Parliamentary Committee Rejects UID Project And Biometric based NPR-
Vindicates Citizens Demand For Reviewing UID And NPR
By Toxic Watch Alliance
22 December, 2011
Countercurrents.org
New Delhi/ 22/12/2011: The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance
considering the National Identification Authority of India (NIDAI) Bill,
2010 presented its report to the Parliament on December 13, 2011. The
report rejects biometric data based identification of Indians. The report
is a severe indictment of the hasty and `directionless' project which has
been "conceptualised with no clarity of purpose". Even the functional basis
of the Unique Identification Authority of India UIDAI is unclear and yet
the project has been rolled out. The Standing Committee found the biometric
technology `uncertain' and 'untested'. As early as December 2009, the
Biometric Data Committee had found that the error rate using fingerprints
was inordinately high. In a recent interview to the press, the Director
General and Mission Director of the UIDAI had admitted that fingerprints
are likely not to work for authentication. The error rate could end up
excluding up to 15% of the population. Yet, the UIDAI has gone on with the
exercise.
There is no data protection law in place. Even though the government had
recognised the need for a law to deal with security and confidentiality of
information, imposition of obligation of disclosure of information in
certain cases, impersonation at the time of enrolment, investigation of
acts that constitute offences and unauthorised disclosure of information,
the Unique Identification (UID) project was allowed to march on without any
such protection being put in place. This disdain for the law has been
characterised by the Standing Committee as `unethical and violative of
Parliament's prerogatives'.
Mr Nandan Manohar Nilekani, as a member or chairperson of multiple
committees of several ministries, has been trying to push for the adoption
of the UID, and for the re-engineering of current systems to fit the
requirements of the UID. There have been attempts to withdraw services such
as LPG if a person has not enrolled for a UID. The creeping of
voluntariness into compulsion through threat of discontinuance of services
has been roundly castigated by the Standing Committee.
On September 28, 2010, a statement of concern issued by 17 eminent citizens
had asked for the project to be put on hold till a feasibility study was
done, a cost: benefit analysis undertaken, a law of privacy put in place
and the various concerns of surveillance, tracking, profiling, tagging and
convergence of data be addressed. None of this has happened till today. The
Standing Committee has endorsed these concerns and recognised that the
project cannot carry on till this is set right.
There has been an extraordinary amount of duplication of work. The NPR is
doing the same exercise, except that the Ministry of Home Affairs has found
that the excessive outsourcing and the methods used by the UIDAI for
enrolment make the data inaccurate and insecure. The multiplicity of
Registrars with whom the UIDAI has entered into MoUs produces their own
problems of duplication. The Standing Committee is categorical that the
Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) constituted for the purpose of
collating the two schemes namely, the UID and National Population Register
(NPR), has failed.
The project has been replete with unanswered questions. The 17 eminent
citizens, as also other civil society activists and academics, had asked
that the project authorities acknowledge that many countries had abandoned
identity schemes such as had happened in the UK, China, USA, Australia and
the Philippines. The Standing Committee has taken on board studies done in
the UK on the identity scheme that was begun and later withdrawn in May
2010, where the problems were identified to include "(a) huge cost involved
and possible cost overruns; (b) too complex;(c) untested, unreliable and
unsafe technology; (d) possibility of risk to the safety and security of
citizens; and (e) requirement of high standard security measures, which
would result in escalating the estimated operational costs."
Corroborating citizens’ concerns, the Standing Committee has noted that
the government has “admitted that (a) no committee has been constituted to
study the financial implications of the UID scheme; and (b) comparative
costs of the aadhaar number and various existing ID documents are also not
available.” It discloses that while the UIDAI was constituted on January
28, 2009 without parliamentary approval, and UID numbers were begun to be
rolled out in September 2010, the Detailed Project Report of the UID Scheme
was done much later in April, 2011. The Standing Committee expressed its
anxiety that, the way the project had been run, “the scheme may end up
being dependent on private agencies, despite contractual agreement made by
the UIDAI with several private vendors.”
The report records the views of Dr Usha Ramanathan, a noted jurist saying,
“It is a plain misconception to think that the executive can do what it
pleases, including in relation to infringing constitutional rights and
protections for the reason that Parliament and legislatures have the power
to make law on the subject.” In view of the above, the Memoranda of
Understanding (MoU) signed by UIDAI with the partners including all the
States and Union Territories, 25 financial institutions (including LIC) to
act as Registrars for implementing the UID scheme has become of doubtful
legality.
“I would have liked to make an additional point about the perspective
Adhaar reflects vis-a-vis governance of our country and the conduct of our
society. The only inference one can reasonably draw is that the votaries of
this idea expect the Indian state to perpetually or for a long time remain
in the *mai-baap *role, personally taking care of each of its needy
children. Why else would we want to spend so much money on a device only
meant to enable the *mai-baap* to correctly identify its children?” said
Deep Joshi, member, National Advisory Council in a statement sent to
Gopal Krishna of Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL).
Prof. (Dr) Mohan Rao, Centre for Social Medicine & Community Health,
Jawaharlal Nehru University said, UID is dangerous for public health.
It should be rejected unequivocally because it violates
confidentiality and privacy which is considred sacred in medical
practice and is sought to be used for accuracy in clinical trials".
At the Press Conference, Gopal Krishna said, "Both the UID and NPR
project has been about technology that is flawed, with risks to
national and individual security, ill conceived in its aims and uses,
and has attempted to occupy a place where it can be above the law." He
revealed that journalists have been compeleld to accept biometric
identification in the offices where they work. They have been made to
accept it as a fait accompli. As a consequence they have not reported
about violation of privacy rights due to biometric identification of
citizens and residents of India under UID and NPR.
In relation to biometrics, the NPR too is guilty of going beyond the
mandate give to it by law. Neither the Citizenship Act 1955 nor the
Citizenship Rules of 2003 permit the collection of biometrics.The
Standing Committee, recognising this, has asked that the use of
biometrics in the NPR be examined by Parliament. Till then, it can be
safely assumed, the collection of biometrics must be suspended.
Raj Mathur, Free Software, OpenStandard and Privacy advocate said,
there is a an open war declared on sensitive personal information.
Once the database is ready it can be used to eliminate minority
communities by some regime which finds them unsuitable for their for
their political projects. The fact is a centralized electronic
database and privavcy both are conceptually contradictory.
Indu Prakash Singh, a senior official of Indo-Global Social Service
Society (IGSSS) explained why IGSSS disassociated itself from UID
Number project which was being undertaken under Mission Convergence in
Delhi. Withdrawal of IGSSS that works in 21 states of the country
across four core areas India: Sustainable Livelihood, Youth
Development, Disaster Risk Reduction, and Urban Poverty merits the
attention of all the states and civil society organisations especially
those who are unwittingly involved in the UID Number enrollment
process. In its withdrawal letter IGSSS said, “we will not be able to
continue to do UID enrolment, as we discussed in the meeting of 10th
May 2011.” It added, it is taking step because `it’s hosted under the
rubric of UNDP’s “Innovation Support for Social Protection:
Institutionalizing Conditional Cash Transfers“ [Award ID: 00049804,
Project: 00061073; Confer: Output 1, Target 1.2 (a) & Output 3 (a),
(b)]. In fact we had no clue of this until recently when we searched
the web and got this information.’
It is clear that both Mission Convergence and UIDAI have been hiding
these crucial facts with ulterior motives. The letter reads, “IGSSS
like many other leading civil society groups and individuals are
opposed to conditional cash transfers and the UID will be used to
dictate it.”
The name of IGSSS is mentioned on the UIDAI’s website at
http://uidai.gov.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=146&Itemid=157#con
It is high time some Civil Society Organisations mentioned on UIDAI's
website that considred UID useful reconsidered their views in view of
the Standing Committee's report.
Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), General Secretary, Chiitaranjan
Singh underlined the people's protest against the UID and NPR PROJECT
which has been going on since the outset across the country.
Bezwada Wilson, Convenor, Safai Karmachari Andolan (SKA) said that it
is an unnecessary project which must be stopped. These investments
need to be made in the sanitation sector which is far more pressing
need then any manufactured identification need.
Kalyani Menon-Sen, Independent Researcher on Urban issues said, most
manual workers of both organised and unorganised sector lose their
finger prints.The project claimed to work for them but it is they who
would get excluded. It is not a financial inclusion project, its an
exclusion project.
Peace and Action Centre (PEACE), Director, Anil Chaudhury said that
the project is a perrenial bail out package for the IT industry. It is
not the question of one time cost being incurred but also of the
recurring cost of the UID and NPR project that reveals its character
which does not have any constitutional or rational basis.
For Details: Ramesh Sharma, INSAF Phone: +91-11-2651781, Fax:
+91-11-26517814, Gopal Krishna, CFCL, E-mail:
[email protected]
Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.
