What is common between Hernando de Soto, US government, Mukesh Ambani, Anders Behring Breivik, Nandan Nilekani and Arun Jatley? They support biometric identification of populations.
Dr Gopal Krishna on Biometric Aadhaar
What distinguishes Barack Obama and David Cameron from Narendra Modi? Obama and Cameron oppose biometric identification but Modi supports it.
On 11 May 2005 in the US, the Real ID Act for a national ID was rushed through US Congress and the US Senate with utmost urgency as part of a bundle of legislations, a toxic legacy of George Bush years. Following people’s resistance Obama opposed it during his presidential campaign as a candidate of the Democratic Party and during his tenure as US President Real ID was declared “dead on arrival DOA” by Janet Napolitano, US Secretary of Department of Homeland Security in July 2009. At least 43 US states have submitted legislation to oppose Real ID nationwide. Some 24 States have nullified the Real ID Act after passing laws against its implementation so far.
In UK, Tony Blair-led Labour Party was providing National Identity Cards based on demographic and biometric details like fingerprints and iris scan. David Cameron had announced that the biometric ID card scheme would be scrapped if they come to power. Unlike Modi and Cameron got National Identity Cards stopped on 21st January, 2011. "This marks the final end of the identity card scheme: dead, buried and crushed," announced UK Home Office Minister.
What is common between Hernando de Soto, US government, Mukesh Ambani, Anders Behring Breivik, Nandan Nilekani and Arun Jatley? They support biometric identification of populations.
World Bank economist Hernando de Soto's book ' The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else' has been cited in the book Imagining India by Nilekani 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!
The disclosures by Wikileaks about the keen interest of US administration in the Aadhaar project. It is interested in knowing about biometric database of the world's largest democracy. http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/12/09STATE129198.html
Ambani expressed his support for biometric identification saying, “Aadhaar, an initiative of Unique Identification Authority of India, will soon support the world’s largest online platform to deliver government welfare services directly to the poor.” He has written this in a chapter titled ‘Making the next leap’ endorsing biometric profiling based identification in the book Reimagining India edited by McKinsey & Company published by Simon & Schuster in November 2013. This appears to be an explicit signal to the political parties and media houses who receive direct and indirect corporate donations from companies as their clients in myriad disguises.
The 1500 page long manifesto titled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence brought out by Norwegian gunman and neo-Crusader, Anders Behring Breivik who carried out the heinous attacks by bombing government buildings in Oslo killing his fellow citizens on 22 July 2011 is quite relevant in the present climate in India. This manifesto refers to the word “identity” over 100 times, “unique” over 40 times and “identification” over 10 times. There is reference to “state-issued identity cards”, “converts’ identity cards”, “identification card”, “fingerprints”, “DNA” etc.
The words in this manifesto give a sense of deja vu. Who will guarantee that the centralized database of Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar Number will not be used for holocaust, genocide, communal and ethnic riots, targeting of minorities of all ilk and political dissidents of all shades?
A report Biometrics: The Difference Engine: Dubious security published by The Economist in its 1st October, 2010 issue observed “Biometric identification can even invite violence. A motorist in Germany had a finger chopped off by thieves seeking to steal his exotic car, which used a fingerprint reader instead of a conventional door lock.” This reveals the frightening ramifications of using biometrics as a basis for identification.
In a lecture at Center for Global Development, Washington Nilekani admitted, “Now, biometrics has a big history in the world. Biometrics was first used in India in the 1870s when the British used it for land titling, and they also used people's fingerprints to record the registration of documents. Historically, and up until a few years ago, the use of biometrics was essentially in forensics. It was about using biometrics for crime investigation and crime protection….So, fundamentally, biometrics was used for forensic purposes. But, after 9/11, biometrics has increasingly been used for the purpose of surveillance, or security, or for immigration control.” It is evident that Parliament, State legislatures and citizens besides the Supreme Court has been kept in dark about it.
Jaitely has wrongly claimed that the data collected from residents would remain private, and not be shared with other agencies and only requirements of national security will be an exception.
The documents accessed through RTI reply dated October 25, 2013 reveal that this is an impudent misrepresentation of facts. In the contract agreement between the President of India for UIDAI, as purchaser and L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company, and Accenture Services Pvt Ltd accessed through RTI at clause 15.1 it is stated, "By virtue of this Contract, M/s Accenture Services Pvt Ltd/Team of M/s Accenture Services Pvt Ltd may have access to personal information of the Purchaser and/or a third party or any resident of India, any other person covered within the ambit of any legislation as may be applicable." The purchaser is President of India through UIDAI. The clause 15.3 of the agreements reads, "The Data shall be retained by Accenture Services Pvt Ltd not more than a period of 7 years as per Retention Policy of Government of India or any other policy that UIDAI may adopt in future." Copies of the contract agreement are available with the author. This clearly implies that all the biometric data of Indians which has been collected so far is now available to US Government and French Government because of Patriot Act and French government’s stake in the company in question. General Keith Alexander, as director of USA’s National Security Agency (NSA) had instructed information gathering saying, "sniff it all, know it all, collect it all, process it all and exploit it all”.
When citizens’ rights are in conflict with such a coalition of entrenched interests, the latter tries to undo the electoral verdict and democratic mandate which is against Aadhaar. The idea is to own personal sensitive information of Indian residents akin to keeping a File on every Indian resident.
The Aadhaar project is the largest biometric capture and identification project in the world in the history of mankind. 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). Biometric Aadhaar-based initiatives are about the treasure hunt for unprecedented financial surveillance and economic intelligence in the economic history of mankind.
Fearing rejection of controversial biometric Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 like The National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010, Union Finance Minister introduced the former as a Money Bill on March 3, 2016 in an exercise which is a fraud on the Constitution. Clause 2 (g) of the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 defines 'biometric information'. It means “photograph, finger print, Iris scan, or other such biological attributes of an individual as may be specified by regulations.” This definition includes Human DNA Profiling and voice samples by mentioning “other such biological attributes of an individual” by any future regulation.
In the Lok Sabha, Section 33 of this Bill provides for disclosure of information including identity information or authentication records, if it is done “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”. Such disclosure is permitted without the consent of the individual concerned. It does not disclose as to how disclosure of 'identity information' will be reversed once the disclosure is done.
As per Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, biometric measurements like fingerprints of prisoners are taken with the permission of Magistrate and these records of the prisoners are destroyed on acquittal and after they have served their sentence. But in the case of UID/aadhhar the same is going to be stored forever without any legal mandate and disclosed with legal mandate with no remedy for undoing the disclosure. Unlike Identification of Prisoners Act, Aadhaar Bill does not provide for destruction of data.
While providing for a dignified treatment of the citizens of India, Section 15 of the Census Act establishes that “Records of census not open to inspection nor admissible in evidence”. It reads: No person shall have a right to inspect any book, register or record made by a census-officer in the discharge of his duty as such, or any schedule delivered under section 10 and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no entry in any such book, register, record or schedule shall be admissible as evidence in any civil proceeding whatsoever or in any criminal proceeding other than a prosecution under this Act or any other law for any act or omission which constitutes an offence under this Act.”
Aadhaar Bill, 2016 fails to incorporate such healthy provision and provides a contrary provision in Section 33.
It has been admitted that entire UID/aadhaar related exercise has provided market for biometric and surveillance technology companies. It is noteworthy that World Bank has launched eTransform Initiative with partners like International Business Machines (IBM), Gemalto, Intel, Safran Group, Microsoft, and Pfizer, France and South Korea that promotes e-identity. There is an extraordinary dependence of Aadhaar on such corporations; many of these companies have close links with foreign intelligence agencies. It is not clear as to how the implications of this factor being dealt with.
It is apparent that UID/aadhaar projects is moving on the path of predecessors of Adolf Hitler did; else how is it that Germany always had the lists of Jewish names even prior to the arrival of the Nazis? The Nazis got these lists with the help of IBM which was in the ‘census’ business that included racial census that entailed not only count the Jews but also identifying them. At the US Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, there is an exhibit of an IBM Hollerith D-11 card sorting machine that was responsible for organising the census of 1933 that first identified the Jews.
Contrary to the claims of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that the collection of biometric information and its linkage with personal information of individuals without amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955 as well as the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, is beyond the scope of subordinate legislation, which needs to be examined in detail by Parliament — according to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance. This parliamentary panel has raised questions about the absence of a legal mandate for biometric data collection.
History is replete with examples wherein such profiling has been used for genocide, holocaust and violence against all kinds of minorities.
UID/aadhaar has the potential for use in undertaking surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting of Indian residents and citizens on basis of caste, religion, political opinion and regional bias.
The linking of UID/aadhaar with essential services and citizens’ entitlements like LPG implies that the right to have rights is being made dependent on biometric data based UID/aadhaar.
The true nature of Aadhaar Bill 2016 gets revealed when it is compared with report on Aadhaar Bill, 2010 (The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010) which was introduced in Rajya Sabha on 3rd December, 2010 was referred to the Committee on 10th December, 2010 for examination and report thereon, by the Speaker, Lok Sabha under Rule 331E of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. The observations of the Yashwant Sinha, former Union Finance Minister headed Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on Aadhaar Bill, 2010 exposes the nature and character of Aadhaar Bill 2016. The report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee was presented to Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on 13th December, 2011.
In its 48 page long report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee observed: “The Committee are constrained to point out that in the instant case, since the law making is underway with the bill being pending, any executive action is as unethical and violative of Parliament’s prerogatives as promulgation of an ordinance while one of the Houses of Parliament being in session.”
Thus, under the circumstances, Speaker, Lok Sabha is/was under a logical compulsion not to give the Certificate of Money Bill to Aadhaar Bill, 2016 under Article 110 (4) of the Constitution of India before transmitting it to the Rajya Sabha under Article 109. This Bill is in furtherance of an executive action which is admittedly “unethical and violative of Parliament’s prerogatives as promulgation of an ordinance” while Parliament has been in session. In such a backdrop, it is apparent that the Speaker erred in giving the permission that for the introduction of the Bill.
Clause 57 of the Aadhaar Bill 2016 reveals that Aadhaar project is being pushed by commercial czars. If Clause 57 is read with clause 7, it becomes evident that this Bill is not a Money Bill; it is wearing its veil which can be pierced if the opposition can display its political will.
Clause 57 brings the ulterior motive behind the entire aadhaar schemes to light. It provides that it is meant not only for the purposes of allocating entitlements, subsidies, benefits or services but also for commercial transactions whether conducted by any natural person or legal person (body corporate). This is applicable to every law and contract for any purpose. It is noteworthy that “A verbatim record of proceedings was kept” of the deliberations on Aadhaar Bill, 2010 but the Lok Sabha Secretariat did not share it when the same was sought under Right to Information Act, 2005.
Disregarding such questions, Aadhaar Bill, 2016 was allowed to be introduced without it being discussed in the Business Advisory Committee. “It is a question of saving of Rs. 20,000 crore to the country,” argued M. Venkaiah Naidu, Union minister of parliamentary affairs without disclosing how much expense will incurred in the Aadhaar project. Unless cost incurred is disclosed how benefits can be claimed. It is against the basic principle of cost-benefit analysis. Since the launch of aadhaar in September 2010 till date, the total estimated budget of aadhaar project has not been disclosed.
What the government’s proposal means is underlined in a confidential document of UIDAI titled ‘Creating a unique identity number for every resident in India’, leaked by Wikileaks on 13th November, 2009. It revealed, “One way to ensure that the unique identification (UID) number is used by all government and private agencies is by inserting it into the birth certificate of the infant. Since the birth certificate is the original identity document, it is likely that this number will then persist as the key identifier through the individual’s various life events, such as joining school, immunizations, voting etc.” This paves way for all round surveillance adversely impacting rights of present and future generations. It heralds demise of political, economic and social democracy, the cherished goals of the framers of our Constitution.
None of the concerns raised by eminent citizens like Dr Usha Ramanathan, Justice VR Krishna Iyer, Prof Romila Thapar, S.R.Sankaran, Prof. Upendra Baxi and Justice A.P. Shah in a Statement of Concern dated 28th September 2010 have been responded to so far. Nor have queries raised by concerned citizens like Prof. Anil Sadgopal in August 2015 been answered. Neither has the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee been paid heed to in the matter of Aadhaar.
It has been pointed out that countries like UK, Australia, France, the Philippines, Germany, and Europe have rejected UID/aadhaar like projects. There is no reason for thinking that Indian citizens can bear these risks and costs which citizens in these countries cannot.
President, Speaker, Lok Sabha and Chairman, Rajya Sabha needed to keep in mind a century old world famous 'Satyagraha' of Mahatma Gandhi launched to oppose the Ordinance for fingerprints based identification scheme of the British government in South Africa effectively criminalizing the entire Asian community including Indian and Chinese community. He challenged it and called the Ordinance a 'Black Act' and termed it degrading and discriminatory piece of legislation. Biometric Aadhaar case demonstrates how 'Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it'. Unlike India, China remembers its history. China has abandoned aadhaar like identification project. Under the influence of trananational powers these public institutions have allowed themselves to become subservient to alien interests.
It is apparent that the structural basis is being laid out for future authoritarianism through despotic projects at the behest of the ungovernable and unregulated foreign biometric and surveillance technology companies. The collection of biometric data supports the ideology of biological determinism with its implicit and explicit faith in the biometric technologies. There are hitherto unacknowledged dangers of trusting such technological advances for determining social policies. The specter of unlimited government, a government which does not allow itself to be limited by the Constitution is on the horizon.
Gopal Krishna, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL),

CT SCAN

Hastakshep