On 1 July 2010 12:07, jtd <[email protected]> wrote: > > Tackling - you mean opposing.
Whether the UID is at all a desirable technology is a pretty fundamental question. I think all of us would have to agree that there needs to be some way for a citizen of a nation to prove her identity. Currently this need is served through multiple methods such as PAN card, voters ID card, ration card etc. Ideally, all of this should not have been present to begin with. Had UID been implemented long back we would not have to carry so many cards along today. However, as we realise now, creating such a single database of all citizens (note that none of the other identification methods aim to cover all citizens) is extremely challenging which probably would not have been feasible without the vast amount of computing resources we have at our disposal today. > > As far as implementing goes, the primary focus was cleverly shifted > from why to how by appointing Nandini Nilenkani, who obligingly > produces all the right type of studies that aids mutual back > scratching. > The next few lines have been repeated ad nauseum. > 1) subsidy / Aid does not reach the intended recipient not because of > lack of identity, but because of lack of fool proof verification. > 2) This happens because of corrupt officials in the dispersal, > verification AND redressal chains, the last part more evident in it's > complete abscence. Redressal chains are being strengthened by the RTI act I thought. I hear that its being used by the poorest of the poor. While the government can not change man's basic nature (corruption) it can do something about fortifying its own administrative checks and balances. All it can do is to make sure that a person's identity can be verified without fail and it is trying to do that with bio-metrics. If there is a better way to do it I am sure the government would take it up too. > 3) No accountability in all government agencies without exception. It > takes a very well healed citizen an entire lifetime to get an iota of > relief from the most glaring atrocities of officialdom. Who would you blame for this? I would blame Indian mentality and not the Government. There is the LokAyukta for grievances against corrupt government officials. How many of us have ever thought of approaching it? Surely all of us on this list have faced Government corruption once. We wouldnt take the trouble. Similarly they wouldnt take the trouble to amend themselves as well. You talk as if the government is an alien being. It is a mirror of the society we live in and we are very much a cause of the quality of the society too. Sure, there are among us that strive towards being better citizens and I argue that there are those in the government who strive for genuinely good policies and welfare of the people. I would not rush to belittle their enthusiasm or the courage to undertake such huge tasks in the face of volleys of criticism from all corners. > > So how is accountability going to come into governance?. How is the > infrastructure for verification (infact for anything at all starting > with schools and health care) going to be put in place?. You dont > perchance think that city slickers will tramp to Mugij or Piplodi to > get free treatment do you? > > Tying ones identity to some biometric does not in anyway address the > core issue of accountability and infrastructure. Tying ones identity to biometrics is the only sensible way to identify oneself. Lets get this correct first. The issue of infrastructure is difficult to implement probably because of the insanely huge population of our nation. As for accountability, it is only going to change when people who consider themselves good citizens actually get into the Govt. in positions of accountability and set an example for others to follow. Corruption like all trends can fall out of fashion if the rare example of strength of character is celebrated and appreciated instead. > > Other practical details of data collection, misuse, exploitation etc > come after the above is addressed. Yes, these are valid concerns. Whether my money is safe in a bank or not is also a valid concern. Both the concerns are similar. There is some amount of trust involved in both. However the data security bill is supposed to add some guarantees to our trust. I also think that we trust more personal secrets to gmail today than we would ever do to UID. > > As far as the current act goes the UIDAI first assigns itself > salaries, then protects itself from accountability and then puts up a > penal deterrrent with a pleasant side effect of screwing those who > might want to highilight it's glaring tech flaws. I am not sure where the last part comes from, but about assigning itself salaries I think its just a part of forming a basic structure for themselves before they go to work. I think its pretty normal. Protecting itself from accountability; Once the NIDAI Act 2010 is passed and UIDAI becomes a statutory authority, it will be very much responsible for every decision it takes. I thought only non-judicial bodies, like the National Advisory Council floated by the Congress part chief can hood wink accountability. > > Why is a UIDAI official exempt "in good faith" and not a member of the > public. > Why does an official not get 10 yrs when a person on the outside is > entitled to 3. Article (?) 52 of the draft bill states: " No suit <snip> shall lie against <snip> the Authority <snip> for anything which is in good faith done <snip> under this Act or the rule or regulation made thereunder." I dont see anything wrong with this clause. Infact it makes perfect sense to me. This bill will be ratified in the 2 houses where its clauses will be debated by our very own chosen representatives. This is the fairest possible process (unless you think there are better alternatives to dmocracy). The Govt has infact gone out of its way to invite public comments. Once the bill is ratified by the 2 houses, it should be assumed to make perfect sense and it is only obvious that an official trying to implement such an article should not be subjected to petty suits or frivolous PILs by some over-enthusiastic NGO intern. The CJI has recently come out sternly against such casual and non-chalant wasting of the courts already overloaded and precious time. Infact this particular is very necessary to instil a sense of confidence in the mind of the dutiful officer. At the end of the day the interpretation of the term "in good faith" is again open to judicial interpretation. So I guess its fine. > > You know what? You guys dont like to see the poor empowered with > hightech. So what if 45000cr will be spent after 9000cr farmer loan > writeoff. Come to think of it the last writeoff was 10 yrs ago. So > 45000cr will buy us 50 yrs doing absolutely nothing. As for "So 45000cr will buy us 50 yrs doing absolutely nothing", the fact of the matter is that public memory is very short. After 5 years or so no one will give a damn about this. No one will even clearly remember when this started. It will just proceed as planned I guess. > -- > Rgds > JTD I will probably come across as a troll on this list, so forgive if my points are out of place. But I do feel we criticise too much. @JTD Are you a lawyer by profession? -- Debayan Banerjee Software Engineer _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
