| > 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. |
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.