Centre for Internet and Society

Panel Discussion on UID/ Aadhar act 2016 and its impact on Social, Security

praskrishna — 2016-04-28T17:02:59Z

Sunil Abraham was a speaker at this event organized by Students Christian Movement of India at SCM House in Bangalore on April 25, 2016. Mathew Thomas and Usha Ramanathan also gave talks.

With the passage of the Aadhaar act 2016 is UID / Aadhar mandatory now? How do we understand the issue of Social Security in the context of the new law? What does it mean for those who need to access their senior citizen pension, rations, school and college scholarships, etc.

How does one understand the money bill route for introducing the bill in Parliament? What are implications of this for the validity of the law?

What will happen to the court cases challenging the UID now?

Where are we now on the thorny issues of surveillance, tracking, profiling, biometrics, private and foreign companies and subsidy? What does the law say?

This discussion will revisit the debates around the UID and examine the implications of the new law.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/panel-discussion-on-uid-aadhar-act-2016-and-its-impact-on-social-security

The Aadhaar Act is Not a Money Bill

Amber Sinha — 2016-04-25T10:51:37Z

While the authority of the Lok Sabha Speaker is final and binding, Jairam Ramesh’s writ petition may allow the Supreme Court to question an incorrect application of substantive principles. This article by Amber Sinha was published by The Wire on April 24, 2016.

Originally published by The Wire on April 24, 2016.

Since its introduction as a money bill in the Lok Sabha in the first week of March [1], the Aadhaar (Targeted delivery of Financial and other subsidies, benefits and services) Bill, 2016 has been embroiled in controversy. The Lok Sabha rejected the five recommendations of the Rajya Sabha and adopted the bill on March 16 and only presidential assent was required for it become to become valid law. However, former Union Minister Jairam Ramesh filed a writ petition contesting the decision to treat the Aadhaar Bill as a money bill. The petition is due to be heard before the Supreme Court on April 25, and should the court decide to entertain the petition, it could have far-reaching implications for the Aadhaar project and the manner in which money bills are passed by the Parliament.

There are three broad categories of bills (all legislations or Acts are known as ‘bills’ till they are passed by the Parliament) that the Parliament can pass. The first kind, Constitution Amendment Bills, are those that seek to amend a provision in the Constitution of India. The second are financial bills which contain provisions on matters of taxation and expenditure. Money bills are a subset of the financial bills which contain provisions only related to taxation, financial obligations of the government, expenditure from or receipt to the Consolidated Fund of India and any matters incidental to the above. The third category is of ordinary bills which includes all other bills. The process for the enactment of all these bills is different. Money bills are peculiar in that they can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha where it can be passed by simple majority. Following this, it is transmitted to the Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha’s powers are restricted to giving recommendations on the Bill and sending it back to the Lok Sabha, which the Lok Sabha is under no obligation to accept. The decision to introduce the Aadhaar Bill as a money bill has been widely seen as an attempt to circumvent the Rajya Sabha where the ruling party is in a minority.

Article 110 (1) of the Constitution defines a money bill as one containing provisions only regarding the matters enumerated or any matters incidental to them. These are a) imposition, regulation and abolition of any tax, b) borrowing or other financial obligations of the Government of India, c) custody, withdrawal from or payment into the Consolidated Fund of India (CFI) or Contingent Fund of India, d) appropriation of money out of CFI, e) expenditure charged on the CFI or f) receipt or custody or audit of money into CFI or public account of India. Article 110 is modelled on Section 1(2) of the (UK) Parliament Act, 1911 which also defines the money bills as those only dealing with certain enumerated matters. The use of the word “only” was brought up by Ghanshyam Singh Gupta during the Constituent Assembly Debates. He pointed out that the use of the word “only” limits the scope of money bills to only those legislations which did not deal with other matters. His amendment to delete the word “only” was rejected clearly establishing the intent of the framers of the Constitution to keep the ambit of money bills extremely narrow.

While the Aadhaar Bill does make references to benefits, subsidies and services funded by the Consolidated Fund of India (CFI), even a cursory reading of the bill reveals its main objectives as creating a right to obtain a unique identification number and providing for a statutory apparatus to regulate the entire process. The mere fact of establishing the Aadhaar number as the identification mechanism for benefits and subsidies funded by the CFI does not give it the character of a money bill. The bill merely speaks of facilitating access to unspecified subsidies and benefits rather than their creation and provision being the primary object of the legislation. Erskine May’s seminal textbook, ‘Parliamentary Practice” is instructive in this respect and makes it clear that a legislation which simply makes a charge on the Consolidated Fund does not becomes a money bill if otherwise its character is not that of one.

PDT Achary, former secretary general of the Lok Sabha, has expressed concern about the use of Money Bills as a means to circumvent the Rajya Sabha. He has written here [2] and here [3], on what constitutes a money bill and how the attempts to pass off financial bills like the Aadhaar Bill as money bills could erode the supervisory role Rajya Sabha is supposed to play. This is especially true in the case of a legislation like the Aadhaar Bill which has far reaching implications for individual privacy as it governs the identification system conceptualised to provide a unique and lifelong identity to residents of India dealing with both the analog and digital machinery of the state and by virtue of Section 57 of any private entities. Already over 1 billion people have been enrolled under this identification scheme, and the project has been a subject of much debate and a petition before the Supreme Court. The project has been portrayed as both the last hope for a welfare state and surveillance infrastructure. Regardless of which of the two ends of spectrum one leans towards, it is undeniable that the law governing the Aadhaar project deserved a proper debate in the Parliament. Even those who are strong proponents of the project must accept the decision to pass it off as a money bill undermines the importance of democratic processes and is a travesty on the Constitution and a blatant abrogation of the constitutional duties of the speaker.

The petition by Jairam Ramesh would hinge largely on the powers of the judiciary to question the decision of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Article 110 (3) is very clear in pronouncing the authority of the Speaker as final and binding. Additionally, Article 122 prohibits the courts from questioning the validity of any proceedings in Parliament on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. The powers of privilege that Parliamentarians enjoy are integral to the principle of separation of powers. However, the courts may be able to make a fine distinction between inquiring into procedural irregularity which is prohibited by the Constitution; and questioning an incorrect application of substantive principles, which I would argue, is the case with the Speaker decision.

References

[1] See: http://thewire.in/2016/03/07/arun-jaitley-introduces-money-bill-on-aadhar-in-lok-sabha-24115/.

[2] See: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/show-me-the-money-4/.

[3] See: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/circumventing-the-rajya-sabha/article7531467.ece.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-aadhaar-act-is-not-a-money-bill

Can the Matters Dealt with in the Aadhaar Act be the Objects of a Money Bill?

Pooja Saxena — 2016-04-24T14:15:06Z

In this infographic, we highlight the matters dealt with in the Aadhaar Act 2016, recently tabled in and passed by the Lok Sabha as a money bill, and consider if these can be objects of a money bill. The infographic is designed by Pooja Saxena, based on information compiled by Sumandro Chattapadhyay and Amber Sinha.

Download the infographic: PDF and JPG.

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

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/can-matters-dealt-with-in-aadhaar-act-be-objects-of-money-bill

Can the Aadhaar Act 2016 be Classified as a Money Bill?

Pooja Saxena — 2016-04-25T13:48:41Z

In this infographic, we show if the Aadhaar Act 2016, recently tabled in and passed by the Lok Sabha as a money bill, can be classified as a money bill. The infographic is designed by Pooja Saxena, based on information compiled by Amber Sinha and Sumandro Chattapadhyay.

Download the infographic: PDF and JPG.

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

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/can-the-aadhaar-act-2016-be-classified-as-a-money-bill

Aadhaar by Numbers

praskrishna — 2016-09-11T16:36:58Z

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

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

Sunil Abraham

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

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

Video

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

"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

PMO’s no to smart cards, insists on Aadhaar

praskrishna — 2016-04-20T02:19:18Z

The government has decided to stop issuing new smart cards to beneficiaries of government schemes as Aadhaar is now backed by a law.

The article by Somesh Jha was published in the Hindu on April 10, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has issued strict instructions to the Information Technology Ministry to ensure that States and the Central governmentstop issuing smart cards for new programmes for beneficiaries, and to rely on the Aadhaar-based Direct Benefit Transfer platform instead.

The move will impact ministries such as Labour, Social Justice and Health, which are in the process or have already rolled out smart cards.

The government had said earlier that over 100 crore people, constituting 93 per cent of the adult population, had a unique identification (UID) number under the Aadhaar platform.

“The undersigned is directed to request the department to examine the need for state and central government departments to issue separate smart cards in the light of the near universal coverage of Aadhaar and the delivery of the most public welfare benefits through Aadhaar enabled platforms,” according to a directive issued by Gulzar N, Director, PMO, to Aruna Sharma, Secretary, Department of Electronics and Information Technology.

“The undersigned is also directed to request the department to prepare policy on the delivery of various public services using Aadhaar, Jan Dhan Yojana and existing platforms without the issuance of new smart cards.”

Last month, Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Thaawar Chand Gehlot had announced that all differently abled persons would soon get a unique identity card to avail welfare schemes. .

State governments had also planned to use smart card technology for welfare schemes. For instance, Odisha was mulling smart cards for construction workers in the State.

The PMO sent a separate communiqué to Labour Secretary Shankar Aggarwal in the context of a proposal to issue 40 crore smart cards to informal sector workers, called the Unorganised Workers’ Identification Number (U-WIN). The UWIN cards were to be used by these workers to access benefits under schemes such as Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana , Aam Aadmi Bima Yojana , Atal Pension Yojana, Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana and Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana.

The PMO rejected the proposal noting that Aadhaar would act as a “universal unique identifier for each citizen.”

“Adding a UWIN number would not only duplicate work, but also introduce further problems in linking up with other databases which have already been linked with Aadhaar,” said the missive reviewed by The Hindu.

However, experts are sceptical of the government’s move.

“Smart cards are always better than biometrics. If that was not the case, the global financial infrastructure today will be working on biometrics and not on smart cards,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of The Centre for Internet and Society.

“Why are these banks working on smart cards? Smart cards work using cryptography, which is more fool-proof than biometrics. Biometrics allow for remote, covert and non-consensual identification,” Mr. Abraham said.

Smart card vendors, however, said the move may not impact their market. “The demand for smart cards is massive in all the other segments such as for use in debit and credit cards or driving licenses and vehicle registration numbers,” said Deven Mehta, managing director of the Mumbai-based Smart Card IT Solutions.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-april-10-2016-somesh-jha-pmo-no-to-smart-cards-insists-aadhaar

The Last Chance for a Welfare State Doesn’t Rest in the Aadhaar System

sumandro — 2016-04-19T13:18:42Z

Boosting welfare is the message, which is how Aadhaar is being presented in India. The Aadhaar system as a medium, however, is one that enables tracking, surveillance, and data monetisation. This piece by Sumandro Chattapadhyay was published in The Wire on April 19, 2016.

Originally published in and cross-posted from The Wire.

Once upon a time, a king desired that his parrot should be taught all the ancient knowledge of the kingdom. The priests started feeding the pages of the great books to the parrot with much enthusiasm. One day, the king asked the priests if the parrot’s education has completed. The priests poked the belly of the parrot but it made no sound. Only the rustle of undigested pages inside the belly could be heard. The priests declared that the parrot is indeed a learned one now.

The fate of the welfare system in our country is quite similar to this parrot from Tagore’s parable. It has been forcefully fed identification cards and other official documents (often four copies of the same) for years, and always with the same justification of making it more effective and fixing the leaks. These identification regimes are in effect killing off the welfare system. And some may say that that has been the actual plan in any case.

The Aadhaar number has been recently offered as the ‘last chance’ for the ailing welfare system – a last identification regime that it needs to gulp down to survive. This argument wilfully overlooks the acute problems with the Aadhaar project.

Firstly, the ‘last chance’ for a welfare state in India is not provided by implementing a new and improved identification regime (Aadhaar numbers or otherwise), but by enabling citizens to effectively track, monitor, and ensure delivery of welfare, services, and benefits. This ‘opening up’ of the welfare bureaucracy has been most effectively initiated by the Right to Information Act. Instead of a centralised biometrics-linked identity verification platform, which gives the privilege of tracking and monitoring welfare flows only to a few expert groups, an effective welfare state requires the devolution of such privilege and responsibility.

We should harness the tracking capabilities of electronic financial systems to disclose how money belonging to the Consolidated Fund of India travel around state agencies and departmental levels. Instead, the Aadhaar system effectively stacks up a range of entry barriers to accessing welfare – from malfunctioning biometric scanners, to connectivity problems, to the burden of keeping one’s fingerprint digitally legible under all labouring and algorithmic circumstances.

Secondly, authentication of welfare recipients by Aadhaar number neither make the welfare delivery process free of techno-bureaucratic hurdles, nor does it exorcise away corruption. Anumeha Yadav has recently documented the emerging ‘unrest at the ration shop’ across Rajasthan, as authentication processes face technical and connectivity delays, people get ‘locked out’ of public services for not having or having Aadhaar number with incorrect demographic details, and no mechanisms exist to provide rapid and definitive recourse.

RTI activists at the Satark Nagrik Sangathan have highlighted that the Delhi ration shops, using Aadhaar-based authentication, maintain only two columns of data to describe people who have come to the shop – those who received their ration, and those who did not (without any indication of the reason). This leads to erasure-by-design of evidence of the number of welfare-seekers who are excluded from welfare services when the Aadhaar-based authentication process fails (for valid reasons, or otherwise).

Reetika Khera has made it very clear that using Aadhaar Payments Bridge to directly transfer cash to a beneficiary’s account, in the best case scenario, may only take care of one form of corruption: deception (a different person claiming to be the beneficiary). But it does not address the other two common forms of public corruption: collusion (government officials approving undue benefits and creating false beneficiaries) and extortion (forceful rent seeking after the cash has been transferred to the beneficiary’s account). Evidently, going after only deception does not make much sense in an environment where collusion and extortion are commonplace.

Thirdly, the ‘relevant privacy question’ for Aadhaar is not limited to how UIDAI protects the data collected by it, but expands to usage of Aadhaar numbers across the public and private sectors. The privacy problem created by the Aadhaar numbers does begin but surely not end with internal data management procedures and responsibilities of the UIDAI.

On one hand, the Aadhaar Bill 2016 has reduced the personal data sharing restrictions of the NIAI Bill 2010, and has allowed for sharing of all data except core biometrics (fingerprints and iris scan) with all agencies involved in authentication of a person through her/his Aadhaar number. These agencies have been asked to seek consent from the person who is being authenticated, and to inform her/him of the ways in which the provided data (by the person, and by UIDAI) will be used by the agency. In careful wording, the Bill only asks the agencies to inform the person about “alternatives to submission of identity information to the requesting entity” (Section 8.3) but not to provide any such alternatives. This facilitates and legalises a much wider collection of personal demographic data for offering of services by public agencies “or any body corporate or person” (Section 57), which is way beyond the scope of data management practices of UIDAI.

On the other hand, the Aadhaar number is being seeded to all government databases – from lists of HIV patients, of rural citizens being offered 100 days of work, of students getting scholarships meant for specific social groups, of people with a bank account. Now in some sectors, such as banking, inter-agency sharing of data about clients is strictly regulated. But we increasingly have non-financial agencies playing crucial roles in the financial sector – from mobile wallets to peer-to-peer transaction to innovative credit ratings. Seeding of Aadhaar into all government and private databases would allow for easy and direct joining up of these databases by anyone who has access to them, and not at all by security agencies only.

When it becomes publicly acceptable that the money bill route was a ‘remedial’ instrument to put the Rajya Sabha ‘back on track’, one cannot not wonder about what was being remedied by avoiding a public debate about the draft bill before it was presented in Lok Sabha. The answer is simple: welfare is the message, surveillance is the medium.

Acceptance and adoption of all medium requires a message, a content. The users are interested in the message. The message, however, is not the business. Think of Free Basics. Facebook wants people with none or limited access to internet to enjoy parts of the internet at zero data cost. Facebook does not provide the content that the users consume on such internet. The content is created by the users themselves, and also provided by other companies. Facebook own and control the medium, and makes money out of all content, including interactions, passing through it.

The UIDAI has set up a biometric data bank and related infrastructure to offer authentication-as-a-service. As the Bill clarifies, almost all agencies (public or private, national or global) can use this service to verify the identity of Indian residents. Unlike Facebook, the content of these services do not flow through the Aadhaar system. Nonetheless, Aadhaar keeps track of all ‘authentication records’, that is records of whose identity was authenticated by whom, when, and where. This database is gold (data) mine for security agencies in India, and elsewhere. Further, as more agencies use authentication based on Aadhaar numbers, it becomes easier for them to combine and compare databases with other agencies doing the same, by linking each line of transaction across databases using Aadhaar numbers.

Welfare is the message that the Aadhaar system is riding on. The message is only useful for the medium as far as it ensures that the majority of the user population are subscribing to it. Once the users are enrolled, or on-boarded, the medium enables flow of all kinds of messages, and tracking and monetisation (perhaps not so much in the case of UIDAI) of all those flows. It does not matter if the Aadhaar system is being introduced to remedy the broken parliamentary process, or the broken welfare distribution system. What matters is that the UIDAI is establishing the infrastructure for a universal surveillance system in India, and without a formal acknowledgement and legal framework for the same.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-last-chance-for-a-welfare-state-doesnt-rest-in-the-aadhaar-system

Why is the UIDAI cracking down on individuals that hoard Aadhaar data?

praskrishna — 2016-04-17T16:16:26Z

Private firms' offer to print Aadhaar details on plastic card a breach of law.

The article by Alnoor Peermohamed was published by Business Standard on April 13, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

The billion-strong citizen identification system, Aadhaar, has given rise to businesses keen on illegal harnessing of this private data, say the authorities.

Outfits are offering services to print the Aadhaar details on plastic cards, something the Union information technology ministry warned against on Monday. These entities charge anywhere between Rs 50 and Rs 600, and are listed on e-commerce websites, apart from own online presence.

Under the Aadhaar law, collecting and storing of the data by private companies without the user’s consent is a crime. Monday’s warning from the ministry to e-commerce marketplaces such as Amazon, Flipkart and eBay to disallow merchants from collecting and printing such details was a result of this.

This newspaper could not find any listings of Aadhaar printing services on Flipkart but there was one on Amazon (taken down) and no less than five such listings on eBay.

PrintMyAadhaar is one of the more well organised outfits operating in this space. “Get your E-Aadhaar printed on a PVC card for easier handling,” reads their website. Users are prompted to fill their Aadhaar details on the website, pay Rs 50 and have the card sent to their houses. PrintMyAadhaar even offers discounts for bulk orders.

“Collecting such information or unauthorised printing of an Aadhaar card or aiding such persons in any manner may amount to a criminal offence, punishable with imprisonment under the Indian Penal Code and also Chapter VI of The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016,” read the statement from the ministry.

Currently, Aadhaar stores a person’s name, date of birth, sex and address, apart from their biometric data.

While the biometric data isn’t available to these PDF printing shops, the rest of the information is, according to Srikanth Nadhamuni, chief executive officer of Khosla Labs and a former head of technology at the Unique Identification Authority of India. However, collecting this data poses no security risk to the Aadhaar infrastructure, he added.

“Allowing somebody to accumulate large amounts of data from Aadhaar users in general is not a good practice. We should ensure that the Aadhaar details of people remain private and it should only be up to the discretion of the end-user to share this,” said Nadhamuni.

Some security experts say Aadhaar does pose a security risk, as it makes available an individual's details in the public domain. Several institutions are treating Aadhaar just like any other proof of identity.

“Transactions that should have been conducted using biometric authentication are being conducted just by presentation of paper documents. What is happening most commonly is that people are giving a printout or photocopy of their Aadhaar acknowledgement as their proof of identity to get a SIM card. The risk here is that somebody can get a mobile number against your name,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the non-profit Centre for Internet and Society.

He says the other technical issue with Aadhaar is the lack of a smart card that stores a person’s information, as in a digital signature. Due to the lack of this, people don’t know what information to keep private and what to make public. Conventional security techniques would have had a person keeping their PIN private (as with a bank account). If this personal PIN would have been saved on a smart card, which users wouldn’t have had much to worry about.

“In the case of Aadhaar, the authentication factor and the identification factor are in the public domain, because many people might have your UID number and people release their biometric data everywhere. Due to this broken technological solution, we are now through policy putting band-aids, saying people should not disclose their UID number unnecessarily,” added Abraham.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-alnoor-peermohamed-april-13-2016-why-is-uidai-cracking-down-on-individuals-that-hoard-aadhaar-data

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

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

India's biometric database crosses billion-member mark

praskrishna — 2016-04-07T02:54:08Z

India's biometric database notched up one billion members on Monday, as the government sought to allay concerns about privacy breaches in the world's biggest such scheme.

The news by AFP was published by Daily Mail, UK on April 4, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.

The database was set up seven years ago to streamline benefit payments to millions of poor people as well as to cut fraud and wastage. Under the scheme, called Aadhaar, almost 93 percent of India's adult population have now registered their fingerprints and iris signatures and been given a biometric ID, according to the government.

IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad hailed it as "an instrument of good governance" at a ceremony in New Delhi marking the crossing of the one-billion member mark.

Prasad said the initiative, inherited from the previous left-leaning Congress government, had enabled millions to receive cash benefits directly rather than dealing with middlemen.

He said the government had saved 150 billion rupees ($2.27 billion) on its gas subsidy scheme alone -- by paying cash directly to biometric card holders instead of providing cylinders at subsidised rates.

He also said all adequate safeguards were in place to ensure the personal details of card holders could not be stolen or misused by authorities given access to the database.

"We have taken all measures to ensure privacy. The data will not be shared with anyone except in cases of national security," Prasad said.

His comments come after parliament passed legislation last month giving government agencies access to the database in the interests of national security.

It was passed using a loophole to circumvent the opposition in parliament, where the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lacks a majority in the upper house.

The way it was passed, as well as the legislation itself, raised concerns about government agencies accessing private citizens' details.

Internet experts have also raised fears about the safety of such a massive database, including hacking and theft of details.

"It was as if Indian lawmakers wrote an open letter to criminals and foreign states saying, 'we are going to collect data to non-consensually identify all Indians and we are going to store it in a central repository. Come and get it!'," Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, wrote in India's Frontline news magazine.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/daily-mail-april-4-2016-afp-india-biometric-database-crosses-billion-member-mark

The Panama Papers and the question of privacy

praskrishna — 2016-04-24T14:03:35Z

This statement was originally published on privacyinternational.org on 4 April 2016.

Read the entry by Claire Lauterbach published in Big News Network on April 6, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

We do agree with Ramon Fonseca about one thing: that "Each person has a right to privacy, whether they are a king or a beggar."

But that's where our commonality with co-founder of disgraced Panama law firm Mossack Fonseca ends.

Last year, a whistleblower leaked 11.5 million documents about the firm's business brokering offshore companies, details of which were published yesterday. Reportedly the largest leak in journalistic history, the cache reveals hidden assets by a dozen current and former world leaders, and scores of celebrities and tycoons, some of which are linked to high level corruption scandals.

This scandal isn't about privacy, though. If anything, it's about the need for transparency about how the powerful wield their power. We need transparency - and good solid investigation - to understand where and how our right to privacy is eroded.

Privacy and transparency are not opposites. They are two sides of the same coin. As privacy advocates, we use transparency capabilities to investigate surveillance. Meanwhile, privacy as a right requires transparency from the institutions that gather and use our data.

Privacy International, like other human rights groups, conducts investigations in the public interest. That allows us to understand, for example, how Colombia built a shadow surveillance system despite evidence of illegal interceptions, or how UK police appear to be collecting private communications data at protests, according to a Vice News investigation.

Many of the Panama Papers' revelations are in the public interest insofar as they concern the transformation of public assets - like taxpayers' money and state funds - into private gains, and allow the powerful to avoid scrutiny. Privacy and transparency are not opposites. They are two sides of the same coin.

Fonseca called journalism around the leaked files an "international campaign against privacy".

But what Fonseca is really doing is advocating a status quo of 'privacy for the kings, and transparency for the beggars'. Or rather, privacy for the business moguls, politicians, corporations and government agencies, and transparency for the citizens, consumers, activists and journalists.

For the public, our financial systems are now surveiled by design. Our transactions are labelled as suspicious and sent for mining by intelligence agencies. We need IDs to open accounts, and our records are profiled by credit agencies who facilitate key decisions about us and our families. Secretive institutions collate this information to decide whether or not we are terrorists. While a certain degree of this is necessary for public order, what's clear is that we are watched while the 'kings' are able to circumvent many of these measures and escape scrutiny. We should never make the mistake of conflating the right to privacy for the individual with the desire to hide shadowy, ethically dubious, borderline-or-actual illegal activity for the immensely wealthy and powerful.

The real issues around privacy include: the spreading of draconian laws, from the UK, to Pakistan, to Kenya, that sanction warrantless surveillance and online monitoring, with insufficient protection for the public. It's the intrusive biometric registration of some of the most desperate people, like refugees from Dadaab to Calais, desperate for food and medical care. It's the instrumentalisation of consumer data to draw conclusions about us, with or without our consent. It's also the parallel trend of rolling back Freedom of Information laws (see: UK and United States). And, as the Panama Papers show, it is allowing transfers of public funds for private gain to be obscured.

That is the real "campaign against privacy" - not public interest journalism.

As our friend and partner Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society in India states succinctly, the right to privacy should "be inversely proportionate to power and almost conversely the requirement of transparency to be directly proportionate to power."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/big-news-network-april-6-2016-claire-lauterbach-panama-papers-and-question-of-privacy

Surveillance Project

sunil — 2016-04-05T15:21:27Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instantiation technology

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

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

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

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

Competing providers

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

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

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

RightsCon Silicon Valley 2016

praskrishna — 2016-04-06T15:10:21Z

RightsCon is the world’s leading event convened around the issues of the internet and human rights. The annual conference convenes business leaders, visionaries, technologists, legal experts, civil society members, activists, and government representatives from across the globe on issues at the intersection of tech and human rights. The event was organized by RightsCon.

Program

This year, we had three days ofprogrammingplus a day of satellite events (Day Zero satellite events + three full days of main programming), tackling some of today’s most challenging business and policy issues: freedom of expression, online harassment and countering violent extremism, privacy and digital security, encryption, network discrimination and connectivity, human rights, trade and business, transparency reporting, digital inclusion, internet governance, and much more. Click here to see our program schedule.

With 250+ sessions and over 1,000 registered participants, RightsCon 2016 provided unparalleled opportunities to engage with leading speakers and organizations, both in sessions and through private meetings and discussions. It was also home to an array of parties, movie screenings, and social events throughout the week to help participants meet others in the space.

Elonnai Hickok participated in the following panels and meetings at RightsCon held at Mission Bay Conference Center in San Francisco, California from March 30 to April 1, 2016:

1. Beyond CSR: Promoting Strong Human Rights Performance - Centre for Law and Democracy
2. Ranking ICT Companies on Digital Rights; A How to Guide - Ranking Digital Rights
3. Who is an Intermediary? Harmonizing Definitions? - CIS
4. Manila Principles: One Year Later - CIS and EFF
5. Cross Border Data Requests - American University Washington College of Law, University of Kentucky College of Law.
6. Closed door meeting for Ranking Digital Rights
7. GNI meeting on Mutual Legal Assistance

More info on the RightsCon website

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/rightscon-silicon-valley-2016