NUID project involves a rough estimate in the order of Rs. 1,50,000 crore as spelt out by some experts. Neither Nilekani nor the GOI is giving any figure. Do we need to spend so much for making the govt. delivery system effective? Is n't the cost of delivery is more than the output? Is it not a ploy for tight policing by the state?
There are proprietory giants like MicroSoft, Infosys, etc. who have lost sleep since the UID was launched and lined up to swallow their pie in this project. In the very first place, there is no valid case for such UID for a country like India where about 77% populace earn less than Rs. 20 a day. Rs. 1,50,000 crore may be used to transform the livelihood of toiling people. But as a free software alliance, I personally feel that we should have an integrated demand of rejecting NUID project and demanding for free and open standard platform in all the public funded projects. jaykumar On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Joseph Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > Opposition to NUID is well taken. I too oppose it on many considerations. > > But if we fail to raise the issue of selection of SW platforms and document > formats, will it not result in the entire e-governance data and network > unilaterally controlled by the software corporates in collaboration with the > corrupt politician-bureaucracy nexus ? Failure to intervene will lead to the > much needed administrative reforms to be utilised by the unscrupulous > elements to restructure the state machinery to their advantage. > > Under the circumstances, I think any well meaning individual or > organisation is left with only two alternatives : > > a) Oppose the NUID project tooth and nail and try to defeat it at any > cost or > > b) Start intervening on as many points as possible including the very much > valid question of selection of SW platforms, document formats, data > structure, network architecture and data flow etc which, especially the > network architecture and data flow, will decide whether it could be used as > a tool of oppresssion or democratic expansion. > > One has to select between the two, I presume. > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Nagarjuna G. <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Vickram Crishna <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > At the risk of repeating myself: >> > >> > >> > Not simply the proposed (despite the decision to spend goodish sums of >> > money, the allocation of an office and the - very slow - creation of a >> > secretariat to deal with the project, and all these are not surmises >> gained >> > from newspaper reports, but the result of RTI applications made in the >> past >> > few weeks) NUID project, but any expenditure of public money on the >> creation >> > of a public service instrument must be accompanied by full disclosure of >> the >> > systems used in its implementation. Up to and until this expense >> includes >> > the use of ICTs, I think FOSSCOMM should have a clear objective (within >> the >> > CMP, therefore) to demand the use of free software. >> > In practical terms, this may take the form of readymade documents to >> file >> > with concerned organs of government, and a public statement, preserved >> on >> > the website, for instance, expressing this position. >> > However, for the reasons stated above (and implicitly, in the quoted >> link), >> > I certainly object to treating the matter as fait accompli, so that >> > FOSSCOMM, by virtue of recommending the use of free software as an >> > alternative to proprietary systems, is seen as defending and being a >> party >> > to the imposition of NUID on our country's people. >> > -- >> >> Thanks for repeating this. NUID will be used by the powers/mega >> systems, and it is more advantageous for them rather than individual. >> Therefore I do not find that as a good use of ICT, infact it is a good >> abuse of ICT, whether it is free software or not. >> >> Using free software for NUID only makes it lesser evil, but evil is >> evil at the end of the day. >> >> When we dream of a free society we should dream of a society where >> each human being is identified for being a human (made of flesh and >> blood) and no other identities should matter. All human beings should >> be given the dignity they deserve. These NUID project is not intended >> for that, on the contrary it is an instrument for discrimination. >> Each one of us are endowed with a unique culturally transmitted >> ability to know if the other person is a human being or not. What >> more do we need? Why do we have to use ICT to determine whether a >> person is a person. >> >> Considering the ill-consequences of NUID, and handing over our >> information to unreliable and intransparent administrative systems, I >> personally oppose the very idea of NUID. It is an ill-conceived >> solution to a manufactured problem that does not exist. >> >> Nagarjuna >> _______________________________________________ >> network mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in >> > > > > -- > With warm greetings. > > Joseph Thomas, > [email protected], > 9447738369/9447738366 > Res : 04842792369 > > Every public agency has a duty to maintain its control over its > computing, as a matter of sovereignty. Using a non-free program means giving > the program’s developer control over that computing. Thus, public agencies > must reject proprietary software and move to free software. ---- Richard M > Stallman > > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in > >
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
