3 ms·

I really dislike the economist. To me the very first thing this program makes me think of is how the government will abuse it. They briefly mention that there i

I really dislike the economist. To me the very first thing this program makes me think of is how the government will abuse it. They briefly mention that there is the possibility that some sort of privacy issue might pop up in the future, but quickly dismiss the argument as outweighed by the ends these means achieve. They even get a swipe in at 'market distorting subsidies' while their at it. While other magazines might have bias the Economist takes it to a whole new level. I would call every piece of 'reporting' they do an editorial. That said the article did prompt me to learn more. Top Google results which paint a slightly different picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_Identification_Authority_of_India#Risks_and_criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_Identification_Authority... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/india/indias-unique-id-project-all-but-dead/802 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/india/indias-unique-id-project-all...

yaix 15y ago
I disagree. It may be misused, but the amount of abuse of poor people due to not having an identity is so much worse. Poverty itself is already very dangerous. But poverty without having the ability to prove your own existance is so much more dangerous. Having an own passport or ID card is a big step for many people who had never any official papers about their being. As the Wikipedia article details, the system may not work fully acurate, but it is so much simpler to implement and more reliable than anything else I could think of. Giving out ID cards only? They get lost or destroyed, fakes get made, poors get talked into handing their ID card to that nice guy who will go for them to this-or-that office (especially for elections, etc). A biometric signal is so much more difficult to lose or falsify or get talking into giving it up. And the psycological effect of "officially being a unique person" is quite large (take a look a Muhammad Yunus' book on how he invented the microcredit system and estabished the Grameen bank in Bangladesh).
- monsterix 15y ago
  Applying rocket-science on poor people who don't understand social-profiling issues and intense racial issues sounds like a potent mix to me. System would not work at all, is different from "system may not work fully accurate" because well - you should read the fluff in their tender documents before you lose more tax-payers money.
  - yaix 15y ago
    A biometric database is hardly rocket science anymore. The main problems to overcome are likely not technical but administrative/political. I am pretty sure it will not work at first and for some time, as said political problems will need time to get (hopefully) worked out. As other posters said, only for all gov't offices to start to actually accept the UID will probably take many years. But its a good start.
MarkMc 15y ago
I really like The Economist. It's true that it's generally happy to espouse a point of view in its stories but that makes it much more interesting than, say, the BBC whose impartiality makes it somewhat bland. Their research and standard of writing are excellent - on par with The Guardian or The New York Times - and they occasionally have headlines that make me chuckle (such as this: http://www.economist.com/node/17854975 http://www.economist.com/node/17854975 ) But I admit that I also like it because it's political leanings are similar to mine (although somewhat more to the right) and because it covers topics I'm interested in.
JumpCrisscross 15y ago
The Economist, like the New Yorker and Atlantic, are not un-biased newspapers. They pitch themselves as analysis. It's good to get un-biased data but egotistical to presume that you will extract all the relevance from it a priori. What separates good analysis from the bad is if the underlying data and methodology are presented; The Economist does a good job at this. Regarding abuse of identity data, the US has a SSN identifying everyone. And when you immigrate or naturalise you provide fingerprints. Privacy has an important place, but it does need to be balanced against things. Things like starving, uneducated, and abused populations.

yaix 15y ago

I disagree. It may be misused, but the amount of abuse of poor people due to not having an identity is so much worse. Poverty itself is already very dangerous. But poverty without having the ability to prove your own existance is so much more dangerous. Having an own passport or ID card is a big step for many people who had never any official papers about their being. As the Wikipedia article details, the system may not work fully acurate, but it is so much simpler to implement and more reliable than anything else I could think of. Giving out ID cards only? They get lost or destroyed, fakes get made, poors get talked into handing their ID card to that nice guy who will go for them to this-or-that office (especially for elections, etc). A biometric signal is so much more difficult to lose or falsify or get talking into giving it up. And the psycological effect of "officially being a unique person" is quite large (take a look a Muhammad Yunus' book on how he invented the microcredit system and estabished the Grameen bank in Bangladesh).

monsterix 15y ago
Applying rocket-science on poor people who don't understand social-profiling issues and intense racial issues sounds like a potent mix to me. System would not work at all, is different from "system may not work fully accurate" because well - you should read the fluff in their tender documents before you lose more tax-payers money.
- yaix 15y ago
  A biometric database is hardly rocket science anymore. The main problems to overcome are likely not technical but administrative/political. I am pretty sure it will not work at first and for some time, as said political problems will need time to get (hopefully) worked out. As other posters said, only for all gov't offices to start to actually accept the UID will probably take many years. But its a good start.

MarkMc 15y ago

I really like The Economist. It's true that it's generally happy to espouse a point of view in its stories but that makes it much more interesting than, say, the BBC whose impartiality makes it somewhat bland. Their research and standard of writing are excellent - on par with The Guardian or The New York Times - and they occasionally have headlines that make me chuckle (such as this: http://www.economist.com/node/17854975 http://www.economist.com/node/17854975 ) But I admit that I also like it because it's political leanings are similar to mine (although somewhat more to the right) and because it covers topics I'm interested in.

JumpCrisscross 15y ago

The Economist, like the New Yorker and Atlantic, are not un-biased newspapers. They pitch themselves as analysis. It's good to get un-biased data but egotistical to presume that you will extract all the relevance from it a priori. What separates good analysis from the bad is if the underlying data and methodology are presented; The Economist does a good job at this. Regarding abuse of identity data, the US has a SSN identifying everyone. And when you immigrate or naturalise you provide fingerprints. Privacy has an important place, but it does need to be balanced against things. Things like starving, uneducated, and abused populations.