The publication admits, "Even among IMF staff, those questions did not yield uniform answers." This incomprehension among them is understandable because The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English tells them that it means "close observation especially of a suspected person." This IMF publication states, "If surveillance was to have any substance, the Fund would have to develop that influence: through the power of persuasion (Fund management and staff to country authorities), through peer pressure (country to country in the forum of the Fund), and through publicity (Fund to the public). The relative merit of each of these channels was always the subject of much debate. Was publicity appropriate, or would it conflict with and even nullify the benefits of persuasion and peer pressure?" The publication uses the word 'Fund' to refer to IMF. Surveillance through aadhaar has been made to sound benign indeed. Non-Congress opposition parties including left and Janta Pariwar parties have failed in their duty by supporting biometric identification project that is creating a permanent emergency architecture. Edward Snowden has revealed that USA and its allied intelligence agencies are targeting communications in Asian countries. Does the Prime Minister know of any other head Prime Minister or President anywhere in the world who have been biometrically profiled voluntarily? Eminent citizens including former judges, jurists and educationists have underlined "there is a fundamental risk to civil liberties" and sought the halting of the project. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the matter which has been sub judice since 2012 in July 2015, it is hoped it will set matters right in a situation where Parliament has been made redundant by illegal and illegitimate UIDAI. It should desist from repeating what it has done with regard to the case concerning legality of CBI. All the agencies both international and national have worked overtime to ensure that the Court is compelled to except the fait accompli in the matter of biometric data collection and the very existence of UIDAI wherein a large section of media has been complicit. While one end of the rope namely, National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) was opposed bitterly, it's others ends like aadhaar and Goods and Services Tax (GST) Network constitutes "abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power" in our country. Political parties and citizens need to examine whether or not NATGRID and UIDAI emerging as Indian incarnation of NSA. Notably, both the Five Eyes Alliance disclosed by Snowden and the transnational enterprises like Ernst & Young, Sagem Morpho and L1 of Safran Group, Accenture, In-Q-Tel and MongoDB have the capability to directly access internet companies' data, tapping international fibre optic cables, sabotaging encryption standards and standards bodies, hacking the routers, switches and firewalls that connect the internet together. The facts about their tentacles being present in these countries have been brought to light after the disclosures by Snowden. The verdict of U.S. District Court against NSA and the disclosures about fallibility of biometric data and the Snowden's revelations about the intelligence alliance merits the attention of Supreme Court of India when it hears the case against biometric identification based UID/aadhaar when it hears the matter in July. For Details: Gopal Krishna, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL), Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660, E-mail:[email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
