Centre for Internet and Society

From 1 March, only registered devices to be used to authenticate Aadhaar

Admin — 2018-02-24T07:59:39Z

UIDAI directive to Aadhaar authentication agencies aims to avoid putting citizens’ biometric data at risk

The article by Komal Gupta was published in Livemint on February 8, 2018.

The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has directed all Aadhaar authentication agencies to use only registered biometric devices from 1 March to avoid putting residents’ data at risk.

The initial deadline to upgrade these devices was 1 June 2017, but it has been extended several times. The latest is the sixth extension.

The UIDAI wants the biometric devices registered with the Aadhaar system for encryption key management. The Aadhaar authentication server can individually identify and validate these devices and manage encryption keys on each registered device.

“It is reiterated that to ensure encryption of biometrics of residents at time of capture, it is absolutely essential to use only the registered devices. Any further use of non-registered devices will be putting residents’ privacy at risk,” a UIDAI circular dated 2 February said.

In January last year, UIDAI had instructed all the authentication user agencies (AUAs) and authentication service agencies (ASAs) to adhere to its new encryption standards and accordingly upgrade the devices to the new norms.

The AUA is an entity engaged in providing Aadhaar-enabled services. It may be a government, public or a private legal agency registered in India which uses Aadhaar authentication services provided by UIDAI.

The ASA is any entity that transmits authentication requests to the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) on behalf of one or more AUAs.

Requests from AUAs to extend the timeline has been cited as the reason for delay by UIDAI. The last deadline was 31 January.

Still, UIDAI claims most of the entities have migrated to registered devices and “no further extension will be given in this regard.” Failure to meet the February-end deadline will lead to loss or disruption of services, the circular added.

A privacy expert called for better security in the Aadhaar system.

“The UIDAI should have gone in for smart cards, which are inherently more secure and would have proven a better basis for a national ID system. Given its choice of biometrics, UIDAI should have required hardware-level encryption — the yet-to-be-specified (Level 1) security standard— from 2010,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at think tank Centre for Internet and Society.

“Making the much-delayed Level 1 mandatory is what UIDAI should be focusing on; sadly, even basic registration and easily-defeated software-level encryption (Level 0) is yet to be made mandatory,” he said.

UIDAI has been under the scanner over the past few months over charges that random entities have been accessing personal information without the consent of individual Aadhaar number holders.

Last month, UIDAI put in place a two-layer security to reinforce privacy protections for Aadhaar holders—it introduced a virtual identification so that the actual number need not be shared to authenticate their identity. Simultaneously, it further regulated the storage of the Aadhaar numbers within various databases.
There are more than 1.2 billion Aadhaar holders in the country.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-komal-gupta-february-8-2018-from-march-1-only-registered-devices-to-be-used-to-authenticate-aadhaar

Free Net advocates flay Trai's public Wi-Fi paper

praskrishna — 2016-11-20T03:21:41Z

Stakeholders vouching for a cheap and open Internet have flagged concerns over privacy and regulatory hurdles.

The article by Anita Babu was published in the Business Standard on November 20, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

With the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India releasing its consultation paper on public Wi-Fi this week, stakeholders vouching for a cheap and open Internet have flagged concerns over privacy and regulatory hurdles.

The Internet Freedom Foundation has pointed out that the proposed regulations might lead to invasion of privacy and interfere with the freedom of hotspot providers to operate freely.

“While we welcome Trai’s vision that increasing the number of public Wi-Fi hotspots could be the way to bringing the majority of Indians online, the proposals turn out to be regressive and poorly thought out,” said Aravind Ravi Sulekha, co-founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation.

The regulator in its consultation paper issued earlier this week proposed hotspot providers would have to register with the government and users could access hotspots only after paying using a service tied to their Aadhaar number. It wants to utilise Aadhaar, electronic-Know Your Customer (e-KYC) and the Unified Payment Interface (UPI) to build a standard authentication mechanism for access to public Wi-Fi in India. While the aim of Trai is to increase the number of Wi-Fi hotspots in India, proponents of free Internet fear these proposed rules might have a contrary effect.

Hotspot providers will have to incur costs on account of hardware installations for one-time password verification in addition to the costs of sending out the passwords. This might discourage entrepreneurs.

“This system of verification makes it harder for entrepreneurs to set up hotspots and for people to access them. It is impossible for broadband to proliferate in any significant way if Trai insists on applying ineffective and cumbersome regulations on those who wish to set up their own hotspots,” Internet Freedom Foundation said in its comments to Trai’s consultation paper.

The proposals have excluded individuals who do not have an Aadhaar account from accessing public Wi-Fi. “This not only brings concerns of costs and exclusion but also privacy, given the constitutionality of the Aadhaar project, and its government-mandated use, is pending adjudication in the Supreme Court,” the foundation pointed out.

The proposals also come at the cost of anonymity. The foundation, cofounded by the crusaders of last year’s SaveTheInternet campaign, trashed the argument that imposing eKYC norms would help in countering terrorism and other crimes. “This prohibition on anonymous communication is a violation of Indians’ freedom of expression… making a call at a PCO, sending a telegram and posting a letter have always been possible without showing ID — even though criminals and terrorists occasionally abused these services… KYC measures are ineffective in preventing crime and terrorism, as tools like VPNs, TOR, and proxies can easily mask the identity of an Internet user,” it stated.

“The solution proposed by Trai is a classic example of centralism and over-regulation. It turns out that Trai is unclear about the problem to be solved,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society. He added that the new proposals had also failed to address the limitations on foreigners or tourists in India.

Current regulations prevent foreigners without a local mobile number from accessing public Wi-Fi connections. While Trai had identified the problem, it failed to come up with a plausible solution.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-november-20-2016-anita-babu-free-net-advocates-flay-trais-public-wifi-paper

Forget privacy, Aadhaar Bill gives too much power to the executive

praskrishna — 2016-03-17T14:44:12Z

The government promotes the Aadhaar programme because it believes the 12-digit unique identification number will let them track every penny spent from the exchequer. But money is not all that the Aadhaar number can track.

The article by Aloke Tikku was published in the Hindustan Times on March 17, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.

It can help track people too with amazing efficiency. This is at the centre of the controversy around the programme, and the Aadhaar bill that requires every resident to get the number to access government subsidies and services.

Finance minister Arun Jaitley put up a spirited defence of the bill in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday when the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 came up for passage. And he was right.

As far as privacy is concerned, the NDA government’s version is much more stringent than the creaky draft proposed by the UPA in 2010.

Jaitley said there were only two circumstances in which personal data collected by UIDAI could be shared under this bill.

One, if the Aadhaar number holder consents to his details being shared. Second, if a government agency wants to access this data on grounds of national security.

But the debate around privacy concerns – that neither the NDA nor the UPA governments addressed – and the new bill is much more fundamental.

The Aadhaar bill gives the executive too much power to decide how to administer the law.

Every law requires the government to frame rules to specify the nitty-gritty of its implementation.

But the Aadhaar bill passed by Parliament gives the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) the power to prescribe regulations for nearly every provision, right down to what biometric or biological attributes need to be captured.

“The law leaves too much power in the hands of the executive,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bengaluru-headquartered research advocacy group, Centre for Internet and Society.

For instance, the bill gives the Unique identification Authority of India (UIDAI) powers to determine if it should collect any biological attribute of people too. This means the government could at a later date mandate that DNA of all Aadhaar numbers too be collected.

The example echoed in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday as well.

“No power should be delegated to the UID Authority because then the UID Authority will decide tomorrow that DNA is required, and they will then have the powers to take DNA information as well,” Congress MP Jairam Ramesh said.

The minister tried to explain the reliance on regulations issued by UIDAI – the word ‘regulations’ does appear some 50 times through the legislation – as compared to less than 10 in, say, the right to information law or the 2010 version of the bill.

He said MPs could still review notifications issued by UIDAI when they are placed for parliamentary approval.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-march-17-2016-aloke-tikku-forget-privacy-aadhaar-bill-gives-too-much-power-to-the-executive

Flaws in the UIDAI Process

hans — 2016-03-06T10:40:59Z

The accuracy of biometric identification depends on the chance of a false positive: the probability that the identifiers of two persons will match. Individuals whose identifiers match might be termed duplicands. When very many people are to be identified success can be measured by the (low) proportion of duplicands. The Government of India is engaged upon biometrically identifying the entire population of India. An experiment performed at an early stage of the programme has allowed us to estimate the chance of a false positive: and from that to estimate the proportion of duplicands. For the current population of 1.2 billion the expected proportion of duplicands is 1/121, a ratio which is far too high.

The article was published in Economic & Political Weekly, Journal » Vol. 51, Issue No. 9, 27 Feb, 2016.

A legal challenge is being mounted in the Supreme Court, currently, to the programme of biometric identification that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is engaged upon: an identification preliminary and a requisite to providing citizens with “Aadhaar numbers” that can serve them as “unique identiﬁers” in their transactions with the state. What follows will recount an assessment of their chances of success. We shall be using data that was available to the UIDAI and shall employ only elementary ways of calculation. It should be recorded immediately that an earlier technical paper by the author (Mathews 2013) has been of some use to the plaintiffs, and reference will be made to that in due course.

The Aadhaar numbers themselves may or may not derive, in some way, from the biometrics in question; the question is not material here. For our purposes a biometric is a numerical representation of some organic feature: like the iris or the retina, for instance, or the inside of a ﬁnger, or the hand taken whole even. We shall consider them in some more detail later. The UIDAI is using ﬁngerprints and iris images to generate a combination of biometrics for each individual. This paper bears on the accuracy of the composite biometric identiﬁer. How well those composites will distinguish between individuals can be assessed, actually, using the results of an experiment conducted by the UIDAI itself in the very early stages of its operation; and our contention is that, from those results themselves, the UIDAI should have been able to estimate how many individuals would have their biometric identiﬁers matching those of some other person, under the best of circumstances even, when any good part of population has been identiﬁed.

Read the full article here.

The author thanks Nico Temme of the Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica in The Netherlands for the bounds he derived on the chance of a false positive. He is particularly grateful to the anonymous referee of this journal who, through two rounds of comment, has very much improved the presentation of the results. A technical supplement to this paper is placed on the EPW website along with this paper.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/epw-27-february-2016-hans-varghese-mathews-flaws-in-uidai-process

Fixing Aadhaar: Security developers' task is to trim chances of data breach

sunil — 2018-01-10T16:47:59Z

The task before a security developer is not only to reduce the probability of identity breach but to eliminate certain occurrences.

The article was published in Business Standard on January 10, 2017

I feel no joy when my prophecies about digital identity systems come true. This is because from a Popperian perspective these are low-risk prophecies. I had said that that all centralised identity databases will be breached in the future. That may or may not happen within my lifetime so I can go to my grave without worries about being proven wrong. Therefore, the task before a security developer is not only to reduce the probability but more importantly to eliminate the possibility of certain occurrences.

The blame for fragility in digital identity systems today can be partially laid on a World Bank document titled “Ten Principles on Identification for Sustainable Development” which has contributed to the harmonisation of approaches across jurisdictions. Principle three says, “Establishing a robust — unique, secure, and accurate — identity”. The keyword here is “a”. Like The Lord of the Rings, the World Bank wants “one digital ID to rule them all”. For Indians, this approach must be epistemologically repugnant as ours is a land which has recognised the multiplicity of truth since ancient times.

In “Identities Research Project: Final Report” funded by Omidyar Network and published by Caribou Digital — the number one finding is “people have always had, and managed, multiple personal identities”. And the fourth finding is “people select and combine identity elements for transactions during the course of everyday life”. As researchers they have employed indirect language, for layman the key takeaway is a single national ID for all persons and all purposes is an ahistorical and unworkable solution.

Revoke all Aadhaar numbers that have been compromised, breached, leaked, illegally published or inadvertently disclosed and regenerate new global identifiers. Photo: Reuters

monoculture can be prevented. The traditional approach is followed in the US - you could have multiple documents that are accepted as valid ID. Or you could have multiple identity providers providing ID artifacts using an interoperable framework as they do in the UK. Another approach is tokenisation. The first time tokenisation was suggested in the Aadhaar context was in an academic paper published in August 2016 by Shweta Agrawal, Subhashis Banerjee and Subodh Sharma from IIT Delhi titled “Privacy and Security of Aadhaar: A Computer Science Perspective”.

Though I had spoken about tokenisation as a fix for Aadhaar earlier, I wrote about it for the first time on the 31st of March, 2017, in The Hindu. The steps would be required are as follows. First, revoke all Aadhaar numbers that have been compromised, breached, leaked, illegally published or inadvertently disclosed and regenerate new global identifiers aka Aadhaar Numbers. Second, reduce the number of KYC transactions by eliminating all use cases that don’t result in corresponding transparency or security benefits. For example, most developed economies don’t have KYC for mobile phone connections. Three, the UIDAI should issue only tokens to those government entities and private sector service providers that absolutely must have KYC. When the NATGRID wants to combine subsets of 20 different databases for up to 12 different intelligence/law enforcement agencies they will have to approach the UIDAI with the token or Aadhaar number of the suspect. The UIDAI will then be able to release corresponding tokens and/or the Aadhaar number to the NATGRID. Implementing tokenisation introduces both technical and institutional checks and balances in our surveillance systems.

On 25th of July 2017, UIDAI published the first document providing implementation details for tokenisation wherein KUAs and AUAs were asked to generate the tokens. But this approach assumed that KYC user agencies could be trusted. This is because the digital identity solution for the nation as conceived by Aadhaar architects is based on the problem statement of digital identity within a firm. Within a firm all internal entities can be trusted. But in a nation state you cannot make this assumption. Airtel, a KUA, diverted 190 crores of LPG subsidy to more than 30 lakh payment bank accounts that were opened without informed consent. Axis Bank Limited, Suvidha Infoserve (a business correspondent) and eMudhra (an e-sign provider or AUA) have been accused of using replay attacks to perform unauthorised transactions. In November last year, the UIDAI indicated to the media that they were working on the next version of tokenisation — this time called dummy numbers or virtual numbers. This work needs to be accelerated to mitigate some of the risks in the current system.

The paper in its fourth key recommendation says “cryptographically embed Aadhaar ID into Authentication User Agency (AUAs) and KYC User Agency (aka KUAs) — specific IDs making correlation impossible”. The paper considers several designs for such local identifier where — 1) no linking is possible, 2) only unidirectional linking is possible, and 3) bidirectional linking is possible referring to a similar scheme in the LSE identity report.Though I had spoken about tokenisation as a fix for Aadhaar earlier, I wrote about it for the first time on the 31st of March, 2017, in The Hindu. The steps would be required are as follows. First, revoke all Aadhaar numbers that have been compromised, breached, leaked, illegally published or inadvertently disclosed and regenerate new global identifiers aka Aadhaar Numbers. Second, reduce the number of KYC transactions by eliminating all use cases that don’t result in corresponding transparency or security benefits. For example, most developed economies don’t have KYC for mobile phone connections. Three, the UIDAI should issue only tokens to those government entities and private sector service providers that absolutely must have KYC. When the NATGRID wants to combine subsets of 20 different databases for up to 12 different intelligence/law enforcement agencies they will have to approach the UIDAI with the token or Aadhaar number of the suspect. The UIDAI will then be able to release corresponding tokens and/or the Aadhaar number to the NATGRID. Implementing tokenisation introduces both technical and institutional checks and balances in our surveillance systems.On 25th of July 2017, UIDAI published the first document providing implementation details for tokenisation wherein KUAs and AUAs were asked to generate the tokens. But this approach assumed that KYC user agencies could be trusted. This is because the digital identity solution for the nation as conceived by Aadhaar architects is based on the problem statement of digital identity within a firm. Within a firm all internal entities can be trusted. But in a nation state you cannot make this assumption. Airtel, a KUA, diverted 190 crores of LPG subsidy to more than 30 lakh payment bank accounts that were opened without informed consent. Axis Bank Limited, Suvidha Infoserve (a business correspondent) and eMudhra (an e-sign provider or AUA) have been accused of using replay attacks to perform unauthorised transactions. In November last year, the UIDAI indicated to the media that they were working on the next version of tokenisation — this time called dummy numbers or virtual numbers. This work needs to be accelerated to mitigate some of the risks in the current system.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/business-standard-sunil-abraham-january-10-fixing-aadhaar

FAQ on the Aadhaar Project and the Bill

Elonnai Hickok, Vanya Rakesh, and Vipul Kharbanda — 2016-04-13T14:06:43Z

This FAQ attempts to address the key questions regarding the Aadhaar/UIDAI project and the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 (henceforth, Bill). This is neither a comprehensive list of questions, nor does it contain fully developed answers. We will continue to add questions to this list, and edit/expand the answers, based on our ongoing research. We will be grateful to receive your comments, criticisms, evidences, edits, suggestions for new answers, and any other responses. These can either be shared as comments in the document hosted on Google Drive, or via tweets sent to the information policy team at @CIS_InfoPolicy.

To comment on and/or download the file, click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/aadhaar-project-and-bill-faq

Extending Aadhaar to more areas is a hare-brained idea, it should be dropped

praskrishna — 2016-08-24T03:05:01Z

News reports that the mandatory use of Aadhaar could be extended to a host of new areas are extremely disturbing. According to these reports, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has identified 20 new areas for which Aadhaar can be made mandatory. This includes registration of companies and NGOs, insurance, competitive examinations and property and vehicle registration.

The article by Seetha was published in First Post on August 23, 2016. CIS article by Pranesh Prakash and Amber Sinha was quoted.

If this happens, then it confirms the worst suspicions of all those who are opposed to Aadhaar – and this spans ideological divides – that it can be used to seriously compromise individual privacy.

A villager scanning fingerprint for Aadhaar. Reuters file photo

The defenders of Aadhaar – mainly the previous and current governments, the UIDAI and Nandan Nilekani, the father of the Aadhaar – have always argued that these concerns are exaggerated. They have pointed out that Aadhaar does not take any details that are not already in the public domain – name, date of birth and permanent address – and that the biometric data is not shared with any of the authorities that seek verification by Aadhaar. That data remains with the UIDAI and it only confirms that a person with a particular Aadhaar number is who he claims he is.

But Aadhaar’s opponents have argued that the extensive use of Aadhaar allows disparate bits of information to be linked and this could become a genuine concern if this hare-brained idea gets official approval.

Now, there is certainly no doubt that Aadhaar is, in the absence of anything better, the best technological tool for establishing identity. It is not entirely fool-proof – there are issues relating to the fingerprints of manual labourers and iris scan of aged people or those with cataract – a solution needs to be found for this. According to this report by the Centre for Internet and Society, there was fingerprint authentication failure in 290 of 790 ration card holders in Andhra Pradesh who did not lift rations, and there was an ID mismatch in 93 instances. These problems notwithstanding, there is no denying that Aadhaar has helped in significantly containing (perhaps not entirely eliminating) the problem of identity theft for diversion of government doles and other benefits.

So making Aadhaar compulsory for such cases is perfectly justifiable. Indeed, the Act giving legal status to Aadhaar is called Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

Mandatory quoting of Aadhaar can even be justified in the cases where duplication or falsification of identity can be used by criminals or those who fall foul of the law. Passports, for example, can be brought under the ambit of Aadhaar. Or even driving licences. A person whose licence has been suspended for repeated traffic violations should not be allowed to get another one under the same name or an assumed name.

But why should it be mandatory for bank accounts, if an individual is not interested in getting government doles? The quoting of Aadhaar for property transactions also does not make sense. If the idea is to prevent fraudulent transactions, it will not be foolproof. A person intending to sell an already sold property or one he does not own can do so even with an Aadhaar number, since people are allowed to own more than one piece of property. What will prevent this from happening is compulsory registration and digitisation of records as well as mandatory property titling; there has been little progress on both.

When filing of income tax returns is not possible without a PAN, there is little rationale for making Aadhaar mandatory for filing returns and even for PAN. It is not clear how quoting of Aadhaar is going to help in ensuring that fly-by-night companies and NGOs do not get established.

The insistence of Aadhaar on purchase of vehicles, landline and mobile phone connections and demat accounts is seriously violative of individual privacy and has enormous potential for misuse. The Act does give the government unbridled power to access data in the name of national security. This itself is worrying, since it can allow security agencies to go an random fishing expeditions to access personal financial transactions. Making it mandatory for even buying cars and phone connections (even though it is not illegal to own more than one vehicle or telephone connection) makes it even riskier – private agencies get access to one’s Aadhaar number. Forget security agencies, even unscrupulous private persons can track an individual’s personal activities, especially financial transactions.

As it is, investigating agencies want to tap Aadhaar and biometric data at the drop of a hat. The UIDAI had to approach the Supreme Court in 2014 against a Goa High Court order ordering it to share biometric details of everyone enrolled in the state for solving a gang rape case. Even after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of UIDAI, a Kerala special investigation team wanted it to share biometric details to solve another rape case. If Aadhaar now becomes mandatory for a host of financial and other transactions, the points of potential privacy breaches only increase.

The move to extend the mandatory use of Aadhaar has to be stopped in its tracks. The mandatory use should be limited to delivery of government welfare benefits and doles (after ensuring that glitches are eliminated) and security-related services like passports. For everything else, it should be purely voluntary. There can be no compromise on this.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/first-post-august-23-2016-seetha-extending-aadhaar-to-more-areas-is-a-hare-brained-idea-it-should-be-dropped

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

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

Digital native: Look before you (digitally) leap

nishant — 2017-06-08T01:22:54Z

Creating a digital future is great, but there’s a serious need to secure the infrastructure first.

The article was published in the Indian Express on May 28, 2017.

Digital technologies of connectivity have one unrelenting promise — they offer us new ways of doing things, augmenting existing practices, amplifying capacities and affording new possibilities of information and data transactions that accelerate the ways in which we live. This idea of the internet as infrastructure is central to India’s transition into an information technologies future.

Nandan Nilekani, almost a decade ago, in his book, Imagining India, had clearly charted how the digital is the basis for shaping the future of our communities, societies and governance. As one of the architects of Aadhaar, Nilekani had argued that the country of the 21st century will have to be one that seriously invests in the digital infrastructure.

In 10 short years, we have reached a point where we no longer question the enormous investment we make in digital systems of governance and functioning, and we appreciate the economic and networked values of projects like #DigitalIndia and #MakeInIndia that shape our markets and cities into becoming the new cyber-hubs.

There is no denying that digital offers a new way of consolidating a country as polyphonic, multicultural, expansive and diverse as India. We also have to appreciate that, even if selectively, the digitisation of public records, government services, and state support is clearly producing an administrative momentum that is reforming various practices of corruption and incompetence in the massive state machinery. The role of the digital as infrastructure has been a boon for many developing countries.

This positioning, however, masks the fact that infrastructure needs its own support and care systems. Take roads, for example. Roads allow for connectivity, movement and mobility between different spaces. They are one of the most important of state and public infrastructures and for all our jokes about pot-holes and eroding spaces for pedestrians, roads remain the life-line of our everyday life. A complex mechanism of planning, regulation and maintenance needs to be put into place in order to make roads survive.

The amount of attention we pay to roads — the material quality, the land that it occupies, the lanes for different vehicles, the traffic lights and zebra crossings, blockages and streamlines, authorising specific use of roads and disallowing certain activities to happen there — is staggering. A public planner would tell you that before the road comes into being, the idea of the road has to be formulated. The road needs protection and planning and its own infrastructure of support and creation.

When it comes to the information superhighway of the digital web, this remains forgotten. We are so focused on the digital as infrastructure that we seem to pay no attention to its infrastructure. Thus, when we proposed, deployed and now enforced a project like Aadhaar, the focus remained on its unfolding and its operations. Aadhaar as an aspiration of governance has its values and has the capacity to become a system that augments statecraft.

However, the infrastructure that is needed to make Aadhaar possible — rules and regulations around privacy, bills and acts about data sharing and ownership, contexts of informed consent and engagement, community awareness and data security protocol — have been missing from the debates. For years now, activists have been advising and warning the state that building this digital infrastructure without building the contexts within which they make sense is not just irresponsible, but downright dangerous.

Different governments have turned a deaf ear to these protests. Now, when the Aadhaar portals are found disclosing massive volumes of public data, making people vulnerable to data and identity theft and fraud, we are realising the massive projects we have started without thinking about the context of security.

With the ongoing controversies around #AadhaarLeaks, the question is not whether the disclosure of this information was a leak, a breach or an ignorant exposure of sensitive information. The response to it cannot be just about fixing the infrastructure and building more robust systems. The question that we need to confront is how do we stop thinking of the internet as infrastructure and start focusing on the infrastructure that needs to be set into place so that these digital systems promise safety, security, and protection for the lives they intersect with.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/indian-express-nishant-shah-may-28-2017-digital-native-look-before-you-digitally-leap

Digital Native: Cause an Effect

nishant — 2018-06-26T15:21:01Z

Aadhaar is a self-contained safe system, its interaction with other data and information systems is also equally safe and benign.

The article was published in the Indian Express on June 17, 2018.

Statistically, it has been proven, that the consumption of ice cream in the country increases significantly in the summer months. In the same months, the number of housebreak incidents also increase. It might be possible, though ridiculous, to now make an argument that eating ice cream leads to increased frequencies of housebreakings, and, hence, sale and consumption of ice cream should be regulated more rigorously. The humour in this situation arises out of the fact that we know, at a very human level, that correlation is not the same as causation.

We know that just because two things happen in temporal or spatial proximity with each other doesn’t necessarily mean they are connected or responsible in a chain of events. This is because human communication is designed to make a distinction between cause-and-effect relationship and happened-together relationship between two sets of information.

However, when it comes to computation, things turn slightly different. Within the database logics of computation, two sets of data, occurring in the same instance, are subjected to a simple scrutiny: Either one of them is linked with the other, or, one of the two is noise, and, hence, needs to be removed from the system. Computation systems are foundationally anchored on logic. Within logical systems, all the events and elements described in the system are interlinked and have a causal relationship with each other. Computational learning systems, thus, do not have the capacity to make a distinction between causal and correlative phenomena.

This is why computation systems of data mining and profiling are so much more efficient than human cognition. Not only are these systems able to compute a huge range of data, but they are also able to make unprecedented, unforeseen, unexpected, and often unimagined connections between seemingly disparate and separate information streams. I present to you this simplified notion of computer logic because it is at the heart of the biometric identity-based debates around Aadhaar right now. Recently, Ajay Bhushan Pandey, CEO, UIDAI, wrote an opinion piece that insisted that the data collective mechanisms of Aadhaar are not only safe but also benign. His opinion is backed by Bill Gates, who also famously suggested that “Aadhaar in itself” is not dangerous.

And, in many ways, Gates is right, even if Pandey’s willful mischaracterisation of Gates’s statement is not. For Gates, a computer scientist looking at the closed architecture of the Aadhaar system, it might appear, that in as much as any digital system could be safe, Aadhaar is indeed safe. In essence, Gates’s description was, that as a logical system of computational architecture, Aadhaar is safe, and the data within it, in their correlation with each other, does not form any sinister networks that we need to worry about.

However, Pandey takes this “safe in itself” argument to extend it to the applications and implementations of Aadhaar. He argues that because Aadhaar is a self-contained safe system, its interaction with other data and information systems is also equally safe and benign. In this, Pandey, either out of ignorance or willful mischaracterisation, confuses correlation with causality. He refuses to admit that Aadhaar and the biometrics within that are the central focal point around which a variety of data transactions happen which produce causal links between disconnected subjects.

Thus, the presence of a digital biometric data set might not in itself be a problem, but when it became the central verification system that connects your cellphone with your geolocation data, your presence and movement with your bank account and your income tax returns, your food and lifestyle consumption with your medical records, it starts a causal link between information which was hitherto unconnected, and, hence, considered trivial.

The alarm that the critics of Aadhaar have been raising is not about whether the data on Aadhaar is safe or not, but, how, in the hands of unregulated authorities, the correlations that Aadhaar generates and translates into causal profiles have dire consequences on the privacy and liberty of the individuals who carry the trace of Aadhaar in all facets of life. Pandey and his team of governors need to explain not the safety of Aadhaar but what happens when the verification information of Aadhaar is exploited to create non-human correlations of human lives, informing policy, penalisation and pathologisation through these processes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/indian-express-nishant-shah-june-17-2018-digital-native-cause-an-effect

Digital illusions

praskrishna — 2017-02-16T14:53:39Z

The Watal Committee’s report presents the government with an impossible road map to a cashless nirvana.

The article by V. Sridhar was published in Frontline, Print edition: March 3, 2017

MORE than two months after demonetising an overwhelming proportion of the currency in circulation, the Narendra Modi government now appears to have settled on its key objective for setting out on the unprecedented economic adventure. After shifting the goalposts several times—initially it was a means of combating terrorism and fake currency, later it was a war on black money and still later it was to forcibly march the country towards a “cashless” future, which was then modified to a more reasonable “less cash” society—the government now ostensibly has the road map to undertake the hazardous journey to an age when cash will no longer be king.

There is no better and time-tested means for a government bent on carrying out its whims than to appoint a committee headed by a former bureaucrat to give it the report that would justify what it has already decided to do. In August 2016, months before demonetisation, it constituted the Committee on Digital Payments, chaired by Ratan P. Watal, Principal Adviser, NITI Aayog, and former Secretary, Ministry of Finance. The committee dutifully submitted its report in double quick time on December 9, which was approved by the Finance Ministry on December 27.

The haste with which the committee has gone about its business is evident throughout the report. The committee’s slant is also evident in its approach, especially the reverence with which it welcomes the demonetisation move, even though it was commissioned before November 8, and its recourse to suspect data from private industry and multinational companies even when better quality data were available from official sources such as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The report’s lack of rigour, especially in tackling the substantive issues pertaining to monetary policy, was also hindered by the fact that not a single economist of worth, not even a specialist in monetary economics, was present in the committee.

Reckless rush

However, to blame the committee alone would be futile. The government, by pursuing an ambitious and reckless push towards “less cash” before setting out a regulatory framework governing digital payments, in effect, placed the cart before the horse.

The report reveals not just the haste with which the Watal Committee has pursued its mission with evangelical zeal but its utter lack of respect for conceptual issues. Nowhere is this more evident than in its recommendation that the regulatory responsibilities for governing the digital payments system be distanced from the RBI. This not only is out of tune with global practices, but it reveals the committee’s sheer inability to understand the fact that although payments account for just a small fraction of what a banking system does, they impinge on modern banking and monetary policy in crucial ways.

In a modern economy, currency creation by the central bank through fiat money is not the only means by which money is created. Deposits with banks, for instance, which provide the base for credit creation, are a means by which banks “create” money. From this perspective, a mobile wallet service provider also acts like a bank; even the users’ monies are held only for a brief period until transactions happen.

Thus, it appears fit and proper that such services are also governed by the central bank. However, the Watal Committee has recommended that they be supervised by an entity that has a measure of independence from the RBI. This suggestion is dangerous because such entities can potentially pose a systemic risk, which is a key responsibility of a central bank. There is also the risk of regulatory capture of the suggested body, the Payments Regulatory Board (PRB), if sections of the payments industry exercise their newly acquired clout.

The committee’s enthusiastic acceptance of the “go cashless” mantra is also evident in the data it has sourced. A good example of how it cherry-picked data is its use of a highly dubious (or at the very least, utterly misplaced) dataset to make the point that India is far too dependent on cash. It points to data sourced from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other sources to claim that India’s cash-GDP (gross domestic product) ratio is 12.04 per cent, much higher than countries such as Brazil, Mexico and South Africa.

However, this much-abused dataset, quoted widely by advocates of demonetisation, is an inaccurate measure because it only captures the extent of physical currency in circulation and ignores short-term deposits, which are defined as “broad money”. Logically, these deposits must be included because they are virtually on call by depositors and are, therefore, liquid. Secondly, the fact that such deposits have been increasing as a proportion of the currency in circulation, aided by the spread of banking in India, makes them particularly relevant in the Indian context. The committee, in its bid to justify sending the nation on a cashless path, proceeds to evaluate the “high” costs that cash imposes on the Indian economy. It quotes from McKinsey and Visa, both of which may have a vested interest in India’s mission to go cashless, to drive home the point that going digital would result in huge savings. It quotes McKinsey to claim that “transitioning to an electronic platform for government payments itself could save approximately Rs.100,000 crore annually, with the cost of the transition being estimated at Rs.60,000-70,000 crore” and a Visa report that claims a total investment of Rs.60,000 crore over five years towards creating a digital payments ecosystem could reduce the country’s cost of cash from 1.7 per cent of the GDP to 1.3 per cent.

Even while pushing the benefits of going cashless, the committee does admit that the transition to digital payments “cannot be agnostic to the actual costs incurred by the end customers, the reasons for preferring cash, and the factors inhibiting the uptake of existent channels of digital payments”.

A large part of the Indian economy is its “black” counterpart, estimated at about 60 per cent of the legitimate part of India’s national income. Since a significant portion of the currency in circulation caters to the demand from the shadow economy, apart from the huge segment that is engaged in legitimate but informal economic activity, these estimates miss a significant chunk of the economy and its need for cash. Conceptually, to that extent, they significantly overstate the extent of cash relative to real GDP, including the portion missing from official data.

The naive assumption that digitalised financial transactions are scale-neutral and costless, painless and efficient lies at the heart of the Watal Committee’s report. This has obvious implications for India’s large informal economy, which the Modi government is pushing, under pain of death, towards formality through digital channels. For instance, basic data on the usage of debit cards show how skewed the demand for cards is in India. In August 2016, cash withdrawals at ATMs accounted for 92.28 per cent of the value of all debit card transactions in the country. Thus, less than 8 per cent of the total value was made at point-of-sale (PoS) terminals.

This statistic is a clear indication of a divide that mirrors the income and consumption divide in Indian society. When banks issue cards (debit, credit or any other), card payment system companies such as Mastercard and Visa provide an interface with the customer for which the issuer pays a fee, which is, in any case, recovered from customers. According to a recent study by Visa, the penetration of PoS terminals has slowed down significantly since 2012, when the RBI set limits on what the card companies could charge as merchant discount rate (MDR), the amount charged from sellers. This reveals that card companies may have been slowing down penetration in order to bargain for a bigger slice of the transaction fee. Although the rates apply not just to card-based purchases but to cash withdrawals too (and have been waived or lowered in the wake of demonetisation on a purely temporary basis), there is no guarantee that they will not increase once the situation returns to normal. This is aggravated by the fact that the government may have little or no control, or the will, to prevent banks and card issuers from charging higher rates later. This has been demonstrated in the past with, for example, ATM-based withdrawals, for which customers have to pay a fee after a minimum number of transactions.

The flat fee (as a percentage) is regressive, especially because it punishes smaller sellers. It is in this sense that finance, digital or otherwise, is never scale-neutral. The fact that the immediate victims of demonetisation are small-scale producers and retailers implies that the balance has been tilted against them and in favour of larger producers and retailers after November 8. By skewing the field against small and tiny enterprises, demonetisation has been the vehicle for a massive and unprecedented transfer of incomes and wealth from the poor to the rich.

There is also a fundamental asymmetry in the use of technology in the financial services industry. ATMs, which have been around for decades, were originally touted as a technology that increases efficiency in the use of cash; you only need to withdraw as much as you need, so there is no motive to hoard cash. But that was not the motive for introducing ATMs; the real reason was that they enabled banks to reduce their workforce to cut costs. As ATMs became more ubiquitous, banks started moving from cost cutting to profit-seeking by levying a fee for every transaction above a minimum threshold. In effect, the gains from technology are boosting the profitability of banks while the wider systemic benefits made possible by the same technology have been sacrificed, as the imposition of fees above a minimum threshold actually drives people to hoard cash.

A study by Visa in October 2016, titled Accelerating The Growth of Digital Payments in India: A Five-Year Outlook, reveals that a one percentage point reduction in cash in circulation as percentage of GDP would require digital transactions of personal consumption expenditure to multiply ninefold. In other words, Visa suggested that digital transactions as a percentage of personal consumption expenditure would need to increase from 4 per cent to 36 per cent if the cash-GDP ratio has to reduce from 11 per cent to 10 per cent.

Security concerns

Apart from these weighty economic issues, which are central to the move towards digital financial transactions, there are other critically important issues that the committee has either ignored or swept under the carpet. The question of privacy and security was a central issue at a recent conference on digital payments organised by HasGeek, a platform for software developers, in Bengaluru. Several experts, including some from the payments industry, pointed out the serious security and privacy issues that are being ignored in the rush to go digital. For example, an expert on data security warned that the mindless rush to mobile-based transactions was especially scary because most Android phones are vulnerable because they leak data. In fact, he noted that it may be safer for Android mobile users to perform digital transactions using desktop browsers.

But what is more scary is the manner in which Aadhaar is being touted by the committee as the magic wand by which the digital era can be ushered in quickly. It recommends that mobile number-based and Aadhaar-based “fully interoperable payments” be prioritised within 60 days and that the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) be responsible for ensuring this.

There has been significant resistance to the idea of an Aadhaar-enabled service for digital transactions, primarily because of security and privacy concerns. Entities such as the Centre for Internet and Society have warned against linking Aadhaar to the financial inclusion project because it violates the Supreme Court stricture against making Aadhaar mandatory. Kiran Jonnalagadda of HasGeek pointed out that the Aadhaar system offered only “single factor authorisation”. He said in a recent tweet that Aadhaar involved only a permanent login ID without “a changeable password”, which, from a systemic point of view, made it open to abuse.

Longstanding critics of the Aadhaar project have pointed out the launch of such a countrywide programme at a time when a regulatory regime is not even in place, and when India does not have privacy protection laws, is dangerously misplaced. They have pointed to the fact that unlike in the case of a debit or credit card, which can be replaced when its integrity has been compromised, the theft of biometric characteristics of a user implies that they are compromised forever. This is not science fiction but a very real possibility as has been demonstrated across the world.

There are also serious worries that the high failure rate of biometric verification would hurt the poor, supposedly the main target group of the Aadhaar project; the large-scale denial of services such as access to the public distribution system has already been documented across the country. Extending a failed system to real-time financial transactions, thus, appears to be dangerously misplaced. The fundamental issue is this: can a digital mode of payment effectively provide the same level of trust between the transacting parties that is central to a cash-based transaction? The answer to that depends critically on whether the digital mode provides the same level of convenience, cost, predictability and certainty.

The Watal Committee has produced a report that the political masters sought. Its lack of appreciation of the economic issues underpinning financial transactions and of the wider economic processes in the Indian economy are obvious. Effectively, it has delivered what the Modi government asked for—an impossible road map to a cashless nirvana for a people already suffering the effects of demonetisation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/frontline-v-sridhar-march-3-2017-digital-illusions

Details of 135 million Aadhaar card holders may have leaked, claims CIS report

praskrishna — 2017-05-20T08:42:57Z

The disclosure came as part of a CIS report titled ‘Information Security Practices of Aadhaar (or lack thereof): A Documentation of Public Availability of Aadhaar Numbers with Sensitive Personal Financial Information’.

The news from the Press Trust of India was published in the Hindustan Times on May 2, 2017.

Aadhaar numbers and personal information of as many as 135 million Indians could have been leaked from four government portals due to lack of IT security practices, the Centre for Internet and Society has claimed.

“Based on the numbers available on the websites looked at, estimated number of Aadhaar numbers leaked through these four portals could be around 130-135 million,” the report by CIS said.

Further, as many as 100 million bank account numbers could have been “leaked” from the four portals, it added.

The portals where the purported leaks happened were those of National Social Assistance Programme, National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, as well as two websites of the Andhra Pradesh government.

“Over 23 crore beneficiaries have been brought under Aadhaar programme for DBT (Direct Benefit Transfer), and if a significant number of schemes have mishandled data in a similar way, we could be looking at a data leak closer to that number,” it cautioned.

The disclosure came as part of a CIS report titled ‘Information Security Practices of Aadhaar (or lack thereof): A Documentation of Public Availability of Aadhaar Numbers with Sensitive Personal Financial Information’.

When contaced, a senior official of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) said that there was no breach in its own database. The UIDAI issues Aadhaar to citizens.

The CIS report claimed that the absence of “proper controls” in populating the databases could have disastrous results as it may divulge sensitive information about individuals, including details about address, photographs and financial data.

“The lack of consistency of data masking and de- identification standard is an issue of great concern...the masking of Aadhaar numbers does not follow a consistent pattern,” the report added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-may-2-2017-details-of-135-million-aadhaar-card-holders-may-have-leaked-claims-cis-report

Debate: Five Aadhaar Myths that Don’t Stand Up to Scrutiny

praskrishna — 2016-04-01T15:48:17Z

We need to reboot the Aadhaar debate by asking why we want to create a centralised biometric database of Indian residents in the first place.

The article by Reetika Khera was published in the Wire on March 23, 2016.

A recent article, ‘Identification simplified, myths busted’, by Piyush Peshwani and Bhuwan Joshi (hereafter, Peshwani & Joshi) makes some questionable claims about the UID project. Peshwani & Joshi’s strategy appears to be to ignore those questions to which they do not have an answer (e.g., that Aadhaar is mostly redundant as far as NREGA, PDS, etc., are concerned). For others, they cherry-pick ‘facts’ without acknowledging the debates surrounding those facts. Here is a selection.

#1: To get Aadhaar, you need a Proof of ID (PoID) and Proof of address (PoA)

Peshwani & Joshi: “For many, Aadhaar is perhaps the first document of their existence – a robust proof of their identity and address that can be verified online. No more closed doors for them!”

Peshwani & Joshi: “The Demographic Data Standards and Verification Procedures committee prescribes a list of valid 18 proof of identity and 33 valid proof of address documents for getting an Aadhaar.”

Fact: In fact, 99.97% of those who have Aadhaar, used PoID and PoA to get it. For those who have neither, there is an “introducer system”, but according to a reply to an RTI request, only 0.03% of those who have the Aadhaar number used this route.

As far as closed doors are concerned, Aadhaar does not guarantee any benefits: work through NREGA, widow or old-age pensions or PDS rations. There are separate eligibility conditions for those programmes which continue to apply.

#2 On costs

Peshwani & Joshi: “Does it justify the cost? Yes, absolutely, according to the World Bank, which said the initiative is estimated to be saving the Indian government about $1 billion annually by thwarting corruption, even as it underlined that digital technologies promote inclusion, efficiency and innovation.”

Fact: Savings due to the use of Aadhaar have been disputed. The government has claimed it has saved Rs. 14,672 crore on LPG subsidies due to Aadhaar while they are likely lower – by a factor of 100 (see Business Standard or Wall Street Journal).

Peshwani & Joshi: “Even before the World Bank’s endorsement of Aadhaar, the Delhi-based National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP) conducted a detailed cost-analysis study on Aadhaar in 2012… the study found that the Aadhaar project would yield an internal rate of return in real terms of 52.85% to the government.”

Fact: The NIPFP cost-benefit was based on unrealistic assumptions – e.g., estimates of leakages that Aadhaar could plug were available for only two out of seven schemes; for the rest, they assumed leakage rates which are termed ‘conservative’, but are actually not.

In their response, the NIPFP team admitted that “a full-fledged cost benefit analysis of Aadhaar is difficult” because “many gains from Aadhaar are difficult to quantify because they are intangible” and, “even if in specific schemes there may be tangible benefits, the information available on those schemes does not permit a precise quantification of those benefits.”

They went on to say that “The study has steered away from relying exclusively on analyses of isolated and small sample sets”. What evidence did the NIPFP study rely on? “For ASHAs, Janani Suraksha Yojana and scholarships, no analysis, large or small has been used. For the Indira Awaas Yojana, the three analyses relied on exclusively are a Times of India news report, a press release based on a discussion in Parliament and a “Scheme Brief” by the Institute for Financial Management and Research (IFMR). Interestingly, the corruption estimate in the IFMR brief cross-refers to the Times of India article (apart from a CAG report)!” (Khera, 2013)

#3 De-duplication

Peshwani & Joshi: “Aadhaar means no fake, ghost or duplicate beneficiaries. Double-dipping will become more and more difficult with Aadhaar, a number that is well de-duplicated with the use of biometrics.”

Fact: De-duplication is one possible contribution of Aadhaar – but that needs biometrics, not a centralised biometric database. Local biometrics (used extensively in Andhra Pradesh before UID) mean that biometric data is stored by the concerned government department or on the local e-POS machine’s memory chip. It has the advantage that connectivity is not required (you are authenticated by the machine), errors and corrections can be correctly locally, making it more practical. The distinction between a local and centralised database is important (see #5 below).

Further, no one has a reliable estimate of the duplication problem. Two government estimates of duplicates exist: the Dhande committee for LPG (2%) and in NREGA job cards from the Government of Andhra Pradesh (also 2%).

#4 Exclusion

Peshwani & Joshi: “As far as exclusion in delivery of other services due to biometric authentication accuracy is concerned, it is important to go beyond scratching the surface.”

Fact: When the PDS was integrated with Aadhaar: “The Andhra Pradesh Food and Civil Supplies Corporation found that…nearly one-fifth ration card holders did not buy their ration.” Further, “When the government delved deeper in the issue, it was found that out of the 790 cases interviewed for the study, 400 reported exclusion. Out of the excluded cases, 290 were due to fingerprint mismatch and 93 were because of Aadhaar card mismatch. The remaining 17 cases were due to failure of E-PoS.” More here.

Moreover, Peshwani & Joshi pick one definition of ‘exclusion’ (due to biometric failure) when in fact, exclusion has a broader meaning. For instance, “In Chitradurga (Karnataka), Rs.100-150 million in wages from 2014-15 were held up for a year. When payments were being processed, their job cards could not be traced in NREGAsoft. Upon enquiry, the district administration learnt field staff had deleted them to achieve ‘100% Aadhaar-seeding’.”

#5 Profiling and privacy violations

Peshwani & Joshi: “A prominent criticism of Aadhaar is that it ‘profiles’ people.” …“Most of us have one or more identity/address documents, such as a passport, ration card, PAN card, driving licence, vehicle registration documents or a voter ID card. The government departments managing these already have our data. Aadhaar is no different. We give our data to banks, to insurance companies and to telecom companies for accounts, policies and mobile connections.”

Fact: That’s like saying BJP can be more corrupt because the Congress was corrupt. Instead we need to engage more seriously with the work of Sunil Abraham, Amber Sinha and others at the Centre of Internet and Society. There are crucial differences between Aadhaar and Social Security Number in the US, see this. Malavika Jayaram listed the UID project among a slew of “big brother” projects facilitating mass surveillance in India.

Conclusion

The debate on UID tends to begin with the premise that Aadhaar is necessary for ‘good governance’. Those claims of the UIDAI have long been demolished. In a nutshell, Aadhaar cannot help identify the poor, its possession does not guarantee inclusion into government social welfare (go to #1). It cannot reduce PDS or NREGA corruption as claimed in their early documents. Thankfully, PDS–NREGA corruption has been on the decline without Aadhaar – more needs to be done. (More details? Try this and this.)

Bihar shows how much corruption in the PDS can be reduced without Aadhaar. Credit: Reetika Khera

Aadhaar is not required for portability of benefits or for cash transfers. Cash transfers need bank accounts. To get a bank account, you need a proof of ID and a proof of address (go to #1). Aadhaar can help de-duplicate, but so can local biometrics (go to #3). We need to “reboot” the Aadhaar debate, starting on the right terms – why exactly do we need to create a centralised biometric database of Indian residents?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wire-march-23-2016-reetika-khera-debate-five-aadhaar-myths-that-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny

Debate over #Aadhaar Turns Nasty as Critics Accuse Supporters of Online Trolling

praskrishna — 2017-06-07T13:09:10Z

Internet Freedom Foundation’s Kiran Jonnalagadda has alleged that iSPIRT and its co-founder Sharad Sharma set up fake Twitter profiles to harass, intimidate Aadhaar critics.

The article by Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprahasta was published in the Wire on May 19, 2017.

As bizarre as this may sound, one of the founders of the Indian Software Products Industry Round Table (iSPIRT) – an influential think-tank closely associated with the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) – Sharad Sharma, is battling allegations of trolling anti-Aadhar campaigners through fake Twitter profiles.

Kiran Jonnalagadda, one of the founders of Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), has alleged that a number of fake profiles started to troll him online earlier this month in response to his criticism of Aadhar on Twitter. Surprisingly, he said, one of the profiles –@confident_India – which trolled him was apparently operated by Sharma, considered highly influential within the IT and start-up industry and a governing council member of iSPIRT.

What is iSPIRT?

In 2013, a group of volunteers working with NASSCOM founded iSPIRT to represent the software products industry independently. It is widely known that many of these same volunteers also helped the UIDAI develop much of the initial Aadhaar infrastructure and ecosystem. According to Forbes India, iSPIRT helps Indian software product companies “draft and take policy proposals to government officials; create reusable ‘playbooks’ from successful companies that can be applied by others; and create ‘self-help communities’.” It aims to facilitate Indian software product companies, which build affordable and innovative technologies, get a footprint in sectors like health, education, infrastructure and create conditions so that they get an equal platform to compete with big multinationals.

In this mission, iSPIRT believes that Aadhaar-based technologies, which Indian software product companies may create, could help the Indian software product industry gain an advantage over multinationals, which may be skeptical about using Aadhaar. In other words, iSPIRT, one of the biggest advocates of Aadhaar, sees a commercial advantage to the increasing use of Aadhaar for many of the entrepreneurs associated with the Round Table. To this end, iSPIRT runs two initiatives – ProductNation and IndiaStack, a collection of open APIs for technology infrastructure projects like UPI and Aadhaar.

While the mission may sound fine, many of the Aadhaar advocates within iSPIRT have had to face questions from civil society, most of which have to do with the suspicion that Aadhaar could compromise online privacy. This, over the past few months, has led to heated social media battles between iSPIRT and anti-Aadhaar campaigners.

However, the debate took a darker turn when Jonnalagadda uploaded a video showing that the @Confident_India Twitter handle could be traced back to Sharma’s personal mobile phone number on Twitter. Sharma, has since then, apparently changed his number.

“It was only when I started to grow suspicious of the handle that I thought of using Sharma’s phone number to verify the account,” Jonnalagadda tells The Wire.

In an article – “Inside the mind of India’s chief tech stack evangelist” – where he narrates the events, he says “a flurry of newly created Twitter trolls accounts began heckling me about Aadhaar”.

Around 10 such handles started making unprovoked attacks on Jonnalagadda and another founder of IFF, Nikhil Pahwa, accusing them of being guided by “greed, profit, and deceit” for being in the “#AntiAadhaar brigade.”

As the argument continued, @confident_India called Jonnalgadda “pretentious” mouthing “highfalutin stuff” and “techno-babble”.

“All these did not perturb me as it was a part of routine arguments,” says Jonnalagadda.

However, in what he calls a “lightbulb moment”, he had the first inkling that Sharma could be operating the account of @confident_India through this thread:

“Sharad Sharma’s original account doesn’t follow any of these people on the thread. The conversation would not have shown on his timeline. Yet both @confident_India and Sharad Sharma made the same argument,” says Jonnalagadda.

Then, he says, Sharma gave it out. A question addressed to Sharad Sharma ended up being answered by @confident_India.

@Confident_India also went on a tirade against the IFF fellows and called them “JNUtype”, “ISISstooge” or belonging to Lutyens Delhi, insinuating that the IFF fellows are terrorists or largely belong to a certain social elite category of people.

When this prompted Jonnalagadda to verify the account with Sharma’s number, it matched. He later posted the video on his account.

An email from The Wire to Sharad Sharma remained unanswered at the time of writing.

However, soon after this alleged expose kicked off a Twitter war between the two groups, Sharad responded with a reply to Nikhil Pahwa’s tweet.

iSPIRT also responded in various online forums. “Sharad Sharma, co-founder of iSPIRT, named in these allegations is in the US for a medical emergency in his family. As of this morning, Eastern Standard Time, Sharad has categorically denied these allegations. We will further investigate the confusion around the alleged link of mobile number and clarify all outstanding questions. For the moment, we are prioritising the well-being of Sharad and his family,” says the organisation’s response.

“We want to categorically state that the allegations against iSPIRT coordinating and/or promoting any troll campaign are false and the evidence presented is a deliberate misreading of our intent to engage with those speaking against India Stack” it added.

Interestingly, however, what has emerged out of the controversy is another allegation by the IFF that iSPIRT had made trolling part of its policy to counter Aadhaar’s “detractors.”

At a fellows meeting earlier this year in February, iSPIRT charted out a “Detractors Matrix” in which they categorised the anti-Aadhar campaigners into four categories, namely “misinformed, fearful, and engaging”, “informed, fearful and engaging”, “misinformed and trolling” and lastly, “informed yet trolling”. In an internal iSPIRT presentation, Reetika Khera, IIT professor and a renowned economist, and Nikhil Pahwa, IFF’s co-founder were shown as belonging to the last two categories.

To counter Aadhaar critics on online platforms, iSPIRT volunteers intended to group themselves into “archers” and “swordsmen” who would challenge their theories on Twitter and elsewhere.

iSPIRT has acknowledged discussing the “detractor matrix” in its reply to the allegation but dismissed it being equivalent to trolling, as Jonnalagadda alleges. Co-founder of iSPIRT, ThiyagaRajan Maruthavanan, while responding to allegations said that there was no official involvement on behalf of iSPIRT.

CIS allegations

Many of the pro-Aadhaar Twitter trolls, most noticeably Confident_India, have also lashed out at other Internet rights organisations. This includes the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) which last month released a report that claimed that over 100 million Aadhaar numbers were publicly exposed by four government websites. The Confident_India Twitter handle has alleged that CIS has violated foreign funding regulations (under the Foreign Contributions Regulations Act), that they are likely “funded by ISI” and that because of their “advocacy efforts”, the organisation should be shut down.

It should be noted that the Unique Identification Authority of India has also sent a sharp letter to CIS over its report and has suggested that some of the Aadhaar data that the report documented could not have been gotten through legal means.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wire-may-19-2017-ajoy-ashirwad-mahaprahasta-debate-over-aadhaar-turns-nasty-as-critics-accuse-supporters-of-online-trolling