In your interest.
Online Personal Finance Magazine
No beating about the bush.
Is UIDAI’s Aadhaar, the same thing that it claims to be? Here is a simple analysis of the UID project from Dr Anupam Saraph, who designed and implemented identity schemes for government and private organisations
"In the meanwhile, no person should suffer for not getting the Aadhaar card in spite of the fact that some authority had issued a circular making it mandatory and when any person applies to get the Aadhaar Card voluntarily, it may be checked whether that person is entitled for it under the law and it should not be given to any illegal immigrant."
-Supreme Court Order in WP 494 of 2012 on September 23rd 2013
How safe is the UID?
1. Enrolment agencies, sub-registrars, registrars and UIDAI have no legal liability for any theft, fraud, crime, and compromise of your security or privacy that may be perpetuated through Aadhaar
2. The use of Aadhaar by various agencies will now expose all your IDs, information, properties, entitlements etc. to misuse in one go thus exposing you to unprecedented risk
3. You have neither control on who uses your Aadhaar nor any way to know or verify its use by anyone
4. Your entire data and biometric is handled by non-Indian companies
How safe is your money in the banking system with UID?
1. Banks have been directed to open accounts with Aadhaar numbers instantaneously—they can no longer verify if the number links to real and unique individuals
2. Money transfers from Aadhaar accounts will not be audited if there is less than Rs10 lakh transferred in a year. This means subsidy, bribes and black money may go to shell accounts that may never be traced!
3. Money can be moved from Aadhaar-to-Aadhaar electronically without your knowledge
How protected are your entitlements and rights with UID?
1. Aadhaar does not guarantee anything. It merely becomes yet another obstacle in obtaining services from the government
2. If your biometric verification fails, you will lose all benefits across the government till you re-establish your credentials. Re-establishing credentials may be at the mercy of netas and babus
How legal is the UID?
1. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Aadhaar card has rejected the Aadhaar exercise. There is no legal sanction or budgetary sanction
2. The Planning Commission has no mandate for such projects
3. The Executive order is bad law under the constitution as it violates fundamental right
4. Under the Citizenship Rules of 2003 it is the Registrar General of India who has to maintain a National Register of Indian Citizens and issue National ID cards
Some fallacious UID Premises
1. Each UID number corresponds to a unique real person
2. Each person can have only one UID
3. All issued UID numbers are genuine
4. No identity theft is possible with the UID
5. Existing identity databases are full of fraud and duplication
6. UID database made by the same agencies/documents has no fraud or duplication
7. Identity is the barrier to service
8. Cash transfer is more effective than the service it was meant to subsidize or deliver
9. Cash transfers will reach real beneficiary
10. Several trillion Rupees can be transferred directly without any scam
11. Financial inclusion is about having a bank account
12. 18,950 rural branches can service 593,731 villages or 31 villages to a branch or 40,000 persons per rural branch through UID
13. 38,592 branches can service 5,161 cities and towns or 7,500 persons per urban branch through UID
14. Corruption in India is because the common man fakes identity
15. UID will simplify the processes to access fundamental rights, entitlements and services
(Dr Anupam Saraph holds a PhD in designing sustainable systems from the faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, the Netherlands. Dr Saraph has held CxO and ministerial level positions and served as an independent director on the boards of Public and Private Sector companies and NGOs. As a Professor of Systems, Governance and Decision Sciences, Environmental Systems and Business he mentors students and teaches systems, information systems, environmental systems and sustainable development at universities in Europe, Asia and the Americas.)
The core issue is: Will efforts to undermine the fundamental right of Indians to move and transact freely around the country and to live without constantly having to prove who they are, succeed or fail?
Ever wondered as to why bankers are immensely interested in biometric identification and verification of citizens? Biometric identification implies that movements of present and future generations of citizens are tracked like those of bacteria under a microscope. This exercise of creating a centralised ‘online database’ of biometric information of Indians is unfolding under the supervision of Planning Commission’s Nandan Nilekani and Home Ministry’s C Chandramouli. The core issue here is: will efforts to undermine the fundamental right of Indians, to move and transact freely around the country and to live without constantly having to prove who they are, succeed or fail?
What is ironical is that while it is inevitable that no centralised electronic database of biometric information can be made leak-proof in the post Wikileaks and Edward Snowden world, bankers, biometric technology companies and their collaborators are marketing it as an answer to increasing demand for identity proof and identity protection from citizens.
In 1998, National Biometric Test Centre, San Jose State University set up by the Biometric Consortium, which is the US government interest group on biometric authentication was asked to testify to the USA’s House Committee on Banking and Financial Services hearing on “Biometrics and the Future of Money”. This testimony of 20 May 1998 was reprinted under the title, “Biometric Identification and the Financial Services Industry”. This centre emerged from a meeting of Biometric Consortium held in 1995, at the FBI training facility. This test centre has defined biometric authentication as “the automatic identification or identity verification of an individual based on physiological and behavioural characteristics”.
Whatever is happening in India is an exercise in imitation of what was attempted in the US. There was bitter opposition to what was attempted in the US through the REAL ID Act of 2005. The US Senate never discussed or voted on the REAL ID Act specifically and no Senate committee hearings were conducted on the REAL ID Act prior to its passage, exposing its undemocratic character and the Bill's proponents avoided a substantive debate on a far-reaching piece of legislation by attaching it to a "must-pass" bill. Barack Obama categorically opposed it during the 2008 presidential election campaign. As of 2008, all 50 states have either applied for extensions of the original 11 May 2008 compliance deadline or received unsolicited extensions.
As of October 2009, about 25 states from the US have approved either resolutions or binding legislation not to participate in the program. Among other concerns they have argued that it infringes upon states’ rights. With Janet Napolitano, a prominent critic of the program as the head of US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the future of the law appears sealed. On 5 March 2011, the DHS postponed the effective date of the REAL ID Act. Through Document Number FR 5-08, DHS announced that US states would need to be in compliance with the REAL ID Act by 1 December 2017. Bills have been introduced into US Congress to amend or repeal it. The controversial, $4 billion REAL ID initiative was meant to provide secure licenses in the hands of 245 million Americans by 2017. The new proposal, Providing for Additional Security in States’ Identification (PASS ID) Act is expected to eliminate many of the more burdensome technological requirements. The BILL is meant to repeal title II of the REAL ID Act of 2005 and amend title II of the Homeland Security Act, 2002, to better protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of personally identifiable information collected by states when issuing driver’s licenses and identification documents, and for other purposes.
It is surprising as to why Government of India, which has been keen on emulating REAL ID Act when it was adopted in the US, has developed cold feet in following the same example when it is practically abandoned there.
In India, when one looks at the definition of the “biometrics” which “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, it becomes clear that the plan of data collection does not end with collection of finger prints and iris scan. It goes quite beyond it.
The fact remains biometric data like finger print, voice-print; iris scan and DNA do not reveal citizenship. Use of biometric technology, an advanced technique for the identification of humans, based on their characteristics or traits is unfolding. These traits can be face, fingerprint, iris, voice, signature, palm, vein, and DNA. DNA recognition and vein recognition are the latest and most advanced types of biometric authentication. Biometric technology is being deployed in the application areas like government, travel and immigration, banking and finance, and defense. Government applications cover voting, personal ID, license and building access whereas travel and immigration use biometric authentication for border access control, immigration and detection of explosives at the airports. Banking and finance sector use biometric authentication for account access and ATM security.
The International Biometric Industry Association (IBIA) has listed potential applications including voter registration, access to healthcare records, banking transactions, national identification systems and parental control. Indeed, “Biometrics are turning the human body into the universal ID card of the future”. Unmindful of dangerous ramifications of such applications, if citizens and political parties concerned about civil liberties do not act quickly enough, biometric ID’s are all set to be made as common as email addresses without any legal and legitimate mandate. Biometric information includes DNA profiling wherein biological traits are taken from a person because by their very nature are unique to the individual and positively identifies that person within an ever larger population as the technology improves.
In its 13 April 2013 report titled ‘Regional Economic Outlook, Asia and Pacific Shifting Risks, New Foundations for Growth’ as part of World Economic and Financial Surveys, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) notes that “India is planning to enhance its existing cash transfer program and identification system in connection with the ongoing subsidy reform”.
Elaborating it further, the report states, how “India has also been rapidly expanding its biometric uniform identification system (Aadhaar), which will establish an accurate and paperless means of identifying all Indians by 2014. This program will also present large opportunities for savings. A nationally uniform, biometric database would cut down on leakages from outdated biographical information, ghost identification, double registration, and other losses, which have been estimated in the range of 15%–20% of total spending.”
Underlining the convergence underway, it says, “The integration of these two programs, Aadhaar and direct cash transfers (DCT), promises further savings but will involve many challenges: the timeframe for bringing India’s population of 1.2 billion into the UID program could extend beyond 2014, and integrating this database with information on individuals eligible for subsidised fuel will take time. Shifting the fertiliser subsidy from companies to individual farmers and building up the capacity to deliver payments electronically could also be challenging in such a large country. But the total savings could be substantial: if the combination of direct cash transfer and Aadhaar eliminates the estimated 15% leakage cited above for the programs being integrated, savings could total 0.5% of GDP in addition to the gains from the better targeting of spending on the poor.”
Such claims are figments of IMF’s imagination unless the total estimated budget of the UID/Aadhaar project is disclosed. It is irrational for anyone to reach inference about benefits from any project without factoring in the costs, but World Bank (WB) Group is doing it and endorsing similar acts by UIDAI.
Not surprisingly, having applauded both biometric identification and cash transfer, the WB group President Jim Yong Kim underlined the importance of the subject in his opening remarks at the Bank's Development Economics Lecture series on 24 April 2013 in Washington. Nandan Nilekani, the chairman of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and former chairman of Infosys Technologies also spoke there about the unique system for the biometric identification of Indian residents. It may be recalled that Robert B Zoellick, the then World Bank Chief met the chairman of the UIDAI on 4 December 2009. What transpired at these meetings is not in public domain.
In the aftermath of these meetings what is least talked about is that the e-identity and UID/Aadhaar-related projects are part of World Bank’s e-Transform Initiative formally launched on 23 April 2010 for converging private sector, citizen sector and public sector and Interpol’s e-identity database project. This, along with the then union finance minister, Pranab Mukherjee’s announcement on January 2011 voluntarily seeking full-fledged Financial Sector Assessment Programme by IMF and the World Bank, merits attention of the legislatures and concerned citizens.
On April 2010, L-1 Identity Solutions Inc, which has now been purchased by biometric technology company Safran group, a French corporation signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between L-1 and the World Bank was signed as part of the launch of the initiative at a World Bank Spring Meeting event attended by many developing country ministers of finance and communications. It claimed that this collaborative relationship with the World Bank is meant to improve the way governments in developing countries deliver services to citizens as part of the launch of the World Bank eTransform Initiative (ETI).
The World Bank's ETI seeks to leverage Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to build a knowledge sharing network that helps governments of developing nations to leverage the best practices of practitioners like L-1 and others to improve the delivery of social and economic services. The knowledge sharing network will focus on areas such as electronic Identification (eID), e-Procurement, e-Health and e-Education; areas vital to promoting the participation of citizens in democratic processes, such as voting, and helping undocumented citizens get access to health and welfare programs. The World Bank is currently funding 14 projects related to e-government and e-ID around the world. Are citizens supposed to believe that the World Bank Group is working to ensure that India's national interest and its citizens’ rights are protected?
"The speed and precision with which developing countries administer services is dependent upon many factors, not the least of which is the ability to verify the identities of those receiving services," said Mohsen Khalil, Director of the World Bank's Global Information and Communication Technologies Department in a statement.
Robert V. LaPenta, Chairman, President and CEO of L-1 Identity Solutions had said, "We believe that identity management solutions and services can make a significant contribution to society and undocumented citizens in developing countries, bringing them out of anonymity and helping establish their place and participation in society and affirming their rights to benefits they are entitled to receive as citizens."
It has been underlined that the “game-changing UID applications in payments, savings, and other tools for driving efficiency and transparency” using “already created one of the world's largest platforms (that is) transforming not only authentication but also everything from government payments to financial inclusion”. In effect, it is a case of biometric profiling by the IFIs who have vested interest in surveillance of financial transactions.
In his book ‘Imagining India’, Nilekani refers to Bank’s economist, Hernando de Soto's book 'The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else' to argue that national ID system would be a big step for land markets to facilitate right to property and undoing of abolition of right to property in 1978 in order to bring down poverty! In the post-capitalist and post-socialist era, such assumptions of triumph have been found to be deeply flawed. In fact, even the title of the books sounds weird in the post-financial crisis era.
In the Parliament, on 23 April 2013, Abdul Rahman, MP asked the Union Minister of Home Affairs about the percentage of the population covered under UID (Aadhaar), National Population Register (NPR) and Voters Identity Card, so far and the areas where information provided in these UID (Aadhaar), NPR and Voters Identity Card overlap; and the steps taken to avoid overlapping of the information contained therein. The reply was given but what it did not disclose is that the overlapping is deliberate because the real motive of the entire exercise is to ensure convergence of all pre-existing databases and the databases under creation as envisaged by the IFIs.
In his written reply, RPN Singh, Union Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs informed the Parliament, “As per the Electoral Roll data 2012, the Election Commission of India has 75.84 crore registered general electors in India.’ He admitted that “the five demographic fields Name, Address, Gender, Age, Name of father/mother/guardian and the photograph are common.” It is not common as it provides the route for convergence.
It does not appear to be a coincidence that France-based Ronald K Noble, Secretary General, INTERPOL, and world’s largest police organisation too has called for global electronic e-ID identity card system. When Nilekani was asked about the relationship of UID/Aadhaar with the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) in an interview by Hard News magazine, his reply was “No Comments”. Isn’t global electronic e-ID identity card system proposed by INTERPOL, e-Identity project of World Bank Group and UID/aadhaar related databases linked? Is “No Comments” a convincing answer?
Biometric documentation of undocumented citizens in developing countries which is underway in some 14 developing countries under ETI is aimed at bringing them out of anonymity, without any legal mandate. Such documentation of sensitive data of citizens facilitates bullying and invasiveness by the state and international financial institutions.
Identifying citizens biometrically is an exercise in empire building by ‘commercial czars’ and turning citizens in to serfs. Modern day Jaichands, Mir Zafars, Jeewan Lals and Mirza Ilahi Bakshis are collaborating to help empire builders to earn myopic rewards through attempts to compromise citizens’ sovereignty for good.
The journey of biometric identification and numbering of Indians commenced a year after the first war of India’s independence was brutally suppressed by the army of British East India Company, with the help of collaborators like Jeevan Lal, Mirza Ilahi Baksh and Rajab Ali. The first systematic capture of hand images for identification purposes "was" initiated by William Herschel, a civil servant in colonial India in 1858. It is noteworthy that in 1898, Edward Henry, inspector general of the Bengal Police established the first British fingerprint files in London.
Referring to the British victory over Indians in 1857, William Howard Russell of London Times wrote: “Our siege of Delhi would have been impossible, if the Rajas of Patiala and Jhind (Jind) had not been our friends”. The seize of the database of personal sensitive biometric information of all the Indians would have been impossible but for the help of ‘commercial czars’ like Nilekani and the complicity of civil servants like C Chandramouli, the Census Commissioner and Registrar General of India responsible for biometric National Population Register (NPR).
Occupy Wall Street Movement has a pithy slogan: ‘Empire is on the Wall Street’. The exercise of biometric identification of citizens is a comprehensive intelligence initiative with financial surveillance at its core. The personal sensitive information like biometric data that is collected in myriad disguises and through numerous tempting claims about its benefits is going to be purchased by banks and other financial institutions to be correlated with other data, and used for purposes that was neither agreed nor foreseen. This data is bound to be stolen or illegitimately released, exposing citizens to risks of profiling, tracking and grievous embarrassments as has happened in the case of Greece, Egypt, Pakistan and UK.
So far legislators and citizens have failed to bring World Bank Group and other international financial institutions under legislative oversight. A situation is emerging where if the pre-existing databases like electoral database, census and other databases which are under preparation is converged, these unaccountable and undemocratic financial institutions will never come under parliamentary scrutiny. The identification and surveillance technology providers are appear to be aiding an empire of a kind where every nano activity is under the vigilance of the Big Brother.
The flawed assumption of Government of India that the benefits of biometric systems are sufficient to warrant use of biometric technology for financial transactions is misplaced. The citizens who are succumbing to such presumption are doing so because they are not informed about potential risks. The blatant use of financial rewards akin to bribes to promote citizen’s participation in biometric identification programs sets a very harmful precedent as it violates the principle of free and informed consent. Informed citizens and democratic legislatures can respond to it only through non-cooperation, civil disobedience and voting against parties which support the banker-biometric technology vendor nexus.
(Gopal Krishna is member of Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL), which is campaigning against surveillance technologies since 2010)
In a strange case of conflict of interests, Nandan Nilekani, the IT czar, is either heading or part of a committee or group that is turning the 'voluntary' UID number or Aadhaar of residents as mandatory for citizens to access several services and benefits from the government
The Supreme Court has ruled that the unique identification (UID) number or Aadhaar is not mandatory to avail essential services from the government. What is strange is all those ministries and departments that are making Aadhaar ‘mandatory’ are doing so on recommendations from a committee or group associated with Nandan Nilekani, the chief of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). This is pure conflict of interests as the UIDAI itself is maintaining that Aadhaar is 'voluntary' while its chairman is making sure that it is made mandatory to avail a number of services or benefits from the government.
Gopal Krishna, member of Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL), has sent a letter to prime minister Manmohan Singh, defense minister AK Antony who is also the head of the Group of Ministers (GoM) which oversees the issue of resident identity cards under scheme of National Population Register (NPR). Mr Krishna has also sent it to Montek Singh Ahluwalia, deputy chairman of Planning Commission as well as special invitee on the Cabinet Committee on UIDAI-related issues and who is also on the GoM on the issue of resident identity cards under NPR scheme, and Dr C Chandramouli, Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India.
He said, "I submit that the Supreme Court has revealed that although the attached enrolment form of Aadhaar/unique identification (UID) number promises on top of the form that it is free and voluntary, several central ministries and uninformed state governments attempted to make it mandatory, in a manifest case of breach of citizen's trust."
According to Mr Krishna, the Strategy Overview document of the UIDAI says that "enrolment will not be mandated" adding, "This will not, however, preclude governments or registrars from mandating enrolment". "It must be noted that Mr Nilekani headed several committees whose recommendations made Aadhaar mandatory," he said.
Here is the list of Committees and groups compiled by Mr Krishna, which decided to make Aadhaar mandatory and are linked with Mr Nilekani...
1) He is head of Technology Advisory Group on Unique Projects (TAGUP) that proposes "private company with public purpose" and with "profit making as the motive but not profit maximising".
2) He is head of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), which is functioning without legislative approval either at the centre or in the states and has signed contracts with companies that work with Intelligence agencies.
3) He is head of Committee on Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) technology for use on National Highways that proposes Radio Frequency Identification (RFID).
4) He is head of Inter-ministerial task force to streamline the subsidy distribution mechanism
5) He is head of Government of India's IT Task Force for Power Sector
6) He is member of National Knowledge Commission
7) He is member of Review Committee of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission
8) He is member of National Advisory Group on e-Governance
9) He is member of Subcommittee of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) that dealt with issues related to insider trading
10) He is member of Reserve Bank of India's Advisory Group on corporate governance
11) He is member of Prime Minister's National Council on Skill Development
12) He is member of Prime Minister headed National Committee on Direct Cash Transfers
13) He is an invitee to the Cabinet Committee on UID related matters
14) He is an invitee to Group of Ministers (GoM) regarding Issue of Resident Identity Cards under NPR Scheme
15) He is a member of the board of governors of the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER)
16) He is the president of NCAER
17) He is chairman, Empowered Group, IT Infrastructure for Goods and Services Tax (GST)
"The list is not exhaustive. Mr Nilekani has many more identities as a shareholder and as a former head of a corporation," says Mr Krishna.
Further, according to Mr Krishna, the 'rift between Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Planning Commissions’, the UIDAI on UID and NPR was motivated and meant to take legislatures, citizens, states and media for a ride.
Mr Krishna said, "...it was reported on 6 October 2011 that Gujarat chief minister, Narendra Modi wrote to the prime minister questioning the need for National Population Register (NPR) by Registrar General of India and Census Commissioner. Gujarat then stopped collection of biometric data for creation of the NPR."
In his letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Modi raised objections over both the UIDAI, which is creating UID/Aadhaar number and Registrar General of India, which is creating the NPR, collecting biometric data.
In his letter Mr Modi wrote, “…there is no mention of capturing biometrics in the Citizenship Act or Citizenship Rules, 2009”. In the absence of any provision in the Citizenship Act, 1955, or rules for capturing biometrics, it is difficult to appreciate how the capture of biometrics is a statutory requirement. Photography and biometrics is only mentioned in the Manual of Instructions for filling up the NPR household schedule and even in that there is no mention of capturing the iris”.
After Gujarat stopped collection of biometric data, the then Union Minister of Home Affairs, P Chidambaram sent a letter to Mr Modi in August 2011, pointing out that creation of the NPR was a “statutory requirement” under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and “once initialised, (it) has to be necessarily completed”. The MHA had also requested the chief minister to instruct state government officers to cooperate in creation of the NPR. This was when the entire media, citizens and the political class was hoodwinked into believing that there was a rift between Mr Nilekani’s UIDAI under Planning Commission and Dr C Chandramouli’s NPR under MHA when Mr Chidambaram headed it, said Mr Krishna.
Mr Krishna says, "It appears that Mr Modi chose to side with UIDAI in an apparent rebuff to Mr Chidambaram. Mr Modi kicked off UID/Aadhaar project in Gujarat on 1 May 2012 by giving his biometric information and enrolled under the UIDAI project. Strangely, Mr Modi did not object to his biometric identification under UID as he did with regard to NPR. Mr Modi did so despite the fact that Yashwant Sinha (BJP leader) headed Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance that rejected the UID project and the UID Bill in its report to the Parliament on 13 December 2012. However, it may be noted that one sentence of its report appears to endorse biometric NPR. Is it a case of Mr Sinha was trying to side with Mr Chidambaram? It appears that Mr Modi has been taken for ride with regard to the UID/Aadhaar and Mr Sinha with regard to NPR as they failed to see through the strategy. Now Mr Chidambaram is wearing the hat of minister of finance. This is how both Mr Modi and Mr Sinha were outwitted by Mr Chidambaram."
"I submit that Mr Nilekani met the then deputy chief minister of Bihar, Sushil Kumar Modi at Bihar Bhawan in New Delhi in August 2011 to ensure a centralized IT infrastructure for GST across the states through GST Network, a National Information Utility, a private company with public purpose having profit making as the motive but not profit maximising. This is meant to take away the sovereign function of tax collection from the state," Mr Krishna said in his letter.
Here is the letter sent by Mr Krishna (http://www.toxicswatch.org/2013/09/following-following-supreme-courts.html )....