In 2009, I became extremely concerned with the concept of Unique Identity for various reasons. Connected with many like minded highly educated people who were all concerned.
On 18th May 2010, I started this Blog to capture anything and everything I came across on the topic. This blog with its million hits is a testament to my concerns about loss of privacy and fear of the ID being misused and possible Criminal activities it could lead to.
In 2017 the Supreme Court of India gave its verdict after one of the longest hearings on any issue. I did my bit and appealed to the Supreme Court Judges too through an On Line Petition.
In 2019 the Aadhaar Legislation has been revised and passed by the two houses of the Parliament of India making it Legal. I am no Legal Eagle so my Opinion carries no weight except with people opposed to the very concept.
In 2019, this Blog now just captures on a Daily Basis list of Articles Published on anything to do with Aadhaar as obtained from Daily Google Searches and nothing more. Cannot burn the midnight candle any longer.
"In Matters of Conscience, the Law of Majority has no place"- Mahatma Gandhi
Ram Krishnaswamy
Sydney, Australia.

Aadhaar

The UIDAI has taken two successive governments in India and the entire world for a ride. It identifies nothing. It is not unique. The entire UID data has never been verified and audited. The UID cannot be used for governance, financial databases or anything. It’s use is the biggest threat to national security since independence. – Anupam Saraph 2018

When I opposed Aadhaar in 2010 , I was called a BJP stooge. In 2016 I am still opposing Aadhaar for the same reasons and I am told I am a Congress die hard. No one wants to see why I oppose Aadhaar as it is too difficult. Plus Aadhaar is FREE so why not get one ? Ram Krishnaswamy

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.-Mahatma Gandhi

In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.Mahatma Gandhi

“The invasion of privacy is of no consequence because privacy is not a fundamental right and has no meaning under Article 21. The right to privacy is not a guaranteed under the constitution, because privacy is not a fundamental right.” Article 21 of the Indian constitution refers to the right to life and liberty -Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi

“There is merit in the complaints. You are unwittingly allowing snooping, harassment and commercial exploitation. The information about an individual obtained by the UIDAI while issuing an Aadhaar card shall not be used for any other purpose, save as above, except as may be directed by a court for the purpose of criminal investigation.”-A three judge bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar said in an interim order.

Legal scholar Usha Ramanathan describes UID as an inverse of sunshine laws like the Right to Information. While the RTI makes the state transparent to the citizen, the UID does the inverse: it makes the citizen transparent to the state, she says.

Good idea gone bad
I have written earlier that UID/Aadhaar was a poorly designed, unreliable and expensive solution to the really good idea of providing national identification for over a billion Indians. My petition contends that UID in its current form violates the right to privacy of a citizen, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This is because sensitive biometric and demographic information of citizens are with enrolment agencies, registrars and sub-registrars who have no legal liability for any misuse of this data. This petition has opened up the larger discussion on privacy rights for Indians. The current Article 21 interpretation by the Supreme Court was done decades ago, before the advent of internet and today’s technology and all the new privacy challenges that have arisen as a consequence.

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP Rajya Sabha

“What is Aadhaar? There is enormous confusion. That Aadhaar will identify people who are entitled for subsidy. No. Aadhaar doesn’t determine who is eligible and who isn’t,” Jairam Ramesh

But Aadhaar has been mythologised during the previous government by its creators into some technology super force that will transform governance in a miraculous manner. I even read an article recently that compared Aadhaar to some revolution and quoted a 1930s historian, Will Durant.Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Rajya Sabha MP

“I know you will say that it is not mandatory. But, it is compulsorily mandatorily voluntary,” Jairam Ramesh, Rajya Saba April 2017.

August 24, 2017: The nine-judge Constitution Bench rules that right to privacy is “intrinsic to life and liberty”and is inherently protected under the various fundamental freedoms enshrined under Part III of the Indian Constitution

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the World; indeed it's the only thing that ever has"

“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” -Edward Snowden

In the Supreme Court, Meenakshi Arora, one of the senior counsel in the case, compared it to living under a general, perpetual, nation-wide criminal warrant.

Had never thought of it that way, but living in the Aadhaar universe is like living in a prison. All of us are treated like criminals with barely any rights or recourse and gatekeepers have absolute power on you and your life.

Announcing the launch of the # BreakAadhaarChainscampaign, culminating with events in multiple cities on 12th Jan. This is the last opportunity to make your voice heard before the Supreme Court hearings start on 17th Jan 2018. In collaboration with @no2uidand@rozi_roti.

UIDAI's security seems to be founded on four time tested pillars of security idiocy

1) Denial

2) Issue fiats and point finger

3) Shoot messenger

4) Bury head in sand.

God Save India

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

12971 - Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee Discloses Minutes Of Meetings; Reveals Circulation Of Draft Data Protection Bill By MeiTY - Live Law





After initially refusing to disclose the minutes and agenda papers of meetings of Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee for a data protection framework for India, Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY) has now disclosed under the RTI Act, 2005 the minutes and agenda papers of two of its meetings dated 8 September, 2017 and 3 October, 2017. The minutes were revealed on an RTI application filed by Mr. Paras Nath Singh.

The disclosure comes as a welcome change after a group of 24 legal academicians and advocates had recently written to the Committee, demanding inter alia release of information on its proceedings, meeting notes and draft bill, as well as the comments received by it.

A perusal of the minutes of the first meeting shows that Justice B.N. Srikrishna, Chairman of the Committee, has emphasized on the fact that Aadhaar is only a subset of total data protection law. The Committee, he opined, is looking for a broader picture of data protection- a sort of an umbrella law. The Chairman also suggested that smaller working groups be formed to deal with different facets of data protection laws. The Committee has, therefore, formed the following four working groups:
  1. Big Data Ecosystem and other emerging technologies- This will include technical members from the Committee and will form the context for the report, looking into benefits and harms of data collection and use practices. Prof. Rajat Moona and Prof. Rishikesha Krishnan are members of this working group.
  2. Scope and Exemption of Law- This will include policy questions of territorial operation, data localisation and exemption, with significant effect on industry. Dr. Ajay Kumar and Ms. Rama Vedashree are members of this group.
  3. Grounds of processing and right and obligation of parties (combining above two areas): As per the minutes of the meeting, this is the group that will examine the critical legal aspects of data processing. Currently, its biggest point of discussion would be the Aadhaar ecosystem. Justice B.N. Srikrishna, Dr. Arghya Sengupta and Dr. Ajay Bhushan Pandey are members of this working group.
  4. Enforcement- This group will examine the enforcement part of the proposed law and is comprised of Ms. Aruna Sundarajan and Dr. Gulshan Rai.
Minutes of the second meeting held on 3 October, 2017 reveal that a draft Data Protection Bill has been circulated by MeiTY. This draft Bill proposes TDSAT and its Adjudicating officer as prosecution and adjudication mechanisms.

Dr. Gulshan Rai, as the 4th Working Group member on enforcement, opined that the present scope and applicability of the Draft Bill is very limited and does not reflect the strategic importance of information and data to our social, political and economic well-being. He further opined that TDSAT, at present, has limited capacity and its Adjudicating Officers have no criminal jurisdiction. He, therefore, said that this provision needed to be revisited and strengthened in the Bill. According to him, the present draft Bill has left out very critical areas; that consent framework and its applicability as well as the exceptions need to be revised; and that coverage for objects, device, sensors or phenomena should be considered.

Prof. Rajat Moona, from the 1st working group, asserted that the consent must be traceable, provable, non-repudiable and must stand the test of law. He proposed introduction of an independent function of “consent management”, opining that such mechanism may empower data sharing. The Committee deliberated on “consent management” concept and discussed whether such management may cause additional burden on the organization without proportional outcomes. The Chairman then highlighted the difference between a consent-driven model and a rights-driven model, and opined that the liability should be on the data controller and processor in the whole chain.

Dr. Arghya Sengupta, from the 3rd Working Group, stated that at present consent form for collecting personal information amounts to a “contract of adhesion” as they provide only a “take it or leave it” option. He proposed the concept of “dashboard based consent repository”. The dashboard issue was discussed among members and it was argued whether sharing of consent on such a dashboard would itself require consent. It was further argued whether this may lead to breach of privacy by such aggregator dashboard provider. It was then suggested that digital locker itself can be used as a dashboard.

The Committee, in its second meeting, inter-alia recommended that each working group shall provide specific comments/amendments on clauses of the draft Data Protection Bill circulated by MeitY. They also need to suggest changes that may be required, if any, to other allied legislation such as the Aadhaar Act, 2016 or the Information Technology Act, 2000.