[deerhunter]

In a move to check multiple driving licenses under one name, the Centre will ask states to make Aadhaar identification necessary for a new licence as well as for those seeking renewal.

This is expected to prevent the issuance of multiple licences, means adopted to beat the suspension of licence for traffic, criminal offences or for fake identity.

Link

Looks like there is no way out of Aadhar. Government is forcing everyone to take Aadhar.

If the objective is to prevent multiplicity of licenses, then why not take fingerprints of only those taking license? Why force everyone to take Aadhar and then extend it to other schemes?

[DieselFan]

If RTO takes fingerprints instead of Aadhaar It would result in creation of another Nationwide​ database of fingerprints just like Aadhaar why would any government want to duplicate a expensive process. What is the harm in providing Aadhaar?

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by DieselFan

If RTO takes fingerprints instead of Aadhaar It would result in creation of another Nationwide​ database of fingerprints just like Aadhaar why would any government want to duplicate a expensive process. What is the harm in providing Aadhaar?

Supreme court has ruled that Aadhar cannot be made mandatory for any service. So if someone wants to take a license, they have to get Aadhar first. Why force people to take Aadhar? What if someone doesnt want to take Aadhar but is willing to give biometrics only for getting license?

[DieselFan]

Like I said Aadhaar will become mandatory for all services going forward. Biometrics capture and de-duplication is a highly expensive exercise that government doesn't want to spend on yet another setup.

[Moto_Hill]

Originally Posted by DieselFan

If RTO takes fingerprints instead of Aadhaar It would result in creation of another Nationwide​ database of fingerprints just like Aadhaar why would any government want to duplicate a expensive process. What is the harm in providing Aadhaar?

I agree. I personally wouldn't want government to spend on a process, which is already in place. Moreover, as we are set to move towards one nation one tax (GST), why not one nation one ID for all requirements like license, Voter ID ?

[chncar]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Supreme court has ruled that Aadhar cannot be made mandatory for any service. So if someone wants to take a license, they have to get Aadhar first. Why force people to take Aadhar? What if someone doesnt want to take Aadhar but is willing to give biometrics only for getting license?

98% of the country has already enrolled in Aadhar. So get with the programme.

Also, the supreme court, with all due respect to the institution is not an unquestionable paragon of virtue (or even common sense), despite the sense of entitlement that judges display. In fact, quite often it steps beyond it's brief as a moderating force for the legislature and executive, to play into the hands of a few elites/activists/NGOs and vested interests, clearly going against the will of the people and the interests of the nation. So some ruling by activist judges that is bound to get swept away by legislation representing the democratic process, is a really weak crutch to base every argument against Aadhar on.

The government should make the biometric and data capture process common, so that regardless of which (major service like Passport, PAN, Driver's License, Ration Card, Voter Card etc) you enroll for, you are enrolled in Aadhar as well, and vice versa (depending on eligibility of course).

[Mortis]

Post deleted by the Team-BHP Support : Please do NOT post messages that add little or no informational value to the thread. We need your co-operation to maintain the quality of this forum.

Please read our rules before proceeding any further. We request you to post ONLY when you have something substantial to add to a discussion.

[wildsdi5530]

Is the Aadhar and UID under government purview yet? Until it is legalised by an act, it is still a private enterprise and saleable to the highest bidder. Plus it's easy to get without any documents. So what is the status?

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by wildsdi5530

Is the Aadhar and UID under government purview yet? Until it is legalised by an act, it is still a private enterprise and saleable to the highest bidder. Plus it's easy to get without any documents. So what is the status?

Aadhar act was passed last year and it is completely under government control now.

[Chetan_Rao]

Don't RTOs that hand out chip-based licenses already have biometrics on file? RTOs in M.P. definitely do. What happened to that info? If they can't trust my biometrics in one system, what will an additional set on a different server do?

[binand]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Supreme court has ruled that Aadhar cannot be made mandatory for any service.

I am not fully sold on that point. The SC's ruling was made when Aadhar was still being issued only on the foundation of an ordinance. The Aadhar bill was passed by the parliament much later. So the SC's ruling I don't think can be applied (can the SC rule on a law that is yet to be passed in parliament?).

Right now the main hope in SC is its response to the question whether the law that enabled Aadhar was really a money bill and hence did not require Rajya Sabha's blessing. This also is a bit of a problem as the ultimate decision maker in these sort of matters is the speaker of the Lok Sabha.

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Why force people to take Aadhar? What if someone doesnt want to take Aadhar but is willing to give biometrics only for getting license?

The key idea of Aadhar is countrywide uniqueness based on biometrics[*]. If state has a way of checking whether a license applicant already holds a license from any of the other states then what you say is workable (but in that case, the system is simply replicating the functionality of Aadhar).

Originally Posted by Mortis

Im pretty sure almost everyone already has it, including some pavement dwellers.

I don't. I resisted getting one all this while. Even this news is not an immediate problem for me, since my current license is valid till 2024. But the other bits of news - that Aadhar is going to be mandatory to file IT returns for FY 2016-17 and also that Aadhar needs to be linked to one's mobile number or the number will be cancelled - make me want to give up the struggle and enroll.

The major objections to Aadhar are twofold - (a) that it is a privacy nightmare, and (b) that it leads to disturbing levels of state control on one's life.

[*] I don't think the assumption of uniqueness ("one person, one Aadhar") is valid since we issue Aadhars only to about 125 crore out of 700 crore people (18%) in the world.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Supreme court has ruled that Aadhar cannot be made mandatory for any service. So if someone wants to take a license, they have to get Aadhar first.

Like somebody said about Aadhar on Twitter - It is compulsorily mandatory to voluntarily get yourself an Aadhaar card

Originally Posted by binand

(a) that it is a privacy nightmare,

As long as the 'nightmares; are well known, understood and treated as low secure mechanism, Aadhar is fine.

Originally Posted by deerhunter

If the objective is to prevent multiplicity of licenses, then why not take fingerprints of only those taking license?

RTOs will still need to take fingerprints and verify with UIDAI whether the prints match with Aadhar number or not.

BTW, what if somebody has 2 Aadhar numbers?

[Durango Dude]

Am I happy that I literally whipped, cursed and begged my family to wake up and come along on a Sunday to get the Aadhar card. Now it's becoming compulsory for everything under the sun in India.

[OrangeCar]

Aadhar mandatory for driving licenses is a good move for the following reasons -

1. Duplicity of licenses avoided.

2. Trail of offences across the country. You might be caught in Delhi for a traffic violation, same shows up in Bengaluru too. Better law enforcement.

3. Aadhar linked to Bank Accounts. Traffic violation? Direct debit of your bank account of the fine amount. (scary?!. possible for sure!)

4. RC book - Registration number - vehicle insurance - DL -> all linked via Aadhar. Traffic violation? Cameras capture your number - get your history. Add points to license. Increase cost of insurance. No insurance linked to Aadhar, fine that too!

5. Stop carrying DLs! Your fingerprint will serve as a DL.

6. DL impounded? Cannot work around system to get another one. Have to follow due process.

7. Cops with fingerprint readers can only fine. Not any constable standing at an obscure junction and demanding bribes.

8. Higher income tax rates for irresponsible drivers? Aadhar will now be linked to tax returns and PANs. Possibilities unlimited.

However, concerns of privacy and 'big brother watching' aspect is a con with Aadhar, weather linked to DL or not. If Aadhar is not going to go away, one might use it at all possible places.

[deerhunter]

The main concern wrt Aadhar act, and the main cause of opposition, is this (excerpt taken from the act Link):

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.

The term national security is so vague that its meaning changes with the change in ruling party at the centre. The joint secretary to the government acts under the orders of the government. Thus there is absolutely no safeguard, and the government can do whatever it wants with the biometrics in the name of national security. This provision is the harbinger for harassment of political opponents.

Why not just use Aadhar for its initial intended purposes? Why add such a blanket provision with vague terms?

Just remove this provision and increase the punishments for those (including government officials and politicians) who misuse Aadhar for any purpose other than delivering services and subsidies. Then there will not be any opposition to Aadhar. Atleast add minimum safeguards, like judicial permission for accessing biometrics, not the permission of a govt official.

Originally Posted by binand

I am not fully sold on that point. The SC's ruling was made when Aadhar was still being issued only on the foundation of an ordinance. The Aadhar bill was passed by the parliament much later. So the SC's ruling I don't think can be applied (can the SC rule on a law that is yet to be passed in parliament?).

Right now the main hope in SC is its response to the question whether the law that enabled Aadhar was really a money bill and hence did not require Rajya Sabha's blessing. This also is a bit of a problem as the ultimate decision maker in these sort of matters is the speaker of the Lok Sabha.

The latest SC ruling came after the bill was passed. The act came into force in March 2016 and the latest ruling came in september 2016. Link

SC is now looking into the legality of collecting biometrics, and has directed not to make Aadhar compulsory till a final ruling has been made. The government had promised the SC not to make Aadhar compulsary till SC agrees to it Link. Looks like they are reneging now.

The money bill issue is a different case altogether.

Originally Posted by msdivy

BTW, what if somebody has 2 Aadhar numbers?

Not possible. Since Aadhar number is linked to biometrics, if you try to take a second one, the fingerprint and iris scan will automatically link you to the original number.