I/IV. [The author is just not the Minsiater-in-charge but also a senior BJP functionary.
He, rather correctly, claims that the "seed (of Aadhaar/UID/MNIC) was sown by the BJP-led government in 2003." *In fact, while the Citizenship Act was amended in 2003, and rules notified later that year, to provide that: “it shall be compulsory for every Citizen of India to…get himself registered in the Local Register of Indian Citizens” and, not only that, any violation was to be “punishable with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees”; the basic idea had been conceived, even earlier, in in January 2000 in a report of the Kargil Review Committee appointed in the wake of the Kargil War.* It also goes to his credit that he admits, in fact he could hardly afford to do otherwise given the availability of evidences available in the public domain: "It evoked strong criticisms in initial years – including from courts and from my own party BJP – on issues such as for what purposes Aadhaar will be used or not used, NPR vs Aadhaar, citizenship, absence of data protection and privacy measures." What he, however, carefully omits out is the fact that "the historic Aadhaar Act" was passed by the Parliament, in a highly controversial move and challenged in the SC, as a Finance Bill in order to dodge the Rajya Sabha. Nor does he mention what new or additional steps have been taken as regards the "initial" flaws, e.g. "absence of data protection and privacy measures". He, as is expected of a loyal soldier, claims, accompanied with some thumping of chest: "Under the visionary leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Aadhaar has made rapid progress. Over 50 crore Aadhaar cards have been issued in less than three years, taking the total number to 113 crore." No mention of the facts of massive data leakage, issue of cards in the name of Lord Hanuman etc. and the ongoing cases against the Aadhaar in the Supreme Court. Of course, he had to perforce talk of opposition to the Aadhaar on various (fictitious?) grounds.] http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/winning-with-aadhaar-its-a-safe-and-secure-platform-for-good-governance-and-indias-digital-revolution/ Winning with Aadhaar: It’s a safe and secure platform for good governance and India’s digital revolution April 17, 2017, 2:00 AM IST Ravi Shankar Prasad in TOI Edit Page Aadhaar, the largest digital identity programme in the world, is now being acclaimed as a marvel of India’s technological innovation and prowess. India has developed it for good governance and for serving poor and marginalised people. It is in contrast to other biometric identity programmes in the world, which are mainly used for security, border management and so on. ***Aadhaar was started, no doubt, by the UPA government in 2009. But its seed was sown by the BJP-led government in 2003. It evoked strong criticisms in initial years – including from courts and from my own party BJP – on issues such as for what purposes Aadhaar will be used or not used, NPR vs Aadhaar, citizenship, absence of data protection and privacy measures.*** [Emphasis added.] ***When NDA came to power in 2014 it immediately started addressing these issues and finally, in 2016, brought out the historic Aadhaar Act which gave a strong legislative basis to Aadhaar and clearly defined the purposes for which it will be used, while providing strong data and privacy protection measures.*** [Emphasis added.] ***Under the visionary leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Aadhaar has made rapid progress. Over 50 crore Aadhaar cards have been issued in less than three years, taking the total number to 113 crore. More than 99% of the adult population has Aadhaar. The present focus is on enrolling children in schools and anganwadis.*** [Emphasis added.] The government started using Aadhaar in programmes like PDS, Pahal, MGNREGS, pensions, scholarships, etc now extended to around 100 programmes. This ensures benefits reach only intended beneficiaries and cannot be siphoned off by unscrupulous middlemen. For example, Aadhaar based PDS ensures food grain entitlement is given only to deserving beneficiaries and not cornered by corrupt elements. Aadhaar has started producing results. According to our estimates Aadhaar has saved approximately over Rs 49,000 crore in two and half years by eliminating crores of ghost beneficiaries in programmes like MGNREGS, Pahal, schools, PDS. The World Bank, in its Digital Dividend report published last year, has estimated that if Aadhaar is used in all Indian government schemes, it will accrue savings of $11 billion every year through elimination of ghosts and duplicates. World Bank chief economist Paul Romer has acclaimed Aadhaar, saying “it could be good for the world if this became widely adapted”. Aadhaar has also enabled more than five crore people to open bank accounts. Now more than 43 crore individuals have linked Aadhaar with their bank accounts; they can receive government benefits and subsidies directly in their account. Aadhaar enabled payment system has taken banking services to rural and remote areas of the country where there are no brick and mortar bank branches or ATMs. Aadhaar soon will also become a means for making cashless payments through fingerprints for those who are not digitally literate. In addition, Aadhaar is innovatively being used in other services too to empower people, such as Jeevan Pramaan, digital locker, e-sign opening of NPS account, obtaining Pan card and passport. Despite this impressive record, several myths are being spread by critics of Aadhaar. One of them is Aadhaar has been made mandatory in programmes such as mid-day meal, MGNREGS and PDS leading to exclusion and denial of benefits to the poor. The Aadhaar Act has clear provision that no one can be denied services or benefits for not having Aadhaar. Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act is clear – in case an individual has not enrolled for Aadhaar, he has to be provided enrolment facilities and till the time Aadhaar is assigned he is to be given benefits through alternate means of identification. Critics also say that old people and manual labourers are being denied because their fingerprints are worn out and fail to match. Let me say here that Aadhhar allows matching through any of 12 means – 10 fingerprints, two irises which usually takes care of most situations. If a finger does not work, other fingers or iris could be used for biometric matching. In rare cases, when none works, departments have been told to use alternative means of identification. The next myth is that Aadhaar violates privacy of individuals and could be used by private and government entities for linking databases leading to profiling and state surveillance. Misinformation is also being spread about security of Aadhaar. Let me say here that nothing is further from the truth. Privacy and security have been fundamental to system design. Moreover, Aadhaar Act 2016 provides a strong statutory basis for it. Aadhaar has been designed in a such a way that only minimum information is collected and Aadhaar numbers don’t have any intelligence built into them. Aadhaar Act prohibits collection of any information about caste, religion, entitlement, medical history. Further, UIDAI doesn’t collect purpose of the authentication and this knowledge only remains with service providers. Further, Section 29 completely prohibits the use of biometrics collected by the Aadhaar Act for any purpose other than Aadhaar generation and authentication. It also injuncts service providers including government departments from using Aadhaar for any purpose other than specified to users at the time of collection of Aadhaar numbers. Regarding security of the Aadhaar system, UIDAI uses one of world’s most advanced encryption technologies in transmission and storage of data. As a result, during the last seven years, there has been no report of breach or leak of data out of UIDAI. Aadhaar has established itself as a safe, secure and convenient identity platform which will change lives of 125 crore Indians for the better, and ultimately take India towards a true digital revolution. II/IV. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/no-one-can-build-aadhaar-users-profile-uidai-chief/articleshow/58556043.cms No one can build Aadhaar users' profile: UIDAI chief Mahendra Singh | TNN | Updated: May 7, 2017, 05.51 AM IST In an exclusive interview with Mahendra Singh , Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey addresses concerns about Aadhaar's privacy and security systems. *Critics say Aadhaar has a poorly verified database and questions are asked about generation of fake Aadhaar cards* Aadhaar enrolment is done through registrars -- state government, banks, Common Service Centres (CSCs) which employ enrolment agencies empanelled by UIDAI. These agencies employ operators who are certified by UIDAI. Aadhaar enrolments are done only through a special customised software developed and provided by UIDAI. Every day operators have to log into the enrolment machine through Aadhaar number and fingerprints. Once an enrolment is done he has to sign through his biometrics. That moment the whole enrolment data is encrypted and can't be read by anyone other than the UIDAI server. So the Aadhaar enrolment system is very secure. *If a person gives fake I-card and obtains a number?* Suppose Ram Kumar fabricates his identity documents such as ration card or voter's ID card in the name of Shyam Kumar. However Ram will also need an Aadhaar card in his real name. When he goes to enrol in the name of Ram Kumar he will be rejected because his biometrics is already in the database. So if somebody has Aadhaar with a fake identity, then he will be stuck for his whole life with that fake identity. He will be caught very soon. Very few will dare to use fake Aadhaar identities to commit a crime of impersonation or money laundering. *What if there is a terror act facilitated by use of fake Aadhaar cards? If bank accounts opened through fake Aadhaar cards are used for money laundering?* It is wrong to assume that the authorities would rely only on Aadhaar for allowing access to all type of services. It does not mean that authorities are required to give up other necessary verifications. After having confirmed the identity of the person through Aadhaar, biometrics or OTP, authorities are at liberty to prescribe additional checks . For example, If a person opens a bank account with his Aadhaar card and wants to undertake high value transactions, banks should do additional checks. Further, for the sake of argument assume a person is able to open a bank account with an Aadhaar card with a fake name and address and launders money or commits some crime or terror acts...he could do the same through a fake voter ID card or ration card as well. The only difference is that if he has used his Aadhaar card, it will be easier for investigating agencies to trace the culprits and conspirators and bring them to justice. If the person had used his fake ration card, the authorities would find it much harder to trace him and will hit a dead end in many cases. *Alleged leaks of Aadhaar numbers has caused concern among people....* Some agencies of central or state governments have been putting up details of their beneficiaries state-wise, district-wise, village-wise through a search menu as required under the RTI Act. Now IT Act and Aadhaar Act are there. They impose restrictions on publication of Aadhaar numbers, bank account, and other personal details. As soon as it came to notice that some agencies were displaying Aadhaar numbers and bank account numbers of beneficiaries in a search menu, they were told to remove them and they complied. Remember that no biometrics was displayed. Therefore to say that Aadhaar has been breached, 13 crore people's privacy is endangered is completely incorrect, misleading and even irresponsible. *If someone comes to know my Aadhaar number should I be concerned?* Aadhaar number, bank account number and mobile numbers are not secret. They are, sensitive personal identity information. Secret numbers are your PIN, passwords etc. While these should not be shared, one can give his sensitive personal identity information such as bank account number and Aadhaar number to others for transactional purposes. When you write a cheque, it will have your bank account number. Just because some one knows your bank account number, it will be wrong to assume he will be able to hack your bank account. If someone knows your Aadhaar number, it will be wrong to assume he will be able to hack your Aadhaar-linked bank account. Section 7 of Aadhaar Act ensures that no one will be denied benefits because of not having Aadhaar. But notifications mandate Aadhaar in contravention of this provision. Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act is very clear that if a subsidy is to be given from the Consolidated Fund of India then the government can ask for Aadhaar number. If he doesn't have Aadhaar then beneficiary can be mandated to enrol for Aadhaar and till then benefits shall have to be given through alternative means of identification. *There is fear that Aadhaar will allow government agencies to play big brother* Aadhaar Act ensures the following three fundamental principles - minimal data, optimal ignorance and federated databases. Aadhaar enrolment collects minimal data that is name, address, date of birth, gender and biometrics. We don't ask income, religion, profession, caste. etc. The principles also ensure no agency -- UIDAI, government or for that matter any department or agency is able to track and profile any individual. For example, a person may use his Aadhaar number for obtaining a SIM card, opening a bank account, and receiving PDS benefits. But the telecom company will not have any information about bank details or PDS benefits. Similarly, the bank will not know his SIM cards details and PDS benefits. UIDAI or any agency will not have any of the three bits of information - bank details, SIM cards and PDS benefits. There can be no 360 degree view of any of customers or beneficiaries. Each agency remains optimally ignorant, which is very useful for privacy protection. Section 29 prohibits any attempt to link different databases. Top Comment What Mr. Ajay Bhushan Pandey has pointed out is right . If any one gives a cheque all the data related to his account is open. As far as AADHAAR concerned it is having full securuty. Ramamurthy Ommini *Can police ask for it?* No. There are strong protection against it in the Aadhaar Act which prohibits sharing of biometrics with anyone including police authorities. So far as sharing of non-biometric information available with UIDAI is concerned, they can be shared only if a district judge permits. Unauthorised sharing of information, including a government agency is a criminal offence with jail up to three years. III/IV. http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Swaminomics/big-brother-100-small-brothers-are-watching-you/ Big Brother? 100 Small Brothers are watching you May 7, 2017, 12:05 AM IST SA Aiyar in Swaminomics The courts are hearing petitions against the government’s expansion of schemes for which Aadhaar linkage is mandatory. Civil rights activists complain of privacy erosion, large-scale leakage of Aadhaar data, and violation of Supreme Court limits on Aadhaar. Some fear, rightly, that a premature insistence on Aadhaar can deprive poor people of welfare benefits: not all have Aadhaar numbers, and the telecom infrastructure is still woefully inadequate. The biggest fear is that Aadhaar’s expansion will convert the government into George Orwell’s ‘Big Brother’, watching your every move and robbing you of personal space. Proponents of Aadhaar sneer that the activists are anti-technology Luddites, who unwittingly aid tax evaders and other crooks. These crooks can be caught by making Aadhaar mandatory for several purposes, producing data that helps catch the guilty. However, this debate is irrelevant for the biggest privacy issue, which has nothing to do with Aadhaar. Privacy has mostly disappeared already with computers and cellphones being penetrated by hackers. Any misuse of Aadhaar pales in comparison with the misuse of viruses sitting on your computer or cellphone, watching all you say or write, and analysing this into behaviour patterns that even you may not realise. The main threat to privacy does not come from giving access to your fingerprints and iris photos to the government. Immigration officials in dozens of countries routinely take your fingerprints and iris photos when you enter their airports, and passengers do not mind since this obviously helps track undesirables. A top cybersecurity expert estimates that every email and phone call is monitored by at least a hundred invisible entities, of whom 52% are private actors and 48% are state actors (of more than one country). The state has no monopoly on snooping. Rather, states themselves are hacked daily. Despite spending billions on cybersecurity, states are losing this war. Far from governmental Big Brothers becoming all powerful monopolists of information, they themselves are leaking data and secrets like a sieve to foreigners and non-state actors. Privacy has disappeared for governments as well as individuals. Russian hackers helped Donald Trump win the US presidential election by hacking into the Democratic Party’s computers and releasing uncomfortable facts about Hillary Clinton. Hackers stole $101 million from the central bank of Bangladesh. In 2014, hackers called ‘Guardians of Peace’ leaked confidential data of Sony Pictures, including personal emails of employees and their families, copies of then-unreleased Sony films, and other information. The group demanded that Sony abandon its comedy film on a plot to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jung-Un. Other hackers have stolen huge sums. Corporations buy leaked data for commercial gain. Criminals use leaked data for blackmail, theft, kidnapping and murder. Countries and corporations with the most powerful anti-hacking systems have failed to protect themselves. What hope, then, is there for individuals? The cybersecurity expert says that 70% of websites worldwide are compromised. Daily checks are no defence: it can take 240 days for experts to detect a hack. Viruses are growing by 66% per year, some aiming to watch and record, others aiming to destroy systems. They can see every financial transaction, every compromising revelation in emails and phone calls, every movement of you and your family. Cyberspace is a global commons that defies regulation. Anybody can enter it and penetrate systems globally. Not all hackers are criminals or corporations seeking commercial data: some seek to do good by exposing facts (like WikiLeaks). Through history, states have been powerful and individuals powerless. States were therefore the main threats to civil liberties and privacy. But increasingly non-state actors (notably ISIS and the Taliban) can threaten and overwhelm states. Tax evaders, money launderers and drug traffickers remain untouched by the most powerful states. Civil rights activists say little or nothing to the threat to privacy from private actors. Yet these threaten both privacy and security, and governments need additional powers to deal with hackers as well as criminals. Data mining is a powerful tool that helps governments detect tax evaders, blackmailers, terrorists, and other undesirables who escape the traditional police system. Governments must beef up cybersecurity, for itself and citizens. Making Aadhaar leakproof is only a small part of that. India needs a Privacy Act, not just to check excesses in government snooping but to guard against private snooping. When civil rights are being breached massively by undesirable private actors of all sorts, to focus on government misuse alone — as activists are doing — is myopic. IV. http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/right-and-wrong/why-aadhaar-cannot-be-seen-as-a-human-rights-issue/ Why Aadhaar cannot be seen as a human rights issue May 7, 2017, 12:10 AM IST Swapan Dasgupta in Right & Wrong Just as it is rewarding to track the policies and politics of a government, it is equally instructive to monitor the movements of those opposed to it. Since the emphatic mandate for the BJP in Uttar Pradesh and the various local body elections, there have been curious developments within the circle of Narendra Modi’s opponents. At the level of the parliamentary opposition the developments are predictable and centred on achieving maximum non-BJP unity in the election for the Rashtrapati. Simultaneously, recent weeks have witnessed two developments that find generous reflection in the social media. First, there are the expressions of angst over BJP’s growing dominance and lament over the decline of the Congress, Aam Aadmi Party and the Left. More interesting, however, is the emergence of a quasi-libertarian Right, sharply critical of the Modi regime. The misgivings arise over Modi’s alleged over-empowerment of the Indian state. Basing their arguments, among other things, on the instructions to doctors to prescribe generic drugs, the consumer affairs ministry’s suggestion that restaurants should specify the quantity of each item on the menu and, of course, the growing scope of Aadhaar, it is claimed that the state is becoming over-intrusive and thereby affecting the rights of individuals to choose. The Prime Minister is being mocked for apparently reneging on his pre-election promise of ushering in ‘minimum government.’ As of now, this disquiet has found a ready platform in the seminar circuit, particularly those organised at the behest of American think-tanks which have made their presence felt in the outer circle of academia and among strategic thinkers. However, it is only a matter of time before these arguments are slyly appropriated by an orphaned Left to press for total intellectual autonomy from ‘nationalist’ impulses and social restraints. At a purely intellectual level, it is refreshing that the classical liberal wariness of the state is finding a platform in India. For too long, particularly under successive Congress governments, the prevailing wisdom was for a greater role of the state, not only in the management of the economy but as an instrument of social engineering. Even now the political class seems inclined towards the public sector and favours resolute state intervention to fight social imbalances. The Constitution too, while conceding individual rights, has been very generous in creating space for state intervention. By contrast, the benign effects of the market and faith in community wisdom — a major tenet of conservatism — have been given short shrift in favour of codification. The recent controversies are, however, not abstract. They are a reaction to two contemporary impulses: the growing demands for state-sponsored welfare and pressures from below to make the state more efficient and responsive. In recent times, elections are won because there is either an emotive issue, invariably centred on questions of identity or faith, or on the strength of how well or badly the state has managed its welfare and development commitments. The electorate, far from getting over the mai-baap syndrome, still looks on the sarkar as an agency of benevolent paternalism. For pragmatic politicians, the Thatcherite dream of rolling back the frontiers of the state is electorally unsustainable. It is one thing for the state to opt out of running hotels and airlines but there is an expectation — verging on entitlement — that the state owes it to voters to run an efficient health service, provide education and build infrastructure. The 25 years of economic reforms has not diluted expectations from the state; it has merely made the involvement of the private sector in some spheres far more acceptable. It has also fuelled expectations of efficiency. This is the context of the Aadhaar debate. There is a legitimate demand that all biometric data should be kept confidential. But to suggest that individuals have the right to opt out of Aadhaar because the right to privacy is absolute is a libertarian pipedream. Aadhaar is merely an instrument to ensure that state benefits reach the intended beneficiary and don’t experience the proverbial transmission losses. Its scope has now been enlarged to ensure the maximum tax compliance — a necessary step if India is to have the finances to pay for what people demand from the state. It is ironic that the right to siphon state benefits and dodge taxes is being presented as a human rights issue. The choices are clear. Either we cease all expectations from the state or create the instruments for their efficient delivery. Either we acknowledge the collective will of society or facilitate a dysfunctional democracy. -- 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.
