When asked how Nilekani-led UIDAI could let foreign companies get their hands on the data, we are told that they had no means of knowing that they are foreign companies! Why, then, are there those who mourn the disintegrating and, hopefully, the demise of this project?
Here is a question for those who retain their faith in the unique identification (UID) project: what is it about the project that has them believe that it should, somehow, be salvaged?
In December 2011, the parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance (SCoF) returned the National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010, and recommended that the UID project be sent back to the drawing board. On 23 September 2013 the Supreme Court directed that no one may be denied any service only because they do not have a UID number; and, when the order was deliberately disregarded, the Court ordered the government to withdraw the instructions that made the UID mandatory. That was on 24 March 2014. On 21 February 2014, the Petroleum Ministry delinked the UID from LPG subsidy. That is, all three organs of state – the Parliament, the judiciary and the executive - have been remarkably unenthusiastic about this project.
The project was marketed as an innocuous game changer. It would provide an identity to every person, especially the poor; and that would lead to plugging leakages and curbing corruption. The touching innocence of this claim has not managed to keep off questions about the consequences of databasing an entire citizenry, the implications of not having a law that covers the project, privacy and personal security, surveillance, data security, flawed processes, unrestrained outsourcing, the unseemly ambitions it provokes in police agencies to get the data into their hands ….. the list keeps growing.
By now it is plain that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has had little patience with either process or law. Here are some illustrations:
The UIDAI was not established to create a database of its own. It was “to limit its activities to creation of the initial database from the Electoral Roll/ EPIC data and verification and validation of the same through BPL and PDS data and updation of electoral rolls.” This was the decision of the EGoM, which met on 4 November 2008 to decide what would be in the notification dated 28 January 2009 that set up the UIDAI. There are multiple databases within the government that carry identity information, and the UIDAI was to work at building a cleaned up identity database from existing databases. The EGoM was categorical: that the “UIDAI may not directly undertake creation of any additional database….”
Yet, once Nandan Nilekani had been appointed Chairperson of the UIDAI in July 2009, a Cabinet Committee on the UID was formed with the Prime Minister as the Chairperson, which gave him the go ahead to create his own data base, independent of other governmental data bases. First, it was allowed 100 million enrolments; then 200 million. Then in an inexplicable, and still unexplained, twist after the Home Minister had found their process faulty and unreliable, it was extended to 600 million. In the first four years, any time that either Mr Nilakeni or RS Sharma, the UIDAI’s first Director General, was asked where they got the legal authority to take the personal data of people, they would point to the 2011 notification as the source of legality for this exercise. This was, of course, not true at all. They were in fact breaching the boundaries the notification had set for them. It is also interesting that Mr Nilekani had started proclaiming, very early in the exercise, even before he had been given the mandate, that the UIDAI would enroll 600 million people by 2014.
Mr Nilekani was a man in a hurry. What resulted was rampant outsourcing, untested processes (including the introducer system), brushing aside concerns about the possibilities and improbabilities of biometrics across a population and across time, and doing away with the imperative of legality. He says he has got his 600 million people. May be. And, again, maybe not. But should such callous discarding of the process and law not matter because it was Nandan Nilekani? Should corporate icons not be restricted by law or process? These are not just rhetorical questions, but arise from the extraordinary treatment given to a collateral entrant into government.
Biometrics
Nandan Nilakeni used three terms to describe the UID project – unique, universal, ubiquitous. Uniqueness was dependent on biometrics. The decision to use fingerprints and iris was made before the UIDAI had any means of knowing whether biometrics could work in India. This is what they said in the “notice inviting applications for hiring of biometrics consultant” in January/ February 2010 after they had decided on fingerprints and iris: “While the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) documents the fact that the accuracy of biometric matching is extremely dependent on demographics and environmental conditions, there is a lack of a sound study that documents the accuracy achievable on Indian demographics (i.e., larger percentage of rural population) and in Indian environmental conditions (i.e., extremely hot and humid climates and facilities without air-conditioning).” In fact, it went on, “we could not find any credible study assessing the achievable accuracy in any of the developing countries.”
Two years later, Mr Nilekani was to say, in his talk at the World Bank in April 2013: “nobody has done this before, so we are going to find out soon whether it will work or not”.
But Brutus is an honourable man.
If the UID number will be on a range of databases, and it can act as a bridge between different silos of information, what does it do about intrusive curiosity? This is how Nandan Nilakeni thinks the UID number should be deployed. In a conversation with Vinod Khosla, and as reported on the NASSCOM website, he said: “There can be an entire Aadhaar- based reputation system in the country”, adding that “besides a credit history, the UID number could also help build health or skills records of Indians”. And this is just the beginning.
The UIDAI says enrolment is `voluntary’ while working to make it mandatory – that will swell its data base, fast. It has gone to the Court in the cases that challenge the project and iterated and reiterated the claim that it is voluntary; but, when the Court said, okay, then we will just say that it is voluntary, the UIDAI pleaded with the Court that agencies be allowed to `insist’ on the UID.
The UIDAI sounds like it will be providing a service, but it is openly pursuing a revenue model which will profit from our data. There is talk of security of data; but the data is handed over to be managed by companies that are close to the CIA, Homeland Security and the French government. And, when asked how they could let foreign companies of such provenance get their hands on the data, we are told that they had no means of knowing that they are foreign companies!
Why, then, are there those who mourn the disintegrating and, hopefully, the demise of this project?
You may also want to read…
Aadhaar: Private ownership of UID data- Part I
Aadhaar: Who owns the UID database? –Part II
(Dr Usha Ramanathan is an independent law researcher and has been critically following the policy and practices of the UIDAI since 2009)
Inside story of the National Stock Exchange’s amazing success, leading to hubris, regulatory capture and algo scam
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
1-year online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
30-day online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
Complete access to Moneylife archives since inception ( till the date of your subscription )
Friends this is blatant Security violation but Indian Telecom sector doesnot have good safety security measures to protect ISP's & Database servers from hacks.
Google cooly captures our street details & uploads on thier GPS services which we shall pay as our cops are busy collecting haftas / towing vehicles unreasonably.
Simple law on fine on spitting /urination should have been addressed by local municipal sanitation support like waste paper basket/toliet's.
Mumbai Municipality claims to have 1500 crores reserves but no MLC thinks of the same.Sulabh Sauchalaya is good private NGO bearing the load & its wilting.
Simple suggestion every bridge should have 2 sanitation toilet's.
2. Nice try, Korath, but no cigar.
3. Usha Ramanathan has said nothing of the sort. Your claim is false.
4. You allege that Aadhaar is “99.9999% plus” accurate. What does that mean? As it stands, nothing.
5. Let’s be helpful. Let’s try to give your statement some meaning.
6. Aadhaar promises unique identification. Are you saying that it has largely achieved that but, in this imperfect world, there might be a tiny number of duplicates on the population register? That would be meaningful. But impossible to prove. India would drown in a sea of false positives in the attempt.
7. The sea-of-false-positives argument comes from Professor Daugman, the inventor of biometrics based on irisprints. He is, naturally, a supporter of biometrics technology. But even he says forget trying to prove uniqueness, it’s impossible.
8. Alan Gelb and Julia Clark of the Center for Global Development are supporters of biometrics and, specifically, supporters of Aadhaar, please see ‘Performance Lessons from India’s Universal Identification Program’, http://international.cgdev.org/sites/def...
9. Even they say that UIDAI had to “relax” the false negative identification rate in order to keep the number of false positives down, below drowning level (footnote 7, p.5). UIDAI should change its name to MIDAI, the Multiple Identity Authority of India.
10. So that can’t be what you mean when you say that Aadhaar is “99.9999% plus” accurate. You can’t mean that almost every record on the population register is unique. It’s not just that the figures haven’t been independently audited. They can’t be audited. It would take too long.
11. Aadhaar also promises that it verify people’s identity reliably when needed, e.g. when claiming food benefits, or fuel or employment. Perhaps, Korath, you are saying that Aadhaar will be very accurate when it comes to verification. That would be meaningful. But how do you know?
12. The only way to keep false positives down is to let false negatives rise. That trade-off is accepted throughout the biometrics world. If UIDAI have been “relaxing” false negatives to keep false positives down to near zero, then you can expect false negatives to go through the roof. Benefit claimants will be told falsely by the biometrics verification system that they are not who they say they are. That’s a false negative. That’s no food, no fuel and no job.
13. What does “through the roof” mean? The UK Passport Service Biometrics Enrolment Trial suggested that the rate of false negative verification is about 20% if you’re using flat print fingerprints. The US Department of Homeland Security relies on flat print fingerprints in its US-VISIT border protection system and about 20% of primary inspections have to be backed up with secondary inspections. It’s not much to go on. The biometrics industry doesn’t like publishing performance figures. But it looks as if about one-in-five verification attempts will fail if you rely on flat print fingerprints. That’s 20% of the benefits population ready to riot thanks to Aadhaar.
14. Aadhaar promises to use irisprints as well as fingerprints. We used to use irisprints at UK airports for border control. We’ve dropped them. Too expensive? Too slow? Too unreliable? We were never told but, one way and another, we don’t use irisprints any more. Will the same happen in India? It could.
15. Korath, please read ‘Fundamental issues in biometric performance testing: A modern statistical and philosophical framework for uncertainty assessment’, http://biometrics.nist.gov/cs_links/ibpc...
16. There you will find that biometrics is “out of statistical control”. Which means that it is not a science. Which means that its use is theatrical. Security based on mass consumer biometrics is security theatre. Food aid based on mass consumer biometrics is food aid theatre. Etc ...
17. The Head of the UK Border Force gave evidence to Parliament on 15 November 2011, http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player... starting at 12:18.
18. He said that flat print fingerprints were the ninth and lowest priority for his staff when verifying a traveller’s identity and when there are long queues which threaten safety and public order at airports and seaports it is sensible to stop using fingerprint procedures.
19. He lost his job. For not sticking to the security theatre script.
20. Aadhaar may be entertaining theatre. But to claim that it is “99.9999% plus” accurate is meaningless.
Thanks for your comment.
Why is a biometric database required for cash transfer of subsidies? Hasn’t the US been crediting unemployment dole into SSN accounts, which have no biometrics, for over 70 years? UID is for all residents. Subsidies are for citizens. How would a government agency disbursing subsidies or a bank know whether a person with a UID number is a citizen or not?
Now, WHY all this sudden rush for Aadhaar linked subsidies?
This is because, direct cash transfers provide political mileage to rulers! According to a study by the World Bank (http://www.moneylife.in/article/direct-c... ) , voters respond to targeted cash transfers and these transfers can foster support for incumbents, thus making the case for designing political and legislative mechanisms that avoid successful anti-poverty schemes from being captured by political patronage.
“In theory, anti-poverty programs such as conditional cash transfers (CCTs) may play a role in influencing individual political participation—in the form of voting—and preferences, strengthening democratic representation but also producing electoral rewards. For instance, by partly changing the economic circumstances of households, transfer receipts could persuade participant households to exercise their right to vote,” the study ‘Conditional Cash Transfers, Political Participation, and Voting Behaviour’, it says.
http://www.moneylife.in/article/is-aadha...
Regards,
MDT
Thanks for your comment.
The government claims that apart from providing an identity, the Aadhaar numbers would enable better delivery of services and effective governance. Would this imply that someone from Tembhali village in north Maharashtra's Nandurbar district will automatically receive food under the public distribution system (PDS), when the middlemen have looted the food before it can even reach the shop?
What's more serious is that the government does not say anywhere that the Aadhaar numbers will be issued to the citizens of India. Instead, it mentions that the Aadhaar numbers will be issued to "individuals residing in India and to certain other classes of individuals". This means that immigrants from neighbouring countries, residing illegally in India, would be able to procure such numbers too, akin to the ration card (PDS Card), and become citizens of the country.
http://www.moneylife.in/article/nothing-...
But may be those interested souls who try to lambast anyone raising valid questions about UIDAI, Nilekani and Aadhaar are honorable human beings!
Regards,
MDT
Thanks for your comment. However, we are finding it difficult to digest that somebody like you going on bashing each and every article published at Moneylife. That too by claiming and providing links of UIDAI, which always has shied from disclosing information even under the RTI.
Any vested interest, Sandeep, that may have been hurt due to the truth coming out in the open?
Coming back to your question (although these are the exact set of question all newbies from UIDAI try to put time and again), finger print as used in smart phone (iPhone to be specific) is just smallar part of biometrics that is being collected illegally by UIDAI agents. For others like Credit card, Smart TV, smart Car, GPS, I have the choice to chose or reject. In case of UIDAI, there is no choice. It is mandatory to give finger prints of all 10 fingers and iris scan of both eyes. So therefor, if my smart phone or credit card is compromised, I can "cancel" it and get a new one. Is this the same for Aadhaar? Can you cancel and get a new Aadhaar? Is there any provision for cancelling it on the UIDAI site that you always show as the 'gospel truth'?
Regards,
MDT
now you have come to the point, vested interest??!! how about Moneylife??
No one with vested interest will ever love any unique identity management system, let alone aadhaar or NPR...no thief likes the bulb at street light, same goes with people having vested interests, they don't want any system where they can be tracked by a reference no. like UID/NPR no.
vested interest all I have is I want to see how soon ghost, duplicate and middlemen beneficiaries gets eliminated from system and there is fear of being caught/tracked down if you commit anything wrong/against the law. Just an example if a rapist has a fear that his semen sample (DNA mapping…future of biometrics) can be identified/matched against a database that will show up his profile with home address, will he dare to open his zip?? Embrace technology, don’t embarrass it.
I am not newbie to technology/UID and no way linked to UID as well. It's just that I have been in the field for almost 10 years and do understand the concept behind relational database
just like if you want to use Credit card, Smart TV, smart Car, GPS, you also have a choice to not get UIDAI/NPR. time you used GPS, the time you watched that smart TV, the time you used that credit card that history is there forever to stay, you don't have right to delete that. just stay home be happy!! time you dump technology, it dumps you!!
Aadhaar/NPR cannot be replicated that's why vested interests are crying since 2009??
comment about bashing each article on ML, I just commented 1-2 artcile; at max 3 I guess and you have starting singing that I have been commenting every article, just imagine what ML has been doing since Aadhaar/NPR has started, hiring a team to manipulate every content against aadhaar??? if you don't like my comment I don't mind saving my time and ignoring ML for good...
Thanks for your comment.
Yes, Moneylife do have a vested interest of protecting innocent, gullible common man or saver from falling prey to 'vested interests' be it a tech czar or anyone. Since, I mentioned you are a newbie, let me tell you about Moneylife group.
Moneylife group empower individual to invest and spend wisely by offering hard facts, insightful opinions, unbiased options and useful tips. Moneylife, launched in March 2006 is driven primarily by the interests of customers and investors. This is evident in our long track record of reporting unbiased facts and opinion, innovative analysis and non-profit initiatives. Moneylife is among the most ethical media companies and is known for calling a spade a spade. So this is Moneylife's vested interest.
Coming back to you other points, all the time you have been quoting only UIDAI site, whereas there are thousands of research papers, articles written by experts in the field of ID system, biometrics etc., available on the Internet.
1. About a century ago, Mahatma Gandhi started the world famous 'Satyagraha' in order to oppose the identification scheme of the government in South Africa. Now if tracking through ID is such a nice concept, according to you, why then even Gandhiji opposed it? That too a century ago? On 22 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.
Since the late nineteenth century, fingerprint identification methods have been used by police agencies around the world to identify suspected criminals as well as the victims of crime. Knowing the impact of the Ordinance and effective criminalisation of the entire community, 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. This was the first time the world witnessed 'Satyagraha' or a non-resistance movement that later become a phenomenon in India's freedom struggle.
2. When the beneficiary will get actual cash in hand?
The UPA government is pushing forward the direct cash transfer to the beneficiary’s bank account. This means, people will need to reach banks or ATMs for withdrawing cash. According to National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) there were over 1.04 lakh ATMs in the country. The only problem is that the majority of these ATMs are installed in cities or areas with dense population. Thus, unless banks go out of their way and install ATMs in rural areas, the financially excluded residents have to be dependent on the banks, especially on the public sector banks. For example, a Kalawati from a remote village may end up spending a day for getting the cash for subsidy from her bank, which may be mere Rs100 or Rs200. But then, the UPA government is just sending the cash to her account through Aadhaar, while withdrawing and using it to buy food at market rate is her responsibility!
Another aspect of this whole approach is the govt may be giving money in bank accounts, but it will never assure food supply. The Kalawati, who used to buy food from PDS shop will now have to shell out more money to buy the same food from open market. Another example is a poor family earns about Rs5000-6000 per month. While it may shell out about 10% of this amount or Rs500 to buy LPG cylinder, when it comes to buying it at market rate (considering the family would get subsidy without fail in bank account), the family will have to shell out Rs1,200!
Now leave your AC cabin and go to villages and check how many families there have a cash of over Rs1000 at any given point of time and you will know the uselessness of such high handed (read UID and DBTL) approach. But then why should you? You are not affected and your salary is credited in your bank account on time so why should you bother if the Kalawati receives food or no? Your aim is only to transfer the subsidy money, whether she gets it or no, is not your concern, right?
3. Technology
What technology you are talking about? Let’s say a financial product like Finnacle. This product has not come out in the market just like that. It involved several rigorous tests, pilots, trials and errors and field tests with particular sample size like number of customers that may use it. Only after going through all the process, it entered the market. If you have doubt on the process, you can check with Mr Nandan Nilekani!
Now coming back to UID, where are the tests, field trials? According to test results of UIDAI’s biometrics-based Aadhaar project, there could be up to 15,000 false positives for every Indian resident. Moreover, this figure is just for identification and not for verification. For over 1.2 billion UID numbers, they have used data from just 20,000 people, in pairs, as the sample.
David Moss, who spent eight years campaigning against the UK's National ID (NID) card scheme, has questioned the logic of the UIDAI and the government to depending on biometrics to produce the UID number. In a report titled, "India's ID card scheme-drowning in a sea of false positives", Mr Moss said, "those (the FPIR) conclusions do not follow from the evidence reported. Nothing in UIDAI's surprisingly low quality report suggests that it would be feasible to prove that each electronic identity on the Central ID Repository (CIDR) is unique. Not with a billion plus people on the database. Far from it, India can be confident, from the figures quoted in UIDAI's proof of concept trial report, that de-duplication could never be achieved."
According to JT D'Souza, who analysed the pilot study conducted by the UIDAI, given the well-known lacunae in our infrastructure and massive demographics, biometrics as an ID will be a guaranteed failure and result in denial of service. He said, "The sum of false acceptance rate and false rejection rate (EER) reveals only part of the problem, which is rejection or acceptance within a short duration of enrolment. The bigger problem is ageing, including health and environment factors, which causes sufficient change to make biometrics completely unusable and requires very frequent re-enrolment." http://www.moneylife.in/article/how-uida...
For the record, no one has ever issued IDs to such a huge population anywhere in the world. And whoever has tried to issue biometrics-based Ids, even for a small size, had to abandon or discard the idea altogether.
4. It is admitted by UIDAI that there are “ownership risks (Ownership of the project by stakeholders), Technology risks (nowhere in the world a project of this size has been implemented) and privacy concerns (there may be groups raising privacy issues – many ID Projects in western countries have been stalled due to the opposition of privacy groups).
It is quite astounding that none of the members of CCUIDAI or the GoM members, be it AK Antony, P Chidambaram, Ghulam Nabi Azad, Sushilkumar Shinde, Ajit Singh, Kapil Sibal, Praful Patel, V Kishore Chandra Deo or Jairam Ramesh have got themselves enrolled for either UID/Aadhaar or NPR. Notably, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, the political patrons of the project have chosen not to enroll and baptize themselves with so-called right to identity to them. Pranab Mukheree, who fathered the project and declares how he set it rolling in his bio-data is also conspicuous by refraining from enrolment like LK Advani, Mayawati, Mamata Banerjee, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Prakash Karat, Nitish Kumar or Arvind Kejriwal. None of the known editors of print and electronic media have enrolled themselves for it. No known social worker, be it Medha Patkar, Aruna Roy or Sandeep Pandey have endorsed it. No known judges, lawyers, jurists or academicians of the country have got themselves biometrically profiled under the project. In fact acclaimed scholars like Ashis Nandy have referred to UID number as prison number. Likes of whistleblowers such as AK Jain and Press Council of India member, Arun Kumar have debunked it. This demonstrates that the project does not enjoy the confidence of the senior most politicians, judges, scholars, activists and the legal fraternity of the country. http://www.moneylife.in/article/no-aadha...
In the end, we would advise you to read more from experts like Usha Ramanathan, David Moss, Adv Shyam Divan (http://www.moneylife.in/article/aadhaar-... and the Supreme Court http://www.moneylife.in/article/aadhaar-... and some RTI exposes on UID/Aadhaar http://www.moneylife.in/article/rti-expo...
Regards,
MDT
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/col...
1. Mahatma opposed it because it was a discriminatory practiced as it was targeting only Asian community...don't just mold anything to malign UID/NPR i.e. single identity system
2. about banking newtwork...haven't you heard something about MicroATM yet? being used by banking correspondents also post office is coming up with bank license and currently disbursing payments by post office.
about kalawati(name changed) in my village, she doesn't even know that village sarpanch has made her job narega card and filling his pocket at name of her. Also she hasn't seen ration shop open in last year or so forget about getting ration from depot at fair price. once her ration card is linked to UID/NPR she will get the money in his account and depot holder will go to her house to seek her business...just read about new PDS design at UID website, I sent u link already oh...u hate UID website..no problem you can go to narega or PDS portal
http://www.pdsportal.nic.in/Files/Implem...
LPG DBT design was faulty, I also commented and wrote to UIDAI to modify it as per PDS design so that consumer doesn't have to pay full price upfront and keep the check at gas dealer level.
with grace of almighty and my hard work I reached AC office and also 5 start hotels but I do come from/studied at a village where internet is still a miracle. and have seen/experienced first hands things you might have just seen in movies or documentary at youtube only. That's why I support any single identity system that India can come up with doesn't matter UID or NPR that can remove middle men in form of sarpanch at village level or anyone in between government and common man living in a remote hut.
3. no one reached mount Everest until two men dared to do and now people go for fun!! you don't master anything overnight, it take s time with focus on continuous improvement. Glider that was flown first is totally different from boeing Dreamliner but concept stays same. biometrics going through the same, DNA mappin is in waiting..
4. once implemented everyone will come under the umbrella for their own convenience. Name any developed country that doesn't have a single reference point for entire country, USA(SSN), canada(SIN)...etc.
it's enough for this article I guess, let's wait for next article hopefully there will be some better constructive thoughts
Thanks for posting your comment.
1. Mahatma Gandhi opposed draft Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance because it 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, Gandhi then decided to challenge it.
Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), had been maintaining its UID or Aadhaar is 'free and voluntary' and is meant for 'residents'. However, in its premature implementation, in practice the scheme is gradually being made non-voluntary and mandatory. This is made worse by adoption of coercive pre-conditions by different government departments.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right to privacy within the right to life in Article 21, and any restriction must be justified through a rational and reasonable statutory procedure. UIDAI, as it presently stands, is prima facie unconstitutional for contravening the right to privacy without providing any safeguards, procedures and guidelines.
2. Let us take the case of PDS, the elementary question is that there has to be a computer and a biometric, iris scan reader in each shop together with an internet connection that too in rural areas along with electricity to operate it. You also need internet connectivity in all the villages and towns. This is applicable for microATMs as well. As per microATM standards version 1.5.1 of IBA the device should not retain any record/data at its level and should connect with the server through Internet.
What about electricity? Though power sector reforms were mooted way back in 2003 and unbundling of the electricity boards have taken place, yet no major investments are forthcoming and there is an acute shortage of power all around the country. Therefore on what basis are they going to provide the accessibility and operational issues that follow?
In most of the rural areas the power supply is just for 3-4 hours if not less and we are still struggling to meet the demand. So without addressing this in the first place how can they go for advanced technology: So the building is built without the foundation? How can it sustain?
Even in the NREGA programme, the problem is not about issuing an identity for daily workers. It is the attendance at the end of the day marked by the supervisor that provides the workers their wages. Similarly, in PDS shops, it is not the problem of identification of the end-user. Most leakages in the PDS do not take place at the last mile as hypothesised by UIDAI; instead, it is the big corrupt babus and middlemen who are involved in siphoning grains before they reach the ration shop itself.
All the examples mentioned above are just the tip of the iceberg - the non-sustainability of UID, but neither the Union government nor the highly qualified techies at UIDAI have time to take cognisance of these issues. Therefore, the old adage is correct in saying that if we forget history we are doomed to repeat it.
3. People who reached Mount Everest first did through homework and practised hard to reach the Summit. What your beloved UIDAI had done? It just tried to enforce something without any homework, any scientific test with proper sample size, all the time maintaining it is "voluntary" and meant for those residents who don’t have any kind of ID proof. Why it is being shoved to middle-class people who already may have 14 other IDs?
4. It has been found that the UID project is “full of uncertainty in technology as the complex scheme is built upon untested, unreliable technology and several assumptions”. This is a serious concern given that the project is about fixing identity through the use of technology, especially biometrics. Neither the Proof of Concept studies nor any assessment studies done by the UIDAI have been able to affirm the possibility of maintaining accuracy as the database expands to accommodate 1.2 billion people. The estimated failure of biometrics is expected to be as high as 15%.
As I said earlier, you need to do a lot of reading and research before raising valid questions. So go and search if the US SSN or Canada SIN has biometrics attached with it or not?
Next time, request you to do “proper” homework before posting comments like a newbie.
Regards,
MDT
No means of knowing?
1. Companies have IDs. It's quite easy to establish whether they are foreign.
2. Mr Nilekani is a man of the world. He must know that Safran was French and that L-1 Identity Solutions was American. Everyone else knows that.
3. I told him on 4 March 2011, when I sent him a pre-publication copy of http://dematerialisedid.com/BCSL/Drown.h...:
"From: David Moss [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 04 March 2011 15:43
To: Nandan Nilekani
Subject: Request for comment in advance of press release
Nandan Nilekani
Chairman
Unique Identification Authority of India
Dear Mr Nilekani
I append below my review of UIDAI's proof of concept trial report.
I intend to base a press release on it in 10 days time, on Monday 14 March 2011.
Any response from UIDAI before that would be much appreciated,
particularly if it is to point out errors in my sea-of-false-positives argument.
I hope you find the review interesting and useful.
Yours sincerely
David Moss"
No means of knowing?
1. Companies have IDs. It's quite easy to establish whether they are foreign.
2. Mr Nilekani is a man of the world. He must know that Safran was French and that L-1 Identity Solutions was American. Everyone else knows that.
3. I told him on 4 March 2011, when I sent him a pre-publication copy of http://dematerialisedid.com/BCSL/Drown.h...:
"From: David Moss [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 04 March 2011 15:43
To: Nandan Nilekani
Subject: Request for comment in advance of press release
Nandan Nilekani
Chairman
Unique Identification Authority of India
Dear Mr Nilekani
I append below my review of UIDAI's proof of concept trial report.
I intend to base a press release on it in 10 days time, on Monday 14 March 2011.
Any response from UIDAI before that would be much appreciated,
particularly if it is to point out errors in my sea-of-false-positives argument.
I hope you find the review interesting and useful.
Yours sincerely
David Moss"