Biometric aadhaar, world biggest
database project has sinister motives
Contrary to the
claims made my Gujarat government in the Supreme Court on 29th September, 2015,
12 digit biometric aadhaar number is pregnant with sinister motives. The
attached public statement issued by 24 eminent and concerned citizens and the
statement of concern by 17 luminaries underline the same.
A Dalit activist who was one of the 17
luminaries who co-signed the statement of concern said, "This project
wants to fix our identities through time. Even after that we are dead. The
information held about us will be fixed to us by the UID/aadhaar number. Changing an
identity will become impossible. We are working for the eradication of the
practice of manual scavenging, for rehabilitation of those who have been
engaged in manual scavenging, and then leaving behind that tag of manual
scavenger. How can we accept a system that does not allow us to shed that
identity and move on? How can a number that links up databases be good for
us?"
This underlines that UID/aadhaar number dubiously casteist and against so called backward castes. This relevant for religious minorities as well. Historically, such identification exercises have been racist as well.
The order of Election Commission of
India (ECI) dated 13th August, 2015 withdrawing from linking of biometric
aadhaar with Voter Identity card exposes the misleading claims made by NANDAN NILEKANI, the de facto head of Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and his acolytes in BJP and Congress.
ECI’s order
demonstrates that Aadhaar is not all critical for a welfare state based on
democratic elections. ECI’s compliance with Supreme Court’s verdict in letter
and spirit is an affirmation of individual choice of the voters which gives
meaning to democracy unlike illegitimate and legally questionable Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The order of ECI demonstrates that Gujarat
government’s contention is flawed.
Notably, in the case of aadhaar,
Parliament’s consent has not been taken despite explicit reference to its need
by Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance which trashed the National
Identification Authority of India Bill introduced to make aadhaar promoter
Unique Identificaion Authority of India, legal and legitimate.
Even written statements of Arun Jaitley
as Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha and
Narendra Modi as chief minister of Gujarat point out the sinister
implications of biometric aadhaar project dependent on foreign surveillance
technology companies.
It must be recalled that referring to
the incident of surveillance of his mobile phones, in an article titled My Call
Detail Records and A Citizen’s Right to Privacy
published in Gujarati, Hindi, Urdu & English (Source:
http://www.bjp.org), Arun Jaitley as Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha wrote,
“Firstly, every citizen in India has a right to privacy. His right to privacy
is an inherent aspect of his personal liberty. Interference in the right to
privacy is an interference in his personal liberty by a process which is not
fair, just or reasonable. A person’s Call Detail Records can throw up details
of several transactions. In the case of an average citizen it can reflect on
his relationships. In the case of a professional or a business person it can
reflect on his financial transactions. In the case of a journalist it can
reveal the identity of his sources. In the case of a politician it can reveal
the identity of the person with whom he has regular access. Every person has ‘a
right to be left alone’.”
Jaitley added, “In a liberal society
there is no place for those who peep into the private affairs of individuals.
No one has a right to know who another communicates with him. The nature of
communication, the identity of persons being communicated with and frequency of
communications would be a serious breach of privacy….This incident throws up
another legitimate fear. We are now entering the era of the Adhaar number. The
Government has recently made the existence of the Adhaar number as a condition
precedent for undertaking several activities; from registering marriages to
execution of property documents. Will those who encroach upon the affairs of
others be able to get access to bank accounts and other important details by
breaking into the system? If this ever becomes possible the consequences would
be far messier.”
Revealing how power clouds human
intelligence, Jaitley and his ministerial colleagues do not comprehend messier
consequences of breach of privacy anymore.
On 8th April, 2014, Narendra Modi
tweeted, "On Aadhaar, neither the Team that I met nor PM could answer my
Qs (questions) on security threat it can pose. There is no vision, only
political gimmick" in the aftermath of orders of Supreme Court and Punjab
& Haryana High Court, concerns raised by National Human Rights Commission.
But the influence of transnational
powers has become quite evident from the U turn by both Jaitley and Modi with
regard to biometric aadhaar number after 21st May, 2014 when BJP led coalition
became the ruling party at the centre.
Considerations other than truth have
given birth to Modi government’s faith in 12 digit biometric aadhaar number.
The issuance of aadhaar numbers to large number of residents of India does not
make it scientific. The entire
government machinery is hiding the fact that fundamentally UID is not a proof
of identity, it is an identifier contained in the Central Identities Data
Repository (CIDR) of UID numbers. Aadhaar is the brand name of UID Number.
Admittedly, government’s Paper on
Privacy Bill states, “Data privacy and the need to protect personal information
is almost never a concern when data is stored in a decentralized manner. Data
that is maintained in silos is largely useless outside that silo and
consequently has a low likelihood of causing any damage. However, all this is
likely to change with the implementation of the UID Project. One of the
inevitable consequences of the UID Project will be that the UID Number will
unify multiple databases. As more and more agencies of the government sign on
to the UID Project, the UID Number will become the common thread that links all
those databases together. Over time, private enterprise could also adopt the
UID Number as an identifier for the purposes of the delivery of their services
or even for enrolment as a customer.”
This paper prophetically infers that
“Once this happens, the separation of data that currently exists between
multiple databases will vanish.” This poses a threat to the identity of
citizens and the idea of residents of the state as private persons will be
forever abandoned. Government is feigning ignorance about these concerns in the
Supreme Court. Following the footprint of Pakistan, in October 2014, the Prime
Ministers’ Office agreed in principle to make biometric aadhaar mandatory for
getting new mobile connection. It has been made mandatory for railway e-tickets
and Banking Correspondents as well.
Notably, Biometrics “means the
technologies that measure and analyse human body characteristics, such as
'fingerprints', 'eye retinas and irises', 'voice patterns', "facial
patterns', 'hand measurements' and 'DNA' for authentication purposes” as per
Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and
sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 under section 87 read with
section 43A of Information Technology Act, 2000.
Citizens’ opposition to UID/aadhaar has
a historical context. It is linked to more than a century old world famous
'Satyagraha' of Mahatma Gandhi in order to oppose the identification scheme of
the government in South Africa. On 22nd August, 1906, the South African
government published a draft Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance. The Ordinance
required all Indians in the Transvaal region of South Africa, eight years and
above, to report to the Registrar of Asiatics and obtain, upon the submission
of a complete set of fingerprints, a certificate which would then have to be
produced upon demand. The move proposed stiff penalties, including deportation,
for Indians who failed to comply with the terms of the Ordinance. Knowing the
impact of the Ordinance and effective criminalisation of the entire community,
Mahatma Gandhi then decided to challenge it. Calling the Ordinance a 'Black
Act' he mobilised around 3,000 Indians in Johannesburg who took an oath not to
submit to a degrading and discriminatory piece of legislation. Biometric
aadhaar case demonstrates how 'Those who forget history are condemned to repeat
it'.
Biometric profiling is inherently
dangerous because it tracks individuals based on their religious, behavioural
and/or biological traits. History is replete with examples wherein such
profiling has been used for genocide, holocaust and violence against all kinds
of minorities.
What the government’s proposal means is
underlined in a confidential document of UIDAI titled ‘Creating a unique
identity number for every resident in India’, leaked by Wikileaks on 13th
November, 2009. It revealed, “One way to ensure that the unique identification
(UID) number is used by all government and private agencies is by inserting it
into the birth certificate of the infant. Since the birth certificate is the
original identity document, it is likely that this number will then persist as
the key identifier through the individual’s various life events, such as
joining school, immunizations, voting etc.” This paved way for all round
surveillance adversely impacting political rights of present and future
generations and making right to civil liberties extinct.
Most recently in a welcome verdict, in
a case filed by the Labour MP Tom Watson and the Conservative MP David Davis,
UK’s High Court declared the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act
(DRIPA), 2014 as illegal. This Act provided access to everyone’s data by the
police and other agencies including permission for interception of communications.
Interception of biometric data also falls in the same category.
UIDAI had set up a Biometrics Standards
Committee which revealed that 'the biometrics will be captured for
authentication by government departments and commercial organisations at the
time of service delivery.' The commercial organisation mentioned herein is not
defined. The working paper of the UIDAI revealed that the 'UID number will only
guarantee identity, not rights, benefits or entitlements'. It is also said that
it would not even guarantee identity, it would only provide 'aid' in
identification. In fact it makes right to having rights conditional on having
biometric aadhaar.
Notably, Biometrics Standards Committee
had categorically stated that UID/aadhaar’s is meant only for “civilian
application” but the order on aadhaar enabled biometric attendance system has
been extended to defence employees as well. The fact remains UID was first
adopted by USA’s Department of Defence, later by NATO. It has subsequently been
pushed through World Bank’s eTransform Initiative in partnership with France,
South Korea, Gemalto, IBM, L1, Microsoft, Intel and Pfizer. Some of them have
signed agreements with UIDAI. This constitutes breach of national
security.
Across the globe very stringent data
privacy law has been framed wherein one’s personal data cannot be used by
anyone including the government without your specific consent. But in India
there is no data protection law. Aadhaar is akin to a piece of collar which the
transnational powers want to tie on the neck of Indian citizens. Government has
allowed itself to be misled and it has failed to protect personal sensitive
information which has already gone to foreign companies.
It must be recalled that Dr. Manmohan
Singh as Prime Minister had distributed Unique Identification (UID)/ Aadhaar
numbers among the villagers of Tembhali village in Nandurbar District of
Maharashtra on 29th September 2010. “The Aadhaar number will ease these
difficulties in identification, by providing a nationally valid and verifiable
single source of identity proof. The UIDAI will ensure the uniqueness of the
Aadhaar numbers through the use of biometric attributes (Finger Prints and
Iris) which will be linked to the number”.
It has now come to light as per a RTI
reply of April 2015 that out of 83.5 crore aadhaar numbers issued so far, only
2.19 lakh i.e. 0.03 % comprised of them who did not have a pre-existing ID
proof. It shows how Indians were taken for a ride.
This shows that the claim in the
Supreme Court on 29th September that “poor and those who had no other form of
identity” are targets for aadhaar is wrong. National Human Rights Commission in
its submission to the parliamentary committee stated that the legitimate rights
of the beneficiary citizens can get excluded.
Law and court has confined the use of
biometric information collected during aadhaar enrolment only to criminal
investigation subject to approval by a court.
It must also be noticed that even the
Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, of colonial vintage, reads: “The object
of this bill is to provide legal authority for taking measurements, finger
impressions, footprints and photographs of persons convicted of, or arrested in
connection with, certain offences.” According to the Identification of Prisoners
Act, 1920, at the time of the acquittal of the prisoner, his biometric data is
required to be destroyed. Since 1857, fingerprint identification methods have
been used by police agencies in India and around the world to identify
suspected rebels, political dissidents and criminals. The method is unfolding
to indiscriminately profile citizens in general to identify them. The UID/aadhaar project, however, stores the
biometric data forever.
It should be noted that in its report
to Parliament, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance has taken on
board studies done in the UK on the identity scheme that was begun and later
withdrawn in May 2010, where the problems were identified to include"(a)
huge cost involved and possible cost overruns; (b) too complex; (c)untested,
unreliable and unsafe technology; (d) possibility of risk to the safety and
security of citizens; and (e) requirement of high standard security measures,
which would result in escalating the estimated operational costs." Countries
like China, Australia, UK and France have also rejected it.
This open declaration of war against
citizens’ sensitive personal information like biometric data by transnational
entities and governments captured by them paves way for the enslavement of
present and future generations through aadhaar database that lies on cloud
beyond Indian jurisdiction. Such initiatives must be stopped and boycotted else
it will spread its tentacles in every sphere of life and mobility in the
country.
Notably, central government itself has
filed several written affidavits in the Hon’ble Court contending that right to
privacy is a fundamental right. It is remarkable that one former Union Law
Minister has complained to the Prime Minister informing him about the blunders
being committed by the law officer in question.
There is a compelling logic for
rejection of those parties which implicitly or explicitly support tracking,
profiling, databasing and mortgaging of citizens’ rights and their sovereignty
under the dictates of their donors and non-state actors. The biometric idea is
aimed at making citizens transparent before the all mighty Governments so that
Government, their servant can remain opaque to safeguard the interests of
undemocratic and ungovernable social control technology companies.
In a case of breach of trust central
government has proposed to make aadhaar mandatory although the very first
promise which legally questionable UIDAI made in its aadhaar enrolment form
is/was that it is “voluntary”.
A Dalit activist who was one of the 17
luminaries who co-signed the satatement of concern said,
"This project
wants to fix our identities through time. Even after that we are dead. The
information held about us will be fixed to us by the UID number. Changing an
identity will become impossible. We are working for the eradication of the
practice of manual scavenging, for rehabilitation of those who have been
engaged in manual scavenging, and then leaving behind that tag of manual
scavenger. How can we accept a system that does not allow us to shed that
identity and move on? How can a number that links up databases be good for
us?"
Citizens forum for civil liberties
(CFCL) which had issued legal notice to ECI seeking compliance with the hon’ble
court’s orders. CFCL demands that biometric aadhaar "should be halted
before it goes any further”.
The signatories of the public statement
include:
1. Prof.
Anil Sadgopal, Scientist, All India Forum for Right to Education (AIFRTE),
Bhopal, Email: anilsadgopal@yahoo.com
2. Prof.
Kalpana Kannabiran, Director, Council for Social Development, Hyderabad,
Email: kalpana.kannabiran@gmail.com
3. Prof
(Dr) Mohan Rao, Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health (CSMCH),
Jawaharal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, Email: mohanrao2008@gmail.com
4. Dr
Meher Engineer, Scientist, former President, Indian Academy of Social Science,
Kolkata Email: mengineer2003@gmail.com
5. Ram
Bahadur Rai, noted journalist, Email: rbrai118@gmail.com
6. Dr
Babu Rao Kalapala, Scientist, formerly with National Institute of Chemical
Technology, Hyderabad, Email: baburaokalapala@gmail.com
7. Kavita
Krishnan, Secretary, All India Progressive Women Association (AIPWA), Email:
kavitakrish73@gmail.com
8. Prof
D M Diwakar, Professor of Economics, A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies,
Patna, , Email: dmdiwakar@yahoo.co.in
9. Arun
Kumar, former Member, Press Council of India, Indian Journalists Union, General
Secretary, Bihar Working Journalists Union & President, The Times of India
Newspaper Employees Union, Patna, Email: karunpatna@gmail.com
10. Sankar
Ray, veteran journalist, Email: sankar.ray@gmail.com
11. N
D Jayaprakash, Disarmament Researcher & veteran activist seeking justice
for victims of Bhopal disaster, Email: jaypdsf@gmail.com
12. Qaneez
Sukhrani, urban affairs analyst, Pune, Email: qaneez.sukhrani@gmail.com
13. Kshetrimayum
Onil, Lead Coordinator, REACHOUT, Manipur Email:onilrights@gmail.com
14. Shabnam
Hashmi, social activist, Anhad, Email: shabnamhashmi@gmail.com
15. Irfan
Ahmed, General Secretary, All India Tanjin-e-Insaf, Bihar, Email:
irfan.tree@gmail.com
16. Guman
Singh, Himalaya Niti Abhiyan, Himachal Pradesh, Email:guman107@yahoo.co.in
17. Dr
Umakant, Human rights advocate & independent scholar, New Delhi, Email:
uk4in@yahoo.co.in
18. PT
George, Intercultural Resources, Delhi, Email: ihpindia@gmail.com
19. Wilfred
D’ Costa, Indian Social Action Forum, Delhi, Email: willyindia@gmail.com
20. Prakash
K Ray, Editor, bargad.org, Email: pkray11@gmail.com
21. Gopal
Krishna, Member, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL), Email:
1715krishna@gmail.com
22. Venkatesh
Nayak, Programme Coordinator, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Email:
nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com
23. Dr
Vikas Vajpayee, Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health (CSMCH),
Jawaharal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi
24. Rohit
Prajapati, social activist, Gujarat
The Public Statement mentioned above is
a follow up of the Statement of Concern against UID/aadhaar issued by 17
eminent citizens at a Press Conference at Press Club of India in New Delhi on
28th September 2010. These citizens included Justice VR Krishna Iyer, Retired
Judge, Supreme Court of India, Prof Romila Thapar, Historian, K.G.Kannabiran,
Senior Civil Liberties Lawyer, Kavita Srivastava, PUCL and Right to Food
Campaign, Aruna Roy, MKKS, Rajasthan, Nikhil Dey, MKKS, Rajasthan,
S.R.Sankaran, Retired Secretary, Government of India, Upendra Baxi, Jurist and
ex-Vice Chancellor of Universities of Surat and Delhi, Uma Chakravarthi,
Historian, Shohini Ghosh, Teacher and Film Maker, Amar Kanwar, Film Maker,
Bezwada Wilson, Safai Karamchari Andolan, Trilochan Sastry, IIMB, and
Association for Democratic Reforms, Prof. Jagdish Chhokar, ex- IIMA, and Association
for Democratic Rights, Shabnam Hashmi, ANHAD, Justice A.P.Shah, Retired Chief
Justice of High Court of Delhi and Deep Joshi, Independent Consultant.
Thus, aadhaar scheme should be seen in
the sinister light of surveillance and censorship because government has been
misled into becoming the trustee of the foreign transnational companies and big
data companies.
It is manifestly wrong to argue that
“Aadhaar is the method to make this identification” of citizens. The enrolment
of Dalai Lama for biometric aadhaar demonstrates the same.
FOR DETAILS: Gopal Krishna, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL), Mb:
08227816731, 09818089660 E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment