[PetrolRider]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

But what matters is, the biometric collected for Aadhaar can be used by them for whatever purpose they wish in the name of "national security", and it can be used against me legally in a court of law to implicate me in anything. The biometric collected for other purposes (passport, license etc) cannot be legally used against me.

Why not use Aadhar only for its original intended purpose? Why give blanket power to the government to access and use biometric info of citizens in whichever way they want to?

Pardon my ignorance, could you please elaborate on this? I mean the risk associated as mentioned?

Suddenly, everyone is talking about data security and privacy. Though the concern is justified, I really want to know what harm the Govt can do to me with my Aadhaar data.

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by PetrolRider

Suddenly, everyone is talking about data security and privacy. Though the concern is justified, I really want to know what harm the Govt can do to me with my Aadhaar data.

I dont think Govt would harm you in any way, apart from (maybe) invading your privacy and tracking each and every move you make (again debatable topic).

But if your biometric data is leaked and then misused for any malicious activity by a third party anywhere in the world, won't it be risky? Now since most of the travel visa, passport also captures biometric data.

egs: Hacker from another country takes the data and then uses it to make some illegal transaction in another country and unfortunately you land up at the immigration counter where you are tagged as red Sounds like a movie story line, but anything is possible right.

My biggest gripe is at the collection point, where private and public company with not much of expertise collecting the data. Hope they atleast don't leave a local copy once they upload into central repository.

[jraj]

Originally Posted by kiku007

That's my question as well. Countries force foreigners to part with biometric data. Is that ok?

What do you mean???

Why does the question of a country forcing its visitors to provide biometrics apply here? The question is about a country forcing its own citizen with parting away with sensitive biometric data.

Has that been seen anywhere,anytime?

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by PetrolRider

Pardon my ignorance, could you please elaborate on this? I mean the risk associated as mentioned?

Suddenly, everyone is talking about data security and privacy. Though the concern is justified, I really want to know what harm the Govt can do to me with my Aadhaar data.

Aadhaar was introduced initially as a national ID which can be used to prevent the leakages in govt subsidies and other benefits, and also to provide various services. With this promise, govt enrolled majority of the citizens. Later, they made a law to give statutory backing to Aadhaar.

But while framing the law, they added one additional provision which was (still is) unknown to most already enrolled citizens. This is the provision:

disclosure of biometric information can be made in the interest of national security in pursuance of a direction of an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India specially authorised in this behalf by an order of the Central Government.

Since joint secretary is a government official, his permission means the same as government's permission.

Comin to the phrase "in the interest of national security", its meaning changes with the ideology of the ruling party. For some, even a person eating non-veg is a threat to national security, for others every religious person is a threat to national security etc. So in effect, the law enforcement agencies can use the biometrics to silence the critics of the ruling regime. This silencing act may not happen now or for few years, because the whole Aadhaar issue is in public spotlight, but once everything settles it will come back to haunt our civil rights.

This whole Aadhaar issue can be resolved easily by the lawmakers. Just replace "joint secretary" with "judge of the high court" in the above provision. But our rulers(including future rulers) will not do that, because how will they then control our lives?

[sushantr5]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

...So in effect, the law enforcement agencies can use the biometrics to silence the critics of the ruling regime. ...

Silencing the critics, How is it done?
How biometric information will give leverage to oppressor in this case?

My ans to these questions: Critics can be silenced if critic itself is into unlawful activities. Biometric information linking will help to track unlawful activities of the critic.

Just my thoughts:

I believe we are overreacting to aadhaar linking. We are the country with over a billion people. It is really difficult for government to control these many people. We are not privileged country which has resources and will to effectively manage enormous population.

Privacy is a myth when you are dealing with virtual world. You are very much exposed and almost naked in this virtual world. But we accept this because it gives you convenience. It makes your life easier by assuming basic trust.

Now coming to Aadhaar, if every link is established then more effective management will happen. People will start adhering to rules. Day to day life becomes more easier. So nothing much to loose in this case compared to if google decides to turn hostile.

We need to accept this change and we need to have basic trust in the system.

[PetrolRider]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

I dont think Govt would harm you in any way, apart from (maybe) invading your privacy and tracking each and every move you make (again debatable topic).

Ok, they were doing it in Greek era, they were doing it in WW2 and they will keep on doing it if they feel any interest (national or personal) in doing so. Even if we stop giving our finger prints, they will use TVs, wouldn't they.

Originally Posted by Jaggu

But if your biometric data is leaked and then misused for any malicious activity by a third party anywhere in the world, won't it be risky? Now since most of the travel visa, passport also captures biometric data.

That is a real concern. But, aren't we throwing away our info generously. I was surprised, looking at number of people lining up in front of a certain mobile operators' stores to give away their finger prints. Even a sizable number of electronics gadgets are having fingerprint scanners in them. While we are talking about hacking, we cant discount these modes also, do we?

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Since joint secretary is a government official, his permission means the same as government's permission.

Comin to the phrase "in the interest of national security", its meaning changes with the ideology of the ruling party.

Anything and everything coming out of Hon. Parliament is with the ideology of the ruling party which theoretically translates as people wish in a democracy. We are free to be apprehensive to each and every new or modified law, but once a law formed we are bound by it. Even the oldest democracy is not spared.

Originally Posted by deerhunter

This whole Aadhaar issue can be resolved easily by the lawmakers. Just replace "joint secretary" with "judge of the high court" in the above provision. But our rulers(including future rulers) will not do that, because how will they then control our lives?

Hon. "judge of the high court", are you serious. I beg your pardon, but there is a specific job description for a administrative officer and the judiciary. Are we demanding a judiciary official to stand on street to catch the signal jumpers? We trust (legally again) the official to do their job as it is their JOB.
How this job is done or how legal process works in this country, in my opinion is beyond the scope of mere Aadhaar.

I still dont understand why Aadhaar is only responsible to all these harms to me or cattle public and not any other law that we had till now or will be having in future. Just for reference of the members here, we all know what the erstwhile TADA act or more like AFSPA or Posco act can do to anyone and there is no dearth of such laws in our country.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by sushantr5

Silencing the critics, How is it done?
How biometric information will give leverage to oppressor in this case?

My ans to these questions: Critics can be silenced if critic itself is into unlawful activities. Biometric information linking will help to track unlawful activities of the critic.

The false positive rate for finger prints is 0.05%. That means around 5 lakh for every 100 crore. Now if the law agencies start using aadhaar database to search for finger prints found in a crime scene (related to "national security"), there will be 5 lakh possible suspects for every case. What if one among those 5 lakh is a political opponent of the ruling class? It is entirely possible that this opponent will be persecuted till the courts set him free. There are various other ways of using this against opposition.

The ground for accessing biometric info is "national security". Define that? Do you think all the political parties define it in the same way? Like I said in the previous post, for a few even those who eat non veg is a threat to national security, for a few others singing vande mataram is a threat to national security.

Now, who will judge if a critic is into unlawful activities or not? Law courts, right? But law will take its own course, till then those critics can be jailed under India's draconian preventive detention laws (preventive detention laws are unheard of in other democracies). Finally by the time court acquits those critics, a decade would've passed.

Originally Posted by sushantr5

I believe we are overreacting to aadhaar linking. We are the country with over a billion people. It is really difficult for government to control these many people. We are not privileged country which has resources and will to effectively manage enormous population.

The government can use aadhaar to serve the citizens better. But why is there a national security provision in this? Atleast why is such a provision under the safeguards of a govt official and not an officer of the judiciary?

Originally Posted by PetrolRider

Anything and everything coming out of Hon. Parliament is with the ideology of the ruling party which theoretically translates as people wish in a democracy. We are free to be apprehensive to each and every new or modified law, but once a law formed we are bound by it. Even the oldest democracy is not spared.

True to an extent. But the law making powers of our parliament is not infinite, it can only make laws within the boundaries set by the constitution. Everything regarding Aadhar act will be clear once the SC forms a 7 judge bench and deliver a verdict.

Originally Posted by PetrolRider

Hon. "judge of the high court", are you serious. I beg your pardon, but there is a specific job description for a administrative officer and the judiciary. Are we demanding a judiciary official to stand on street to catch the signal jumpers? We trust (legally again) the official to do their job as it is their JOB.
How this job is done or how legal process works in this country, in my opinion is beyond the scope of mere Aadhaar.

Are you comparing an issue of "national security" to signal jumping?

Anyway, what i meant was they could have given bit more safeguards instead of putting it entirely in the hands of a govt official. Atleast a parliamentary committee to oversee the secretary? And by adding a national security clause, Aadhaar is not 'mere aadhaar" anymore.

Originally Posted by PetrolRider

I still dont understand why Aadhaar is only responsible to all these harms to me or cattle public and not any other law that we had till now or will be having in future. Just for reference of the members here, we all know what the erstwhile TADA act or more like AFSPA or Posco act can do to anyone and there is no dearth of such laws in our country.

They are forcing everyone to take Aadhaar now (by extending it to all services). That is the biggest difference.

[ksameer1234]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

But if your biometric data is leaked and then misused for any malicious activity by a third party anywhere in the world, won't it be risky? Now since most of the travel visa, passport also captures biometric data.

egs: Hacker from another country takes the data and then uses it to make some illegal transaction in another country and unfortunately you land up at the immigration counter where you are tagged as red Sounds like a movie story line, but anything is possible right.

I am sorry but this is really too far-fetched. It is far more easier to listen onto credit card data while people are buying online. Given that there are 100s of videos to teach you how to do in less than 15 mins, I would rather be worried about that than worrying about my biometric data.

Further, all this is based on assumption that Aadhar data is stored in most insecure way. If that is the case, same concern needs to be displayed for other data stored with government such as e-filing of income tax etc.

My biggest gripe is at the collection point, where private and public company with not much of expertise collecting the data. Hope they atleast don't leave a local copy once they upload into central repository.

Again, the assumptions here are far-fetched. On similar lines, I would have to be cautious about riding on a tank of highly flammable liquid only a few inches from which hundreds of mini-explosions are taking place every second!!

Originally Posted by deerhunter

So in effect, the law enforcement agencies can use the biometrics to silence the critics of the ruling regime. This silencing act may not happen now or for few years, because the whole Aadhaar issue is in public spotlight, but once everything settles it will come back to haunt our civil rights.

I hope we do not resort to such vague presumptions. This is nothing but fear-mongering.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by ksameer1234

I hope we do not resort to such vague presumptions. This is nothing but fear-mongering.

Really? Then why is there such a draconian provision in an act the main aim of which is preventing leakages in subsidy? Why not give a little more safeguard?

May seem like a movie plotline, but all those things that i have mentioned in my previous posts, like persecuting political opponents etc, have really happened in our own country during 1975-77, and in some states even now. It is not really fear mongering if its happened before.

Originally Posted by ksameer1234

This is what the act says:

You do know that all of them are government officials, dont you?

[ksameer1234]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Anyway, what i meant was they could have given bit more safeguards instead of putting it entirely in the hands of a govt official. Atleast a parliamentary committee to oversee the secretary?

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Really? Then why is there such a draconian provision in an act the main aim of which is preventing leakages in subsidy? Why not give a little more safeguard?

This is what the act says:

Provided that every direction issued under this sub-section, shall 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, before it takes effect:

Provided further that any direction issued under this sub-section shall be valid for a period of three months from the date of its issue, which may be extended for a further period of three months after the review by the Oversight Committee

Originally Posted by deerhunter

You do know that all of them are government officials, dont you?

Yes they are government officials. Your point being? Would you want government being run by private companies?

[kiku007]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

You are not getting the point. The main privacy issue wrt Aadhar is not related to data theft. It is related to misuse of the data by the government. So there is no use in comparing it with foreign countries collecting your biometrics, because in most countries those cannot be legally used against you in a court of law. But in the case of Aadhar, biometric info can be used against you.

Originally Posted by deerhunter

But what matters is, the biometric collected for Aadhaar can be used by them for whatever purpose they wish in the name of "national security", and it can be used against me legally in a court of law to implicate me in anything. The biometric collected for other purposes (passport, license etc) cannot be legally used against me.

Why give blanket power to the government to access and use biometric info of citizens in whichever way they want to?

From where did you get this, "whichever way they want to"?

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by ksameer1234

Yes they are government officials. Your point being? Would you want government being run by private companies?

How is it a safeguard when a govt official is overseen by another govt official? Please read the previous posts, the main issue with Aadhaar is that it can be misused by the state because access is permitted by a govt official. So adding one more layer of govt officials is not really a safeguard, because all of them functions according to the government's wish.

Also, private is not the only alternative to executive government. There are legislative and judicial branches too and their members can safeguard this better, because the whole judiciary and a part of the legislative is not under the control of the government.

Originally Posted by kiku007

From where did you get this, "whichever way they want to"?

The govt can access and use the biometric info if a joint secretary feels that it is in the interest of national security.

[PetrolRider]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

True to an extent. But the law making powers of our parliament is not infinite, it can only make laws within the boundaries set by the constitution. Everything regarding Aadhar act will be clear once the SC forms a 7 judge bench and deliver a verdict.

. Lets wait for the verdict.

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Are you comparing an issue of "national security" to signal jumping?

Anyway, what i meant was they could have given bit more safeguards instead of putting it entirely in the hands of a govt official. Atleast a parliamentary committee to oversee the secretary? And by adding a national security clause, Aadhaar is not 'mere aadhaar" anymore.

Of-course I understood what you meant and my reply is in same humorous tone. What I was trying to say is, I would say I still have constitutional right to challenge illegal use of my Aadhaar by Govt in any court of law and that specifies the safeguard. Of-course, I again stress out here that my possibility or rather capability of use of this constitutional right to challenge Govt is remain same as before introduction of Aadhaar.

Originally Posted by deerhunter

They are forcing everyone to take Aadhaar now (by extending it to all services). That is the biggest difference.

They are forcing me to pay income tax and various other tax whose benefits I am yet to see.
All what I am saying here is, there are millions of issues a common public faces in our mother country and they are not new. We can fight it out as a whole for incompetence of governance rather than pick and chose issues unless something that is putting us in a queue and shooting a bullet.

I am not arguing here not I am supporting any political ideologies, I am just saying that whole loss of time and energy discussing a issue that is sub-judice every where all the time is pointless at this moment. This is just my view.

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by ksameer1234

I am sorry but this is really too far-fetched. It is far more easier to listen onto credit card data while people are buying online.

Yes but with a credit card at best one can take my money, not my personal biometric identity, can they? Isn't latter far more dangerous?

Further, all this is based on assumption that Aadhar data is stored in most insecure way. If that is the case, same concern needs to be displayed for other data stored with government such as e-filing of income tax etc.

But apart from new passports, none of them have any biometric based identity in them right? Even passport it is handled only by one outsourced private party but within the infrastructure of the passport office. This i assume should be having better control.

With this another thought comes to mind, if someone already has a biometric verified passport and say PAN card. Won't it be safer and easier to issue an automatic aadhar number linking these two? Or are these two above mentioned documents so bad in verifying identity?

With regards to security, am not sure if the Govt has some certified standards applied? If so publishing the same would take care of lot of apprehensions with regards to data security.

Again am not an expert on this subjects, just questions i have had in my mind ever since this whole Aadhar thing started. Today i don't hold one but am sure i will be "forced" to make one soon. I would love to do it, if i were provided more assurance on security aspects. Hope this does not become just another card which in future will be replaced by a chip based card with dual authentication

[kiku007]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

The govt can access and use the biometric info if a joint secretary feels that it is in the interest of national security.

All right. So the issue is not Aadhaar, its the Government. Even more so, the present Government There's no cure for it.

I've read about "Living off the grid". Where people will follow a sustainable lifestyle far out in the hinterlands, without currency/money, without evil governments and their support or evil corporates etc. There's hope then that no biometrics will be taken and misused to implicate such people in court