http://m.thehindubusinessline.com/blink/cover/11-reasons-why-aadhaar-is-not-just-nonsmart-but-also-insecure/article9608225.ece

It’s the technology, stupid

Updated: March 31, 2017 13:23 IST |
Sunil Abraham

First impression: Biometrics is cheap and easy to defeat Photo:
Reuters | reuters/ fabrizio bensch

Eleven reasons why the Aadhaar is not just non-smart but also insecure

Aadhaar is insecure because it is based on biometrics. Biometrics is
surveillance technology, a necessity for any State. However,
surveillance is much like salt in cooking: essential in tiny
quantities, but counterproductive even if slightly in excess.
Biometrics should be used for targeted surveillance, but this
technology should not be used in e-governance for the following
reasons:

One, biometrics is becoming a remote technology. High-resolution
cameras allow malicious actors to steal fingerprints and iris images
from unsuspecting people. In a couple of years, governments will be
able to identify citizens more accurately in a crowd with iris
recognition than the current generation of facial recognition
technology.

Two, biometrics is covert technology. Thanks to sophisticated remote
sensors, biometrics can be harvested without the knowledge of the
citizen. This increases effectiveness from a surveillance perspective,
but diminishes it from an e-governance perspective.

Three, biometrics is non-consensual technology. There is a big
difference between the State identifying citizens and citizens
identifying themselves to the state. With biometrics, the State can
identify citizens without seeking their consent. With a smart card,
the citizen has to allow the State to identify them. Once you discard
your smart card the State cannot easily identify you, but you cannot
discard your biometrics.

Four, biometrics is very similar to symmetric cryptography. Modern
cryptography is asymmetric. Where there is both a public and a private
key, the user always has the private key, which is never in transit
and, therefore, intermediaries cannot intercept it. Biometrics, on the
other hand, needs to be secured during transit. The UIDAI’s (Unique
Identification Authority of India overseeing the rollout of Aadhaar)
current fix for its erroneous choice of technology is the use of
“registered devices”; but, unfortunately, the encryption is only at
the software layer and cannot prevent hardware interception.

Five, biometrics requires a centralised network; in contrast,
cryptography for smart cards does not require a centralised store for
all private keys. All centralised stores are honey pots — targeted by
criminals, foreign States and terrorists.

Six, biometrics is irrevocable. Once compromised, it cannot be secured
again. Smart cards are based on asymmetric cryptography, which even
the UIDAI uses to secure its servers from attacks. If cryptography is
good for the State, then surely it is good for the citizen too.

Seven, biometrics is based on probability. Cryptography in smart
cards, on the other hand, allows for exact matching. Every biometric
device comes with ratios for false positives and false negatives.
These ratios are determined in near-perfect lab conditions. Going by
press reports and even UIDAI’s claims, the field reality is
unsurprisingly different from the lab. Imagine going to an ATM and not
being sure if your debit card will match your bank’s records.

Eight, biometric technology is proprietary and opaque. You cannot
independently audit the proprietary technology used by the UIDAI for
effectiveness and security. On the other hand, open smart card
standards like SCOSTA (Smart Card Operating System for Transport
Applications) are based on globally accepted cryptographic standards
and allow researchers, scientists and mathematicians to independently
confirm the claims of the government.

Nine, biometrics is cheap and easy to defeat. Any Indian citizen, even
children, can make gummy fingers at home using Fevicol and wax. You
can buy fingerprint lifting kits from a toystore. To clone a smart
card, on the other hand, you need a skimmer, a printer and knowledge
of cryptography.

Ten, biometrics undermines human dignity. In many media photographs —
even on the @UIDAI’s Twitter stream — you can see the biometric device
operator pressing the applicant’s fingers, especially in the case of
underprivileged citizens, against the reader. Imagine service
providers — say, a shopkeeper or a restaurant waiter — having to touch
you every time you want to pay. Smart cards offer a more dignified
user experience.

Eleven, biometrics enables the shirking of responsibility, while
cryptography requires a chain of trust.

Each legitimate transaction has repudiable signatures of all parties
responsible. With biometrics, the buck will be passed to an
inscrutable black box every time things go wrong. The citizens or
courts will have nobody to hold to account.

The precursor to Aadhaar was called MNIC (Multipurpose National
Identification Card). Initiated by the NDA government headed by Atal
Bihari Vajpayee, it was based on the open SCOSTA standard. This was
the correct technological choice.

Unfortunately, the promoters of Aadhaar chose biometrics in their
belief that newer, costlier and complex technology is superior to an
older, cheaper and simpler alternative.

***This erroneous technological choice is not a glitch or teething
problem that can be dealt with legislative fixes such as an improved
Aadhaar Act or an omnibus Privacy Act. It can only be fixed by
destroying the centralised biometric database, like the UK did, and
shifting to smart cards.*** [Emphasis added.]

In other words, you cannot fix using the law what you have broken
using technology.

Sunil Abraham is Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society

-- 
Peace Is Doable

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to