Centre for Internet and Society

WannaCry: ATMs not to shut down, clarifies RBI, but how safe are our machines?

praskrishna — 2017-05-19T06:30:49Z

SBI has denied there was any compromise in its ATMs.

The blog post by Soumya Chatterjee was published by Newsminute on May 16, 2017. Udbhav Tiwari was quoted.

In the wake of the onslaught by ransomware WannaCry across the globe, the Reserve Bank of India has denied that it has asked banks in the country to shut down ATMs despite multiple conflicting reports on the same.

Speaking to The News Minute, the central bank’s spokesperson clarified, “The RBI has not passed any circulars to banks on the issue. All circulars sent to banks by the RBI is on the official website if it’s not on the website that means there is no such circular.”

The State Bank of India, the largest consumer bank of India also denied any compromise in its ATMs.

“All our systems are updated as required. Some of those, we do it daily. There are two types of updates, one is at the server level and one at the machine level. Generally, server level updates are done on a daily basis because patches are released and these are managed centrally in addition to local firewalls. The ATM machines are updated typically once in 15 days that is when the maintenance engineers visit the sites, they carry the latest software patch with them. So, everything is updated, there is no problem regarding this. We have additional surveillance but none of the ATM networks in the world has been impacted," Mrityunjoy Mahapatra, CIO of SBI told TNM.

However, a cyber security expert working with the Centre for Internet and Society, Udbhav Tiwari working on vulnerabilities such as these, said as most ATMs in the country especially of the public-sector banks run on outdated operating systems, or are not updated regularly, they can be easily compromised.

“This particular vulnerability was exposed by the WikiLeaks in March saying that the US' NSA was using this vulnerability in Windows operating systems to target individuals. Following this, Microsoft had sent patches in its update in March itself to counter this particular form of threats,” Udhav told TNM.

Udhav said WannaCry is one of the viruses which exploits this vulnerability adding,"No operating system is completely secure be it Windows, Mac or Linux or others, but there are certain OSs that are more susceptible to such attacks due to their popular usage and subsequent research carried on them. Once such attacks come out in the public domain and they usually get patched by the maintainers of the OS."

“In my personal experience, I have come across that most of the ATMs run on customised versions/ embeds of Windows XP or better Windows 7 which came out in 2001 and 2009 respectively. The support period for XP has already lapsed which means that it is more susceptible to malicious attacks than patched versions of other OSs,” Udhav said.

"However, Microsoft made an exception for this current threat and issued patches just for this,” added Udhav, noting if the patches were not installed they remain open to the WannaCry threat.

He also says that as there is no central repository to know what operating system many ATMs run, it would be hard to get the number of machines which are prone to this particular attack.

The cyber security expert draws parallels with the data security breaches last September and October, where a malware attack forced Indian banks to replace or request users to change the security codes of 3.2 million debit cards.

Udhav explained, “The malware had propagated in a very similar manner, they propagated via the internal networks of the bank because of a vulnerability of the ATM machines and then started recording details stored in the magnetic strips of the card."

Apart from invading some systems in departments of some state government in India, WannaCry has penetrated high profile systems across the globe including UK’s health services, Germany’s railway.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/newsminute-may-16-2017-soumya-chatterjee-wannacry-atms-not-to-shut-down-clarifies-rbi

Indian Government says it is still drafting privacy law, but doesn’t give timelines

praskrishna — 2017-05-15T02:10:26Z

Read the original published by Medianama here

The Government is drafting a legislation to protect privacy of individuals breached through unlawful means in consultation with stakeholders, the minister for communications and information technology Ravi Shankar Prasad said in the Rajya Sabha. However, no timeline was provided, which is really the problem: Is the Indian government even interested in a privacy law?

In August last year, the Government of India had said in the Supreme Court of India that had said that “violation of privacy doesn’t mean anything because privacy is not a guaranteed right”, actually arguing that the citizens of India do not have a fundamental right to privacy.
In September last year, the DeitY had also sought to make encryption (and personal and business security) weaker via a draft policy on encryption, requiring all users to store the plaintexts of the corresponding encrypted information for 90 days from the date of transaction and provide the verifiable plain-text to Law and Enforcement Agencies if required. After a public outcry, the paper was withdrawn.
Last month, the DoT made it mandatory to have GPS on all phones by 2018.

We’re in a situation where the country doesn’t have a privacy law on one hand, and is setting up surveillance systems like the Centralized Monitoring System, NETRA, NATGRID (for collecting data from across databases), and linking citizens and databases across the unique identity number in Aadhaar on the other.

What happened to the old Privacy bill?

While India does not yet have a comprehensive privacy policy, back in 2014, the Centre for Internet and Society received a leaked version of the draft Privacy Bill 2014 that the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India had drafted. A comparison of the draft bill from 2014 and the draft privacy bill of 2011 can be found here.

As per Prasad, as of now, the Section 43, 43A and 72A of the IT Act of 2000 provide the legal framework for digital privacy and security, mandating that agencies collecting personal data must provide a privacy policy, and compensations must be paid to the victim in case of unauthorized access or leakage of information.

Questions asked in Rajya Sabha:

Whether Government intends to bring a specific legislation to address the concerns regarding privacy in the country, if so, the details thereof, if not, the reason therefore; and

Whether the legislation would provide for protection of ‘personal data’ along the lines of the European Union’s Data Protection Directive, if so, the details thereof, if not, the reasons therefor

EU Privacy Bill

Interestingly, the question posed to the minister asked if the legislation would provide for protection of personal data along the lines of European Union’s General Data Protection Directive (GDRP), which were approved just last month. EU’s directive defines “any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity”, as personal data.

The GDRP has a pretty wide scope and is pretty consumer friendly. The laws require users to provide explicit consent for data collection, companies to report as soon as they have a data breach, and a ‘right to erasure’ that lets users request all personal data related to them to be deleted. It also imposes a significant fine of up to 4% of annual worldwide turnover of a company in the previous financial year, in case of non compliance. For a comprehensive overview of the policy read handbook on European data protection law (pdf).

Email privacy bill US

The US does not have a comprehensive digital privacy law like the EU and mostly relies on the the privacy act of 1974. However, recently the US House of Representatives unanimously passed the Email Privacy Act that would require investigators to get a warrant before forcing companies to hand over customer email or other electronic communications, no matter how old the communication.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/medianama-vivek-pai-may-4-2017-indian-govt-says-it-is-still-drafting-privacy-law

Aadhaar: Are a billion identities at risk on India's biometric database

praskrishna — 2017-05-20T06:38:26Z

"My fingerprints and iris are mine and my own. The state cannot take away my body," a lawyer told India's Supreme Court last week.

The article by Soutik Biswas was published by BBC News on May 4, 2017. Also see the blog post by Rawlson King published by Biometric Update.com on May 5, 2017.

Shyam Divan was arguing a crucial petition challenging a new law that makes it compulsory for people to submit a controversial biometric-based personal identification number while filing income tax returns.

Defending this law, the government's top law officer told the court on Tuesday that an individual's "right to body is not an absolute right".

"You can have right over your body but the state can restrict trading in body organs, so the state can exercise control over the body," Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said.

At the heart of the latest challenge are rising concerns over the security of this mega biometric database and privacy of the number holders. (The government says it needs to link the identity number to income tax returns to improve compliance and prevent fraud.)

India's biometric database is the world's largest. Over the past eight years, the government has collected fingerprints and iris scans from more than a billion residents - or nearly 90% of the population - and stored them in a high security data centre. In return, each person has been provided with a randomly generated, unique 12-digit identity number.

For a country of 1.2 billion people with only 65 million passport-holders and 200 million with driving licenses, the portable identity number is a boon to the millions who have long suffered for a lack of one.

States have been using the number, also called Aadhaar (Foundation), to transfer government pensions, scholarships, wages for a landmark rural jobs-for-work scheme and benefits for cooking fuel to targeted recipients, and distribute cheap food to the poor.

Over the years, the number has taken a life of its own and begun exerting, what many say, is an overweening and stifling control over people's lives. For many like political scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Aadhaar has transmuted from a "tool of citizen empowerment to a tool of state surveillance and citizen vulnerability".

People will soon need the number to receive benefits from more than 500 of India's 1,200-odd welfare schemes. Even banks and private firms have begun using it to authenticate consumers: a new telecom company snapped up 100 million subscribers in quick time recently by verifying the customer's identity through the number.

'Forcibly linked'

People are using the number to even get their marriages registered. The number, says Nikhil Pahwa, editor and publisher of Indian news site MediaNama, is "being forcibly linked to mobile numbers, bank accounts, tax filings, scholarships, pensions, rations, school admissions, health records and much much more, which thus puts more personal information at risk".

Some of the fears are not without basis.

The government has assured that the biometric data is "safe and secure in encrypted form", and anybody found guilty of leaking data can be jailed and fined.

But there have already been a number of leaks of details of students, pensioners and recipients of welfare benefits involving a dozen government websites. Even former Indian cricket captain MS Dhoni's personal information was mistakenly tweeted by an overzealous enrolment service provider.

Now a disturbing report by The Centre for Internet and Society claims that details of around 130-135 million Aadhaar numbers, and around 100 million bank numbers of pensioners and rural jobs-for-work beneficiaries have been leaked online by four key government schemes.

More than 230 million people nationwide are accessing welfare benefits using their numbers, and potentially, according to the report, "we could be looking at a data leak closer to that number". And linking the number to different databases - as the government is doing - is increasing the risk of data theft and surveillance.

The chief law officer believes that the outrage over the leaks is "much ado about nothing".

"Biometrics were not leaked, only Aadhaar numbers were leaked. It is nothing substantial. The idea is biometrics should not be leaked," Mukul Rohtagi told the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The government itself has admitted that it has blacklisted or suspended some 34,000 service providers for helping create "fake" identification numbers or not following proper processes. Two years ago, a man was arrested for getting an identification number for his pet dog. The government itself has deactivated 8.5 million numbers for incorrect data, dodgy biometrics and duplication. Last month, crop loss compensation for more than 40,000 farmers was delayed because their Aadhaar numbers were "entered incorrectly by banks".

'Mass surveillance'

There are also concerns that the number can be used for profiling. Recently, authorities asked participants at a function in a restive university campus in southern India to provide their Aadhaar identity numbers. "This is not only a matter of privacy. The all pervasiveness of the Aadhaar number is a threat to freedom of expression, which is a constitutional right," Srinivas Kodali, who investigated the latest report on data leaks, told me.

Critics say the government is steaming ahead with making the number compulsory for a range of services, violating a Supreme Court order which said enrolment would be voluntary. "The main danger of the number," says economist Jean Dreze, "is that it opens the door to mass surveillance."

Nandan Nilekani, the technology tycoon who set up the programme popularly known by its acronym UIDAI, believes concerns about the safety of the biometric database are exaggerated.

He says the identity number has cut wastage, removed fakes, curbed corruption and made substantial savings for the government. He insists that the programme is completely encrypted and secure. "It's like you are creating a rule-based society," he told Financial Times recently, "it's the transition that is going on right now."

Abused

More than 60 countries around the world take biometric data from its people, says Mr Nilekani. But then there are nagging concerns worldwide about these databases being abused by hackers and state intelligence.

In 2016, personal details of some 50 million people in Turkey were reportedly leaked. (Turkey's population is estimated at 78 million.) In 2015, hackers stole more than five million fingerprints after breaching US government networks. In 2011, French experts discovered a hack involving the theft of millions of people's data in Israel.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta has written that the lack of a "clear transparent consent architecture, no transparent information architecture, no privacy architecture worth the name [India doesn't have a privacy law], and increasingly, no assurance about what exactly you do if the state decides to mess with your identity" could easily make Aadhaar a "tool of state suppression".

So a lot of lingering doubts remain. How pervasive should an identity number be? What about the individual freedom of citizens? How do you ensure the world's biggest biometric database is secure in a country with no privacy laws and a deficient criminal justice system?

In many ways, the debate about Aadhaar is also a debate about the future of India. As lawyer Shyam Divan argued forcefully in the top court, "people are reduced to vassals" when the state controls your body to this extent.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-news-soutik-biswas-may-4-2017-aadhaar-are-a-billion-identities-at-risk-on-indias-biometric-database

India’s Supreme Court hears challenge to biometric authentication system

praskrishna — 2017-05-20T06:44:02Z

Two lawsuits being heard this week before India’s Supreme Court question a requirement imposed by the government that individuals should quote a biometrics-based authentication number when filing their tax returns.

The post by John Riberio, IDG News Service was mirrored by IT World on May 3, 2017.

Civil rights groups have opposed the Aadhaar biometric system, which is based on centralized records of all ten fingerprints and iris scans, as their extensive use allegedly encroach on the privacy rights of Indians. “Aadhaar is surveillance technology masquerading as secure authentication technology,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organization, the Centre for Internet and Society.

The Indian government has in the meantime extended the use of Aadhaar, originally meant to identify beneficiaries of state schemes for the poor, to other areas such as filing of taxes, distribution of meals to school children and payment systems.

Hearings on the writ petitions, challenging the amendment to the Income Tax Act, are going on in Delhi before a Supreme Court bench consisting of Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan.

Tax payers are required to have the Aadhaar number in addition to their permanent account number (PAN), which they have previously used to file their tax returns. Their failure to produce the Aadhaar number would lead to invalidation of the PAN number, affecting people who are already required to quote this number for other transactions such as buying cars or opening bank accounts.

The stakes in this dispute are high. The petitioners have argued for Aadhaar being voluntary and question the manner in which the new amendment to the tax law has been introduced. The government has said both in court and in other public forums that it needs a reliable and mandatory biometric system to get around the issue of fake PAN numbers.

The lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, Shyam Divan, has argued for the individual’s absolute ownership of her body, citing Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects a person from being “deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The government has countered by saying that citizens do not have absolute rights over their bodies, citing the law against an individual committing suicide as an example.

The Supreme Court in another lawsuit looking into privacy issues and the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme had ruled in an interim order in 2015 that the biometric program had to be voluntary and could not be used to deprive the poor of benefits.

"The production of an Aadhaar card will not be condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen," the top court ruled.

The government holds that the Aadhaar Act, passed in Parliament last year, provides the legal backing for making the biometric identification compulsory.

The current lawsuits against Aadhaar have not been argued on grounds of privacy, reportedly because the court would not allow this line of argument, which is already being heard in the other case. The Supreme Court has made current petitioners “fight this battle with one arm tied behind their backs!,” wrote lawyer Gautam Bhatia in a blog post Wednesday.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/idg-news-service-john-riberio-may-3-2017-indias-supreme-court-hears-challenge-to-biometric-authentication-system

En Inde, le biométrique version très grand public

praskrishna — 2017-05-03T16:27:23Z

Initiée en 2010, l’Aadhaar est désormais la plus grande base de données d’empreintes et d’iris au monde. Carte d’identité destinée aux 1,25 milliard d’Indiens, elle sert aussi de moyen de paiement. Mais la sécurité du système et son utilisation à des fins de surveillance posent question.

The article was published by Liberation on April 27, 2017. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Le front barré d’un signe religieux hindou rouge, Vivek Kumar se tient droit derrière le comptoir de son étroite papeterie située dans une allée obscure d’un quartier populaire du sud-est de New Delhi. Sous le regard bienveillant d’une idole de Ganesh - le dieu qui efface les obstacles -, le commerçant à la fine moustache et à la chemise bleu-gris au col Nehru réalise des photocopies, fournit des tampons ou des stylos à des dizaines de chalands.

Gaurav, un vendeur de légumes de la halle d’à côté, entre acheter du crédit de communication mobile. Au moment de payer, il sort son portefeuille, mais pas pour chercher de la monnaie. Il y prend sa carte d’identité Aadhaar et fournit ses douze chiffres au commerçant. Qui les entre dans un smartphone, sélectionne la banque de Gaurav et indique le montant de l’achat. Le client n’a plus qu’à poser son pouce sur un lecteur biométrique relié au combiné, connecté à Internet. Une lumière rouge s’allume et un son retentit : la transaction est bien passée.

Depuis mars, 32 banques indiennes fournissent ce service novateur de paiement par empreinte digitale. Appelé Aadhaar Pay, il utilise les informations biométriques, à savoir les dix empreintes digitales et celle de l’iris, recueillies par le gouvernement depuis septembre 2010 pour créer la première carte d’identité du pays. Toute personne résidant en Inde depuis plus de six mois, y compris les étrangers, peut s’inscrire et l’obtenir gratuitement.

«Renverser le système»

L’Aadhaar («la fondation» en hindi) représente aujourd’hui la plus grande base de données biométriques au monde, avec 1,13 milliard de personnes enregistrées sur 1,25 milliard, soit 99 % de la population adulte indienne.

L’objectif initial était double : identifier la population - 10% des Indiens n’avaient jusqu’ici aucun papier, et donc aucun droit - et se servir de ces moyens biométriques pour sécuriser l’attribution de nombreuses subventions alimentaires ou énergétiques, dont le détournement coûte plusieurs milliards d’euros chaque année à l’Etat fédéral.

A partir de 2014, la nouvelle majorité nationaliste hindoue du BJP a étendu les usages de l’Aadhaar pour transformer cet outil de reconnaissance en un vrai «passe-partout» de la vie quotidienne indienne : depuis l’ouverture d’une ligne téléphonique à la déclaration de ses impôts, en passant surtout par la création d’un compte en banque, le numéro Aadhaar sera à présent requis. Dans ce dernier cas, l’Aadhaar permet en prime d’utiliser le paiement bancaire par biométrie pour réduire le recours au liquide, qui représente encore plus de 90 % des transactions dans le pays.

Le Premier ministre, Narendra Modi, a fait de cette inclusion financière l’un de ses principaux chevaux de bataille : en 2014, son gouvernement a lancé un énorme programme qui a permis la création de 213 millions de comptes bancaires en deux ans - aujourd’hui, quasiment tous les foyers en possèdent au moins un. Il a continué dans cette voie énergique en démonétisant, en novembre, les principales coupures. But de la manœuvre : convaincre les Indiens de se défaire, au moins temporairement, de leur dépendance aux billets marqués de la tête de Gandhi.

«Le liquide est gratuit, donc il est difficile de pousser les gens à utiliser d’autres moyens de paiement, explique Ragavan Venkatesan, responsable des paiements numériques à la banque IDFC, pionnière dans l’utilisation de l’Aadhaar Pay. Nous avons donc renversé le système pour que le commerçant soit incité à utiliser les moyens numériques.» L’établissement financier a d’abord développé le «microdistributeur de billets» : une tablette que le vendeur peut utiliser pour créer des comptes, recevoir des petits dépôts ou fournir du liquide aux clients au nom de la banque, contre une commission. Comme l’Aadhaar Pay, cette tablette se connecte au lecteur biométrique - fourni par l’entreprise française Safran - pour l’identification et l’authentification. Dans les deux cas, et à la différence des paiements par carte, ni le marchand ni le client ne paient pour l’utilisation de ce réseau. «Le mode traditionnel de paiement par carte va progressivement disparaître», prédit Ragavan Venkatesan.

Défi

Pour l’instant, le système n’en est toutefois qu’à ses débuts. Environ 70 banques - une minorité du réseau indien - sont reliées à l’Aadhaar Pay, et lors de nos visites dans différents magasins de New Delhi, une transaction a été bloquée pendant dix minutes à cause d’un problème de serveur. La connectivité est d’ailleurs un défi dans un pays dont la population est en majorité rurale : le système nécessite au minimum le réseau 2G, dont sont dépourvus environ 8 % des villages, selon le ministère des Télécommunications.

Mais c’est la protection du système qui est surtout en question : «La biométrie réduit fortement le niveau de sécurité, car c’est facile de voler ces données et de les utiliser sans votre accord, explique Sunil Abraham, directeur du Centre pour l’Internet et la société de Bangalore. Il existe maintenant des appareils photo de haute résolution qui permettent de capturer et de répliquer les empreintes ou l’iris», affirme ce spécialiste en cybersécurité.

Le problème tient au caractère irrévocable de ces données biométriques. A la différence d’une carte bancaire qu’on peut annuler et remplacer, on ne peut changer d’empreinte ou d’iris. L’Autorité indienne d’identification unique (UIDAI), qui gère l’Aadhaar, prévoit bien que l’on puisse bloquer l’utilisation de ses propres données biométriques sur demande, ce qui offre une solution de sécurisation temporaire. «Si un fraudeur essaie de les utiliser, on peut le repérer [grâce au réseau internet, ndlr] et l’arrêter», défend Ragavan Venkatesan, de la banque IDFC.

Mais cela risque de ne pas suffire en cas de recel de ces informations : la police vient d’interpeller un groupe de trafiquants qui étaient en possession des données bancaires de 10 millions d’Indiens, récupérées à travers des employés et sous-traitants, données qu’ils revendaient par paquets. Une femme âgée s’était déjà fait dérober 146 000 roupies (un peu plus de 2 000 euros) à cause de cette fraude.

Outil idéal

Le directeur de l’UIDAI assure qu’aucune fuite ni vol de données n’ont été rapportés à ce jour depuis leurs serveurs - ce qui ne garantit pas que cette confidentialité sera respectée par tous les autres acteurs qui y ont accès. En février, un chercheur en cybersécurité a alerté la police sur le fait que 500 000 numéros Aadhaar ainsi que les détails personnels de leurs propriétaires - exclusivement des mineurs - avaient été publiés en ligne. La loi sur l’Aadhaar punit de trois ans de prison le vol ou le recel de ces données. Ce texte adopté l’année dernière - soit six ans après le début de la collecte - empêche également leur utilisation à d’autres fins que l’authentification pour l’attribution de subventions et de services. Et l’UIDAI ne peut y accéder pleinement qu’en cas de risque pour la sécurité nationale, et selon une procédure spéciale.

Reste qu’il n’existe pas d’autorité, comme la Cnil en France, chargée de veiller de manière indépendante à ce que ces lignes rouges ne soient pas franchies par un Etat à la recherche de nouveaux moyens de renseignement. Car les experts s’accordent sur ce point : le biométrique est un outil idéal pour surveiller une population.

En 2010, le gouvernement britannique avait d’ailleurs mis fin à son projet de carte d’identité biométrique, estimant que le taux d’erreurs dans l’authentification était trop élevé et le risque d’atteinte aux libertés trop important. Les Indiens, souvent subjugués par les nouvelles technologies pour résoudre leurs problèmes sociaux, ne semblent pas prêts de revenir en arrière. Surtout si cela peut en plus servir à mieux ficher un pays menacé par un terrorisme régional et local.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/en-inde-le-biometrique-version-tres-grand-public

Now, Aadhaar details displayed in Mizoram too

praskrishna — 2017-04-27T16:59:37Z

Contrary to the Centre’s assurances, government websites are revealing digital details of the poor, leaving them vulnerable to financial frauds and identity theft.

The article by Sebastian PT was published in the National Herald on April 26, 2017. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Could there be a method to the madness? Or is it just carelessness? From the Jharkhand Government to the Union Territory of Chandigarh to the Union Ministry of Water and Sanitation to even Mizoram’s Food and Civil Supplies Department, government websites are found to have displayed Aadhaar details of citizens, a crime under the law.

In Jharkhand, details of 16 lakh beneficiaries – their bank account details, ration card and the 12-digit Aadhaar number – were displayed on the website of the Directorate of Social Security. Similar blunders were witnessed from different corners of the country from Chandigarh to Kerala, where details of 35 lakh people have been breached. This flies in the face of the Government’s repeated claims on data privacy, that Aadhaar details are completely safe.

The law doesn’t allow this. The displaying of the Aadhaar data, for instance, is in clear violation of Section 29 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016. The provision clearly says that “no” Aadhaar number or core biometric information of an Aadhaar number holder shall be “published, displayed or posted publicly”.

“There appears to be no regulation worth the name as far as the Aadhaar project is concerned,” says economist Reetika Khera from IIT Delhi.

So, will these officials responsible be punished according to the Act? More importantly, what about the damage of leaking such sensitive, apparently confidential data?

Irreparable Damage

Several cyber security experts have been warning of the possibility of precisely such leaks and Opposition parties were vociferously pointing this out while the Centre was brazenly violating the Supreme Court’s orders and forcibly extending Aadhaar to almost everything – including it being linked to one’s Permanent Account Number (PAN), used for filing income tax.

“What has been broken through technology, can’t be fixed with the law,” says Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of Bangalore-based research organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society.

The data breach just made it easy for players in the black market for ID (identification) documents to be lapped up to create false ID cards, for instance.

When demonetisation was being implemented, sources say that black money hoarders apparently bought fake IDs which were made from stolen Aadhaar details to get the old notes exchanged – one way for doing this was perhaps by opening new bank accounts or to, say, utilise unused Jan Dhan accounts to deposit the money. Now, one can only imagine what terrorists can do with these details.

So far, perhaps, the only solace is that the biometric details of the beneficiaries weren’t leaked. But, in the backdrop of the lax attitude of the various government departments, even that too is just waiting to happen, fear experts.

Abraham warns that Aadhaar was always a risky proposition as it was based on biometrics, which “made it very insecure”. He terms it as a “mass surveillance technology” – that too a poorly-designed technology – which, in fact, “undermines security”. Once biometric data are compromised, it cannot be secured again. Instead of biometrics, he suggests the UIDAI shift to using smart cards.

The unfettered forcible linking of almost everything – from bank accounts to one’s PAN card – to Aadhaar only makes things worse. “The Centre is ‘seeding’ the various data bases with the Aadhaar number, which is a very bad move. And, involving various private and public agencies in this only makes the entire thing very precarious,” warns Abraham. He points out that, for instance, when the PAN cards are linked with the Aadhaar number, breach made possible.

Instead, he says, the government should adopt the ‘tokenisation approach’, instead of the ‘seeding approach’. What this means is that, say, if the PAN card is to be linked to Aadhaar, then UIDAI issues a token number and not the original 12-digit Aadhaar number. So, even if a breach happens, the hacker will not be able to get all the Aadhaar details, he says.

However, the government does not seem to be taking the issue of privacy very seriously. What perhaps is not being understood is that this is not just a privacy issue, but making the masses vulnerable to frauds. Instead of treading cautiously in implementing Aadhaar, the government seems to be in a hurry to extend it to almost every possible silo in an individual’s life.

“Given the callous attitude of central and state governments, I hope that the Supreme Court will stop the government from a forced linking of Aadhaar, on the one hand, and bank accounts and PAN numbers on the other hand,” says Khera.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/national-herald-sebastian-pt-april-26-2017-now-aadhaar-details-displayed-in-mizoram-too

Internet Shutdowns

praskrishna — 2017-04-27T15:53:53Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/internet-shutdowns

Economic, social and cultural rights in India: FOSS

praskrishna — 2017-04-23T05:14:13Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/files/economic-social-and-cultural-rights-in-india-foss

Economic, social and cultural rights in India: Opportunities for advocacy in intellectual property rights

praskrishna — 2017-04-20T16:36:46Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/files/economic-social-and-cultural-rights-in-india-opportunities-for-advocacy-in-intellectual-property-rights

Opposition questions govt move to make Aadhaar must

praskrishna — 2017-04-12T14:19:20Z

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh claimed that the Aadhaar system was becoming an instrument of social exclusion rather than one of identity.

The article by Komal Gupta was published in Livemint on April 11, 2017. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

The Rajya Sabha on Monday witnessed a lively debate on Aadhaar, with the opposition questioning the government’s move to make the 12-digit unique identification number mandatory for a host of welfare benefits.

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh claimed that the Aadhaar system was becoming an instrument of social exclusion rather than one of identity.

“My major concern is implementation, how Aadhaar is being used to exclude people to avail benefits of the schemes which have been designed for them…If you need to apply to avail benefits, it’s as good as mandatory,” said Ramesh.

The former cabinet minister argued that over 25% of the population will stand excluded.

“The Rs50,000 crore savings due to Aadhaar linkage as given by the government is highly questionable,” he said, adding that according to Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reports, 92% of the savings on domestic gas subsidies is not on account of Aadhaar implementation or direct benefit transfer. “Instead, it is because of the fall in international oil prices,” Ramesh argued.

Trinamool Congress member Derek O’Brien said that for manual labourers, biometric identification does not always match and that can deprive them of welfare.

He gave the example of Andhra Pradesh, where almost half the 85,000 ration card holders in 2014 were unable to get subsidized foodgrains due to faulty point of sale machines and biometrics not matching.

K.T.S Tulsi, member of Parliament and senior Supreme Court advocate, said, “Not in my whole career have I come across a greater mutilation of a statutory provision than what has taken place in the case of Aadhaar.” He said Section 29 of the Aadhaar Act doesn’t permit data stored with the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to be shared with anyone but a provision was later made for voluntary agreement to allow the sharing of data.

IT and law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said, “No religion, income, medical history, ethnicity or education is asked in Aadhaar. Even email ID and phone number is optional.”

“The right of privacy of individuals must be respected. The privacy of the data cannot be breached by us except in the case of national security,” Prasad added.

He claimed that the government has been blacklisting operators that share data from the Aadhaar system. It has blacklisted 34,000 operators, and has taken action against 1,000 of them.

Prasad also said that UIDAI will be accountable to the Parliament.

Expressing concern on mandating the use of Aadhaar for different services, Pranesh Prakash, Policy director of the Centre for Internet and Society, said, “As an enabler, people would want to have Aadhaar. But when it is made mandatory, it becomes more of a disenabler instead of an enabler.”

“With the move towards a digital economy, setting up of a data protection authority as recommended by the Shah committee is important along with mass surveillance and greater accountability from the government,” he added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-april-12-2017-komal-gupta-opposition-questions-govt-move-to-make-aadhaar-must

Privacy in the Age of Big Data

amber — 2017-04-11T14:43:59Z

Personal data is freely accessible, shared and even sold, and those to whom this information belongs have little control over its flow.

The article was published in the Asian Age on April 10, 2017.

In 2011 it was estimated that the quantity of data produced globally surpassed 1.8 zettabyte. By 2013, it had increased to 4 zettabytes. This is a result of digital services which involve constant data trails left behind by human activity. This expansion in the volume, velocity, and variety of data available, together with the development of innovative forms of statistical analytics on the data collected, is generally referred to as “Big Data”. Despite significant (though largely unrealised) promises about Big Data, which range from improved decision-making, increased efficiency and productivity to greater personalisation of services, concerns remain about the impact of such datafication of all human activity on an individual’s privacy. Privacy has evolved into a sweeping concept, including within its scope matters pertaining to control over one’s body, physical space in one’s home, protection from surveillance, and from search and seizure, protection of one’s reputation as well as one’s thoughts. This generalised and vague conception of privacy not only comes with great judicial discretion, it also thwarts a fair understanding of the subject. Robert Post called privacy a concept so complex and “entangled in competing and contradictory dimensions, so engorged with various and distinct meanings”, that he sometimes “despairs whether it can be usefully addressed at all”.

This also leaves the idea of privacy vulnerable to considerable suspicion and ridicule. However, while there is a lack of clarity over the exact contours of what constitutes privacy, there is general agreement over its fundamental importance to our ability to lead whole lives. In order to understand the impact of datafied societies on privacy, it is important to first delve into the manner in which we exercise our privacy. The ideas of privacy and data management that are prevalent can be traced to the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPP). These principles are the forerunners of most privacy regimes internationally, such as the OECD Privacy Guidelines, APEC Framework, or the nine National Privacy Principles articulated by the Justice A.P. Shah Committee Report. All of these frameworks have rights to notice, consent and correction, and how the data may be used, as their fundamental principles. It makes the data subject to the decision-making agent about where and when her/his personal data may be used, by whom, and in what way. The individual needs to be notified and his consent obtained before his personal data is used. If the scope of usage extends beyond what he has agreed to, his consent will be required for the increased scope.

In theory, this system sounds fair. Privacy is a value tied to the personal liberty and dignity of an individual. It is only appropriate that the individual should be the one holding the reins and taking the large decisions about the use of his personal data. This makes the individual empowered and allows him to weigh his own interests in exercising his consent. The allure of this paradigm is that in one elegant stroke, it seeks to ensure that consent is informed and free and also to implement an acceptable trade-off between privacy and competing concerns. This approach worked well when the number of data collectors were less and the uses of data was narrower and more defined. Today’s infinitely complex and labyrinthine data ecosystem is beyond the comprehension of most ordinary users. Despite a growing willingness to share information online, most people have no understanding of what happens to their data.

The quantity of data being generated is expanding at an exponential rate. From smartphones and televisions, trains and airplanes, sensor-equipped buildings and even the infrastructures of our cities, data now streams constantly from almost every sector and function of daily life, “creating countless new digital puddles, lakes, tributaries and oceans of information”. The inadequacy of the regulatory approaches and the absence of a comprehensive data protection regulation is exacerbated by the emergence of data-driven business models in the private sector and the adoption of data-driven governance approach by the government. The Aadhaar project, with over a billion registrants, is intended to act as a platform for a number of digital services, all of which produce enormous troves of data. The original press release by the Central Government reporting the approval by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Digital India programme, speaks of “cradle to grave” digital identity as one of its vision areas.

While the very idea of the government wanting to track its citizens’ lives from cradle to grave is creepy enough in itself, let us examine for a minute what this form of datafied surveillance will entail. A host of schemes under Digital India shall collect and store information through the life cycle of an individual. The result, as we can see, is building databases on individuals, which when combined, will provide a 360 degree view into the lives of individuals. Alongside the emergence of India Stack, a set of APIs built on top of the Aadhaar, conceptualised by iSPIRT, a consortium of select IT companies from India, to be deployed and managed by several agencies, including the National Payments Corporation of India, promises to provide a platform over which different private players can build their applications.

The sum of these interconnected parts will lead to a complete loss of anonymity, greater surveillance and impact free speech and individual choice. The move towards a cashless economy — with sharp nudges from the government — could lead to lack of financial agencies in case of technological failures as has been the case in experiments with digital payments in Africa. Lack of regulation in emerging data driven sectors such as Fintech can enable predatory practices where right to remotely deny financial services can be granted to private sector companies. An architecture such as IndiaStack enables datafication of financial transactions in a way that enables linked and structured data that allows continued use of the transaction data collected. It is important to recognise that at the stage of giving consent, there are too many unknowns for us to make informed decisions about the future uses of our personal data. Despite blanket approvals allowing any kind of use granted contractually through terms of use and privacy policies, there should be legal obligations overriding this consent for certain kinds of uses that may require renewed consent.

Biometrics-based identification in UK: In 2005, researchers from London School of Economics and Political Science came out with a detailed report on the UK Identity Cards Bill (‘UK Bill’) — the proposed legislation for a national identification system based on biometrics. The project also envisaged a centralised database (like India) that would store personal information along with the entire transaction history of every individual. The report pointed strongly against the centralising storage of information and suggested other alternatives such as a system based on smartcards (where biometrics are stored on the card itself) or offline biometric-reader terminals.

As per the report, the alternatives would also have been cheaper as neither required real-time online connectivity. In India, online authentication is a far greater challenge. According to Network Readiness Index, 2016, India ranks 91, whereas UK is placed eight. Poor Internet connectivity can raise a lot of problems in the future including paralysis of transactions. The UK identification project was subsequently discarded as a result of the privacy and cost considerations raised in this report.

Aadhaar: Privacy concerns

Once the data is collected through National Information Utilities, it will be privatised and controlled by private utilities.
Once an individual’s data is entered in the system, it cannot be deleted. That individual will have no control over it.
Aadhaar Data (Demographic details along with photographs) are shared/transferred with the private entities including telecom companies as per the Aadhaar (Targeted delivery of Financial and other subsidies, benefits and services) Act, 2016 with the consent of Aadhaar number holder to fulfil their e-KYC requirements. The data is shared in encrypted form through secured channel.
Aadhaar Enabled Payment System (AEPS) on which 119 banks are live.
More than 33.87 crore transactions have taken place through AEPS, which was only 46 lakhs in May 2014.
As on 30-9-2016, 78 government schemes were linked to Aadhaar.
The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, provides that no core-biometric information (fingerprints, iris scan) shall be shared with anyone for any reason whatsoever (Sec 29) and that the biometric information shall not be used for any purpose other than generation of Aadhaar and authentication.
Access to the data repository of UIDAI, called the Central Identities Data Repository(CIDR), is provided to third parties or private companies.

Central Monitoring System (CMS) is already live in Delhi, New Delhi and Mumbai. Union minister Ravi Shankar Prasad revealed this in one of his replies in the Lok Sabha last year. CMS has been set up to automate the process of Lawful Interception & Monitoring of telecommunications.

Lawful Intercept and Monitoring (LIM) systems are used by the Indian Government to intercept records of voice, SMSes, GPRS data, details of a subscriber’s application and recharge history and call detail record (CDR) and monitor Internet traffic, emails, web-browsing, Skype and any other Internet activity of Indian users.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/asian-age-amber-sinha-april-10-2017-privacy-in-the-age-of-big-data

India’s National ID Program May Be Turning The Country Into A Surveillance State

praskrishna — 2017-04-07T12:49:30Z

For seven years, India’s government has been scanning the irises and fingerprints of its citizens into a massive database. The once voluntary program was intended to fix the country’s corrupt welfare schemes, but critics worry about its Orwellian overtones.

The blog post by Pranav Dixit was published by BuzzFeedNews on April 4, 2017. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

An abridged version of the blog post containing Sunil Abraham's quotes are reproduced below:

“You can’t change your fingerprints”

Sunil Abraham, the CIS director, calls himself a “technological critic” of the Aadhaar platform. For years, he’s been warning of the security risks associated with a centralized repository of the demographic and biometric details of a billion or so people.

“Aadhaar is a sitting duck,” Abraham told BuzzFeed News. That’s not an unreasonable assessment considering that India’s track record for protecting people’s private data is far from stellar. Earlier this year, for example, a security researcher discovered a website that was leaking the Aadhaar demographic data of more than 500,000 minors. The website was subsequently shut down, but the incident raised questions about Aadhaar’s security protocols — particularly those around data shared with third parties.

Abraham’s concerns are not without global precedent. In 2012, Ecuadorian police jailed blogger Paul Moreno for breaking into the country’s online national identity database and registering himself as Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. In April 2016, hackers posted a database containing names, national IDs, addresses, and birth dates of more than 50 million Turkish citizens, including Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan; later that month, Mexico’s entire voter database — over 87 million national IDs, addresses, and more — was leaked onto Amazon’s cloud servers by as-yet-untraced sources; and in the Philippines, more than 55 million voters had their private information — including fingerprints — released on the Dark Web.

“When this database is hacked — and it will be — it will be because someone breaches the computer security that protects the computers actually using the data.”

“What is the price that we pay as a nation if our database of over a billion people — complete with all 10 fingerprints and iris scans — leaks?” Abraham asked. The consequences, he said, will be permanent. Unlike a password, which you can reset at any time, your biometrics, if compromised, are the ultimate privacy breach. “You can’t change your fingerprints.”

The UIDAI claims that the Aadhaar database is protected using the “highest available public key cryptography encryption (PKI-2048 and AES-256)” and would take “billions of years” to crack.

“Encryption like this doesn’t typically get broken, it gets circumvented,” security researcher Troy Hunt told BuzzFeed News. “For example, the web application that sits in front of it is compromised and data is retrieved after decryption.” Or alternatively, he said, the encryption key itself is compromised. “Naturally, governments will offer all sorts of assurances on these things, but the simple, immutable fact is that once large volumes are centralized like this, there is a heightened risk of security incidents and of the data consequently being lost or exposed,” he added.

Cryptographer and cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier echoed Hunt’s assessment. “When this database is hacked — and it will be — it will be because someone breaches the computer security that protects the computers actually using the data,” he said. “They will go around the encryption.”

Nilekani — who did not respond to BuzzFeed News’ requests for comment — recently dismissed concerns around the project’s privacy implications as “hand-waving.” In an interview with the Economic Times, he repeatedly stressed how secure Aadhaar’s “advanced encryption technology” was. “I can categorically say that it’s the most secure system in India and among the most secure systems in the world,” he said.

Abraham is unconvinced by such assurances. He believes Aadhaar fundamentally changes the equation between a citizen and a state. “There’s a big difference between you identifying yourself to the government, and the government identifying who you are,” he said.

Aadhaar’s opponents say the program’s implementation has left India’s poorest people with no choice but to use it. “If you link people’s food subsidies, wages, bank accounts, and other crucial things to Aadhaar, you hit them where it hurts the most,” Ramanathan argued. “You leave them with no choice but to sign up.”

“Can you imagine if the United States passed a law that said that every person who wished to get food stamps would need their fingerprints registered in a government-owned database?” a journalist turned Aadhaar activist who did not wished to be named told BuzzFeed News. “Imagine what a scandal that would be.”

For Nilekani, such criticism is just overstatement and drama. “I think this so-called anti-Aadhaar lobby is really just a small bunch of liberal elites who are in some echo chamber,” he said during a recent interview with Indian business news channel ET Now. “The reality is that a billion people are using Aadhaar. A lot of the accusations are just delusional. Aadhaar is not a system for surveillance. [The critics] live in a bubble and are not connected to reality.”

Abraham laughed off Nilekani’s comments. “The Unique Identification Authority of India will become the monopoly provider of identification and authentication services in India,” he said. “That sounds like a centrally planned communist state to me. I don’t know which left liberal elites he’s talking about.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/buzzfeednews-pranav-dixit-april-4-2017-indias-national-id-program-may-be-turning-the-country-into-a-surveillance-state

Aadhaar marks a fundamental shift in citizen-state relations: From ‘We the People’ to ‘We the Government’

pranesh — 2017-04-04T16:10:06Z

Your fingerprints, iris scans, details of where you shop. Compulsory Aadhaar means all this data is out there. And it’s still not clear who can view or use it.

The article was published in the Hindustan Times on April 3, 2017.

Until recently, people were allowed to opt out of Aadhaar and withdraw consent to have their data stored. This is no longer going to be an option.
(Siddhant Jumde / HT Illustration)

Imagine you’re walking down the street and you point the camera on your phone at a crowd of people in front of you. An app superimposes on each person’s face a partially-redacted name, date of birth, address, whether she’s undergone police verification, and, of course, an obscured Aadhaar number.

OnGrid, a company that bills itself as a “trust platform” and offers “to deliver verifications and background checks”, used that very imagery in an advertisement last month. Its website notes that “As per Government regulations, it is mandatory to take consent of the individual while using OnGrid”, but that is a legal requirement, not a technical one.

Since every instance of use of Aadhaar for authentication or for financial transactions leaves behind logs in the Unique Identification Authority of India’s (UIDAI) databases, the government can potentially have very detailed information about everything from the your medical purchases to your use of video-chatting software. The space for digital identities as divorced from legal identities gets removed. Clearly, Aadhaar has immense potential for profiling and surveillance. Our only defence: law that is weak at best and non-existent at worst.

The Aadhaar Act and Rules don’t limit the information that can be gathered from you by the enrolling agency; it doesn’t limit how Aadhaar can be used by third parties (a process called ‘seeding’) if they haven’t gathered their data from UIDAI; it doesn’t require your consent before third parties use your Aadhaar number to collate records about you (eg, a drug manufacturer buying data from various pharmacies, and creating profiles using Aadhaar).

It even allows your biometrics to be shared if it is “in the interest of national security”. The law offers provisions for UIDAI to file cases (eg, for multiple enrollments), but it doesn’t allow citizens to file a case against private parties or the government for misuse of Aadhaar or identity fraud, or data breach.

It is also clear that the government opposes any privacy-related improvements to the law. After debating the Aadhaar Bill in March 2016, the Rajya Sabha passed an amendment by MP Jairam Ramesh that allowed people to opt out of Aadhaar, and withdraw their consent to UIDAI storing their data, if they had other means of proving their identity (thus allowing Aadhaar to remain an enabler).

But that amendment, as with all amendments passed in the Rajya Sabha, was rejected by the Lok Sabha, allowing the government to make Aadhaar mandatory, and depriving citizens of consent. While the Aadhaar Act requires a person’s consent before collecting or using Aadhaar-provided details, it doesn’t allow for the revocation of that consent.

In other countries, data security laws require that a person be notified if her data has been breached. In response to an RTI application asking whether UIDAI systems had ever been breached, the Authority responded that the information could not be disclosed for reasons of “national security”.

The citizen must be transparent to the state, while the state will become more opaque to the citizen.

How Did Aadhaar Change?

How did Aadhaar become the behemoth it is today, with it being mandatory for hundreds of government programmes, and even software like Skype enabling support for it?

The first detailed look one had at the UID project was through an internal UIDAI document marked ‘Confidential’ that was leaked through WikiLeaks in November 2009. That 41-page dossier is markedly different from the 170-page ‘Technology and Architecture’ document that UIDAI has on its website now, but also similar in some ways.

In neither of those is the need for Aadhaar properly established. Only in November 2012 — after scholars like Reetika Khera pointed out UIDAI’s fundamental misunderstanding of leakages in the welfare delivery system — was the first cost-benefit analysis commissioned, by when UIDAI had already spent ₹28 billion. That same month, Justice KS Puttaswamy, a retired High Court judge, filed a PIL in the Supreme Court challenging Aadhaar’s constitutionality, wherein the government has argued privacy isn’t a fundamental right.

Every time you use Aadhaar, you leave behind logs in the UIDAI databases. This means that the government can potentially have very detailed information about everything from the your medical purchases to your use of video-chatting software.

Even today, whether the ‘deduplication’ process — using biometrics to ensure the same person can’t register twice — works properly is a mystery, since UIDAI hasn’t published data on this since 2012. Instead of welcoming researchers to try to find flaws in the system, UIDAI recently filed an FIR against a journalist doing so.

At least in 2009, UIDAI stated it sought to prevent anyone from “[e]ngaging in or facilitating profiling of any nature for anyone or providing information for profiling of any nature for anyone”, whereas the 2014 document doesn’t. As OnGrid’s services show, the very profiling that the UIDAI said it would prohibit is now seen as a feature that all, including private companies, may exploit.

UID has changed in other ways too. In 2009, it was as a system that never sent out any information other than ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, which it did in response to queries like ‘Is Pranesh Prakash the name attached to this UID number’ or ‘Is April 1, 1990 his date of birth’, or ‘Does this fingerprint match this UID number’.

With the addition of e-KYC (wherein UIDAI provides your demographic details to the requester) and Aadhaar-enabled payments to the plan in 2012, the fundamentals of Aadhaar changed. This has made Aadhaar less secure.

Security Concerns

With Aadhaar Pay, due to be launched on April 14, a merchant will ask you to enter your Aadhaar number into her device, and then for your biometrics — typically a fingerprint, which will serve as your ‘password’, resulting in money transfer from your Aadhaar-linked bank account.

Basic information security theory requires that even if the identifier (username, Aadhaar number etc) is publicly known — millions of people names and Aadhaar numbers have been published on dozens of government portals — the password must be secret. That’s how most logins works, that’s how debit and credit cards work. How are you or UIDAI going to keep your biometrics secret?

In 2015, researchers in Carnegie Mellon captured the iris scans of a driver using car’s side-view mirror from distances of up to 40 feet. In 2013, German hackers fooled Apple iOS’s fingerprint sensors by replicating a fingerprint from a photo taken off a glass held by an individual. They even replicated the German Defence Minister’s fingerprints from photographs she herself had put online. Your biometrics can’t be kept secret.

Typically, even if your username (in this case, Aadhaar number) is publicly known, your password must be secret. That’s how most logins works, that’s how debit and credit cards work. How are you or UIDAI going to keep your biometrics secret?

In the US, in a security breach of 21.5 million government employees’ personnel records in 2015, 5.2 million employees’ fingerprints were copied. If that breach had happened in India, those fingerprints could be used in conjunction with Aadhaar numbers not only for large-scale identity fraud, but also to steal money from people’s bank accounts.

All ‘passwords’ should be replaceable. If your credit card gets stolen, you can block it and get a new card. If your Aadhaar number and fingerprint are leaked, you can’t change it, you can’t block it.

The answer for Aadhaar too is to choose not to use biometrics alone for authentication and authorisation, and to remove the centralised biometrics database. And this requires a fundamental overhaul of the UID project.

Aadhaar marks a fundamental shift in citizen-state relations: from ‘We the People’ to ‘We the Government’. If the rampant misuse of electronic surveillance powers and wilful ignorance of the law by the state is any precedent, the future looks bleak. The only way to protect against us devolving into a total surveillance state is to improve rule of law, to strengthen our democratic institutions, and to fundamentally alter Aadhaar. Sadly, the political currents are not only not favourable, but dragging us in the opposite direction.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-pranesh-prakash-april-3-2017-aadhaar-marks-a-fundamental-shift-in-citizen-state-relations

Digital native: You can check out, you can never leave

nishant — 2017-05-05T01:31:46Z

Aadhaar is not something you define and opt into, it is something that defines you.

The article was published in the Indian Express on April 2, 2017. Nishant Shah is a professor of new media and the co-founder of The Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore.

Ok. I get it. You don’t want yet another piece on the horrors and perils of the surveillance state that has come to the forefront with Aadhaar numbers now being tied to our taxes. I know that you must have already made up your mind about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. If you believe that the way to streamlining bureaucracy and making our systems more accountable is transparency, then you are ready to welcome the digital ecosystem of Aadhaar, as introducing checks and balances that might help to curb some of the excesses and wastes of our governance systems . If you are of the opinion, however, that the state cannot be trusted with our information, without the oversee of the Parliament and the judiciary, then you want to resist this mandatory implementation of the “voluntary” Aadhaar. And, for once, I am unable to take a side, favouring one set of arguments over the other. This ambiguity does not come from a lack of political conviction. I continue to fear about the future of our lives when these technologies of control and domination fall in the hands of governments which have an authoritarian bend of mind.

Instead, my lack of preference on the good, bad and ugly sides of Aadhaar stems from a completely different concern around network technologies of digital connectivity that has found very little attention in the almost zealous discourse about “yes Aadhaar, no Aadhaar”.

This is a concern about the relationship between technological networks and the messy realities that we embody. There has been an easy acceptance of a digital network as a description of our everyday life. If you look at any network that you belong to — from public discussion forums to private WhatsApp groups — you will realise that these networks offer to visualise your connections and transactions with the people, places and things in your circles. Thus, it is possible to say that Facebook describes your collection of friends and your social life. Or you could suggest that LinkedIn is a visualisation of your professional landscape. And, in a similar vein, we can also propose that Aadhaar is a representation of the working of our government systems of identification.

Each one of these propositions, seemingly innocent, is blatantly wrong. Facebook, for example, didn’t just connect you with your friends. It has fundamentally changed the idea of what is a friend. For a generation of young people who grew up naturalised in social media, the notion of a friend has lost all its meaning and nuance. Every connection, acquaintance, friend of a friend, a random stranger who likes the same band as you do, is now a friend. And the increasing anxiety we have about people falling prey to predatory friendships is because Facebook has now normalised the idea that if somebody calls you their friend, you don’t have to worry about sharing personal and private information with them. Similarly , for anybody who has spent time on LinkedIn, we know that it is not just a portal that describes our work. It is the space where we stay connected with events and people far removed from us. It is the resource pool that we draw on while looking for new work. It is also the space that we keep an eye on just to see if a better job has opened up. It is a collection of events, links and connections that not only shows what you do but what you aspire for, who you connect with and what are the kinds of professional ambitions you see for yourself.

Just like Facebook and LinkedIn, which don’t just describe a reality but actually simulate, prescribe and shape it, Aadhaar is a digital network that is seeking to change the very foundational reality of our lives. Like most digital networks, it is not merely an explanation of how things are but the context within which who we are and what we do finds meaning and validation. Thus, Aadhaar might propose that it is merely trying to describe your identity but it is actually offering to shape a new one for you. The programme might suggest that it is trying to implement a system already in place, but it is, in reality, creating an entirely new system within which you and I have to now find space, function and identity. The latest announcements of mainstreaming Aadhaar merely betray this fact – that Aadhaar is not something you define and opt into, Aadhaar defines you. And opting out is going to have severe penalties and consequences.

Digital networks have long masqueraded as benign visualisations of the world. But they are, in principle, blueprints that transform the world as we know it. This, in itself, is not bad. However, hiding this transformation is. Because when a transformation happens, especially at systemic levels, it is always the people who are the most vulnerable that suffer the most from it. Think about the older friend who might not be the most tech savvy and how they struggle for inclusion on Facebook and WhatsApp messages. Pay some attention to people who did not understand the public nature of LinkedIn and ended up getting fired because they wrote about their current work conditions and the desire to change them. And, similarly, do think if the people who are being pushed into these digital ecosystems without adequate digital literacy, care and information about the consequences of their actions, are being made vulnerable in their access to resources of life and dignity.

Whether you and I like Aadhaar or not is not really the question. The question is not about the right to privacy either. What is at stake in this deployment of Aadhaar is a government that is pushing radical transformations of the life of its citizens without consulting with them and addressing their needs. In the past, when governments have done this, we have developed strong voices of protest and correction asking the state to be responsible towards those affected by the transformation. The reliance on the digital, however, allows these governments to escape this responsibility and, in the guise of description, are making prescriptions of reality which need to be resisted.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/indian-express-nishant-shah-april-2-2017-digital-native-you-can-check-out-you-can-never-leave

It’s the technology, stupid

sunil — 2017-04-07T12:53:21Z

Eleven reasons why the Aadhaar is not just non-smart but also insecure.

The article was published in Hindu Businessline on March 31, 2017.

Aadhaar is insecure because it is based on biometrics. Biometrics is surveillance technology, a necessity for any State. However, surveillance is much like salt in cooking: essential in tiny quantities, but counterproductive even if slightly in excess. Biometrics should be used for targeted surveillance, but this technology should not be used in e-governance for the following reasons:

One, biometrics is becoming a remote technology. High-resolution cameras allow malicious actors to steal fingerprints and iris images from unsuspecting people. In a couple of years, governments will be able to identify citizens more accurately in a crowd with iris recognition than the current generation of facial recognition technology.

Two, biometrics is covert technology. Thanks to sophisticated remote sensors, biometrics can be harvested without the knowledge of the citizen. This increases effectiveness from a surveillance perspective, but diminishes it from an e-governance perspective.

Three, biometrics is non-consensual technology. There is a big difference between the State identifying citizens and citizens identifying themselves to the state. With biometrics, the State can identify citizens without seeking their consent. With a smart card, the citizen has to allow the State to identify them. Once you discard your smart card the State cannot easily identify you, but you cannot discard your biometrics.

Four, biometrics is very similar to symmetric cryptography. Modern cryptography is asymmetric. Where there is both a public and a private key, the user always has the private key, which is never in transit and, therefore, intermediaries cannot intercept it. Biometrics, on the other hand, needs to be secured during transit. The UIDAI’s (Unique Identification Authority of India overseeing the rollout of Aadhaar) current fix for its erroneous choice of technology is the use of “registered devices”; but, unfortunately, the encryption is only at the software layer and cannot prevent hardware interception.

Five, biometrics requires a centralised network; in contrast, cryptography for smart cards does not require a centralised store for all private keys. All centralised stores are honey pots — targeted by criminals, foreign States and terrorists.

Six, biometrics is irrevocable. Once compromised, it cannot be secured again. Smart cards are based on asymmetric cryptography, which even the UIDAI uses to secure its servers from attacks. If cryptography is good for the State, then surely it is good for the citizen too.

Seven, biometrics is based on probability. Cryptography in smart cards, on the other hand, allows for exact matching. Every biometric device comes with ratios for false positives and false negatives. These ratios are determined in near-perfect lab conditions. Going by press reports and even UIDAI’s claims, the field reality is unsurprisingly different from the lab. Imagine going to an ATM and not being sure if your debit card will match your bank’s records.

Eight, biometric technology is proprietary and opaque. You cannot independently audit the proprietary technology used by the UIDAI for effectiveness and security. On the other hand, open smart card standards like SCOSTA (Smart Card Operating System for Transport Applications) are based on globally accepted cryptographic standards and allow researchers, scientists and mathematicians to independently confirm the claims of the government.

Nine, biometrics is cheap and easy to defeat. Any Indian citizen, even children, can make gummy fingers at home using Fevicol and wax. You can buy fingerprint lifting kits from a toystore. To clone a smart card, on the other hand, you need a skimmer, a printer and knowledge of cryptography.

Ten, biometrics undermines human dignity. In many media photographs — even on the @UIDAI’s Twitter stream — you can see the biometric device operator pressing the applicant’s fingers, especially in the case of underprivileged citizens, against the reader. Imagine service providers — say, a shopkeeper or a restaurant waiter — having to touch you every time you want to pay. Smart cards offer a more dignified user experience.

Eleven, biometrics enables the shirking of responsibility, while cryptography requires a chain of trust.

Each legitimate transaction has repudiable signatures of all parties responsible. With biometrics, the buck will be passed to an inscrutable black box every time things go wrong. The citizens or courts will have nobody to hold to account.

The precursor to Aadhaar was called MNIC (Multipurpose National Identification Card). Initiated by the NDA government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, it was based on the open SCOSTA standard. This was the correct technological choice.

Unfortunately, the promoters of Aadhaar chose biometrics in their belief that newer, costlier and complex technology is superior to an older, cheaper and simpler alternative.

This erroneous technological choice is not a glitch or teething problem that can be dealt with legislative fixes such as an improved Aadhaar Act or an omnibus Privacy Act. It can only be fixed by destroying the centralised biometric database, like the UK did, and shifting to smart cards.

In other words, you cannot fix using the law what you have broken using technology.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-businessline-march-31-2017-sunil-abraham-its-the-technology-stupid