[gumby]

I am suspicious of numbers like 99% especially given that the aadhaar scheme is only a few years old. Such statistics are always...messy and look at how hard it is to get other such statistics (vaccination numbers for example). India has an unusually good (by international standards) ability to get some of these mass efforts implemented (again, I'm thinking of vaccination push) but never this quickly.

In addition, such programs do well in areas of good communication, and are weaker in more remote areas and those with weaker educational systems. Which is not an India-specific issue. And it is those hard-to-count people who need the program the most. Also those people are in areas where the local officials are typically the most mendacious (which is why they are hard to reach)... you see the problem.

Sure, all my family in Mumbai and Pune have cards, no problem. A few out in the countryside....likely but it's not like I am close to them.

That was one of my points about it being mandatory: the very people it needs to help are the ones who will be last to get it.

BTW the other problem I mention, the instrument of control, is not addressed by your comment.

(Speaking of you comment: someone downvoted it, which (the down voting) doesn't make sense. Your comment was factual and non-inflammatory. I gave it an upvote because I don't like people down voting something just because they disagree with it)

[abhishivsaxena]

But if we don't believe in any statistics what else is to debate?

That's the point I was bringing up, that there seems to me much conjecture and not much facts being brought up by Anti-Aadhaar lobby.

I think enrollment started in 2011 - so it's 6 years to get 99% coverage.

I don't think it's fair to bring in other statistics into this, because in this case all they have to do a SQL COUNT to get the number of enrolled. It's what they were supposed to do after all.

> In addition, such programs do well in areas of good communication, and are weaker in more remote areas and those with weaker educational systems. Which is not an India-specific issue. And it is those hard-to-count people who need the program the most. Also those people are in areas where the local officials are typically the most mendacious (which is why they are hard to reach)... you see the problem.

It's totally not like that. Sorry to say, but your comment sounds like you have never been to these areas, and are just conjecturing mentally. Please have a look at the enrolment infrastructure UIDAI specifically built to get to universal coverage. It's actually a good case study for other countries to learn from.

EDIT: don't care at all about downvotes.

[realonedev]

Enrollment started in 2011 and people also got it via post in 2011.

Why do you think the people didn't supported the privacy activists for all these 5 years ?

Who are the people making disproportionate amount of noise (not signal) against Aadhar ?

Do they actually care about privacy? Hard to believe.

Do these people have vested interest in sustaining the corrupt middleman model ? Easy to believe.

If you had lost thousands of rupees because ( bribe money) because of Aadhar card of others, you would definitely make noise ( not signal ).

[JumpCrisscross]

> Do they actually care about privacy? Hard to believe. Do these people have vested interest in sustaining the corrupt middleman model ? Easy to believe.

Are there people whose corrupt interests are impacted by Aadhar creating noise? Surely. Does that mean there are no legitimate concerns about such a program? Of course not. We're trying to discuss the latter here. I do not find you meaningfully contributing to that discussion, with the exception of your first post (in which you mention the benefits Aadhar brought your parents).

I mentioned elsewhere that centralized anti-corruption programs have a terrible track record for a reason. If you couldn't count on your institutions to prevent corruption, you cannot count on them to prevent abuse of power. Given that track record, a default position of scepticism is warranted.

India has a history of handing tremendous power to strong(wo)men, and suffering tremendously for it. Creating a tool that allows politicians to punish surgically-targeted swaths of political and/or economic opposition should be approached cautiously. Decrying any opposition to the program as the product of corrupt stooges is bad rhetoric at best, and corrosive to informed debate and the democratic process, within India and internationally, at worst.

[abhishivsaxena]

> I mentioned elsewhere that centralized anti-corruption programs have a terrible track record for a reason. If you couldn't count on your institutions to prevent corruption, you cannot count on them to prevent abuse of power. Given that track record, a default position of scepticism is warranted.

This isn't an anti corruption program. Just an National Id like in any other country. And BM authentication to keep your data secure using consent driven architecture.

Astonishing how something even simple that would create such noise in India.