Centre for Internet and Society

India’s Digital ID Rollout Collides With Rickety Reality

praskrishna — 2017-01-17T15:35:04Z

India’s new digital identification system, years in the making and now being put into widespread use, has yet to deliver the new era of modern efficiency it promised for shop owner Om Prakash and customer Daya Chand.

The article by Gabriele Parussini was published in the Wall Street Journal on January 13, 2017. Hans Varghese Mathews was quoted.

At first, it drove both men up a tree.

The system, which relies on fingerprints and eye scans to eventually provide IDs to all 1.25 billion Indians, is also expected to improve the distribution of state food and fuel rations and eventually facilitate daily needs such as banking and buying train tickets.

But Mr. Prakash couldn’t confirm his customers’ identities until he dragged them to a Java plum tree in a corner of his village near New Delhi’s international airport. That was the only place to get the phone signal needed to tap into the government database.

“I hopped on a chair and put my finger in the machine,” said Mr. Chand, a 60-year-old taxi driver. Getting his state food ration “used to be much easier,” he said.

In a system so vast, even small glitches can leave millions of people empty-handed.

The government began building the system, called Aadhaar, or “foundation,” with great fanfare in 2009, led by a team of pioneering technology entrepreneurs. Since then, almost 90% of India’s population has been enrolled in what is now the world’s largest biometric data set.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who set aside early skepticism about the Aadhaar project after taking power in 2014, is betting that it can help India address critical problems such as poverty and corruption, while also saving money for the government.

But the technology is colliding with the rickety reality of India, where many people live off the grid or have fingerprints compromised by manual labor or age.

Panna Singh, a 55-year-old day laborer in the northwestern state of Rajasthan who breaks stones used to build walls, says the machine recognized his scuffed-up fingerprints only a couple of times.

“I’ve come twice today,” he said at a ration shop in the village of Devdungri. “That’s a full day of work, gone.”

Iris scans are meant to resolve situations where fingerprints don’t work, but shops don’t yet have iris scanners.

Ajay Bhushan Pandey, chief executive of the government agency that oversees Aadhaar, said kinks will be ironed out as the system is used, as is the case with software rollouts. It works 92% of the time, and that will rise to 95%, he said.

“On the scale of what [Aadhaar] has achieved, the rollout has been remarkably smooth,” said Nandan Nilekani, the Infosys co-founder who spearheaded the project. “I don’t see any issues that are disproportionate to the size of project.”

An Aadhaar ID is intended to be a great convenience, replacing the multitude of paperwork required by banks, merchants and government agencies. The benefits are only just beginning, backers say, as the biometric IDs are linked to programs and services.

But in rural areas, home to hundreds of millions of impoverished Indians dependent on subsidies, the impact of technical disruptions has already been evident.

After walking for two hours across rough underbrush in Rajasthan to get kerosene for the month, Hanja Devi left empty-handed because the machine couldn’t match her fingerprint with her Aadhaar number.

“It’s always so difficult” using the system, said Ms. Devi, who lives with her husband and a nephew on 1,500 rupees ($22) a month.

Ranjit Singh, who operates the shop, said five of the 37 customers before Ms. Devi also left the shop empty-handed, a failure rate of over 15%.

A shop manager in a neighboring village said identification had failed for a similar portion of his 500 customers.

Any biometric recognition system of Aadhaar’s size is bound to show duplicates, meaning some people’s biometric identifiers will match someone else’s when they try to enroll.The new system hasn’t eliminated attempts at fraud. In August, police in Rajasthan accused two shop managers of linking their fingerprints to a multitude of cards and stealing for months the rations of dozens of clients.

Hans Varghese Mathews, a mathematician at the Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society, used the results of a test run by Aadhaar officials on a sample of 84 million people to extrapolate the figure for India’s total population. The error level is less than 1%, but in the world’s second-most populous country, the snag would still affect about 11 million people, he said.

Government officials disputed the calculation, saying the number of duplicates would be much smaller—and that it would take only seven analysts to manage the error caseload.

As for trouble connecting to the registry, better infrastructure, including steadier internet connections, will eventually also help, Mr. Pandey said.

For now, Mr. Prakash has found a way to cope without climbing trees. After scouring the village, he set up a shack in a spot with enough bandwidth for his fingerprint scanner to work. It is hardly efficient. He issues receipts in the morning at the shack, then goes back to his shop to hand out the grains. Customers have to line up twice, sometimes for hours.

Mr. Prakash has applied to the government to operate without biometric identification, but his request was turned down, he said. “They said: ‘You have to keep trying.’ ”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/wall-street-journal-gabriele-parussini-january-13-2017-indias-digital-id-rollout-collides-with-rickety-reality

India’s biometric ID scans make sci-fi a reality

praskrishna — 2017-03-28T02:45:28Z

I have been thinking about my fingerprints and the secrets that may lie within my eyes — and whether I want to share them with the Indian government. I may not however have a choice.

The article by Amy Kazmin was published in the Financial Times on March 27, 2017. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

India has the world’s largest domestic biometric identification system, known as Aadhaar. Since 2010, the government has collected fingerprints and iris scans from more than 1bn residents, and each has been assigned a 12-digit identification number.

The scheme is championed by Nandan Nilekani, the billionaire co-founder of IT company Infosys. It was initially conceived to ensure poor Indians received subsidised food entitlements and other welfare benefits that were previously siphoned off by unscrupulous intermediaries. It was also seen as offering poor Indians, many of whom lack birth certificates, with a portable ID that can be used anywhere in the country.

Until now, obtaining an Aadhaar number was voluntary, though most Indians enrolled without hesitation as they see its potential benefits. But New Delhi is now enlisting Aadhaar, which means “foundation” or “base” in Hindi, in more than just welfare schemes. This would mean sharing one’s biometric details isn’t really optional any more despite a Supreme Court ruling that it should be “purely voluntary”.

Last week, the government issued a rule requiring an Aadhaar number for filing tax returns, ostensibly to improve tax compliance. It has also decided that all cell phone numbers must be linked to an Aadhaar number by 2018. Even Indian Railways has plans to demand Aadhaar from those booking train tickets online.

What was once touted as an initiative to improve delivery of welfare suddenly now seems like the foundation of a surveillance state — and I admit the prospect of putting my own biometrics in the database leaves me uneasy.

As a US citizen, I’ve never had to give my biometric data to my government. Domestically, fingerprints are only taken from criminal suspects, or applicants for government jobs, though I know foreign citizens are fingerprinted on arrival.

To me, the idea of sharing eye scans evokes the dystopian Hollywood film, Minority Report, which depicts a near future in which optical-recognition cameras allow the authorities to identify anyone in any public place. The hero on the run, played by Tom Cruise, has an illegal eye transplant to avoid detection.

In recent days, many Indian academics and activists have raised concerns about Aadhaar data security, the lack of privacy rules and the absence of any accountability structure if data are misused.

"Biometrics is being weaponised," says Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society. "What you need to be worried about is that someone will clean out your bank account or frame you in a crime," he says.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta, director of the Centre for Policy Research, has written of the “conversion of Aadhaar from a tool of citizen empowerment to a tool of state surveillance and citizen vulnerability”.

I call Mr Nilekani, of whose honourable intentions I have no doubt. After leaving Infosys in 2009, he spent five years in government, working to get Aadhaar off the ground. He says he is “extremely offended” when his project is accused of being part of a surveillance society, a narrative he says is “completely misrepresenting” the project. “I can steal your fingerprint off your glass. I don’t need this fancy technology,” he says. “Surveillance is far better done by following my phone, or when I use a map to order a taxi: the map knows where I am. Our internet companies know where you are.”

But in a society known for ingenious means of bypassing rules, such as having multiple taxpayer ID cards to aid evasion, Mr Nilekani says biometric authentication of individuals can bring discipline and reduce cheating. “It’s like you are creating a rule-based society,” he says, “it’s the transition that is going on right now.” I hang up, hardly reassured. To me, it seems clear that in India, as in so many places these days, Big Brother is increasingly watching.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-times-march-27-2017-amy-kazmin-indias-biometric-id-scans-make-sci-fi-a-reality

FAQ on the Aadhaar Project and the Bill

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

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

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

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

Digital native: Look before you (digitally) leap

nishant — 2017-06-08T01:22:54Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are biometrics hack-proof?

praskrishna — 2017-06-12T01:39:14Z

There are growing concerns over biometric security in India. We ask the experts if biometrics can really be hacked.

The article by Shaikh Zoaib Saleem was published by Livemint on June 11, 2017. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

There are growing concerns over biometric security. A compromised password can be changed but not a stolen biometric. We ask experts about biometrics security in India.

Pranesh Prakash, policy director, The Centre for Internet & Society

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.

Earlier this year, researchers at NYU and Michigan State University revealed that they were able to generate a "MasterPrint", which is a "partial fingerprint that can be used to impersonate a large number of users". While there are potential safeguards, they require re-capturing everyone's biometrics.

Even other technologies like iris scanner, gait recognition, face recognition, and others, are getting better, but all have problems. Our laws haven't evolved either, leaving many unanswered questions: who can demand your biometrics and under what circumstances? Can your biometrics be captured without your consent? Who is liable for failure? What remedies does one have?

This is an evolving area of technology studies, and every day new kinds of attacks are discovered. Further, they are probabilistic technologies unlike passwords. Given this, if you seek a reliable identity verification system, it doesn't make sense to deploy a system exclusively based on biometrics.

Umesh Panchal, vice-president, Biomatiques Identification Solutions

Biometric devices are instruments delivering added security check functions over traditional methods and these devices can be hack-proof, if the process of exploiting vulnerabilities to gain unauthorised access to systems or resources, is taken care of. With liveliness detection, iris biometric devices are far more hack-proof than fingerprint devices. Even Pentagon has been hacked. Theoretically, a biometric device can internally store or copy fingerprints or iris scans. Depending upon the use-case and ecosystem, a biometric device can internally store templates. However, the UID system (Unique Identification Authority of India) doesn’t permit storage of any biometric data in any biometric devices.

Several security measures can be incorporated to ensure strong transaction security and end-to-end traceability to prevent misuse. This can be achieved by implementing specification of authentication ecosystem. These include deploying signed application, host and operator authentication, usage of multi-factor authentication, SMS/email alerts, encryption of sensitive data, biometric locking, device identification with unique device identifier for analytics/fraud management, eliminating use of stored biometrics and so on.

For a consumer, the device security is determined by the certification it holds from the competent certification authority.

Bryce Boland, chief technology officer-Asia Pacific, FireEye

Biometrics take many forms. Most often people think biometrics are the actually measured biological feature, but they are actually measurements of a feature turned into a sequence of data that is compared against another set of data. You don’t actually need the physical feature, you need the measurements to generate the sequence of data to make a match. If you can inject that data into a biometric, bypassing the reader, you can potentially trick a biometric system.

Most successful biometric implementations have a controlled enrolment process where identity validation is undertaken, and have physically secured, tamperproof and closely monitored readers. Systems like those used for passport biometric enrolment with restricted deployments of readers at airports are an example. Self-enrollment is prone to fraud. Widely distributed readers are prone to tampering. Insecure paths from readers to central credential repositories are prone to credential theft.

Once biometric information is stolen, it usually cannot be changed. So stolen data can potentially be used for a long time, creating problems. This isn’t the case for airport fingerprint readers, but it is a problem for biometric devices in the hands of the public. The best way to check this is to keep the system’s environment physically secured, tamperproof and closely monitored.

Rajesh Babu, CEO, Mirox Cyber Security & Technology

Biometrics devices can be hacked. They have fingerprint sensors, which only check the pattern. It is possible to recreate these patterns through various techniques. Technically, it is difficult to recreate biometrics from a high-resolution picture. However, by using other image rendering tools we can recreate the patterns. Security experts and hackers have already proved that they can bypass mobile fingerprint scanners using a collection of high-resolution photographs taken from different angles using standard photo cameras to make a latex replica print.

Most of the biometric scanners have a date set of all fingerprints and other identities inside the device database. Not every manufacturer in India undergoes enough security auditing. Most of the companies manufacture low-cost biometric devices which are highly vulnerable. These devices are imported from China and other countries but they do not conduct or go through any security audits in our country. They may have kernel level back doors, which are highly vulnerable and can lead to launch of an any kind of attack, including compromising an organization’s network. Only a handful of companies conduct audits of their products as part of security practice.

Organizations and the government must have a clear and concise Security Devices Policy based on standard applicable laws and regulation framework.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-june-11-2017-shaikh-zoaib-saleem-are-biometrics-hack-proof

Analysis of Key Provisions of the Aadhaar Act Regulations

amber — 2017-04-03T14:05:01Z

In exercise of their powers under of the powers conferred by Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, (Aadhaar Act) the UIDAI has come out with a set of five regulations in late 2016 last year. In this policy brief, we look at the five regulations, their key provisions and highlight point out the unresolved, issues, unaddressed, and created issues as result of these regulations.

This blog post was edited by Elonnai Hickok

Introduction

At the outset it is important to note that a concerning feature of these regulations is that they intend to govern the processes of a body which has been in existence for over six years, and has engaged in all the activities sought to be governed by these policies at a massive scale, considering the claims of over one billion Aadhaar number holders. However, the regulation do not acknowledge, let alone address past processes, practices, enrollments, authentications, use of technology etc. this fact, and there are no provisions that effectively address the past operations of the UIDAI. Below is an analysis of the five regulations issued thus far by the UIDAI.

Unique Identification Authority of India (Transactions of Business at Meetings of the Authority) Regulations^{^[1]}

These regulations framed under clause (h) of sub-section (2) of section 54 read with sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Aadhaar Act, deal with the meetings of the UIDAI, the process following up to each meeting, and the manner in which all meetings are to be conducted.

Provision: Sub-Regulation 3.

Meetings of the Authority– (1) There shall be no less than three meetings of the Authority in a financial year on such dates and at such places as the Chairperson may direct and the interval between any two meetings shall not in any case, be longer than five months

Observations:

The number of times that UIDAI would meet in a year is far too less, taking in account the significance of the responsibilities of UIDAI as the sole body for policy making for all issues related to Aadhaar. In contrast, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India is required to meet at least once a month. Other bodies such as SEBI and IRDAI are also required to meet at least four times^{^[2]} and six times^{^[3]} in a year respectively.

Provision: Sub-Regulation 8 (5)

Decisions taken at every meeting of the Authority shall be published on the website of Authority unless the Chairperson determines otherwise on grounds of ensuring confidentiality.

Observations:

The Chairperson has the power to determine withholding publication of the decisions of the meeting on the broad grounds of ‘confidentiality’. Given the fact that the decisions taken by UIDAI as a public body can have very real implications for the rights of residents, the ground of confidentiality is not sufficient to warrant withholding publication. It is curious that instead of referring to the clearly defined exceptions laid down in other similar provisions such as the exceptions in Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the rules merely refer to vague and undefined criteria of ‘confidentiality’.

Provision: Sub-Regulation 14 (4)

Members of the Authority and invitees shall sign an initial Declaration at the first meeting of the Authority for maintaining the confidentiality of the business transacted at meetings of the Authority in Schedule II.

Observations:

The above provision, combined with the fact that there is no provision regarding publication of the minutes of the meetings of UIDAI raise serious questions about the transparency of its functioning.

Unique Identification Authority of India (Enrolment and Update) Regulations^{^[4]}

These regulations, framed under sub-section (1), and sub-clauses (a), (b), (d,) (e), (j), (k), (l), (n), (r), (s), and (v) of sub-section (2), of Section 54 of the Aadhaar Act deals with the enrolment process, the generation of an Aadhaar number, updation of information and governs the conduct of enrolment agencies and associated third parties.

Provisions:

Sub-Regulation 8 (2), (3) and (4)

The standard enrolment/update software shall have the security features as may be specified by the Authority for this purpose.

All equipment used in enrolment, such as computers, printers, biometric devices and other accessories shall be as per the specifications issued by the Authority for this purpose.

The biometric devices used for enrolment shall meet the specifications, and shall be certified as per the procedure, as may be specified by the Authority for this purpose.

Sub-Regulation 3 (2)

The standards for collecting the biometric information shall be as specified by the Authority for this purpose.

Sub-Regulation 4 (5)

The standards of the above demographic information shall be as may be specified by the Authority for this purpose.

Sub-Regulation 6 (2)

For residents who are unable to provide any biometric information contemplated by these regulations, the Authority shall provide for handling of such exceptions in the enrolment and update software, and such enrolment shall be carried out as per the procedure as may be specified by the Authority for this purpose.

Sub-Regulation 14 (2)

In case of rejection due to duplicate enrolment, resident may be informed about the enrolment against which his Aadhaar number has been generated in the manner as may be specified by the Authority.

Observations:

Though in February 2017, the UIDAI published technical specifications for registered devices^{^[5]}, the regulations leave unaddressed issues such as lack of appropriately defined security safeguards in the Aadhaar. There is a general trend of continued deferrals in the regulations by stating that matters would be specified later on important aspects such as rejection of applications, uploading of the enrolment packet to the CIDR, the procedure for enrolling residents with biometric exceptions, the procedure for informing residents about acceptance/rejection of enrolment application, specifying the convenience fee for updation of residents’ information, the procedure for authenticating individuals across services etc.c. There is a clear failure to exercise the mandate delegated to UIDAI, leaving key matters to determined at a future unspecified date. The delay and ambiguity around when regulations will be defined is all the more problematic in light of the fact that the project has been implemented since 2010 and the Aadhaar number is now mandatory for availing a number of services.

Further it is important to note that a number of policies put out by the UIDAI predate these regulations, on which the regulations are completely silent, thus neither endorsing previous policies nor suggesting that they may be revisited. Further, the regulations choose to not engage with the question of operation of the Aadhaar project, enrolment and storage of data etc prior to the notification of these regulations, or the policies which these regulations may regularise. For instance, the regulations do not specify any measures to deal with issues arising out of enrolment devices used prior to the development of the February 2017 specifications.

Provision: Sub-Regulation 32

The Authority shall set up a contact centre to act as a central point of contact for resolution of queries and grievances of residents, accessible to residents through toll free number(s) and/ or e-mail, as may be specified by the Authority for this purpose.

(2) The contact centre shall:

Provide a mechanism to log queries or grievances and provide residents with a unique reference number for further tracking till closure of the matter;
Provide regional language support to the extent possible;
Ensure safety of any information received from residents in relation to their identity information;
Comply with the procedures and processes as may be specified by the Authority for this purpose.

(3) Residents may also raise grievances by visiting the regional offices of the Authority or through any other officers or channels as may be specified by the Authority.

Observations:

While the setting up of a grievance redressal mechanism under the regulations is a welcome move, there is little clarity about the procedure to be followed, nor is a timeline for it specified. The chapter on grievance redressal is in fact one of the shortest chapters in the regulations. The only provision in this chapter deals with the setting up of a contact centre, a curious choice of term for what is supposed to be the primary quasi judicial grievance redressal body for the Aadhaar project. In line with the indifferent and insouciant terminology of ‘contact centre’, the chapter is restricted to the matters of the logging of queries and grievances by the contact centre, and does not address the matter of procedure or timelines, and even the substantive provisions about the nature of redress available. Furthermore, the obligation on the contact centre to protect information received is limited to ‘ensuring safety’ an ambiguous standard that does not speak to any other standards in Indian law.

Aadhaar (Authentication) Regulations, 2016^{^[6]}

These regulations, framed under sub-section (1), and sub-clauses (f) and (w) of sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Aadhaar Act deals with the authentication framework for Aadhaar numbers, the governance of authentication agencies and the procedure for collection, storage of authentication data and records.

Provisions:

Sub-Regulation 5 (1)

At the time of authentication, a requesting entity shall inform the Aadhaar number holder of the following details:—

(a) the nature of information that will be shared by the Authority upon authentication;

(b) the uses to which the information received during authentication may be put; and

Sub-Regulation 6 (2)

A requesting entity shall obtain the consent referred to in sub-regulation (1) above in physical or preferably in electronic form and maintain logs or records of the consent obtained in the manner and form as may be specified by the Authority for this purpose.

Observations:

Sub-regulation 5 mentions that at the time of authentication, requesting entities shall inform the Aadhaar number holder of alternatives to submission of identity information for the purpose of authentication. Similarly, sub-regulation 6 mentions that requesting entity shall obtain the consent of the Aadhaar number holder for the authentication. However, in neither of the above circumstances do the regulations specify the clearly defined options that must be made available to the Aadhaar number holder in case they do not wish submit identity information, nor do the regulations specify the procedure to be followed in case the Aadhaar number holder does not provide consent.

Most significantly, this provision does little by way of allaying the fears raised by the language in Section 8 (4) of the Aadhaar Act which states that UIDAI “shall respond to an authentication query with a positive, negative or any other appropriate response sharing such identity information.” This section gives a very wide discretion to UIDAI to share personal identity information with third parties, and the regulations do not temper or qualify this power in any way.

Sub-Regulation 11 (1) and (4)

The Authority may enable an Aadhaar number holder to permanently lock his biometrics and temporarily unlock it when needed for biometric authentication.

The Authority may make provisions for Aadhaar number holders to remove such permanent locks at any point in a secure manner.

Observations:

A welcome provision in the regulation is that of biometric locking which allows Aadhaar number holders to permanently lock his biometrics and temporarily unlock it only when needed for biometric authentication. However, in the same breath, the regulation also provides for the UIDAI to make provisions to remove such locking without any specified grounds for doing so.

Provision: Sub-Regulation 18 (2), (3) and (4)

The logs of authentication transactions shall be maintained by the requesting entity for a period of 2 (two) years, during which period an Aadhaar number holder shall have the right to access such logs, in accordance with the procedure as may be specified.

Upon expiry of the period specified in sub-regulation (2), the logs shall be archived for a period of five years or the number of years as required by the laws or regulations governing the entity, whichever is later, and upon expiry of the said period, the logs shall be deleted except those records required to be retained by a court or required to be retained for any pending disputes.

The requesting entity shall not share the authentication logs with any person other than the concerned Aadhaar number holder upon his request or for grievance redressal and resolution of disputes or with the Authority for audit purposes. The authentication logs shall not be used for any purpose other than stated in this sub-regulation.

Observations:

While it is specified that the authentication logs collected by the requesting entities shall not be shared with any person other than the concerned Aadhaar number holder upon their request or for grievance redressal and resolution of disputes or with the Authority for audit purposes, and that the authentication logs may not be used for any other purpose, the maintenance of the logs for a period of seven years seems excessive. Similarly, the UIDAI is also supposed to store Authentication transaction data for over five years. This is in violation of the widely recognized data minimisation principles which seeks that data collectors and data processors delete personal data records when the purpose for which it has been collected if fulfilled. While retention of data for audit and dispute-resolution purpose is legitimate, the lack of specification of security standards and the overall lack of transparency and inadequate grievance redressal mechanism greatly exacerbate the risks associated with data retention.

Aadhaar (Sharing of Information) Regulations, 2016 and Aadhaar (Data security) Regulations, 2016^{^[7]}

Framed under the powers conferred by sub-section (1), and sub-clause (o) of sub-section (2), of Section 54 read with sub-clause (k) of sub-section (2) of Section 23, and sub-sections

(2) and (4) of Section 29, of the Aadhaar Act, the Sharing of Information regulations look at the restrictions on sharing of identity information collected by the UIDAI and requesting entities. The Data Security regulation, framed under powers conferred by clause (p) of subsection (2) of section 54 of the Aadhaar Act, looks at security obligations of all service providers engaged by the UIDAI.

Provision: Sub-Regulation 6 (1)

All agencies, consultants, advisors and other service providers engaged by the Authority, and ecosystem partners such as registrars, requesting entities, Authentication User Agencies and Authentication Service Agencies shall get their operations audited by an information systems auditor certified by a recognised body under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and furnish certified audit reports to the Authority, upon request or at time periods specified by the Authority.

Observations:

The regulation states that audits shall be conducted by an information systems auditor certified by a recognised body under the Information Technology Act, 2000. However, there is no such certifying body under the Information Technology Act. This suggests a lack of diligence in framing the rules, and will inevitably to lead to inordinate delays, or alternately, a lack of a clear procedure in the appointment of an auditor. Further, instead of prescribing a regular and proactive process of audits, the regulation only limits audits to when requested or as deemed appropriate by UIDAI. This is another, in line of many provisions, whose implication is power being concentrated in the hands of UIDAI, with little scope for accountability and transparency.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it must be stated that the regulations promulgated by the UIDAI leave a lot to be desired. Some of the most important issues raised against the Aadhaar Act, which were delegated to the UIDAI’s rule making powers have not been addressed at all. Some of the most important issues such as data security policies, right to access records of Aadhaar number holders, procedure to be followed by the grievance redressal bodies, uploading of the enrolment packet to the CIDR, procedure for enrolling residents with biometric exceptions, procedure for informing residents about acceptance/rejection of enrolment application have left unaddressed and ‘may be specified’ at a later data. These failures leave a gaping hole especially in light of the absence of a comprehensive data protection legislation in India, as well the speed and haste with the enrolment and seeding has been done by the UIDAI, and the number of services, both private and public, which are using or planning to use the Aadhaar number and the authentication process as a primary identifier for residents.

^{^[1]} Available at https://uidai.gov.in/legal-framework/acts/regulations.html

^{^[2]} https://www.irda.gov.in/ADMINCMS/cms/frmGeneral_Layout.aspx?page=PageNo62&flag=1

^{^[3]} http://www.sebi.gov.in/acts/boardregu.html

^{^[4]} Available at https://uidai.gov.in/legal-framework/acts/regulations.html

^{^[5]} Available at: https://uidai.gov.in/images/resource/aadhaar_registered_devices_2_0_09112016.pdf

^{^[6]} Available at https://uidai.gov.in/legal-framework/acts/regulations.html

^{^[7]} Available at https://uidai.gov.in/legal-framework/acts/regulations.html

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysis-of-key-provisions-of-aadhaar-act-regulations

Analysis of Aadhaar Act in the Context of A.P. Shah Committee Principles

Vipul Kharbanda — 2016-03-17T19:43:53Z

Whilst there are a number of controversies relating to the Aadhaar Act including the fact that it was introduced in a manner so as to circumvent the majority of the opposition in the upper house of the Parliament and that it was rushed through the Lok Sabha in a mere eight days, in this paper we shall discuss the substantial aspects of the Act in relation to privacy concerns which have been raised by a number of experts. In October 2012, the Group of Experts on Privacy constituted by the Planning Commission under the chairmanship of Justice AP Shah Committee submitted its report which listed nine principles of privacy which all legislations, especially those dealing with personal should adhere to. In this paper, we shall discuss how the Aadhaar Act fares vis-à-vis these nine principles.

Introduction

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (the “Aadhaar Act”) was introduced in the Lok Sabha (lower house of the Parliament) by Minister of Finance, Mr. Arun Jaitley, in on March 3, 2016, and was passed by the Lok Sabha on March 11, 2016. It was sent back by the Rajya Sabha with suggestions but the Lok Sabha rejected those suggestions, which means that the Act is now deemed to have been passed by both houses as it was originally introduced as a Money Bill. Whilst there are a number of controversies relating to the Aadhaar Act including the fact that it was introduced in a manner so as to circumvent the majority of the opposition in the upper house of the Parliament and that it was rushed through the Lok Sabha in a mere eight days, in this paper we shall discuss the substantial aspects of the Act in relation to privacy concerns which have been raised by a number of experts. In October 2012, the Group of Experts on Privacy constituted by the Planning Commission under the chairmanship of Justice AP Shah Committee submitted its report which listed nine principles of privacy which all legislations, especially those dealing with personal should adhere to. In this paper, we shall discuss how the Aadhaar Act fares vis-à-vis these nine principles.

In order for the reader to better understand the frame of reference on which we shall analyse the Aadhaar Act, the nine principles contained in the report of the Group of Experts on Privacy are explained in brief below:

Principle 1: Notice - Does the legislation/regulation require that entities governed by the Act give simple to understand notice of its information practices to all individuals, in clear and concise language, before any personal information is collected from them.
Principle 2: Choice and Consent - Does the legislation/regulation require that entities governed under the Act provide the individual with the option to opt in/opt out of providing their personal information.
Principle 3: Collection Limitation - Does the legislation/regulation require that entities governed under the Act collect personal information from individuals only as is necessary for a purpose identified.
Principle 4: Purpose Limitation - Does the legislation/regulation require that personal data collected and processed by entities governed by the Act be adequate and relevant to the purposes for which they are processed.
Principle 5: Access and Correction - Does the legislation/regulation allow individuals: access to personal information about them held by an entity governed by the Act; the ability to seek correction, amendments, or deletion of such information where it is inaccurate, etc.
Principle 6: Disclosure - Does the legislation ensure that information is only disclosed to third parties after notice and informed consent is obtained. Is disclosure allowed for law enforcement purposes done in accordance with laws in force.
Principle 7: Security - Does the legislation/regulation ensure that information that is collected and processed under that Act, is done so in a manner that protects against loss, unauthorized access, destruction, etc.
Principle 8: Openness - Does the legislation/regulation require that any entity processing data take all necessary steps to implement practices, procedures, policies and systems in a manner proportional to the scale, scope, and sensitivity to the data that is collected and processed and is this information made available to all individuals in an intelligible form, using clear and plain language?
Principle 9: Accountability - Does the legislation/regulation provide for measures that ensure compliance of the privacy principles? This would include measures such as mechanisms to implement privacy policies; including tools, training, and education; and external and internal audits.

Analysis of the Aadhaar Act

The Aadhaar Act has been brought about to give legislative backing to the most ambitious individual identity programme in the world which aims to provide a unique identity number to the entire population of India. The rationale behind this scheme is to correctly identify the beneficiaries of government schemes and subsidies so that leakages in government subsidies may be reduced. In furtherance of this rationale the Aadhaar Act gives the Unique Identification Authority of India (“UIDAI”) the power to enroll individuals by collecting their demographic and biometric information and issuing an Aadhaar number to them. Below is an analysis of the Act based on the privacy principles enumerated I the A.P. Shah Committee Report.

Collection Limitation

Collection of Biometric and Demographic Information: The Aadhaar Act entitles every “resident” [1] to obtain an Aadhaar number by submitting his/her biometric (photograph, finger print, Iris scan) and demographic information (name, date of birth, address [2]) [3]. It must be noted that the Act leaves scope for further information to be included in the collection process if so specified by regulations. It must be noted that although the Act specifically provides what information can be collected, it does not specifically prohibit the collection of further information. This becomes relevant because it makes it possible for enrolling agencies to collect extra information relating to individuals without any legal implications of such act.

Authentication Records: The UIDAI is mandated to maintain authentication records for a period which is yet to be specified (and shall be specified in the regulations) but it cannot collect or keep any information regarding the purpose for which the authentication request was made [4].

Unauthorized Collection: Any person who in not authorized to collect information under the Act, and pretends that he is authorized to do so, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with a fine which may extend to Rs. 10,000/- or both. In case of companies the maximum fine amount would be increased to Rs. 10,00,000/- [5]. It must be noted that the section, as it is currently worded seems to criminalize the act of impersonation of authorized individuals and the actual collection of information is not required to complete this offence. It is not clear if this section will apply if a person who is authorized to collect information under the Act in general, collects some information that he/she is not authorized to collect.

Notice

Notice during Collection: The Aadhaar Act requires that the agencies enrolling people for distribution of Aadhaar numbers should give people notice regarding: (a) the manner in which the information shall be used; (b) the nature of recipients with whom the information is intended to be shared during authentication; and (c) the existence of a right to access information, the procedure for making requests for such access, and details of the person or department in-charge to whom such requests can be made [6]. A failure to comply with this requirement will make the agency liable for imprisonment of upto 3 years or a fine of Rs. 10,000/- or both. In case of companies the maximum fine amount would be increased to Rs. 10,00,000/- [7]. It must be noted that the Act leaves the manner of giving such notice in the realm of regulations and does not specify how this notice is to be provided, which leaves important specifics to the realm of the executive.

Notice during Authentication: The Aadhaar Act requires that authenticating agencies shall give information to the individuals whose information is to be authenticated regarding (a) the nature of information that may be shared upon authentication; (b) the uses to which the information received during authentication may be put by the requesting entity; and (c) alternatives to submission of identity information to the requesting entity [8]. A failure to comply with this requirement will make the agency liable for imprisonment of upto 3 years or a fine of Rs. 10,000/- or both. In case of companies the maximum fine amount would be increased to Rs. 10,00,000/- [9]. Just as in the case of notice during collection, the manner in which the notice is required to be given is left to regulations leaving an unclear picture as to how comprehensive, accessible, and frequent this notice must be.

Access and Correction

Updating Information: The Aadhaar Act give the UIDAI the power to require residents to update their demographic and biometric information from time to time so as to maintain its accuracy [10].

Access to Information: The Aadhaar Act provides that Aadhaar number holders may request the UIDAI to provide access to their identity information expect their core biometric information [11]. It is not clear why access to the core biometric information [12] is not provided to an individual. Further, since section 6 seems to place the responsibility of updation and accuracy of biometric information on the individual, it is not clear how a person is supposed to know that the biometric information contained in the database has changed if he/she does not have access to the same. It may also be noted that the Aadhaar Act provides only for a request to the UIDAI for access to the information and does not make access to the information a right of the individual, this would mean that it would be entirely upon the discretion of the UIDAI to refuse to grant access to the information once a request has been made.

Alteration of Information: The Aadhaar Act gives individuals the right to request the UIDAI to alter their demographic if the same is incorrect or has changed and biometric information if it is lost or has changed. Upon receipt of such a request, if the UIDAI is satisfied, then it may make the necessary alteration and inform the individual accordingly. The Act also provides that no identity information in the Central database shall be altered except as provided in the regulations [13]. This section provides for alteration of identity information but only in the circumstances given in the section, for example demographic information cannot be changed if it has been lost, similarly biometric information cannot be changed if it is inaccurate. Further, the section does not give a right to the individual to get the information altered but only entitles him/her to request the UIDAI to make a change and the final decision is left to the “satisfaction” of the UIDAI.

Access to Authentication Record: Every individual is given the right to obtain his/her authentication record in a manner to be specified by regulations. [14]

Disclosure

Sharing during Authentication: The UIDAI is entitled to reply to any authentication query with a positive, negative or any other response which may be appropriate and may share identity information except core biometric information with the requesting entity [15]. The language in this provision is ambiguous and it is unclear what 'identity information' may be shared and why it would be necessary to share such information as Aadhaar is meant to be only a means of authentication so as to remove duplication.

Potential Disclosure during Maintenance of CIDR: The UIDAI has been given the power to appoint any one or more entities to establish and maintain the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) [16]. If a private entity is involved in the maintenance and establishment of the CIDR it can be presumed that there is the possibilty that they would, to some degree, have access to the information stored in the CIDR, yet there are no clear standards in the Act regarding this potential access. And the process for appointing such entities. The fact that the UIDAI has been given the freedom to appoint an outside entity to maintain a sensitive asset such as the CIDR raises security concerns.

Restriction on Sharing Information: The Aadhaar Act creates a blanket prohibition on the usage of core biometric information for any purpose other than generation of Aadhaar numbers and also prohibits its sharing for any reason whatsoever [17]. Other identity information is allowed to be shared in the manner specified under the Act or as may be specified in the regulations [18]. The Act further provides that the requesting entities shall not disclose the identity information except with the prior consent of the individual to whom the information relates [19]. There is also a prohibition on publicly displaying Aadhaar number or core biometric information except as specified by regulations [20]. Officers or the UIDAI or the employees of the agencies employed to maintain the CIDR are prohibited from revealing the information stored in the CIDR or authentication record to anyone [21]. It is not clear why an exception has been carved out and what circumstances would require publicly displaying Aadhaar numbers and core biometric information, especially since the reasons for which such important information may be displayed has been left up to regulations which have relatively less oversight. The section also provides the requesting entities with an option to further disclose information if they take consent of the individuals. This may lead to a situation where a requesting entity, perhaps the of an essential service, may take the consent of the individual to disclose his/her information in a standard form contract, without the option of saying no to such a request. It may lead to situations where the option is between giving consent to disclosure or denial or service altogether. For this reason it is necessary that there should be an opt in and opt out provision wherever a requesting entity has the power to ask for disclosure of information, so that people are not coerced into giving consent.

Disclosure in Specific Cases: The prohibition on disclosure of information (except for core biometric information) does not apply in case of any disclosure made pursuant to an order of a court not below that of a District Judge [22]. There is another exception to the prohibition on disclosure of information (including core biometric information) in the interest of national security if so directed by an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India specially authorised in this behalf by an order of the Central Government. Before any such direction can take effect, it will be reviewed by an oversight committee consisting of the Cabinet Secretary and the Secretaries to the Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology. Any such direction shall be valid for a period of three months and may be extended by another three months after the review by the Oversight Committee [23]. Although this provision has been criticized, and rightly so, for the lack of accountability since the entire process is being handled within the executive and there is no independent oversight, however it must be mentioned that the level of oversight provided here is similar to that provided to interception requests, which involve a much graver if not the same level of invasion of privacy.

Penalty for Disclosure: Any person who intentionally and in an unauthorized manner discloses, transmits, copies or otherwise disseminates any identity information collected in the course of enrolment or authentication shall be punishable with imprisonment of upto 3 years or a fine of Rs. 10,000/- or both. In case of companies the maximum fine amount would be increased to Rs. 10,00,000/ [24]. Further any person who intentionally and in an unathorised manner, accesses information in the CIDR [25], downloads, copies or extracts any data from the CIDR [26], or reveals or shares or distributes any identity information, shall be punishable with imprisonment of upto 3 years and a fine of not less than Rs. 10,00,000/-.

Consent

Consent for Authentication: A requesting entity has to take the consent of the individual before collecting his/her identity information for the purposes of authentication and also has to inform the individual of the alternatives to submission of the identity information [27]. Although this provision requires entities to take consent from the individuals before collecting information for authentication, however how useful this requirement of consent would be, still remains to be seen. There may be instances where a requesting entity may take the consent of the individual in a standard form contract, without the individual realizing what he/she is consenting to.

Note: The Aadhaar Act provides no requirement or standard for the form of consent that must be taken during enrollment. This is significant as it is the point at which individuals are providing raw biometric material and during previous enrollment, has been a point of weakness as the consent taken is an enabler to function creep as it allows the UIDAI to share information with engaged in delivery of welfare services [28].

Purpose

Use of Information: The authenticating entities are allowed to use the identity information only for the purpose of submission to the CIDR for authentication [29]. Further, the Act specifies that identity information available with a requesting entity shall not be used for any purpose other than that specified to the individual at the time of submitting the information for authentication [30]. The Act also provides that any authentication entity which uses the information for any purpose not already specified will be liable to punishment of imprisonment of upto 3 years or a fine of Rs. 10,000/- or both. In case of companies the maximum fine amount would be increased to Rs. 10,00,000/ [31].

Security

Security and Confidentiality of Information: It is the responsibility of the UIDAI to ensure the security and confidentiality of the identity and authentication information and it is required to take all necessary action to ensure that the information in the CIDR is protected against unauthorized access, use or disclosure and against accidental or intentional destruction, loss or damage [32]. The UIDAI is required to adopt and implement appropriate technical and organisational security measures and also ensure that its contractors do the same [33]. It is also required to ensure that the agreements entered into with its contractors impose the same conditions as are imposed on the UIDAI under the Act and that they shall act only upon the instructions of the UIDAI [34].

Biometric Information to be Electronic Record: The biometric information collected by the UIDAI has been deemed to be an “electronic record” as well as “sensitive personal data or information”, which would mean that in addition to the provisions of the Aadhaar Act, the provisions contained in the Information Technology Act, 2000 will also apply to such information [35]. It must be noted that while the Act lays down the principle that UIDAI is required to ensure the saecurity of the information, it does not lay down any guidelines as to the minimum security standards to be implemented by the Authority. However, through this section the legislature has linked the security standards contained in the IT Act to the information contained in this Act. While this is a clean way of dealing with the issue, some people may argue that the extremely sensitive nature of the information contained in the CIDR requires the standards for security to be much stricter than those provided in the IT Act. However, a perusal of Rule 8 of the Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 shows that the Rules themselves provide that the standard of security must be commensurate with the information assets being protected. It would thus seem that the Act provides enough room to protect such important information, but perhaps leaves too much room for interpretation for such an important issue.

Penalty for Unauthorised Access: Apart from the security provisions included in the legislation, the Aadhaar Act also provides for punishment of imprisonment of upto 3 years and a fine which shall not be less than Rs. 10,00,000/-, in case of the following offences:

introduction of any virus or other computer contaminant in the CIDR [36];
causing damage to the data in the CIDR [37];
disruption of access to the CIDR [38];
denial of access to any person who is authorised to access the CIDR [39];
destruction, deletion or alteration of any information stored in any removable storage media or in the CIDR or diminishing its value or utility or affecting it injuriously by any means [40];
stealing, concealing, destroying or altering any computer source code used by the Authority with an intention to cause damage [41].

Further, unauthorized usage or tampering with the data in the CIDR or in any removable storage medium with the intent of modifying information relating to Aadhaar number holder or discovering any information thereof, is also punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and also a fine which may extend to Rs. 10,000/- [42].

Accountability

Inspections and Audits: One of the functions listed in the powers and functions of the UIDAI is the power to call for information and records, conduct inspections, inquiries and audit of the operations of the CIDR, Registrars, enrolling agencies and other agencies appointed under the Aadhaar Act [43].

Grievance Redressal: Another function of the UIDAI is to set up facilitation centres and grievance redressal mechanisms for redressal of grievances of individuals, Registrars, enrolling agencies and other service providers [44]. It must be said here that considering the importance that the government has given to and intends to give to Aadhaar in the future, an essential task such as grievance redressal should not be left entirely to the discretion of the UIDAI and some grievance redressal mechanism should be incorporated into the Act itself.

Openness

There does not seem to be any provision in the Aadhaar Act which requires the UIDAI to make its privacy policies and procedure available to the public in general even though the UIDAI has the responsibility to maintain the security and confidentiality of the information.

Endnotes

[1] A resident is defined as any person who has resided in India for a period of atleasy 182 days in the previous 12 months.

[2] It has been specified that demographic information will not include race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, records of entitlement, income or medical history.

[3] Section 3(1) of the Aadhaar Act.

[4] Section 32(1) and 32(3) of the Aadhaar Act.

[5] Section 36 of the Aadhaar Act.

[6] Section 3(2) of the Aadhaar Act.

[7] Section 41 of the Aadhaar Act.

[8] Section 8(3) of the Aadhaar Act.

[9] Section 41 of the Aadhaar Act.

[10] Section 6 of the Aadhaar Act.

[11] Section 28, proviso of the Aadhaar Act.

[12] Core biometric information is defined as fingerprints, iris scan or other biological attributes which may be specified by regulations.

[13] Section 31 of the Aadhaar Act.

[14] Section 32(2) of the Aadhaar Act.

[15] Section 8(4) of the Aadhaar Act.

[16] Section 10 of the Aadhaar Act.

[17] Section 29(1) of the Aadhaar Act.

[18] Section 29(2) of the Aadhaar Act.

[19] Section 29(3)(b) of the Aadhaar Act.

[20] Section 29(4) of the Aadhaar Act.

[21] Section 28(5) of the Aadhaar Act.

[22] Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act.

[23] Section 33(2) of the Aadhaar Act.

[24] Section 37 of the Aadhaar Act.

[25] Section 38(a) of the Aadhaar Act.

[26] Section 38(b) of the Aadhaar Act.

[27] Section 8(2)(a) and (c) of the Aadhaar Act.

[28] For example, see: http://www.karnataka.gov.in/aadhaar/Downloads /Application%20form%20-%20English.pdf.

[29] Section 8(2)(b) of the Aadhaar Act.

[30] Section 29(3)(a) of the Aadhaar Act.

[31] Section 37 of the Aadhaar Act.

[32] Section 28(1), (2) and (3) of the Aadhaar Act.

[33] Section 28(4)(a) and (b) of the Aadhaar Act.

[34] Section 28(4)(c) of the Aadhaar Act.

[35] Section 30 of the Aadhaar Act.

[36] Section 38(c) of the Aadhaar Act.

[37] Section 38(d) of the Aadhaar Act.

[38] Section 38(e) of the Aadhaar Act.

[39] Section 38(f) of the Aadhaar Act.

[40] Section 38(h) of the Aadhaar Act.

[41] Section 38(i) of the Aadhaar Act.

[42] Section 39 of the Aadhaar Act.

[43] Section 23(2)(l) of the Aadhaar Act.

[44] Section 23(2)(s) of the Aadhaar Act.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysis-of-aadhaar-act-in-context-of-shah-committee-principles

An Urgent Need for the Right to Privacy

sumandro — 2016-03-17T07:40:12Z

Along with a group of individuals and organisations from academia and civil society, we have drafted and are signatories to an open letter addressed to the Union government and urging the same to "urgently take steps to uphold the constitutional basis to the right to privacy and fulfil it’s constitutional and international obligations." Here we publish the text of the open letter. Please follow the link below to support it by joining the signatories.

Read and sign the open letter.

Text of the Open Letter

As our everyday lives are conducted increasingly through electronic communications the necessity for privacy protections has also increased. While several countries across the globe have recognised this by furthering the right to privacy of their citizens the Union Government has adopted a regressive attitude towards this core civil liberty. We urge the Union Government to take urgent measures to safeguard the right to privacy in India.

Our concerns are based on a continuing pattern of disregard for the right to privacy by several governments in the past. This trend has increased as can be plainly viewed from the following developments.

In 2015, the Attorney General in the case of *K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India*, argued before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is no right to privacy under the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Court was persuaded to re-examine the basis of the right to privacy upsetting 45 years of judicial precedent. This has thrown the constitutional right to privacy in doubt and the several judgements that have been given under it. This includes the 1997 PUCL Telephone Tapping judgement as well. We urge the Union Government to take whatever steps are necessary and urge the Supreme Court to hold that a right to privacy exists under the Constitution of India.

Recently Mr. Arun Jaitley, Minister for Finance introduced the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016. This bill was passed on March 11, 2016 in the middle of budget discussion on a short notice as a money bill in the Lok Sabha when only 73 of 545 members were present. Its timing and introduction as a money bill prevents necessary scrutiny given the large privacy risks that arise under it. This version of the bill was never put up for public consultation and is being rushed through without adequate discussion. Even substantively it fails to give accountable privacy safeguards while making Aadhaar mandatory for availing any government subsidy, benefit, or service.

We urge the Union Government to urgently take steps to uphold the constitutional basis to the right to privacy and fulfil it’s constitutional and international obligations. We encourage the Government to have extensive public discussions on the Aadhaar Bill before notifying it. We further call upon them to constitute a drafting committee with members of civil society to draft a comprehensive statute as suggested by the Justice A.P. Shah Committee Report of 2012.

Signatories:

Amber Sinha, the Centre for Internet and Society
Japreet Grewal, the Centre for Internet and Society
Joshita Pai, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University
Raman Jit Singh Chima, Access Now
Sarvjeet Singh, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University
Sumandro Chattapadhyay, the Centre for Internet and Society
Sunil Abraham, the Centre for Internet and Society
Vanya Rakesh, the Centre for Internet and Society

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/an-urgent-need-for-the-right-to-privacy

Advanced biometric technologies and new market entries tackle fraud, chase digital ID billions

Chris Burt — 2021-06-28T01:13:05Z

Amid forecasts of rapid growth and huge market potential, digital ID platforms launches by Techsign and Ping Identity, new services, features and even an investment fund have been launched.

The blog post by Chris Burt was published by Biometric Update on June 26, 2021.

A new camera solution for under-display 3D face biometrics from Infineon and partners, and IPO filings by Clear and SenseTime show parallel investment activity in biometrics, meanwhile, and experts from Veridium and Intellicheck provide insight into the shifting technology and fraud landscapes, among the most widely-read stories this week on Biometric Update.

Top biometrics news of the week

Several areas of the digital identity market continued to be very active, with a new investment fund launched to support startups in digital commerce and payments, Yoti joining a regulatory sandbox, Techsign launching a digital ID platform, and Mastercard and b.well reporting positive results from a recent pilot for their biometric healthcare platform. All this activity contributes to explaining Juniper Research’s forecast of rapid growth in the sector to $16.7 billion in 2026, driven largely by spending on remote onboarding.

Okta CEO Todd McKinnon, meanwhile, told Barron’s that the total addressable market for identity and access management providers like Okta is something like $80 billion, as well as that effective integration is the key to solving biometrics challenges in the space. Entrust and Yubico formed an integration partnership, LoginRadius launched a new feature, Jamf launched a biometric tool for enterprises, and a certification program for IAM professionals was launched.

A list of goods for sale on the dark web includes a listing for selfies holding an American ID credential, which in theory could be used in a biometric spoofing attack. Cybersecurity researcher Luana Pascu helps guide readers through the report, and shares insights such as on the status of faked vaccination certificates on dark web marketplaces.

Ensuring the validity of the ID document a biometric identity verification process is based on, without adding too much friction, often means adopting layered risk profiling, Intellicheck CEO Bryan Lewis tells Biometric Update in a sponsored post. The company has deep roots in detecting fraudulent documents and has found that even scanning the barcode on an identity document will not necessarily catch a fake if the unique security elements are not validated as part of the scan.

Fourthline Anti-Financial Crime Head Ro Paddock writes in a Biometric Update guest post about the ever-increasing sophistication of fraud attacks, which reached the level of computer-generated 3D masks and deepfakes during the pandemic,. In response, information-sharing between organizations will be necessary to understand the scope of these new threats, and how to defend against them.

Philippines’ election commission has launched an app to allow people to preregister for the voter roll online before enrolling their biometrics in person, as the country continues digitizing its public services. Governments in Pakistan, Haiti and Nigeria are also making moves to improve the accessibility and trustworthiness of their electoral processes.

A partnership between Research ICT Africa and the Centre for Internet and Society, supported by the Omidyar Network, to explore the development of digital ID systems for the African context is explained in a blog post. The project will be based on an adaptation of the Evaluation Framework for Digital Identities which the CIS used to assess India’s Aadhaar system, with rule of law, rights and risk-based tests, and presented in a series of posts.

Details of Clear’s IPO plans emerged, including its intention to raise up to $396 million on the NYSE. The $2.2 billion valuation aligns with some comparable companies, by revenue multiple, but the lower voting power of the shares on offer could be a restraining factor.

An even bigger IPO could be held by SenseTime later this year, with the Chinese AI firm looking to raise up to $2 billion on the Hong Kong exchange. The company has been talking about a public stock launch since before the company was hit with restrictions to U.S. trade, which it indicates have had little impact.

The latest major funding round in digital identity is the largest yet, with Transmit Security raising $543 million at a $2.2 billion valuation to expand the market reach of its passwordless biometric authentication technology. The company claims it is the highest ever Series A funding round in cybersecurity.

Bob Eckel, Aware CEO and International Biometrics + Identity Association (IBIA) Director and Board Member, discusses why people should own their own identity, identifying things and protecting supply chains, and his background in setting up air traffic control systems used all over the world with the Requis Supply Chain Next podcast. In the longer term Eckel sees biometric replacing passwords, and in the shorter term being used to make processes touchless.

Veridium CTO John Callahan guides Biometric Update through recent NIST guidance on the interoperable use of contactless fingerprints with contact-based back-end AFIS systems. The guidance, which changes definitions within the NIST ITL biometric container standard, but advises that the associated image quality metric does not apply to contactless prints, could spark further investment in the modality.

A new time-of-flight 3D imaging solution that could be used to implement facial authentication from under the display of mobile devices without notches or bezels has been developed by partners Infineon, pmdtechnologies and ArcSoft. Based on the REAL3 sensor and ArcSoft’s computer vision algorithms, the solution is expected to reach availability in Q3 2021.

Ping Identity has acquired SecuredTouch in a deal with undisclosed financial details to integrate its behavioral biometrics-based continuous user authentication with the PingOne enterprise cloud platform. Ping also launched a consumer application for reusable credentials and added unified management features to its cloud platform at its Identiverse 2021 event.

Notre Dame-IBM Technology Ethics Lab Founding Director Elizabeth Renieris joins the MIT Sloan Management Review’s Me, Myself and AI podcast to discuss the role of the lab, her path past and through some of the digital identity space’s key ethical developments, and the need to take the long view on technology to understand its ethical implications. Renieris makes a pitch for process-oriented regulations, based on the best understanding we have at the time.

ProctorU’s announcement that it will no longer sell fully-automated remote proctoring services is seen as a win in the battle against “the AI shell game” by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The descriptions of the balance between the automated and human decision-making by AI proctoring providers amount to doublespeak, the EFF says, before panning their human review processes, accuracy rates, and use of facial recognition.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/biometric-update-june-26-2021-chris-burt-advanced-biometric-technologies-and-new-market-entries-tackle-fraud-chase-digital-id-billions

Aadhaar: A widening net

praskrishna — 2017-04-22T05:06:23Z

As India makes Aadhaar compulsory for a range of services, concerns about potential data breaches remain more than six years after the govt started building the world’s largest biometric identification system.

The article by Komal Gupta, Apurva Vishwanath and Suranjana Roy was published in Livemint on April 21, 2017. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

On 29 March, a storm broke out on social media after private data that former Indian cricket captain M.S. Dhoni had furnished to get enrolled in India’s unique identity system, known as Aadhaar, were leaked online.

The popular cricketer’s wife, Sakshi, flagged the matter on Twitter, tagging information technology (IT) minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. “Is there any privacy left? Information of Aadhaar card, including application, is made public property,” Sakshi fumed on the microblogging site.

The minister replied: “Sharing personal information is illegal. Serious action will be taken against this.”

It turned out to be the fault of an overenthusiastic common services centre in Dhoni’s home town of Ranchi licensed to enrol people in Aadhaar. The centre was promptly blacklisted. “We have ordered further inquiry on the matter and action will be taken against all those involved in the leak,” said Ajay Bhushan Pandey, chief executive officer of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), which administers Aadhaar.

The matter blew over soon enough, but it served to illustrate the lingering concerns about potential data breaches and privacy violations surrounding Aadhaar, which has become the world’s largest biometric identification database with 1.13 billion people enrolled in it in the past six years.

The project, under which a 12-digit identification number is to be allotted to every Indian resident, was originally supposed to be a way of plugging leakages in the delivery of state benefits such as subsidized grains to the poor.

It has now become mandatory for everything ranging from opening a bank account and getting a driver’s licence or a mobile phone connection to filing of income tax returns. Even government school students entitled to a free mid-day meal need an Aadhaar number.

The use of Aadhaar has only expanded with the government going on an overdrive to promote cashless transactions and payment systems linked to the biometric ID system after banning old, high-value bank notes in November in a crackdown on unaccounted wealth hidden away from the taxman.

For instance, the Aadhaar-Enabled Payment System (AEPS) empowers a bank customer to use Aadhaar as her identity to access her Aadhaar-enabled bank account and perform basic banking transactions like cash deposit or withdrawal through a bank agent or business correspondent.

The customer can carry out transactions by scanning her fingerprint at any micro ATM or biometric point-of-sale (POS) terminal, and entering the Aadhaar number linked to the bank account. A merchant-led model of AEPS, called Aadhaar Pay, has also been launched.

Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the BHIM-Aadhaar platform—a merchant interface linking the unique identification number to the Bharat Interface for Money (BHIM) mobile application. This will enable merchants to receive payments through fingerprint scans of customers.

“Any citizen without access to smartphones, Internet, debit or credit cards will be able to transact digitally through the BHIM-Aadhaar platform,” a government statement said.

Aadhaar’s growing importance in the economy has only served to deepen concerns about potential data breaches. And there are other concerns as well.

For instance, the Aadhaar biometric authentication failure rate in the rural job guarantee scheme, which assures 100 days of work a year to one member of every rural household, is as high as 36% in the southern state of Telangana, according to data released by the state government.

“Aadhaar is supposed to be an enabler and it will happen only when it is made voluntary. Biometric authentications might fail due to poor data connectivity and transactions might not happen even though the Aadhaar number of the person is there; so, what’s the benefit,” asked Pranesh Prakash, policy director of the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based think tank.

Aadhaar was the brainchild of the previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, which lost power in the 2014 general election to the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). The first 10 Aadhaar numbers were handed over to residents of a small village called Tembhli in Maharashtra on 29 September 2010 in the presence of then prime minister Manmohan Singh, Congress party president Sonia Gandhi and Aadhaar’s chief architect Nandan Nilekani, a co-founder of software services giant Infosys Ltd.

After coming to power, the NDA systematically went about making Aadhaar the pivot of government welfare programmes. In March last year, Parliament passed the Aadhaar Bill to make the use of Aadhaar mandatory for availing of government subsidies despite resistance from opposition parties.

Last month, finance minister Arun Jaitley said the 12-digit number would eventually become a single, monolithic proof of identity for every Indian, replacing every other identity card.

To be sure, Aadhaar has helped the government better target beneficiaries of its welfare programmes, cutting out middlemen and corruption. For instance, the government claims to have saved about Rs50,000 crore in cooking gas subsidies by linking the Aadhaar number with bank accounts in which the subsidy is directly transferred.

Yet, Aadhaar has its critics, who have challenged the project on grounds including potential compromise of national security, violation of the right to privacy and exclusion of people from welfare programmes. The Supreme Court has cautioned the government that no citizen can be denied access to welfare programmes for lack of an Aadhaar number.

Before cricketer Dhoni’s data breach made the headlines, in February, UIDAI filed a complaint against Axis Bank Ltd, business correspondent Suvidhaa Infoserve and e-sign provider eMudhra, alleging they had attempted unauthorized authentication and impersonation by illegally storing Aadhaar biometrics. The breach was noticed after one individual performed 397 biometric transactions between 14 July 2016 and 19 February 2017. All three entities have been temporarily barred from offering Aadhaar-related services until UIDAI makes a final decision.

Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society said rules on the use of Aadhaar data are inadequate.

“UIDAI is allowed to share the information of a person from its database on its website, after taking proper consent of that person. However, there is no law which states what should be done if any other party does that with the same individual. Such rules must be in place,” Prakash said.

Four years after the Aadhaar project took off, a retired judge took the government to court. K. Puttaswamy, a former judge of the Karnataka high court, moved the Supreme Court in 2013, arguing that Aadhaar violated his fundamental right to privacy under the constitution. The case opened the gates for legal challenges to Aadhaar. Over the next few years till date, at least a dozen cases had questioned the legality of the project.

Ramon Magsaysay award winner Aruna Roy brought a case on behalf of manual workers whose faint finger prints, she said, often go undetected. Currently, only 44 million out of the 101 million beneficiaries of India’s rural job entitlement are paid through Aadhaar.

To be sure, India’s Constitution does not contain a black and white reference to a “fundamental right to privacy”, that the government cannot violate. The list of rights says “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law”—often interpreted by courts as an all-encompassing right including right to live with dignity, right to speedy justice and even a right to clean air.

Nilekani, the man behind Aadhaar, has cautioned that privacy is a broader issue involving how people retain their privacy in day-to-day life. “Privacy is an all-encompassing issue because of the rapid rate of digitization the world is seeing. Your smartphone has sensors, GPS and is generating more and more information about everything; voice-activated devices could also be recording your conversations. There’s a profusion of CCTV cameras at malls, restaurants, ATMs recording your movements,” Nilekani said in a recent interview with The Economic Times.

But this is where a problem arises. Although there is concurrence on the need for a privacy law, there is a great reluctance on the part of the government to come out with one.

“We don’t have a comprehensive privacy law; all our databases are unlinked. The government is trying to link the databases using Aadhaar for all schemes but a separate privacy law must be there for protecting any piece of information, whether or not linked to Aadhaar,” said Rahul Matthan, a partner at law firm Trilegal and a Mint columnist.

Matthan said first a privacy law must be put in place and then there has to be a discussion on what all it must include.

The government on its part pointed out that India’s apex court itself has been indecisive on a right to privacy.

“The larger question on privacy needs to be settled by the court. Till then, one cannot comment on secondary concerns,” attorney general Mukul Rohatgi said in an interview.

In 2015, the Supreme Court decided that a bench of at least seven judges will rule on the privacy issue, while clarifying that the government cannot make Aadhaar a mandatory proof of identity for its welfare schemes. Twenty months after the judicial order, the larger bench is yet to be formed by the apex court. The passing of the Aadhaar Act in Parliament to provide statutory backing to Aadhaar also indicates a departure from the Indian government’s position of not taking a legislative stand while an issue is under the apex court’s consideration.

For example, one of the reasons the Indian government has shown restraint in repealing a colonial law that criminalizes homosexuality is because the apex court is seized of the issue.

In the absence of legislation and pending an authoritative ruling by the top court, whether 1.3 billion Indians are entitled to their privacy remains a grey area. Meanwhile, the government is seemingly in the final stretch of its Aadhaar enrolment drive.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-april-21-2017-komal-gupta-apurva-vishwanath-suranjana-roy-aadhaar-a-widening-net

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

pranesh — 2017-04-04T16:10:06Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Did Aadhaar Change?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Security Concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aadhaar Bill 2016 Evaluated against the National Privacy Principles

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

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

Download the infographic: PDF and PNG.

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

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

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

vanya — 2016-04-18T11:43:02Z

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

Download the file: PDF.

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

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

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

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

1. Compensation and Penalty

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

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

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

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

2. Privacy Policy

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

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

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

3. Consent

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

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

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

4. Collection Limitation

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

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

5. Notice

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

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

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

6. Retention Limitation

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

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

7. Purpose Limitation

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

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

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

8. Right to Access and Correct

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

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

9. Right to 'Opt Out' and Withdraw Consent

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

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

10. Grievance Officer

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

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

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

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

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

12. Requirements for Transfer of Sensitive Personal Data

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

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

13. Security of Information

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

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

Implications of the Differences for Body Corporates in Aadhaar Ecosystem

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

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

Appendix I

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

For the purposes of this section:

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

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

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

130 Million at Risk of Fraud After Massive Leak of Indian Biometric System Data

praskrishna — 2017-05-20T12:36:06Z

A series of potentially calamitous leaks in India leave as many as 130 million people at risk of fraud or worse after caches of biometric and other personal data became accessible online.

The article by Dell Cameron was published by Gizmodo on May 3, 2017.

That’s according to a new report from the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), which details breaches at four national- and state-run databases, all of which are said to contain purportedly “uniquely-identifying” Aadhaar numbers.

Launched in 2009, the Aadhaar system is an ambitious, albeit flawed program aimed at assigning unique identity numbers, not only to Indian citizens, but everyone who resides and works in the country. It is the largest program of its kind in the world. The 12-digit Aadhaar codes are assigned and maintained in a central database by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and link to biometric data of fingerprint and iris scans combined.

For security purposes, since 2002, all U.S. passports issued to international travelers at embassies and consulates around the world have contained biometric data, including a ten fingerprint scan, contained in a microchip embedded in the back cover. In 2007, the law was extended to cover U.S. citizens, and since at least 2013, so-called “e-passports” have been the standard.

With a very different intention in mind, the Aadhaar system was created to employ biometrics as a means to ensure that Indian residents have access to the social safety net, including programs for welfare, health, and education. But due to the sheer scale—again, the largest biometric project in history—the program has been fraught with controversy since day one. Since inception, more than 1.13 billion Aadhaar numbers have since been assigned, according to UIDAI data. (India has a population of roughly 1.32 billion.)

Former World Bank economist Salman Anees , a member of the Indian National Congress (INC), points to migrant laborers as an example of those the program is intended to help. The often carry no identification, he said, and therefore can rarely prove who they are when traveling from state to state. The purpose of the Aadhaar system, he said, is to provide every Indian with a “digital identity.”

“At least, that was the original idea,” adds Soz.

After the INC was battered in the 2014 general election, plans were put forth to expand the scope of the Aadhaar program, inflaming public concern over security and privacy. “Basically, you take this Aadhaar number and you start seeding different [government] databases,” Soz says. “And that, in effect, creates this huge data structure that people are very uncomfortable with.”

“In some ways,” he continued, “what you have is this amazingly modern system with huge data collection potential—and of course, many positives can come from this, but in the wrong hands it can become a huge problem for India. At the same time, your legal framework, your regulatory framework, your policies and procedures are not there. People aren’t aware of what their rights are. They have no idea what this thing can do.”

One problem, Soz says, is that Aadhaar numbers are not always checked against a cardholder’s fingerprints or iris scans in all cases, defeating its purpose entirely. When someone provides an Aadhaar number to prove their identity online or by phone, for example, their identities cannot adequately verified. In this way, Aadhaar numbers are not wholly unlike Social Security numbers in the United States. Were 130 million Social Security numbers to be leaked online, confidence in the ability to use that number to confirm an Americans’ identities would be shaken, if not destroyed.

Last month, a central government database containing thousands of Aadhaar numbers—as well as dates of birth, addresses, and tax IDs (PAN)—reportedly leaked, exposing thousands of Indian residents to potential abuse. According to The Wire, the information, which was contained in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, could be easily located on Google.

According to CIS, roughly 130-135 million Aadhaar numbers have now been exposed in this most recent leak. With the growing use of the numbers in areas such as insurance and banking, and without proper mechanisms in place to biometrically confirm the identities of cardholders in every case, the threat of financial fraud is pervasive. “All of these leaks are symptomatic of a significant and potentially irreversible privacy harm,” the report says, noting that such incidents “create a ripe opportunity for financial fraud.”

While Aadhaar is not mandatory everywhere, CIS says, the Indian government continues collecting information about the participants under various social programs. Inevitably, that information is combined with other databases containing even more sensitive data. As that happens, there’s a heightened risk to those whose Aadhaar numbers have been compromised. How the Indian government will address its apparently inadequate security controls before fraud overwhelms the system remains unknown.

Read the full report: Information Security Practices of Aadhaar (or lack thereof): A documentation of public availability of Aadhaar Numbers with sensitive personal financial information

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/gizmodo-may-3-2017-130-million-at-risk-of-fraud-after-massive-leak-of-indian-biometric-system-data

"Will the Magic Number Deliver?" - Roundtable on Aadhaar at CSLG, JNU, April 26

sumandro — 2016-04-20T10:49:58Z

The Centre for the Study of Law and Governance (CSLG), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), will organise a roundtable discussion on Tuesday, April 26, to discuss the Aadhaar project and Act. Along with Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Prasanna S, Apar Gupta, and Chirashree Dasgupta, Sumandro Chattapadhyay will be one of the discussants. It will take place in the CSLG Conference Room at 6 pm.

Discussion Note

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, was enacted by the Parliament on March 16. Thereafter it has been notified on March 26.

The Act empowers the UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India) to collect biometric and demographic information of residents to provide them with a unique number. This unique number is to be used for enumeration, identification and targeting of beneficiaries of government subsidies and services.

Since the creation of the UIDAI as an executive authority in 2009, this process of enumeration has been ongoing. Recently, it was announced that more than 100 crore residents have been given their aadhaar cards. Alongside, however, legal challenges have continued in the Supreme Court.

Given this context, this Roundatable Discussion will focus on the following set of questions (among others):

Can the Aadhaar Number enable better delivery of government subsidies and services?
How does the Act ensure data protection?
Is there a right to privacy in India? What are the implications in the context of Aadhaar?
Does the Act ensure public access to statutory remedies in case of violations?
Did the Aadhaar Bill fulfil the requirements of a money bill?

Discussion Format

Setting the Theme - Short Introduction to the Topic by Natasha Goyal

Speakers' comments, 15 minutes each, consecutive, no power points

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Sumandro Chattapadhyay, the Centre for Internet and Society
Prasanna S, Lawyer
Apar Gupta, Advocate, Delhi High Court
Dr. Chirashree Dasgupta, Centre for the Study of Law and Governance

Open Session (Moderated Q and A)

Followed by Tea

Directions to Venue

From JNU main gate, proceed straight until you get to a T-junction. Turn left. Continue until you reach a second T-junction. Turn right. Follow the road for just 0.7 km until you see a bus stop labelled “Paschimmabad.” About 50 m past the bus stop turn right at a sign that reads: “Centre for the Study of Law and Governance”. The CSLG building is on the right. The conference room is on the first floor.

Poster

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/will-the-magic-number-deliver-aadhaar-cslg-26042016

Centre for Internet and Society

India’s Digital ID Rollout Collides With Rickety Reality

India’s biometric ID scans make sci-fi a reality

FAQ on the Aadhaar Project and the Bill

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

Digital native: Look before you (digitally) leap

Are biometrics hack-proof?

Analysis of Key Provisions of the Aadhaar Act Regulations

Introduction

Unique Identification Authority of India (Transactions of Business at Meetings of the Authority) Regulations[1]

Provision: Sub-Regulation 3.

Observations:

Provision: Sub-Regulation 8 (5)

Observations:

Provision: Sub-Regulation 14 (4)

Observations:

Unique Identification Authority of India (Enrolment and Update) Regulations[4]

Provisions:

Observations:

Provision: Sub-Regulation 32

Observations:

Aadhaar (Authentication) Regulations, 2016[6]

Provisions:

Observations:

Sub-Regulation 11 (1) and (4)

Observations:

Provision: Sub-Regulation 18 (2), (3) and (4)

Observations:

Aadhaar (Sharing of Information) Regulations, 2016 and Aadhaar (Data security) Regulations, 2016[7]

Provision: Sub-Regulation 6 (1)

Observations:

Conclusion

Analysis of Aadhaar Act in the Context of A.P. Shah Committee Principles

Introduction

Analysis of the Aadhaar Act

Collection Limitation

Notice

Access and Correction

Disclosure

Consent

Purpose

Security

Accountability

Openness

Endnotes

An Urgent Need for the Right to Privacy

Read and sign the open letter.

Text of the Open Letter

Advanced biometric technologies and new market entries tackle fraud, chase digital ID billions

Top biometrics news of the week

Aadhaar: A widening net

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

How Did Aadhaar Change?

Security Concerns

Aadhaar Bill 2016 Evaluated against the National Privacy Principles

Download the infographic: PDF and PNG.

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

Download the file: PDF.

1. Compensation and Penalty

2. Privacy Policy

3. Consent

4. Collection Limitation

5. Notice

6. Retention Limitation

7. Purpose Limitation

8. Right to Access and Correct

9. Right to 'Opt Out' and Withdraw Consent

10. Grievance Officer

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

12. Requirements for Transfer of Sensitive Personal Data

13. Security of Information

Implications of the Differences for Body Corporates in Aadhaar Ecosystem

Appendix I

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

130 Million at Risk of Fraud After Massive Leak of Indian Biometric System Data

"Will the Magic Number Deliver?" - Roundtable on Aadhaar at CSLG, JNU, April 26

Discussion Note

Discussion Format

Directions to Venue

Poster

Unique Identification Authority of India (Transactions of Business at Meetings of the Authority) Regulations^{^[1]}

Unique Identification Authority of India (Enrolment and Update) Regulations^{^[4]}

Aadhaar (Authentication) Regulations, 2016^{^[6]}

Aadhaar (Sharing of Information) Regulations, 2016 and Aadhaar (Data security) Regulations, 2016^{^[7]}