Public
Statement
on
Biometric
Profiling through aadhaar & DNA Bill
Right
to privacy is
an inalienable birth right & fundamental right
Biometric
data collection, aadhaar number & related programs is a black act
Open
war against sensitive personal information like biometric data
through aadhaar and Human DNA Profiling Bill 2015 is condemnable
Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), its Unique Identification
(UID)/aadhaar number project and schemes related to them have no
support in law. It is violatve of right to
privacy which is an
inalienable birth right and fundamental right.
The collection of biometric data is illegal and mandatory requirement
for aadhaar in manifest contempt Supreme Court’s repeated orders
during 23rd
September, 2013 till 16th
March, 2015. When confronted with such gross wrongful acts, adopting
the posture of “offence is the best defence”, in
a stark case of misrepresentation of relevant precedents,
Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi orally submitted in the biometric
aadhaar case in the Supreme Court that right to privacy is not a
fundamental right during the hearing of the aadhaar case that
re-commenced recently on 21st
July, 2015. This statement is quite disturbing ahead of the proposed
introduction of Human DNA Profiling Bill 2015 in the monsoon
session of Parliament underway.
Citizens’
opposition to UID/aadhaar has a historical context. It is linked to
more than a
century old world famous 'Satyagraha' of Mahatma Gandhi in order to
oppose the identification scheme of the government in South Africa.
On 22nd
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. The
move 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,
Mahatma 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. Biometric aadhaar case demonstrates how 'Those who
forget history are condemned to repeat it'.
Biometric
profiling is inherently dangerous because it tracks individuals based
on their religious, behavioural and/or biological traits. History is
replete with examples wherein such profiling has been used for
genocide, holocaust and violence against all kinds of minorities.
The fact
is that Hon’ble Supreme Court conclusively established privacy
jurisprudence on 4th
July 2011 by its judgment in the Ram
Jethmalani and Others vs Union of India and Others case, the
Black Money Case. Hon’ble Court held: “Right to privacy is an
integral part of right to life. This is a cherished constitutional
value and it is important that human beings be allowed domains of
freedom that are free of public scrutiny unless they act in an
unlawful manner….as constitutional adjudicators
we always have to be mindful of preserving the sanctity of
constitutional values, and hasty steps that derogate from fundamental
rights, whether urged by governments or private citizens, howsoever
well meaning they may be, have to be necessarily very carefully
scrutinised.”
An
application filed on 16th
July, 2015 in the Supreme Court intending to formally make aadhaar
applicable to other government schemes such as obtaining passports,
PAN cards, immigration, railways, telecommunications and prison
management systems vindicates the apprehension of the human rights
groups and Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance that trashed
the Bill which was meant to legalize the questionable activities of
UIDAI. It also unequivocally illustrates that biometric aadhaar is a
tool for exclusion, not for claimed inclusion. In fact such profiling
with biometric aadhaar is fraught with dangers of
genocide and communal crisis at the local, regional and national
level.
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
paved way for all round surveillance adversely impacting political
rights of present and future generations and making right to civil
liberties extinct.
Most
recently in a welcome verdict, in a case filed by the Labour MP Tom
Watson and the Conservative MP David Davis, UK’s High Court has
declared the Data Retention and Investigatory
Powers Act (DRIPA), 2014 as illegal. This Act provided access to
everyone’s data by the police and other agencies including
permission for interception of communications. Interception of
biometric data also falls in the same category.
Notably,
in the case of aadhaar, Parliament’s consent was never taken
despite explicit reference to its need by Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Finance.
It must
be recalled that referring to the incident of surveillance of his
mobile phones, in an article titled My
Call Detail Records and A Citizen’s Right to Privacy
published in Gujarati, Hindi, Urdu &
English (Source: http://www.bjp.org), Arun Jaitley as Leader of
Opposition, Rajya Sabha wrote, “Firstly,
every citizen in India has a right to privacy. His right to pirivacy
is an inherent aspect of his personal liberty. Interference in the
right to privacy is an interference in his personal liberty by a
process which is not fair, just or reasonable. A person’s Call
Detail Records can throw up details of several transactions. In the
case of an average citizen it can reflect on his relationships. In
the case of a professional or a business person it can reflect on his
financial transactions. In the case of a journalist it can reveal the
identity of his sources. In the case of a politician it can reveal
the identity of the person with whom he has regular access. Every
person has ‘a right to be left alone’.”
Jaitley
added, “In a liberal society there is no
place for those who peep into the private affairs of individuals. No
one has a right to know who another communicates with him. The nature
of communication, the identity of persons being communicated with and
frequency of communications would be a serious breach of
privacy….This incident throws up another
legitimate fear. We are now entering the era of the Adhaar number.
The Government has recently made the existence of the Adhaar number
as a condition precedent for undertaking several activities; from
registering marriages to execution of property documents. Will those
who encroach upon the affairs of others be able to get access to bank
accounts and other important details by breaking into the system? If
this ever becomes possible the consequences would be far messier.”
Revealing
how power clouds human intelligence, Jaitley and his ministerial
colleagues do not comprehend messier consequences of breach of
privacy anymore.
On 8th
April, 2014, Narendra Modi tweeted, "On Aadhaar, neither the
Team that I met nor PM could answer my Qs (questions) on security
threat it can pose. There is no vision, only political gimmick"
in the aftermath of orders of Supreme Court and
Punjab & Haryana High Court, concerns raised by National Human
Rights Commission.
But the
influence of transnational powers has become quite evident from the U
turn by both Jaitley and Modi with regard to biometric aadhaar number
after 21st May,
2014 when BJP led coalition became the ruling party at the centre.
Considerations
other than truth have given birth to Modi government’s faith in 12
digit biometric aadhaar number. The issuance of 83 crore Aadhaar
numbers does not make it scientific. The entire
government machinery is hiding the fact that fundamentally UID is not
a proof of identity, it is an identifier contained in the Central
Identities Data Repository (CIDR) of UID numbers.
Aadhaar is the brand name of UID Number. Admittedly,
government’s Paper on Privacy Bill states, “Data privacy and the
need to protect personal information is almost never a concern when
data is stored in a decentralized manner. Data that is maintained in
silos is largely useless outside that silo and consequently has a low
likelihood of causing any damage. However, all this is likely to
change with the implementation of the UID Project. One of the
inevitable consequences of the UID Project will be that the UID
Number will unify multiple databases. As more and more agencies of
the government sign on to the UID Project, the UID Number will become
the common thread that links all those databases together. Over time,
private enterprise could also adopt the UID Number as an identifier
for the purposes of the delivery of their services or even for
enrolment as a customer.”
This
paper prophetically infers that “Once this happens, the separation
of data that currently exists between multiple databases will
vanish.” This poses a threat to the identity of citizens and the
idea of residents of the state as private persons will be forever
abandoned. Government is feigning ignorance about these concerns
in the Supreme Court.
Following the footprint of Pakistan, in
October 2014, the Prime Ministers’ Office agreed in principle to
make biometric aadhaar mandatory for getting new mobile connection.
It has been made mandatory for railway e-tickets and Banking
Correspondents as well.
Notably,
Biometrics “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.
Notably,
Human DNA Profiling Bill has been prepared and which when
enacted could require the citizen to give one's DNA to the
state. What ambitions does this reveal? This would complete the
journey of subjugation which started with fingerprints and is
possibly ending in DNA profiling.
The
profiling, and the intrusion of privacy, that is a central
aspect of these projects are, among other things, contrary to
the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 4th
July, 2011 [Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 176 of
2009] where it reiterated that the Right to
Privacy is a part of the constitutional Right to
Life. The central government has shown disdain towards this judgment
by launching aadhaar related projects on the basis of biometrics
which is untested and untried, and which have surveillance,
tracking, profiling, tagging and convergence at its core.
UIDAI had
set up a Biometrics Standards Committee which revealed that 'the
biometrics will be captured for authentication by government
departments and commercial organisations at the time of service
delivery.' The commercial organisation mentioned herein is not
defined. The working paper of the UIDAI revealed that the 'UID number
will only guarantee identity, not rights, benefits or entitlements'.
It is also said that it would not even guarantee identity, it would
only provide 'aid' in identification. In fact it makes right to
having rights conditional on having biometric aadhaar.
Notably,
Biometrics Standards Committee had categorically stated that
UID/aadhaar’s is meant only for “civilian application” but the
order on aadhaar enabled biometric attendance system has been
extended to defence employees as well. The fact remains UID was first
adopted by USA’s Department of Defence, later by NATO. It has
subsequently been pushed through World Bank’s eTransform Initiative
in partnership with France, South Korea, Gemalto,
IBM, L1, Microsoft, Intel and Pfizer. Some of them have signed
agreements with UIDAI. This constitutes breach of
national security.
Across
the globe very stringent data privacy law has been framed wherein
one’s personal data cannot be used by anyone including the
government without your specific consent. But in India there is no
data protection law. Aadhaar is akin to a piece of collar which the
transnational powers want to tie on the neck of Indian citizens.
Government has allowed itself to be misled and it has failed to
protect personal sensitive information which has already gone to
foreign companies.
It must
be recalled that Dr. Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister had distributed
Unique Identification (UID)/ Aadhaar numbers among the villagers
of Tembhali village in
Nandurbar District of Maharashtra on 29th September
2010. “The Aadhaar number will ease these
difficulties in identification, by providing a nationally valid and
verifiable single source of identity proof. The UIDAI will ensure the
uniqueness of the Aadhaar numbers through the use of biometric
attributes (Finger Prints and Iris) which will be linked to the
number”.
It has
now come to light as per a RTI reply of April 2015 that out of 83.5
crore aadhaar numbers issued so far, only 2.19 lakh i.e. 0.03 %
comprised of them who did not have a pre-existing ID proof.
It shows how Indians were taken for a ride.
It must
also be noticed that even the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920,
of colonial vintage, reads: “The object of this bill is to provide
legal authority for taking measurements, finger impressions,
footprints and photographs of persons convicted of, or arrested in
connection with, certain offences.” According to the Identification
of Prisoners Act, 1920, at the time of the acquittal of the prisoner,
his biometric data is required to be destroyed. Since
1857, fingerprint identification methods have been used by police
agencies in India and around the world to identify suspected rebels,
political dissidents and criminals. The method is unfolding to
indiscriminately profile citizens in general to identify them.
The UID/aadhaar project, however, stores the
biometric data forever.
It should
be noted that in its report to Parliament, the Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Finance 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." Countries like China, Australia, UK and France have also
rejected it.
This open
declaration of war against citizens’ sensitive personal information
like biometric data by transnational entities and governments
captured by them paves way for the enslavement of present and future
generations through aadhaar database that lies on cloud beyond Indian
jurisdiction. Such initiatives
must be stopped and boycotted else it will spread its tentacles in
every sphere of life and mobility in the country.
Notably,
central government itself has filed several written affidavits in the
Hon’ble Court contending that right to privacy is a fundamental
right. It is remarkable that one former Union Law Minister has
complained to the Prime Minister informing him about the blunders
being committed by the law officer in question.
There is
a compelling logic for rejection of those parties which implicitly or
explicitly support tracking, profiling, databasing and mortgaging of
citizens’ rights and their sovereignty under the dictates of their
donors and non-state actors. The biometric idea is aimed at making
citizens transparent before the all mighty Governments so that
Government, their servant can remain opaque to safeguard the
interests of undemocratic and ungovernable social control technology
companies.
In a case
of breach of trust central government has proposed to make aadhaar
mandatory although the very first promise which legally questionable
UIDAI made in its aadhaar enrolment form is/was that it is
“voluntary”.
This
Public Statement is a follow up of the Statement of Concern against
UID/aadhaar issued by 17 eminent citizens at a Press Conference at
Press Club of India in New Delhi on 28th
September 2010. These citizens included Justice VR Krishna Iyer,
Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India, Prof Romila Thapar, Historian,
K.G.Kannabiran, Senior Civil Liberties Lawyer, Kavita Srivastava,
PUCL and Right to Food Campaign, Aruna Roy, MKKS, Rajasthan, Nikhil
Dey, MKKS, Rajasthan, S.R.Sankaran, Retired Secretary, Government of
India, Upendra Baxi, Jurist and ex-Vice Chancellor of Universities of
Surat and Delhi, Uma Chakravarthi, Historian, Shohini Ghosh, Teacher
and Film Maker, Amar Kanwar, Film Maker, Bezwada Wilson, Safai
Karamchari Andolan, Trilochan Sastry, IIMB, and Association for
Democratic Reforms, Prof. Jagdish Chhokar, ex- IIMA, and Association
for Democratic Rights, Shabnam Hashmi, ANHAD, Justice A.P.Shah,
Retired Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi and Deep Joshi,
Independent Consultant.
A Dalit
activist who was one of these eminent citizens said, "This
project wants to fix our identities through time. Even after that we
are dead. The information held about us will be fixed to us by the
UID number. Changing an identity will become impossible. We are
working for the eradication of the practice of manual scavenging, for
rehabilitation of those who have been engaged in manual scavenging,
and then leaving behind that tag of manual scavenger. How can we
accept a system that does not allow us to shed that identity and move
on? How can a number that links up databases be good for us?"
We
reiterate our demand that Bills like Human DNA Profiling Bill
2015 and projects like biometric aadhaar "should be halted
before it goes any further”.
Signatories
- Prof. Anil Sadgopal, Scientist, All India Forum for Right to Education (AIFRTE), Bhopal, Email: anilsadgopal@yahoo.com
- Prof. Kalpana Kannabiran, Director, Council for Social Development, Hyderabad, Email: kalpana.kannabiran@gmail.com
- Prof (Dr) Mohan Rao, Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health (CSMCH), Jawaharal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, Email: mohanrao2008@gmail.com
- Dr Meher Engineer, Scientist, former President, Indian Academy of Social Science, Kolkata Email: mengineer2003@gmail.com
- Ram Bahadur Rai, noted senior journalist, Email: rbrai118@gmail.com
- Dr Babu Rao Kalapala, Scientist, formerly with National Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad, Email: baburaokalapala@gmail.com
- Kavita Krishnan, Secretary, All India Progressive Women Association (AIPWA), Email: kavitakrish73@gmail.com
- Prof D M Diwakar, Professor of Economics, A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna, , Email: dmdiwakar@yahoo.co.in
- Arun Kumar, former Member, Press Council of India, Indian Journalists Union, General Secretary, Bihar Working Journalists Union & President, The Times of India Newspaper Employees Union, Patna, Email: karunpatna@gmail.com
- Sankar Ray, veteran journalist, Email: sankar.ray@gmail.com
- N D Jayaprakash, Disarmament Researcher & veteran activist seeking justice for victims of Bhopal disaster, Email: jaypdsf@gmail.com
- Shabnam Hashmi, social activist, Anhad, Email: shabnamhashmi@gmail.com
- Irfan Ahmed, General Secretary, All India Tanjin-e-Insaf, Bihar, Email: irfan.tree@gmail.com
- Guman Singh, Himalaya Niti Abhiyan, Himachal Pradesh, Email:guman107@yahoo.co.in
- Wilfred D’ Costa, Indian Social Action Forum, Delhi, Email: willyindia@gmail.com
- Prakash K Ray, Editor, bargad.org, Email: pkray11@gmail.com
- Gopal Krishna, Member, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL), Email: 1715krishna@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment