Centre for Internet and Society

Aadhaar data of 130 millions, bank account details leaked from govt websites: Report

praskrishna — 2017-05-20T09:13:57Z

Just how leaky is the Aadhaar data? A lot, says a study published by Centre for Internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based organisation (CIS). In a study published on May 1, two researchers from CIS found that data of over 130 million Aadhaar card holders has been leaked from just four government websites. As scary as this is, there is more to it. Not only the Aadhaar numbers, names and other personal details of millions of people have been leaked but also their bank account numbers.

The article was published in India Today on May 4, 2017.

The CIS report noted that the leak is from four portals that deal with National Social Assistance Programme, National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Chandranna Bima Scheme and Daily Online Payment Reports of NREGA.

"Based on the numbers available on the websites looked at, estimated number of Aadhaar numbers leaked through these 4 portals could be around 130-135 million and the number of bank accounts numbers leaked at around 100 million from the specific portals we looked at," notes the report released on May 1.

It also says that the extent of the leaks could be even bigger than what the CIS research found. "While these numbers are only from two major government programmes of pensions and rural employment schemes, other major schemes, who have also used Aadhaar for DBT could have leaked PII similarly due to lack of information security practices. Over 23 crore beneficiaries have been brought under Aadhaar programme for DBT,10 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," noted the report prepared by Amber Sinha and Srinivas Kodali.

The report highlights that one of the major issues with the Aadhaar project is how the data has been collected is handled by various government agencies. "While the UIDAI has been involved in proactively pushing for other databases to get seeded with Aadhaar numbers, they take little responsibility in ensuring the security and privacy of such data," notes the report. "...it is extremely irresponsible on the part of the UIDAI, the sole governing body for this massive project, to turn a blind eye to the lack of standards prescribed for how other bodies shall deal with such data, such cases of massive public disclosures of this data, and the myriad ways in which it may used for mischief."

This is not the first time, there have been leaks into the Aadhaar system, although this is probably the first time someone has documented the whole bit so meticulously. There have been reports of data leaks in the past. In fact, as more and more government schemes and ID cards gets linked with Aadhaar data the instances of leaks have increased significantly.

One of the big problem with the Aadhaar data is that of accountability. In absence of a good privacy law and provisions that prescribe punishment in case of private data leak, private and public agencies in India are often careless about handling of data. The private details of people have not only leaked from government websites but also from private bodies like banks, telecom operators, insurance providers and financial organisations. Recently, a major data leak came to light involving a website that was selling private information of probably hundreds of thousands of people who have take car loan in the last several years.

This is a point that is also highlighted by CIS report. "Information and data leaks have been occurring in India for a long time and the leaks around Aadhaar are not the first data leaks. But with the scale and design of Aadhaar, any information being leaked is dangerous and its impact not entirely reversible," it says.

Yet, despite all the data leaks and the fact that they undermine the faith in Digital India, the government -- first UPA and now NDA -- has not created and introduced a proper privacy and data protection law in India.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india-today-may-4-2017-aadhaar-data-of-130-millions-bank-account-details-leaked-from-govt-websites-report

Aadhaar data leaks not from UIDAI: Centre

praskrishna — 2017-05-20T08:27:28Z

Aadhaar is foolproof, it tells SC

The article by Krishnadas Rajagopal was published in the Hindu on May 3, 2017.

Leaks of Aadhaar card details are not from the UIDAI, but at the State level, the Union government told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

“As of today, Aadhaar is foolproof. Biometric technology is the best system in 2016. There has not been a single leak from the UIDAI. The leaks of details may have been from the States... their offices and agencies,” advocate Arghya Sengupta, counsel for the Centre, submitted in the court.

The Centre’s clarification comes in the midst of reports that data of over 130 million Aadhaar cardholders have been leaked from four government websites.

Reports, based on a study conducted by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bengaluru-based organisation, said Aadhaar numbers, names and other personal details of people have been leaked.

The Centre was washing its hands of the alleged leaks for the second consecutive day in the Supreme Court.

A-G’s assurance

On Tuesday, Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi had emphatically assured the Supreme Court that biometrics of Aadhaar cardholders were safe and had not fallen into other hands. He said the biometric details were kept in a central database run by the Centre.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindu-krishnadas-rajagopal-may-3-2017-aadhaar-data-leaks-not-from-uidai

Aadhaar data leak: Take precautions while sharing info on websites, MEITy tells all depts

praskrishna — 2017-05-19T14:59:38Z

‘Publishing identity info is in clear contravention of the provisions of the Aadhaar Act, 2016’

The article was published in the Indian Express on May 11, 2017.

In light of various Central and state government departments making public Aadhaar information of several users on their websites, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy) has written to secretaries of all government departments asking them to sensitise the officials and take precautions while publishing or sharing data on their websites.

“It has come to notice that there have been instances wherein personal identity or information of residents, alongwith Aadhaar numbers and demographic information and other sensitive personal data such as bank details collected by ministries/departments, state departments for administration of welfare schemes etc. have been
published online,” IT secretary Aruna Sundararajan wrote in the letter dated April 24.

“Publishing identity information i.e. Aadhaar number along with demographic information is in clear contravention of the provisions of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and constitutes an offence punishable with imprisonment up to three years. Further, publishing of financial information including bank details, being sensitive personal data, is also in contravention of provision under IT Act, 2000 with violations liable to pay damages by way of compensation to persons affected,” she noted.

According to media reports, Aadhaar numbers of hundreds of thousands of pension beneficiaries were published on a state government website, and was followed by Chandigarh’s Food and Civil Supplies Department revealing the Aadhaar information of beneficiaries of public distribution system. Following Sundararajan’s letter, various central government ministries have issued advisories to sensitise the officials and the web information managers to comply with the IT Act.

Earlier this month, a report by non-profit organisation The Centre for Internet and Society noted that up to 13.5 crore Aadhaar numbers were exposed and were publicly available on government websites, with about 10 crore of these being linked to bank account details. The 27-paged report — Information Security Practices of Aadhaar (or lack thereof): A documentation of public availability of Aadhaar Numbers with sensitive personal financial information — has collected Aadhaar data from four government portals.

Two of these are national portals: National Social Assistance Programme and Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, both under the rural development ministry. The other two studied by the report’s authors, Srinivas Kodali and Amber Sinha, are run by the AP government: a daily online payments report under MGNREGA by the state government, and Chandranna Bima Scheme.

“Based on the numbers available on the websites looked at, the estimated number of Aadhaar numbers leaked through these 4 portals could be around 130-135 million (13-13.5 crore) and the number of bank accounts numbers leaked at around 100 million (10 crore) from the specific portals we looked at,” the report stated.

The letter

“It has come to notice that there have been instances wherein…information of residents, alongwith Aadhaar numbers and demographic information…have been published online,” IT secretary Aruna Sundararajan wrote in the letter dated April 24

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-indian-express-may-11-2017-aadhaar-data-leak-take-precautions-while-sharing-info-on-websites-meity-tells-all-depts

Aadhaar Case: Beyond Privacy, An Issue of Bodily Integrity

Amber Sinha and Aradhya Sethia — 2017-05-03T16:02:02Z

The insertion of Section 139AA in the Income Tax Act has been challenged and is being heard by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court.

The article was published in the Quint on May 1, 2017.

The Finance Act, 2017, among its various sweeping changes, also inserted a new provision into the Section 139AA of the IT ACT, which makes Aadhaar numbers mandatory for:

(a) applying for PAN and

(b) filing income tax returns

In case one does not have an Aadhaar number, she or he is required to submit the enrolment ID of one’s Aadhaar application. The overall effect of this provision is that it makes Aadhaar mandatory for filing tax returns and applying for a PAN. The SC hearings began on 26 April. In order to properly appreciate the tough task at hand for the counsel for the petitioners, it is important to do a quick recap of the history of the Aadhaar case.

Case Over Constitutional Validity

Back in August 2015, the Supreme Court had referred the question of the constitutional validity of the fundamental right to privacy to a larger bench.

This development came after the Union government pointed out that the judgements in MP Sharma vs Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh vs State of UP (decided by eight and six judge benches respectively) rejected a constitutional right to privacy.

The reference to a larger bench has since delayed the entire Aadhaar case, while an alarming number of government schemes have made Aadhaar mandatory in the meantime.

Since then, the Supreme Court has not entertained any arguments related to privacy in the court proceedings on Aadhaar pending the resolution of this issue by a constitutional bench, which is yet to to be set up. The petitioners have had to navigate this significant handicap in the current proceedings as well.

Ongoing Hearing in Aadhaar Case

At the beginning of Advocate Shyam Divan’s arguments on behalf of the petitioners, the Attorney General objected to the petitioners making any argument related to the right to privacy. Anticipating this objection, Divan assured the court, right at the outset that they “will not argue on privacy issue at all”.

In the course of his arguments, Divan referred to at least three rights which may otherwise have been argued as facets of the right to privacy – personal autonomy, informational self-determination and bodily integrity. However, in this hearing those rights were strategically not couched as dimensions of privacy.

Divan consistently maintained that these rights emanate from Article 21 and Article 19 of the Constitutions and are different from the right to privacy.

Many Layers of the Right to Privacy

If one follows the courtroom exchanges in the original Aadhaar matter (not the one being argued now), the debates around the privacy implications of Aadhaar have focussed on simplistic balancing exercises of “security vs privacy” and “efficient governance vs privacy”.

These observations depict the right to privacy as a monolithic concept, i.e. a single right which has a unity of harm it captures within itself. In other words, all privacy harms are considered to be on the same footing. "Privacy harms" here mean the undesirable effects of the violation of the right to privacy.

This monolithic conception was clearly reflected in the Supreme Court’s decision to refer the constitutionality of “right to privacy” to a larger bench.

In MP Sharma vs Satish Chandra, the Supreme Court had rejected certain dimensions of what is generally understood as the right to privacy in a specific context (and hence dealing with a specific kind of privacy harm). A monolithic conception of the right to privacy would mean that MP Sharma should be applicable to all kinds of privacy claims.

Prof Daniel Solove, a privacy law expert, in his landmark paper “Taxonomy of Privacy” argues that the right to privacy captures multiple kinds of harms within itself. The right to privacy is not a monolithic concept, but a plural concept; there is no one right to privacy, but multiple hues of right to privacy.

Sidestepping ‘Privacy’ in the Current Case

The plural conception of the right to privacy not only makes our privacy jurisprudence more nuanced and comprehensive, but also guides us to analyse differential privacy harms according to the standards appropriate for them.

Therefore, the refusal of the Supreme Court in MP Sharma to recognise a specific construction of privacy read into a specific constitutional provision should not have precluded the bench, even one smaller in number, from treating other conceptions of privacy into the same or other constitutional provisions.

As a lawyer, Divan was severely compromised from being unable to argue the right to privacy, which in my opinion, cuts at the heart of the constitutional issues with the Aadhaar project.

He refrained from couching any of his arguments on bodily integrity, informational self-determination, and personal autonomy as privacy arguments. What the approach reveals is that far from being a monolithic notion, the harms that privacy, as we understand it, addresses, are capable of being broken into multiple and distinct rights.

Moving Beyond Article 21

Divan further argues that coercing someone to give personal information is compelled speech and hence, violative of Article 19(1)(a) (the rights to free speech and expression). Once again, the harm described here – compelling someone to part with personal data – is conventionally a privacy harm.

However, it is important to note here that a privacy harm may also be a speech harm. Therefore, Article 21 is not the sole repository of these rights. They may also be located under other articles. The practical consequence of these rights being located under multiple constitutional provisions could be added protection of these rights.

For instance, if it can be shown that compelling an individual to part with personal data results into violation of Article 19(1)(a), the State will have to show which ground laid down under Article 19(2) does the specific restriction fall under.

This might be more challenging as opposed to the vague standard of “compelling state interest” test which has been the constitutional test for privacy violations under Article 21.

Changing the Definition of Right to Privacy

The arguments presented by Divan, if accepted by the Supreme Court, could represent a two-pronged shift in the landscape of the values popularly understood under the right to privacy in India:

1) first, the idea of the rights of bodily integrity, informational self-determination, and personal autonomy as part of a plural concept (whether arising from the right to privacy or another right) that encompasses several harms within it, and

2) second that some of these rights may be read into other Articles in the Constitution.

Under the circumstances, Mr Divan’s performance was nothing short of heroic. Whether they pass muster and impact the course of this long drawn legal battle remains to be seen.

(Amber Sinha is a lawyer and works as a researcher at the Centre for Internet and Society. Aradhya Sethia is a final year law student at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-quint-amber-sinha-and-aradhya-sethia-may-1-2017-aadhaar-case-beyond-privacy-an-issue-of-bodily-integrity

Aadhaar Card: One Identity, Multiple Disorders

praskrishna — 2017-05-26T00:01:54Z

It is still hazy to see the desperation of the union government to imposing the Aadhaar Card mandatory when matters related to Aadhaar Card are already sub judice.

This was blog post by Gaurav Raj was published by India Saga on May 25, 2017.

The constitutionality of Aadhaar is yet to be decided by the Supreme Court, however, the enrolment of Aadhaar has reached the mark of more than one billion. Recently, the government declared Aadhaar mandatory to file Income Tax Return (ITR) while the Supreme Court is opined not to treat Aadhaar mandatory, but voluntarily. Now it is imperative of the government to confide the citizens that the Aadhaar information- demography and biometrics-are in safe hands, a debate which has been heating up, and the contempt of the court’s decision by the government is for greater good. But the uproar against the speculation of identity revelation threat and possible misuse of Aadhaar details by the government-corporate nexus, plausible reasons to doubt the security of privacy, which is a fundamental right of Indian citizen. Ironically, after the Finance Minister Arun Jaitley defended the ‘Aadhaar Money Bill controversy’ filed by former congress MP Jairam Ramesh in the court, the Supreme Court is in dilemma and yet to decide whether ‘Right to Privacy' is a fundamental right or not.

Why Aadhaar Card Mandatory?

Nandan Nilekani, the co-founder of Infosys and the ideologue of Aadhaar, said that Aadhaar will change the PDS system in India since it ensures no ghost or fake beneficiaries to avail unentitled benefits of the various welfare schemes and subsidies. Nilekani also says that there might be margin of error up to 5 per cent in distributing the subsidies or benefits of various welfare schemes to the masses. The top-honcho technocrat has also defended Aadhaar that any breach of privacy of citizens is not possible as the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is efficient to secure the public data under CIDR.

The government claims that the corruption-mounted Public Distribution System (PDS) in India is reformed due to the introduction of the 12 digit unique identification number. More than 40000 crore have been saved in the form of exchequer due to curb of fake and ghost beneficiaries in the PDS system. Now if we believe Nilekani claim of 5% error, then more than 5 crore beneficiaries would be losing their benefits due the error in the biometric identification. The Infosys co-founder later said that if there is a margin of error then ‘One Time Password’ (OTP) comes in. However, he didn’t define what if there is a congestion of network in the remotest Indian villages where phone signals are rare? Standing on the PDS shop waiting for food grains and network, is certainly not an ideal way to avail the benefits of the government welfare schemes. In 2011, activist and writer Ruchika Gupta said in an interview to Tahalka, “The UID cannot address the bulk of delivery problems in the two of the biggest social sectors programmes like MGNREGA and PDS. Linking UID with social sector legislation is completely baseless.”

PAN Card Linked with Aadhaar Card?

The government has directed the Reserve Bank of India to make Aadhaar mandatory for Income Tax Return filing. Currently, there are approximately 24.37 crores PAN holders in India, however 3.8 crore people file income tax return every year. There have been cases of people owned not more than one but 100 PAN Cards with them. PAN cards in India are mostly used by the citizens as a proof of identity. The government believes that PAN card linking with Aadhaar will curb the tax evasion.

How Safe Is Your Data In This Panopticon Model Of Mass Surveillance?

In the late 18th century, the well-known English social reformer and jurist Jeremy Bentham wanted to build a ‘panoptican’ for a mass surveillance of the prisoners in England. He advocated designing an institutional building be used to keep an eye on all the jail inmates by a single watchman. Very similarly, India is witnessing the biggest surveillance program ever under the name of single identity and availing benefits of governments’ schemes. Another logic behind enrolment of Aadhaar is the ‘national security’. National security? How can any government ensure national security backing Aadhaar, when international companies have been hired in consortium to collect residents’ biometric and demography details? In 2010, Accenture, Mahindra-Satyam Morpho and L1 identity solutions were pooled in by UIDAI for leveraging de-duplication exercise of Aadhaar and data collection. L1 Identity Solutions’ top brasses are the former Director CIA George Tenet and former Homeland Security deputy secretary Adm James. With its headquarters in Connecticut, this company is one of the biggest defence contractors specialised in facial recognition and biometrics. L1 Identity Solutions and Accenture work in a close affinity to US intelligence agencies. This is an age of information. Corporate houses and big telecom players are dying to get details of consumers. Obvious are the concerns about the safety and security of the people’s data. It is feared that the database can be used for various marketing and business purposes.

CIDR, A Single Database Of People’s Data

Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) is a data management and storing agency in India which is initiated for the Aadhaar project. It is regulated by the statutory body of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). This centralised database is probably one of the biggest repositories on this planet.

In 2010, experts had claimed that more than a thousand government sites and portals were attacked more than 4000 times by China alone in one year. In April 2011, 77 million Sony Playstations and digital media delivery service Qriocity were hacked which resulted into a shutdown of the network for a week. The London School of Economics also reported that a central database of vulnerable to hacking and other terrorist and cyber crime activities. Recently Wannacry Ransomware virus hits the globe. More than 99 countries were affected.

Building one single repository for billions of Aadhaar Card data seems to be a big risk in the most vulnerable country where dat breach is at most.

Data Leak Crisis

UIDAI has so far spent approximately 5982.62 crores for more than a billion enrolments of Aadhaar Cards. 1615.34 crores have been spent between the financial year 2015-2016. Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru-based organization (CIS) has learned that data of more than 130 million Aadhaar card holders has been leaked from four government websites. They are National Social Assistance Programme, National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Chandranna Bima Scheme and Daily Online Payments Reports of NREGA. It also includes Bank details and other confidential details of millions of residents.

What is Next?

The Lok Sabha has passed the Aadhaar Bill as Money Bill. Mukul Rohatgi said in the Supreme Court that according to Article 110 of the constitution, there is use of consolidated funds of India so the bill is a Money bill. Chief Justice Khehar said, “Your object might be good but whether it is a ‘Money Bill’ or not is the question.” Justice Ramana referred to a 2014 judgment passed by the Apex court that courts had no jurisdiction over procedurals matters of legislative.” In response P. Chidambram, the counsel for Jairam Ramesh said, “This petition is not about a procedural matter. There has been substantive infraction.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-indiasaga-may-25-2017-aadhaar-card-one-identity-multiple-disorders

Aadhaar by Numbers

praskrishna — 2016-09-11T16:36:58Z

Sunil Abraham will be addressing a public seminar at an event organized by National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP) in New Delhi on Friday, April 29, 2016.

This talk will reflect on several aspects of the Aadhaar project from a technical perspective. First, there will be a reflection on biometrics as a unique, identification and authentication technology. Second, there will be a critique of open washing by the UIDAI through their adoption of free software and open standards and finally there will be an analysis of alternative technical solutions and architecture which will allow India to harvest the benefits of identity management without the harms and risks of centralized biometrics.

Sunil Abraham

Sunil Abraham (an Ashoka Fellow) is the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore/New Delhi. CIS is a 7 year old policy and academic research organisation that focuses on accessibility, access to knowledge, internet governance and telecommunications. He is also the founder and director of Mahiti, a 17 year old social enterprise that aims to reduce the cost and complexity of ICTs for the voluntary sector by using free software. Starting 2004, for 3 years, Sunil also managed the International Open Source Network, a project of UNDP's APDIP, serving 42 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Sunil currently serves on the advisory boards of OSF – Information Programme, Mahiti and Samvada.

The talk reflected on several aspects of the Aadhaar project from a technical perspective. First, there is a reflection on biometrics as a unique, identification and authentication technology. Second, there is a critique of open washing by the UIDAI through their adoption of free software and open standards and finally there is an analysis of alternative technical solutions and architecture which will allow India to harvest the benefits of identity management without the harms and risks of centralized biometrics.

Video

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/aadhaar-by-numbers

Aadhaar Body Talked About Virtual ID 7 Years Ago, Put It Off: UIDAI Chief

Admin — 2018-01-16T23:42:58Z

"And at that time, it was felt that let us first give Aadhaar number, let us see how it plays out and then, at an appropriate time, this will be introduced," Ajay Bhushan Pandey, the chief executive officer of UIDAI, or the Unique Identification Authority of India said in an interview to NDTV this week. He called it an "extra layer of security" for the 119 crore people issued Aadhaar numbers.

The blog post by Sukriti Dwivedi was published by NDTV on January 13, 2018.

Virtual ID, the 16-digit temporary number, announced by UIDAI this week had been suggested way back in 2009-10 when its architects were still designing the system. But the Aadhaar authority, which has called Virtual ID a unique innovation to enhance privacy and security, decided against rolling it out at that time.

It may be a step forward. But not everyone is as convinced.

Cyber security Jiten Jain is one of them. Mr Jain told NDTV that UIDAI should first of all decide if the Aadhaar number was confidential information or not because it had changed its stance on this aspect on more than one occasion.

Like when government departments put out lakhs of Aadhaar number, the government agency had insisted that there was nothing really confidential about the number which could not be misused. Or when The Tribune earlier this month claimed to have found gaps in UIDAI's security system that let the newspaper demographic details of an individual, UIDAI claimed that "the Aadhaar number is not a secret number" anyways.

Also, a point is being made that if hiding an Aadhaar number enhances privacy, then what about the crores of people who have been forced to share their Aadhaar numbers - and a copy of their Aadhaar cards - all these years.

Experts suggest the timing of the announcement may not have been a coincidence. The initiative came against the backdrop of mounting privacy concerns after the newspaper expose. The hearing by a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court to decide if the Aadhaar project violates citizens' privacy is to start hearing from next week, January 17.

Srinivas Kodali, cyber security expert and an Aadhaar researcher, said it was clear that the UIDAI had brought it hurriedly. "They said they will release the codes by March 1. So it clearly looks like they haven't planned this thoroughly," he said.

There are also concerns about the ability of people living in remote areas to generate the Virtual IDs, in terms of connectivity and literacy. That means a large proportion of people would not be able to generate the Virtual IDs.

UIDAI chief Mr Pandey said there was nothing to prevent them from continuing to use their Aadhaar number. It is an option, he stressed.

This, experts at the Bengaluru-based research group, Centre for Internet and Society, which has long advocated for a token system such as the Virtual ID, said was a problem area.

UIDAI chief Mr Pandey said there was nothing to prevent them from continuing to use their Aadhaar number. It is an option, he stressed.

This, experts at the Bengaluru-based research group, Centre for Internet and Society, which has long advocated for a token system such as the Virtual ID, said was a problem area.

"Privacy can be protected by design and not by choice," said CIS executive director Sunil Abraham, who believes the biggest flaw with Aadhaar was its design.

"Since it is not mandatory most people will just use the Aadhaar number instead of getting into the hassle of generating a VID... This is privacy through hurdles instead of privacy by design. I suggest authorities should generate VIDs for people and ensure that third parties only use VID and not the Aadhaar number," Pranesh Prakash at the CIS' policy director told NDTV.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-sukriti-dwivedi-january-13-2018-aadhaar-body-talked-about-virtual-id-7-years-ago-put-it-off-uidai-chief

Aadhaar Bill fails to incorporate suggestions by the Standing Committee

amber — 2016-03-10T15:58:57Z

In 2011, a standing committee report led by Yashwant Sinha had been scathing in its indictments of the Aadhaar BIll introduced by the UPA government. Five years later, the NDA government has introduced a new bill which is a rehash of the same. I look at the concerns raised by the committee report, none of which have been addressed by the new bill.

The article was published by The Wire on March 10, 2016

In December, 2010, the UPA Government introduced the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 in the Parliament. It was subsequently referred to a Standing Committee on Finance by the Speaker of Lok Sabha under Rule 331E of the the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. This Committee, headed by BJP leader Yashwant Sinha took evidence from the Minister of Planning and the UIDAI from the government, as well as seeking the view of parties such as the National Human Rights Commission, Indian Banks Association and researchers like Dr Reetika Khera and Dr. Usha Ramanathan. In 2011, having heard from various parties and considering the concerns and apprehensions about the UID scheme, the Committee deemed the bill unacceptable and suggested a re-consideration of the the UID scheme as well as the draft legislation.

The Aadhaar programme has so far been implemented under the Unique Identification Authority of India, a Central Government agency created through an executive order. This programme has been shrouded in controversy over issues of privacy and security resulting in a Public Interest Litigation filed by Judge Puttaswamy in the Supreme Court. While the BJP had criticised the project as well as the draft legislation when it was in opposition, once it came to power and particularly, after it launched various welfare schemes like Digital India and Jan Dhan Yojna, it decided to continue with it and use Aadhaar as the identification technology for these projects. In the last year, there have been orders passed by the Supreme Court which prohibited making Aadhaar mandatory for availing services. One of the questions that the government has had to answer both inside and outside the court on the UID project is the lack of a legislative mandate for a project of this size. About five years later, the new BJP led government has come back with a rehash of the same old draft, and no comments made by the standing committee have been taken into account.

The Standing Committee on the old bill had taken great exception to the continued collection of data and issuance of Aadhaar numbers, while the Bill was pending in the Parliament. The report said that the implementation of the provisions of the Bill and continuing to incur expenditure from the exchequer was a circumvention of the prerogative powers of the Parliament. However, the project has continued without abeyance since its inception in 2009. I am listing below some of the issues that the Committee identified with the UID project and draft legislation, none of which have been addressed in current Bill.

One of the primary arguments made by proponents of Aadhaar has been that it would be useful in providing services to marginalized sections of the society who currently do not have identification cards and consequently, are not able to receive state sponsored services, benefits and subsidies. The report points that the project would not be able to achieve this as no statistical data on the marginalized sections of the society are being used to by UIDAI to provide coverage to them. The introducer systems which was supposed to provide Aadhaar numbers to those without any form of identification, has been used to enroll only 0.03% of the total number of people registered. Further, the Biometrics Standards Committee of UIDAI has itself acknowledged the issues caused due to a high number of manual laborers in India which would lead to sub-optimal fingerprint scans. A report by 4G Identity Solutions estimates that while in any population, approximately 5% of the people have unreadable fingerprints, in India it could lead to a failure to enroll up to 15% of the population. In this manner, the project could actually end up excluding more people.

The Report also pointed to a lack of cost-benefit analysis done before going ahead with scheme of this scale. It makes a reference to the report by the London School of Economics on the UK Identity Project which was shelved due to a) huge costs involved in the project, b) the complexity of the exercise and unavailability of reliable, safe and tested technology, c) risks to security and safety of registrants, d) security measures at a scale that will result in substantially higher implementation and operational costs and e) extreme dangers to rights of registrants and public interest. The Committee Report insisted that such global experiences remained relevant to the UID project and need to be considered. However, the new Bill has not been drafted with a view to address any of these issues.

The Committee comes down heavily on the irregularities in data collection by the UIDAI. They raise doubts about the ability of the Registrars to effectively verify the registrants and a lack of any security audit mechanisms that could identify issues in enrollment. Pointing to the news reports about irregularities in the process being followed by the Registrars appointed by the UIDAI, the Committee deems the MoUs signed between the UIDAI and the Registrars as toothless. The involvement of private parties has been under question already with many questions being raised over the lack of appropriate safeguards in the contracts with the private contractors.

Perhaps the most significant observation of the Committee was that any scheme that facilitates creation of such a massive database of personal information of the people of the country and its linkage with other databases should be preceded by a comprehensive data protection law. By stating this, the Committee has acknowledged that in the absence of a privacy law which governs the collection, use and storage of the personal data, the UID project will lead to abuse, surveillance and profiling of individuals. It makes a reference to the Privacy Bill which is still at only the draft stage. The current data protection framework in the Section 43A rules under the Information Technology Act, 2000 are woefully inadequate and far too limited in their scope. While there are some protection built into Chapter VI of the new bill, these are nowhere as comprehensive as the ones articulated in the Privacy Bill. Additionally, these protections are subject to broad exceptions which could significantly dilute their impact.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/aadhaar-bill-fails-to-incorporate-suggestions-by-the-standing-committee

Aadhaar Bill 2016 Evaluated against the National Privacy Principles

Pooja Saxena and Amber Sinha — 2016-03-21T08:38:34Z

In this infographic, we evaluate the privacy provisions of the Aadhaar Bill 2016 against the national privacy principles developed by the Group of Experts on Privacy led by the Former Chief Justice A.P. Shah in 2012. The infographic is based on Vipul Kharbanda’s article 'Analysis of Aadhaar Act in the Context of A.P. Shah Committee Principles,' and is designed by Pooja Saxena, with inputs from Amber Sinha.

Download the infographic: PDF and PNG.

License: It is shared under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/aadhaar-bill-2016-evaluated-against-the-national-privacy-principles

Aadhaar Bill 2016 & NIAI Bill 2010 - Comparing the Texts

sumandro — 2016-03-09T11:25:01Z

This is a quick comparison of the texts of the Aadhaar Bill 2016 and the National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010. The new sections in the former are highlighed, and the deleted sections (that were part of the latter) are struck out.

Source: http://cis-india.github.io/aadhaar-bill-2016/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/aadhaar-bill-2016-niai-bill-2010-text-comparison

Aadhaar assurances fail to assuage privacy concerns

praskrishna — 2017-05-20T06:23:32Z

While Aadhaar may be secure from external attacks, a failsafe system hasn’t been developed to protect it from Edward Snowden-style leakages and hacks.

The article by Anirban Sen was published by Livemint on May 5, 2017. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

As calls for a privacy and data protection law grow louder with each passing day amid reports of a central government ministry having made up to 130 million Aadhaar numbers public on its website, widespread concerns continue to emerge over loopholes in the security of the unique identification programme, though the man who created the system continues to defend the security and integrity of the system.

Most worryingly, a consensus is emerging among security and privacy experts, who have argued that while the Aadhaar system may be secure from external attacks, a failsafe system has not been developed to protect it from Edward Snowden-style internal leaks or hacks.

“(What has been suggested by the Unique Identification Authority of India and Nandan Nilekani) is that there will never be a data breach like what we saw in the US with the National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, or Office of Personnel and Management breaches (data of federal government personnel, including more than 5.6 fingerprints, was leaked), or in Mexico or Turkey, or even in India when the department of defence was breached for cyber-espionage for multiple years without detection,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society.

“While the system may be secure from external attacks, there is no failsafe system to make it invulnerable to Snowden-style breaches,” he added.

In an interview, former UIDAI chairman and Infosys Ltd co-founder Nandan Nilekani continued to defend the security of the system and said steps are being taken everyday to enhance the failsafe processes surrounding the system.

“I think the Aadhaar system is extremely well-designed. It’s not an online system that is exposed to the Internet. When enrolment happens, the packet is encrypted at source and sent, so that there can’t be a man-in-the-middle attack. And when the authentication happens, that is also encrypted—not compared to the original data, but to a digital minutiae. The point is that the system is very, very secure. So, if the objection is to centralization, then you should not have clouds. Clouds are also centralized,” said Nilekani. He added that Aadhaar was also safe from internal breaches, an assumption that is being challenged by security experts all across.

“Within seven years of its launch, the Aadhaar system has made a remarkable leap in terms of its security and privacy and it will keep improving things. Technology does not come through immaculate conception, where one morning some perfect technology is born. It has to evolve. It’s called learning by doing,” added Nilekani. He added that improving the security of the system is an ongoing process and conceded that a data protection and privacy law needs to be in place to supplement the current Aadhaar law.

“I know the government has sent a notice to everyone. If somebody has done it; they ought not to have done it—there’s a law for that,” said Nilekani when asked about recent instances of Aadhaar numbers being made public by government departments.

“We should have a data protection and privacy law which is an umbrella law, which looks at all these phenomena and certainly Aadhaar should be part of that. That’s perfectly fine—but people are behaving as if Aadhaar is the only reason why we should have a privacy law,” added Nilekani.

The last few weeks and months have witnessed a steady stream of negative news surrounding Aadhaar and three main cases are currently being fought in the Supreme Court, including one challenging the government’s decision to make the 12-digit ID mandatory for filing income tax returns as well as for obtaining and retaining a PAN Card.

Meanwhile, as Mint reported in April, questions are being raised on the Aadhaar biometric authentication failure rate in the rural job guarantee scheme in areas such as Telangana.

The report of Aadhaar numbers being listed on the government ministry website has caused widespread uproar, although a lawyer pointed out that it is not due to a breach in the Aadhaar system.

“It’s a misnomer to say this a leak because this was voluntarily, very actively put up there. A leak is when some information being kept securely gets breached somehow and comes out. Now, why is this information up on government websites? This is the problem of our government’s perception of transparency...The fact that the Aadhaar numbers are on the government website is not a flaw of the Aadhaar system, but it is a flaw of the understanding of what needs to be done to demonstrate transparency,” said Rahul Matthan, partner at Trilegal.

In a column in Mint, Matthan had also pointed out that while Aadhaar has been a transformative project, there remains enough scope of misusing the database.

“There is a legitimate fear that this identity technology will open us all up to discrimination, prejudice and the risk of identity theft,” Matthan wrote. “Aadhaar has given us the tools to harness data in large volumes. If used wisely, this technology can transform the nation. If not, it can cause us untold harm. We need to be prepared for the impending flood of data—we need to build dams, sluice gates and canals in its path so that we can guide its flow to our benefit.”

Even as both sides debate the issue of Aadhaar’s security, calls are getting louder to revamp the unique identification database.

“The point is that the UIDAI knows the device ID of the machine with which the biometric transaction took place along with the time and date, which means that by just using basic data analytics, any one with access to the transaction logs from the UIDAI (which have to be kept for a period of 5 years and 6 months) can have a complete view of a person’s Aadhaar-based interactions that are increasing day by day.”

“Further, the UIDAI has built up a biometric profile of the entire country. This means that courts can order UIDAI to provide law enforcement agencies the biometrics for an entire state (as the Bombay high court did) to check if they match against the fingerprints recovered from a crime scene. This too is surveillance, since it collects biometrics of all residents in advance rather than just that of criminal suspects,” said Prakash of CIS.

“The UIDAI could have chosen to derive unique 16 digit numbers from your Aadhaar number and provide a different one to each requesting entity. That would have prevented much of these fears. But the UIDAI did not opt for that more privacy-friendly design,” he added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-may-5-2017-anirban-sen-aadhaar-assurances-fail-to-assuage-privacy-concerns

Aadhaar Act and its Non-compliance with Data Protection Law in India

vanya — 2016-04-18T11:43:02Z

This post compares the provisions of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, with India's data protection regime as articulated in the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011.

Download the file: PDF.

Amidst all the hue and cry, the Aadhaar Act 2016, which was introduced with the aim of providing statutory backing to the use of Aadhaar, was passed in the Lok Sabha in its original form on March 16, 2016, after rejecting the recommendations made by Rajya Sabha . Though the Act has been vehemently opposed on several grounds, one of the concerns that has been voiced is regarding privacy and protection of the demographic and biometric information collected for the purpose of issuing the Aadhaar number.

In India, for the purpose of data protection, a body corporate is subject to section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ("IT Act ") and subsequent Rules, i.e. -The Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 ("IT Rules"). Section 43A of the IT Act, 2000 holds a body corporate, which is possessing, dealing or handling any sensitive personal data or information, and is negligent in implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices resulting in wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any person, liable to compensate the affected person and pay damages.

Rule 3 of the IT Rules enlists personal information that would amount to Sensitive personal data or information of a person and includes the biometric information. Even the Aadhaar Act states under section 30 that the biometric information collected shall be deemed as "sensitive personal data or information", which shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (iii) of the Explanation to section 43A of the IT Act; this reflects that biometric data collected in the Aadhaar scheme will receive the same level of protection as is provided to other sensitive personal data under Indian law. This implies that, the agencies contracted by the UIDAI (and not the UIDAI itself) to perform functions like collection, authentication, etc. like the Registrars, Enrolling Agencies and Requesting Entities, which meet the criteria of being a 'body corporate' as defined in section 43A, could be held responsible under this provision, as well as the Rules, to ensure security of the data and information of Aadhaar holder and could potentially be held liable for breach of information that results in loss to an individual if it can be proven that they failed to implement reasonable security practices and procedures.

In light of the fact that some actors in the Aadhaar scheme could be held accountable and liable under section 43A and associated Rules, this article compares the regulations regarding data security as found in section 43A and IT Rules 2011 with the provisions of Aadhaar Act 2016, and discusses the implications of the differences, if any.

1. Compensation and Penalty

Section 43A: Section 43A of the IT Act, 2000 (Amended in 2008) provides for compensation for failure to protect data. It states that a body corporate, which is possessing, dealing or handling any sensitive personal data or information, and is negligent in implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices resulting in wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any person, is liable to compensate the affected person and pay damages not exceeding five crore rupees.

Aadhaar Act : Chapter VII of the Act provides for offences and penalties, but does not talk about damages to the affected party.

Section 37 states that intentional disclosure or dissemination of identity information, to any person not authorised under the Aadhaar Act, or in violation of any agreement entered into under the Act, will be punishable with imprisonment up to three years or a fine up to ten thousand rupees (in case of an individual), and fine up to one lakh rupees (in case of a company).
Section 38 prescribes penalty with imprisonment up to three years and a fine not less than ten lakh rupees in case any of the acts listed under the provision are performed without authorisation from the UIDAI.
Section 39 prescribes penalty with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees for tampering with data in Central Identities Data Repository.
Section 40 holds a requesting entity liable for penalty for use of identity information in violation of Section 8 (3) with imprisonment up to three years and/or a fine up to ten thousand rupees (in case of an individual), and fine up to one lakh rupees (in case of a company).
Section 41 holds a requesting entity or enrolling agency liable for penalty for violation of Section 8 (3) or Section 3 (2) with imprisonment up to one year and/or a fine up to ten thousand rupees (in case of an individual), and fine up to one lakh rupees (in case of a company).
Section 42 provides general penalty for any offence against the Act or regulations made under it, for which no specific penalty is provided, with imprisonment up to one year and/or a fine up to twenty five thousand rupees (in case of an individual), and fine up to one lakh rupees (in case of a company).

Though the Aadhaar Act prescribes penalty in case of unauthorised access, use or any other act contravening the Regulations, it fails to guarantee protection to the information and does not provide for compensation in case of violation of the provisions.

2. Privacy Policy

IT Rules: Rule 4 requires a body corporate to provide a privacy policy on their website, which is easily accessible, provides for the type and purpose of personal, sensitive personal information collected and used, and Reasonable security practices and procedures.

Aadhaar Act: Though in practise the contracting agencies (the body corporates under the Aadhaar ecosystem) may maintain a privacy policy on their website, the Aadhaar Act does not require a privacy policy for the UIDAI or other actors.

Implications: Because contracting agencies will be covered by the IT Rules if they are 'body corporates', the requirement to maintain a privacy policy will be applicable to them.

3. Consent

IT Rules: Rule 5 requires that prior to the collection of sensitive personal data, the body corporate must obtain consent, either in writing or through fax regarding the purpose of usage before collection of such information.

Aadhaar Act: The Act is silent regarding consent being acquired in case of the enrolling agency or registrars. However, section 8 provides that any requesting entity will take consent from the individual before collecting his/her Aadhaar information for authentication purposes, though it does not specify the nature (written/through fax).

Implications: If the enrolling agency is a body corporate, they will also be required to take consent prior to collecting and processing biometrics. It is possible that since the Aadhaar Act envisages a scheme which is quasi-compulsory in nature, a consent provision was deliberately left out. This circumstance would give the enrolling agencies an argument against taking consent, by saying that the Aadhaar Act is a specific legislation which is also later in point of time than the IT Rules, and a deliberate omission of consent coupled with the compulsory nature of the Aadhaar scheme would mean that they are not required to take consent of the individuals before enrolment.

4. Collection Limitation

IT Rules: Rule 5 (2) requires that a body corporate should only collect sensitive personal data if it is connected to a lawful purpose and is considered necessary for that purpose.

Aadhaar Act: Section 3(1) of the Act states that every resident shall be entitled to obtain an aadhaar number by submitting his demographic information and biometric information by undergoing the process of enrolment.

5. Notice

IT Rules: Rule 5(3) requires that while collecting information directly from an individual, the body corporate must provide the following information:

The fact that information is being collected
The purpose for which the information is being collected
The intended recipients of the information
The name and address of the agency that is collecting the information
The name and address of the agency that will retain the information

Aadhaar Act: Section 3 of the Act states that at the time of enrolment and collection of information, the enrolling agency shall notify the individual as to how their information will be used; what type of entities the information will be shared with; and that they have a right to see their information and also tell them how they can see their information. However, the Act is silent regarding notice of name and address of the agency collecting and retaining the information.

6. Retention Limitation

IT Rules: Rule 5(4) requires that body corporate must retain sensitive personal data only for as long as it takes to fulfil the stated purpose or otherwise required under law.

Aadhaar Act: The Act is silent regarding this and does not mention the duration for which the personal information of an individual shall be retained by the bodies/organisations contracted by UIDAI.

7. Purpose Limitation

IT Rules: Rule 5(5) requires that information must be used for the purpose that it was collected for.

Aadhaar Act Section 57 contravenes this and states that the Act will not prevent use of Aadhaar number for other purposes under law by the State or other bodies. Section 8 of the Act states that for the purpose of authentication, a requesting entity is required to take consent before collection of Aadhaar information and use it only for authentication with the CIDR. Section 29 of the Act states that the core biometric information collected will not be shared with anyone for any reason, and must not be used for any purpose other than generation of Aadhaar numbers and authentication. Also, the Identity information available with a requesting entity will not be used for any purpose other than what is specified to the individual, nor will it be shared further without the individual's consent.

Act will not prevent use of Aadhaar number for other purposes under law by the State or other bodies.

8. Right to Access and Correct

IT Rules : Rule 5(6) requires a body corporate to provide individuals with the ability to review the information they have provided and access and correct their personal or sensitive personal information.

Aadhaar Act : The Act provides under section 3 that at the time of enrolment, the individual needs to be informed about the existence of a right to access information, the procedure for making requests for such access, and details of the person or department in-charge to whom such requests can be made. Section 28 of the Act provides that every aadhaar number holder may access his identity information except core biometric information. Section 32 provides that every Aadhaar number holder may obtain his authentication record. Also, if the demographic or biometric information about any Aadhaar number holder changes, is lost or is found to be incorrect, they may request the UIDAI to make changes to their record in the CIDR.

9. Right to 'Opt Out' and Withdraw Consent

IT Rules: Rule 5(7) requires that the individual must be provided with the option of 'opting out' of providing data or information sought by the body corporate. Also, they must have the right to withdraw consent at any point of time.

Aadhaar Act: The Aadhaar Act does not provide an opt- out provision and also does not provide an option to withdraw consent at any point of time. Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act actually implies that once the Central or State government makes aadhaar authentication mandatory for receiving a benefit then the individual has no other option but to apply for an Aadhaar number. The only concession that is made is that if an Aadhaar number is not assigned to an individual then s/he would be offered some alternative viable means of identification for receiving the benefit.

10. Grievance Officer

IT Rules: Rule 5(9) requires that body corporate must designate a grievance officer for redressal of grievances, details of which must be posted on the body corporate's website and grievances must be addressed within a month of receipt.

Aadhaar Act: The Aadhaar Act does not provide for any such mechanism for grievance redressal by the registrars, enrolling agencies or the requesting entities. However, since the contracting agencies will also get covered by the IT Rules if they are 'body corporates', the requirement to designate a grievance officer would be applicable to them as well due to the IT Rules.

11. Disclosure with Consent, Prohibition on Publishing and Further Disclosure

IT Rules: Rule 6 requires that body corporate must have consent before disclosing sensitive personal data to any third person or party, except in the case with Government agencies for the purpose of verification of identity, prevention, detection, investigation, on receipt of a written request. Also, the body corporate or any person on its behalf shall not publish the sensitive personal information and the third party receiving the sensitive personal information from body corporate or any person on its behalf shall not disclose it further.

Aadhaar Act: Regarding the requesting entities, the Act provides that they shall not disclose the identity information except with the prior consent of the individual to whom the information relates. The Act also states that the Authority shall take necessary measures to ensure confidentiality of information against disclosures. However, as an exception under section 33, the UIDAI may reveal identity information, authentication records or any information in the CIDR following a court order by a District Judge or higher. The Act also allows disclosure made in the interest of national security following directions by a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, or an officer of a higher rank, authorised for this purpose. The Act is silent on the issue of obtaining consent of the individual under these exceptions. Additionally, the Act also states that the Aadhaar number or any core biometric information collected or created regarding an individual under the Act shall not be published, displayed or posted publicly, except for the purposes specified by regulations.

12. Requirements for Transfer of Sensitive Personal Data

IT Rules : Rule 7 requires that body corporate may transfer sensitive personal data into another jurisdiction only if the country ensures the same level of protection and may be allowed only if it is necessary for the performance of the lawful contract between the body corporate or any person on its behalf and provider of information or where such person has consented to data transfer.

Aadhaar Act : The Act is silent regarding transfer of personal data into another jurisdiction by the any of the contracting bodies like the Registrar, Enrolling agencies or the requesting entities. However, if these agencies satisfy the requirement of being "body corporates" as defined under section 43A, then the above requirement regarding transfer of data to another jurisdiction under IT Rules would be applicable to them. However, considering the sensitive nature of the data involved, the lack of a prohibition of transferring data to another jurisdiction under the Aadhaar Act appears to be a serious lacuna.

13. Security of Information

IT Rules: Rule 8 requires that the body corporate must secure information in accordance with the ISO 27001 standard or any other best practices notified by Central Government. These practices must be audited annually or when the body corporate undertakes a significant up gradation of its process and computer resource.

Aadhaar Act: Section 28 of the Act states that the UIDAI must ensure the security and confidentiality of identity information and authentication records. It also states that the Authority shall adopt and implement appropriate technical and organisational security measures, and ensure the same are imposed through agreements/arrangements with its agents, consultants, advisors or other persons. However, it does not mention which standards/measures have to be adopted by all the actors in Aadhaar ecosystem for ensuring the security of information, though it can be argued that if the contractors employed by the UIDAI are body corporate then the standards prescribed under the IT Rules would be applicable to them.

Implications of the Differences for Body Corporates in Aadhaar Ecosystem

An analysis of the Rules in comparison to the data protection measures under the Aadhaar Act shows that the requirements regarding protection of personal or sensitive personal information differ and are not completely in line with each other.

Though the Aadhaar Act takes into account the provisions regarding consent of the individual, notice, restriction on sharing, etc., the Act is silent regarding many core measures like sharing of information across jurisdictions, taking consent before collection of information, adoption of security measures for protection of information, etc. which a body corporate in the Aadhaar ecosystem must adopt to be in compliance with section 43A of the IT Act. It is therefore important that the bodies collecting, handling, sharing the personal information and are governed by the Aadhaar Act, must adhere to section 43A and the IT Rules 2011. However, applicability of Aadhaar Act as well as section 43A and IT Rules 2011 would lead to ambiguity regarding interpretation and implementation of the Law. The differences must be duly taken into account and more clarity is required to make all the bodies under this Legislation like the enrolling agencies, Registrars and the Requesting Entities accountable under the correct provisions of Law. However, having two separate legislations governing the data protection standards in the Aadhaar scheme seems to have been overlooked. A harmonized and overarching privacy legislation is critical to avoid unclarity in the applicability of data protection standards and would also address many privacy concerns associated to the scheme.

Appendix I

The Rajya Sabha had proposed five amendments to the Aadhaar Act 2016, which are as follows:

i. Opt-out clause: A provision to allow a person to "opt out" of the Aadhaar system, even if already enrolled.

ii. Voluntary: To ensure that if a person chooses not to be part of the Aadhaar system, he/she would be provided "alternate and viable" means of identification for purposes of delivery of government subsidy, benefit or service.

iii. Amendment restricting the use of Aadhaar numbers only for targeting of government benefits or service and not for any other purpose.

iv. Amendment seeking change of the term "national security" to "public emergency or in the interest of public safety" in the provision specifying situations in which disclosure of identity information of an individual to certain law enforcement agencies can be allowed.

v. Oversight Committee: The oversight committee , which would oversee the possible disclosure of information, should include either the Central Vigilance Commissioner or the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Sources:

Appendix II - Section 43A: Compensation for Failure to Protect Data

Where a body corporate, possessing, dealing or handling any sensitive personal data or information in a computer resource which it owns, controls or operates, is negligent in implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices and procedures and thereby causes wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any person, such body corporate shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the person so affected.

For the purposes of this section:

"body corporate" means any company and includes a firm, sole proprietorship or other association of individuals engaged in commercial or professional activities;
"reasonable security practices and procedures" means security practices and procedures designed to protect such information from unauthorised access, damage, use, modification, disclosure or impairment, as may be specified in an agreement between the parties or as may be specified in any law for the time being in force and in the absence of such agreement or any law, such reasonable security practices and procedures, as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with such professional bodies or associations as it may deem fit;
"sensitive personal data or information" means such personal information as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with such professional bodies or associations as it may deem fit.'.

The term 'body corporate' has been defined under section 43A as "any company and includes a firm, sole proprietorship or other association of individuals engaged in commercial or professional activities"

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/aadhaar-act-and-its-non-compliance-with-data-protection-law-in-india

A scheme in India to help the poor raises privacy concerns

praskrishna — 2016-03-17T03:08:33Z

India’s legislators are on Wednesday debating a law that would allow the government to collect biometric and demographic information from people in return for distributing to them government benefits and subsidies.

The article by John Ribeiro published by IDG News Service on March 16, 2016 was also mirrored on CSO.

A number of legislators and civil rights activists are concerned about the absence of strong privacy safeguards in the legislation and a provision in the law that allows the government to access the data collected for national security reasons. There is also concern that such a large centralized database of personal information could be hacked and critical information leaked.

Biometric information, once leaked cannot be 'revoked,' and identity fraud may in fact become harder to detect if Aadhaar is used for authentication of transactions, said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, in an email.

Activists are also wary that the program could be extended by the government to make it a mandatory digital ID card for people in the country. Already some telecommunications services and financial services companies use the biometric identity as an optional way for verifying customers. Currently, people can keep their personal information in silos, as for example their insurance company can't combine their database with that of a hospital, Prakash said. "However, with Aadhaar as a unique linking factor, they could, even without the person's consent," he added.

The biometric ID, which assigns a person a 12-digit number called the Aadhaar number, requires the collection of photos, fingerprints, iris scans and other information such as the name, date of birth and address of the individual. Every time a person has to be verified, he has to present the Aadhaar number, and his biometric information has to match the data stored in a centralized repository.

The digital identity is expected to provide proof of identification to the large number of poor Indians who do not have house addresses, school certificates, birth certificates or other documents that are usually used to prove identity in India.

The traditional paper ration books used in the country are notoriously stuffed with people who are nonexistent or who do not typically qualify for benefits, so the government hopes to save some money by linking the benefits to a digital identity. But the new scheme addresses only end-user fraud and not the large-scale theft prevalent in the entire supply chain, according to analysts.

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, a member of India’s Parliament, has proposed amendments to the bill that would ensure that Aadhaar numbers should not be used as proof of identity for purposes other than subsidies and benefits. Chandrasekhar also wants the Unique Identification Authority of India that manages the project to be responsible for ensuring the security and privacy of the biometric and demographic information of the account holder, with liability for damages in a civil court in the case of a breach.

The Aadhaar program has been allotting IDs for a number of years, even under a previous government, but the program was the offshoot of an executive order and had no legal sanction. The country’s Supreme Court ruled in 2013 in an interim order that people cannot be required to have Aadhaar identification to collect state subsidies. Aware of the legal minefield it was treading on, the government had said the scheme was voluntary.

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 passed recently in the Lok Sabha, one of the houses of India’s parliament, now aims to make the scheme mandatory. The bill sailed through the Lok Sabha where the government has a majority, but will likely meet with strong opposition from the other house, the Rajya Sabha. But the government has classified the bill as a money bill and the Rajya Sabha does not have the final say on such bills. So the legislation is likely to be passed in any case despite its limitations.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/a-scheme-in-india-to-help-the-poor-raises-privacy-concerns

A judicial overreach into matters of regulation

gurshabad — 2019-08-28T01:28:52Z

A PIL on Aadhaar sheds light on some problematic trends

The article by Gurshabad Grover was published in the Hindu on August 27, 2019.

The Madras High Court has been hearing a PIL petition since 2018 that initially asked the court to declare the linking of Aadhaar with a government identity proof as mandatory for registering email and social media accounts. The petitioners, victims of online bullying, went to the court because they found that law enforcement agencies were inefficient at investigating cybercrimes, especially when it came to gathering information about pseudonymous accounts on major online platforms. This case brings out some of the most odious trends in policymaking in India.

The first issue is how the courts, as Anuj Bhuwania has argued in the book Courting the People, have continually expanded the scope of issues considered in PILs. In this case, it is absolutely clear that the court is not pondering about any question of law. In what could be considered as abrogation of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution, the Madras High Court started to deliberate on a policy question with a wide-ranging impact: Should Aadhaar be linked with social media accounts?

After ruling out this possibility, it went on to consider a question that is even further out of its purview: Should platforms like WhatsApp that provide encrypted services allow forms of “traceability” to enable finding the originator of content? In essence, the court is now trying to regulate one particular platform on a very specific technical question, ignoring legal frameworks entirely. It is worrying that the judiciary is finding itself increasingly at ease with deliberations on policy and regulatory measures, and its recent actions remind us that the powers of the court also deserve critical questioning.

Government’s support

Second, not only are governments failing to assert their own powers of regulation in response to the courts’ actions, they are on the contrary encouraging such PILs. The Attorney General, K.K. Venugopal, who is representing the State of Tamil Nadu in the case, could have argued for the case’s dismissal by referring to the fact that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has already published draft regulations that aim to introduce “traceability” and to increase obligations on social media platforms. Instead, he has largely urged the court to pass regulatory orders.

Third, ‘Aadhaar linking’ is becoming increasingly a refrain whenever any matter even loosely related to identification or investigation of crime is brought up. While the Madras High Court has ruled out such linking for social media platforms, other High Courts are still hearing petitions to formulate such rules. The processes that law enforcement agencies use to get information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions rely on international agreements. Linking Aadhaar with social media accounts will have no bearing on these processes. Hence, the proposed ‘solution’ misses the problem entirely, and comes with its own threats of infringing privacy.

Problems of investigation

That said, investigating cybercrime is a serious problem for law enforcement agencies. However, the proceedings before the court indicate that the cause of the issues have not been correctly identified. While legal provisions that allow agencies to seek information from online platforms already exist in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Information Technology Act, getting this information from platforms based in foreign jurisdictions can be a long and cumbersome process. For instance, the hurdles posed by the mutual legal assistance treaty between India and the U.S. effectively mean that it might take months to receive a response to information requests sent to U.S.-based platforms, if a response is received at all.

To make cybercrime investigation easier, the Indian government has various options. India should push for fairer executive agreements possible under instruments like the United States’ CLOUD Act, for which we need to first bring our surveillance laws in line with international human rights standards through reforms such as judicial oversight. India could use the threat of data localisation as a leverage to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries to ensure that agencies have recourse to quicker procedures. As a first step, however, Indian courts must wash their hands of such questions. For its part, the Centre must engage in consultative policymaking around these important issues, rather than support ad-hoc regulation through court orders in PILs.

(Disclosure: The CIS is a recipient of research grants from Facebook.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-august-27-2019-a-judicial-overreach-into-matters-of-regulation

A comparison of the 2016 Aadhaar Bill, and the 2010 NIDAI Bill

Vanya Rakesh — 2016-03-09T04:08:01Z

This blog post does a clause-by-clause comparison of the provisions of National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 and the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016

Title

2010 Bill: The Bill was titled as the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010.

2016 Bill : The Bill has been titled as the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

Purpose/Object Clause

2010 Bill: The purpose of Bill was stated to provide for the establishment of the National Identification Authority of India to issue identification numbers to residents of India as well as certain other classes of individuals , to facilitate access to benefits and services, to which they are entitled.

2016 Bill : The purpose of this Bill has been stated to ensure targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services to residents of India in an efficient and transparent manner by assigning unique identity numbers to such individuals.

Definitions

2010 Bill: “Authentication” was defined as the process in which the Aadhaar number, along with other attributes (including biometrics) are submitted to the Central Identities Data Repository for verification, done on the basis of information, data or documents available with the Repository.
2016 Bill : “Authentication” has been defined as the process by which the Aadhaar number, along with demographic or biometric information of an individual is submitted to the Central Identities Data Repository for the purpose of verification, done on the basis of the correctness of (or lack of) information available with it.

2010 Bill: “Authentication Record” was not defined in the previous Bill.
2016 Bill : “Authentication Record” has been defined under clause 2(d) as the record of the time of authentication, the identity of the entity requesting such record and the response provided by the Authority for this purpose.

2010 Bill: “Authority” was defined under clause 2(d) as National Identification Authority of India established under provisions of the Bill.

2016 Bill :“Authority” has been defined under clause 2(e) as Unique Identification Authority of India established under provisions of the Bill.

2010 Bill: “Benefit” was not defined in the previous Bill.
2016 Bill : “Benefit” has been defined under clause 2(f) as any advantage, gift, reward, relief, or payment (either in cash or kind), or such other benefits, which is provided to an

individual/ a group of individuals as notified by the Central Government.

2010 Bill: “Biometric Information” was defined under clause 2(e) as a set of biological attributes of an individual as may be specified by regulations.
2016 Bill : “Biometric Information” has been defined under clause 2(g) as biological attributes of an individual like photograph, fingerprint, Iris scan, or other such biological

attributes as may be specified by regulations.

2010 Bill: “Core Biometric Information” was not defined in the previous Bill.
2016 Bill : “Core Biometric Information” has been defined under clause 2(j) as biological attribute of an individual like fingerprint, Iris scan, or such other biological attribute as

may be specified by regulations.

2010 Bill: “Demographic Information” was defined under clause 2(h) as information specified in the regulations for the purpose of issuing an Aadhaar number, like information relating to the name, age, gender and address of an individual (other than race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, income or health), and such other information.
2016 Bill : “Demographic Information” has been defined under clause 2(k) as information of an individual as may be specified by regulations for the purpose of issuing an Aadhaar number like information relating to the name, date of birth, address and other relevant information, excluding race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, records of entitlement, income or medical history of an individual.

2010 Bill: “Enrolling Agency” was defined under clause 2(i) as an agency appointed by the Authority or the Registrars for collecting information under the Act.
2016 Bill : “Enrolling Agency” has been defined under clause 2(l) as an agency appointed by the Authority or a Registrar for collecting demographic and biometric information of individuals under this Act.

2010 Bill: “Member” was defined under clause 2(l) to include the Chairperson and a part-time Member of the Authority appointed under the provisions of the Bill.
2016 Bill : “Member” has been defined under clause 2(o) to include the Chairperson and Member of the Authority appointed under the provisions of the Bill.

2010 Bill: “Records of Entitlement” was not defined under the previous Bill.
2016 Bill : “Records of Entitlement” has been defined under clause 2(r) as the records of benefits, subsidies or services provided to, or availed by, any individual under any programme.

2010 Bill: “Requesting Entity” was not defined under the previous Bill.
2016 Bill : “Requesting Entity” has been defined under clause 2(u) as an agency or person that submits information of an individual comprising of the Aadhaar number and

demographic or biometric information to the Central Identities Data Repository for the purpose of authentication.

2010 Bill: “Resident” was defined under clause 2(q) as an individual usually residing in a village, rural area, town, ward, demarcated area (demarcated by the Registrar General of Citizen Registration) within a ward in a town or urban area in India.
2016 Bill : “Resident” has been defined under clause 2(v) as an individual who has resided in India for a period or periods amounting in all to one hundred and eighty-two days or more in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of application for enrolment.

2010 Bill: “Review Committee” was defined under clause 2(r) as the Identification Review Committee constituted under the provisions of the Bill.
2016 Bill : “Review Committee” has not been defined under the Bill.

2010 Bill: “Service” was not defined in the previous Bill.
2016 Bill : “Service” has been defined under clause 2 (w) as any provision, facility, utility or any other assistance provided in any form to an individual or a group of individuals as may be notified by the Central Government.

2010 Bill: “Subsidy” was not defined in the previous Bill.
2016 Bill : “Subsidy” has been defined under clause 2(x) as any form of aid, support, grant, subvention, or appropriation (either in cash or kind), as may be notified by the Central Government, given to an individual or a group of individuals.

Enrolment

Aadhaar Numbers

2016 Bill : Under clause 3(2) of the Bill, it is stated that at the time of enrolment, The enrolling agency shall inform the individual undergoing enrolment the following details:

(a) the manner in which the information so collected shall be used,

(b) the nature of recipients with whom the information is intended to be shared during authentication,and

(c) the existence of a right to access information, the procedure for making such requests for access, and details of the person/department in-charge to whom such requests can be

made.

Properties of Aadhaar Number

2010 Bill : Clause 4 (3) stated that subject to authentication, the Aadhaar number shall be accepted as a proof of identity of the Aadhaar number holder.

2016 Bill : Clause 4 (3) states that subject to authentication, the Aadhaar number (either in physical or electronic form) shall be accepted as a proof of identity of the Aadhaar

number holder.

The Explanation under this clause states that for the purpose of this provision, “electronic form” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in section 2 (1) (r) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Authentication

Proof of Aadhaar number necessary for receipt of certain subsidies, benefits and services, etc.

2016 Bill : Under clause 7 of the Bill it is provided that for the purpose of establishing an individual's identity as a condition to receipt a a subsidy, benefit or service. the Central or State Government (as the case may be), require that such individual undergo authentication, or furnish proof of possession of Aadhaar number. In case the Aadhaar number has not been assigned to an individual, such individual must make an application for enrolment.

The Proviso states that the individual shall be offered alternate and viable means of identification for delivery of the subsidy, benefit or service, in an Aadhaar number is not assigned to an individual.

Authentication of Aadhaar number

2010 Bill: Clause 5 of the Bill stated that authentication of the Aadhaar number shall be performed by the Authority, in relation to the holders’ biometric and demographic information, subject to such conditions and on payment of the prescribed fees. Also, it was provided that the Authority shall respond to an authentication query with a positive, negative or other appropriate response (excluding any demographic and biometric information).

2016 Bill : The Bill states that authentication of the Aadhaar number shall be performed by the Authority, in relation to the holders’ biometric and demographic information, subject to such conditions and on payment of the prescribed fees.

Clause 8 (2) provides that unless otherwise provided in the Act, the requesting entity shall—

For the purpose of authentication, obtain the consent of an individual before collecting his identity information, and
ensure that the identity information of an individual is only used for submission to the Central Identities Data Repository for authentication.

Clause 8 (3) provides that the following details shall be informed by the requesting entity to the individual submitting his identity information for the purpose of authentication:

a. the nature of information that may be shared upon authentication;

b. the uses to which the information received during authentication may be put by the requesting entity; and

c. alternatives to submission of identity information to the requesting entity.

Clause 8(4) states that the Authority shall respond to an authentication query with a positive, negative or other appropriate response (excluding any core biometric information).

Prohibition on requiring certain information.

2010 Bill: Clause 9 of the Bill prohibited the Authority to make an individual give information pertaining to his race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, income or health.

2016 Bill : This provision has been removed from the 2016 Bill.

Unique Identification Authority Of India

Establishment of Authority

2010 Bill: Clause 11(1) of the Bill stated that the Central Government shall establish an Authority called as the National Identification Authority of India, to exercise the powers conferred on it and to perform the functions assigned to it under this Act. Also, clause 11(3) provided that the head office of the Authority shall be in the National Capital Region, referred to in section 2(f) of the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985.

2016 Bill : Clause 11(1) of the Bill states that the Central Government shall establish an Authority called as the Unique Identification Authority of India, responsible for the processes of enrolment, authentication and perform such other functions assigned to it under this Act. Also, clause 11(3) provides that the head office of the Authority shall be in New Delhi.

Composition of Authority

2010 Bill: Clause 12 provided that the Authority shall consist of a Chairperson and two part-time Members, to be appointed by the Central Government.

2016 Bill : Clause 12 of the Bill provides that the Authority shall consist of a Chairperson (appointed on part-time or full- time basis) , two part-time Members, and the chief executive officer (who shall be Member-Secretary of the Authority), to be appointed by the Central Government.

Qualifications for appointment of Chairperson and Members of Authority

2010 Bill: Clause 13 provided that the Chairperson and Members of the Authority shall be persons of ability, integrity and outstanding calibre having experience and knowledge in the matters relating to technology, governance, law, development, economics, finance, management, public affairs or administration.

2016 Bill : Clause 13 provides that the Chairperson and Members of the Authority shall be persons of ability and integrity having experience and knowledge of at least ten years in matters relating to technology, governance, law, development, economics, finance, management, public affairs or administration.

Term of office and other conditions of service of Chairperson.

2010 Bill: Proviso to Clause 14 (1) stated that the Chairperson of the Unique Identification Authority of India, who would have been appointed before the commencement of this Act by notification A-43011/02/2009-Admn.I (Vol.II) dated the 2nd July, 2009, shall continue as a Chairperson of the Authority for the term for which he had been appointed. Clause 14(4) prohibited the Chairperson from holding any other office during the period of holding his office in the Authority. Proviso to clause 14 (5) stated the salary, allowances and the other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.

2016 Bill : These provisions have not been included in the Bill.

Removal of Chairperson and Members

2010 Bill: Clause 15 (2) stated that unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard has been duly provided, the Chairperson or a Member shall not be removed under clauses (d) or (e) of sub-section (1).

2016 Bill : Clause 15 (2) stated that unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard has been duly provided, the Chairperson or a Member shall not be removed under clauses (b), (d) or (e) of sub-section (1).

Restrictions on Chairperson or Members on employment after cessation of office

2010 Bill: Clause 16 (a) provided that the Chairperson or a member, who ceases to hold office, shall not accept any employment in, or connected with the management or administration of, any person which has been associated with any work under the Act, for a period of three years from the date on which they cease to hold office, without previous approval of the Central Government.

The proviso to this clause stated that this provision shall not apply to any employment under the Central Government, State Government, local authority, any statutory authority or any corporation established by or under any Central, State or provincial Act or a Government Company, as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 195.

2016 Bill: Clause 16 (a) provides that the Chairperson or a member, who ceases to hold office, shall not accept any employment in, or connected with the management of any organisation, company or any other entity which has been associated with any work done or contracted out by the Authority (whether directly or indirectly), during his tenure as Chairperson or Member, as the case may be, for a period of three years from the date on which he ceases to hold office, without previous approval of the Central Government.

Functions of Chairperson

2010 Bill: Clause 17 of the Bill provided that the Chairperson shall have powers of general superintendence, direction in the conduct of the affairs of the Authority, preside over the meetings of the Authority, and exercise and discharge such other powers and functions of the Authority as prescribed, without prejudice to any of the provisions of the Act.

2016 Bill : Clause 17 of the Bill states that the Chairperson shall preside over the meetings of the Authority, and exercise and discharge such other powers and functions of the Authority as prescribed, without prejudice to any of the provisions of the Act.

Chief Executive Officer

2010 Bill: Clause 20 (1) of the Bill stated that a chief executive officer, not below the rank of the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, who shall be the Member-Secretary of the Authority,shall be appointed by the Central Government.

2016 Bill : Clause 18 (1) stated that a chief executive officer, not below the rank of the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, shall be appointed by the Central Government. In the list of its responsibilities, clause 18 (2) (e) additionally provides for performing such other functions, or exercising such other powers, as may be specified by regulations.

Meetings

2010 Bill: Clause 18 (4) provided that all decisions of the Authority shall be authenticated by the signature of the Chairperson or any other Member who is authorised by the Authority for this purpose.

2016 Bill : Clause 19 (4) provided that all decisions of the Authority shall be signed by the Chairperson, any other Member or the Member-Secretary authorised by the Authority.

Vacancies, etc., not to invalidate proceedings of Authority

2010 Bill: Clause 19 (b) of the Bill stated that No act or proceeding of the Authority shall be invalid merely by reason of any defect in the appointment of a person as a Member of the Authority

2016 Bill : Clause 20 (b) of the Bill stated that No act or proceeding of the Authority shall be invalid merely by reason of any defect in the appointment of a person as Chairperson or Member of the Authority

Powers and functions of Authority

Clause 23 (2) (k)

2010 Bill: Clause 23 (2) (k) provided that the powers and functions of the Authority may include sharing the information of Aadhaar number holders, with their written consent, with such agencies engaged in delivery of public benefits and public services as the Authority may by order direct, in a manner as specified by regulations.

2016 Bill : Clause 23 (2) (k) provides that the powers and functions of the Authority may include sharing the information of Aadhaar number holders, subject to the provisions of this Act.

Clause 23 (2) (r)

2010 Bill : Clause 23 (2) (r) stated that the powers and functions of the Authority may include specifying, by regulation, the policies and practices for Registrars, enrolling agencies and other service providers.

2016 Bill : Clause 23 (2) (r) states that the powers and functions of the Authority may include evolving of, and specifying, by regulation, the policies and practices for Registrars, enrolling agencies and other service providers.

Grants, Accounts and Audit and Annual Report

2010 Bill: Clause 25 provided that the fees or revenue collected by the Authority shall be credited to the Consolidated Fund of India and the entire amount so credited be transferred to the Authority.

2016 Bill : Clause 25 states that the fees or revenue collected by the Authority shall be credited to the Consolidated Fund of India.

Identity Review Committee

2010 Bill: Clause 28 of the Bill provided for establishment of the Identity Review Committee, consisting of three members (including the chairperson) who are persons of eminence, ability, integrity and having knowledge and experience in the fields of technology, law, administration and governance, social service, journalism, management or social sciences. Clause 29 of the Bill enlisted several functions to be undertaken by the Review Committee so constituted.

2016 Bill: These provisions have been removed from the Bill.

Protection of Information

Security and confidentiality of information

2010 Bill: Clause 30 (2) of the Bill stated that the Authority shall take measures (including security safeguards) to ensure security and protection of information in possession/control of the Authority (including information stored in the Central Identities Data Repository), against any loss, unauthorised access, use or unauthorised disclosure of the same.

2016 Bill : Clause 28 (3) states that the Authority shall take measures to ensure security and protection of information in possession/control of the Authority (including information stored in the Central Identities Data Repository), against access, use or disclosure not permitted under this Act or regulations made thereunder, and against accidental or intentional destruction, loss or damage.

A new provision-clause 28(4)- states that the Authority shall undertake the following additional measures for protection of information:

(a) adopt and implement appropriate technical and organisational security measures,

(b) ensure that the agencies, consultants, advisors or other persons appointed or engaged for performing any function of the Authority under this Act, have in place appropriate technical and organisational security measures for the information, and

(c) ensure that the agreements or arrangements entered into with such agencies, consultants, advisors or other persons, impose obligations equivalent to those imposed on the Authority under this Act, and require such agencies, consultants, advisors and other persons to act only on instructions from the Authority.

Restriction on sharing information

2010 Bill: The Bill did not provide for restrictions on sharing of information.

2016 Bill: This new provision under Clause 29 states that no core biometric information, collected or created under this Act, shall be—

(a) shared with anyone for any reason whatsoever; or

(b) used for any purpose other than generation of Aadhaar numbers and authentication under this Act.

Also, the identity information, other than core biometric information, collected or created

under this Act may be shared only in accordance with the provisions of this Act as specified under Regulations.

Clause 29 (3) prohibits usage of identity information available with a requesting entity for any purpose, other than that specified to the individual at the time of submitting any identity information for authentication, or disclosed further, except with the prior consent of the individual to whom such information relates.

Clause 29 (4) prohibits publication, displaying or publicly posting of the Aadhaar number or core biometric information collected or created under this Act in respect of an Aadhaar number holder, except for the purposes as may prescribed in Law.

Biometric information deemed to be sensitive personal information.

2010 Bill: The Bill did not contain provisions stating that the biometric information shall be deemed to be sensitive personal information for the purpose of this Act.

2016 Bill: Clause 30 states that the biometric information collected and stored in electronic form shall be deemed to be “electronic record” and “sensitive personal data or information”, and the provisions contained in the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the rules made thereunder shall apply to such information,to the extent not in derogation of the provisions of this Act.

The Explanation defines

(a) “electronic form” - as defined under section 2 (1) (r) of the Information Technology Act, 2000,

(b) “electronic record” as defined under section 2 (1) (t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000

(c)“sensitive personal data or information” - as defined under clause (iii) of the

Explanation to section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Security and confidentiality of information

A new provision-clause 28(4)- states that the Authority shall undertake the following additional measures for protection of information:

(a) adopt and implement appropriate technical and organisational security measures,

Alteration of demographic information or biometric information.

2016 Bill : Clause 31 (4) prohibits alteration of identity information in the Central Identities Data Repository, except in the manner provided in this Act or regulations made thereof.

Access to own information and records of requests for authentication.

2016 Bill : Clause 32 (3) provides that the Authority shall not collect, keep or maintain any information about the purpose of authentication, either by itself or through any entity under its control.

Disclosure of information in certain cases

2010 Bill: The provision creates an exception under Clause 33 for the purposes of disclosure of information in certain cases like disclosure (including identity information or details of authentication) made pursuant to an order of a competent court; or disclosure (including identity information) made in the interests of national security in pursuance of directions issued by an officer(s) not below the rank of Joint Secretary or equivalent in the Central Government specifically authorised in this behalf by an order of the Central Government.

2016 Bill : The provision creates an exception under Clause 33 for the purposes of disclosure of information in certain cases like disclosure (including identity information or details of authentication) made pursuant to an order not inferior to that of a District Judge (provided that the court order shall be made only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Authority); or disclosure (including identity information or authentication records) made in the interests of national security in pursuance of directions issued by an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India, authorised in this behalf by an order of the Central Government.

The proviso to Clause 33 (2) states that every direction so issued shall be reviewed by an Oversight Committee consisting of the Cabinet Secretary and the Secretaries to the Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, before it takes effect.

The second proviso states that any such direction so issued shall be valid for a period of three months from the date of its issue, which may be extended for a further period of three months after the review by the Oversight Committee.

Offences and Penalties

Penalty for impersonation at time of enrolment.

2010 Bill: The penalty for impersonation was prescribed under Clause 34 as imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

2016 Bill : The penalty for impersonation was prescribed under Clause 34 as imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or both.

Penalty for unauthorised access to the Central Identities Data Repository

2010 Bill: Clause 38 (g) stated that any person not authorised by the Authority, provides any assistance to any person to do any of the acts mentioned under sub-clauses (a)-(f) shall be punishable. If anyone, who is not authorised by the Authority, performs any activity as listed under (a)-(i), shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall be liable to a fine which shall not be less than one crore rupees.

2016 Bill : Clause 38 (g) stated that any person not authorised by the Authority, reveals any information in contravention of sub-section section 28 (5), or shares, uses or displays information in contravention of section 29 or assists any person in any of the acts mentioned under sub-clauses (a)-(f) shall be punishable. If anyone, who is not authorised by the Authority, performs any activity as listed under (a)-(i), shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall be liable to a fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees. Additionally, the Explanation states that the expression “computer source code” shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Penalty for unauthorised use by requesting entity and noncompliance with intimation requirements

2010 Bill: Clause 40 of the Bill prescribed penalty for manipulating biometric information and stated that a person who gives/attempts to give any biometric information which does not pertain to him for the purpose of getting an Aadhaar number, authentication or updating his information, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.

2016 Bill: Clause 40 prescribes penalty for a person, being a requesting entity, uses the identity information of an individual in contravention of clause 8(3) , to be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or, in the case of a company, with a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both. Clause 41 of the Bill states that Whoever, being an enrolling agency or a requesting entity, fails to comply with the requirements of clause 3(2)-list of details to be informed to the individual undergoing enrolment, and clause 8(3)-informing individual undergoing enrolment details for the purpose of authentication, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or, in the case of a company, with a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both.

General Penalty

2010 Bill: For an offence committed under the Act or rules made thereunder, for which no specific penalty was provided, the penalty was prescribed as imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or fine as prescribed.

2016 Bill : For an offence committed under the Act or rules made thereunder, for which no specific penalty was provided, the penalty was prescribed as imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or fine as prescribed.

Miscellaneous

Power of Central Government to supersede Authority.

2010 Bill: Clause 47(1)(c) stated that if at any time the Central Government is of the opinion that such circumstances exist which render it necessary in the public interest to supersede the Authority, may do so in the manner prescribed under this provision.

2016 Bill : Clause 48(1)(c) states that if at any time the Central Government is of the opinion that a public emergency exists, then the Central Government may supersede the Authority, in the manner prescribed under this provision.

Power to remove difficulties.

2010 Bill: The proviso to Clause 56(1) stated that an no order by Central Government, which may appear necessary to remove a difficulty in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, shall be made under this section after the expiry of two years from the commencement of this Act.

2016 Bill : The proviso to Clause 58(1) stated that an no order by Central Government, which may appear necessary to remove a difficulty in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, shall be made under this section after the expiry of three years from the commencement of this Act.

Savings

2010 Bill: Clause 57 provided that any action taken by the Central Government under the Resolution of the Government of India, Planning Commission bearing notification number A-43011/02/ 2009-Admin.I, dated the 28th January, 2009, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.

2016 Bill : Clause 59 states that any action take by Central Government under the Resolution of the Government of India, Planning Commission bearing notification number A-43011/02/2009-Admin. I, dated the 28th January, 2009, or by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology under the Cabinet Secretariat Notification bearing notification number S.O. 2492(E), dated the 12th September, 2015, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been validly done or taken under this Act.

Statement of Objects and Reasons

2010 Bill: The Bill stated that the Central Government decided to issues unique identification numbers to all residents in India, which involves collection of demographic, as well as biometric information. The Unique Identification Authority of India was constituted as an executive body by the Government, vide its notification dated the 28th January, 2009. The Bill addressed and enlisted several issues with the issuance of unique identification numbers which should be addressed by law and attract penalties, such as security and confidentiality of information, imposition of obligation of disclosure of information so collected in certain cases, impersonation at the time of enrolment, unauthorised access to the Central Identities Data Repository, manipulation of biometric information, investigation of certain acts constituting offence, and unauthorised disclosure of the information collected for the purposes of issuance of the numbers. To make the said Authority a statutory one, the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 was proposed to establish the National Identification Authority of India to issue identification numbers and authenticate the Aadhaar number to facilitate access to benefits and services to such individuals to which they are entitled and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.Apart from the above mentioned purposes, The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 also seeks to provide for the Authority to exercise powers and discharge functions so prescribed , ensure that the Authority does not require any individual to give information pertaining to his race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, income or health, may engage entities to establish and maintain the Central Identities Data Repository and to perform any other functions as may be specified by regulations, constitute the Identity Review Committee and take measures to ensure that the information in the possession or control of the Authority is secured and protected against any loss, unauthorised access or use or unauthorised disclosure thereof.

2016 Bill: The Bill states that correct identification of targeted beneficiaries for delivery of subsidies, services, frants, benefits, etc has become a challenge for the Government and has proved to be a major hindrance for successful implementation of these programmes. In the absence of a credible system to authenticate identity of beneficiaries, it is difficult to ensure that the subsidies, benefits and services reach to intended beneficiaries. The Unique Identification Authority of India was established by a resolution of the Government of India, Planning Commission vide notification number A-43011/02/ 2009-Admin.I, dated the 28th January, 2009, to lay down policies and implement the Unique Identification Scheme of the Government, by which residents of India were to be provided unique identity number. Upon successful authentication, this number would serve as proof of identity for identification of beneficiaries for transfer of benefits, subsidies, services and other purposes. With increased use of the Aadhaar number, steps to ensure security of such information need to be taken and offences pertaining to certain unlawful actions, created. It has been felt that the processes of enrolment, authentication, security, confidentiality and use of Aadhaar related information must be made statutory. For this purpose, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 seeks to provide for issuance of Aadhaar numbers to individuals on providing his demographic and biometric information to the Unique Identification Authority of India, requiring Aadhaar numbers for identifying an individual for delivery of benefits, subsidies, and services, authentication of the Aadhaar number, establishment of the Unique Identification Authority of India, maintenance and updating the information of individuals in the Central Identities Data Repository, state measures pertaining to security, privacy and confidentiality of information in possession or control of the Authority including information stored in the Central Identities Data Repository and identify offences and penalties for contravention of relevant statutory provisions.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/a-comparison-of-the-2016-aadhaar-bill-and-the-2010-nidai-bill

Centre for Internet and Society

Aadhaar data of 130 millions, bank account details leaked from govt websites: Report

Aadhaar data leaks not from UIDAI: Centre

Aadhaar data leak: Take precautions while sharing info on websites, MEITy tells all depts

Aadhaar Case: Beyond Privacy, An Issue of Bodily Integrity

Case Over Constitutional Validity

Ongoing Hearing in Aadhaar Case

Many Layers of the Right to Privacy

Sidestepping ‘Privacy’ in the Current Case

Moving Beyond Article 21

Changing the Definition of Right to Privacy

Aadhaar Card: One Identity, Multiple Disorders

Why Aadhaar Card Mandatory?

PAN Card Linked with Aadhaar Card?

How Safe Is Your Data In This Panopticon Model Of Mass Surveillance?

CIDR, A Single Database Of People’s Data

Data Leak Crisis

What is Next?

Aadhaar by Numbers

Sunil Abraham

Video

Aadhaar Body Talked About Virtual ID 7 Years Ago, Put It Off: UIDAI Chief

Aadhaar Bill fails to incorporate suggestions by the Standing Committee

Aadhaar Bill 2016 Evaluated against the National Privacy Principles

Download the infographic: PDF and PNG.

Aadhaar Bill 2016 & NIAI Bill 2010 - Comparing the Texts

Aadhaar assurances fail to assuage privacy concerns

Aadhaar Act and its Non-compliance with Data Protection Law in India

Download the file: PDF.

1. Compensation and Penalty

2. Privacy Policy

3. Consent

4. Collection Limitation

5. Notice

6. Retention Limitation

7. Purpose Limitation

8. Right to Access and Correct

9. Right to 'Opt Out' and Withdraw Consent

10. Grievance Officer

11. Disclosure with Consent, Prohibition on Publishing and Further Disclosure

12. Requirements for Transfer of Sensitive Personal Data

13. Security of Information

Implications of the Differences for Body Corporates in Aadhaar Ecosystem

Appendix I

Appendix II - Section 43A: Compensation for Failure to Protect Data

A scheme in India to help the poor raises privacy concerns

A judicial overreach into matters of regulation

Government’s support

Problems of investigation

A comparison of the 2016 Aadhaar Bill, and the 2010 NIDAI Bill

Title

Purpose/Object Clause

Definitions

Enrolment

Authentication

Unique Identification Authority Of India

Grants, Accounts and Audit and Annual Report

Identity Review Committee

Protection of Information

Offences and Penalties

Miscellaneous

Statement of Objects and Reasons