I am suspicious of numbers like 99% especially given that the aadhaar scheme is only a few years old. Such statistics are always...messy and look at how hard it is to get other such statistics (vaccination numbers for example). India has an unusually good (by international standards) ability to get some of these mass efforts implemented (again, I'm thinking of vaccination push) but never this quickly.
In addition, such programs do well in areas of good communication, and are weaker in more remote areas and those with weaker educational systems. Which is not an India-specific issue. And it is those hard-to-count people who need the program the most. Also those people are in areas where the local officials are typically the most mendacious (which is why they are hard to reach)... you see the problem.
Sure, all my family in Mumbai and Pune have cards, no problem. A few out in the countryside....likely but it's not like I am close to them.
That was one of my points about it being mandatory: the very people it needs to help are the ones who will be last to get it.
BTW the other problem I mention, the instrument of control, is not addressed by your comment.
(Speaking of you comment: someone downvoted it, which (the down voting) doesn't make sense. Your comment was factual and non-inflammatory. I gave it an upvote because I don't like people down voting something just because they disagree with it)
But if we don't believe in any statistics what else is to debate?
That's the point I was bringing up, that there seems to me much conjecture and not much facts being brought up by Anti-Aadhaar lobby.
I think enrollment started in 2011 - so it's 6 years to get 99% coverage.
I don't think it's fair to bring in other statistics into this, because in this case all they have to do a SQL COUNT to get the number of enrolled. It's what they were supposed to do after all.
> In addition, such programs do well in areas of good communication, and are weaker in more remote areas and those with weaker educational systems. Which is not an India-specific issue. And it is those hard-to-count people who need the program the most. Also those people are in areas where the local officials are typically the most mendacious (which is why they are hard to reach)... you see the problem.
It's totally not like that. Sorry to say, but your comment sounds like you have never been to these areas, and are just conjecturing mentally. Please have a look at the enrolment infrastructure UIDAI specifically built to get to universal coverage. It's actually a good case study for other countries to learn from.
> Do they actually care about privacy? Hard to believe.
Do these people have vested interest in sustaining the corrupt middleman model ? Easy to believe.
Are there people whose corrupt interests are impacted by Aadhar creating noise? Surely. Does that mean there are no legitimate concerns about such a program? Of course not. We're trying to discuss the latter here. I do not find you meaningfully contributing to that discussion, with the exception of your first post (in which you mention the benefits Aadhar brought your parents).
I mentioned elsewhere that centralized anti-corruption programs have a terrible track record for a reason. If you couldn't count on your institutions to prevent corruption, you cannot count on them to prevent abuse of power. Given that track record, a default position of scepticism is warranted.
India has a history of handing tremendous power to strong(wo)men, and suffering tremendously for it. Creating a tool that allows politicians to punish surgically-targeted swaths of political and/or economic opposition should be approached cautiously. Decrying any opposition to the program as the product of corrupt stooges is bad rhetoric at best, and corrosive to informed debate and the democratic process, within India and internationally, at worst.
> I mentioned elsewhere that centralized anti-corruption programs have a terrible track record for a reason. If you couldn't count on your institutions to prevent corruption, you cannot count on them to prevent abuse of power. Given that track record, a default position of scepticism is warranted.
This isn't an anti corruption program. Just an National Id like in any other country. And BM authentication to keep your data secure using consent driven architecture.
Astonishing how something even simple that would create such noise in India.
> Fingerprints are harder to fake than what's being used currently - signatures and xerox
Yes, but once compromised they cannot be changed. Also, could you state clearly whether fingerprints would be used for authentication or identification?
> Fine. Don't authenticate with Aadhaar when you go to get a commercial service. Why force you choice on me?
Right back at you. I may have a choice when using a commercial service but why is the government forcing me to have an Aadhaar if I never intend to use it?
> And the info they get is name/dob/gender. Which they would anyway have - Aadhaar or no Aadhaar - since you are their customer.
Yes but they cannot build a profile of me using things like income bracket (pan linking), travel information (rail and air travel linking), social and family ties (various other ways). If you think this isn't even plausible in India, either you have skin in the game or are being (/ intentionally trying to be) incredibly naive.
> Right back at you. I may have a choice when using a commercial service but why is the government forcing me to have an Aadhaar if I never intend to use it?
Mostly only if you want subsidies. If you are talking about the PAN linkage, you are already required to have PAN. Is that forcing you as well? That way you can even refuse to follow any regulation, arguing that goverment is forcing you. We don't live in an anarchy. If you don't like Aadhaar go vote for some party which will revoke it come next election. If can't do it, maybe think about changing countries.
> Yes but they cannot build a profile of me using things like income bracket (pan linking), travel information (rail and air travel linking), social and family ties (various other ways). If you think this isn't even plausible in India, either you have skin in the game or are being (/ intentionally trying to be) incredibly naive.
This kinds of profiles can be built using system like Palantair, Aadhaar or no Aaadhaar. Using just Name/DOB/Address can be decent enough identifier. And we already have PAN mandated for high value transactions. Opposing Aadhaar on these grounds, seems extremely silly to me.
Again, I am not connected with Aadhaar at all. Not want clicks like some people on this thread. Just a concerned citizen who wants to see technology help the poor/needy.
EDIT
> Yes, but once compromised they cannot be changed. Also, could you state clearly whether fingerprints would be used for authentication or identification?
Identity Authentication, because you identify yourself using the Aadhaar number, then prove it by authenticating.
Yes they can't be changed. But since there's an audit trails + you need an insider@service-provider to pass the stolen BM to server, those who try would be easily caught. With signatures/xerox there's no audit trails or instant notification. That's much more insecure if you look at it dispassionately.
Many people are not understanding Aadhaar is being used for stuff like bank accounts, food grain etc where this is acceptable.
Alternative like signatures, smart-cards, passwords etc wouldn't work in a country like India.
OMG Mozilla. No wonder open internet is in such a bad shape when we have you leading it.
1) Aadhaar is not fundamentally different than a National ID which every other country in this world has. India not only lacked it, out birth registrations certificates weren't reliable at all.
2) Yes they do collection Biometrics(BM). But BM are never shared with any other agency/company. And it's strictly codified in law. BM are only used for deduplication(1b+ population), and authentication.
3) For KYC(Know your Customer) or E-Payments BM based authentication is much more secure than what's being used currently - signatures, and self attested xerox which anyone can forge/photoshop.
4) You can also ask Aadhaar server to dispatch an SMS to your mobile number every time an authentication happens. Now compare that your signature/xerox which anyone can forge/photoshop and you would have no idea about it.
5) In this changing world who would you want to control identity? A private company like Apple which can block you or some developer anytime and there would be no recourse? Or a govt agency - backed by a law of Parliament - that you can drag to court.
6) Want to build a marketplace for house-maids? Or for farmers? Don't want it bogged down by scamsters which in the end depressing adaption?
7) For financial products like bank accounts, mutual funds etc Aadhaar brings down compliance cost. So for a MF while in the old system it wouldn't be viable to take an investment of less than 50k Rs because the compliance cost itself would be 1k Rs or something, now you can do it under 10 Rs.
Are we making a better world or not, in which the poor have access to Mutual funds, Insurance etc or Mozilla thinks it's not?
Please watch this https://youtu.be/LJCEyqcKN3Q?t=5m50s and tell me which other country in this world can match this. Getting a loan in under 8 minutes. Or opening a bank account in under 10 min.
This is a technological revolution - but not happening in Copenhagen or Zurich, but dusty villages of India.
I have had enough of these Aadhaar critics - and now Mozilla - who have colonised their minds with some western ideas, and are unable to see what's happening in India.
Bottom line, there's no better example of how technology can drastically change lives for the poor and the needy than Aadhaar.
Those who are unable to see it, are usually just biased because need clicks for their publications, or need to build their reputation as security analyst or something by bashing something. Look into this thread itself, and you'll find them linking to each other's twitter profile etc. Sickening really.
> Aadhaar is fundamentally different than a National ID which every other country in this world has.
Not the United States!
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_identity_card... seems to suggest national IDs are voluntary in 15 countries, nonexistent in 9, and mandatory in 82. One thing that seems possibly significant is that six of the non-mandatory ones include the entirety of the "Anglosphere".
That's right, each of the Anglosphere countries has no mandatory national ID. And although the culture and politics of those countries varies quite a bit, including with regard to privacy and civil liberties issues and beliefs about state power, I believe that each one includes a significant number of citizens who are quite proud that there's no mandatory ID, regarding it as a particular way in which their country is more free than others, and as something worth defending.
Aadhaar has the same data that your US birth certificate has. Name/DOB/gender/Address-if-available. Unless I'm mistaken everyone in US has a Birth Certificate.
EDIT IN RESPONSE TO YOUR EDIT
An birth certificate is also an ID. There's no rational reason of being proud of not having a national ID, when you have mandatory birth registrations and birth certificates.
If anything Aadhaar store less information than your BC - no record of who your parents are for example.
Birth certificates don't contain biometrics [edit: I guess some hospitals include a newborn's footprints] and may not contain address in some states; the address is also never updated (nor is the name in case of name changes). They also aren't issued by the national government and are kept in databases at the state level -- sometimes on paper.
I don't believe there are any national standards for what data a birth certificate must contain.
Really. So anyone can physically break into an archiving unit, steal someone's BC, change some details and use it get benefits/fraud? And the victim wouldn't even get a hint? Sounds very dangerous!
I have my details saved in a centralised database, which notifies me via an SMS anytime my credentials are used.
I acknowledge the BM issue elsewhere in this thread. But please realise that unless you live in a cave your BM are already public. I can take you out for a coffee and steal your finger prints.
The point is that for KYC/payments BM are much more secure than the alternative you would use - signatures/xerox which are even easier to steal since you just need a pen and a paper.
> There's no rational reason of being proud of not having a national ID, when you have mandatory birth registrations and birth certificates.
Some of the Anglosphere's pride in not having national ID should probably be eroded by the standardization of other forms of ID and the movement toward requiring them for more things by regulation (e.g., air travel, banking, some forms of train travel, and proof of age to enter regulated venues that serve alcohol).
However, the lack of national ID should in principle make it harder for the state to routinely easily identify us in public, or to institute movement controls, or to require people to be identified for more kinds of transactions. Possibly all of these things are tending to fail over time in different ways, which may end up making the lack of national ID increasingly symbolic.
At the same time, I do think there are jurisdictions where mandatory national IDs have made it easier for both state and commercial entities to switch some kinds of transactions and interactions from anonymous by default to strongly identified by default. Since we've seen someone else in this thread argue that identifying people for air travel and mobile communications services are desirable benefits of national ID, I'll count that as a point against national ID from my point of view.
Gingko is phenomenal, heavy use of it will alter how you think and work, Sapir-Whorf style. Developer seems like a good guy who cares intensely. Happy to pay for this tool.
+1 for gingko -- it's especially great when starting a big document from scratch as it allows you to move and restructure entire documents, something that would be a lot of trouble with copy paste.
The agent modelling that I'm aware of is in simulation. I have a feeling that there would be a lot of interesting duality between the fields of agent based simulation and monte-carlo based probabilistic modelling, but I don't know enough about the former to say off hand.
ABM is an MC method, because different individual agents randomize their behavior based on distributions associated with possible courses of action defined by their agent type.
actually it's exactly the opposite of what you think.
lychee is a relatively new fruit in this region/country, and there wasn't enough transmission over this short period to establish traditions/practices around it.
Hum, let me explain a bit. I understood that it's a new fruit in the region, and seems that even the local population wasn't considering relations between the fruit and the illness. And, exactly because of that, it made me think about how things were in the past.
In other words, given enough time without attention and information and so on, would a new belief arise in that population, one strong enough that would prevent kids from eating the fruit? And few of those who eat them anyway would perish, reinforcing the "tradition" that it was a cursed fruit (or something like that) ?
Of course, if you consider that the same constraints that were present 3,000 years ago still persists: lack of a good knowledge about chemicals and biology and how the human body behaves.
In general many poor people, even in cities,
do not have bank accounts and face lot of
issues when opening such accounts.
Sorry, but I absolutely can't stand when I see these kinds of arguments, because everyone reading this would believe this to be true apriori.
Check this article from Feb 2015. Only 23k families were without a bank account. In a country of 250m families! In the last two years I think they opened 200m - or something like that - accounts. http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/nea...
Agree about it not being very well managed, specially the ATM calibration issue.
But I have no doubt, it would massively help in making digital payments mainstream. Already since 9 Nov, digital payments have overtaken credit/debit cards as stated in this article. Possibly it would even make India an even bigger market than China.
It would also fight tax evasion - right now India borrows 60b$-70b$ every year - when coupled with tax reforms like GST which is set to kickoff next year. Btw, since last few years you need to supply an Tax Id whenever making transactions of more than 1k$ in cash, so this step fits in perfectly with that as well.
There's some short term pain, but the medium/long term gains massively outweigh it.
I don't know where they get those statistics? Do they include the daily wage working families? I have several near my own home (in a city) and none of them are able to open bank accounts.
Not sure. The only explanation I can think of is that they don't have Aadhar being illegal migrants or something like that. Or that the bank they are visiting is mismanaged - for which someone should file a complaint.
Btw, you can tell them that they get a full savings account at post offices as well. If they have some savings, it's better for them since interest is higher for families with BPL cards.
