On Friday 02 July 2010 00:54:06 Debayan Banerjee wrote: > 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.
Prove my identity in my country to whom?. Sounds feudal to me. When an official comes to me for anything HE proves HIS identity to ME. Dont know how you got the logic all inverted. BTW The UIDAI clearly states that the UID is not proof of citizenship. > 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. So why cant they put the voter id card, the Pan card, and the several tens of other ids in a database using the same wonderful computing tech?. No body is opposing computerisation at all. Infact most of the revenue leakages (and costs) can be plugged by getting rid of the plethora of central, state, muncipal, taluka and grampanchyat taxes. Inded the collection costs would become a fration of whatever it os today. But that would mean removing petty politicians and bureaucrats from the food chain. > > 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. Really?. Then you havent met many who are several steps higher in the hierarchy than 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. Like tying up all citizens and tracing all of them. Why not biometrics only for officials. Any official who disperses subsidy without due process goes to jail. What? that is already in place via the officials signature and stamp? Heck I never new that. > 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. Your optimise runs counter to 50 yrs prior history. Verifying a persons identity involves the minor matter of issuing the identity correctly and having subsequent access to the data for verification. Which was ofcourse done with extraordinary diligence, save some small errors resulting in 40% ++ ghosts in ANY government issued ID. Recently the subcontractor of the sub contractor of the... never mind. A 17 year old kid comes to my place and asks for my name and address. On enquiring, she tells me that she is collecting data for a GIS for the Navi Mumbai Muncipal Corporation. The form is hughe and detailed. But she does not want any info just my name and address. The rest will be filled up by "Sir". she gets paid the princely sum of Rs.2 per form. Someone in the UIDAI says that a biometric capture will cost only Rs.2.75 per citizen. I shudder to think of the quality and accuracy. > > > 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. Oh really. In between living their sentences, people are also supposed to fight corruption while barely managing to survive. I speak from experience of personal skirmishes with corrupt officials of every color. I have come out unscathed, but only just. And I have the means to fight a prolonged battle. I can well imagine the plight of the vast majority. I have mentioned in some other thread the ration card verification process which was followed in the 70s. > 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. That is because you WILL be hounded to submission by unrelated arms of the government. Complain about roads or sewage and the estate officer will pay you a visit to inspect the state of your society. While your plaint will take it's time vending it's way thru officialdom, your loft will be demolished pronto. > 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. Only partly true. Most of our elected reps got thru on less than 24% of the votes. So while it does reflect the deeply fragmented nature of our society, the government by no means represents anybody at all. > 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. Far from it. This insanely hughe population sits on an equally insanely hughe resource pile. The actual resource to population ratio favours us far more than most developed countries. But that is besides the point. The UID is to provide subsidy to the poor. Not development. Digging holes and filling em up. When critcism flew thick and fast, UID transformed to include micro banking. How about getting rid of those stupid KYC norms and reducing transaction costs, rather than adding UID and increasing it. > 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. Yeah sure. How about getting accountability, honesty blings etc first. You wont need any UID then. Why we can even set aside 5000cr - the interest will surely cover all such celebrations forever - and save 40000cr in the bargain. > > > 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. They are not. My money is not my identity. It is merely a tiny part of my ability. I can earn money if i stop making embedded systems. I cant earn an identity if it is stolen. I cant rebuild my identity if it is misused by someone else. Biometrics does not reduce the vulnerability of identity or enhance it's verifiabilty due to deep flaws in the technology. The so called uniqueness, even under the most optimistic conditions is .0004% and has never been studied over even a few lakh of population. > 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. The process might be fair if the penalties for officials (the guys drafting the stuff right now) was substantially more than for the public, considering that the vast majority of us have to trust a miniscule minority with a track record of utter dishonesty. > 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. Acting in good faith does not circumvent frivolous law suits. It will only provde plenty of escape routes from real law suits. > 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? No. But i wish i was. Dont know if you followed all the threads on this subject. If you havent, you really have to read it to understand what a waste of scarce resources this is. Technically it is rubbish. Politically it's a lot worse, without first bringing to heel a rampant bureacracy and their political masters. As someone pointed out in this thread 45000Cr to feed the fat cats. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
