Centre for Internet and Society

Taking Cognisance of the Deeply Flawed System That Is Aadhaar

praskrishna — 2017-05-19T14:52:58Z

Aadhaar and its many connotations have grown to be among the most burning issues on the Indian fore today, that every citizen aware of their rights should be taking note of.

The article by Shreyashi Roy was published in the Wire on May 10, 2017.

With the leak of 130 million Aadhaar numbers recently coming to light, several activists, lawyers and ordinary citizens are up in arms about what is increasingly being viewed as a government surveillance system. Keeping this in mind, on Tuesday, May 9, Software Freedom Law Centre India (SFLC) hosted an event that brought together a panel to clearly articulate the dangers of Aadhaar and to discuss whether the biometric identification system is capable of being reformed.

SFLC is a donor-supported legal services organisation that calls itself a protector of civil liberties in the digital age.

Titled ‘Revisiting Aadhaar: Law, Tech and Beyond’, the discussion, with several eminent personalities who have in-depth knowledge of Aadhaar and its working, threw light on the various problems that have cropped up with regard to India’s unique identification system. The discussion was moderated by Saikat Datta, policy director at Centre for Internet and Society, which published the report that studied the third-party leaks of Aadhaar numbers and other personal data.

The leaks

The discussion took off from the point of the leaks, with Srinivas Kodali, a panelist and one of the authors of the report, explaining his methodology for the study that proved that the Aadhaar database lacked the security required when dealing with private information of people. He highlighted the fact that during the course of his research, he had noticed several leaks from government websites and notified the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) about the same. Yet, at every step, UIDAI continued to deny and reject the possibility of this happening. Kodali says, however, that he had noticed that the websites that were unknowingly leaking data were, in fact, fixing the leaks after being notified without acknowledging that the leak had happened in the first place. Kodali reiterated at the discussion, as in his report, that a simple tweaking of URL query parameters of the National Social Assistance Programme website could unmask and display private information. Unfortunately, UIDAI cannot be brought to task for unknowingly leaking information because there is no such provision.

He also addressed the question of the conflict of interest that existed in the entire system of building Aadhaar, which was created by developers who later left the UIDAI and built their own private companies, monetising the mine of private information that they were sitting on. Kodali blames UIDAI for this even being allowed, since the developers, though clearly lacking ethics, were in fact, merely volunteers.

The system

One of the glaring issues with the technology behind Aadhaar is that the software is not open source. Anivar Aravind, a panelist, called it “defected by design” and “bound to fail” because not only is the technology completely untested but there are very obvious leaks that are taking place. Moreover, UIDAI does not allow any third-party audits or any other persons to look at the technology. Datta pointed to the fact that this is unheard of in other nations, where software is routinely subjected to penetration testing and hacking experts are called upon to check how secure a database is.

Anupam Saraph, another panelist and future designer, illuminated the creation of the Aadhaar database, pointing out that this is a system less about identification and more about verification. All of the verification, moreover, has been done by private parties, making the database itself suspect and leaving everyone’s private information loose at the time of enrolment. In addition, Aadhaar was meant for all residents and not just citizens. But now there is a mix of both, creating confusion in many aspects. Saraph also brought up how one rogue agency with access to all this information could pose an actual national security threat, unlike all the requests for information on breaches that the government keeps pointing fingers at. Referring to Nandan Nilekani’s statement about Aadhaar not being like AIDS, Saraph pointed out that it was exactly like it because much like the body, which cannot distinguish between an invasion and itself, the Aadhaar system is not being able to distinguish between aliens and citizens and has begun denying the latter benefits.

The Supreme Court has declared time and again that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory, but the government continues to – in complete disregard of the apex court’s judgment – insist on Aadhaar for a multitude of schemes. More and more schemes are being made unavailable without the existence of an Aadhaar number as the government continues to function in a complete lack of cognisance of the fact that the poor are losing out on something as basic as their food because of a number. Prasanna S., an advocate and a panelist, called it a “voluntary but mandatory” system that is becoming an evidence collection mechanism. Moreover, everything is connected through this one number, making many options like financial fraud, selective treatment of citizens and other horrors possible. The collection of all this information is not dangerous, screams the government. Maybe not in the hands of this one. But what of the next? What of rogues?

The legal aspect

One of the panelists was Shyam Divan, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court, who has represented petitioners fighting against Aadhaar. Divan spoke about how along with a group of advocates he has been trying to get the apex court to rule on the issue but has been met with long queues before a ruling can be procured. He addressed the right to privacy aspect of the system and the recent declaration that the citizen does not have the absolute right to the body. He emphasised that the government cannot own the body and that for a free and democratic society, a limited government, instead of an all-knowing and all-seeing government, is essential. Unfortunately for India, there is no express right to privacy in the constitution, but that does not mean that rights can be taken away in exchange for a fingerprint. It is the government’s duty to respect privacy. For him, Aadhaar has become an instrument of oppression and exclusion, a point that Prasanna also agreed with, calling it a “systematic attack on consent”.

There is complete agreement that there has been a railroading of consent in this entire matter if Aadhaar being passed forcibly through the Lok Sabha as a money bill is anything to go by. If parliament’s consent can be disregarded in that fashion, what is an ordinary citizen to do in the face of this complete imbalance of power in the state’s hand?

Usha Ramanathan, a legal researcher and a long-time critic of Aadhaar, spoke about how India has turned into a state where there are more restrictions than fundamental rights, rather than the other way around. She related how there was no clarity at the beginning of Aadhaar of how it would be a card or a number and was never a government project in the first place. This is a private sector ambition that the government has jumped on board with, without considering that the private sector does not concern itself with civil liberties. As other panelists also pointed out, the private sector cannot and will not protect public interest. This is the job of the government, especially in an age of digitisation. But Aadhaar compromises the ability of the state to stand up for its citizens.

With June 30 approaching fast, many of those who have so far abstained from enrolling in the system are considering giving up their rebellion and going like sheep to get themselves registered in the database. In the words of Divan, they will have to “volunteer compulsorily for an Aadhaar”. The government is probably counting on this. Turning to the Supreme Court has been of no help, although a verdict can be hoped for in a couple of weeks. But what can we do if they rule for the government?

Some of the panelists are on board with the idea of a civil disobedience movement, a kind of a rebellion against Aadhaar. Some suggested thinking of out-of-the-box ways to register one’s protest and dissent against what is clearly becoming the architecture of a surveillance state. Saraph was particularly vehement about the need to completely destroy the Aadhaar database – “shred it”.

What all the panelists emphasised repeatedly was that there can be no improvements to a system that is so deeply flawed and that has had so many “teething problems” that are making millions suffer. The main takeaway from the discussion was that Aadhaar must see a speedy demise because it cannot be saved and cannot persist in its current state.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wire-may-10-2017-shreyashi-roy-taking-cognisance-of-the-deeply-flawed-system-that-is-aadhaar

Surveillance Project

sunil — 2016-04-05T15:21:27Z

The Aadhaar project’s technological design and architecture is an unmitigated disaster and no amount of legal fixes in the Act will make it any better.

The article will be published in Frontline, April 15, 2016 print edition.

Zero. The probability of some evil actor breaking into the central store of authentication factors (such as keys and passwords) for the Internet. Why? That is because no such store exists. And, what is the probability of someone evil breaking into the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)? Greater than zero. How do we know this? One, the central store exists and two, the Aadhaar Bill lists breaking into this central store as an offence. Needless to say, it would be redundant to have a law that criminalises a technological impossibility. What is the consequence of someone breaking into the central store? Remember, biometrics is just a fancy word for non-consensual and covert identification technology. High-resolution cameras can capture fingerprints and iris information from a distance.

In other words, on March 16, when Parliament passed the Bill, it was as if Indian lawmakers wrote an open letter to criminals and foreign states saying, “We are going to collect data to non-consensually identify all Indians and we are going to store it in a central repository. Come and get it!” Once again, how do I know that the CIDR will be compromised at some date in the future? How can I make that policy prediction with no evidence to back it up? To quote Sherlock Holmes, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” If a back door to the CIDR exists for the government, then the very same back door can be used by an enemy within or from outside. In other words, the principle of decentralisation in cybersecurity does not require repeated experimental confirmation across markets and technologies.

Zero. The chances that you can fix with the law what you have broken with poor technological choices and architecture. And, to a large extent vice versa. Aadhaar is a surveillance project masquerading as a development intervention because it uses biometrics. There is a big difference between the government identifying you and you identifying yourself to the government. Before UID, it was much more difficult for the government to identify you without your knowledge and conscious cooperation. Tomorrow, using high-resolution cameras and the power of big data, the government will be able to remotely identify those participating in a public protest. There will be no more anonymity in the crowd. I am not saying that law-enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies should not use these powerful technologies to ensure national security, uphold the rule of law and protect individual rights. I am only saying that this type of surveillance technology is inappropriate for everyday interactions between the citizen and the state.

Some software engineers believe that there are technical fixes for these concerns; they point to the consent layer in the India stack developed through a public-private partnership with the UIDAI. But this is exactly what Evgeny Morozov has dubbed “technological solutionism”—fundamental flaws like this cannot be fixed by legal or technical band-aid. If you were to ask the UIDAI how do you ensure that the data do not get stolen between the enrolment machine and the CIDR, the response would be, we use state-of-the-art cryptography. If cryptography is good enough for the UIDAI why is it not good enough for citizens? That is because if citizens use cryptography [on smart cards] to identify themselves to the state, the state will need their conscious cooperation each time. That provides the feature that is required for better governance without the surveillance bonus. If you really must use biometrics, it could be stored on the smart card after being digitally signed by the enrolment officer. If there is ever a doubt whether the person has stolen the smart card, a special machine can be used to read the biometrics off the card and check that against the person. This way the power of biometrics would be leveraged without any of the accompanying harms.

Zero. This time, for the utility of biometrics as a password or authentication factor. There are two principal reasons for which the Act should have prohibited the use of biometrics for authentication. First, biometric authentication factors are irrevocable unlike passwords, PINs, digital signatures, etc. Once a biometric authentication factor has been compromised, there is no way to change it. The security of a system secured by biometrics is permanently compromised. Second, our biometrics is so easy to steal; we leave our fingerprints everywhere.

Also, if I upload my biometric data onto the Internet, I can then plausibly deny all transactions against my name in the CIDR. In order to prevent me from doing that, the government will have to invest in CCTV cameras [with large storage] as they do for passport-control borders and as banks do at ATMs. If you anyway have to invest in CCTV cameras, then you might as well stick with digital signatures on smart cards as the previous National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government proposed the SCOSTA (Smart Card Operating System Standard for Transport Application) standard for the MNIC (Multipurpose National ID Card). Leveraging smart card standards like EMV will ensure harnessing greater network effects thanks to the global financial infrastructure of banks. These network effects will drive down the cost of equipment and afford Indians greater global mobility. And most importantly when a digital signature is compromised the user can be issued a new smart card. As Rufo Guerreschi, executive director of Open Media Cluster, puts it, “World leaders and IT experts should realise that citizen freedoms and states’ ability to pursue suspects are not an ‘either or’ but a ‘both or neither’.”

Near zero. We now move biometrics as the identification factor. The rate of potential duplicates or “False Positive Identification Rate” which according to the UIDAI is only 0.057 per cent. Which according to them will result in only “570 resident enrolments will be falsely identified as duplicate for every one million enrolments.” However, according to an article published in Economic & Political Weekly by my colleague at the Centre for Internet and Society, Hans Verghese Mathews, this will result in one out of every 146 people being rejected during enrolment when total enrolment reaches one billion people. In its rebuttal, the UIDAI disputes the conclusion but offers no alternative extrapolation or mathematical assumptions. “Without getting too deep into the mathematics” it offers an account of “a manual adjudication process to rectify the biometric identification errors”.

This manual adjudication determines whether you exist and has none of the elements of natural justice such as notice to the affected party and opportunity to be heard. Elimination of ghosts is impossible if only machines and unaccountable humans perform this adjudication. This is because there is zero skin in the game. There are free tools available on the Internet such as SFinGe (Synthetic Fingerprint Generator) which allow you to create fake biometrics. The USB cables on the UIDAI-approved enrolment setup can be intercepted using generic hardware that can be bought online. With a little bit of clever programming, countless number of ghosts can be created which will easily clear the manual adjudication process that the UIDAI claims will ensure that “no one is denied an Aadhaar number because of a biometric false positive”.

Near zero. This time for surveillance, which I believe should be used like salt in cooking. Essential in small quantities but counterproductive even if slightly in excess. There is a popular misconception that privacy researchers such as myself are opposed to surveillance. In reality, I am all for surveillance. I am totally convinced that surveillance is good anti-corruption technology.

But I also want good returns on investment for my surveillance tax rupee. According to Julian Assange, transparency requirements should be directly proportionate to power; in other words, the powerful should be subject to more surveillance. And conversely, I add, privacy protections must be inversely proportionate to power—or again, in other words, the poor should be spared from intrusions that do not serve the public interest. The UIDAI makes the exact opposite design assumption; it assumes that the poor are responsible for corruption and that technology will eliminate small-ticket or retail corruption. But we all know that politicians and bureaucrats are responsible for most of large-ticket corruption.

Why does not the UIDAI first assign UID numbers to all politicians and bureaucrats? Then using digital signatures why do not we ensure that we have a public non-repudiable audit trail wherein everyone can track the flow of benefits, subsidies and services from New Delhi to the panchayat office or local corporation office? That will eliminate big-ticket or wholesale corruption. In other words, since most of Aadhaar’s surveillance is targeted at the bottom of the pyramid, there will be limited bang for the buck. Surveillance is the need of the hour; we need more CCTVs with microphones turned on in government offices than biometric devices in slums.

Instantiation technology

One. And zero. In the contemporary binary and digital age, we have lost faith in the old gods. Science and its instantiation technology have become the new gods. The cult of technology is intolerant to blasphemy. For example, Shekhar Gupta recently tweeted saying that part of the opposition to Aadhaar was because “left-libs detest science/tech”. Technology as ideology is based on some fundamental articles of faith: one, new technology is better than old technology; two, expensive technology is better than cheap technology; three, complex technology is better than simple technology; and four, all technology is empowering or at the very least neutral. Unfortunately, there is no basis in science for any of these articles of faith.

Let me use a simple story to illustrate this. I was fortunate to serve as a member of a committee that the Department of Biotechnology established to finalise the Human DNA Profiling Bill, 2015, which was to be introduced in Parliament in the last monsoon session. Aside: the language of the Act also has room for the database to expand into a national DNA database circumventing 10 years of debate around the controversial DNA Profiling Bill, 2015. The first version of this Bill that I read in January 2013 said that DNA profiling was a “powerful technology that makes it possible to determine whether the source of origin of one body substance is identical to that of another … without any doubt”. In other words, to quote K.P.C. Gandhi, a scientist from Truth Labs, “I can vouch for the scientific infallibility of using DNA profiling for carrying out justice.”

Unfortunately, though, the infallible science is conducted by fallible humans. During one of the meetings, a scientist described the process of generating a biometric profile. The first step after the laboratory technician generated the profile was to compare the generated profile with her or his own profile because during the process of loading the machine with the DNA sample, some of the laboratory technician’s DNA could have contaminated the sample. This error would not be a possibility in much older, cheaper and rudimentary biometric technology for example, photography. A photographer developing a photograph in a darkroom does not have to ensure that his or her own image has not accidentally ended up on the negative. But the UIDAI is filled with die-hard techno-utopians; if you tell them that fingerprints will not work for those who are engaged in manual labour, they will say then we will use iris-based biometrics. But again, complex technologies are more fragile and often come with increased risks. They may provide greater performance and features, but sometimes they are easier to circumvent. A gummy finger to fool a biometric scanner can be produced using glue and a candle, but to fake a passport takes a lot of sophisticated technology. Therefore, it is important for us as a nation to give up our unquestioning faith in technology and start to debate the exact technological configurations of surveillance technology for different contexts and purposes.

One. This time representing a monopoly. Prior to the UID project, nobody got paid when citizens identified themselves to the state. While the Act says that the UIDAI will get paid, it does not specify how much. Sooner or later, this cost of identification will be passed on to the citizens and residents. There will be a consumer-service provider relationship established between the citizen and the state when it comes to identification. The UIDAI will become the monopoly provider of identification and authentication services in India which is trusted by the government. That sounds like a centrally planned communist state to me. Should not the right-wing oppose the Act because it prevents the free market from working? Should not the free market pick the best technology and business model for identification and authentication? Will not that drive the cost of identification and authentication down and ensure higher quality of service for citizens and residents?

Competing providers

Competing providers can also publish transparency reports regarding their compliance with data requests from law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, and if this is important to consumers they will be punished by the market. The government can use mechanisms such as permanent and temporary bans and price regulation as disincentives for the creation of ghosts. There will be a clear financial incentive to keep the database clean. Just like the government established a regulatory framework for digital certificates in the Information Technology Act allowing for e-commerce and e-governance. Ideally, the Aadhaar Bill should have done something similar and established an ecosystem for multiple actors to provide services in this two-sided market. For it is impossible for a “small government” to have the expertise and experience to run one of the world’s largest database of biometric and transaction records securely for perpetuity.

To conclude, I support the use of biometrics. I support government use of identification and authentication technology. I support the use of ID numbers in government databases. I support targeted surveillance to reduce corruption and protect national security. But I believe all these must be put in place with care and thought so that we do not end up sacrificing our constitutional rights or compromising the security of our nation state. Unfortunately, the Aadhaar project’s technological design and architecture is an unmitigated disaster and no amount of legal fixes in the Act will make it any better. Our children will pay a heavy price for our folly in the years to come. To quote the security guru Bruce Schneier, “Data is a toxic asset. We need to start thinking about it as such, and treat it as we would any other source of toxicity. To do anything else is to risk our security and privacy.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/frontline-april-15-2016-sunil-abraham-surveillance-project

Surveillance Enabling Identity Systems in Africa: Tracing the Fingerprints of Aadhaar

Shruti Trikanad and Vrinda Bhandari — 2022-08-09T08:17:32Z

Biometric identity systems are being introduced around the world with a focus on promoting human development and social and economic inclusion, rather than previous goals of security. As a result, these systems being encouraged in developing countries, particularly in Africa and Asia, sometimes with disastrous consequences.

In this report, we identify the different external actors that influencing this “developmental” agenda. These range from philanthropic organisations, private companies, and technology vendors, to state and international institutions. Most notable among these is the World Bank, whose influence we investigated in the form of case studies of Nigeria and Kenya. We also explored the role played by the “success” of the Aadhaar programme in India on these new ID systems. A key characteristic of the growing “digital identity for development” trend is the consolidation of different databases that record beneficiary data for government programmes into one unified platform, accessed by a unique biometric ID. This “Aadhaar model” has emerged as a default model to be adopted in developing countries, with little concern for the risks it introduces. Read and download the full report here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/surveillance-enabling-identity-systems-in-africa-tracing-the-fingerprints-of-aadhaar

Supreme Court sets up constitution bench to hear Aadhaar privacy issues

praskrishna — 2017-07-14T10:55:04Z

The Supreme Court ‘s five-judge constitution bench will also decide if the Aadhaar privacy issue should be heard by a larger bench.

The article by Priyanka Mittal was published in Livemint on July 12, 2017. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

A five-judge constitution bench will hear arguments on 18-19 July as to whether Indian citizens have the right to privacy, and whether the Aadhaar unique identity project breaches the right.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) J.S. Khehar on Wednesday set the dates for the hearing by the constitution bench, which will decide whether the issue should be heard by a larger bench.

Should the five-judge bench decide to rule on the case itself and not refer it to a larger bench, it will decide the future of Aadhaar, which has become the backbone of government welfare programmes, the tax administration network and online financial transactions.

This will be based on whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right of Indian citizens.

Privacy rights activists argue that personal data gathered under the Aadhaar programme, aimed at giving a unique 12-digit identity number to every Indian, is vulnerable to abuse. Then attorney general Mukul Rohatgi told the Supreme Court in 2015 that Indian citizens don’t have a fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution—an argument he repeated subsequently.

“In the two-day hearing, the court is not going to decide the full issue of privacy,” said Alok Prasanna Kumar, a lawyer and visiting fellow at think tank Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, explaining how the Constitution bench is likely to proceed. “They are going to take a call on whether, in light of precedents, there is a need to refer the issue to a larger bench. There are past judgements and the court will have to look at the scope of privacy under each to decide the number of judges.”

He added: “If the five-judge bench agrees with the precedents, then it would continue to address the angle of privacy; if not, then it would be referred back to the CJI to constitute a larger bench of nine judges.”

All cases related to Aadhaar, including the right to privacy, will be heard by the constitution bench; the court decided to set up the constitution bench to hear the privacy case in August 2015.

The CJI’s decision came on a plea by advocate Shyam Divan, who has appeared in several cases opposing Aadhaar, and attorney general K.K. Venugopal seeking the speedy creation of a Constitution bench. It came a week after justice J. Chelameswar said that all matters related to Aadhaar should be addressed by a constitution bench.

“I see it as a step in the right direction. Personally, I hope that the privacy issue is heard by a five-judge bench as against a larger bench as that can bring more disagreement,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru-based research think tank Centre for Internet and Society.

Last month, the Supreme Court court upheld the government’s decision to link Aadhaar with the permanent account number (PAN) for filing of income-tax returns but ruled that non-compliance with the law will carry no retrospective consequences.

Under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, the unique identity number is mandatory only to receive social welfare benefits.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-priyanka-mittal-july-12-2017-supreme-court-sets-up-constitution-bench-to-hear-aadhaar-privacy-issues

Supreme Court provides partial relief for Aadhaar

praskrishna — 2015-10-18T05:01:49Z

In a small but significant win for the government, the Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the use of the Aadhaar number for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, pensions by central and state governments, and the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, in addition to its current use in the public distribution system (PDS) and the distribution of cooking gas and kerosene.

The article by Apurva Vishwanath and Saurabh Kumar was published in Livemint on October 15, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

In an interim order on 11 August, the apex court had restricted the use of Aadhaar, the unique identity number, to the PDS and the distribution of cooking gas and kerosene.

Subsequently, several state governments, government departments and regulatory agencies put up a joint defence seeking a modification of the interim order. They included the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Securities and Exchange Board of India and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the governments of Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan, and industry body Indian Banks’ Association, along with the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the issuer of Aadhaar.

A five-judge constitutional bench comprising Chief Justice H.L Dattu and justices M.Y Eqbal, C. Nagappan, Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy said in an order on Thursday: “We are of the opinion that in para 3 of the interim order, we can include schemes like MGNREGS, pensions by state and central government, Jan Dhan Yojana and Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme along with PDS and LPG (liquefied petroleum gas).”

Para 3 of the 11 August interim order had allowed the voluntary use of Aadhaar only for direct benefit transfer in foodgrain, kerosene and cooking gas schemes.

The court’s interim order threw an element of uncertainty around flagship government programmes such as biometric attendance for government employees; the Jan Dhan Yojana, the Prime Minister’s ambitious financial inclusion initiative; digital certificates, and pension payments.

It also threatened to derail India’s progress towards a cashless economy where payments banks are expected to play an important role.

All of these depend on linking accounts to individuals electronically, and are dependent on the Aadhaar number.

“The government was able to convince the court on the utility of Aadhaar which is critical to provide services to the most vulnerable section of the society,” said a government official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The apex court, however, did not allow the use of Aadhaar for the e-know-your-customer (e-KYC) specifically, which would have helped banks, including payments banks, to enrol new customers and telecom operators for issuing SIM cards. However, it is noteworthy that while obtaining bank accounts under the Jan Dhan scheme, banks use e-KYC. The clarification that RBI sought from the court, on whether the Aadhaar number can be used as proof of identification to open a bank account, still remains uncertain.

This will affect banks, mutual funds and companies that have won in-principle payments bank licences such as Airtel M Commerce Services Ltd (from the stable of Bharti Airtel Ltd, which had a customer base of 231.6 million as of July) and Vodafone m-pesa Ltd (a part of Vodafone India Ltd, which had a customer base of 185.4 million as of July).

The licensees also include the department of posts, which has 155,015 post offices across the country, of which 139,144 are in rural areas. The sheer reach of these entities is unrivalled. These entities hope to ride on the technology platform to reach customers, and e-KYC is critical to the process.

“The reason why the court has allowed use of Aadhaar for Jan Dhan Yojana and not other banking services is perhaps because the government made a humanitarian argument that the poorest will be able to avail banking services. It is, however, a technologically flawed argument, deeply so,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society.

The bench ordered the Union government to follow all earlier interim orders issued by the Supreme Court starting September 2013. Some of these orders include restrain on sharing of biometrics and keeping Aadhaar voluntary.

As of now, 920 million Indian citizens have been allotted Aadhaar numbers. The interim stay was affecting beneficiaries of the MGNREGS (91.7 million), pensioners (27.1 million) and recipients of scholarships (25.7 million), among others, according to data from the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). Till now, 187 million bank accounts have been opened under the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana.

The apex court made the interim ruling in an ongoing hearing where several pleas related to Aadhaar were clubbed together. Some relate to Aadhaar numbers being made mandatory to enable people to avail of certain government benefits and services. Others deal with the number being a violation of privacy, especially in the absence of any backing regulation or oversight, and yet others deal with possible misuse of the information.

However, the constitution bench had clarified on Wednesday that only pleas seeking clarification and modification of the interim order will be decided, and the issue concerning the right to privacy will be heard subsequently by another constitution bench.

“I am very disappointed with the court’s order. The government claims that Aadhaar is voluntary, but actually it will not be till it is delinked from all government schemes. This way, people who do have Aadhaar are excluded and will have to run from pillar to post to receive benefits if they do not have the number,” said Kamayani Bali Mahabal, a Mumbai-based lawyer, human rights activist and a petitioner in the UIDAI case. She added that the order may increase the incidents of fake Aadhaar numbers as ineligible people choose to gain from all schemes, depriving the poor and aged of real benefits.

The attorney general, Mukul Rohatgi, on Wednesday assured the court that the government has issued advertisements in over 20 languages that Aadhaar is a voluntary scheme.

On 14 Wednesday, PTI reported that a Right to Information application has showed that the UIDAI has identified more than 25,000 duplicate Aadhaar numbers till August.

Mathew Thomas, one of the petitioners challenging the use and validity of the Aadhaar scheme, also expressed disappointment at the court’s ruling today. “Aadhaar is a case of great importance to the billion citizens of India. It is unfortunate that the constitution bench spent only a few hours in hearing the issues,” he said.

The Supreme Court will appoint a larger bench of at least nine judges to hear the privacy issue. The court in 1954, in the case of M.P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra, ruled that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right recognized by the Constitution. This case was decided by an eight-judge bench of the apex court, and only a bench of equal or larger strength will be able to override that decision.

The Chief Justice in the order on Thursday said that the larger bench, with nine or 11 judges, will be constituted at the earliest to hear the matter on Aadhaar potentially violating privacy and other intervening applications.

The petitioners have argued that UIDAI was approved only by an empowered group of ministers during the United Progressive Alliance tenure and has no statutory authority to collect biometrics of residents. Senior counsel for the petitioners, Shyam Divan, said: “The only law in India which allows the government to collect fingerprints is the Prisoner’s Act of 1920, which is a colonial enactment.”

The UIDAI does not have any legislative backing and was constituted by notification in 2009 by the erstwhile Planning Commission. Divan, however, said that the Planning Commission notification has no effect since the body itself has ceased to exist, and added that the centre is not introducing a legislation empowering the Aadhaar scheme as it realizes the vulnerability of the entire exercise.

The National Identification Authority of India Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha in 2010.

In 2012, the centre was mulling a privacy law that could be enacted to support the UIDAI scheme and, in connection, the Planning Commission then formed an expert committee on privacy under A.P Shah, a former chairperson of the Law Commission.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-october-15-2015-apurva-vishwanath-saurabh-kumar-supreme-court-provides-partial-relief-for-aadhaar

Supreme Court extends Aadhaar linking deadline till it passes verdict

Admin — 2018-03-17T15:02:10Z

The Supreme Court, however, allowed the government to seek Aadhaar numbers to transfer benefits of government schemes funded from the consolidated fund of India.

The article by Priyanka Mittal and Komal Gupta was published in Livemint on March 13, 2018. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday extended the deadline for linking of Aadhaar with mobile services, opening of new bank accounts and other services until it passes its verdict on a pending challenge to the constitutional validity of such linkages.

The court also noted that Aadhaar could not be made mandatory for issuance of a Tatkal passport, for now.

The extension would be applicable to the schemes of ministries/departments of the Union government as well as those of state governments, the court ruled in an interim order.

It was however, clarified that the extension would not be applicable for availing services, subsidies and benefits under Section 7 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

A Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices D.Y. Chandrachud, A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar and Ashok Bhushan is hearing a challenge to the constitutional basis of the 12-digit unique identification project, which is now likely to conclude after 31 March, the earlier deadline for Aadhaar linking.

“Even where Aadhaar hasn’t been mandated by the government, and even though the Supreme Court has extended the deadline for some mandatory linkages, if the software systems used by various governmental and private entities don’t make ‘Aadhaar number’ and authentication optional, then the SC’s orders gets nullified, effectively,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at think tank Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).

Similar concerns over the extent of Tuesday’s interim protection were also expressed by the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), an organization working to protect freedom in the digital world. “While the extension is certainly welcome, it is also important to note that there is currently some uncertainty about this extension and how it applies to linkages made mandatory under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act. If the latest order does indeed exclude Aadhaar linkages mandated under Section 7, a large number of central and state government schemes (such as PDS, LPG, MNREGA and many more) would still need to be linked to Aadhaar by the end of the month, significantly diminishing the relief brought by today’s order, ” said the organization.

“The deadline for Aadhaar holders to link their PAN cards for taxation purposes will also be extended until disposal of the case as this linkage was mandated by Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 2000 and not Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act,” SFLC added.

Last week, attorney general K.K. Venugopal had told the apex court that the centre would consider extending the linking deadline since arguments in the case were likely to proceed beyond the earlier deadline of 31 March.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-priyanka-mittal-komal-gupta-march-13-2018-supreme-court-extends-aadhaar-linking-deadline-till-it-passes-verdict

Sunil Abraham on Aadhaar's misuse during demonetisation

praskrishna — 2017-01-19T01:35:02Z

Sunil Abraham spoke to Economic Times on the misuse of Aadhaar during demonetisation.

Sunil Abraham said:

"We saw Aadhaar being misused at large-scale during the demonetization, criminals had created a black market in Aadhaar identity cards and photocopies of Aadhaar. Those interested in converting black money were purchasing these photocopies from the black market and giving them to bank officials so that they could maintain fake records that tried to prove that ordinary people came in photos' cash transactions.

Whenever we try to introduce technological measures we must always think of the human systems that are at work and the human procedures that are at work. Another example is today telcos giving sim cards based on Aadhaar authentication to meet their sales targets some of these telcos are giving multiple sim cards for a single Aadhaar based KYC. Those sim cards are often resold into black market or given to persons that are not familiar with the aadhaar number holder and this has only makes the security situation in the country worse. It has not improved." Watch the Video

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-january-14-2017-sunil-abraham-on-aadhaar-misuse-during-demonetisation

Submitted Your Biometrics for Aadhaar? Here’s How You Can Lock/Unlock That Data

Admin — 2019-02-02T02:09:56Z

Did you know that UIDAI provides a facility that allows users to lock/unlock their Aadhaar biometric data online?

The blog post by Vidya Raja was published in the Better India on January 24, 2019. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Imagine someone hacking into your Netflix account – all you have to do is change the password. However, if there is a security breach with respect to your biometric details, there is no reversing it. So think carefully about how and where you submit your details. While the Supreme Court has said that it is no longer mandatory to link Aadhaar with your bank accounts or your telecom service provider, it does not lessen the importance of Aadhaar.

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, The Centre for Internet & Society, in a report published in The Mint, says, “Biometric devices are not hack-proof. It depends on the ease with which this can be done. In Malaysia, thieves who stole a car with a fingerprint-based ignition system simply chopped off the owner’s finger. When a biometric attendance system was introduced at the Institute of Chemical Technology (ICT) in Mumbai, students continued giving proxies by using moulds made from Fevicol.” Over the last year, there has been so much chatter about the Aadhaar number and how one can protect one’s information.

Did you know that UIDAI provides a facility that allows users to lock/unlock their Aadhaar biometric data online?

In this article, we explain how you can do that.

Locking biometrics online:

Visit UIDAI’s online portal to lock or unlock your biometrics
Once there, you will need to click on ‘My Aadhaar’ and under the Aadhaar Services tab, click on Lock/Unlock Biometrics
You will then be redirected to a new page and prompted to enter the 12-digit Aadhaar number and the security code
Once the details have been entered, click on ‘Send OTP’
You will receive an OTP on your registered mobile number
Enter this and click on the Login button
This feature will allow you to lock your biometrics
Enter the 4-digit security code mentioned on the screen and click on the ‘Enable’ button
Your biometrics will be locked, and you will have to unlock it in case you want to access it again

Unlocking biometrics online:

To unlock your biometrics, click on the ‘Login’ button
Enter your Aadhaar number and the security code in the designated spaces
Now click on ‘Send OTP’
An OTP will be sent to your registered mobile number
Enter it in the space provided and click on ‘Login’
In case you want to temporarily unlock the biometrics, enter the security code and click on the unlock button
Your biometrics will be unlocked for 10 minutes
The locking date and time is mentioned on the screen after which biometrics will be automatically locked
When you do not want to lock your biometrics, you can disable the lock permanently.

Using mAadhaar to lock/unlock biometrics:

mAadhaar is the official mobile application developed by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). Presently, it is available on the Android platform.

Once the mAadhaar app has been downloaded, the user must use their Aadhaar card registered mobile number to login.
You will then be sent an OTP that you are required to enter for authentication. Do remember to change your password once registered.
On the top right side, tap on ‘Biometric lock’, and enter your password to lock the biometrics. Once locked, it will show a small lock icon next to your profile.
To unlock, tap on the same icon followed by your password. The information will unlock for 10 minutes. After that, it will be locked again.
Once you lock this information, it ensures that even the Aadhaar holder will not be able to use their biometric data (iris scan and fingerprints) for authentication, until unlocked.
If you try to use this information without unlocking, it will show you an error code 330.

Remember to lock and unlock your biometrics through a trusted channel. The fact that there is no fee involved in either exercise will make this easier. Also, even with the biometric locked, you can continue to use the OTP-based authentication process for transactions, where you will receive the OTP on your registered mobile number and e-mail address.

(Edited by Shruti Singhal)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-better-india-vidya-raja-january-24-2019-aadhaar-biometric-privacy-safety-online-india

Studying the Emerging Database State in India: Notes for Critical Data Studies (Accepted Abstract)

sumandro — 2015-11-13T05:54:53Z

"Critical Data Studies (CDS) is a growing field of research that focuses on the unique theoretical, ethical, and epistemological challenges posed by 'Big Data.' Rather than treat Big Data as a scientifically empirical, and therefore largely neutral phenomena, CDS advocates the view that data should be seen as always-already constituted within wider data assemblages." The Big Data and Society journal has provisionally accepted a paper abstract of mine for its upcoming special issue on Critical Data Studies.

Introduction

Through the last decade, the Government of India has given shape to an digital identification infrastructure, developed and operated by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The infrastructure combines the task of assigning unique identification numbers, called Aadhaar numbers, to individuals submitting their biometric and demographic details, and the task of authenticating their identity when provided with an Aadhaar number and associated data (biometric data, One Time Pin sent to the pre-declared mobile number, etc.). The aim of UIDAI is to provide universal authentication-as-a-service for all residents of India who approach any public or private agencies for any kind of service or transaction. Simultaneously, the Aadhaar numbers will function as unique identifiers for joining up databases of different government agencies, and hence allow the Indian government to undertake big data analytics at a governmental scale, and not only at a departmental one.

In this paper, I am primarily motivated by the challenge of finding points and objects to enter into a critical study of such an in-progress data infrastructure. As I proceed with an understanding that data is produced within its specific social and material context, the question then is to read through the data to reflect on its possible social and material context. This is complicated when approaching a big data infrastructure that is meant to produce data for explicitly intra-governmental consumption and circulation. The problem then is not one of reading through available big data, but one of reading through the assemblage and imaginaries of big data to reflect on the kind of data it will give rise to, and thus on the politics of the data assemblage and the database state it enables.

Logic of the Database State

Application of data to inform governmental acts have taken place at least since government has been understood as responsible for the welfare of the population and the territory. The measurement of the population and the territory – the number of people, their demographic features, amounts and locations of natural resources, and so on – have always been integral to the functioning of the modern nation-state. Database state is used in this paper to identify a particular mode of mobilisation of data within governmental acts, which is fundamentally shaped by the possibilities of big data extraction, appropriation, and analytics pioneered by a range of companies since late 1990s. The reason for not using big data state but database dtate is that big data refers to a body of technologies emerging in response to a set of data management and analysis challenges situated in a certain moment of development of information technologies, whereas database refers to a symbolic form (Manovich 1999): a form in which not only the population is made visible to the government (as a collection of visual, textual, numeric, and other forms of records), but also how the acts of government are made visible to the population (as a collection of performance indicators, budget allocation and utilisation tables, and other data visualised through dashboards, analog and digital).

The data production and management logic of this database state is specifically inspired by the notion of platform introduced by the so-called Web 2.0 companies: providing a common service layer upon which various other applications may also run, but under specific arrangements (including distribution of generated user data) with the original common layer provider. Data assemblages of the database state are expected to enable the government to function as a platform, as an intensely data-driven layer that widely gathers data about population individuals and feeds it back selectively to various providers of public and private services. This transforms the data assemblage from one vertical of governmental activities to a horizontal critical infrastructure for modularisation of governmental activities.

Studying the Emerging Database State in India

Government of India is presently debating the legal and technical validity of the digital identity infrastructure programme in the Supreme Court, while simultaneously carrying out the enrollment drive for the same, linking up assignment of unique identity numbers with a national drive for population registration, and rolling out citizen-facing services and applications that implement the Aadhaar number as a necessary key to access them. With the enrollment process going on and the integration with various governmental processes (termed seeding by Aadhaar policy literature) just beginning, I enter this study through two key sets of objects reflecting the imaginaries and the technical specifications of the emerging database state in India. The first entry point is through the various official documents of vision, intentions, plans, and reconsiderations, and the second entry point is through the Application Programming Interface (API) documentations published by UIDAI to specify how its identity authentication platform will collaborate with various public and private services.

The first section of the paper provides a brief survey of pre-UIDAI attempts by the Government of India to deploy unique identification numbers and Smart Cards for specific population groups, so as to understand the initial conceptualisation of this data assemblage of a digital identification platform. The second section foregrounds how this platform undertakes a transformation of the components and relations of the pre-existing data assemblage of the Government of India, as articulated in various official documents of promised utility and proposed collaborations. The third section studies the API documentations to track how such imaginaries are materially interpreted and operationalised through the design of protocols of data interactions with various public and private agencies offering services utilising the identity authentication platform.

Notes for Critical Data Studies

Expanding the early agenda note on Critical Data Studies by Craig Dalton and Jim Thatcher (2014), Rob Kitchin and Tracey P. Lauriault have taken steps towards emphasising the responsibility of this nebulous research strategy to chart and unpack the data assemblages (2014). This is exactly what I propose to do in this paper. While Kitchin and Lauriault provide a detailed list of the components of the apparatus of a data assemblage (2014: 7), I find the concepts of infrastructural components and infrastructural relations very useful in thinking through the emerging infrastructure of authentication. Thus, my approach to these tasks of charting and unpacking is focused on the infrastructural relations that the digital identity infrastructure re-configures, instead of the infrastructural components it mobilises (Bowker et al 2010). This tactical choice of focusing on the infrastructural relations is also necessitated by the practical difficulty in having comprehensive access to the individual components of the data assemblage concerned. Addressing questions of causality and quality becomes difficult when studying the assemblage sans the produced data, and rigorously analysing concerns of security and uncertainty pre-requires an actually existing data assemblage, with a public interface to investigating its leakages, breakages, and internal functioning. In the absence of such points of entry into the data assemblage, which I fear may not be an exceptional case, I attempt an inverted reading. Turning the data infrastructure inside out, in this paper I describe how the digital identity platform is critically reshaping the basis of governmental acts in India, through a specific model of production, extraction and application of big data.

Bibliography

Bowker, Geoffrey C., Karen Baker, Florence Millerand, & David Ribes. 2010. Toward Information Infrastructure Studies: Ways of Knowing in a Networked Environment. Jeremy Hunsinger, Lisbeth Klastrup, & Matthew Allen (Eds.) International Handbook of Internet Research. Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York. Pp. 97-117.

Dalton, Craig, & Jim Thatcher. 2014. What does a Critical Data Studies Look Like, and Why do We Care? Seven Points for a Critical Approach to ‘Big Data.’ Society and Space. May 19. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://societyandspace.com/material/commentaries/craig-dalton-and-jim-thatcher-what-does-a-critical-data-studies-look-like-and-why-do-we-care-seven-points-for-a-critical-approach-to-big-data/.

Kitchin, Rob, & Tracey P. Lauriault. 2014. Towards Critical Data Studies: Charting and Unpacking Data Assemblages and their Work. The Programmable City Working Paper 2. July 29. National University of Ireland Maynooth, Ireland. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2474112.

Manovich, Lev. 1999. Database as Symbolic Form. Convergence. Volume 5, Number 2. Pp. 80-99.

Note: Call for Papers for the special issue can found here: http://bigdatasoc.blogspot.in/2015/06/call-for-proposals-special-theme-on.html.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/studying-the-emerging-database-state-in-india-accepted-abstract

Spreading unhappiness equally around

sunil — 2018-07-31T14:49:52Z

The section of civil society opposed to Aadhaar is unhappy because the UIDAI and all other state agencies that wish to can process data non-consensually.

The article was published in Business Standard on July 31, 2018.

There is a joke in policy-making circles — you know you have reached a good compromise if all the relevant stakeholders are equally unhappy. By that measure, the B N Srikrishna committee has done a commendable job since there are many with complaints.

Some in the private sector are unhappy because their demonisation of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has failed. The committee’s draft data protection Bill is closely modelled upon the GDPR in terms of rights, principles, design of the regulator and the design of the regulatory tools like impact assessments. With 4 per cent of global turnover as maximum fine, there is a clear signal that privacy infringements by transnational corporations will be reigned in by the regulator. Getting a law that has copied many elements of the European regulation is good news for us because the GDPR is recognised by leading human rights organisations as the global gold standard. But the bad news for us is that the Bill also has unnecessarily broad data localisation mandates for the private sector.

Some in the fintech sector are unhappy because the committee rejected the suggestion that privacy be regulated as a property right. This is a positive from the human rights perspective, especially because this approach has been rejected across the globe, including the European Union. Property rights are inappropriate because a natural law framing of the enclosure of the commons into private property through labour does not translate to personal data. Also in comparison to patents — or “intellectual property” — the scale of possible discreet property holdings in personal information is several orders higher, posing unimaginable complexity for regulation, possibly creating a gridlock economy.

The section of civil society opposed to Aadhaar is unhappy because the UIDAI and all other state agencies that wish to can process data non-consensually. A similar loophole exists in the GDPR. Remember the definition of processing includes “operations such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation, alteration, retrieval, use, alignment or combination, indexing, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, restriction, erasure or destruction”. This means the UIDAI can collect data from you without your consent and does not have to establish consent for the data it has collected in the past. There is a “necessary” test which is supposed to constrain data collection. But for the last 10 odd years, the UIDAI has deemed it “necessary” to collect biometrics to give the poor subsidised grain. Will those forms of disproportionate non-consensual data collection continue? Most probably because the report recommends that the UIDAI continue to play the role of the regulator with heightened powers. Which is like trusting the fox with
the henhouse.

Employees should be unhappy because the Bill has an expansive ground under which employers can nonconsensually harvest their data. The Bill allows for non-consensual processing of any data “necessary” for recruitment, termination, providing any benefit or service, verifying the attendance or any other activity related to the assessment of the performance”. This is permitted when consent is not an appropriate basis or would involve disproportionate effort on the part of the employer. This is basically a surveillance provision for employers. Either this ground should be removed like in the GDPR or a “proportionate” test should also be introduced otherwise disproportionate mechanisms like spyware on work computers will be installed by employees without providing notice.

Some free speech activists are unhappy because the law contains a “right to be forgotten” provision. They are concerned that this will be used by the rich and powerful to censor mainstream and alternative media. On the face of the “right to be forgotten” in the GDPR is a much more expansive “right to erasure”, whilst the Bill only provides for a more limited "right to restrict or prevent continuing disclosure”. However, the GDPR has a clear exception for “archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes”. The Bill like the GDPR does identify the two competing human rights imperatives — freedom of expression and the right to information. However, by missing the “public interest” test it does not sufficiently social power asymmetries.

Privacy and security researchers are unhappy because re-identification has been made an offence without a public interest or research exception. It is indeed a positive that the committee has made re-identification a criminal offence. This is because the de-identification standards notified by the regulator would always be catching up with the latest mathematical development. However, in order to protect the very research that the regulator needs to protect the rights of individuals, the Bill should have granted the formal and non-formal academic community immunity from liability and criminal prosecution.

Lastly but also most importantly, human rights activists are unhappy because the committee again like the GDPR did not include sufficiently specific surveillance law fixes. The European Union has historically handled this separately in the ePrivacy Regulation. Maybe that is the approach we must also follow or maybe this was a missed opportunity. Overall, the B N Srikrishna committee must be commended for producing a good data protection Bill. The task before us is to make it great and to have it enacted by Parliament at the earliest.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/business-standard-july-31-2018-sunil-abraham-spreading-unhappiness-equally-around

Social Activist Alleges Threat By Police Officer Over Possession of Aadhaar

Admin — 2017-07-20T14:31:12Z

Social activist Shabnam Hashmi recorded a policeman telling her those without address proof and Aadhaar could be “eliminated”.

The article by Gaurav Vivek Bhatnagar was published in the Wire on July 16, 2017. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Well-known social activist Shabnam Hashmi held a press conference to say she was threatened on the telephone by a police officer at the Lajpat Nagar police station warning her that the government had launched a ‘surround and eliminate’ campaign against people whose addresses are not known and who do not possess Aadhaar numbers or cards. This is now a standing instruction to all police stations, Hashmi was told. Moreover, the officer – accused of threatening and abusing Hashmi when she called him on the night of July 14 to know why the husband of a woman, who learns stitching at a training centre run by the NGO Pehchan at Jaitpur in south-east Delhi, had been summoned at a late hour – insisted that police personnel were well within their rights to act in this way.

The police may brush aside this assertion as the concerned officer’s personal opinion, or they may deny the veracity of the conversation, which Hashmi recorded and shared with the media; but she and other anti-Aadhaar activists say the interaction raises questions about the consequences – intended or unintended – of the Centre’s stress on making Aadhaar mandatory for the personal liberty and civil rights of ordinary residents.

Many Aadhaar critics have, in the past, expressed the fear that the irresponsible use or misuse of Aadhaar could lead to India becoming a ‘surveillance state’ or ‘police state’ by placing enormous discretionary powers in the hands of unscrupulous state officials.

Petitioners in SC had cautioned against misuse of Aadhaar

Earlier this year, Communist Party of India leader Binoy Viswam had filed a petition in the Supreme Court questioning the introduction of Section 139 AA of the IT Act to link Aadhaar cards with PAN cards. Subsequently, in an interview in April this year, he had noted that “the citizens are becoming instruments in the hands of the state” as “by taking fingerprints, iris scans and other details of the citizens of the country, the state is becoming the custodian of its people.” He had also expressed the fear that “the state can use this data according to its whims and fancies”.

Viswam could not have been more correct. Much before the use of data, “elements” of the state have started using the ruse of creation of data itself as a convenient tool to threaten and intimidate people and this is precisely what happened in the case of Hashmi.

Recalling the incident, Hashmi, who is the founding trustee of Pehchan, said the NGO runs a small centre in Jaitpur extension where it teaches school dropouts to appear for class 10 and 12 examinations and also runs sewing classes for women.

Hashmi said that at around 9 pm on July 14, Haseen, the husband of Mubina, one of the trainees, was summoned by a sub-inspector to the Lajpat Nagar police station regarding a complaint. When Hashmi called up the police station to find out what the summons was about, the policeman allegedly “hurled abuses”, and used “highly derogatory and uncivilised language” during the conversation.

Though Hashmi did not have a recorder in her phone at the time of the first call, she subsequently downloaded one and later recorded her conversation with the same officer.

In this conversation, the policeman is heard reasoning with Hashmi that he had not summoned Haseen at a late hour. He claimed that he used harsh language in the first conversation since she had not identified herself and had only proclaimed herself to be a social worker. It also comes across in the conversation that Hashmi had told the man in the earlier conversation that he was drunk while being on duty and that this had irked him. It emerged that the cop had got an inkling that she was recording the later conversation, because of which he apparently mellowed down.

The issue assumes significance as after declaring twice in the past that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for delivering services, the Supreme Court had recently upheld the validity of an Income Tax law amendment linking PAN with Aadhaar for filing tax returns.

Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi had argued that the government was “entitled to have identification” and that “as constituents of society people can’t claim immunity from identification.” Rohatgi had insisted that “no right is absolute, right to body is not absolute. Under extreme cases even right to life can be taken away, under due process.”

Experts have often cautioned against Aadhaar misuse

According to legal experts, the illegalities related to Aadhaar do not just end with such arguments. Writing for The Wire, Prashant Reddy T., a research associate at the School of Law, Singapore Management University, had noted that in the past couple of months the “Modi government has increasingly used its rule-making powers under various laws in a manner which is contrary to the law of the land.” He was referring to the Centre’s announcement to mandatorily link Aadhaar numbers to all non-small bank accounts, failing which, access to the bank accounts would be disabled after December 31.

“As is often the case with this government, the question now is whether this new mandatory Aadhaar requirement (and the threatened punishment) is legal,” the expert had asked.

Earlier this year, writing for the Hindustan Times, Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, and an affiliated fellow at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project, had referred to the immense potential of Aadhaar for profiling and surveillance. He had called for fundamentally altering Aadhaar, saying that if the rampant misuse of surveillance and wilful ignorance of the law by the state were anything to go by, the future looked bleak.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wire-gaurav-vivek-bhatnagar-july-16-2017-social-activist-alleges-threat-by-police-officer-over-possession-of-aadhaar

Should Aadhaar be mandatory?

amber — 2017-12-18T15:54:39Z

This week, a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court will adjudicate on limited questions of stay orders in the Aadhaar case. After numerous attempts by the petitioners in the Aadhaar case, the court has agreed to hear this matter, just shy of the looming deadline of December 31 for the linking of Aadhaar numbers to avail government services and benefits.

The article was published in Deccan Herald on December 9, 2017.

Getting their day in the court to hear interim matters is but a small victory in what has been a long and frustrating fight for the petitioners. In 2012, Justice K S Puttaswamy, a former Karnataka High Court judge, filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the Aadhaar project due its lack of legislative basis (the Aadhaar Act was passed by Parliament in 2016) and its transgressions on our fundamental rights.

Over time, a number of other petitions also made their way to the apex court challenging different aspects of the Aadhaar project. Since then, five different interim orders of the Supreme Court have stated that no person should suffer because they do not have an Aadhaar number.

Aadhaar, according to the Supreme Court, could not be made mandatory to avail benefits and services from government schemes. Further, the court has limited the use of Aadhaar to only specific schemes, namely LPG, PDS, MNREGA, National Social Assistance Program, the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna and EPFO.

The then Attorney General, Mukul Rohatgi, in a hearing before the court in July 2015 stated that there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. But the judgement by the nine-judge bench earlier this year was an emphatic endorsement of the constitutional right to privacy.

In the course of a 547-page judgement, the bench affirmed the fundamental nature of the right to privacy, reading it into the values of dignity and liberty.

Yet months after the judgement, the Supreme Court has failed to hear arguments in the Aadhaar matter. The reference to a larger bench and subsequent deferrals have since delayed the entire matter, even as the government has moved to make Aadhaar mandatory for a number of government schemes.

At this point, up to 140 government services have made linking with Aadhaar mandatory to avail these services. Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has promised a constitution bench this week, likely to look only into interim matters of stay on the deadline of Aadhaar-linking. It is likely that the hearings for the final arguments are still some months away. The refusal of the court to adjudicate on this issue has been extremely disappointing, and a grave disservice to the court's intended role as the champion of individual rights.

It is worth noting that the interim orders by the Supreme Court that no person should suffer because they do not have an Aadhaar number, and limiting its use only to specified schemes, still stand.

However, since the passage of the Aadhaar Act, which allows the use of Aadhaar by both private and public parties, permits making it mandatory for availing any benefits, subsidies and services funded by the Consolidated Fund of India, the spate of services for which Aadhaar has been made mandatory suggests that as per the government, the Aadhaar Act has, in effect, nullified the orders by the Supreme Court.

This was stated in so many words by Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad in the Rajya Sabha in April. This view is an erroneous one. While acts of Parliament can supersede previous judicial orders, they must do so either through an express statement in the objects of the Act, or implied when the two are mutually incompatible. In this case, the Aadhaar Act, while permitting the government authorities to make Aadhaar mandatory, does not impose a clear duty to do so.

Therefore, reading the orders and the legislation together leads one to the conclusion that all instances of Aadhaar being made mandatory under the Aadhaar Act are void.

The question may be more complicated for cases where Aadhaar has been made mandatory through other legislations, such as Prevention of Money Laundering Act, as they clearly mandate the linking of Aadhaar numbers, rather than merely allowing it. However, despite repeated appeals of the petitioners, the court has so far refused to engage with the question of the legality of such instances.

How may the issues finally be resolved? When the court deigns to hear final arguments, the Aadhaar case will be instructive in how the court defines the contours of the right to privacy. The right to privacy judgement, while instructive in its exposition of the different aspects of privacy, does not delve deeply into the question of what may be legitimate limitations on this right.

In one of the passages of the judgement, "ensuring that scarce public resources are not dissipated by the diversion of resources to persons who do not qualify as recipients" is mentioned as an example of a legitimate incursion into the right to privacy. However, it must be remembered that none of the opinions in the privacy judgement were majority judgements.

Therefore, in future cases, lawyers and judges must parse through the various opinions to arrive at an understanding of the majority opinion, supported by five or more judges. While the privacy judgement was a landmark one, its actual impact on the rights discourse and on matters like Aadhaar will depend extensively on the how the judges choose to interpret it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/should-aadhaar-be-mandatory

Sharad Sharma Apologises for Trolling Aadhaar Critics; Unmasking Ispirit's Controversial Trolling Program

praskrishna — 2017-05-26T01:08:09Z

Last weekend I was at Aditi Mittal’s standup comedy show in Mumbai where she made a cheeky remark that stayed with me – “Do you guys know what India’s soft power is today? It is trolling!”

The blog post by Shweta Modgil was published by Inc 42 on May 23, 2017.

While she was poking fun at the Snapchat-Snapdeal-Evan Spiegel controversy, in a bizarre coincidence those words came back to haunt me three days later. That was when one of biometric authentication system Aadhaar’s most vocal critics, Kiran Jonnalagadda, co-founder of Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), an advocacy group, revealed in a series of tweets that @Confident_India, one of the anonymous accounts arguing in favour of Aadhaar and attacking its critics on Twitter, was being operated by none other than Sharad Sharma, the founder of software products think tank iSPIRT.

At the time, Sharad had completely denied that he was tweeting from an anonymous account. But today, on Twitter, Sharad apologised for the anonymous trolling on Twitter.

In a tweet, Sharad stated that “There was a lapse of judgement on my part. I condoned tweets with uncivil comments. So I’d like to unreservedly apologise to everybody who was hurt by them.”

He added that “Anonymity seemed easier than propriety, and tired as I was by personal events and attacks on iSPIRT’s reputation, I slipped.” Furthermore, he stated that he would not be part of anything like this again or allow such behaviour to continue. He also revealed that an iSPIRT Guidelines and Compliance Committee (IGCC) has been set up to investigate the matter and recommend corrective action.

On Catching a Troll

On 17 May, Kiran tweeted out a revelation, which shook a lot of people – “Have we caught an Aadhaar troll?” Kiran used Twitter’s account reset option on Confident_India with Sharad Sharma’s number to see if it is was accepted. And, as per a screenshot posted by him, it did.

This was further corroborated by many other Twitter users. Medianama’s Nikhil Pahwa (and co-founder of IFF) also confirmed the same, tweeting that the troll account does link to Sharad Sharma.

In a detailed Medium post, Kiran then revealed how he investigated the rise of anonymous Twitter accounts and trolls responding to critics of Aadhaar. But what he revealed next was the shocking part – that at the 27th Fellows meeting of the think tank, a plan was hatched to respond to critics of India Stack which involved the use of trolls. A group called Sudham, created earlier, divided people who were broadcasting different views on Aadhaar, into different categories and then underlined various proposals on dealing with them. One of the groups called “archers” was entrusted to carry out the mainstream debate, while another group of “swordsmen” was entrusted to challenge people who were categorised as informed yet “trolling.” Swordsmen would do this by coordinating on WhatsApp with quick responses and in numbers.

Kiran got a hold of the presentation and also shared how one controversial slide also showed a detractor matrix.

It is this slide which Kiran uses to illustrate the fact that: “ iSPIRT has an officially sanctioned trolling program where the trolls coordinate on WhatsApp and attack together on Twitter, exactly the behaviour seen in all the tweets above—and I’ve only covered the leader’s tweets. There are at least a dozen known troll accounts that attack in packs.”

First Denial

Back when the information was first revealed, Sharad Sharma responded by denying that he was tweeting from the @Confident_India Twitter account.

He further added that he was in for a family emergency in the US. And that he was clueless as to why his number was linked with that account.

But, interestingly, what roused the investigator’s suspicions was that Sharad shared the same denial from another troll account @indiaforward2 – which was captured by another Twitter user before it was deleted.

The denial from Sharad’s true account came half an hour later. But the damage had been done and all fingers pointed in the direction of Sharad Sharma engaging in trolling from those accounts. Kiran then wrote another damning post on Sharad’s dubious denial.

As can be guessed, all the tweets related to this matter from Sharad’s and Indiaforward’s accounts have been deleted. The last tweet from Confident India’s account on 17 May professed that he is not Sharad Sharma.

Meanwhile, iSPIRT finally responded to Kiran’s revelations on Medium –“We want to categorically state that the allegations against iSPIRT coordinating and/or promoting any troll campaign are false and the evidence presented is a deliberate misreading of our intent to engage with those speaking against India Stack.”

The post further explained that in its Fellows meeting held in February and April 2017, it did address the issue of the chatter around India Stack. It says, “Our volunteer, Tanuj Bhojwani, led the discussion and we outlined our strategy for dealing with our detractors. The slide in question is clearly titled “Detractor Matrix.” The slide outlines how we classify those speaking against India Stack, and how we are engaging with them. We called one category of people “informed yet trolling (IYT),” a category of people deliberately misleading people, despite understanding the nuance behind the debate.”

The post admitted that the think tank encouraged volunteers to respond to these IYT Twitter handles directly from their own personal handles. However, at no point did it endorse or recommend anonymous trolling.

“We are aware that some volunteers and their friends have created an anonymous campaign to Support Aadhaar. This is not a troll campaign, but an informational one. It is also not an iSPIRT campaign.”

It concluded with: “Kiran’s motivated misrepresentation of the slides perhaps speaks to his biases against iSPIRT.” The post added that it plans to investigate the confusion around the alleged mobile number and account link and clarify all outstanding questions.

Meanwhile coming back to trolling from where we started. Though Sharad’s apology did not say directly whether he operated the two Twitter accounts — @Confident_ India and @Indiaforward2 — which he was suspected of using for trolling- he signs off by saying that he requests “those who I have disappointed to look at this as an exception.”

The Aadhaar Controversy

While the series of incidents raises many doubts over an esteemed organisation such as iSPIRT, the controversy over Aadhaar, India’s massive biometric identification programme, has been raging for many months now.

Over the last few months, it has come under fire for not addressing the privacy concerns of an individual and leaking individual data. Aadhaar critics have pointed out that it is more a mass surveillance tool, can lead to identity thefts, and linking basic services with it spells doom.

This month, a CIS (Centre for Internet and Society ) report revealed that Aadhaar numbers and personal information of as many as 135 million Indians could have been leaked from four government portals, due to lack of IT security practices. The report claimed that the absence of “proper controls” in populating the databases could have disastrous results as it may divulge sensitive information about individuals, including details about the address, photographs, and financial data. It also added that as many as 100 Mn bank account numbers could have been “leaked.”

However, on May 16, the CIS updated its report and clarified that although the term ‘leak’ was originally used 22 times in its report, it is at “best characterised as an illegal data disclosure or publication and not a breach or a leak.” It also claimed that some of its findings were “misunderstood or misinterpreted” by the media and that it never suggested that the biometric database had been breached.

Meanwhile, the Aadhaar-issuing authority UIDAI has asked CIS to explain its sensational claim that 13 crore Aadhaar numbers were “leaked” and provide details of servers where they are stored. The UIDAI also wants CIS to clarify what kind of “sensitive data” is still with the Centre or anyone else. The UIDAI has strongly denied any breach of its database and has asked CIS to provide details such as the servers where the downloaded “sensitive data” is stored.

While the security of the above-mentioned Aadhaar data is still being debated, the government’s push towards making it compulsory across industries has become a major topic of debate in India.

From linking bank accounts, to PAN numbers, to obtaining free gas connections under the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana, to linking scholarships to linking Aadhaar numbers to social welfare schemes for electronically disbursing money to specific beneficiaries, or the Aadhaar-enabled Payment System (AEPS), the government has been pushing on with Aadhaar to make it a mandatory ID rather than the voluntary one it was envisaged to be originally. India still does not have a data protection and privacy law and making Aadhaar mandatory in such a country is not without risks.

Given the fact that the UIDAI cannot afford to carry out authentication-based rollouts across schemes in haste as the failure rate of AEPS can lead to denial of direct benefits, it makes more sense to retain Aadhaar as a voluntary authenticator, at least until the government solves on-ground issues around Aadhaar-based authentication. Because any failure can erode public faith in Aadhaar as the beneficiary would not get his rightful ration over authentication failure— and, to that extent, in the government itself. So, for beneficiaries who depend on public distribution systems (PDS) for rice, sugar, kerosene or oil, authentication failure is a serious problem.

It is to this effect that PILs (public interest litigation suits) have been filed in the Supreme Court stating that making Aadhaar compulsory is illegal and would virtually convert citizens into “slaves” as they would be under the government’s surveillance all the time. The Supreme Court had itself stated in August 2015 that Aadhaar cards will not be mandatory for availing benefits of government’s welfare schemes and had also barred authorities from sharing personal biometric data collected for enrollment under the scheme.

Last month too, it lambasted the Narendra Modi-led BJP government at the Centre for making Aadhaar card a mandatory prerequisite to avail government services. The court will examine all applications against Aadhaar on June 27 2017, while the government remains steadfast on not extending the deadline of June 30 by which various schemes such as the grant of scholarships, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and various other social welfare schemes were to seek mandatory Aadhaar number.

While the debate rages on, controversies keep on piling up. Recently, linking people living with HIV/ AIDS with Aadhaar cards has allegedly driven away patients from hospitals and antiretroviral therapy (ATR) centres in Madhya Pradesh. As per health department sources, the MP State AIDS Control Society made Aadhaar card number compulsory from February this year for those affected by the virus to get free medicines and treatment in accordance with the Central government’s policy making Aadhaar mandatory to avail benefits of any government scheme.

However, this led to negative fallout as many patients and suspected victims started avoiding ATR centres and district hospitals after the new rule came into effect. The patients feared that the compulsory submission of Aadhaar card to get free medicines and medical check-ups could lead to the disclosure of their identity, inviting social stigma.

While there is no denying the fact that, in a welfare state, technology can play a big role in enabling the state to hand out entitlements more efficiently and distribute public services at scale. But doing the same at the cost of an individual citizen’s privacy and resting it all on one mandatory number whose authentication is still not completely foolproof, is hardly the way a welfare state would like to operate.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/inc42-may-23-2017-shweta-modgil-sharad-sharma-aplogises-for-trolling-aadhaar-critics

Seven reasons why Parliament should debate the Aadhaar bill (and not pass it in a rush)

praskrishna — 2016-03-24T02:25:24Z

Critics say the Aadhaar Bill does not address concerns over privacy, even as government is rushing the Bill without adequate parliamentary scrutiny.

The blog post by Anumeha Yadav was published in Scroll.in on March 11, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Since it was launched by the United Progressive Alliance government in 2009, the Unique Identification project called Aadhaar has functioned without a legal framework. The project, which aims to assign a biometric-based number to every Indian resident, has been run under an executive order, which means Parliament has no oversight over it.

An Aadhaar Bill was introduced in 2010 but it was rejected by a parliamentary committee over legislative, security, and privacy concerns.

For long, critics have expressed concerns over collecting and centralising citizens' biometric data ‒ such as fingerprints and retina scans ‒ on a mass scale in the absence of a privacy law. The Supreme Court in several orders in 2014 and 2015 affirmed that the government cannot require people to register for an Aadhaar number and no one can be deprived of a government service for not having an Aadhaar number. The Supreme Court is now set to form a constitution bench to examine the contours of the right to privacy flowing from the government's arguments in the Aadhaar case.

Before the bench begins its work, however, the Modi government has introduced a new Bill on Aadhaar, which could override the court's orders.

The Aadhaar (Target Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill was introduced on March 3 in Lok Sabha. Finance minister Arun Jaitley said the new Bill addresses concerns over privacy and the security and confidentiality of information.

But a close examination of the Bill shows several questions remain.

1. Does the Bill make it mandatory for you to get an Aadhaar number?
Yes, you may have to compulsorily enrol under Aadhaar, despite the privacy concerns explained in the sections below.

Four-time member of the Lok Sabha, Bhartruhari Mahtab of the Biju Janata Dal, was on the parliamentary committee on finance that examined the previous Aadhaar Bill introduced in 2010. He said the new Aadhaar Bill does not specify that it will not be made mandatory.

“There is duplicity over this issue,” said Mahtab. “Nandan Nilekani [the former chairperson of the Unique Identification Authority of India] repeatedly told us in the parliamentary committee that Aadhaar is not mandatory. The Supreme Court also said, 'You cannot make it mandatory.'”

But if a service agent asks for Aadhaar mandatorily, then as a beneficiary, citizens have no option but to get an Aadhaar number, Mahtab explained. “The government, or a private company, cannot force me to get an Aadhaar number," he said. "The government should bring a law that clearly says Aadhaar is not mandatory.”

A committee of experts on privacy, chaired by Justice AP Shah, had recommended in 2012 that the Bill should specify that individuals have the choice to opt-in or out-of providing their Aadhaar number, and a service should not be denied to individuals who do not provide their number. The Unique Identification Authority of India had then stated to the committee that the enrolment in Aadhaar is voluntary.

But the new Aadhaar Bill does not incorporate a categorical clause on opt-in and opt-out. Instead, it broadens the scope of Aadhaar. Jaitley said the Bill will allow the government to ask a citizen to produce an Aadhaar number to avail of any government subsidy. But section 7 of the Bill is phrased more broadly, and refers to not just subsidies but any “subsidy, benefit or service” for which expense is incurred on the Consolidated Fund of India, or the government treasury.

7. The Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government may, for the purpose of establishing identity of an individual as a condition for receipt of a subsidy, benefit or service for which the expenditure is incurred from, or the receipt therefrom forms part of, the Consolidated Fund of India, require that such individual undergo authentication, or furnish proof of possession of Aadhaar number or in the case of an individual to whom no Aadhaar number has been assigned, such individual makes an application for enrolment: Provided that if an Aadhaar number is not assigned to an individual, the individual shall be offered alternate and viable means of identification for delivery of the subsidy, benefit or service.

As noted above, the proviso in section 7 is premised on the phrase: “if an Aadhaar number is not assigned”. This, along with language preceding in the section, indicates that a citizen may be compulsorily required to apply for enrolment.

Section 8 permits a “requesting entity” to utilise identity information for authentication with the Central Identities Data Repository. A “requesting entity” is defined under Section 2(u), and will include private entities.

2. Does the Bill allow Aadhaar authorities to share your personal data?
Yes, in the "interest of national security", a term that remains undefined.

Both legal experts and members of Parliament have flagged the provisions in the Bill on the circumstances in which users' data, including core biometrics information, can be shared.

The debate centres over the interception provisions in section 33.

In a piece in The Indian Express, Nandan Nilekani, the former chairperson of the issuing authority, stated that the Aadhaar Bill provides that no core biometric information can be shared, a principle without exception. “...Clause 29(1) is not overridden by Clause 33(2),” he noted.

However, a closer reading of the Bill shows this is not the case. Clause 33(2), in fact, does provide an exception to clause 29(1)(b):

33(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) of section 28 and clause (b) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 29 shall apply in respect of any disclosure of information, including identity information or authentication records, made in the interest of national security in pursuance of a direction of an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India specially authorised in this behalf by an order of the Central Government

where, Section 29(1)(b) states:

29. (1) No core biometric information, collected or created under this Act, shall be — (b) used for any purpose other than generation of Aadhaar numbers and authentication under this Act.

Pranesh Prakash, a lawyer and policy director of the Centre for Internet and Society said: “This implies that the core biometric information, collected or created under the Aadhaar Act, may be used for purposes other than the generation of Aadhaar numbers and authentication 'in the interest of national security.'"

Legal experts point out that the phrase “national security” is undefined in the present bill, as well as the General Clauses Act, and thus the circumstances in which an individual's information may be disclosed remains open to interpretation.

Section 33(1) permits the disclosure of an individual's demographic information (but not biometrics) following an order by a district judge. It says that no such order shall be made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the UIDAI , but not to the person whose data is being disclosed.

3. Does the Bill protect you from interception and surveillance?
No, the Bill does not provide for transparency concerning covert surveillance.

Section 33(2), which permits disclosure of demographic and biometric pursuant to directions of the joint secretary in interest of national security, says such disclosures will be for three months initially, and a fresh renewal can be granted for another three months, without a limitation on the number of such renewals.

This can lead to a user being under continuous surveillance, and without any notification to the user even after the surveillance ceases, violating one of necessary and proportionate principles on communications surveillance related to user notification and right to effective remedy. In some countries, this principle has been incorporated in law. For example, in Canada, the law limits the time of wiretapping surveillance, and imposes an obligation to notify the person under surveillance within 90 days of the end of the surveillance, extendable to a maximum of three years at a time.

“The interception provisions are severely problematic," said Apar Gupta, a technology lawyer. "They are not open to independent scrutiny and even derogate from the already deficient practices which relate to phone tapping (Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules) and interception of data (Interception Rules, 2011).”

Legal scholar Usha Ramanathan pointed out that the Bill lacks provisions on giving notice to a person in case of breach of information, in case of third party use of data, or change in purpose of use of data – which were among provisions recommended by the Justice Shah Committee on Privacy in 2012.

4. Does the Bill allow you to seek redress in case of breach of information?
Yes, but the provisions are weak.

Government officials overseeing the project said that the 2016 Bill is an improvement over the 2010 Bill as it safeguards the information of those enrolled as per sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

But technology law experts say the adjudicatory system for disclosure of sensitive personal data under the IT Act has structural flaws and is not functional.

“Initial complaints against the disclosure of sensitive personal data go to an adjudicating officer who is usually the IT Secretary of the state government and may not be trained in law,” said Gupta, the technology lawyer. “There is no court infrastructure and no permanent seat for such cases. The appellate body, the Cyber Appellate Tribunal, has not been made operational in the last three years. Hence, the civil remedies offered [in the Aadhaar Bill] are at best illusionary and unenforceable.”

5. Does the Bill give you the right to alter your information?
No, it leaves you to the mercy of the Unique Identification Authority of India.

Imagine a situation where a user simply wants to change their first or last name, or say, not use their caste name. Under Section 31 of the Bill, individuals can only request the UID authority, which may do so “if it is satisfied”. There is no penalty on the authority if it fails to respond. The Bill does not provide for a user to even be able to approach a court to ask for their information relating to Aadhaar to be corrected.

International norms for data protection give individuals the right to correct and alter information, if their demographic data changes. They provide for individuals to have a copy of their information, and to approach courts for an order to rectify, block, erase inaccurate information.

In an interview to Mint, Sunil Abraham, director of the Centre for Internet and Society, compared the rights of Aadhaar users to the rights we now take for granted as internet users. “Authentication factors [biometrics in the case of Aadhaar], commonly known as passwords, should always be revocable,” noted Abraham. “That means if the password is compromised, you should be able to change the password or at least say that this password is no longer valid.” In its current form, the Aadhaar Bill gives users no such rights.

6. Is the current Bill an improvement over the previous one?
Not really.

The Aadhaar Bill 2016 provides that the renewals of requests for disclosure of data will be reviewed by an oversight committee consisting of the cabinet secretary and the secretaries in the department of legal affairs and the department of electronics and information technology.

This is a watered down version of the provisions in the previous Unique Identification Authority of India 2010 Bill, said Chinmayi Arun, executive director, Centre for Communication Governance at the National Law University Delhi.

“The previous version or the 2010 Bill provided for a three-member review committee, consisting of the nominees of the prime minister, the leader of the opposition, and a third nominee of a union cabinet minister, with the restriction that these nominees could not be a member of parliament or a member of a political party,” Arun said. “This would be a more independent committee than the one proposed now, wherein there will be executive oversight for executive orders."

Regarding penalties, the previous 2010 Bill made copying, deleting, stealing, or altering information in the Central Identities Data Repository, punishable with a jail term of upto three years and a fine not less than Rs 1 crore.

Section 38 of the new Aadhaar Bill now makes the same offence punishable with a jail term of upto three years and reduces the upper limit of the fine to “not less than ten lakh rupees”.

7. Finally, does the Aadhaar Bill have enough parliamentary scrutiny?
The government has introduced the legislation on Aadhaar in the form of a Money Bill, which means the power of the Rajya Sabha to review and amend the Bill is curtailed ‒ if the Speaker Sumitra Mahajan certifies that this is a Money Bill.

The parliamentary committee on finance under Bharatiya Janata Party MP Yashwant Sinha had rejected the previous Bill in December 2011 citing legislative, security, and privacy concerns. Despite this, two successive Prime Ministers – Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi – have pushed ahead with Aadhaar project.

A common refrain has been that the unique biometric identity will resolve the problem of the poor in India to prove identity and overcome "one of the biggest barriers preventing the poor from accessing benefits and subsidies." But last April, the UIDAI in response to an RTI application revealed that of 83.5 crore Aadhaar numbers issued till then, 99.97% were issued to people who already had at least two existing identification documents, only 0.21 million (0.03%) used the "introducer system" that provides an exception to those lacking identity proof.

More recently, there has been no public consultation by the government over the latest Bill.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/scroll.in-anumeha-yadav-march-24-2016-seven-reasons-why-parliament-should-debate-the-aadhaar-bill-and-not-pass-it-in-a-rush

Seminar on Understanding Financial Technology, Cashless India, and Forced Digitalisation (Delhi, January 24)

sumandro — 2017-01-23T13:17:19Z

The Centre for Financial Accountability is organising a seminar on "Understanding Financial Technology, Cashless India, and Forced Digitalisation" on Tuesday, January 24, at YWCA, Ashoka Road, New Delhi. Sumandro Chattapadhyay will participate in the seminar and speak on the emerging architecture of FinTech in India, as being developed and deployed by UIDAI and NPCI.

Cross-posted from Centre for Financial Accountability.

Programme Schedule

09.30 - Registration

10:00 - Introduction to the Seminar & Setting the Context

Madhuresh Kumar, National Alliance of People’s Movements

10:15–11:30 - Session 1 - Understanding the Political Context of FinTech

B P Mathur, Former Dy CAG

Prabir Purkayastha, Free Software Movement of India and Knowledge Commons

C P Chandrasekhar, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, JNU

11:30-11:45 – Tea / Coffee break

11:45-13:15 - Session 2 - How will FinTech Impact the Poor, and Labour and Banking Sector?

Ashim Roy, New Trade Union of India

Nikhil Dey, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan

Ravinder Gupta, General Secretary, State Bank of India Officers Association

13:15-14:00 – Lunch

14:00-15:30 - Session 3 - Understanding the Economic Context of FinTech

Indira Rajaraman, Former Director, RBI

Tony Joseph, Sr. Journalist

15:30-17:00 - Session 4 - Understanding the Architecture of FinTech: Linkages to Aadhaar, IndiaStack etc

Sumandro Chattapadhyay, the Centre for Internet and Society

Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch

17:00 – Tea

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/seminar-on-understanding-financial-technology-cashless-india-and-forced-digitalisation-delhi-jan-24-2017