5 ms·

This is the first time I have seen UID scheme being mentioned as a surveillance tool. The aim of the scheme is to replace the outdated mechanisms - signature, n

This is the first time I have seen UID scheme being mentioned as a surveillance tool. The aim of the scheme is to replace the outdated mechanisms - signature, name and address papers which can easily be forged. Why poor people are encouraged to register under the UID scheme? So that the benefits provided by India's socialist governments (central and state) can reach them without any corruption or delay. The fear of it being misused is currently unjustified and without any proof. Secondly, I think most people over-estimate the Indian government's technical ability. We are nowhere near US or China in mass surveillance. No Indian agency has the expertise anywhere near NSA or PLA Unit 61398. And unlike in China where there are many popular local tech companies, Indians use products of American companies (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.). So the government can neither ask the companies for data (like US) nor get the companies to actively participate in any form of censorship (like China). As long as the US companies follow basic security practices (HTTPS, SSL, 2-step verification, etc..) and don't sell out, we should be fine on the internet. (Disclaimer: Indian citizen)

monsterix 12y ago
> The fear of it being misused is currently unjustified and without any proof. http://www.rediff.com/news/report/uidai-gets-first-complaint-of-misuse-of-personal-data/20111002.htm http://www.rediff.com/news/report/uidai-gets-first-complaint... http://kractivist.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/india-your-aadhaar-data-is-being-misused-by-banks-mustshare-privacy-uid/ http://kractivist.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/india-your-aadhaa... http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/aadhar-scheme-how-safe-and-secure-is-your-identity/1/313616.html http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/aadhar-scheme-how-safe-an... I know at least 22 cases that have been suppressed so far. You can safely assume the number to be much higher, misunderstood and often under-reported. Dig deep and you'll find a lot of unreported reality!
- pessimizer 12y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propiska_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propiska_in_the_Soviet_Union
virtuabhi 12y ago
Edit: Cannot reply to "monsterix"'s comment. The only relevant line in the posted link [1] is "However, a complaint regarding misuse of address proof was received". Is there something I have missed? [1] http://www.rediff.com/news/report/uidai-gets-first-complaint-of-misuse-of-personal-data/20111002.htm http://www.rediff.com/news/report/uidai-gets-first-complaint... Edit: I see two more new links. One of them talks that a NGO has filed a case against UID agency. Government's welfare schemes now require UID. Why? I have given some of the reasons in the first paragraph of the parent comment. For the second link, government wants everyone to have a bank account. Because now the money from different welfare programs will be directly transferred to the bank accounts. No need to go to government office and collect money. Please read more explanation towards the end of the article you posted! Edit: Your claim: "I know at least 22 cases that have been suppressed". What you have provided: 3 links from a quick Google search, that too without checking their content.
3838 12y ago
other governments have proposed similar things - in europe there is a widespread distrust of these systems because they were used very effectively by the Nazi's - record keeping in the Netherlands was very good - 75% of jews were killed, in france the people collecting data conspired to protect jews by not punching the jew slot on the punched card and only 25% were killed a belgian company sold an ID system to the rwandan government, it was used by one tribe to find people from another tribe so they could kill them these systems are deadly in the wrong hands - if the info is not there, it can't be abused.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  The Nazis didn't need IDs, they just used census data.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Ma8ee 12y ago
  We have had Personal identity number system in Sweden since 1947. Maybe because we where spared most of the atrocities of WWII I don't know of any strong resistance against it. But it is also combined with laws that strongly forbid registration of some types of information, such as ethnic group or political leaning. And it is oh so convenient! I'm moving in a few weeks, and I had to fill in a form on a website and the tax authorities sent me some papers to sign and return. And that is all! Now all government agencies, the banks and larger companies that I deal with, and all magazines I subscribe to will have my new correct address in their system within days.
- mogrim 12y ago
  > in europe there is a widespread distrust of these systems What makes you think that? In the UK maybe, but certainly in Spain no one thinks twice about their ID cards. It's just something you have and use to identify yourself - both in public administration and in private transactions, for example paying money into a bank over the counter.
  - 3838 12y ago
superuser2 12y ago
The HN libertarians, for some reason, have an incredibly strongly held conviction that governments should not be able to identify their citizens, even in person, even for legitimate reasons. If you support any reasonably secure government-operated authentication system on HN, you will be downvoted to oblivion (as you just were).
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - superuser2 12y ago
    What argument?
- pjc50 12y ago
  governments should not be able to identify their citizens This is subtly different from "citizens can authenticate themselves to the government". Universal identity systems result in no place to hide from the system, which can be used against people that the government (or individual corrupt officials!) doesn't like.
- nickff 12y ago
  >"reasonably secure government-operated authentication system" Do you believe that the government can keep private information on a need-to-know basis? There is a lot of evidence they cannot.[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT
- tptacek 12y ago
  I'm not a libertarian (for HN, in fact, I qualify as a statist) and I have a problem with universal identification. I thought we had a decent balance struck before Hiibel.
Nano2rad 12y ago
UID is clearly surveillance tool. Its aim is to make the citizen's feel powerless. The scheme can be implemented with single fingerprint to prevent duplication, still iris scan is done. The privacy law is still not passed which could limit the access of UID data. It was forced on banks and petroleum marketers undemocratically.
- zo1 12y ago
  "It was forced on banks and petroleum marketers undemocratically." Oh, so their elected officials weren't really elected democratically? Because, you know, that's something you have to prove first before you can make assertions such as the one above.
  - Nano2rad 12y ago
    Nilekani's appointment itself was undemocratic
keenerd 12y ago
> We are nowhere near US or China in mass surveillance. Just because no one else in here (or even the original article) has mentioned it: cell phone encryption is illegal in India. All GSM is done in the clear. Think about that for a second. It means any citizen with a few hundred dollars worth of hardware can rival the best abilities of the NSA.
- tormeh 12y ago
  Are you sure? I thought GSM was encrypted by definition. I know it's been used as a NATO backup communications channel. Once the signal hits the base station, though, it's usually sent unencrypted down the wire.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    The tower can (unilaterally, probably without any notification on the handset) select "A5/0" as the encryption algorithm. That's no encryption.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      Oh, ok, news to me, but it sounds plausible. .... But, uh, why would the government require that, when they can just listen to the signal after it's been unencrypted at the base station?
      - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
        So that not even the people at the cell phone base station know just how absurdly much data they are pulling in.
  - keenerd 12y ago
    India uses A5/0: http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/gsm-india-26616.html http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/gsm-india-26616.html Blackberry threatened with suspension because of encryption: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/blackberry-india/5732 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/blackberry-india/5732 (I guess not all GSM is done in the clear since you can use encryption but must share your keys.)
srcmap 12y ago
https is not that secure, most of the root ca are owned by big corp/gov. It is trivial for any big gov to decode your https traffic.
- astrange 12y ago
  It is not trivial, and you'd get found out and lose the CA.
enlightenedfool 12y ago
Yeah...no way India can invest billions of dollars storing and processing peta bytes of data like NSA does. Its just too poor to do that.
- ihsw 12y ago
  You don't just buy the hardware, you have to maintain a staff of individuals with the related expertise. This is difficult to achieve on a scale that the US Government does with the NSA et al. Right now a lot of ex-intelligence employees are whoring themselves out to state governments and international businesses, offering their products and consulting services. There's a lot of money to be made, especially since a lot of the expertise is held quite tightly by the incumbents.
general_failure 12y ago
You grossly underestimated India based on the politicians. Dude they just sent a rocket to mars.
eitally 12y ago
Perhaps they don't have the homegrown ability, but when they restrict access to a market of 1b+ consumers, that helps "convince" a lot of companies to do it for them. You probably remember this: http://www.heydary.com/publications/Inside-the-Rim-Decrypting-the-Blackberry.html http://www.heydary.com/publications/Inside-the-Rim-Decryptin...

monsterix 12y ago

> The fear of it being misused is currently unjustified and without any proof. http://www.rediff.com/news/report/uidai-gets-first-complaint-of-misuse-of-personal-data/20111002.htm http://www.rediff.com/news/report/uidai-gets-first-complaint... http://kractivist.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/india-your-aadhaar-data-is-being-misused-by-banks-mustshare-privacy-uid/ http://kractivist.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/india-your-aadhaa... http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/aadhar-scheme-how-safe-and-secure-is-your-identity/1/313616.html http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/aadhar-scheme-how-safe-an... I know at least 22 cases that have been suppressed so far. You can safely assume the number to be much higher, misunderstood and often under-reported. Dig deep and you'll find a lot of unreported reality!

pessimizer 12y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propiska_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propiska_in_the_Soviet_Union

virtuabhi 12y ago

Edit: Cannot reply to "monsterix"'s comment. The only relevant line in the posted link [1] is "However, a complaint regarding misuse of address proof was received". Is there something I have missed? [1] http://www.rediff.com/news/report/uidai-gets-first-complaint-of-misuse-of-personal-data/20111002.htm http://www.rediff.com/news/report/uidai-gets-first-complaint... Edit: I see two more new links. One of them talks that a NGO has filed a case against UID agency. Government's welfare schemes now require UID. Why? I have given some of the reasons in the first paragraph of the parent comment. For the second link, government wants everyone to have a bank account. Because now the money from different welfare programs will be directly transferred to the bank accounts. No need to go to government office and collect money. Please read more explanation towards the end of the article you posted! Edit: Your claim: "I know at least 22 cases that have been suppressed". What you have provided: 3 links from a quick Google search, that too without checking their content.

3838 12y ago

other governments have proposed similar things - in europe there is a widespread distrust of these systems because they were used very effectively by the Nazi's - record keeping in the Netherlands was very good - 75% of jews were killed, in france the people collecting data conspired to protect jews by not punching the jew slot on the punched card and only 25% were killed a belgian company sold an ID system to the rwandan government, it was used by one tribe to find people from another tribe so they could kill them these systems are deadly in the wrong hands - if the info is not there, it can't be abused.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
The Nazis didn't need IDs, they just used census data.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Ma8ee 12y ago
We have had Personal identity number system in Sweden since 1947. Maybe because we where spared most of the atrocities of WWII I don't know of any strong resistance against it. But it is also combined with laws that strongly forbid registration of some types of information, such as ethnic group or political leaning. And it is oh so convenient! I'm moving in a few weeks, and I had to fill in a form on a website and the tax authorities sent me some papers to sign and return. And that is all! Now all government agencies, the banks and larger companies that I deal with, and all magazines I subscribe to will have my new correct address in their system within days.
mogrim 12y ago
> in europe there is a widespread distrust of these systems What makes you think that? In the UK maybe, but certainly in Spain no one thinks twice about their ID cards. It's just something you have and use to identify yourself - both in public administration and in private transactions, for example paying money into a bank over the counter.
- 3838 12y ago

superuser2 12y ago

The HN libertarians, for some reason, have an incredibly strongly held conviction that governments should not be able to identify their citizens, even in person, even for legitimate reasons. If you support any reasonably secure government-operated authentication system on HN, you will be downvoted to oblivion (as you just were).

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- superuser2 12y ago
  What argument?
pjc50 12y ago
governments should not be able to identify their citizens This is subtly different from "citizens can authenticate themselves to the government". Universal identity systems result in no place to hide from the system, which can be used against people that the government (or individual corrupt officials!) doesn't like.
nickff 12y ago
>"reasonably secure government-operated authentication system" Do you believe that the government can keep private information on a need-to-know basis? There is a lot of evidence they cannot.[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT
tptacek 12y ago
I'm not a libertarian (for HN, in fact, I qualify as a statist) and I have a problem with universal identification. I thought we had a decent balance struck before Hiibel.

Nano2rad 12y ago

UID is clearly surveillance tool. Its aim is to make the citizen's feel powerless. The scheme can be implemented with single fingerprint to prevent duplication, still iris scan is done. The privacy law is still not passed which could limit the access of UID data. It was forced on banks and petroleum marketers undemocratically.

zo1 12y ago
"It was forced on banks and petroleum marketers undemocratically." Oh, so their elected officials weren't really elected democratically? Because, you know, that's something you have to prove first before you can make assertions such as the one above.
- Nano2rad 12y ago
  Nilekani's appointment itself was undemocratic

keenerd 12y ago

> We are nowhere near US or China in mass surveillance. Just because no one else in here (or even the original article) has mentioned it: cell phone encryption is illegal in India. All GSM is done in the clear. Think about that for a second. It means any citizen with a few hundred dollars worth of hardware can rival the best abilities of the NSA.

tormeh 12y ago
Are you sure? I thought GSM was encrypted by definition. I know it's been used as a NATO backup communications channel. Once the signal hits the base station, though, it's usually sent unencrypted down the wire.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  The tower can (unilaterally, probably without any notification on the handset) select "A5/0" as the encryption algorithm. That's no encryption.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Oh, ok, news to me, but it sounds plausible. .... But, uh, why would the government require that, when they can just listen to the signal after it's been unencrypted at the base station?
    - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
      So that not even the people at the cell phone base station know just how absurdly much data they are pulling in.
- keenerd 12y ago
  India uses A5/0: http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/gsm-india-26616.html http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/gsm-india-26616.html Blackberry threatened with suspension because of encryption: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/blackberry-india/5732 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/blackberry-india/5732 (I guess not all GSM is done in the clear since you can use encryption but must share your keys.)

srcmap 12y ago

https is not that secure, most of the root ca are owned by big corp/gov. It is trivial for any big gov to decode your https traffic.

astrange 12y ago
It is not trivial, and you'd get found out and lose the CA.

enlightenedfool 12y ago

Yeah...no way India can invest billions of dollars storing and processing peta bytes of data like NSA does. Its just too poor to do that.

ihsw 12y ago
You don't just buy the hardware, you have to maintain a staff of individuals with the related expertise. This is difficult to achieve on a scale that the US Government does with the NSA et al. Right now a lot of ex-intelligence employees are whoring themselves out to state governments and international businesses, offering their products and consulting services. There's a lot of money to be made, especially since a lot of the expertise is held quite tightly by the incumbents.

general_failure 12y ago

You grossly underestimated India based on the politicians. Dude they just sent a rocket to mars.

eitally 12y ago

Perhaps they don't have the homegrown ability, but when they restrict access to a market of 1b+ consumers, that helps "convince" a lot of companies to do it for them. You probably remember this: http://www.heydary.com/publications/Inside-the-Rim-Decrypting-the-Blackberry.html http://www.heydary.com/publications/Inside-the-Rim-Decryptin...