Centre for Internet and Society

Online privacy should not come at the cost of security: Sunil Abraham

praskrishna — 2014-11-02T02:27:12Z

Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society’s executive director, on privacy laws and Internet penetration.

Anirban Sen's article was published in LiveMint on May 19, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a research thinktank that primarily focuses on issues of Internet governance, is pushing to revise the provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act and make a stronger case for privacy laws and free speech in India, an issue that has caused widespread concern after the government tried to restrict access to more than a 100 websites last year with little justification.

“We want to revise the IT Act...that’s the toughest one and that’s not going to happen very soon because the government is treating it like an ego battle now. They no longer listen to the others,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of CIS.

The IT Act has been at the centre of debate, with some of its provisions such as Section 66A, which criminalizes “causing annoyance or inconvenience” online or electronically, coming under criticism from rights advocates for being too vague and subject to interpretation.

CIS, which will complete five years on Monday and is organizing a four-day event focusing on issues such as cyber security, surveillance in India and privacy, said it also was working towards creating a privacy law for India within the next 3-4 years. India, which is estimated to have Internet penetration of just 10%, is the third-largest Internet market in the world.

“We’re getting closer and closer to that (privacy law),” said Abraham, adding that privacy should not come at the cost of security.

Over the past five years, Bangalore-based CIS has also been part of some government committees such as the Justice AP Shah Committee, which focused on privacy laws in India, and is also currently working on the country’s telecom policy. The non-government organization, which receives grants from international bodies such as the Wikimedia Foundation, has also worked on policies for the government of Iraq and is currently also doing policy work for the government of Burma.

“Five years ago we were making noise from outside the room, we were not inside any policy making space. That has also changed. From an organization that was mostly outside the room, we’re increasingly being trusted by our own government,” said Abraham, who was one of the most vocal critics of the government’s unique identification (UID) project when it was first launched. Abraham had raised concerns over its overtly broad scope and issues over privacy in the project.

For CIS, one of the biggest achievements over the past five years was being part of the policy framework for the government of India’s draft national policy on open standards for e-governance, said Abraham, adding that the organization was working towards increasing Internet penetration in the country, especially in rural areas.

“We’re hoping that every single mobile phone user in the country will become an Internet user. We’re planning for that future,” he said.

The CIS event starting on Monday will include speakers such as legal researcher and advocate Lawrence Liang and Vibodh Parthasarathi, an associate professor at the Centre for Culture, Media and Governance at the Jamia Millia Islamia university. Both Liang and Parthasarathi are members of the board at CIS.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-anirban-sen-may-19-2013-online-privacy-should-not-come-at-the-cost-of-security

Inventions that will make a difference

praskrishna — 2014-02-12T11:07:02Z

In an increasingly tech-driven world, what does 2014 have to offer? Geeta Padmanabhan turns the spotlight on some life-changing gadgets.

Geeta Padmanabhan's article published in the Hindu on January 1, 2014 quotes Maria Xynou.

Digiterati, have you tried Snapchat, the service that makes messages/photos/captions you send disappear in a few seconds once opened? The app with its swelling popularity among the young demands a re-think about data: do you need it around forever? In a remarkable step forward, 2014 may see Forever Internet and Erasable Internet living side by side.

What else is in store? “Your mobile devices and PCs will get more intelligent and remember your different passwords,” said J. Prasanna, AVS labs. “Advanced biometrics will enable scanning (fingerprint/retina) without devices. Sharper attack simulation on the cyber-world will force corporates to improve defence. Industrial houses will opt for more mobile devices — computers like raspberry pi — for logistics/checking. “You may not see a workstation at all!” Maria Xynou, The Centre for Internet and Society, foresees surveillance technologies getting smarter with artificial intelligence software, and people fending them off with crypto-like privacy software. “This might trigger more intrusive technologies,” she said.

Big data will grow bigger. Many of the products we depend on — Google's spell-checker, translation service, traffic maps, search-suggestions; Amazon.com's AMZN +0.13% media; Facebook’s News Feed, “friend” facilities — have come out of a huge cache of user data. But Kaspersky Lab expects cybercriminals to use refined mobile-phishing, banking-Trojans and mobile-botnets to hack and modify private information. VPN (virtual private network) services and Tor-anonymisers will become popular, demand for local encryption tools will spurt, it predicts.

Folding phones?

Now that curved display (G-Flex) is here, 2014 may bring in “roll-up or fold” smartphones/tablets to fit into our wallets. Also, with smarter tracking-tools and voice-recognition technology smartphones will become so intuitive and efficient that they may reflexively cater to our needs. “It will become a context engine — aware of where it is, where you are going, what you need,” said futurist Paul Saffo. Apple will launch the anticipated big-screen iPhones and iPads (12.9-inch or 13.3-inch), reports Digitimes. Upcoming iPhone models will have a 20mm chipset, and a choice between 4.7-inch and 6-inch display panel. But don't throw away your MacBook Air or MacPro yet.

“Prepare for a life-changing gadget,” says BBC, referring to Oculus Rift, a “consumer-focused virtual-reality headset”, to be launched by Kickstarter. You wear it and you'll see yourself running along a beach, flying in a spaceship, riding a roller-coaster, it says. Impatient for the “real” one? There are no tech hurdles to having a vehicle that is part-car, part-plane, part-drone parked outside your home, says Missy Cummings, Aeronautics/Astronautics Professor, MIT. The fly-by-wire Airbus is a drone, anyway. Automated systems with micro-second reactions will make transportation network — ground and air — safer. Your regular car will gain advanced tech features, from in-built sat-navs, parking assistance to voice-activated/touchscreen DVD players and radios.

Educator Sugata Mitra hopes to launch an entire school in the cloud — the tech-cloud. Retired teachers in remote areas will teach through Skype, classrooms will be beamed from all parts of the planet — “deep in the jungle, or high on a mountain.” Kids can just gather at one home for lessons, he said.

Robots will take longer strides in 2014. Google's Japanese start-up robot won the Darpa rescue-challenge by carrying out all the eight rescue-themed tasks ahead of rivals. Its dexterous, independent “robot army” will carry packages, push strollers. LiveScience reports Knightscope's five-foot K5 robot-cop's on-board sensor that can see, hear, touch and smell its surroundings will combine its observations with public data and use the information to predict if, when and where a crime is likely to occur. Asutosh Saxena's team at Cornell University has created a robot (PR2) programmed to free shop-assistants from drudgery — it packs purchases at check-out counters. Forrester Research's Jeff Ernst believes ICANN’s gTLD (generic top-level domain) program is a game-changer. The introduction of .brand and .category will help you choose products with ease and marketers fight off cybersquatters.

The best gift

To me the best gift of 2014 is the Copenhagen wheel. With an attached computer/sensor-aided device, this bicycle wheel monitors pedalling and activates an on-board electric-motor when you need support. Connecting wirelessly to the biker's smartphone, the device tracks distance travelled and elevation gained, shares with friends the number of calories burned, locks the wheel remotely as you walk away from the bike. An electric-hybrid bicycle!

Mark Anderson, Strategic News Service anticipates Apple's Siri-like products to get an upgrade, visualisation tools to usher in “seeing data.” Software-defined networking and storage will cause a “stampede to virtualise everything.” Technical work to break down barriers between clouds will spawn software that can run anywhere. E-mapping will include MALT (Micromapping, Advertising, Location/ID, Transactions). Indoor maps and location information will place advertising targeted at you, leading to transaction in which “your phone will direct you to where things on your shopping-list are. You pick them up, the store knows who you are, how you pay, and you’ll just walk out.”

Track these

2014 will see computers that can learn from their own mistakes.
Spending on mobile, work-collaboration and video-conferencing apps will rise.
Demand for “big data” analysts will soar.
Small start-ups will raise money more through crowdfunding, less from venture capitalists.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-january-1-2014-geeta-padmanabhan-inventions-that-will-make-a-difference

Counter Surveillance Panel: DiscoTech & Hackathon

praskrishna — 2014-02-28T05:36:15Z

We invite you to a Counter Surveillance DiscoTech and Hackathon at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore on Saturday, March 1, 2014 (9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.). The event is being co-organized by the Centre for Internet and Society in tandem with the MIT Centre for Civic Media Co-Design Lab, with support from members of Tactical Technology Collective, Hackteria.org and Srishti School of Art Design and Technology. Registrations begin at 9.00 a.m. The event shall close with a featured talk by renown information activist and maker lab innovator Smari McCarthy, titled "Privacy for Humanity" at 5.00 p.m.

Overview

Mirroring the call by MIT Civic Media Lab Co-Design Studio, this event brings together students, technologists, designers and citizens to explore counter-surveillance strategies. The event will be held simultaneously across various locations including Boston, Palestine, Lisbon and Buenos Aires. Click here for the definition of DiscoTech.(Discovering Technology)

Agenda

We shall begin with brief contextualized introductions catalyzed by researchers in the field of privacy & surveillance, followed by workshops and hackathons led by expert practitioners. Participants are welcome from diverse backgrounds looking to be involved in designing engaging and creative ways to counter surveillance. The event shall close with a featured talk by renown information activist and maker lab innovator Smari McCarthy , titled "Privacy for Humanity" at 5.00 p.m.

Introductory Catalyst Sessions

Malavika Jayaram: Fellow at Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University and the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Laird Brown: DesiSec Project at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore and University of Toronto
Kaustubh Srikant: Head of Technology, Tactical Technology Collective and Maya Indira Ganesh (Program Director)
Abhay Raj Naik: Assistant Professor, Azim Premji University

Design and Hackathon Lead Catalysts

Yashas Shetty:Faculty@ www.srishti.ac.in and Co-Founder Hackteria.org (DNA Spoofing, Surveillance Camera: Avoidance, Microscopic Re-Appropriation & Bacterial Discotheque)

Hari Dilip Kumar: Co, Founder, FluxGen: (Introducing data transmission protocols, Software Defined Radio (SDR) design and surveillance detection )

Sharath Chandra Ram: Researcher @ CIS Open Lab and Faculty@Srishti (Civic Media solutions using open citizen networks and the web, spectrum scanning, visual communication design strategies, finger print mash-up publishing)

Featured Talk and Interactive Closing Session by Smari McCarthy

(Executive Director, International Modern Media Institute and Founder, Icelandic Pirate Party & Icelandic Digital Freedom Society)

Title of Talk: PRIVACY for HUMANITY - 5.00 p.m.

Click to download the flyer invite
Date: Saturday, March 1, 2014
Time: 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. (Registration 9.00 a.m. sharp)
Venue: Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Map : http://bit.ly /1fcDDLG

Please RSVP due to limited space and logistics for lunch and refreshments

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/counter-surveillance-panel-disco-tech-hackathon

Calcutta High Court Strengthens Whistle Blower Protection

divij — 2014-02-24T06:38:44Z

Calcutta High Court has ordered for protection of whistle blower's privacy in its November 20, 2013 order. The court has directed the government to accept RTI applications without the applicant's personal details.

In the absence of any law for the protection of whistle-blowers in the country, exposing the rampant corruption in our public institutions has become a hazardous occupation, with reports of threat and intimidation and even incidents of murder of whistle-blowers commonplace.[1] With the Whistle blower’s Protection Bill in abeyance and without any strict laws protecting the identities of the whistle-blowers who challenge such a corrupt system, even the mechanisms like the Right to Information Act which are meant to safeguard against systemic abuse and ensure transparency are being severely undermined.

For this reason, the Calcutta High Court’s affirmation of whistle-blowers’ privacy and identity protection is an important development. Through its order on the 20th of November, 2013, the Calcutta High Court held that for the purposes of section 6(2), which requires an application to the Public Information Officer to provide contact details of the applicant, it is sufficient in such application to disclose only the post-box number of the applicant. The court directed the Government to accept RTI applications without personal details or detailed whereabouts, when a post-box number or sufficient detail has been provided to establish contact between the whistle-blower and the authority. However if a public authority has any difficulty contacting the applicant through the Post Box No. the applicant may be asked to provide other contact details. The court further directed that personal details of applicants are not to be posted on the authorities’ websites.

The order, which was notified by the Government last week, ensures to some extent the protection of a whistle-blowers identity, and reduces the chances of the RTI being undermined by threats or acts of violence by those who are a part of the corrupt system, against persons exercising their right to information. However, its implementation is liable to be contingent on the authorities’ interpretation of when it would be “difficult” to establish contact between the authority and the applicant. Certain practical difficulties could also undermine the actual impact of the order, such as the fact that many applications are sent through registered or speed post, which cannot be mailed to a post-box number, especially since ordinary post cannot be tracked online like speed or registered post.[2]

Developing a system in which ordinary citizens do not have to fear retaliation for exposing corruption requires a comprehensive legislation protecting whistle-blowers identities and ensuring data security. However, the important message this judgement sends out is that the judiciary is still committed to protecting whistle-blowers, in lieu of the government’s actions. This is a particularly important stance taken by the Court, considering the Supreme Court in the past has refused to frame guidelines for whistle-blower protection, citing the imperative in enacting a whistle-blower legislation to be the Parliament’s.[3]

A full text of the judgement is available here.

[1].Whistleblower shot dead in Bihar, THE HINDU, available at http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/whistleblower-shot-dead-in-bihar/article4542293.ece; Tamil Nadu Whistleblower alleges death threats; Silence from Government, NDTV, available at http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/tamil-nadu-whistleblower-alleges-death-threats-silence-from-govt-410450.

[2]. Indian Postal Tracking Portal, http://www.indiapost.gov.in/tracking.aspx.

[3]. Supreme Court refuses to frame guidelines for protection of whistleblowers, Daily News and Analysis, available at http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-supreme-court-refuses-to-frame-guideline-for-protection-of-whistleblowers-1525622.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/calcutta-hc-strengthens-whistle-blower-protection

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

Press Release, March 15, 2016: The New Bill Makes Aadhaar Compulsory!

Amber Sinha — 2016-03-16T10:11:32Z

We published and circulated the following press release on March 15, 2016, to highlight the fact that the Section 7 of the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 states that authentication of the person using her/his Aadhaar number can be made mandatory for the purpose of disbursement of government subsidies, benefits, and services; and in case the person does not have an Aadhaar number, s/he will have to apply for Aadhaar enrolment.

Nandan Nilekani, the former chairperson of the Unique Identification Authority of India had repeatedly stated that Aadhaar is not mandatory. However, in the last few years various agencies and departments of the government, both at the central and state level, had made it mandatory in order to be able to avail beneficiary schemes or for the arrangement of salary, provident fund disbursals, promotion, scholarship, opening bank account, marriages and property registrations. In August 2015, the Supreme Court passed an order mandating that the Aadhaar number shall remain optional for welfare schemes, stating that no person should be denied any benefit for reason of not having an Aadhaar number, barring a few specified services.

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, however, has not followed this mandate. Section 7 of the Bill states that “a person should be authenticated or give proof of the Aadhaar number to establish his/her identity” “as a condition for receiving subsidy, benefit or service”. Further, it reads, “In the case a person does not have an Aadhaar number, he/she should make an application for enrollment.” The language of the provision is very clear in making enrollment in Aadhaar mandatory, in order to be entitled for welfare services. Section 7 also says that “the person will be offered viable and alternate means of identification for receiving the subsidy, benefit or service. However, these unspecified alternate means will be made available in the event “an Aadhaar number is not assigned”. This language is vague and it is not clear whether it mandates alternate means of identification for those who choose not to apply for an Aadhaar number for any reason. The fact that it does make it mandatory to apply for an Aadhaar number for persons without it, may lead to the presumption that the alternate means are to be made available for those who may have applied for an Aadhaar number but it has not been assigned for any reason. It is also noteworthy that draft legislation is silent on what the “viable and alternate means of identification” could be. There are a number of means of identification, which are recognised by the state, and a schedule with an inclusive list could have gone a long way in reducing the ambiguity in this provision.

Another aspect of Section 7 which is at odds with the Supreme Court order is that it allows making an Aadhaar number mandatory for “for receipt of a subsidy, benefit or service for which the expenditure is incurred” from the Consolidated Fund of India. The Supreme Court had been very specific in articulating that having an Aadhaar number could not be made compulsory except for “any purpose other than the PDS Scheme and in particular for the purpose of distribution of foodgrains, etc. and cooking fuel, such as kerosene” or for the purpose of the LPG scheme. The restriction in the Supreme Court order was with respect to the welfare schemes, however, instead of specifying the schemes, Section 7 specified the source of expenditure from which subsidies, benefits and services can be funded, making the scope much broader. Section 7, in effect, allows the Central Government to circumvent the Supreme Court order if they choose to tie more subsidies, benefits and services to the Consolidated Fund of India.

These provisions run counter to the repeated claims of the government for the last six years that Aadhaar is not compulsory, nor is the specification by the Supreme Court for restricting use of Aadhaar to a few services only, reflected anywhere in the Bill. The “viable and alternate means” clause is too vague and inadequate to prevent denial of benefits to those without an Aadhaar number. The sum effect of these factors is to give the Central Government powers to make Aadhaar mandatory, for all practical purposes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-release-aadhaar-15032016-the-new-bill-makes-aadhaar-compulsory

Are we Losing the Right to Privacy and Freedom of Speech on Indian Internet?

Amber Sinha — 2016-03-16T14:44:19Z

The article was published in DNA on March 10, 2016.

Last month, it was reported that National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) had proposed the setting up of a National Media Analytics Centre (NMAC). This centre’s mandate would be to monitor blogs, media channels, news outlets and social media platforms. Sources were quoted as stating that the centre would rely upon a tracking software built by Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, an Assistant Professor at the Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology in Delhi. The NMAC seems to mirror other similar efforts in countries such as US, Canada, Australia and UK, to monitor online content for the reasons as varied as prevention of terrorist activities, disaster relief and criminal investigation.

The NSCS, the parent body that this centre will fall under, is a part of the National Security Council, India’s highest agency looking to integrate policy-making and intelligence analysis, and advising the Prime Minister’s Office on strategic issues as well as domestic and international threats. The NSCS represents the Joint Intelligence Committee and its duties include the assessment of intelligence from the Intelligence Bureau, Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) and Directorates of Military, Air and Naval Intelligence, and the coordination of the functioning of intelligence agencies.

From limited reports available, it appears that the tracking software used by NMAC will generate tags to classify post and comments on social media into negative, positive and neutral categories, paying special attention to “belligerent” comments. The reports say that the software will also try to determine if the comments are factually correct or not. The idea of a government agency systematically tracking social media, blogs and news outlets and categorising content as desirable and undesirable is bound to create a chilling effect on free speech online. The most disturbing part of the report suggested that the past pattern of writers’ posts would be analysed to see how often her posts fell under the negative category, and whether she was attempting to create trouble or disturbance, and appropriate feedback would be sent to security agencies based on it. Viewed alongside the recent events where actors critical of the government and holding divergent views have expressed concerns about attempts to suppress dissenting opinions, this initiative sounds even more dangerous, putting at risk individuals categorised as “negative” or “belligerent”, for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech.

Getty Images

It has been argued that the Internet is a public space, and should be treated as subject to monitoring by the government as any other space. Further, this kind of analysis does not concern itself with private communication between two or more parties but only with publicly available information. Why must we raise eyebrows if the government is accessing and analysing it for the purposes of legitimate state interests? There are two problems with this argument. First, any surveillance of communication must always be limited in scope, specific to individuals, necessary and proportionate, and subject to oversight. There are no laws passed by the Parliament in India which allow for mass surveillance measures. Such activities are being conducted through bodies like NSC which came into existence through an Executive Order and have no clear oversight mechanisms built into its functioning. A quick look at the history of intelligence and surveillance agencies in India will show that none of them have been created through a legislation. A host of surveillance agencies have come up in the last few years including the Central Monitoring System, which was set up to monitor telecommunications, and the absence of legislative pedigree translates into lack of appropriate controls and safeguards, and zero public accountability.

The second and the larger issue is that the scale and level of granularity of personal information available now is unprecedented. Earlier, our communications with friends and acquaintances, our movements, our association, political or otherwise, were not observable in the manner it is today. It would be remiss to underestimate the importance of personal information merely because it exists in the public domain. The ability to act without being subject to monitoring and surveillance is key to the right to free speech and expression. While we accept the importance of free speech and the value of an open internet and newer technologies to enable it, we do not give sufficient importance to how these technologies are affecting the right to privacy.

Getty Images

In the last few years, the social media scene in India has been characterised by extreme polemic with epithets such as ‘bhakt’, ‘sanghi’, ‘sickular’ and ‘presstitutes’ thrown around liberally, turning political discussions into a mess of ugliness. It remains to be seen whether the NMAC intends to deal with the professional trolls who rely on a barrage of abuse to disrupt public conversations online. However, the appropriate response would not be greater surveillance, let alone a body like NMAC, with a sweeping mandate and little accountability.

Link to the original here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/dna-amber-sinha-march-10-2016-are-we-losing-right-to-privacy-and-freedom-of-speech-on-indian-internet

Govt narrative on Aadhaar has not changed in the last six years: Sunil Abraham

praskrishna — 2016-03-16T16:37:19Z

The bill is basically the same as the UPA version, with some cosmetic changes, and some tokenism towards the right to privacy, says Abraham.

Shreeja Sen interviewed Sunil Abraham. The article was published in Livemint on March 8, 2016.

The government’s bid to push financial inclusiveness and access to government services has received a fresh boost, with finance minister Arun Jaitley introducing a proposed law to give legislative backing to Aadhaar, being implemented by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).

This project, which uses a person’s biometric data like fingerprints and iris scans to authenticate identity of people receiving subsidies and other state benefits, will move India towards a cashless economy and help digital initiatives such as biometric attendance, Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, digital certificates, pension payments and the proposed introduction of payments banks.

Sunil Abraham, 42

Abraham is executive director of Centre for Internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based think tank focusing on accessibility, access to knowledge, telecom and Internet governance. He has written extensively on the UID scheme, and the intersection of privacy and security. He founded Mahiti—an enterprise that aims to reduce the cost and complexity of information and communications technology for the voluntary sector by using free software.

The Aadhaar project has faced its share of roadblocks with cases challenging it pending before the Supreme Court. A constitution bench of the court will decide whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right and if Aadhaar violates it.

Sunil Abraham, the executive director of Centre for Internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based policy research institute, is a critic of Aadhaar for several reasons. He explained his concerns in an interview. Edited excerpts:

Have any of the concerns regarding the Aadhaar project since its inception in 2009 been addressed?

Whatever we complained about six or seven years ago, whatever complaints were made by the civil society...all of those complaints remain in the exact same situation.

Nothing has changed.

What kind of concerns?

The first thing to remember is that privacy and security are just two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other.

Our first concern with the project is centralization. Whenever you build an information system, and you create a central point of failure, then it will fail because the possibility of failure exists. The Internet has no central point of failure. That is why it is so difficult for you to bring the Internet down. Complaint number 2 is the opaque technology.

UIDAI keeps saying that “we have built a technology using a free software and open standard stack”. The first is a de-duplication software and the second one is the authentication software—those are the most important pieces of software.

This software is proprietary and nobody knows how they work and nobody can independently audit them.

The third complaint is the use of an irrevocable and non-consensual authentication factor. In the UID scheme, the biometrics serve two purposes: it can be used to identify a citizen and it can be used to authenticate a transaction. Authentication factors, commonly known as passwords, should always be revocable. That means if the password is compromised, you should be able to change the password or at least say that this password is no longer valid. The use of biometrics eliminates those two important requirements.

Further, in most other authentication, the process of authentication ensures that you are consenting. For example, PIN (personal identity number) authentications. But suppose I am authenticating you through your irises, then as long as your eyes are open, the machine will think you’re authenticating. There’s no way of saying I don’t want to authenticate. Or if you’re sleeping, somebody can hold your fingers over a biometric reader and open your iPhone. So that’s complaint number three.

The fourth complaint from the privacy perspective is: there is a very important database that they don’t talk about. I call it the transactions database. Suppose there is somebody who is using the UIDAI service to authenticate a transaction, then UIDAI should keep a record of that successful or unsuccessful transaction authentication. That means you have been registered into the database.

You go to a fair price shop to purchase subsidized grain and at that fair price shop or ration shop, you use your finger on the biometric reader, and then the UIDAI system says “yes you are indeed who you say you are”.

So, at that point, later the shop should not be able to say X never came here, or X came twice. So, in order for them to not say all those things, a record should be made on the UID database, that on this day, from this geographical location, this particular biometric reader sent us X’s biometric template and asked if the template matched against X’s UID number...the transaction database can be used for profiling. They never talk about it.

They never tell us what that database holds and how long they’re keeping all those records. None of that is clear.

Does Aadhaar bill help assuage your doubts about the project?

The government narrative has not changed in the last six years; the bill is basically the same as the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) version, with some cosmetic changes, and some tokenism towards the right to privacy. The proof that the technology is fallible is in the bill.

If the technology was infallible, as the UIDAI would like us to believe, then the bill would not criminalize the following: (1) impersonation at the time of enrolment; (2) unauthorized access to the Central Identities Data Repository.

Imagine that the bill admits that every Indian’s biometric can be stolen from one single centralized database. Now why don’t we have a similar offence for stealing all private keys from the Internet—we don’t because that is technical impossibility thanks to decentralization.

Therefore we don’t need a law to make (it) illegal. We’ve suggested changes to both the technology and the law. We’ve written seven open letters to the UIDAI, and we’ve never gotten any response. Very few of our concerns have been addressed. We’ve seen dogs getting UID, various other things getting UID, so there’s a lot of evidence that the system does not work. From Kerala we have stories of one person getting several UIDs, so we have no idea about technological feasibility of the project.

One of our distinguished fellows, Hans Varghese Mathews, has published an academic paper in the latest EPW (Economic and Political Weekly), by extrapolating UIDAI field trial data to national scale. He predicts that by the time the number crosses 1 billion, every time UIDAI tries to register someone new, they will match with about 850 people already in the database positively. So, the unique identification capability of the UIDAI will not scale above the billion. The consequence of the technology failing is not trivial. If someone replaces your biometrics in the central database, then the onus is on you to prove that you are a resident of India.

Previously, human beings determined the answer to this question, and they had to find proof that you were not a resident. Now, a fallible technology will be asked to answer this important question.

Isn’t the basic function of the Aadhaar project to ensure that benefits reach the person they are meant for, and it’s easier for people to get an identity proof for those who have no other ID, like migrant workers?

Two responses: is it good anti- corruption technology? Unfortunately not, because it is intended at retail fraud. The person under surveillance is very poor. But the person responsible for corruption is not poor. So, I believe you should be surveilling those responsible for corruption.

What I had said is UID should be first given to every single bureaucrat and every single politician in the country. From Delhi till the Panchayat office, till the ration shop in the village, that supply chain must be monitored and documented using cryptography, so that nobody can deny anything. We need non-repudiatable audit trail from New Delhi to the village because according to all analyses, that is where the theft is happening—in the supply chain. The villager who is taking false benefits, that is called retail fraud.

The bulk of the fraud is actually wholesale fraud. Please tackle wholesale fraud using non-repudiatable public audit trail from New Delhi to the village first, before you start surveilling the poor.

The second point is that people find it easy to get the UID. That is fine, but there is a problem; that it’s not uniquely identifying anybody. So, people will keep registering and the UID system will keep giving them more and more UIDs because there are no human checks and balances. Because you’ve gone with a pure technological solution, it’s very easy to fool (the system).

So, the ease of registration has not served the purpose.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-march-8-2016-shreeja-sen-govt-narrative-on-aadhaar-has-not-changed-in-last-six-years-sunil-abraham

Aadhaar is actually surveillance tech: Sunil Abraham

praskrishna — 2016-03-16T17:07:39Z

On March 12, the Lok Sabha passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016, paving the way for giving legal status to Aadhaar, a 12-digit unique identification number generated after collecting biometric and other details of an Indian resident.

Sahil Makkar on behalf of Business Standard interviewed Sunil Abraham. The article was published on March 12, 2016.

The government intends to use Aadhaar to roll out more subsidy schemes and allay privacy concerns. However, activists are not convinced. Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru based-research organisation The Centre for Internet & Society, tells Sahil Makkar that the concept of Aadhaar is principally flawed and it doesn't substantially help in plugging leakages in government schemes. Edited excerpts:

What is your position on Aadhaar and the UIDAI Bill?

What technology has broken cannot be fixed by the law. Aadhaar is a broken technology; it is surveillance technology disguised as developmental intervention that identifies people without their consent and authenticates transactions on their behalf. The architecture is a disaster from the security perspective and there is no recourse in law for citizens whose rights have been infringed. The other objection should be to the subtitle of the Bill that mentions "services": it is unclear whether Aadhaar is to be provided to the residents or the citizens. A bulk of the government services is meant for citizens.

What are the repercussions of this "broken technology"?

Consent happens without conscious cooperation during the authentication process of getting access to a subsidy or a service. Also, the person providing the service is holding a biometric reader and he may say the device is not working and hence, refuse the subsidy. Yet the database will reflect that the subsidy has been availed of because authentication has already been completed. So you have to accept what the person is saying because only that person and the UIDAI have access to the information. Aadhaar makes the citizen transparent to the state but makes the state completely opaque and unaccountable to its citizens.

Will the beneficiary not receive a message about the transaction?

That will only happen when the banks are involved. At the subsidised ration shop the beneficiary will get nothing. The world over security professionals don't trust biometric-based authentication, relying rather on other revocable authentication factors. It is irrevocable if the biometric details are compromised. Instead, writable smart cards could be used to record details of government officers on the cards of beneficiaries and make both the state and the resident transparent to each other.

Hasn't the National Population Register under the Ministry of Home Affairs been advocating the use of smart cards?

In this case biometrics should be used only to link the individual to the smart card. Biometric information should be stored on smart cards and under no circumstances should there be a central repository of biometrics at one place. Maintaining a central database is akin to getting the keys of every house in Delhi and storing them at a central police station. The chances of getting a central database compromised depend on the nature of information stored in it. For the sake of security one can't create a honey pot to be attacked by many. The internet is secure because it doesn't have a central database. The other difference is that faking biometrics is much easier than faking smart cards.

So your principle opposition is to the setting up of a central repository of biometrics?

I am also opposed to the use of biometrics for identification and authentication; this is nothing but surveillance. It is very easy to capture iris data of any individual with the use of next generation cameras. Imagine a situation when the police is secretly capturing the iris data of protesters and then identifying them through their biometric records.

But if the security agencies are able to identify those who create law and order problems, what is the hitch?

It is exactly the same argument that Apple is giving while refusing back-door entry to intelligence and investigating agencies. Once you build surveillance capacity for good governance, it may be misused by a repressive government, a rogue corporation or by criminals. Fear of this type of surveillance will deter people from holding any protest.

Doesn't the Aadhaar or the UIDAI conform to safety and security provisions in the IT Act?

The standards in our IT Act are woefully inadequate in comparison to European regulators and courts. If it adhered to the highest standards, the European privacy commissioner and data protection authorities would have given India adequacy status. The second problem is that the current IT Act doesn't apply to the government. If the government holds your data, it is under no obligation to protect your rights.

You have been part of the Justice A P Shah Committee on privacy. How important is it to have a separate privacy law in the present context?

It is not only important for the purpose of safeguarding human rights, but also to protect the competitiveness of our BPO, ITeS and KPO sectors. We need a data protection law that is compliant with European Data Protection Regulation.

How will such a law help a common man whose data have been compromised?

It will provide clarity to an individual about where he or she stands with regard to privacy. It is strange that the government took diametrically opposite stands in two cases related to privacy in the Supreme Court. When some activists demanded that the UIDAI be scrapped, the government argued before the court that there was no Constitutional right to privacy. When the police asked for the biometric records from the UIDAI, the same government argued there was a right to privacy and that it couldn't divulge the details to the police. The government is not speaking in the same voice; even courts are not speaking in the same voice, because there have been conflicting judgements. So the proposed law will provide clarity on privacy and people will be able to seek compensation under it.

At the same time it cannot be denied that Aadhaar can plug leakages and save hundreds and thousands of rupees for the exchequer....

Aadhaar is only answering two questions: Is this particular biometric unique (enrolment) and does it match the template in the database? If you bring a Bangladeshi into the system, it will answer both the questions in the affirmative. The Aadhaar only eliminates the possibility of one person receiving the benefits twice. At the same time it is very easy to put a ghost beneficiary back into the system. If Aadhaar has to work, we need a publicly visible auditable trail of subsidy moving from Delhi to the villages. That will eliminate corruption in the supply chain.

Isn't it difficult for a large number of ghost beneficiaries to get into the system?

There is no way to check whether a genuine or a ghost beneficiary has been removed from the list. It is not a foolproof system because no one is vouching for anybody. In the current system it is difficult to find out who created this ghost beneficiary. Nobody loses a job for creating a ghost; in fact, here everyone has an incentive.

If there are problems with the UIDAI system, why is the government upbeat about it?

As techno-utopians our government wants technology to answer everything and solve all our problems. If anything goes wrong, it can easily be blamed on technology.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-sahil-makkar-march-12-2016-aadhaar-is-actually-surveillance-tech-sunil-abraham

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

praskrishna — 2016-03-17T14:44:12Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India's billion-member biometric database raises privacy fears

praskrishna — 2016-03-17T15:25:45Z

India's parliament is set to pass legislation that gives federal agencies access to the world's biggest biometric database in the interests of national security, raising fears the privacy of a billion people could be compromised.

The article by Sanjeev Miglani and Manoj Kumar was published by Reuters on March 16, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

The move comes as the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) cracks down on student protests and pushes a Hindu nationalist agenda in state elections, steps that some say erode India's traditions of tolerance and free speech.

It could also usher in surveillance far more intrusive than the U.S. telephone and Internet spying revealed by former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden in 2013, some privacy advocates said.

The Aadhaar database scheme, started seven years ago, was set up to streamline payment of benefits and cut down on massive wastage and fraud, and already nearly a billion people have registered their finger prints and iris signatures.

Now the BJP, which inherited the scheme, wants to pass new provisions including those on national security, using a loophole to bypass the opposition in parliament.

"It has been showcased as a tool exclusively meant for disbursement of subsidies and we do not realize that it can also be used for mass surveillance," said Tathagata Satpathy, a lawmaker from the eastern state of Odisha.

"Can the government ... assure us that this Aadhaar card and the data that will be collected under it – biometric, biological, iris scan, finger print, everything put together – will not be misused as has been done by the NSA in the U.S.?"

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has defended the legislation in parliament, saying Aadhaar saved the government an estimated 150 billion rupees ($2.2 billion) in the 2014-15 financial year alone.

A finance ministry spokesman added that the government had taken steps to ensure citizens' privacy would be respected and the authority to access data was exercised only in rare cases.

According to another government official, the new law is in fact more limited in scope than the decades-old Indian Telegraph Act, which permits national security agencies and tax authorities to intercept telephone conversations of individuals in the interest of public safety.

"POLICE STATE"

Those assurances have not satisfied political opponents and people from religious minorities, including India's sizeable Muslim community, who say the database could be used as a tool to silence them.

"We are midwifing a police state," said Asaduddin Owaisi, an opposition MP.

Raman Jit Singh Chima, global policy director at Access, an international digital rights organization, said the proposed Indian law lacked the transparency and oversight safeguards found in Europe or the United States, which last year reformed its bulk telephone surveillance program.

He pointed to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which must approve many surveillance requests made by intelligence agencies, and European data protection authorities as oversight mechanisms not present in the Indian proposal.

The Indian government brought the Aadhaar legislation to the upper house of parliament on Wednesday in a bid to secure passage before lawmakers go into recess.

To get around its lack of a majority there, the BJP is presenting it as a financial bill, which the upper chamber cannot reject. It can return it to the lower house, where the ruling party has a majority.

In its assessment of the measure, New Delhi-based PRS Legislative Research said law enforcement agencies could use someone's Aadhaar number as a link across various datasets such as telephone and air travel records.

That would allow them to recognize patterns of behavior and detect potential illegal activities.

But it could also lead to harassment of individuals who are identified incorrectly as potential security threats, PRS said.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bengaluru-based Centre for Internet and Society, said Aadhaar created a central repository of biometrics for almost every citizen of the world's most populous democracy that could be compromised.

"Maintaining a central database is akin to getting the keys of every house in Delhi and storing them at a central police station," he said.

"It is very easy to capture iris data of any individual with the use of next generation cameras. Imagine a situation where the police is secretly capturing the iris data of protesters and then identifying them through their biometric records.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/reuters-march-16-2016-sanjeev-miglani-and-manoj-kumar-indias-billion-member-biometric-database-raises-privacy-fears

Privacy Concerns Overshadow Monetary Benefits of Aadhaar Scheme

Pranesh Prakash and Amber Sinha — 2016-03-17T16:12:26Z

Since its inception in 2009, the Aadhaar system has been shrouded in controversy over issues of privacy, security and viability. It has been implemented without a legislative mandate and has resulted in a PIL in the Supreme Court, which referred it to a Constitution bench. On Friday, it kicked up more dust when the Lok Sabha passed a Bill to give statutory backing to the unique identity number scheme.

The article was published in the Hindustan Times on March 12, 2016.

There was an earlier attempt to give legislative backing to this project by the UPA government, but a parliamentary standing committee, led by BJP leader Yashwant Sinha, had rejected the bill in 2011 on multiple grounds. In an about-turn, the BJP-led NDA government decided to continue with Aadhaar despite most of those grounds still remaining.

Separately, there have been orders passed by the Supreme Court that prohibit the government from making Aadhaar mandatory for availing government services whereas this Bill seeks to do precisely that, contrary to the government’s argument that Aadhaar is voluntary.

In some respects, the new Aadhaar Bill is a significant improvement over the previous version. It places stringent restrictions on when and how the UID Authority (UIDAI) can share the data, noting that biometric information — fingerprint and iris scans — will not be shared with anyone. It seeks prior consent for sharing data with third party. These are very welcome provisions.

But a second reading reveals the loopholes.

The government will get sweeping power to access the data collected, ostensibly for “efficient, transparent, and targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services” as it pleases “in the interests of national security”, thus confirming the suspicions that the UID database is a surveillance programme masquerading as a project to aid service delivery.

The safeguards related to accessing the identification information can be overridden by a district judge. Even the core biometric information may be disclosed in the interest of national security on directions of a joint secretary-level officer. Such loopholes nullify the privacy-protecting provisions.

Amongst the privacy concerns raised by the Aadhaar system are the powers it provides private third parties to use one’s UID number. This concern, which wouldn’t exist without a national ID squarely relates to Aadhaar and needs a more comprehensive data protection law to fix it. The supposed data protection under the Information Technology Act is laughable and inadequate.

The Bill was introduced as a Money Bill, normally reserved for matters related to taxation, borrowing and the Consolidated Fund of India (CFI), and it would be fair to question whether this was done to circumvent the Rajya Sabha.

None of the above arguments even get to the question of implementation.

Aadhaar hasn’t been working. When looking into reasons why 22% of PDS cardholders in Andhra Pradesh didn’t collect their rations it was found that there was fingerprint authentication failure in 290 of the 790 cardholders, and in 93 instances there was an ID mismatch. A recent paper in the Economic and Political Weekly by Hans Mathews, a mathematician with the CIS, shows the programme would fail to uniquely identify individuals in a country of 1.2 billion.

The debate shouldn’t be only about the Aadhaar Bill being passed off as a Money Bill and about the robustness of its privacy provisions, but about whether the Aadhaar project can actually meet its stated goals.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-amber-sinha-pranesh-prakash-march-12-2016-privacy-concerns-overshadow-monetary-benefits-of-aadhaar-scheme

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

Salient Points in the Aadhaar Bill and Concerns

Amber Sinha and Elonnai Hickok — 2016-03-21T04:37:48Z

Since the release of the Aadhaar Bill, the Centre for Internet and Society has been writing a number of posts analyzing the Bill and calling out problematic areas and the implications of the same. This post is meant to contribute to this growing body of writing and call out our major concerns with the Bill.

Use of Aadhaar Number

What the Bill says:

Used to establish identity: The Aadhaar number can be used by any government or private agency to validate a person’s identity for any lawful purpose, but it cannot be used as a proof of citizenship. (Sections 4, 6, and 57)
Mandatory for access to government services: The government can make it mandatory for a person to authenticate her/his identity using Aadhaar number before receiving any government subsidy, benefit, or service whose expenditure is incurred from the Consolidated Fund of India.
Those without a number, must apply for one: If someone attempting to access an applicable service does not have an Aadhaar number, he/she should make an application for enrolment, and will be allowed to use an alternative method of identification in the meantime. (Section 7)
Open to use by public and private bodies: The Bill does not prevent the use of Aadhaar number to establish identity for other lawful purposes by the State or other private bodies. (Section 57)

Concerns:

Aadhaar is not voluntary: Section 7 makes its mandatory to have an Aadhaar number to access services, subsidies and benefits, and stipulates that in case one does not have the Aadhaar number they must apply for it. This is counter to the repeated claims about Aadhaar being purely voluntary, and the Supreme Court order dated August 11, 2015 which prevents making Aadhaar mandatory, barring a few specified services. The Bill does not limit mandatory use of Aadhaar to those services, and leaves the door open for the government to route more benefits, subsidies and services through the Consolidated Fund of India and expand the scope of Aadhaar.
There are limited and unclear alternatives: While there is a proviso in the Act which speaks for “viable and alternative” means of identification where Aadhaar number is not issued, the language is not clear and speaks of cases where Aadhaar “is not assigned” rather than simply stating that it is applicable to anyone who does not have an Aadhaar number.
There is a conflict in the objects and actual scope of the Bill: There is a conflict between the objects of the Bill which is stated as identification of individuals for targeted delivery of entitlements and Section 57 which allows all entities, public or private, to use the Aadhaar number for authentication.

Enrollment Process

What the Bill says:

Enrolling agencies must provide notice: At the time of enrollment, the enrolling agency will inform the individual of the following details— i) how their information will be used; ii) what type of entities the information will be shared with; and iii) that they have a right to access their information, and also tell them how they can access their information. (Section 3)
Biometrics and demographics will be collected: Biometric information and demographic information will be collected at enrollment. Biometric information means photograph, fingerprint, Iris scan, or any other biological attributes specified by regulations. Demographic information includes information relating to the name, date of birth, address and other relevant information as specified by regulations. (Section 2)
Special measures to ensure enrollment for all: The UIDAI will take special measures to issue Aadhaar number to women, children, senior citizens, persons with disability, unskilled and unorganised workers, nomadic tribes or to such other persons who do not have any permanent residence and similar categories of individuals as specified by the regulations. (Section 5)

Concerns:

The Bill fails to address implementation issues: The Bill does not address issues that have arising during enrolment processes that have already been implemented. These include: the collection of additional and unnecessary information, unclear retention, storage, and destruction standards for data collected by enrollment agencies, abuse of methods used to ensure all have access to the enrollment process, inaccuracy in the collection of data. Detailed procedure and chain of custody for the enrollment process needs to be addressed through provisions in the Bill particularly as this process is undertaken by contracted third party registrars and enrolling agencies.
Definition of “Biometric Information” is broad and ambiguous: The Bill defines “biometric information” as “photograph, fingerprint, iris scan, or other such biological attributes of an individual.” This definition is broad and gives sweeping discretionary power to the UIDAI / Central Government to determine “other such biological attributes of an individual”. The definition should be precise and exhaustive in its scope. Any modification to this, and other terms in the Bill, should take place only through a legislative act.

Authentication Process

What the Bill says:

Consent and use limitation during authentication: The Bill states that any requesting entity will— (a) take consent from the individual before collecting his/her Adhaar information; (b) use the information only for authentication with the CIDR.
Notice during authentication: Further, the entity requesting authentication will also inform the individual of the following— (a) what type of information will be shared for authentication; (b) what will the information be used for; and (c) whether there is any alternative to submitting the Aadhaar information to the requesting entity. (Section 8)
Retention of authentication records: The UIDAI will maintain the authentication records in the manner and for as long as specified by regulations. (Section 32) The UIDAI will not collect, keep or maintain any information about the purpose of authentication. (Section 32)
Ability to obtain authentication records: Every Aadhaar number holder may obtain his authentication record as specified by regulations. (Section 32)
Requirement to update information: The UIDAI has the power to require residents to update their demographic and biometric information from time to time. (Section 6)

Concerns:

Lack of strong consent mechanism: While the Bill does provide for seeking consent for collecting and using an Aadhaar for authentication, the Bill does not specify that this must be informed consent with an ‘opt out’ mechanism and does not specify the manner in which such consent should be sought. This leaves it it in the hands of the UIDAI and possibly the third requesting entity to determine the form of consent that is to be taken. This could result in ambiguous, misleading, or inconsistent consent mechanisms being used.
Lack of strong notice mechanism: While the Bill does provide that individuals should be given notice of the type of information be shared and what the information will be used for, and any alternative identity that will be accepted during the authentication process this is a minimal notice and does not meet the standards in the (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules 2011 which require individuals to be notified of a) the fact that the information is being collected b) the purposes for which the information is being collected c) the intended recipients of the information d) the name and address of the agency collecting the information and the agency that will retain the information. Furthermore, the Bill does not require the UIDAI, contracted bodies, or requesting entities to notify individuals of any changes in organizational privacy policies.
“Obtaining” rather than the right to access: Instead of providing the individual with a clear right to access the information that the UIDAI holds about him or her, the Bill waters down this safeguard by giving the individual the ability to obtain only his authentication record. What ‘obtaining’ will entail and how one will go about it is delegated to regulations.
Lack of ability to opt out, withdraw consent and/or ‘exit’ Aadhaar: There are no opt-out mechanisms in the Aadhaar Act.This means that individuals cannot:

Opt out and leave the Aadhaar ‘ecosystem’ once enrolled and their information is not deleted.
Opt out of sharing of information at the enrollment stage or authentication stage.
Opt out of any use, disclosure, or retention of their information prescribed by the Act.

Security

What the Bill says:

Security measures for information with UIDAI: The UIDAI will take measures to ensure that all information with the UIDAI, including CIDR records is secured and protected against access, use or disclosure and against destruction, loss or damage. (Section 28)
Security measures through contract: The UIDAI will 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. (Section 28)
Security protocol via regulations: The UIDAI has the power to prescribe via regulation various processes relating to data management, security protocol and other technology safeguards (Section 54)

Concerns:

Undefined security measures: The Bill specifies that appropriate technical and organisational security measures shall be put in place without elaborating upon what those measure should be or defining any standards that they will adhere to. The Bill gives the Authority the power to define broad regulations pertaining to security protocol.

Confidentiality

What the Bill says:

Restriction on Sharing, Disclosure, and Use: Unless otherwise provided, the UIDAI or its agents will not reveal any information in the CIDR to anyone. (Section 28) The core biometric information collected will not be a) shared with anyone for any reason, and b) used for any purpose other generation of Aadhaar numbers and authentication. (Section 29) Identity information, other than core biometric information, may be shared as per this Act and regulations specified under it. (Section 29) 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. (Section 29) Aadhaar numbers or core biometric information will not be made public except as specified by regulations. (Section 30)
Application of Information Technology Act: All biometric information collected and stored in electronic form will be deemed to be “electronic record” and “sensitive personal data or information” under Information Technology Act, 2000 and its provisions and rules will apply to it in addition to this Act. (Section 30)

Concerns:

Aadhaar numbers and biometric information to be made public: It is unclear for what purposes it would be necessary for Aadhaar numbers and core biometric information to be made public and it is concerning that such circumstances are left to be defined by regulation. This is different from the Telegraph Act and the IT Act which define the circumstances for interception in the Act and define the procedure for carrying out interception orders in associated Rules. Defining circumstances for such information to be made public is against the disclosure standards in the 43A Rules - which would be applicable to the UIDAI and the disclosure of core biometric information.
Unclear application of Section 43 A Rules: The Bill characterises biometric information collected as ‘sensitive personal data or information’ under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 43A Rules and states that the Act and Rules would be applicable to biometric information. If this is the case, than any body corporate (including the UIDAI) collecting, processing, or storing biometric information would need to follow the standards established in the Rules - including standards for collection, consent, disclosure, sharing, retention, and security. Yet, the Bill allows the UIDAI to make regulations for collection, disclosure, security etc.

Disclosure

What the Bill says:

Disclosure during authentication: During authentication, the UIDAI will respond to the authentication request with yes, no, or other appropriate response and share identity information about the Aadhaar number holder, but not share any biometric information. (Section 8)
Exceptions to confidentiality provisions: The UIDAI may reveal identity information, authentication records or any information in the CIDR following a court order by a District Judge or higher. Any such order may only be made after UIDAI is allowed to appear in a hearing. (Section 33) The confidentiality provisions in Sections 28 and 29 will not apply with respect to 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. (Section 33)
Oversight Committee: An Oversight Committee comprising Cabinet Secretary, and Secretaries of two departments — Department of Legal Affairs and DeitY— will review every direction under 33 B above. Any directions in the interest of national security above are valid for 3 months, after which they may be extended following a review by the Oversight Committee. (Section 33)

Concerns:

Unnecessary disclosure during authentication: Usually authentication would be a binary process leading to a yes or no result, however, Section 8 also allows sharing of identity information in certain cases. It is unclear why any additional information would need to be shared in the authentication process.
Lack of opportunity to data subject: In case of a court order identity information and authentication records of an individual can be revealed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the individual affected. Aside from allowing the UIDAI a right to be heard, the Bill does not provide any means by which an individual can contest such an order or challenge it after it has been passed.
Lack of defined functions and responsibilities of oversight mechanisms: Section 33 currently specifies a procedure for oversight by a committee, however, there are no substantive provisions laid down as the guiding principles establishing the responsibilities and powers of the oversight mechanism.
Low standards for disclosure order: Though a court order from a District Judge is required to authorize disclosure of information, the Bill fails to define important standards that such an order must meeting including that the order is necessary and proportionate.
Sweeping exception of National Security: Disclosures that are made ‘in the interest of national security’ do not require authorization by a judge and instead can be authorized by the Joint Secretary of the Government of India - a standard lower than that established in the Telegraph Act and IT Act for the interception of communications.

Power of UIDAI to make rules and regulations

What the Bill says:

The matters on which the UIDAI may frame rules include:

The process of collecting information,
Verification of information,
Individual access to information,
Sharing and disclosure of information,
Alteration of information,
Request and response for authentication,
Defining use of Aadhaar numbers,
Defining privacy and security processes,
Specifying processes relating to data management, security protocols and other technology safeguards under this Act
Establishing redressal mechanisms.

Concerns:

Over delegation of powers to the UIDAI: This Bill follows in the tradition of laws like the Information Technology Act, which allows the executive a very high degree of discretionary power. As mentioned above, a number of important powers which should ideally be within the purview of the legislature are delegated to the UIDAI. The UIDAI has been administrating the project since its inception, and a number of problems have already been documented in process such as collection, verification, sharing of information, privacy and security processes. Rather than addressing these problems, the Bill allows the UIDAI to continue to have similar powers.
Lack of independence of grievance redressal mechanism: Within the text of the Bill there are no grievance redressal mechanism created under the Bill. The power to set up such a mechanism is delegated to the UIDAI under Section 23 (2) (s) of the Bill. However, making the entity administering a project, also responsible for providing for the frameworks to address the grievances arising from the project, severely compromises the independence of the grievance redressal body.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/salient-points-in-the-aadhaar-bill-and-concerns

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