4 ms·

> I haven't linked my Aadhaar to my phone yet and if the Supreme Court hadn't extended the deadline my phone would have stopped working by now. This thing is a

> I haven't linked my Aadhaar to my phone yet and if the Supreme Court hadn't extended the deadline my phone would have stopped working by now. This thing is a real and present menace, not just a political science question. I guess you are attacking this issue keeping privacy in mind. However, from the Government's point of view, the need for linking mobile phones is to have a secured way of authenticating your Aadhaar related transactions. The Government doesn't want to end up in a liability if a situation arises where the OTP was sent to a person who later claims that the number did not belong to him in the first place. The Government is actually trying to protect itself from future litigations. This is the same reason many services, including banks and credit card companies recommend 2-Factor Authentication. Since Aadhaar is primarily an authentication mechanism and not a tracking mechanism, authentication can only be performed either by scanning your fingerprints or via a trusted device through an OTP (in this case, your verified and trusted mobile number). Since a fingerprint scanner is not ubiquitous but a mobile is, the Government is for now relying on mobile OTP for conducting most authentications.

captn3m0 9y ago
While your argument is sound (2-way linking with Aadhaar saves the government from litigation), it is not the argument that the GoI has made for SIM linking. The AG has argued in court that mobile linking is to prevent terrorists from getting Aadhaar. This is on top of the weird order that DoT issued: https://www.huffingtonpost.in/chitranshul-sinha/no-the-supreme-court-has-not-made-it-mandatory-for-you-to-link-your-phone-with-aadhaar_a_23210185/ https://www.huffingtonpost.in/chitranshul-sinha/no-the-supre... (tl;dr: DoT quotes a Supreme Court ruling which questioned the government on KYC-norms for telecom industry, which the DoT conveniently reworded to mean "Aadhaar"-only)
- shripadk 9y ago
  You can also view it in the context that the previous AG wasn't working in government interest. In fact, there was a hue and cry about removal of the previous AG by Dr. Subramanian Swamy in the 2G scam case: https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/subramanian-swamy-alleges-internal-sabotage-in-2g-scam-verdict/articleshow/62193024.cms https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/subrama...
- incompatible 9y ago
  The "terrorists" argument always seems like a big red herring in these discussions. But it's an interesting point that if the government decides you are a "terrorist", which maybe they can do without you ever being convicted of anything, you can be shut out of much of society by being deprived of I.D. On the other hand, somebody the government doesn't suspect can simply sign up for I.D. like anybody else and carry out an attack at their convenience.

captn3m0 9y ago

While your argument is sound (2-way linking with Aadhaar saves the government from litigation), it is not the argument that the GoI has made for SIM linking. The AG has argued in court that mobile linking is to prevent terrorists from getting Aadhaar. This is on top of the weird order that DoT issued: https://www.huffingtonpost.in/chitranshul-sinha/no-the-supreme-court-has-not-made-it-mandatory-for-you-to-link-your-phone-with-aadhaar_a_23210185/ https://www.huffingtonpost.in/chitranshul-sinha/no-the-supre... (tl;dr: DoT quotes a Supreme Court ruling which questioned the government on KYC-norms for telecom industry, which the DoT conveniently reworded to mean "Aadhaar"-only)

shripadk 9y ago
You can also view it in the context that the previous AG wasn't working in government interest. In fact, there was a hue and cry about removal of the previous AG by Dr. Subramanian Swamy in the 2G scam case: https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/subramanian-swamy-alleges-internal-sabotage-in-2g-scam-verdict/articleshow/62193024.cms https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/subrama...
incompatible 9y ago
The "terrorists" argument always seems like a big red herring in these discussions. But it's an interesting point that if the government decides you are a "terrorist", which maybe they can do without you ever being convicted of anything, you can be shut out of much of society by being deprived of I.D. On the other hand, somebody the government doesn't suspect can simply sign up for I.D. like anybody else and carry out an attack at their convenience.