9 ms·

Lets step back and pose a meta question - how does a state go about providing services to its citizen if the state cannot identify citizens as its own and as un

Lets step back and pose a meta question - how does a state go about providing services to its citizen if the state cannot identify citizens as its own and as unique entities. Both being necessary conditions. A well functioning state needs to be a strong (sorry libertarians) and benign (cf. Somalia and North Korea) to take care of its citizens. You can take birth, live and die in a weak state without the State ever knowing you existed, let alone provide you with services. Things we take for granted in the so-called developed economies e.g. getting a birth certificate, accessing public education, voting rights, drivers license - rely on smaller units of government providing unique identity services which are then chained up the ladder. My local hospital provides a birth certificate which is attested to by the county recorder's office which then serves as proof to get a driving license, passport etc. In a weak state like India, the local entities are thoroughly corrupt. A blue eyed/blond 6.5 foot viking can get a birth certificate in an indian province where most citizens are under 5.5 foot and caramel colored for less than a hundred dollars. So I posit my meta question - how is a nation state supposed to provide unique identity authentication? Aadhaar is a 12 digit random number assigned to everyone by the Unique Identification Authority of India. The project was led by one of the founders of Infosys who ran as a Member of Parliament for the opposition Congress party. Each political party takes potshots at it when they are not in power but it has support across the aisle. From my (albeit limited) understanding, Aadhaar is simply authentication - and not tracking. The intelligentsia in India defines themselves by opposition to Aadhaar. There is a huge cacophony of bollywood stars, writers, intellectuals and of course civil libertarians opposing Aadhaar. What is lost is the colossal leakage (euphemism for corruption) in benefits, the lack of existence of hundreds of millions of citizens and the resulting parasitism of political machines to get them benefits of the old system. Does anyone have anything else in mind that would work better? Or is this simply opposition for opposition sake? (edits for clarity)

reaperducer 9y ago
> how does a state go about providing services to its citizen if the state cannot identify citizens as its own and as unique entities. Both being necessary conditions. Are they, really? It's not like the government is buying people cars. They're handing out food to starving children. If people are hungry, give them food. Don't make them jump through hoops for it. Perhaps my problem is that I see it as an American. Americans are citizens of their country whether they can prove it or not. Whether they can pass an ID scan or not. It's one of the reasons why voter ID proposals are so vocally opposed. I am a citizen, just as I am a human being. I do not need to prove it to exist. I didn't even have a Social Security number until I was an adult and wanted to start work. It wasn't until the tax authorities made SSN's mandatory to deduct dependents from your taxes that people started registering their babies at birth. However, in some other nations, people don't think of themselves as citizens unless they have the blessing of their government in the form of a document or a registration number. Americans look at the Soviet Union, and other failed states and worry about what happens when a particular group of people falls out of favor and can be disenfranchised with the click of a button.
- haltingproblem 9y ago
  > Americans are citizens of their country whether they can prove it or not. Whether they can pass an ID scan or not. It's one of the reasons why voter ID proposals are so vocally opposed. I am a citizen, just as I am a human being. I do not need to prove it to exist. I hope you mean this in jest as this privilege does not apply to vast swathes of the population.
- rohit2412 9y ago
  >> Americans are citizens of their country whether they can prove it or not. Tell that to the undocumented immigrants. You forget that you have a birth certificate to prove you are a citizen.
  - zo1 9y ago
    So then why don't they go and apply to be documented? I'm sure their foreign birth certificate is enough to prove their existence. Oh, that's right, it's illegal and would get declined. Hence the correct term: "illegal immigrants". The topic is complicated and touchy enough without it being muddled with incorrect terminology.
    - rohit2412 9y ago
      I didn't want to fall into this debate, hence used the politically correct term. My point being, the other guy is arguing that USA doesn't require identity documents, which is laughable. You need SSN just to earn money in USA.
      - zo1 9y ago
        Sorry - I didn't mean to single out your specific usage of the term. Just a bit of a touchy topic as well because I find such language-manipulation that appears trivial on the surface to be a tool used to control discussion. And as a legal migrant, I find the right to be in a host country a privilege; one that should be earned rather than demanded.
firasd 9y ago
First of all, Aadhaar is not just being used for welfare schemes. It is a giant database getting linked to everything. I wouldn't be surprised if it will soon be mandatory for booking flights. Plus much of the database has leaked. You can find thousands of Aadhar cards online just by googling. As far as preventing 'leakage'--the best approach would be to not subsidize products but to move to direct benefits transfer (like food stamps in the US.) The government has been doing this anyway, for things like the LGP cooking gas subsidy. But even that has been problematic in terms of implementation. When it comes to solving corruption, we can't let technocratic bureaucrats come up with solutions in air-conditioned offices and hand-wave away the deprivation and other problems their solutions cause on the ground.
- haltingproblem 9y ago
  And how do you provide DBT - direct benefits transfer - to whom? How do you qualify them? Underpinning all this is identity. A modern state that cannot establish identity is not very useful. (Wow, I am being downvoted).
  - firasd 9y ago
    The money goes into people's bank accounts which already have many know-your-customer ID requirements. If also requiring Aadhaar for bank accounts was the limit of its mandate there would be a lot less outrage. The creeping, maximalist scope is what causes the increasing discomfort among people about this program.
    - haltingproblem 9y ago
      So the bank was able to fulfill KYC requirements for someone who qualifies for a below the poverty level scheme? Lack of papers is what Aadhaar is supposed to cure. You are passing the identity buck. These people are so poor they live their whole lives without a solid roof over their head. They don't have a birth certificate, a driver's license, a passport. The mere mention of these documents is somewhat of a cruel joke in their economic context. They would have to give up a significant part of the benefits to middlemen in the old system. (edited).
CryptoPunk 9y ago
>>A well functioning state needs to be a strong (sorry libertarians) and benign (cf. Somalia and North Korea) to take care of its citizens. I don't think a state being strong contradicts libertarian principles. It's the state being expansive that is anti-liberty. A strong state that limits itself to core functions (e.g. prosecuting those who resort to aggressive violence, in order to replace the law of the jungle with the law of the market) can potentially result in the most 'libertarian' possible society. >>In a weak state like India, the local entities are thoroughly corrupt. A blue eyed/blond 6.5 foot viking can get a birth certificate in an indian province where most citizens are under 5.5 foot and caramel colored for less than a hundred dollars. I don't think the identification system or biometric data linked to it is the main problem. The question is why it's made mandatory to use for nongovernmental services if the purpose is just to prevent people from defrauding the government? Clearly it goes far beyond corruption of government programs.
justinmk 9y ago
> how does a state go about providing services to its citizen if the state cannot identify citizens as its own and as unique entities. That's why it is risky to insist that the State should "provide benefits". The more benefits from the State, the more one needs to consult the State for daily life. This stuff isn't surprising, it's a natural extension of entitlements, it happens every time. If the government provides healthcare, it won't be long before your life choices become the government's business.
ekianjo 9y ago
> A well functioning state needs to be a strong (sorry libertarians)... to take care of its citizens. Libertarians are for a strong state capable of upholding the Law. What libertarians are against is a BIG state that goes beyond its role into the private sphere of its citizens (that's why we have constitutions and such systems to clearly define boundaries).
buvanshak 9y ago
>how does a state go about providing services to its citizen if the state cannot identify citizens as its own and as unique entities. A man comes to you and ask you for money. He says that he is hungry. In this case, you have two options. 1. You can give him the money. But you risk being scammed, because you cannot actually check that the man is actually hungry. If you give them money, there is no way to make sure that they did not buy liquor instead of food. This is what Aadhar is supposed to solve. 2. You can offer to buy him food (not a parcel or takeaway). In this case, there is no risk of being scammed. I think governments should try to do 2, instead of strapping on things like Aadhar in the name of doing 1, as it has a lot of chance of misuse and is vastly less reliable than 2.. As a solid implementation, instead of providing rations for rice and fuel, to prepare food, what if governments can open hotels, where one can have a solid, healthy meal for real cheap, For any one and every one who bothers to show up?
- si1verbu11et 9y ago
  The indian government has traditionally subsidized rations and fuel over the decades. This system was gamed massively by middlemen and black marketeers. Linking Aadhar to this system has certainly plugged many holes. The issue of misuse of data by the government is still a concern. People in power are corrupt more often than not, so it's a matter when and not if aadhar will be misused by the authorities. >As a solid implementation, instead of providing rations for rice and fuel, to prepare food, what if governments can open hotels, where one can have a solid, healthy meal for real cheap, For any one and every one who bothers to show up? This is also being tried, eg amma canteen -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amma_Unavagam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amma_Unavagam by Jayalalitha aka amma in the state of tamil nadu.named after the politician convicted by the ocurt for corruption and who never served a sentence. also, Indira canteen -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Canteens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Canteens by rahul gandhi in Karnataka. named after India's first woman prime minister(grand mother of rahul gandhi and daughter of nehru who was India's first prime minister). hero worship and dynasty politics in food subsidy programs funded by the tax payer. The food is good though or so I hear. Technology can certainly ease our pain, or will it make it worse?
newyankee 9y ago
That is a great summary, while i am a big privacy advocate myself, having observed India's ills from so close Aadhar's benefits outweights its costs. I just hope that we have better security systems, lot of third party auditing and limits to the areas where Aadhar would be needed. Unfortunately in a country like India to reduce corruption, improve PDS we need a better system and a well designed, maintained Aadhar system is one of the solutions. India being a democracy so many voices against it are raised unlike China, many points are valid though. However what gets me is the large scale fear mongering especially from people who have no idea about third world problems and priorities. These are the people who would give answers like 'why would X not find a job if he is so poor' ?
intended 9y ago
Theres an error in your question, and to illustrate it, Ill extend the answer to an extreme length. Well the BEST way would be to put every human being in a cell, and then have a location for it. That way food, water, shelter, healthcare can all be given immediately. ---- The state should provide humans the ability to live their life. Aadhar however gives the state too much power, and for little actual value. The only real way to work a state is to make those local units work. This is the ACTUAL hard work of a nation state - but most of our best and brightest want to leave the country and go abroad. This means anyone ethical and hardworking leaves. You can imagine what that gap implies.

reaperducer 9y ago

> how does a state go about providing services to its citizen if the state cannot identify citizens as its own and as unique entities. Both being necessary conditions. Are they, really? It's not like the government is buying people cars. They're handing out food to starving children. If people are hungry, give them food. Don't make them jump through hoops for it. Perhaps my problem is that I see it as an American. Americans are citizens of their country whether they can prove it or not. Whether they can pass an ID scan or not. It's one of the reasons why voter ID proposals are so vocally opposed. I am a citizen, just as I am a human being. I do not need to prove it to exist. I didn't even have a Social Security number until I was an adult and wanted to start work. It wasn't until the tax authorities made SSN's mandatory to deduct dependents from your taxes that people started registering their babies at birth. However, in some other nations, people don't think of themselves as citizens unless they have the blessing of their government in the form of a document or a registration number. Americans look at the Soviet Union, and other failed states and worry about what happens when a particular group of people falls out of favor and can be disenfranchised with the click of a button.

haltingproblem 9y ago
> Americans are citizens of their country whether they can prove it or not. Whether they can pass an ID scan or not. It's one of the reasons why voter ID proposals are so vocally opposed. I am a citizen, just as I am a human being. I do not need to prove it to exist. I hope you mean this in jest as this privilege does not apply to vast swathes of the population.
rohit2412 9y ago
>> Americans are citizens of their country whether they can prove it or not. Tell that to the undocumented immigrants. You forget that you have a birth certificate to prove you are a citizen.
- zo1 9y ago
  So then why don't they go and apply to be documented? I'm sure their foreign birth certificate is enough to prove their existence. Oh, that's right, it's illegal and would get declined. Hence the correct term: "illegal immigrants". The topic is complicated and touchy enough without it being muddled with incorrect terminology.
  - rohit2412 9y ago
    I didn't want to fall into this debate, hence used the politically correct term. My point being, the other guy is arguing that USA doesn't require identity documents, which is laughable. You need SSN just to earn money in USA.
    - zo1 9y ago
      Sorry - I didn't mean to single out your specific usage of the term. Just a bit of a touchy topic as well because I find such language-manipulation that appears trivial on the surface to be a tool used to control discussion. And as a legal migrant, I find the right to be in a host country a privilege; one that should be earned rather than demanded.

firasd 9y ago

First of all, Aadhaar is not just being used for welfare schemes. It is a giant database getting linked to everything. I wouldn't be surprised if it will soon be mandatory for booking flights. Plus much of the database has leaked. You can find thousands of Aadhar cards online just by googling. As far as preventing 'leakage'--the best approach would be to not subsidize products but to move to direct benefits transfer (like food stamps in the US.) The government has been doing this anyway, for things like the LGP cooking gas subsidy. But even that has been problematic in terms of implementation. When it comes to solving corruption, we can't let technocratic bureaucrats come up with solutions in air-conditioned offices and hand-wave away the deprivation and other problems their solutions cause on the ground.

haltingproblem 9y ago
And how do you provide DBT - direct benefits transfer - to whom? How do you qualify them? Underpinning all this is identity. A modern state that cannot establish identity is not very useful. (Wow, I am being downvoted).
- firasd 9y ago
  The money goes into people's bank accounts which already have many know-your-customer ID requirements. If also requiring Aadhaar for bank accounts was the limit of its mandate there would be a lot less outrage. The creeping, maximalist scope is what causes the increasing discomfort among people about this program.
  - haltingproblem 9y ago
    So the bank was able to fulfill KYC requirements for someone who qualifies for a below the poverty level scheme? Lack of papers is what Aadhaar is supposed to cure. You are passing the identity buck. These people are so poor they live their whole lives without a solid roof over their head. They don't have a birth certificate, a driver's license, a passport. The mere mention of these documents is somewhat of a cruel joke in their economic context. They would have to give up a significant part of the benefits to middlemen in the old system. (edited).

CryptoPunk 9y ago

>>A well functioning state needs to be a strong (sorry libertarians) and benign (cf. Somalia and North Korea) to take care of its citizens. I don't think a state being strong contradicts libertarian principles. It's the state being expansive that is anti-liberty. A strong state that limits itself to core functions (e.g. prosecuting those who resort to aggressive violence, in order to replace the law of the jungle with the law of the market) can potentially result in the most 'libertarian' possible society. >>In a weak state like India, the local entities are thoroughly corrupt. A blue eyed/blond 6.5 foot viking can get a birth certificate in an indian province where most citizens are under 5.5 foot and caramel colored for less than a hundred dollars. I don't think the identification system or biometric data linked to it is the main problem. The question is why it's made mandatory to use for nongovernmental services if the purpose is just to prevent people from defrauding the government? Clearly it goes far beyond corruption of government programs.

justinmk 9y ago

> how does a state go about providing services to its citizen if the state cannot identify citizens as its own and as unique entities. That's why it is risky to insist that the State should "provide benefits". The more benefits from the State, the more one needs to consult the State for daily life. This stuff isn't surprising, it's a natural extension of entitlements, it happens every time. If the government provides healthcare, it won't be long before your life choices become the government's business.

ekianjo 9y ago

> A well functioning state needs to be a strong (sorry libertarians)... to take care of its citizens. Libertarians are for a strong state capable of upholding the Law. What libertarians are against is a BIG state that goes beyond its role into the private sphere of its citizens (that's why we have constitutions and such systems to clearly define boundaries).

buvanshak 9y ago

>how does a state go about providing services to its citizen if the state cannot identify citizens as its own and as unique entities. A man comes to you and ask you for money. He says that he is hungry. In this case, you have two options. 1. You can give him the money. But you risk being scammed, because you cannot actually check that the man is actually hungry. If you give them money, there is no way to make sure that they did not buy liquor instead of food. This is what Aadhar is supposed to solve. 2. You can offer to buy him food (not a parcel or takeaway). In this case, there is no risk of being scammed. I think governments should try to do 2, instead of strapping on things like Aadhar in the name of doing 1, as it has a lot of chance of misuse and is vastly less reliable than 2.. As a solid implementation, instead of providing rations for rice and fuel, to prepare food, what if governments can open hotels, where one can have a solid, healthy meal for real cheap, For any one and every one who bothers to show up?

si1verbu11et 9y ago
The indian government has traditionally subsidized rations and fuel over the decades. This system was gamed massively by middlemen and black marketeers. Linking Aadhar to this system has certainly plugged many holes. The issue of misuse of data by the government is still a concern. People in power are corrupt more often than not, so it's a matter when and not if aadhar will be misused by the authorities. >As a solid implementation, instead of providing rations for rice and fuel, to prepare food, what if governments can open hotels, where one can have a solid, healthy meal for real cheap, For any one and every one who bothers to show up? This is also being tried, eg amma canteen -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amma_Unavagam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amma_Unavagam by Jayalalitha aka amma in the state of tamil nadu.named after the politician convicted by the ocurt for corruption and who never served a sentence. also, Indira canteen -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Canteens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Canteens by rahul gandhi in Karnataka. named after India's first woman prime minister(grand mother of rahul gandhi and daughter of nehru who was India's first prime minister). hero worship and dynasty politics in food subsidy programs funded by the tax payer. The food is good though or so I hear. Technology can certainly ease our pain, or will it make it worse?

newyankee 9y ago

That is a great summary, while i am a big privacy advocate myself, having observed India's ills from so close Aadhar's benefits outweights its costs. I just hope that we have better security systems, lot of third party auditing and limits to the areas where Aadhar would be needed. Unfortunately in a country like India to reduce corruption, improve PDS we need a better system and a well designed, maintained Aadhar system is one of the solutions. India being a democracy so many voices against it are raised unlike China, many points are valid though. However what gets me is the large scale fear mongering especially from people who have no idea about third world problems and priorities. These are the people who would give answers like 'why would X not find a job if he is so poor' ?

intended 9y ago

Theres an error in your question, and to illustrate it, Ill extend the answer to an extreme length. Well the BEST way would be to put every human being in a cell, and then have a location for it. That way food, water, shelter, healthcare can all be given immediately. ---- The state should provide humans the ability to live their life. Aadhar however gives the state too much power, and for little actual value. The only real way to work a state is to make those local units work. This is the ACTUAL hard work of a nation state - but most of our best and brightest want to leave the country and go abroad. This means anyone ethical and hardworking leaves. You can imagine what that gap implies.