Power of a single identity

Power of a single identity

Context

Indian activists echo American conservatives of the 1930s, but Aadhaar is the best tool to administer the subsidy regime

Social Security Act of US

The United States enacted the landmark Social Security Act in 1935, giving birth to the Social Security Number (SSN). The debate leading up to the Act was highly contentious, as conservative Republicans/Congressmen declared, “Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought in here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers, and … opens the door and invites the entrance into a political field of a power so vast, so powerful, as to threaten the integrity of our institutions….”

Safety nets

• The fearmongering ultimately failed to impress the American public, and over the years Social Security and its counterpart, Medicare, have become the only safety nets for a majority of America’s elderly
• It continues to be the backbone of citizen interactions with the state — for the simple reason that no one has come up with a better alternative.

Aadhaar raising the same type of debate

Eighty-three years later, the apocalyptic rhetoric of those opposing Aadhaar in India’s Supreme Court harkens back to the arguments made against the SSN: “[Aadhaar] tends to terrorise citizens with the country becoming a totalitarian regime; ” and “it is a ‘giant electronic mesh’ and will turn the country ‘into a surveillance state.’”

There is a difference though

The opposition to Social Security was informed by right-wing ideology, which saw it as the harbinger of socialism and an existential threat to America’s capitalist enterprise. In stark contrast, the movement against Aadhaar is led by a small group of Left-leaning activists, who are well known for advocating more and more government in people’s lives (the public distribution system, rural employment guarantee, food security, and so on), but who are now arguing in the same breath for the citizens’ right to be left alone.

The biometric difference

Petitioners will, of course, argue that there is another crucial difference between the SSN and Aadhaar: biometrics.

One can’t change his fingerprints: Unlike other personal information that one can change at will to protect one’s privacy, they say, one can’t change one’s fingerprints.

Arguments against this difference

More damaging data with social media etc. : But as one of the learned Supreme Court justices observed recently, Google and other social media, mobile operators, and our own voter lists have a lot more immediately damaging personal information that one has no real control over. (Have you ever tried to delete highly personal and sometimes libellous information that show up when you Google your own name?)

None of the breaches involve fingerprint or iris scan data

• Besides, none of the examples of Aadhaar data breaches that have been reported — which we should all be rightly concerned about — involves fingerprints or iris scans.
• So, the argument that biometrics somehow make a more compelling case against Aadhaar simply does not hold water.

Biometrics bring much needed credibility instead

In fact, in a nation with the world’s largest safety net programmes, historically largest levels of leakages, and systemic fraud in every past ID programme, it is indeed the biometrics that bring credibility to Aadhaar as a national ID.

So, where does all this leave us?

Anti Aadhaar activists not offering any alternatives: On the one side, we have a well-organised group of anti-Aadhaar activists who can take full credit for catapulting the privacy debate on to the national stage, but who have not offered a single viable alternative tool to better administer the nation’s massive subsidy regime.

Pushing questionable stories forward: Unfortunately, in their eagerness to quash Aadhaar, they seem even willing to embrace questionable storylines deliberately designed to bait and malign the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) prior to the Supreme Court hearings. Example: For example, when the UIDAI filed a FIR in a case of alleged misuse of its grievance redress system to illegally obtain some people’s Aadhaar demographic data, it was quickly accused of muzzling the free press, when it was merely fulfilling its legal obligation to act on any reported misuse of data.

Best use of a scheme

The Unified and determined Government: On the other side, we have a government at the Centre whose party opposed Aadhaar prior to the elections, but upon taking over the reins quickly realised the power of a single national ID in effectively administering welfare schemes; and which has been much more internally unified than the previous government in its determination to make the best use of Aadhaar.

UIDAI serious in addressing data security and other concerns: And we have the UIDAI, which has consistently shown its seriousness in addressing data security and privacy issues; is poised to add more layers of security, such as virtual Aadhaar ids; is taking an active part in crafting a national data privacy law; but which, unfortunately, has been unable to match the nimbleness of the opposition in its public messaging.

The Supreme Court: In the middle is the Supreme Court, now hearing detailed arguments from both sides.

Not an either or game

When they are through, one would hope that the court will roundly reject the zero sum choice (Aadhaar or privacy) posited by some of the petitioners which would pose a huge setback for administrative reform.

Drawing lines between privacy and national interest

Instead, the Justices will hopefully focus their deliberations on where the nation should draw the line between personal privacy and the national interest.

Author’s view

• In my view, mandating Aadhaar for all government schemes and subsidies, and allowing it as a tool to prevent money laundering and terrorism are the most logical places to draw that line.
• And, lighting the fire under the government to quickly enact a comprehensive national data privacy law, which enshrines internationally accepted principles of privacy, must be the citizens’ insurance policy to prevent mass surveillance and other excessive use of Aadhaar, like in the case of the SSN