Debayan and others: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:57 AM, jtd <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > The entire logic of this UID approach is upside down. Several people on this list know me personally, although I am sure there are hundreds who do not - but within a small handful of 'introductions', anyone who wishes to meet with me, and wants to be sure that it is the real me they are meeting, can do so - and I too can easily verify that it is indeed you who is meeting with me. We Indians got along quite famously for thousands of years, as a growing civilisation, without anyone wanting more familiarity than this. > > > Currently this need is served through multiple methods > > such as PAN card, voters ID card, ration card etc. > Yes, if we insist on imposing an artificial need upon ourselves, then we are forced to find artificial workarounds to satisfy those needs. > 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. > > The challenge is not in the technology of databases - it is in the surrounding environment of proofs and checks and balances that the problems lie, all being layered and piled upon each other to support a need that we have created! > > > 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. > > Debayan's comment smacks of 'mai-baap-sarkar' syndrome. Surely as persons interested in FOSS (our common interest) we are people who question and do not accept blindly anyone else's assertions? I do hope we are able to continue this discussion at a high level of interaction, and find ways and means to structure our responses, as a body of persons with a common interest, in order to best match the role we must adopt (if not to remain merely intellectual discussants - armchair philosophers) in society. -- Vickram http://communicall.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
