It is said that once on a military campaign
Napoleon Bonaparte, a military and political leader of France, stood outside
his tent in the battlefield facing the most fortified castle of an European
city and said, “Once this city is taken, nothing will stop my campaign, and
I'll soon be Emperor of France" with my 5 army columns. Everybody knew
about his four columns of army but not the fifth. When asked about his 5th
column, Napoleon replied, "My fifth column is within the city itself. Soon
the gate keepers of the castle were clubbed to death, the huge gates swung
open, and Napoleon's soldiers marched through. The "fifth columnists"
told him about the barracks full of soldiers kept to defend the city. Napoleon
woke them and asked them to join him or die. The city fell in no time and
Napoleon did indeed go on to become Emperor of France with the help of the
fifth columnists.
There is an
unacknowledged relationship between the biometric Unique Identification
(UID)/aadhaar project
and the US
based National Defense Industrial Association that was set up in1919 to scale
up the war effort during World War I since then it has been “promoting national
security” of United States of America (USA) and 'institutionalizing' Biometrics
Enabled Identification based on Automatic Identification Technologies (AIT).. The same
National Defense Industrial Association-sponsored Unique Identification (UID)
Industry Leadership Advisory Group (ILAG) that was organized “in March 2005 at
the suggestion of the DoD (US Department of Defence) UID Program Manager to
serve as a defense industry focal point for government-industry collaboration
and coordination in developing UID implementation policy and procedures.”[1]
Notably, Defence
Procurement and acquisition policy office in the US Department of Defense (DoD)
has a “Unique Identification”
(UID) section for “in tracking and reporting the value of items
the Government owns”, “ Item Unique Identification (IUID)
Standards for Tangible Personal Property”[2]
and “Unique Identification (UID) Standards for a Net-Centric Department of
Defense” that cites “Department of Defense Chief Information Officer (CIO)
Memorandum, “DoD Net-Centric Data Strategy”” dated May 9, 2003.[3]
It is stated that IUID requirement does not apply to
“Software, manuals, etc.” and “Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) items” but it
applies to “Not-for-profit contracts such as research contracts with
universities”, “Classified items”, “Foreign Military Sales”, “Small businesses”,
“Government Furnished Property”, “Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) requests”
“Models, prototypes, or development items delivered to DoD”.[4]
US Department of Defence uses both Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) and Item Unique Identification (IUID). “Within IUID, the
unique item identifier (UII) is a piece of data associated with an item that
uniquely identifies it throughout its life. RFID is a vehicle for holding and
sharing data. IUID of tangible items deals with physical markings applied directly
(or indirectly via label, data plate, etc.) on items. IUID also requires data
to be captured about the item and submitted electronically to a registry
database. It is thought of as creating a birth certificate for the item. On a
superficial level IUID and RFID employ different technologies. IUID utilizes a
optically scannable 2-dimensional data matrix barcode to carry information
whereas RFID utilizes some form of integrated circuitry to encode information
and produce radio waves which can be received and interpreted at a greater
distance with a radio antenna and receiver.
Notably, RFID has been recommended in India for installation
vehicles and libraries. A briefing paper of Government of India observed that “Information or an opinion about
an individual” is personal sensitive information.
Functionally, IUID’s purpose within the (US) DoD is to
uniquely identify individual items. The purpose of RFID within the (US) DoD is
to identify cases, pallets, or packages which contain items.” UID
Policy Office of US DoD has a number of working groups to support the
development and implementation of the UID policy. These include Working Groups
on: Logistics IUID Task Force, Industry
Leadership Advisory Group (ILAG), Wide Area Work Flow
(WAWF)/UID/RFID Users Group, Property Management, Joint Aeronautical
Commanders, Government Furnished Property Industry, Federal Acquisition
Regulation, Business Rules, Standards, Implementation, Technical Interface and
IUID Quality Assurance.
Biometrics technology
companies like Raytheon Company who were awarded by National Defense
Industrial Association in 2009 participated in the ILAG. They
have created an artificial need to sale their surveillance products in India
unmindful of its dehumanizing ramifications. It is these entities which
are behind the biometric UID/aadhaar project and the Bill to sell
their products.
The preamble of The National Identification Authority (NIDAI)
Bill, 2010 which was rejected by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Finance reveals that it is meant “for the purpose of issuing identification
numbers to individuals residing in India and to certain other classes of
individuals”. There are two parts to the phrase “individuals residing in India
and to certain other classes of individuals”. The first part refers to “resident”
as an individual usually residing in a village or rural area or town or ward or
demarcated area (demarcated by the Registrar of Citizen Registration) within a
ward in a town or urban area in India.”
This motivated definition of the term resident in the Section 2 (q) of the NIAI Bill accords wide scope to the Bill.
It leaves the definition vague about the Indians who are residing abroad
temporarily, non-resident Indians, persons of Indian origin and refugees. By
now Indians know that there are NRIs and PIOs of all ilk and shades whose role
merits rigorous attention. The second part of the phrase is “certain other
classes of individuals”. The first part is defined but the second part has not been
defined.
The National Identification Authority (NIDAI) Bill, 2013
which was re-approved by the Union Cabinet on October 8, 2013 was listed for
introduction in the winter session of the Parliament during December 5-
December 18, 2013 but could not be introduced.
In the new version, “certain other classes of individuals” have been
substituted with “certain other categories of individuals to enable
establishing the identity.”
In the NIDAI Bill 2010, Section 4 (3) reads, “An aadhaar number shall,
subject to authentication, be accepted as proof of identity of the aadhaar
number holder.”
In
the NIDAI Bill, 2013, Section 4 (3) reads, “An aadhaar number in
physical or electronic form, subject to authentication and other conditions as
may be specified by regulations, shall be accepted as proof of identity and
proof of address.” Along with it is added an “Explanation-For the purposes of
this sub-section, the expression “electronic form” shall have the same meaning
as assigned to it in cause (r) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000.”
Section 9 of the Bill
reads: “The Authority shall not require any individual to give information
pertaining to his race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, income or
health.” The issue here is once someone has been biometrically profiled and
identified ‘Prohibition on requiring certain information’ becomes irrelevant. But
the question is how biometric information is less sensitive than information
regarding race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, income or health
whose collection is prohibited?
Section
10 of the Bill reads: The Authority shall take special measures to issue
aadhaar number to women, children, senior citizens, persons with disability,
migrant unskilled and unorganised workers, nomadic tribes or to such other
persons who do not have any permanent dwelling house and such other categories
of individuals as may be specified by regulations.” It does not reveal or
define the “special measures” being deployed to trap these categories of people
in the database.
The
Bill makes a specific distinction between the “identity information” in respect
of an individual means biometric information, demographic information and
aadhaar number of such individuals” and “demographic information” that includes
information relating to the name, age, gender and address of an individual
(other than race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, income or
health), and such other information as may be specified in the regulations for
the purpose of issuing an aadhaar number. It refers to “biometric information”
as “a set of such biological attributes of an individual as may be specified by
regulations.” It is important to note that although Planning Commission or
Ministry of Home Affairs do not have the legal mandate to collect biometric
data instead of seeking that mandate under the NIDAI Bill, there is once again
an effort being made to do it through subordinate legislation.
The
Bill defines “Central Identities Data Repository” (CIDR) as “a centralised
database in one or more locations containing all aadhaar numbers issued to
aadhaar number holders along with the corresponding demographic information and
biometric information of such individuals and other information related thereto.”
It is not made clear as to why CIDR will be at “one or more locations.”
Now
if one looks at the definition of “authentication” in the Bill which is defined
as “the process wherein, aadhaar number along with other attributes (including
biometrics) are submitted to the Central
Identities Data Repository for its verification and such Repository
verifies the correctness thereof on the basis of information or data or
documents available with it,” it implies that authentication using CIDR of an
“aadhaar number holder”, an individual who has been issued an aadhaar number, will
be done at “one or more locations.”
It
is quite apparent that these locations can be private companies. In effect, a
private company of Indian or/and foreign origin will authenticate whether a
resident of India is definitely the same person as he/she claims to be. As an
implication identity of an Indian citizen is going to be decided by a company,
which can be a National Information Utility (NIU), a private company with a
public purpose with a profit making as the motive but not maximizing profit.
Most of those who are in public life are in the
fifth column because of either their naivety or their seemingly apolitical
tunnel vision which makes them act treacherously in a historical vacuum. It is
evident that in India, knowingly or unknowingly many institutions and
individuals are acting like this column, a party that is acting with the
foreign and corporate entities to subvert the very idea of India and Indian
civilization under the influence of their supervisors.
Do Indians need to
ponder over- who all are in the fifth column, which institutions are acting
like this column and isn’t there a need to know the identity of those in the
column in question?
Gopal Krishna
Member, Citizens Forum
for Civil Liberties (CFCL)
CFCL is campaigning
against surveillance technologies since 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment