Aadhar
Opponents : Privacy
Proponents
==========================
For last two days , Supreme Court is
hearing arguments from the petitioners who are opposing Aadhar
Their advocate , Shyam Divan submitted
as follows :
=====================================================================================
Petitioners’ Demand :
·
Strike down the law
giving sanction to the programme which mandates all citizens to part with their
biometrics for myriad uses by the state
·
Destroy all data
collected from 2009 till 2016, when the law was enacted to give the scheme a
legal standing. Prior to that the data were collected on the basis of executive
instructions, he said.
Shyam Divan argued :
·
Scheme was reminiscent
of a totalitarian state which believed in exclusion, and was contrary to the
inclusive philosophy of the Indian Constitution.
·
No democracy in the
world has any scheme with such a vast sweep.
·
It will forever tilt
the power balance between the citizen and the state
·
It will place the
citizen on an electronic leash, which can be used to track real-time
transactions and the location of citizens .
·
Aadhaar would reduce
India to a totalitarian state in which a person's body could be used as markers
when demanded by the state.
·
It impedes the
citizen's right to ownership over his own body, his right to choice and his
right to informational self-determination.
·
Government cannot ask
citizens to part with sensitive biometric information to unknown private
entities over which it exercises little control, as they can misuse the data.
The government does not even have a contract with these entities, neither does
UIDAI . Data which is very personal goes to unknown entities. Where is the
integrity of data ?
·
What happens if you
lose your Aadhar , or it is not accepted or it can’t be accessed ?
·
Dignity cannot be
taken away or conferred. It is an inalienable , natural right
·
In a hugely digitized
environment, the state has to be an ally of citizens to protect BIG DATA from
unknown private entities whom citizens surrender Big Data , while they use and
engage with their services
·
There is no problem with an individual
parting with private information on his own
·
The private party was so much outside
the control of the Unique Identification Authority of India that they can use
it for their own commercial purpose
·
State must come up
with alternative and less-intrusive identification schemes which did not act as
instruments of exclusion. A probabilistic scheme such as Aadhar has the
potential to reduce citizens who cannot be verified for technical reasons or
otherwise to ghosts
Supreme Court observed :
·
Is
there anything wrong in using Aadhar to increase the efficiency of government
welfare schemes ?
·
The
State may say all we are trying to do is to ensure that money is going where it
ought to. If you are depending on social welfare benefits, equally States have
countervailing interests to ensure that they reach the right people
·
Could
Aadhar be used ONLY for verification or tracking citizens ?
·
Can
State compel citizens to part with biometrics in public interest ?
·
Is
Aadhar “ safe “ and biometric was being used for the purpose they were
collected ?
·
Biometric
entry could also be used for children and teachers to ensure right to education
·
State
spends crores on mid-day meals, but money is not reaching children
·
Can
courts review the decision of the Speaker to designate a Bill as a money Bill ?
·
How
submitting biometrics for Aadhar was different
from giving them up for a US Visa ?
·
You
want an insurance policy, you go to a private company. You want a mobile
connection, you go to private entities and part with personal information .
Here , the government has multiplied the options….the moment the government asks
you to give proof of address and other details, you have a problem and you say
sorry
·
What
are the nature of safeguards to ensure that the information was not purloined ?
20 Jan 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment