AADHAAR RELATED ARTICLES

by Varsha Rao, CCG at NLU Delhi.

The current discourse surrounding the use of facial recognition technology in surveillance operations, prompted by the recent ban in San Francisco, is populated by cost-benefit analyses — the cost of privacy and freedom of assembly versus the benefit of nabbing criminals and identifying missing children.

The problem with such an approach is that it pits individual rights and freedoms against the State’s duties without allowing for space to address shortcomings. It creates a shallow profile of the person opposing or favouring the technology. If you value your privacy and oppose real-time surveillance, you must be soft on crime. If you are willing to implement large-scale surveillance to track the thousands of children that go missing every year, you must be indifferent to the prejudices faced by minority communities.

The country is at a point in time where widespread use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement officials (such as Punjab Artificial Intelligence System and Chennai’s FaceTagr) and private companies (Paytm) is taking place without any legislation to regulate its implementation. On one hand, that is an alarming reality to face. On the other hand, since nothing has been set in stone yet, there is a sizeable opportunity to develop regulations that will wholeheartedly attempt to address the spectrum of citizen concerns.

The Obvious Red Flags in India’s Social Fabric

According to a deputy police commissioner in Chennai, to avoid misuse of their facial recognition technology, police personnel have been instructed to refrain from using the application unless they find a person suspicious. For a country steeped in caste-based and communal prejudices, we cannot brush aside the extent to which the concept of a “suspicious person” can be corrupted at the individual policeman’s level. There is ample evidence from the United States to warn us of biases that manifest in the form of tragic police killings.

India continues to live under the shadows of the Criminal Tribes Act of 1931 — the predecessor of the Habitual Offenders Act, 1952 — which links unfounded allegations of hereditary criminality to certain marginalised communities. Furthermore, a socioeconomic study of prisoners on death row in India (published in 2016) yielded distressing insights into the criminal justice system ~35% of death row inmates belong to the OBC community and 25% to the SC/ST community. Religious minorities were found to comprise 21% of death row prisoners. This is not to say that purely direct discrimination is at play on the part of the police force and criminal justice system, but it is enough to hint at subconscious prejudices and microaggressions permeating India’s justice delivery mechanisms.

Lessons from the DNA Technology Bill

Legal expert Usha Ramanathan had pointed out in her dissent note on The DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2018 that the proforma in use by Government agencies, such as the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD), inquires about the caste of the person whose DNA is being collected. Instances such as this play right into our suspicions about prejudiced profiling.

Important observations can also be drawn from the test carried out by American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Amazon’s facial recognition tool “Rekognition” and its aftermath. The test revealed that the software had incorrectly singled out 28 members of the U.S. Congress as people who have been arrested for a crime. The false matches in the test disproportionately comprised of people of colour – nearly 40% of Rekognition’s false matches.

In response, Amazon highlighted that the confidence threshold of 80% used by ACLU is appropriate for general use cases (such as identifying celebrities on social media) but not for public safety use, thereby leading to false positives. The recommended confidence threshold of 99% resulted in a misidentification rate of zero in tests conducted by Amazon. What is interesting to note is that in 2017, Amazon’s blog post demonstrated the use of Rekognition to identify persons of interest for law enforcement using a confidence threshold of 85% (indicated by the variable “faceMatchThreshold” in the code). After the findings of the ACLU study, Amazon went from recommending 95% or higher as the confidence threshold to 99%.

When the creators of the software itself cannot keep its numbers straight, how much confidence can we realistically repose in our law enforcement officials?

The false positives generated by DNA evidence can shed some light on the potential consequences of using new technology such as facial recognition. The science of DNA profiling is a probabilistic and statistical study – first, the likelihood of the collected DNA belonging to the suspect is analysed, followed by the likelihood that the DNA sample could belong to someone else in a given population. Unfortunately, when DNA profiling is sold as the be-all-end-all of nabbing criminals, statistical nuances are left out of the argument. Unless police personnel and judges are trained to fully comprehend the evidence placed before them, it diminishes the value of incorporating science into the criminal justice system and neutralizes any attempt at doing away with wrongful convictions.

The Way Forward

The point of highlighting the potential and actual misuse of facial recognition technology is not to demonise tech companies, hold them accountable for the failures of the State, or to ignore the benefits of such technology in cases of missing children and human trafficking. The point, instead, is to create room for improvement and minimize the infringements of emerging technology on fundamental human rights. Developers should not be heralding the benefits while wilfully ignoring feedback and minimizing the appearance of drawbacks.

If they continue to do so, then they are truly missing the point.

Instead, tech companies need to insist on the establishment of a regulatory framework to govern the use of facial recognition technology on public and commercial premises. If not for the sake of human rights and freedoms, then at least to avoid outright bans on the technology and ensure stability in future policies.

Since India is home to the world’s largest biometric database, the much touted Aadhar, the country is in a unique position to assume a leadership role when it comes to regulating facial recognition technology. The Government cannot pass the buck of responsibility to the tech companies as it has attempted to do with the problem of “fake news”.

Imposing standards of oversight, limiting function creep, exploring issues of privacy and consent, protecting databases from cybersecurity breaches and the redressal of complaints — all fall within the ambit of government control. Stakeholder consultations with tech companies and civil society will ensure a richness of debate and hopefully, incorporate the voices of the marginalized as they have the most to lose in a surveillance-heavy environment.

The path that India chooses to follow in relation to facial recognition technology must firmly be in the opposite direction of the Chinese government, which has been allegedly deploying such technology to keep tabs on the oppressed Muslim Uighur population. Hopefully, the next Government in power has the political will to pick up the slack in harmonizing effective protections for rights and freedoms with the benefits of emerging technology. But for now, if you happen to spot a camera trained on you in a marketplace such as Chennai’s T. Nagar, don’t forget to smile and wave.

Varsha is a researcher with the Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi.

Cross-posted here with permission from the CCG, NLU Delhi Blog.

Legal researcher Usha Ramanathan will this week receive the 2018 Human Rights Heroes Award, given by digital rights organisation Access Now, for her work on highlighting problems with India’s Aadhaar programme. Ramanathan has written and spoken extensively against the privacy, security and exclusionary risks of the biometric identity scheme.

Ramanathan and four other winners will receive the award from United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet at Access Now’s annual event RightsCon, to be held in Tunis from June 11 to June 14. RightsCon is a human rights and technology conference.

Access Now has yet to announce the “Villains” for 2018 – another “award” it gives annually alongside the Heroes award to recognise those who “undermine” online freedom.

“Dr Ramanathan is one of the leading critics of Aadhaar who has, since 2009, tirelessly challenged the controversial Aadhaar digital identity program in India, objecting to both the privacy and the security risks,” Access Now said while announcing the award. “In September 2018, the Supreme Court in India ruled Aadhaar could not be mandatory for several purposes, and it could not be required by private companies. Afterward, Dr Ramanathan worked to explain the ramifications of the judgment and its disappointing limitations. She continues to speak out against the Aadhaar program.”

The statement further said: “While we give our award to Dr Ramanathan, we also want to recognise the entire community that has protested and litigated against Aadhaar.”

The other winners for 2018 are Bahraini digital security trainer Mohammed al-Maskati, Australian lawyer Lizzie O’Shea, Tanzanian digital security activist Zaituni Njovu and Venezuelan researcher Marianne Díaz Hernández.

Among the past winners was the nine-judge Constitution bench of India’s Supreme Court that recognised privacy as a fundamental right in 2017. The organisation had recognised Justice Rohinton Nariman separately “for specifically citing to the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance in his opinion”.

Aadhaar judgement of the Supreme Court

In September 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court had upheld most of the provisions of the Aadhaar Act by a 4:1 majority. The court had said mobile phones and bank accounts do no need to be linked with Aadhaar though it has to be linked with PAN cards for filing income tax returns.

The petitioners had raised concerns about privacy and questioned why the identity number was made mandatory for people to avail welfare schemes, file income tax returns, hold mobile numbers, and bank accounts. A major point of contention was whether Aadhaar violates the fundamental right to privacy, which the Supreme Court had upheld in 2017. The Indian government had backed the Aadhaar initiative, and extended it to cover several social security schemes.

Dr Ramanathan’s criticisms of Aadhaar

Dr Ramanathan has spoken out — presciently, as it turns out — about the dangers of a data breach, and of concerns about the buying and selling of personal data. “The story of Aadhaar is one of coercion, rampant illegality and outrageous contempt of Supreme Court orders through which the project has built its database,” she wrote in The Wire.

She has also written about how Aadhaar has morphed from a project to provide India’s poor with an identity, to a way of de-duplicating India’s population, to a way of ridding the country’s welfare systems of “ghosts” and “duplicates” to prevent “leakages”, and finally to a a means of enforcing the cashless economy. “From denial of entitlements if a person is not enrolled or does not seed their number, it has reached a point where not having a UID number will force you to commit an offence,” she had written in The Wire.

Activist Usha Ramanathan Named Human Rights Hero For Campaign Against Aadhaar

The Logical Indian CrewIndia

June 10th, 2019 / 6:27 PM / Updated 15 hours ago

Image Credit: Moneylife

International rights group Access Now has declared Usha Ramanathan, a legal researcher and activist based out of Delhi, a ‘human rights hero’. Since 2009, the time when the Aadhaar program was launched, Ramanathan has been staunchly raising the security and privacy risks associated with it.

Access Now, speaking about the award, said, “In celebration of…the work of people around the globe to protect human rights in the digital age, every year Access Now names ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ who have either protected the principles of freedom online or worked to undermine them.”

Appreciating Ramanathan’s work, Access Now said that since 2009, she has been tirelessly challenging the ‘controversial Aadhaar digital identity program in India’, speaking of its privacy and security risks. “Dr Ramanathan worked to explain the ramifications of the judgement (where SC ruled that Aadhaar could not be made mandatory for several purposes) and its disappointing limitations, She continues to speak against the Aadhaar program.”

The statement from Access Now further said that this award also recognises the entire community that had protested the risks associated with Aadhaar.

Apart from Ramanathan, there are other four winners, which includes Bahraini activist and digital security consultant Mohammed Al-Maskati; Australian human rights lawyer and writer Lizzie O’Shea; Tanzanian digital security trainer Zaituni Njovu; and Venezuelan lawyer, writer and human rights activist Marianne Diaz Hernandez.

Validity of Aadhaar

A five-judge Supreme Court bench on September 26, 2018, upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, however, it struck down multiple sections of the Aadhaar Act as unconstitutional. Justice AK Sikri while reading the judgement said, “Aadhaar gives dignity to the marginalised. Dignity to the marginalised outweighs privacy.” He also observed that Aadhaar fails only 0.232% and dismantling it now would mean disturbing 99% of the population who have already been enrolled.

A bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on January 2, 2019, by the Narendra Modi government to amend various laws in the Aadhaar bill in a move to curtail the biometric authentication programme of the country. The bill seeks to allow people to offer voluntarily biometric ID, Aadhaar as a means of availing certain services like opening a bank account or getting a new phone connection. It also gives a child an option to opt out of the scheme upon attaining the age of 18 years, reported The Economic Times.

The Aadhaar And Other Laws (Amendment) Bill 2018 has amendments that have to be passed in order to comply with the aspects of the judgements of the Supreme Court. The bill was passed two weeks ago by the cabinet, and information technology minister Ravi Shankar Prasad introduced it in the Lok Sabha.

Also Read: Cabinet Approves Amendment To Make Aadhaar Optional For Banking, Phone Connections

Contributors

Written by : Shraddha Goled

Edited by : Bharat Nayak

14146 - Aadhaar Related Articles Dated 27yh May 2019

14147 - Aadhaar Articles Dated 28th May 2019 -

14148 - Aadhaar Articles Dated 29th May 2019

14149 - Aadhaar Articles Dated 30th May 2019

14150 - Aadhaar Articles Dated 31st May 2019

14151 - Aadhaar Articles Dated 1st June 2019

14152 - Aadhaar Articles Dated 2nd June 2019

14153 - Aadhaar Articles Dated 4th June 2019

14154 - Aadhaar Articles Dated 5th June 2019

14155 - Aadhaar Articles Dated 6th June 2019

14156 - Aadhaar Articles Dated 7th June 2019

14157 - Caught on Camera: India is woefully unprepared for facial recognition technology - Medianama

Caught on Camera: India is woefully unprepared for facial recognition technology

The Obvious Red Flags in India’s Social Fabric

Lessons from the DNA Technology Bill

The Way Forward

14158 - Aadhaar Articvles Dated 8th June 2019

14159 - Aadhaar Articles Dated 9th June 2019

14160 - Aadhaar Articles Dated 10th June 2019

14161 - Aadhaar critic Usha Ramanathan named Human Rights ‘Hero’ for campaign against biometric ID scheme - SCROLL.In

Aadhaar critic Usha Ramanathan named Human Rights ‘Hero’ for campaign against biometric ID scheme

Ramanathan has written and spoken extensively against the privacy, security and exclusionary risks of the biometric identity scheme.

Zaituni Njovu declared “Hero” for promoting digital security awareness among Swahili-speaking women...

Dr. Usha Ramanathan declared “Hero” for speaking out against India’s controversial Aadhaar digital...

Aadhaar judgement of the Supreme Court

14162 - Aadhaar critic Dr Usha Ramanathan named human rights hero for her ‘tireless’ campaign against scheme - Medianama

Aadhaar critic Dr Usha Ramanathan named human rights hero for her ‘tireless’ campaign against scheme

Zaituni Njovu declared “Hero” for promoting digital security awareness among Swahili-speaking women...

Dr. Usha Ramanathan declared “Hero” for speaking out against India’s controversial Aadhaar digital...

Dr Ramanathan’s criticisms of Aadhaar

14163 - Access Now Calls Usha Ramanathan 'Human Rights Hero' for Opposition to Aadhaar - the Wire

Access Now Calls Usha Ramanathan 'Human Rights Hero' for Opposition to Aadhaar

14164 - Activist Usha Ramanathan Named Human Rights Hero For Campaign Against Aadhaar - Logical Indian

Activist Usha Ramanathan Named Human Rights Hero For Campaign Against Aadhaar

The Logical Indian CrewIndia

14165 - Aadhaar Critic Usha Ramanathan Gets ‘Human Rights Hero’ Award = The Quint