[intended]

Right, and them getting that it self is a huge change in the Aadhar act

Aadhar was originally sold as just an ack this number matches those finger prints.

Now in the 2016 act, it provides all those details. All of which are enough to determine your religion, caste and more.

The issue is not about the tech, it is about trust and about rights.

None of which are directly responsible for increasing GDP, just the same way GDP is not responsible for making the difference between being a bunch of companies and being a nation.

[abhishivsaxena]

KYC was a part of Aadhaar from day one.

I assume you are implying someone can determine your religion, caste and more by using your name.

If you signup for a bank account or a mobile company, they would have your name/dob in any case - Aadhaar or No-Aadhaar. Like in any other country on this planet.

This isn't textbook definition of causing FUD? And it's shocking that Mozilla is at forefront of it.

Also, using buzzwords like "trust", "rights" doesn't augment your arguments, if it's missing a coherent rational structure.

[intended]

Sorry, court documents and legislature say otherwise.

There's a problem with banks as well, but they are private bodies which are not in the business of exercising power.

Is your bank responsible for your peacekeeping and policing ? It is not.

You misunderstand the stakes here, this is the house on fire and someone is mildly saying "oh that's a terrible idea"

Accusations of lack of rationality are valid when you have the locus standii proven by base knowledge of subject matter. Your various assertions here and in other parts of the thread do not suggest that

But if you cn prove that those words do not augment the argument I'll concede.

So how is this not a matter of rights and trust. Please demonstrate.

[abhishivsaxena]

> Is your bank responsible for your peacekeeping and policing ? It is not.

So you are fine with the bank having your name/dob/gender. But don't want the government to have it?

In case you don't know, govt already knows these attributes about you. Birth certificates, passports, PAN for high value transactions. FUD.

> Accusations of lack of rationality are valid when you have the locus standii proven by base knowledge of subject matter. Your various assertions here and in other parts of the thread do not suggest that

Oh, I think I do! Along with overwhelming majority of a billion+ Indians who are very happy using Aadhaar, doing millions of transactions each day, and want the program further expanded.

> So how is this not a matter of rights and trust. Please demonstrate.

That is for you to demonstrate, since it's your argument. Not me! Hence I said devoid of rational arguments.

[intended]

I have an issue with all privacy norms in the country at the moment. I would want far more stringent norms in place.

I definitely relatively less issue with a private entity than a govt.

The Govt is in the business of making laws and exercising power over me. The business I can chose.

The govt in turn controls the laws which control the business.

If the Govt gives no care, then for sure - the business will not either.

Therefore, Govt control and behavior is paramount. Next is private.

The fact that the Govt controls these things without biometrics over multiple different databases is OK.

The fact that aadhar is

1) a biometric data base (and biometrics I decry in particular)

2) which is being used to unify all databases

3) including things which it is not supposed to,

4) with the architecture underlying Aadhar

5) while removing all options to opt out

6) For demonstrably false gains (the AP results, their false reduction in costs claims)

Are immediate and clear over step of Govt power over Citizen rights.

This over step creates the levers and mechanism for the Govt to influence and control citizens at a scale at which our laws and constitution are not designed to protect.

Even now - there is no law for privacy, and the govt has claimed that we have no ultimate right over our bodies, or that there is any right to privacy.

These are not FUD as you keep claiming, but fact.

Let me bold that for you -

The GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS SAID TO THE SUPREME COURT THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE A FINAL RIGHT TO YOUR BODY AND YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

These are fundamentally true - there is no framework for privacy in India.

I would like to see a framework which prevents companies from compiling surnanmes or caste information, or bundling address information and other such data into lists which can be used.

This data should fundamentally be blocked and broken up, without ability to be connected easily.

People who do create such lists should be worried, not resting easy.

> Oh, I think I do! Along with overwhelming majority of a billion

And Ancient Rome thought Lead vessels were the best vessels.

The fact is that a majority of Indians do not know what the constitution is, what their protections are, and do not have recourse to it.

However - when Indians do learn their rights, they value them and fight for them.

It is instead people like you - who sell their rights for cheap pennies, who are considered craven, and who they despise.

Do not go around attributing that billion+ to anything when you have no proof.

As it stands, more evidence of the utter failure of aadhar to achieve its ends keeps being brought up.

> That is for you to demonstrate, since it's your argument

I state that it is a matter of my right to privacy and trust in governance. I state it is so, and for evidence bring forward the Case of Aadhar and Privacy currently being studied by the Supreme Court of India.

The SC of India, is a far higher and learned body than you, and if they consider the case to be a matter of the right to Privacy, then it is so legally.

Now please, show me how Aadhdar is not about Rights and Trust.

[abhishivsaxena]

> 1) a biometric data base (and biometrics I decry in particular)

true

> 2) which is being used to unify all databases

false. And also FUD. PAN can be used for more tacking that Aadhaar.

> 3) including things which it is not supposed to,

false, strictly what's mandated by parliament in the Aadhaar bill. In a democracy parliament is suprement, not some privacy-wallahs.

> 4) with the architecture underlying Aadhar

not relevant to argument

> 5) while removing all options to opt out

true, so? It's mandated by parliament. It's like a mandatory tax ID.

6) For demonstrably false gains (the AP results, their false reduction in costs claims)

false

Bottom line, Aadhaar is just like any other ID or Tax ID, and no amount of disinformation will change that. It stores and 4 attribues about you name/dob/gender/address and two biometrics.

Biometrics actually make the system more secure, since it's driven by a biometric based consent driven architecture with stuff like instant notifications whenever you data is assessed. Only you can allow who accesses these 4 attributes by authenticating via biometrics or by OTP.

It's mandated by the parliament. If you don't like it, please try to get a party in power which would dismantle it next time. If that doesn't happen I'm afraid the only other option for you is to move.

> The fact is that a majority of Indians do not know what the constitution is, what their protections are, and do not have recourse to it.

> It is instead people like you - who sell their rights for cheap pennies, who are considered craven, and who they despise.

Another example of the quality of demeaning discourse peddled by Anti-Aadhaar lobby.

But doesn't matter. As long as the overwhelming majority of billion+ Indians keeps backing Aadhaar and keep on doing millions of transactions everyday, all this online FUD wouldn't count for anything.

[intended]

? > false. And also FUD. PAN can be used for more tacking that Aadhaar.

But pan isn't being used - difference between can do and doing.

> false, strictly what's mandated by parliament in the Aadhaar bill. In a democracy parliament is suprement, not some privacy-wallahs.

Proof? Supreme court is hearing case because Government broke the law.

Proof of your assertion?

>true, so? It's mandated by parliament. It's like a mandatory tax ID.

Infringes on my right to privacy, while not doing anything to help the country.

>6) For demonstrably false gains (the AP results, their false reduction in costs claims) >false

Proof?

You make loots of claims, but don't have anything to back it up.

All of the things I have claimed are true. You just say false.

I am happy to listen and read any links you have which show your position as true.