By Gopal Krishna
Today I was on Dr. Katherine Albrecht Radio Show, in US at 3 AM early morning for an hour. The program was against the UID Number.
The conversation is available at: Click on Link
In the US, there is a UID like project called radio frequency identification (RFID) project which is being opposed by the citizen groups there.
The technology, RFID, is rapidly moving into the real world through a wide variety of applications: Washington state driver’s licenses, U.S. passports, clothing, payment cards, car keys and more.
Their objective is to create a future world where RFID is everywhere and figure out problems. RFID has been used primarily to track goods in supply chains, and the RFID Ecosystem works as a kind of human warehouse.
The system can show when people leave the office, when they return, how often they take breaks, where they go and who’s meeting with whom. The latest RFID tags contain a 96-bit code meant to uniquely identify an object or person.
The RFID would be an invisible tag. The US.Department of Homeland Security required states to use an RFID chip that is readable from a distance to be compatible with its REAL ID initiative. Large US telecommunications companies are in the middle of a bitter dispute over their role assisting in government wiretapping, and whether they can be sued or be given legal immunity.
By the time, we will know that such technologies have become quite widespread, it might be hard to change. A global technology based control regime is emerging. It will be great if we can exchange notes and support our respecting campaigns against the emerging universal identification architecture to combat threats to civil liberties and natural resources.
It seems we need to be more active to study and reveal the dehumanizing ramifications of such technological interference in human life.
thanks
Gopal Krishna
____________________________
15th December 2010
GopalaKrishna
Aadhaar Article No 944:
Press Release
Proposal to put Indian residents under surveillance forever.
Besides UID Number Bill, several other related Bills on the horizon
New Delhi/15/12/2010:
The National Identification Authority of India Bill (NIAI), 2010 has been introduced in Parliament after the constitution of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and appointment of Nandan Nilekani as its Chairman in the rank and status of a Cabinet Minister. The Bill introduced in Rajya Sabha onDecember 3, 2010 seeks to provide statutory status to the UIDAI which has been functioning without backing of law since January 2009.
Prior to the introduction of the Bill on 29th September 2010, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh distributed Unique Identification Numbers (Aadhaar) among the villagers of Tembhali village in Nandurbar District of Maharashtra. “The Aadhaar number will ease these difficulties in identification, by providing a nationally valid and verifiable single source of identity proof. The UIDAI will ensure the uniqueness of the Aadhaar numbers through the use of biometric attributes (Finger Prints and Iris) which will be linked to the number,” according to the Press Brief for National launch of Unique Identification Numbers (Aadhaar) issued by UIDAI.
It admitted that “India will be the first country (in the world) to implement a biometric-based unique ID system for its residents on a national scale.” Neither the Prime Minister nor the Planning Commission has taken cognisance of abandonment of such UID Number scheme in countries like the US, Australia and now in the UK. In the UK, their Home Secretary abandoned the project because it considered it `intrusive bullying’ by the state, and that the government intended to be the `servant’ of the people, and not their `master’. In the late 1990s, the Supreme Court of Philippines struck down the President’s Executive Order A.O 308 which instituted a biometric based national ID system calling it unconstitutional on two grounds – the overreach of the executive over the legislative powers of the congress and invasion of privacy. The same is applicable in India. The statement of concern issued by the eminent citizens including former judges, jurists, educationists stated, “UIDAI has been constituted on the basis of a GoI (Government of India) notification and there is a fundamental risk to civil liberties”.
It is claimed that the UID Number will “substantially improve the efficiency of the delivery systems by ensuring that the leakages are reduced and the benefits reach the right people.” It also claims that “electronic transfers of benefits and entitlements can be enabled through Aadhaar-linked bank accounts of the beneficiaries.”
It is noteworthy that even before the passage of the National Identification Authority of India Bill from the parliament, the authority has embarked upon:
· taking biometric and demographic data of Indian residents
· entering into MOUs with multiplicity of institutions including Banks, LIC, State governments to acts as Registrars,
· setting a process by which a large amount of data about the individuals will be collected and aggregated on the files of these Registrars,
· entering into contracts with corporations predominantly from the technology and biometric industry including those with close links with intelligence agencies in other countries: for instance, Accenture (which is working with US Homeland Security in their Smart Borders Project) and L1 Identity Solutions (whose main market, and recruitment ground, is the Central Intelligence Agency) . Their website reads: “American and foreign military services, defense and intelligence agencies rely on L-1 solutions and services to help determine ally from enemy”. The same US company was hired for “Implementation of Biometric Solution for UIDAI” from 30 July 2010
· another US company, Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd., has been hired for the “Implementation of Biometric Solution for UIDAI”. This company is “committed to helping the (US) Department of Homeland Security”. Its “solutions include developing prevention tactics, streamlining intelligence gathering and maximizing new technologies.”
There is a convergence of all the residents and institutions underway through Project UID, a Silicon Valley initiative (dominated by Information Technology companies) passing off as “Planning Commission initiative” without consultation at district and panchayat level and within the political parties to create a central database of residents and generate a unique identification number (UID) for all such residents which is proposed to be “used as the basis for identifying and authenticating a person's entitlement to government services and benefits”. This initiative is being steered by the Department of Information Technology (as the Line Ministry) through National Informatics Centre Services Inc. (NICSI)/ National Informatics Centre (NIC), as the technical solution provider and a consultant for “linking of existing databases, as well as providing for future additions, by the user agencies.” This entails tracking and profiling residents electronically through some 53 departments of the Government of India, 35 State/UT Secretariats and 603 District collectorates. NIC was formed in 1975. While UIDAI has been misleading the citizens and the media about the UID Number scheme being voluntary, the ‘Legal Framework For Mandatory Electronic Delivery of Services’ of Union Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, refers to “UIDAI – UID based authentication for services” as an enabler, thus making it compulsory.
This proposed NIAI Bill must be looked at along with other Bills in the offing such as Draft Land Titling Bill, 2010, Draft Paper on Privacy Bill, 2010, Draft DNA Profiling Act, 2007 and Public Information Infrastructure and Innovations (PIII) for a National Knowledge Network. Besides this National Intelligence Grid (Natgrid), meant to integrate existing 21 databases with Central and state government agencies and other organisations, and National Population Register (which is quite different from Census) will end up undertaking surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting of Indian residents.
Sam Pitroda’s PIII reveals the plot emphasizing digital network to process all kinds of information at all levels saying, “For government, PII is very important to first identify all beneficiaries, essentially people. We also at the same time need to identify all our physical assets all over the country, like primary schools, railway stations, hospitals. Then we also need to tag all our programes-and government typically would have hundreds of programs for public delivery systems. Once you tag people, places, and programs, then it is easier to really organise information for delivering public services. Hopefully, with new focus on PIII, where we could essentially tag people, tag places, tag programs, we will be able to structure delivery systems to get lot better productivity, efficiency, reduced cost. The starting point for this nationwide network of fiber optics, wireless systems to connect 2, 50, 000 Panchayats all over the country especially in rural areas where ultimately information data gathering would begin. This is where beneficiaries are.” All this information will be in the hands of a few ‘trustworthy’ people in the government and few select companies. Such a situation is fraught with both unintended and intended consequences impacting monetary and non-monetary aspects of citizens’ life.
Notably, the Land Titling Bill makes a provision for “Unique property identification number”, linking UID Number with property.
Admittedly, the Draft Privacy Bill states, “There is no data protection statute in the country.” On UID Number, the Draft Paper on Privacy Bill states, “Data privacy and the need to protect personal information is almost never a concern when data is stored in a decentralized manner. Data that is maintained in silos is largely useless outside that silo and consequently has a low likelihood of causing any damage. However, all this is likely to change with the implementation of the UID Project. One of the inevitable consequences of the UID Project will be that the UID Number will unify multiple databases. As more and more agencies of the government sign on to the UID Project, the UID Number will become the common thread that links all those databases together. Over time, private enterprise could also adopt the UID Number as an identifier for the purposes of the delivery of their services or even for enrolment as a customer.”
Quite menacingly, the Draft Paper on Privacy Bill asserts, “Once this happens, the separation of data that currently exists between multiple databases will vanish.” This poses a threat to the identity of citizens and the idea of residents of the state as private persons will be forever abandoned.
UIDAI started working in the month of August 2009 to deliver Unique Identification Numbers (Aadhaar) to every resident in the country and to establish a cost-effective, ubiquitous authentication infrastructure to easily verify these identities online and in real-time. The UIDAI has been set up unmindful of grave concerns expressed in the government’s own Draft Paper on Privacy Bill, and NIAI Bill appears to be meant to justify UIDAI’S acts of omission and commission. The NIAI Bill and its critique both in Hindi and English will be released shortly.
Meanwhile, UIDAI has also hired a public relations agency with an objective to “Provide consistent flow of information across all mediums to create the right perception of UIDAI and Aadhaar throughout the country”; one such agency has created a stalemate in the Parliament. This is an attempt to convert a resident into a number, Indian population into a market and then citizens in to subjects.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, Member, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties, Mb: 9818089660,
E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com
______________________________________________________
Prior to the introduction of the Bill on 29th September 2010, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh distributed Unique Identification Numbers (Aadhaar) among the villagers of Tembhali village in Nandurbar District of Maharashtra. “The Aadhaar number will ease these difficulties in identification, by providing a nationally valid and verifiable single source of identity proof. The UIDAI will ensure the uniqueness of the Aadhaar numbers through the use of biometric attributes (Finger Prints and Iris) which will be linked to the number,” according to the Press Brief for National launch of Unique Identification Numbers (Aadhaar) issued by UIDAI.
It admitted that “India will be the first country (in the world) to implement a biometric-based unique ID system for its residents on a national scale.” Neither the Prime Minister nor the Planning Commission has taken cognisance of abandonment of such UID Number scheme in countries like the US, Australia and now in the UK. In the UK, their Home Secretary abandoned the project because it considered it `intrusive bullying’ by the state, and that the government intended to be the `servant’ of the people, and not their `master’. In the late 1990s, the Supreme Court of Philippines struck down the President’s Executive Order A.O 308 which instituted a biometric based national ID system calling it unconstitutional on two grounds – the overreach of the executive over the legislative powers of the congress and invasion of privacy. The same is applicable in India. The statement of concern issued by the eminent citizens including former judges, jurists, educationists stated, “UIDAI has been constituted on the basis of a GoI (Government of India) notification and there is a fundamental risk to civil liberties”.
It is claimed that the UID Number will “substantially improve the efficiency of the delivery systems by ensuring that the leakages are reduced and the benefits reach the right people.” It also claims that “electronic transfers of benefits and entitlements can be enabled through Aadhaar-linked bank accounts of the beneficiaries.”
It is noteworthy that even before the passage of the National Identification Authority of India Bill from the parliament, the authority has embarked upon:
· taking biometric and demographic data of Indian residents
· entering into MOUs with multiplicity of institutions including Banks, LIC, State governments to acts as Registrars,
· setting a process by which a large amount of data about the individuals will be collected and aggregated on the files of these Registrars,
· entering into contracts with corporations predominantly from the technology and biometric industry including those with close links with intelligence agencies in other countries: for instance, Accenture (which is working with US Homeland Security in their Smart Borders Project) and L1 Identity Solutions (whose main market, and recruitment ground, is the Central Intelligence Agency) . Their website reads: “American and foreign military services, defense and intelligence agencies rely on L-1 solutions and services to help determine ally from enemy”. The same US company was hired for “Implementation of Biometric Solution for UIDAI” from 30 July 2010
· another US company, Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd., has been hired for the “Implementation of Biometric Solution for UIDAI”. This company is “committed to helping the (US) Department of Homeland Security”. Its “solutions include developing prevention tactics, streamlining intelligence gathering and maximizing new technologies.”
There is a convergence of all the residents and institutions underway through Project UID, a Silicon Valley initiative (dominated by Information Technology companies) passing off as “Planning Commission initiative” without consultation at district and panchayat level and within the political parties to create a central database of residents and generate a unique identification number (UID) for all such residents which is proposed to be “used as the basis for identifying and authenticating a person's entitlement to government services and benefits”. This initiative is being steered by the Department of Information Technology (as the Line Ministry) through National Informatics Centre Services Inc. (NICSI)/ National Informatics Centre (NIC), as the technical solution provider and a consultant for “linking of existing databases, as well as providing for future additions, by the user agencies.” This entails tracking and profiling residents electronically through some 53 departments of the Government of India, 35 State/UT Secretariats and 603 District collectorates. NIC was formed in 1975. While UIDAI has been misleading the citizens and the media about the UID Number scheme being voluntary, the ‘Legal Framework For Mandatory Electronic Delivery of Services’ of Union Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, refers to “UIDAI – UID based authentication for services” as an enabler, thus making it compulsory.
This proposed NIAI Bill must be looked at along with other Bills in the offing such as Draft Land Titling Bill, 2010, Draft Paper on Privacy Bill, 2010, Draft DNA Profiling Act, 2007 and Public Information Infrastructure and Innovations (PIII) for a National Knowledge Network. Besides this National Intelligence Grid (Natgrid), meant to integrate existing 21 databases with Central and state government agencies and other organisations, and National Population Register (which is quite different from Census) will end up undertaking surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting of Indian residents.
Sam Pitroda’s PIII reveals the plot emphasizing digital network to process all kinds of information at all levels saying, “For government, PII is very important to first identify all beneficiaries, essentially people. We also at the same time need to identify all our physical assets all over the country, like primary schools, railway stations, hospitals. Then we also need to tag all our programes-and government typically would have hundreds of programs for public delivery systems. Once you tag people, places, and programs, then it is easier to really organise information for delivering public services. Hopefully, with new focus on PIII, where we could essentially tag people, tag places, tag programs, we will be able to structure delivery systems to get lot better productivity, efficiency, reduced cost. The starting point for this nationwide network of fiber optics, wireless systems to connect 2, 50, 000 Panchayats all over the country especially in rural areas where ultimately information data gathering would begin. This is where beneficiaries are.” All this information will be in the hands of a few ‘trustworthy’ people in the government and few select companies. Such a situation is fraught with both unintended and intended consequences impacting monetary and non-monetary aspects of citizens’ life.
Notably, the Land Titling Bill makes a provision for “Unique property identification number”, linking UID Number with property.
Admittedly, the Draft Privacy Bill states, “There is no data protection statute in the country.” On UID Number, the Draft Paper on Privacy Bill states, “Data privacy and the need to protect personal information is almost never a concern when data is stored in a decentralized manner. Data that is maintained in silos is largely useless outside that silo and consequently has a low likelihood of causing any damage. However, all this is likely to change with the implementation of the UID Project. One of the inevitable consequences of the UID Project will be that the UID Number will unify multiple databases. As more and more agencies of the government sign on to the UID Project, the UID Number will become the common thread that links all those databases together. Over time, private enterprise could also adopt the UID Number as an identifier for the purposes of the delivery of their services or even for enrolment as a customer.”
Quite menacingly, the Draft Paper on Privacy Bill asserts, “Once this happens, the separation of data that currently exists between multiple databases will vanish.” This poses a threat to the identity of citizens and the idea of residents of the state as private persons will be forever abandoned.
UIDAI started working in the month of August 2009 to deliver Unique Identification Numbers (Aadhaar) to every resident in the country and to establish a cost-effective, ubiquitous authentication infrastructure to easily verify these identities online and in real-time. The UIDAI has been set up unmindful of grave concerns expressed in the government’s own Draft Paper on Privacy Bill, and NIAI Bill appears to be meant to justify UIDAI’S acts of omission and commission. The NIAI Bill and its critique both in Hindi and English will be released shortly.
Meanwhile, UIDAI has also hired a public relations agency with an objective to “Provide consistent flow of information across all mediums to create the right perception of UIDAI and Aadhaar throughout the country”; one such agency has created a stalemate in the Parliament. This is an attempt to convert a resident into a number, Indian population into a market and then citizens in to subjects.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, Member, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties, Mb: 9818089660,
E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com
______________________________________________________
GOPALA KRISHNA
Mediavigil believes that without democratisation of communication and the right to communicate, the freedom of expression is meaningless.It attempts to take note of environment and public health issues where governments and corporations provide sanitised information. It also keeps track of ecology and health issues. To know more about it, visit :www.toxicswatch.com, toxicswatch.blogspot.com, banasbestosindia.blogspot.com
Monday, November 22, 2010
UID//Aadhaar Scheme is Against Civil Liberties
866- UID//Aadhaar Scheme is aganst Civil Liberties
To
Shri Oscar Fernandes
Chairperson & Members
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resources
New Delhi
Through
Deputy Secretary
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resources
Subject-UID//Aadhaar Scheme is Against Civil Liberties
Sir,
This is with reference to the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on 27 October, 2010.
Given grave concerns voiced by eminent citizens and experts with impeccable records, we express our opposition to the signing of MoU between Ministry of Human Resource Development and the UIDAI. The MoU is aimed at tracking student's mobility by creating an electronic registry of all students, right from primary and elementary level to secondary and higher education. The fact that this would entail iris scanning for children aged between 5 and 15, while finger print marks would be added subsequently is highly invasive for it is act of profiling them even before their age of consent. This and the proposal to imprint UID number on performance records of individual students is a gross form of surveillance and constitute violation of their human rights of children and students.
The Unique Identity (UID) Number is a rare project which has unleashed the concept of massively organised information as means of social control, a weapon of war, and for the victimisation of ethnic groups, minorities and political adversaries. It appears that Nilekani, the co-founder and former chief executive of Infosys Technologies Ltd, India's second largest software company, has misled the key functionaries of Government of India into believing that he is deeply concerned about reaching the poorest of the poor with a 16-digit card (4 numbers are hidden?) to liberate them from poverty.
We wish to draw your attention towards the far-reaching consequences of the structural basis being laid out for future authoritarianism by providing a unique identification (UID) number to all the Indian citizens and even to residents in India.
It is claimed that this UID “scheme shall ensure that various development deliverables reach the poor and needy in time, shall enable better monitoring and help plug leakages.” This claim of chairperson of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is suspect. Notably, social security numbers (SSN) were tattooed on US citizens before (first SSNs were issued in 1935) tattoos were used in Germany under the Nazi Party that facilitated the holocaust. The US numbering program was known as the “social security” program. The Unique Identity Number (UID) project in India is being promoted under the e-governance program. The German Nazi Party’s tattoo program was operated by the social security division which had learnt it from US. Notably, social security numbers (SSN) were tattooed on US citizens before (first SSNs were issued in 1935) tattoos were used in Germany under the Nazi Party. The US numbering program was known as the “social security” program, or SS program. The Unique Identity Number (UID) project in India is being promoted under the e-governance program. The German Nazi Party’s tattoo program was operated by the social security (SS) division which had learnt it from US. In fact, the infamous Auschwitz tattoo began as a number provided by IBM (International Business machines), a US multinational computer company. IBM now claims that it had no control over its subsidiaries in Germany after the Nazis took control of them. What if a similar situation emerged in India which is not unlikely after UID database is ready?
The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 and the Unique Identity Number/Aadhaar is a blatant attack on democratic rights of citizens and natural resources. The Bill is expected to be introduced in the current session of the Parliament. The legislation poses one of gravest threat imaginable as far as citizens’ right is concerned. It will damage citizens’ sovereignty beyond repair and has the potential to cause holocaust like situation in future through profiling of minorities, political opponents and ethnic groups.
The Unique Identity Number (UID) /Aadhaar project gives a sense of déjà vu. It is the same path which IBM (International Business Machines), the world's largest technology company and the second most valuable global brand traversed for targeted asset confiscation, ghettoisation, deportation, and ultimately extermination with its punch card and card sorting system -- a precursor to the computer – that made the automation of human destruction possible. This is a matter of historical fact and not an opinion.
This proposed UID legislation authorizes the creation of a centralized database of unique identification numbers that will be issued to every resident of India but has failed to provide for provisions that precludes abuse of such a database for invading citizens’ rights to privacy and freedom of choice by national and transnational corporations like Vedanta and IBM.
Besides pre-existing voter Identity card, Election Commission of India recognizes fourteen alternative documents as proof of identity. (The list of fourteen alternative documents available: http://ceobihar.nic.in/14%20Alternative%20Documents.pdf)
Citizens are not so gullible. They can see through the non-existence of any compelling and sane logic for 16th document as an identity proof. Aren't these pre-existing 15 identity proofs (based on which government claims its legitimacy after democratic election) sufficient!
The UID scheme is an opposite of Right to Information. The latter makes the government transparent before their masters, the citizens. The former makes the citizens transparent before their servant, the government. It is a fascist plan.
The fact is becoming clearer that UID scheme is a naked declaration of war on civil liberties and natural resources like land and water. It is noteworthy that before launching UID idea, Nandan Nilekani got India Water Portal launched. Civil liberties and natural resources like land and water will undergo massive commodification due to UID for it promotes property based democracy and holds progressive constitutional amendments in the preamble and on abolition of right to property regressive. He finds rights of citizens an impediment to blind industrial development because industrial development in the West happened in the absence of citizenship rights.
Amidst evident rampant corruption in corporate media starkly revealed in the matter of 2 G Spectrum scam and their earlier endorsements of likes of Ramalinga Raju of notorious for Satyam scam, the current endorsements by news channels and newspapers of UID scheme is highly suspect. The fact that they are reposing blind faith and persuading citizens too to do the same in a system that engineered 1947 riots, 1984 genocide, 2002 genocide and have unleashed chemical warfare on our natural system akin to ecological terrorism is quite touching!
The same system reveals its shady colours when the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance recommends in its report on the proposed Companies Bill to replace Companies Act 1956 that the maximum percentage for the political contributions per year by the companies be raised from 5 per cent 7.5 per cent of average net profits during the three immediately preceding financial years. Will such corporate funding of political parties serve their funders or the citizens of the country? This is contrary to the recommendations of the multi-party parliamentary committee under the chairmanship of Indrajit Gupta that had looked into the question of state funding of elections.
As election campaigns required huge amounts of money and the costs of routine political activity between elections are also substantial, political parties have become overly dependent on private contributions, often acquired through questionable means and usually on the basis of a quid pro quo. Business houses and entrepreneurs contribute funds to political parties and seek to influence government decisions through them. The Indrajit Gupta committee has said that the Government and Parliament should decide whether there should be any ban on donations by companies and corporate bodies for political purpose. UID idea is a result of un-accounted funding from private sources and Government and Parliament’s indecision on banning corporate funding of political parties. Eternal vigilance is required for citizens’ liberty to be safeguarded.
Information about citizens that is to be compiled as a database will be de-duplicated by technology firms like US company Accenture which has been selected by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). They will provide technology solutions to capture the fingerprints and iris scans (known as biometrics) of the country’s 1.2 billion people. Isn't sharing the citizens’ database with a US company a threat to national security?
Accenture has said that under the terms of this initial contract, which will run up to two years or until 200 million enrollments (whichever comes first), it will build a new system to help manage identity-related de-duplication and verification requests from both public and private organisations. Accenture will also assist UIDAI in performance benchmarking and management of data quality for continuous improvement of the biometric solution, in addition to operating and maintaining the system.
If sale of citizens’ data which is revenue information is acceptable and it indeed serves national interest, will someone reveal what constitutes the unacceptable and non-negotiable as far as citizens’ rights and citizen based national sovereignty is concerned?
Nanadan Nilekani, chairperson, UIDAI refers to Hernando de Sotto's book 'The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else' in his book Imagining India authored to argue that national ID system would be a big step for land markets to facilitate right to property and undoing of abolition of right to property in 1978 in order to bring down poverty!
Among many questions that have emerged, one is: Has Nilekani, the Cabinet Minister taken the oath on constitution to abide by its provisions? While he is mutilating the rights of citizens and right to information, PDS, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act etc through his marketing gimmicks about the wonders of UID scheme, the fact is that even Mahatma Gandhi opposed a law similar to UID as a Black Act in South Africa from 1906 to 1914 saying,"...I have never known legislation of this nature being directed against free men in any part of the world. I know that indentured Indians in Natal are subject to a drastic system of passes, but these poor fellows can hardly be classed as free men" and "...giving of finger prints, required by the Ordinance, was quite a novelty in South Africa. With a view to seeing some literature on the subject, I read a volume on finger impressions by Mr. Henry, a police officer, from which I gathered that finger prints were required by law only from criminals.”
In August 1906 the Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance became law in the Transvaal. Any Indian who did not register by a certain date would no longer be allowed to stay in the Transvaal. This law stated that every Indian man, woman or child older than 8 years must register with a government official called the registrar of Asiatics. This registrar was to also take the fingerprints of the people he registered and issue them with registration certificates, which they had to show to any policeman who asked to see them. Notably, UID scheme too is based on biometric data like finger prints and iris scan.
In the face of such fascist attack on citizen's sovereignty, a statement has been issued by eminent citizens like Justice VR Krishna Iyer, Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India, Prof Romila Thapar, Historian, K.G.Kannabiran, Senior Civil Liberties Lawyer, Kavita Srivastava, PUCL and Right to Food Campaign, Aruna Roy, MKKS, Rajasthan, Nikhil Dey, MKKS, Rajasthan, S.R.Sankaran, Retired Secretary, Government of India, Upendra Baxi, Jurist and ex-Vice Chancellor of Universities of Surat and Delhi, Uma Chakravarthi, Historian, Shohini Ghosh, Teacher and Film Maker, Amar Kanwar, Film Maker, Bezwada Wilson, Safai Karamchari Andolan, Trilochan Sastry, IIMB, and Association for Democratic Reforms, Prof. Jagdish Chhokar, ex- IIMA, and Association for Democratic Rights, Shabnam Hashmi, ANHAD, Justice A.P.Shah, Retired Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi and Deep Joshi, Independent Consultant.
This statement has been endorsed by educationists like Prof. Anil Sadgopal and eminent jurists like Usha Ramnathan as well. The statement expresses great concern especially for those working on issues of food security, NREGA, migration, technology, decentralisation, constitutionalism, civil liberties and human rights. The process of setting up the Authority has resulted in very little, if any, discussion about this project and its effects and fallout. The documents on the UIDAI website, and a recent draft law (the National Identification Authority Bill, which is also on the website) do not provide answers to the many questions that are being raised in the public domain. This project is intended to collect demographic data about all residents in the country. It is said that it will impact on the PDS and NREGA programmes, and plug leakages and save the government large sums of money. It would, however, seem that even basic procedures have not been followed before launching on such a massive project.
Before it goes any further, we consider it imperative that the following be done:
• Do a feasibility study: There are claims made in relation to the project, about what it can do for PDS and NREGA, for instance, which does not reflect any understanding of the situation of the situation on the ground. The project documents do not say what other effects the project may have, including its potential to be intrusive and violative of privacy, who may handle the data (there will be multiple persons involved in entering, maintaining and using the data), who may be able to have access to the data and similar other questions.
• Do a cost: benefit analysis: It is reported that the UIDAI estimates the project will costs Rs 45,000 crores to the exchequer in the next 4 years. This does not seem to include the costs that will be incurred by Registrars, Enrollers, internal systems costs that the PDs system will have to budget if it is to be able to use the UID, the estimated cost to the end user and to the number holder.
• In a system such as this, a mere statement that the UIDAI will deal with the security of the data is obviously insufficient. How does the UIDAI propose to deal with data theft? If this security cannot be reasonably guaranteed, the wisdom of holding such data in a central registry may need to be reviewed.
• The involvement of firms such as Ernst & Young and Accenture raise further questions about who will have access to the data, and what that means to the people of India.
• Constitutionality of this project, including in the matter of privacy, the relationship between the state and the people, security and other fundamental rights.
Questions have been raised which have not been addressed so far, including those about –
• Undemocratic process: UIDAI was set-up via a GoI notification as an attached office of the Planning Commission without any discussion or debate in the Parliament or civil society. In the year and a half of its inception, the Authority has signed MoUs with virtually all states and UTs, LIC, Petroleum Ministry and many banks. In July, the Authority circulated the draft NIA Bill (to achieve statutory status); the window for public feedback was two weeks. Despite widespread feedback and calls for making all feedback public, the Authority has not made feedback available. Further in direct contravention to the process of public feedback, the NIA Bill was listed for introduction in the Lok Sabha 2010 monsoon session
• Privacy (It is only now that the DoPT is said to be working on a draft of a privacy law, but nothing is out for discussion even yet)
• Surveillance: where this technology, and the existence of the UID number, and its working, could result in increasing the potential for surveillance
• Profiling
• Tracking
• Convergence, by which those with access to state power, as well as companies, could collate information about each individual with the help of the UID number.
National IDs have been abandoned in the US, Australia and the newly-elected British government. The reasons have predominantly been: costs and privacy. If it is too expensive for the US with a population of 308 million, and the UK with 61 million people, and Australia with 21 million people, it is being asked why India thinks it can prioritise its spending in this direction. In the UK, the Home Secretary explained that they were abandoning the project because it would otherwise be `intrusive bullying’ by the state, and that the government intended to be the `servant’ of the people, and not their `master’. Is there a lesson in it for us?
In the late nineties, the Supreme Court of Philippines struck down the President’s Executive Order A.O 308 which instituted a biometric based national ID system calling it unconstitutional on two grounds – the overreach of the executive over the legislative powers of the congress and invasion of privacy. The same is applicable in India – UIDAI has been constituted on the basis of a GoI notification and there is a fundamental risk to civil liberties with the convergence of UID, National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), National Population Register, National DNA Database etc.
The UIDAI is still at the stage of conducting pilot studies. The biometric pilot study has reportedly already thrown up problems especially among the poor whose fingerprints are not stable, and whose iris scans suffer from malnourishment related cataract and among whom the incidence of corneal scars is often found. The project is clearly still in its inception. The project should be halted before it goes any further and the prelude to the project be attended to, the public informed and consulted, and the wisdom of the project determined. The Draft Bill too needs to be publicly debated. This is a project that could change the status of the people in this country, with effects on our security and constitutional rights, and a consideration of all aspects of the project should be undertaken with this in mind.
Unmindful of massive opposition by citizens, the Union Cabinet cleared the introduction of the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 in Parliament on 24th September. This happened in a tearing hurry even as the NAC was examining the UID proposal. This was uncalled for and it provides robust grounds for scrutiny.
Not only that fearing the outcome of the NAC deliberations and its inferences, Nandan Nilekani avoided NAC to escape having to answer the questions about UID on 30th August, 2010. It appears that the chairperson of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has roped in Prime Minister to help him wriggle out by launching UID on 29th September in Maharashtra in order to present a fait accompli of sort to the NAC. In such circumstances, it is indeed a relief to know that the NAC is opposed to UID//Aadhar project.
It is quite sad that both the Cabinet Committee on UIDAI Authority and PM’s Council are in such a great awe of a regressive idea that so far it has failed to examine the reasons of governments of US, Australia and UK to scrap similar projects. So much so that even as the Bill will be introduced in the Indian Parliament, the British Parliament will be scrapping it because the democratic mandate of UK citizens and all the democracies is against such an invasive project.
One Noble Prize winner too has underlined how it raises questions of personal liberty. Other world renowned social scientists have termed it as akin to allotting “prisoner numbers” to citizens. This is quite worrisome that in such a context our political leaders in general are so frozen in their passivity that they are not reaching out to sincerely address and respond to the gnawing concerns about a project that have fascist roots.
The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) reminds one of what happened from the period preceding Adolf Hitler's arrival to January 1933 when he occupied power, to Second World War and since then and International Business Machines (IBM)’s role with its punch card and card sorting technology. The way UID project is being bulldozed in the name of PDS, Education, Public Health, NREGA and now migrant workers is highly dubious.
Indeed in the words of historian Benedetto Croce, "All history is contemporary history" and the lessons from history present a compelling reason against the UID/Aadhar project.
Therefore, we support the statement of eminent citizens asking that:
• The project be halted
• A feasibility study be done covering all aspects of this issue
• Experts be tasked with studying its constitutionality
• The law on privacy be urgently worked on (this will affect matters way beyond the UID project)
• A cost : benefit analysis be done
• A public, informed debate be conducted before any such major change be brought in.
We urge you to recommend and encourage the government to abandon the UID/Aadhar project like the governments of UK, Australia and US have done to safeguard and honour the non-negotiable rights of citizens.
Yours Sincerely
Gopal Krishna
Member
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660
E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com
Cc
Members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resources
1 Shri Oscar Fernandes Chairman Rajya Sabha
2 Dr. K. Keshava Rao Member Rajya Sabha
3 Smt. Kanimozhi Member Rajya Sabha
4 Shri N. Balaganga Member Rajya Sabha
5 Shri Prakash Javadekar Member Rajya Sabha
6 Dr. Janardhan Waghmare Member Rajya Sabha
7 Shri N. K. Singh Member Rajya Sabha
8 Shri Pramod Kureel Member Rajya Sabha
9 Shri M. Rama Jois Member Rajya Sabha
10 Smt. Mohsina Kidwai Member Rajya Sabha
11 Capt. Jainarain Prasad Nishad Member Lok Sabha
12 Shri Sis Ram Ola Member Lok Sabha
13 Shri Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh Member Lok Sabha
14 Shri P.C. Gaddigoudar Member Lok Sabha
15 Shri Madhu Goud Yaskhi Member Lok Sabha
16 Shri Suresh Chanabasappa Angadi Member Lok Sabha
17 Shri Rahul Gandhi Member Lok Sabha
18 Shri P. K. Biju Member Lok Sabha
19 Helen Davidson J Member Lok Sabha
20 Shri Prasanta Kumar Majumdar Member Lok Sabha
21 Dr. Vinay Kumar Pandey Member Lok Sabha
22 Shri Tapas Paul Member Lok Sabha
23 Shri Ashok Tanwar Member Lok Sabha
24 Shri Joseph Toppo Member Lok Sabha
25 Shri P. Viswanathan Member Lok Sabha
26 Shri Deepender Singh Hooda Member Lok Sabha
27 Shri P. Kumar Member Lok Sabha
28 Shri Prataprao Ganpatrao Jadhav Member Lok Sabha
29 Shri Jeetendra Singh Bundela Member Lok Sabha
30 Shri Kirti Jha Azad Member Lok Sabha
31 Shri Suresh Kalmadi Member Lok Sabha
Posted by Gopal Krishna at 12:59 PM
__________________________________________
17th October 2010
Constitutional, Legal, Historical & Technological Reasons Against UID//Aadhar Scheme
To
Shri Anant Gangaram Geete
Chairperson & Members
Parliamentary Petitions Committee
New Delhi
Through
Shri Hulasi Ram,
Deputy Secretary
Parliamentary Petitions Committee
Subject-Constitutional, Legal, Historical & Technological Reasons Against UID//Aadhaar Scheme
Sir,
This is to draw your attention towards the structural basis being laid out for future authoritarianism by providing a unique identification (UID) number to all the Indian citizens. It is claimed that this UID “scheme shall ensure that various development deliverables reach the poor and needy in time, shall enable better monitoring and help plug leakages.” This claim of chairperson of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is suspect.
The fact is becoming clearer that UID scheme is a naked declaration of war on civil liberties and natural resources like land. Nanadan Nilekani, chairperson, UIDAI refers to Hernando de Sotto's book 'The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else' to argue that national ID system would be a big step for land markets to facilitate right to property and undoing of abolition of right to property in 1978 in order to bring down poverty!
Among many questions that have emerged, one is: Has Nilekani, the Cabinet Minister taken the oath on constitution to abide by its provisions? While he is mutilating the rights of citizens and right to information, PDS, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act etc through his marketing gimmicks about the wonders of UID scheme, the fact is that even Mahatma Gandhi opposed a law similar to UID as a Black Act in South Africa from 1906 to 1914 saying,"...I have never known legislation of this nature being directed against free men in any part of the world. I know that indentured Indians in Natal are subject to a drastic system of passes, but these poor fellows can hardly be classed as free men" and "...giving of finger prints, required by the Ordinance, was quite a novelty in South Africa. With a view to seeing some literature on the subject, I read a volume on finger impressions by Mr. Henry, a police officer, from which I gathered that finger prints were required by law only from criminals.”
In August 1906 the Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance became law in the Transvaal. Any Indian who did not register by a certain date would no longer be allowed to stay in the Transvaal. This law stated that every Indian man, woman or child older than 8 years must register with a government official called the registrar of Asiatics. This registrar was to also take the fingerprints of the people he registered and issue them with registration certificates, which they had to show to any policeman who asked to see them. Notably, UID scheme too is based on biometric data like finger prints and iris scan.
In the face of such fascist attack on citizen's sovereignty, a statement has been issued by eminent citizens like Justice VR Krishna Iyer, Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India, Prof Romila Thapar, Historian, K.G.Kannabiran, Senior Civil Liberties Lawyer, Kavita Srivastava, PUCL and Right to Food Campaign, Aruna Roy, MKKS, Rajasthan, Nikhil Dey, MKKS, Rajasthan, S.R.Sankaran, Retired Secretary, Government of India, Upendra Baxi, Jurist and ex-Vice Chancellor of Universities of Surat and Delhi, Uma Chakravarthi, Historian, Shohini Ghosh, Teacher and Film Maker, Amar Kanwar, Film Maker, Bezwada Wilson, Safai Karamchari Andolan, Trilochan Sastry, IIMB, and Association for Democratic Reforms, Prof. Jagdish Chhokar, ex- IIMA, and Association for Democratic Rights, Shabnam Hashmi, ANHAD, Justice A.P.Shah, Retired Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi and Deep Joshi, Independent Consultant.
This statement has been endorsed by educationists like Prof. Anil Sadgopal as well. The statement expresses great concern especially for those working on issues of food security, NREGA, migration, technology, decentralisation, constitutionalism, civil liberties and human rights. The process of setting up the Authority has resulted in very little, if any, discussion about this project and its effects and fallout. The documents on the UIDAI website, and a recent draft law (the National Identification Authority Bill, which is also on the website) do not provide answers to the many questions that are being raised in the public domain. This project is intended to collect demographic data about all residents in the country. It is said that it will impact on the PDS and NREGA programmes, and plug leakages and save the government large sums of money. It would, however, seem that even basic procedures have not been followed before launching on such a massive project.
Before it goes any further, we consider it imperative that the following be done:
• Do a feasibility study: There are claims made in relation to the project, about what it can do for PDS and NREGA, for instance, which does not reflect any understanding of the situation of the situation on the ground. The project documents do not say what other effects the project may have, including its potential to be intrusive and violative of privacy, who may handle the data (there will be multiple persons involved in entering, maintaining and using the data), who may be able to have access to the data and similar other questions.
• Do a cost: benefit analysis: It is reported that the UIDAI estimates the project will costs Rs 45,000 crores to the exchequer in the next 4 years. This does not seem to include the costs that will be incurred by Registrars, Enrollers, internal systems costs that the PDs system will have to budget if it is to be able to use the UID, the estimated cost to the end user and to the number holder.
• In a system such as this, a mere statement that the UIDAI will deal with the security of the data is obviously insufficient. How does the UIDAI propose to deal with data theft? If this security cannot be reasonably guaranteed, the wisdom of holding such data in a central registry may need to be reviewed.
• The involvement of firms such as Ernst & Young and Accenture raise further questions about who will have access to the data, and what that means to the people of India.
• Constitutionality of this project, including in the matter of privacy, the relationship between the state and the people, security and other fundamental rights.
Questions have been raised which have not been addressed so far, including those about –
• Undemocratic process: UIDAI was set-up via a GoI notification as an attached office of the Planning Commission without any discussion or debate in the Parliament or civil society. In the year and a half of its inception, the Authority has signed MoUs with virtually all states and UTs, LIC, Petroleum Ministry and many banks. In July, the Authority circulated the draft NIA Bill (to achieve statutory status); the window for public feedback was two weeks. Despite widespread feedback and calls for making all feedback public, the Authority has not made feedback available. Further in direct contravention to the process of public feedback, the NIA Bill was listed for introduction in the Lok Sabha 2010 monsoon session
• Privacy (It is only now that the DoPT is said to be working on a draft of a privacy law, but nothing is out for discussion even yet)
• Surveillance: where this technology, and the existence of the UID number, and its working, could result in increasing the potential for surveillance
• Profiling
• Tracking
• Convergence, by which those with access to state power, as well as companies, could collate information about each individual with the help of the UID number.
National IDs have been abandoned in the US, Australia and the newly-elected British government. The reasons have predominantly been: costs and privacy. If it is too expensive for the US with a population of 308 million, and the UK with 61 million people, and Australia with 21 million people, it is being asked why India thinks it can prioritise its spending in this direction. In the UK, the Home Secretary explained that they were abandoning the project because it would otherwise be `intrusive bullying’ by the state, and that the government intended to be the `servant’ of the people, and not their `master’. Is there a lesson in it for us?
In the late nineties, the Supreme Court of Philippines struck down the President’s Executive Order A.O 308 which instituted a biometric based national ID system calling it unconstitutional on two grounds – the overreach of the executive over the legislative powers of the congress and invasion of privacy. The same is applicable in India – UIDAI has been constituted on the basis of a GoI notification and there is a fundamental risk to civil liberties with the convergence of UID, National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), National Population Register, National DNA Database etc.
The UIDAI is still at the stage of conducting pilot studies. The biometric pilot study has reportedly already thrown up problems especially among the poor whose fingerprints are not stable, and whose iris scans suffer from malnourishment related cataract and among whom the incidence of corneal scars is often found. The project is clearly still in its inception. The project should be halted before it goes any further and the prelude to the project be attended to, the public informed and consulted, and the wisdom of the project determined. The Draft Bill too needs to be publicly debated. This is a project that could change the status of the people in this country, with effects on our security and constitutional rights, and a consideration of all aspects of the project should be undertaken with this in mind.
Unmindful of massive opposition by citizens, the Union Cabinet cleared the introduction of the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 in Parliament on 24th September. This happened in a tearing hurry even as the NAC was examining the UID proposal. This was uncalled for and it provides robust grounds for scrutiny.
Not only that fearing the outcome of the NAC deliberations and its inferences, Nandan Nilekani avoided NAC to escape having to answer the questions about UID on 30th August, 2010. It appears that the chairperson of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has roped in Prime Minister to help him wriggle out by launching UID on 29th September in Maharashtra in order to present a fait accompli of sort to the NAC. In such circumstances, it is indeed a relief to know that the NAC is opposed to UID//Aadhar project.
It is quite sad that both the Cabinet Committee on UIDAI Authority and PM’s Council are in such a great awe of a regressive idea that so far it has failed to examine the reasons of governments of US, Australia and UK to scrap similar projects. So much so that even as the Bill will be introduced in the Indian Parliament, the British Parliament will be scrapping it because the democratic mandate of UK citizens and all the democracies is against such an invasive project.
One Noble Prize winner too has underlined how it raises questions of personal liberty. Other world renowned social scientists have termed it as akin to allotting “prisoner numbers” to citizens. This is quite worrisome that in such a context our political leaders in general are so frozen in their passivity that they are not reaching out to sincerely address and respond to the gnawing concerns about a project that have fascist roots.
The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) reminds one of what happened from the period preceding Adolf Hitler's arrival to January 1933 when he occupied power, to Second World War and since then and International Business Machines (IBM)’s role with its punch card and card sorting technology. The way UID project is being bulldozed in the name of PDS, Education, Public Health, NREGA and now migrant workers is highly dubious.
Unique Identity (UID) Number is a rare project which has unleashed the concept of massively organised information as means of social control, a weapon of war, and for the victimisation of ethnic groups, minorities and political adversaries. It appears that Nilekani, the co-founder and former chief executive of Infosys Technologies Ltd, India's second largest software company, has misled the key functionaries of Government of India into believing that he is deeply concerned about reaching the poorest of the poor with a 16-digit card (4 numbers are hidden?) to liberate them from poverty.
This proposed UID legislation authorizes the creation of a centralized database of unique identification numbers that will be issued to every resident of India but has failed to provide for provisions that precludes abuse of such a database for invading citizens’ rights to privacy and freedom of choice by national and transnational corporations like Vedanta and IBM. The legislation poses one of gravest threat imaginable as far as citizens’ right is concerned. It will damage citizens’ sovereignty beyond repair and has the potential to cause holocaust like situation in future through profiling of minorities, political opponents and ethnic groups.
UID/Aadhar project gives a sense of déjà vu. It is the same path which IBM (International Business Machines), the world's largest technology company and the second most valuable global brand traversed for targeted asset confiscation, ghettoisation, deportation, and ultimately extermination with its punch card and card sorting system -- a precursor to the computer – that made the automation of human destruction possible. This is a matter of historical fact and not an opinion. Indeed in the words of historian Benedetto Croce, "All history is contemporary history" and the lessons from history present a compelling reason against the UID/Aadhar project.
Therefore, we support the statement of eminent citizens asking that:
• The project be halted
• A feasibility study be done covering all aspects of this issue
• Experts be tasked with studying its constitutionality
• The law on privacy be urgently worked on (this will affect matters way beyond the UID project)
• A cost : benefit analysis be done
• A public, informed debate be conducted before any such major change be brought in.
We urge you to recommend and encourage the government to abandon the UID/Aadhar project like the governments of UK, Australia and US have done to safeguard and honour the non-negotiable rights of citizens.
Yours Sincerely
Gopal Krishna
Member
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660
E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com
Cc
Members of the Parliamentary Petitions Committee
1 Shri Anant Gangaram Geete
2 Shri Rajendra Agrawal
3 Shri Khiladi Lal Bairwa
4 Shri E. T. Mohammed Basheer
5 Shri N.S.V.Chitthan
6 Shri Gurudas Dasgupta
7 Shri Dip Gogoi
8 Shri Devendra Nagpal
9 Shri Jagdambika Pal
10 Prof. Ram Shankar
11 Shri Sathyanarayana Sarvey
12 Shri Rakesh Singh
13 Dr. Sanjay Sinh
14 Shri Kabir Suman
15 Shri Joseph Toppo
Shri Basudev Acharya, Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha
Shri Satish Chandra Misra,Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Smt Shobhana Bhartia, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
H K Dua, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Shri Jabir Husain, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Smt. Brinda Karat,Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Shri K.E. Ismail, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Shri Lalhming Liana, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Shri O.T. Lepcha, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Dr. Chandan Mitra, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Shri M. Rajasekara Murthy, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Dr. Barun Mukherji, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Prof. Ram Gopal Yadav, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Mohammad Amin, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Shri Ram Vilas Paswan, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Posted by Gopal Krishna at 10:26 PM
________________________________________
Eminent Indians against unique identity number
From Gopal Krishna
October 15th 2010
Some eminent personalities in India have opposed a project to give each citizen a unique identify number. In a statement they have said, the project that proposes to give every resident a 'unique identity number' is a matter of great concern for those working on issues of food security, NREGA, migration, technology, decentralisation, constitutionalism, civil liberties and human rights. The process of setting up the Authority has resulted in very little, if any, discussion about this project and its effects and fallout. The documents on the UIDAI website, and a recent draft law (the National Identification Authority Bill, which is also on the website) do not provide answers to the many questions that are being raised in the public domain. This project is intended to collect demographic data about all residents in the country. It is said that it will impact on the PDS and NREGA programmes, and plug leakages and save the government large sums of money. It would, however, seem that even basic procedures have not been followed before launching on such a massive project.
Before it goes any further, we consider it imperative that the following be done:
Some eminent personalities in India have opposed a project to give each citizen a unique identify number. In a statement they have said, the project that proposes to give every resident a 'unique identity number' is a matter of great concern for those working on issues of food security, NREGA, migration, technology, decentralisation, constitutionalism, civil liberties and human rights. The process of setting up the Authority has resulted in very little, if any, discussion about this project and its effects and fallout. The documents on the UIDAI website, and a recent draft law (the National Identification Authority Bill, which is also on the website) do not provide answers to the many questions that are being raised in the public domain. This project is intended to collect demographic data about all residents in the country. It is said that it will impact on the PDS and NREGA programmes, and plug leakages and save the government large sums of money. It would, however, seem that even basic procedures have not been followed before launching on such a massive project.
Before it goes any further, we consider it imperative that the following be done:
Do a feasibility study:
There are claims made in relation to the project, about what it can do for PDS and NREGA, for instance, which does not reflect any understanding of the situation of the situation on the ground. The project documents do not say what other effects the project may have, including its potential to be intrusive and violative of privacy, who may handle the data (there will be multiple persons involved in entering, maintaining and using the data), who may be able to have access to the data and similar other questions.
Do a cost:benefit analysis:
Do a cost:benefit analysis:
It is reported that the UIDAI estimates the project will costs Rs 45,000 crores to the exchequer in the next 4 years. This does not seem to include the costs that will be incurred by Registrars, Enrollers, internal systems costs that the PDs system will have to budget if it is to be able to use the UID, the estimated cost to the end user and to the number holder. In a system such as this, a mere statement that the UIDAI will deal with the security of the data is obviously insufficient. How does the UIDAI propose to deal with data theft? If this security cannot be reasonably guaranteed, the wisdom of holding such data in a central registry may need to be reviewed.
The involvement of firms such as Ernst & Young and Accenture raise further questions about who will have access to the data, and what that means to the people of India.
Constitutionality of this project, including in the matter of privacy, the relationship between the state and the people, security and other fundamental rights.
Questions have been raised which have not been addressed so far, including those about -
Undemocratic process: UIDAI was set-up via a GoI notification as an attached office of the Planning Commission without any discussion or debate in the Parliament or civil society. In the year and a half of its inception, the Authority has signed MoUs with virtually all states and UTs, LIC, Petroleum Ministry and many banks. In July, the Authority circulated the draft NIA Bill (to achieve statutory status); the window for public feedback was two weeks. Despite widespread feedback and calls for making all feedback public, the Authority has not made feedback available. Further in direct contravention to the process of public feedback, the NIA Bill was listed for introduction in the Lok Sabha 2010 monsoon session
Privacy (It is only now that the DoPT is said to be working on a draft of a privacy law, but nothing is out for discussion even yet)
Surveillance: where this technology, and the existence of the UID number, and its working, could result in increasing the potential for surveillance
Profiling
Tracking
Convergence, by which those with access to state power, as well as companies, could collate information about each individual with the help of the UID number.
National IDs have been abandoned in the US, Australia and the newly-elected British government. The reasons have predominantly been: costs and privacy. If it is too expensive for the US with a population of 308 million, and the UK with 61 million people, and Australia with 21 million people, it is being asked why India thinks it can prioritise its spending in this direction. In the UK, the Home Secretary explained that they were abandoning the project because it would otherwise be 'intrusive bullying' by the state, and that the government intended to be the 'servant' of the people, and not their 'master'. Is there a lesson in it for us? In the late nineties, the Supreme Court of Philippines struck down the President's Executive Order A.O 308 which instituted a biometric based national ID system calling it unconstitutional on two grounds - the overreach of the executive over the legislative powers of the congress and invasion of privacy. The same is applicable in India - UIDAI has been constituted on the basis of a GoI notification and there is a fundamental risk to civil liberties with the convergence of UID, NATGRID etc.
The UIDAI is still at the stage of conducting pilot studies. The biometric pilot study has reportedly already thrown up problems especially among the poor whose fingerprints are not stable, and whose iris scans suffer from malnourishment related cataract and among whom the incidence of corneal scars is often found. The project is clearly still in its inception. The project should be halted before it goes any further and the prelude to the project be attended to, the public informed and consulted, and the wisdom of the project determined. The Draft Bill too needs to be publicly debated. This is a project that could change the status of the people in this country, with effects on our security and constitutional rights, and a consideration of all aspects of the project should be undertaken with this in mind.
We, therefore, ask that:
The involvement of firms such as Ernst & Young and Accenture raise further questions about who will have access to the data, and what that means to the people of India.
Constitutionality of this project, including in the matter of privacy, the relationship between the state and the people, security and other fundamental rights.
Questions have been raised which have not been addressed so far, including those about -
Undemocratic process: UIDAI was set-up via a GoI notification as an attached office of the Planning Commission without any discussion or debate in the Parliament or civil society. In the year and a half of its inception, the Authority has signed MoUs with virtually all states and UTs, LIC, Petroleum Ministry and many banks. In July, the Authority circulated the draft NIA Bill (to achieve statutory status); the window for public feedback was two weeks. Despite widespread feedback and calls for making all feedback public, the Authority has not made feedback available. Further in direct contravention to the process of public feedback, the NIA Bill was listed for introduction in the Lok Sabha 2010 monsoon session
Privacy (It is only now that the DoPT is said to be working on a draft of a privacy law, but nothing is out for discussion even yet)
Surveillance: where this technology, and the existence of the UID number, and its working, could result in increasing the potential for surveillance
Profiling
Tracking
Convergence, by which those with access to state power, as well as companies, could collate information about each individual with the help of the UID number.
National IDs have been abandoned in the US, Australia and the newly-elected British government. The reasons have predominantly been: costs and privacy. If it is too expensive for the US with a population of 308 million, and the UK with 61 million people, and Australia with 21 million people, it is being asked why India thinks it can prioritise its spending in this direction. In the UK, the Home Secretary explained that they were abandoning the project because it would otherwise be 'intrusive bullying' by the state, and that the government intended to be the 'servant' of the people, and not their 'master'. Is there a lesson in it for us? In the late nineties, the Supreme Court of Philippines struck down the President's Executive Order A.O 308 which instituted a biometric based national ID system calling it unconstitutional on two grounds - the overreach of the executive over the legislative powers of the congress and invasion of privacy. The same is applicable in India - UIDAI has been constituted on the basis of a GoI notification and there is a fundamental risk to civil liberties with the convergence of UID, NATGRID etc.
The UIDAI is still at the stage of conducting pilot studies. The biometric pilot study has reportedly already thrown up problems especially among the poor whose fingerprints are not stable, and whose iris scans suffer from malnourishment related cataract and among whom the incidence of corneal scars is often found. The project is clearly still in its inception. The project should be halted before it goes any further and the prelude to the project be attended to, the public informed and consulted, and the wisdom of the project determined. The Draft Bill too needs to be publicly debated. This is a project that could change the status of the people in this country, with effects on our security and constitutional rights, and a consideration of all aspects of the project should be undertaken with this in mind.
We, therefore, ask that:
o The project be halted,
o A feasibility study be done covering all aspects of this issue, o Experts be tasked with studying its constitutionality,
o The law on privacy be urgently worked on (this will affect matters way beyond the UID project),
o A cost benefit analysis be done,
o A public, informed debate be conducted before any such major change be brought in.
(Signatories to the statement on the UID included: Justice VR Krishna Iyer, retired judge, supreme court of India,
Prof Romila Thapar, historian,
K.G.Kannabiran, senior civil liberties Lawyer
Kavita Srivastava, PUCL and Right to Food Campaign Aruna Roy, MKKS, Rajasthan
Nikhil Dey, MKKS, Rajasthan
S.R.Sankaran, Retired Secretary, Government of India
and Deep Joshi, Independent Consultant.)
___________________________________________________
Why the UID number project must be scrapped
Article 180 in Aadhaar Articles
Last updated on: June 07, 2010 16:12 IST
Human right activist Gopal Krishna makes a case that the Unique Identification Number project is a gross violation of fundamental human rights and points out that a similar project/law in Britain is going to be repealed.
This is with reference to a privacy invasion project which is relevant to India [ Images ] and all the democratic countries of the world. The very first bill that is to be presented by the UK's new coalition government in the British Parliament is to repeal its Identity Cards Act 2006 even as Government of India has chosen to give approval to Unique Identification Number project that threatens citizens' privacy. Clearly, what is poisonous for civil liberties in the UK cannot become non-poisonous in India.
If one takes cognisance of the claim that the 'UID system is a civilian application of biometrics' and compares it with current practices, one finds that such a claim is quite misplaced.
In the report there is reference to a study commissioned by the US Department of Homeland Security to International Biometrics Group. Will someone explain how manifest reference to such a study constitutes civilian application?
In our country, it is rarely noticed as to when the concept of massively organised information quietly emerged to become a means of social control, a weapon of war, and for the victimisation of ethnic groups. Nandan Nilekani, co-founder and former chief executive of Infosys Technologies Ltd [ Get Quote ], India's second largest software company, has misled the Government of India into making it believe that in a country with 48 percent illiteracy, a 16-digit card would be helpful in reaching the poorest of the poor.
The Unique Identification Number/Aadhar project that emerged from the constitution of Unique Identification Authority of India in January 2009 reminds one of what happened from the period preceding Adolf Hitler's [ Images ] arrival to January 1933 when he occupied power, to Second World War and since then. The way International Business Machines, the world's largest technology company and the second most valuable global brand, colluded with the Nazis to identify Jews for targeted asset confiscation, ghettoisation, deportation, and ultimately extermination to help Hitler with its punch card and card sorting system -- a precursor to the computer -- made the automation of human destruction possible is a matter of historical fact.
Unmindful of the lessons from Germany [ Images ] in particular and Europe in general, advancing the argument of targeting, it has been claimed on the floor of Parliament by the finance minister while presenting the 2010-11 Union Budget that the UID project 'would provide an effective platform for financial inclusion and targeted subsidy payments,' the same targeting measures can be used with vindictive motives against citizens of certain religion, caste and ethnicity or region or towards a section of society due to economic resentment.
Curiously, the finance minister and the head of UID/Aadhar project refer to financial inclusion and not about economic inclusion of the poor. Exclusion of certain sections of society for political reasons had led to the targeted massacre of 1947, 1984 and 2002 in India. If an exhaustive trans-disciplinary study is conducted it would reveal how privacy is closely connected to data protection and the same was readily available to perpetrators of riots, massacres and genocide in our country.
The UID project is going to do almost exactly the same thing which the predecessors of Hitler did, else how is it that Germany always had the lists of Jewish names even prior to the arrival of the Nazis? The Nazis got these lists with the help of IBM which was in the 'census' business that included racial census that entailed not only count the Jews but also identifying them. At the United States Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, there is an exhibit of an IBM Hollerith D-11 card sorting machine that was responsible for organising the census of 1933 that first identified the Jews.
The Government of India cannot guarantee that in future, when the Nazis or some such sort come to power in India, they would not have access to UID for vindictive measures against certain sections of the citizenry. This is evidently the journey of 'identification' efforts from January 1933 to January 2009, when the UID Authority was announced.
The UID and National Population Register is all set to do what IBM did in Germany, Romania and in Europe and elsewhere through 'solutions' ranging from the census to providing list of names of Jews to Nazis. The UID has nothing to do with citizenship, it is merely an identification exercise.
Against such a backdrop, as concerned citizens, we welcome the progressive step by the new coalition government in the UK to scrap its controversial national identity card scheme in order to safeguard citizens' privacy and act against intrusions. The scrapping of the UK's ID project is planned to be done in the next 3-4 months. Besides repealing the Identity Cards Act 2006 and outlawing the finger-printing of children at school, the UK government would stop its National Identity Register and the next generation of biometric passports, the Contact Point database and end storage of Internet and email records.
But unlike the UK, the Government of India through a Press Information Bureau release dated May 18 has stated that 'the Cabinet Committee on Unique Identification Authority of India related issues today approved in principle the adoption of the approach outlined by UIDAI for collection of demographic and biometric attributes of residents (face, all ten fingerprints and iris) for the UID project. It was also decided to include data of the iris for children in the age group of 5 to 15 years. The same standards and processes would be adhered to by the Registrar General of India for the NPR exercise and all other registrars in the UID system.'
Not surprisingly, the government is feigning ignorance about the democratic movement against such efforts. In India too, there is a robust case against rejecting what has been rejected in the UK. The UID project is a blatant case of infringement of civil liberties. The government's identification exercise follows the path of the Information Technology Act 2000 that was enacted in the absence of no data or privacy protection legislation.
As is the case with the UID project, in the UK too the scheme has been vacillating from one claimed purpose to another. The project is being bulldozed in the name of poor by saying, 'Identity becomes a bottleneck if one wants to have a ration card, driving licence, passport, bank account or a mobile connection. It will enable poor residents to access multiple resources including education, health and financial services.'
Following the footprints of the UK's discredited project, it is being said that 'the identity number will help get a child admission in school.' Perhaps fearing abandonment of the project, in the aftermath of the UK government's decision, it is being now said that the Unique Identification Number is optional, not mandatory.
How is it that two democracies deal with the issue of ungovernable breaches of privacy differently? While the UK government is proactive in protecting the privacy of its citizens, the Government of India is ridiculing the very idea of privacy and civil liberties.
It is highly disturbing that at almost the same time, India's minority coalition government plans to do just the contrary with astounding disregard to citizens' privacy by stamping them with an UID number based on their biometric data. Such a 'surveillance' effort through the world's largest citizen identity project for 'creating a Unique Identity Number for every resident in India' undermines our democracy beyond repair.
Related to the UID number project is the NPR project. This is for the first time that the NPR is being prepared. The database will be built by the Registrar General of India. It is noteworthy that the census and NPR are different. The census is the biggest source of data on demography, literacy and education, housing and household amenities, economic activity, urbanisation, fertility, mortality, language, religion and migration. It serves as the primary data for planning and the implementation of policies of the central and state governments.
The NPR involves the creation of a comprehensive identity database for the country. It will include items of information such as the name of the person, father's name, mother's name, spouse's name, sex, date of birth, place of birth, current marital status, education, nationality as declared, occupation, present address of usual resident and permanent residential address. The database will also contain photograph and finger biometry of persons above the age of 15.
After the NPR database is finalised, the next task would be assigning every individual a UID. This number will be added to the NPR database. It is proposed to issue identity cards which will be a smart card with UID number printed on it and include basic details like name, mother's/father's name, sex, date and place of birth, photograph. Complete details will be stored in the chip.
Like in the UK, in India too there is a need for a similar measure to stop the efforts underway through the UIDAI to issue a UID number to every resident in the country. Issuing unique identity numbers to the 1.2 billion residents of India based on biometric data is fraught with hitherto unimaginable dangers of human rights violations. It has emerged that it all started rolling in the aftermath of a meeting of the empowered group of ministers on November 4, 2008, and a meeting of the prime minister's council of the UID Authority on August 12, 2009, wherein it was decided that there was a 'need for a legislative framework' akin to the UK's Identity Cards Act 2006 which is now being scrapped.
The 13th Finance Commission has made a provision for an incentive of Rs 100 per person (Rs 400-500 per family) to bribe citizens below the poverty line to register for the UID and has recommended a grant of Rs 2,989.10 crore to be given to the state governments for the same. The three states (Karnataka [ Images ], Madhya Pradesh [ Images ] and Andhra Pradesh) who have signed an MoU on their part have set up state-level committees to work as UIDAI registrars for collecting biometric samples like thumb impression or cornea configuration of each individual resident. Has there been any debate so far in the legislatures about the ramifications of a project which is all set to be scrapped in the UK?
As per the Authority's Office Memorandum signed by director general, UIDAI, dated September 29, 2009, 'The main objective is to improve benefits service delivery, especially to the poor and the marginalised sections of the society. To deliver its mandate, the UIDAI proposes to create a platform to first collect the identity details and then to perform authentication that can be used by several government and private service providers.'
The reference to private service providers is inexplicable, for the work is meant to be an exercise for public purpose and for the poor and the marginalised. The promise of service delivery to the poor and the marginalised hides how it will enable access to profit for the IT industry and the biometrics industry. Such claims are quite insincere, misleading and factually incorrect. It reminds one of the pledges in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, it will have us believe that the UID Authority would fulfil the constitutional promise of economic equality. Such objectives are bad sophistry at best.
This authority in turn set up a Biometrics Standards Committee in order 'to review existing standards and modify/extend/enhance them so as to achieve the goals and purpose for de-duplications and authentication' through framing biometrics standards for fingerprints, face and iris.
The authority defines biometrics as 'the science of establishing the identity of an individual based on the physical, chemical or behavioural attributes of the person.' Besides, photos of the face are commonly used in various types of identification cards, it is undertaking the use of fingerprints for identification and recording the iris, the annular region of the eye, bounded by the pupil and sclera on either side which is considered the most accurate biometric parameter.
The committee reveals that 'the biometrics will be captured for authentication by government departments and commercial organisations at the time of service delivery.' The commercial organisation mentioned herein is not defined.
The Biometrics Standards Committee refers to previous experiences of the US and Europe with biometrics. A technical sub-group was also formed that collected over 250,000 fingerprint images from 25,000 persons sourced from districts of Delhi [ Images ], UP, Bihar and Orissa for analysing Indian fingerprints. It may do the same for the iris and face as well to form a database size of 1.2 billion. It has been recommended that the 'biometrics data are national assets and must be preserved in their original quality.' The committee refers to citizens' database as a national asset.
Both the UID and NPR, through convergence, represent a case of the State and the 'market' tracking citizens for one reason or the other. It is benign neither in its design nor in its execution. The working paper of the UIDAI revealed that the 'UID number will only guarantee identity, not rights, benefits or entitlements'. It is also said that it would not even guarantee identity, it would only provide 'aid' in identification.
We support the campaign of the people' movements, mass organisations, institutions and concerned citizens and individuals who strongly oppose the potential tracking and profiling based techno-governance tools such as the UID number. We demand that Parliament or the Comptroller and Auditor General should probe the UID Authority's work from January 2009 till date.
In view of the above mentioned facts, we submit that the collection of such data is a classic case of gross violation of fundamental human rights. The Government of India should take prompt lessons from the UK government's decision to scrap its National ID project and desist from taking the path paved by IBM for the Holocaust and abandon its UID/Aadhar project.
Gopal Krishna is a member of the Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties.
_____________________________________________________
If one takes cognisance of the claim that the 'UID system is a civilian application of biometrics' and compares it with current practices, one finds that such a claim is quite misplaced.
In the report there is reference to a study commissioned by the US Department of Homeland Security to International Biometrics Group. Will someone explain how manifest reference to such a study constitutes civilian application?
In our country, it is rarely noticed as to when the concept of massively organised information quietly emerged to become a means of social control, a weapon of war, and for the victimisation of ethnic groups. Nandan Nilekani, co-founder and former chief executive of Infosys Technologies Ltd [ Get Quote ], India's second largest software company, has misled the Government of India into making it believe that in a country with 48 percent illiteracy, a 16-digit card would be helpful in reaching the poorest of the poor.
The Unique Identification Number/Aadhar project that emerged from the constitution of Unique Identification Authority of India in January 2009 reminds one of what happened from the period preceding Adolf Hitler's [ Images ] arrival to January 1933 when he occupied power, to Second World War and since then. The way International Business Machines, the world's largest technology company and the second most valuable global brand, colluded with the Nazis to identify Jews for targeted asset confiscation, ghettoisation, deportation, and ultimately extermination to help Hitler with its punch card and card sorting system -- a precursor to the computer -- made the automation of human destruction possible is a matter of historical fact.
Unmindful of the lessons from Germany [ Images ] in particular and Europe in general, advancing the argument of targeting, it has been claimed on the floor of Parliament by the finance minister while presenting the 2010-11 Union Budget that the UID project 'would provide an effective platform for financial inclusion and targeted subsidy payments,' the same targeting measures can be used with vindictive motives against citizens of certain religion, caste and ethnicity or region or towards a section of society due to economic resentment.
Curiously, the finance minister and the head of UID/Aadhar project refer to financial inclusion and not about economic inclusion of the poor. Exclusion of certain sections of society for political reasons had led to the targeted massacre of 1947, 1984 and 2002 in India. If an exhaustive trans-disciplinary study is conducted it would reveal how privacy is closely connected to data protection and the same was readily available to perpetrators of riots, massacres and genocide in our country.
The UID project is going to do almost exactly the same thing which the predecessors of Hitler did, else how is it that Germany always had the lists of Jewish names even prior to the arrival of the Nazis? The Nazis got these lists with the help of IBM which was in the 'census' business that included racial census that entailed not only count the Jews but also identifying them. At the United States Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, there is an exhibit of an IBM Hollerith D-11 card sorting machine that was responsible for organising the census of 1933 that first identified the Jews.
The Government of India cannot guarantee that in future, when the Nazis or some such sort come to power in India, they would not have access to UID for vindictive measures against certain sections of the citizenry. This is evidently the journey of 'identification' efforts from January 1933 to January 2009, when the UID Authority was announced.
The UID and National Population Register is all set to do what IBM did in Germany, Romania and in Europe and elsewhere through 'solutions' ranging from the census to providing list of names of Jews to Nazis. The UID has nothing to do with citizenship, it is merely an identification exercise.
Against such a backdrop, as concerned citizens, we welcome the progressive step by the new coalition government in the UK to scrap its controversial national identity card scheme in order to safeguard citizens' privacy and act against intrusions. The scrapping of the UK's ID project is planned to be done in the next 3-4 months. Besides repealing the Identity Cards Act 2006 and outlawing the finger-printing of children at school, the UK government would stop its National Identity Register and the next generation of biometric passports, the Contact Point database and end storage of Internet and email records.
But unlike the UK, the Government of India through a Press Information Bureau release dated May 18 has stated that 'the Cabinet Committee on Unique Identification Authority of India related issues today approved in principle the adoption of the approach outlined by UIDAI for collection of demographic and biometric attributes of residents (face, all ten fingerprints and iris) for the UID project. It was also decided to include data of the iris for children in the age group of 5 to 15 years. The same standards and processes would be adhered to by the Registrar General of India for the NPR exercise and all other registrars in the UID system.'
Not surprisingly, the government is feigning ignorance about the democratic movement against such efforts. In India too, there is a robust case against rejecting what has been rejected in the UK. The UID project is a blatant case of infringement of civil liberties. The government's identification exercise follows the path of the Information Technology Act 2000 that was enacted in the absence of no data or privacy protection legislation.
As is the case with the UID project, in the UK too the scheme has been vacillating from one claimed purpose to another. The project is being bulldozed in the name of poor by saying, 'Identity becomes a bottleneck if one wants to have a ration card, driving licence, passport, bank account or a mobile connection. It will enable poor residents to access multiple resources including education, health and financial services.'
Following the footprints of the UK's discredited project, it is being said that 'the identity number will help get a child admission in school.' Perhaps fearing abandonment of the project, in the aftermath of the UK government's decision, it is being now said that the Unique Identification Number is optional, not mandatory.
How is it that two democracies deal with the issue of ungovernable breaches of privacy differently? While the UK government is proactive in protecting the privacy of its citizens, the Government of India is ridiculing the very idea of privacy and civil liberties.
It is highly disturbing that at almost the same time, India's minority coalition government plans to do just the contrary with astounding disregard to citizens' privacy by stamping them with an UID number based on their biometric data. Such a 'surveillance' effort through the world's largest citizen identity project for 'creating a Unique Identity Number for every resident in India' undermines our democracy beyond repair.
Related to the UID number project is the NPR project. This is for the first time that the NPR is being prepared. The database will be built by the Registrar General of India. It is noteworthy that the census and NPR are different. The census is the biggest source of data on demography, literacy and education, housing and household amenities, economic activity, urbanisation, fertility, mortality, language, religion and migration. It serves as the primary data for planning and the implementation of policies of the central and state governments.
The NPR involves the creation of a comprehensive identity database for the country. It will include items of information such as the name of the person, father's name, mother's name, spouse's name, sex, date of birth, place of birth, current marital status, education, nationality as declared, occupation, present address of usual resident and permanent residential address. The database will also contain photograph and finger biometry of persons above the age of 15.
After the NPR database is finalised, the next task would be assigning every individual a UID. This number will be added to the NPR database. It is proposed to issue identity cards which will be a smart card with UID number printed on it and include basic details like name, mother's/father's name, sex, date and place of birth, photograph. Complete details will be stored in the chip.
Like in the UK, in India too there is a need for a similar measure to stop the efforts underway through the UIDAI to issue a UID number to every resident in the country. Issuing unique identity numbers to the 1.2 billion residents of India based on biometric data is fraught with hitherto unimaginable dangers of human rights violations. It has emerged that it all started rolling in the aftermath of a meeting of the empowered group of ministers on November 4, 2008, and a meeting of the prime minister's council of the UID Authority on August 12, 2009, wherein it was decided that there was a 'need for a legislative framework' akin to the UK's Identity Cards Act 2006 which is now being scrapped.
The 13th Finance Commission has made a provision for an incentive of Rs 100 per person (Rs 400-500 per family) to bribe citizens below the poverty line to register for the UID and has recommended a grant of Rs 2,989.10 crore to be given to the state governments for the same. The three states (Karnataka [ Images ], Madhya Pradesh [ Images ] and Andhra Pradesh) who have signed an MoU on their part have set up state-level committees to work as UIDAI registrars for collecting biometric samples like thumb impression or cornea configuration of each individual resident. Has there been any debate so far in the legislatures about the ramifications of a project which is all set to be scrapped in the UK?
As per the Authority's Office Memorandum signed by director general, UIDAI, dated September 29, 2009, 'The main objective is to improve benefits service delivery, especially to the poor and the marginalised sections of the society. To deliver its mandate, the UIDAI proposes to create a platform to first collect the identity details and then to perform authentication that can be used by several government and private service providers.'
The reference to private service providers is inexplicable, for the work is meant to be an exercise for public purpose and for the poor and the marginalised. The promise of service delivery to the poor and the marginalised hides how it will enable access to profit for the IT industry and the biometrics industry. Such claims are quite insincere, misleading and factually incorrect. It reminds one of the pledges in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, it will have us believe that the UID Authority would fulfil the constitutional promise of economic equality. Such objectives are bad sophistry at best.
This authority in turn set up a Biometrics Standards Committee in order 'to review existing standards and modify/extend/enhance them so as to achieve the goals and purpose for de-duplications and authentication' through framing biometrics standards for fingerprints, face and iris.
The authority defines biometrics as 'the science of establishing the identity of an individual based on the physical, chemical or behavioural attributes of the person.' Besides, photos of the face are commonly used in various types of identification cards, it is undertaking the use of fingerprints for identification and recording the iris, the annular region of the eye, bounded by the pupil and sclera on either side which is considered the most accurate biometric parameter.
The committee reveals that 'the biometrics will be captured for authentication by government departments and commercial organisations at the time of service delivery.' The commercial organisation mentioned herein is not defined.
The Biometrics Standards Committee refers to previous experiences of the US and Europe with biometrics. A technical sub-group was also formed that collected over 250,000 fingerprint images from 25,000 persons sourced from districts of Delhi [ Images ], UP, Bihar and Orissa for analysing Indian fingerprints. It may do the same for the iris and face as well to form a database size of 1.2 billion. It has been recommended that the 'biometrics data are national assets and must be preserved in their original quality.' The committee refers to citizens' database as a national asset.
Both the UID and NPR, through convergence, represent a case of the State and the 'market' tracking citizens for one reason or the other. It is benign neither in its design nor in its execution. The working paper of the UIDAI revealed that the 'UID number will only guarantee identity, not rights, benefits or entitlements'. It is also said that it would not even guarantee identity, it would only provide 'aid' in identification.
We support the campaign of the people' movements, mass organisations, institutions and concerned citizens and individuals who strongly oppose the potential tracking and profiling based techno-governance tools such as the UID number. We demand that Parliament or the Comptroller and Auditor General should probe the UID Authority's work from January 2009 till date.
In view of the above mentioned facts, we submit that the collection of such data is a classic case of gross violation of fundamental human rights. The Government of India should take prompt lessons from the UK government's decision to scrap its National ID project and desist from taking the path paved by IBM for the Holocaust and abandon its UID/Aadhar project.
Gopal Krishna is a member of the Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties.
_____________________________________________________
MEDIAVIGIL
Mediavigil believes that without democratisation of communication and the right to communicate, the freedom of expression is meaningless.It attempts to take note of environment and public health issues where governments and corporations provide sanitised information. It also keeps track of ecology and health issues. To know more about it, visit :www.toxicswatch.com, toxicswatch.blogspot.com, banasbestosindia.blogspot.com
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Historical Reasons Against UID//Aadhar project
To
Mrs Sonia Gandhi
Chairperson
& Members
National Advisory Council
New Delhi
Subject-Historical Reasons Against UID//Aadhar project
Madam/Sir,
This is to place on record our deep sense of appreciation for National Advisory Council (NAC) which has reportedly disapproved the structural basis being laid out for future authoritarianism. Unmindful of massive opposition by citizens, the Union Cabinet cleared the introduction of the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 in Parliament on 24th September. This happened in a tearing hurry even as the NAC was examining the UID proposal. This was uncalled for and it provides robust grounds for scrutiny.
Not only that fearing the outcome of the NAC deliberations and its inferences, Nandan Nilekani avoided NAC to escape having to answer the questions about UID on 30th August, 2010. It appears that the chairperson of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has roped in Prime Minister to help him wriggle out by launching UID on 29th September in Maharashtra in order to present a fait accompli of sort to the NAC.
In such circumstances, it is indeed a relief to know that the NAC is opposed to UID//Aadhar project.
It is quite sad that both the Cabinet Committee on UIDAI Authority and PM’s Council are in such a great awe of a regressive idea that so far it has failed to examine the reasons of governments of US, Australia and UK to scrap similar projects. So much so that even as the Bill will be introduced in the Indian Parliament, the British Parliament will be scrapping it because the democratic mandate of UK citizens and all the democracies is against such an invasive project.
One Noble Prize winner too has underlined how it raises questions of personal liberty. Other world renowned social scientists have termed it as akin to allotting “prisoner numbers” to citizens. This is quite worrisome that in such a context our political leaders in general are so frozen in their passivity that they are not reaching out to sincerely address and respond to the gnawing concerns about a project that have fascist roots.
The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) reminds one of what happened from the period preceding Adolf Hitler's arrival to January 1933 when he occupied power, to Second World War and since then and International Business Machines (IBM)’s role with its punch card and card sorting technology. The way UID project is being bulldozed in the name of PDS, Education, Public Health, NREGA and now migrant workers is highly dubious.
Unique Identity (UID) Number is a rare project which has unleashed the concept of massively organised information as means of social control, a weapon of war, and for the victimisation of ethnic groups, minorities and political adversaries. It appears that Nilekani, the co-founder and former chief executive of Infosys Technologies Ltd, India's second largest software company, has misled the key functionaries of Government of India into believing that he is deeply concerned about reaching the poorest of the poor with a 16-digit card (4 numbers are hidden?) to liberate them from poverty.
This proposed UID legislation authorizes the creation of a centralized database of unique identification numbers that will be issued to every resident of India but has failed to provide for provisions that precludes abuse of such a database for invading citizens’ rights to privacy and freedom of choice by national and transnational corporations like Vedanta and IBM. The legislation poses one of gravest threat imaginable as far as citizens’ right is concerned. It will damage citizens’ sovereignty beyond repair and has the potential to cause holocaust like situation in future through profiling of minorities, political opponents and ethnic groups.
UID/Aadhar project gives a sense of déjà vu. It is the same path which IBM (International Business Machines), the world's largest technology company and the second most valuable global brand traversed for targeted asset confiscation, ghettoisation, deportation, and ultimately extermination with its punch card and card sorting system -- a precursor to the computer – that made the automation of human destruction possible. This is a matter of historical fact and not an opinion. Indeed in the words of historian Benedetto Croce, "All history is contemporary history" and the lessons from history present a compelling reason against the UID/Aadhar project.
Therefore, we urge you to recommend and encourage our government to abandon the UID/Aadhar project like the governments of UK, Australia and US have done to safeguard and honour the non-negotiable rights of citizens.
Yours Sincerely
Gopal Krishna
Member
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660
E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com
Prakash Ray
Convener
Jawaharlal Nehru University Researchers Association (JNURA)
New Delhi
Mb:9873313315
E-mail- pkray11@gmail.com
Note: Members of National Advisory Council include:
Prof M. S. Swaminathan
Dr Ram Dayal Munda
Dr. Narendra Jadhav
Prof. Pramod Tandon
Dr. Jean Dreze
Ms.Aruna Roy
Shri Madhav Gadgil
Shri Naresh C. Saxena
Dr. A. K. Shiva Kumar
Shri Deep Joshi
Ms. Anu Aga
Ms. Farah Naqvi
Shri Harsh Mander
Ms Mirai Chatterjee
with Smt. Sonia Gandhi as Chairperson, National Advisory Council
Mediavigil believes that without democratisation of communication and the right to communicate, the freedom of expression is meaningless.It attempts to take note of environment and public health issues where governments and corporations provide sanitised information. It also keeps track of ecology and health issues. To know more about it, visit :www.toxicswatch.com, toxicswatch.blogspot.com, banasbestosindia.blogspot.com
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Historical Reasons Against UID//Aadhar project
To
Mrs Sonia Gandhi
Chairperson
& Members
National Advisory Council
New Delhi
Subject-Historical Reasons Against UID//Aadhar project
Madam/Sir,
This is to place on record our deep sense of appreciation for National Advisory Council (NAC) which has reportedly disapproved the structural basis being laid out for future authoritarianism. Unmindful of massive opposition by citizens, the Union Cabinet cleared the introduction of the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 in Parliament on 24th September. This happened in a tearing hurry even as the NAC was examining the UID proposal. This was uncalled for and it provides robust grounds for scrutiny.
Not only that fearing the outcome of the NAC deliberations and its inferences, Nandan Nilekani avoided NAC to escape having to answer the questions about UID on 30th August, 2010. It appears that the chairperson of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has roped in Prime Minister to help him wriggle out by launching UID on 29th September in Maharashtra in order to present a fait accompli of sort to the NAC.
In such circumstances, it is indeed a relief to know that the NAC is opposed to UID//Aadhar project.
It is quite sad that both the Cabinet Committee on UIDAI Authority and PM’s Council are in such a great awe of a regressive idea that so far it has failed to examine the reasons of governments of US, Australia and UK to scrap similar projects. So much so that even as the Bill will be introduced in the Indian Parliament, the British Parliament will be scrapping it because the democratic mandate of UK citizens and all the democracies is against such an invasive project.
One Noble Prize winner too has underlined how it raises questions of personal liberty. Other world renowned social scientists have termed it as akin to allotting “prisoner numbers” to citizens. This is quite worrisome that in such a context our political leaders in general are so frozen in their passivity that they are not reaching out to sincerely address and respond to the gnawing concerns about a project that have fascist roots.
The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) reminds one of what happened from the period preceding Adolf Hitler's arrival to January 1933 when he occupied power, to Second World War and since then and International Business Machines (IBM)’s role with its punch card and card sorting technology. The way UID project is being bulldozed in the name of PDS, Education, Public Health, NREGA and now migrant workers is highly dubious.
Unique Identity (UID) Number is a rare project which has unleashed the concept of massively organised information as means of social control, a weapon of war, and for the victimisation of ethnic groups, minorities and political adversaries. It appears that Nilekani, the co-founder and former chief executive of Infosys Technologies Ltd, India's second largest software company, has misled the key functionaries of Government of India into believing that he is deeply concerned about reaching the poorest of the poor with a 16-digit card (4 numbers are hidden?) to liberate them from poverty.
This proposed UID legislation authorizes the creation of a centralized database of unique identification numbers that will be issued to every resident of India but has failed to provide for provisions that precludes abuse of such a database for invading citizens’ rights to privacy and freedom of choice by national and transnational corporations like Vedanta and IBM. The legislation poses one of gravest threat imaginable as far as citizens’ right is concerned. It will damage citizens’ sovereignty beyond repair and has the potential to cause holocaust like situation in future through profiling of minorities, political opponents and ethnic groups.
UID/Aadhar project gives a sense of déjà vu. It is the same path which IBM (International Business Machines), the world's largest technology company and the second most valuable global brand traversed for targeted asset confiscation, ghettoisation, deportation, and ultimately extermination with its punch card and card sorting system -- a precursor to the computer – that made the automation of human destruction possible. This is a matter of historical fact and not an opinion. Indeed in the words of historian Benedetto Croce, "All history is contemporary history" and the lessons from history present a compelling reason against the UID/Aadhar project.
Therefore, we urge you to recommend and encourage our government to abandon the UID/Aadhar project like the governments of UK, Australia and US have done to safeguard and honour the non-negotiable rights of citizens.
Yours Sincerely
Gopal Krishna
Member
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660
E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com
Prakash Ray
Convener
Jawaharlal Nehru University Researchers Association (JNURA)
New Delhi
Mb:9873313315
E-mail- pkray11@gmail.com
Note: Members of National Advisory Council include:
Prof M. S. Swaminathan
Dr Ram Dayal Munda
Dr. Narendra Jadhav
Prof. Pramod Tandon
Dr. Jean Dreze
Ms.Aruna Roy
Shri Madhav Gadgil
Shri Naresh C. Saxena
Dr. A. K. Shiva Kumar
Shri Deep Joshi
Ms. Anu Aga
Ms. Farah Naqvi
Shri Harsh Mander
Ms Mirai Chatterjee
with Smt. Sonia Gandhi as Chairperson, National Advisory Council
