<link rel="stylesheet" href="//fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Open+Sans%3A400italic%2C700italic%2C400%2C700">privacy Archives « Aam JanataSkip to content

In a rather bewildering tweet today, Madhu Kishwar asked, "Do champions of #RightToPrivacy realise that if 2 women hadn't complained, #babaRamRahim doings in his "Gufa"covered under right to privacy?" The tweet was so absurd that she was met with a barrage of retorts and taunts by people she was taunting.

I guess if we are a country just growing into our rights, there will be a lot of debates of this sort needed, where clear talking will help more than sarcasm at someone's ignorance. It also isn't an alien concept. We have a right to privacy already. Whether it was stated or not, we had protection against someone violating our space. That is how stalking or spy cams or leaking passwords and such is already illegal, even though the right itself was explicitly stated just recently. The world has not changed all that much in terms of what is "right" and "wrong". Privacy cannot make criminal things legit all of a sudden. That was just propaganda to influence the case into denying our right. Even the government now agrees we have a right to privacy. What has changed is for those whose privacy gets invaded by powerful players like big companies or the government (this judgment emerged directly from a constitutional challenge to Aadhaar on the grounds of privacy), who have the power to fudge an unstated right and interpret it to convenience. Now that it is explicit, they will no longer be able to fudge easily.

What the right to privacy will actually entail and exclude as per law will soon be determined, but the general meaning of the term endorses the right of a person to withhold or reveal information about themselves. There is also an implicit requirement that information revealed in confidence must not be shared beyond the purpose it was explicitly authorized for. This is the rock Aadhaar will flounder on - a mandatory and unaccountable database of private information on citizens cannot coexist with even the most shoddily defined privacy. And this 9 judge bench has given a most excellent verdict. But I digress.

Publicly available information is not covered by the right to privacy. For example, board results (because there seem to be a lot of jokes about keeping marksheets private from parents). You may refuse to reveal, but if the information is public, they will have access to it anyway. Certifications (no, the Prime Minister and Smriti Irani's degrees don't get covered by privacy either - they have stated the information themselves, what they are refusing to do is provide proofs for officially filed documents). This also goes for information submitted as proofs, etc. For example, if you have to provide proof of address to start a bank account, your right to privacy does not include starting a bank account without proof of residence. But yes, it definitely includes an obligation on the bank to not share it with third parties or use it for purposes other than verifying your address (for example, sending credit card spam).

As a fundamental right, Ram Rahim still has the right to privacy. Just because he is a convicted rapist does not mean you can make personal and confidential information about him public without his consent (public functions are public). The access to personal information can also be mandated for various reasons - This is where the grey areas lie. You have a right to withhold your bank balance and what you spend your money on from me, but do you have the right to withhold it from the income tax department? The standard understanding is no, because tax is your duty as a citizen. Others, more extreme argue that we voluntarily provide our information to the tax authorities and others don't and choose to be raided instead. The government will, no doubt soon be launching some form of propaganda to create a way to impose Aadhaar in spite of the recent clobbering in court through such grey areas. But it won't be easy, because there really is no way to prove that the information is necessary in the manner knowing income would be directly necessary to assess income tax. It is still not arbitrary or unlimited. you need warrants, to enter and search premises, for example. You can't randomly check whoever you suspect.You have to prove the need for it and get a warrant.

Similarly, your right to privacy is about you having the right to reveal at your discretion what personal information you choose to share. To apply that to sex and rape, it would protect homosexuals, for example. That is why they got all excited about the clarity of the wording. Or at least those who are not engaging in "unnatural sex" in a situation that could be called "public", unless one of them revealed their "crime". Short of homosexuality explicitly being legal, this is considerably better than their previous precarious position of not knowing what boundaries and personal rights they could count on. However, it doesn't protect Ram Rahim from his two victims who complained, because as their personal experience, the victims were perfectly entitled to reveal it to anyone they wished - even if it were consensual. And it wasn't, which makes it a flat out crime. Crimes are mostly private. But if there is enough evidence of it or a complaint, an investigation will attempt to access all relevant information. The most robustly defined right to privacy in the world cannot protect a rapist from conviction if his crime is proved and it cannot prevent an investigation against an accused either. It is a thin edge of what is a legit investigation or ethical whistleblowing and what is a breach of privacy - which is why exposes are so often accompanied by defamation suits.

Right to privacy is a right of persons, not organizations. If it were not the victims and a third party who came to know about the rapes and complained, the action being illegal would make it count as whistleblowing.

Organizations too can have requirements of confidentiality, but they don't have a right to information about them requiring consent to be shared - because they aren't people. Confidentiality requirements of organizations are usually explicit. There are things you can talk about (work timings, coffee maker sucks) and things you can't (trade secrets, business strategies). If the organization was willing to own the rapes as official business of the organization and not a crime that could not be revealed without breaching confidentiality agreements, they are free to sue the whistleblower or the complainants, but a crime that gets exposed remains a crime. An organization that claims it to be its official business would be a criminal organization.

This is also why you have (and need better) whistleblower protection laws - so that confidentiality cannot be used as an excuse to cover up crimes and persecute whistleblowers.

Hope all is clear now.

In a landmark challenge to Aadhaar on the grounds of privacy being an inalienable fundamental right, a 9 judge bench of the Supreme Court of India upholds Right To Privacy as an Intrinsic Part Of Right To Life And Personal Liberty

Supreme Court of India has once again come to rescue the citizens of India by declaring that right to privacy is a fundamental right. This is a big jolt to a government which was turning itself to a surveillance state by intruding every aspect of the life of the individual. This decision was made unanimously reflecting the absolute legal voice on the issue.

The decision was given by a big bench of nine judges who ruled that right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 and entire Part III of the Constitution.

The part III is related to the fundamental rights which have been given to people to live their life as they wish for and develop their personality in full manner. The decision is linked to the government’s effort to make Aadhaar mandatory for the social welfare policies; government also amended Income Tax Act to make Aadhaar mandatory for the IT which SC accepted as valid but government was attempting to extend Aadhaar based surveillance almost in all aspects of the individual’s life. The decision may help to halt this process though SC has to deliver decision on Aadhaar later but is now established that Indian government cannot be a surveillance state as the privacy of the individual cannot be explored and penetrated in absolute manner extending in all aspects of private domain of the person.

The decision has thus overruled the M P Sharma verdict of 1950( six judges judgment) and that of Kharak Singh of 1960 (eight judges) judgments of the same court that right to privacy is not protected under the Constitution..

The decision has been based on article 21 of the fundamental rights. The article is the most interpreted article of the constitution as SC has interpreted it in different dimensions of human life. The article states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” In the same article by 86th Constitution Amendment, 2002 the 21A was added stating that ‘under 21A the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.’

The Supreme Court has taken a wider view of the right to personal liberty that it cannot be controlled by the administrative fiats and the legislations. Aadhaar issue will be heavily impacted after the decision and its decision will be dealt during the coming time but the recent decision has illuminated the hopes that SC will also limit the government powers with respect to Aadhaar. It was felt by the citizens that compulsion of Aadhaar was unnecessarily placing them under stress. From banks to entrance examinations Aadhaar was becoming a compulsory identity. In several places the old person s were faced with the problem of not getting their pensions as they were not in a position to attach the Aadhaar cards. The practical problem was that they were so old that their fingerprints did not appear or were not in position to Aadhaar camp where these cards were being prepared due to old age or no one support them to take them to the camps. Several old women have complained about this sorry state of affairs.

Government did not take a flexible view and attempted to monitor every action of the individual. The fear was that Aadhaar compulsion might put the person always under stress. That day was not far away when government could ask the person attach Aadhaar whenever anyone you purchased a newspaper or visited a restaurant for a dinner or stayed in a hospital or was hanging out in a park.

In the societies where governments are fearful of the force of the citizens such steps are contemplated. Supreme Court by its decision has placed the limits on any malafide intention and has empowered the citizens of the country.

Supreme Court is really a custodian of humane values and lives of the Indian citizens. Constitution is paramount and so the WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA. Supreme Court has upheld it and no power can dilute it is now a well established fact.

Originally published on CounterCurrents.org

After false Aadhaar benefits claims perjury to deny citizens right to privacy in case, R S Prasad claims govt always saw privacy as a fundamental right after landmark defeat in judgment by 9 judge bench.

R S Prasad makes another Aadhaar and privacy related false claim.

The Supreme Court gave a landmark 9 judge bench judgment upholding privacy as a fundamental right of citizens. The government was among the defendants and had vigorously stated that privacy was not a fundamental right.

Today, after the judgment, R. S. Prasad, Union Minister holding Law and Justice and Ministry of Information Technology portfolio in the Government of India tweeted:

Govt was of the view that #RightToPrivacy should be a fundamental right.

This is complete nonsense, of course. If the government was of the view that privacy was a fundamental right, why was the case in court at all and fought vigorously all through to the top till a 9 judge bench provided a judgment on a matter of crucial importance to the rights of citizens that the government was violating?

Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi, who represents the Union Government presented the government's stand in the Supreme Court as privacy was not a fundamental right of Indian citizens and that the Constitution makers would have put it there if they had intended it to be. The government's stand was that privacy is a right, but not a fundamental right (normal rights can be overruled by the government in various circumstances, while fundamental rights cannot).

Constitution makers did not intend to make right to privacy a fundamental right.

~ Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi while representing the Union government in Supreme Court before a 9 judge bench.

The government wants to be able to overrule a citizen's right to privacy in order to force them to enroll for Aadhaar or lose their right to essential services, subsidies, and documents. Aadhaar, imposed by the government on citizens was being challenged in court in this landmark case by citizens against their government. What R S Prasad is claiming is a flat out lie.

The Union Government actually made the ridiculous claim that citizens don't have absolute right over their bodies, sparking massive outrage on social media with hashtags like #MyBodyMyRight #RightToPrivacy starting to trend and remaining popular from then to now.

Advocate General Mukul Rohtagi cited two cases that supported this view. Rohtagi additionally falsely claimed in court that Aadhaar was foolproof and that the court should balance the right of the petitioners against those of the 700 million people it allegedly serves (which was also a false claim, because having an Aadhaar does not entitle you to anything, but in fact a lack of Aadhaar can prevent you from availing rights and services you already had access to). This outrageous falsehood has also been robustly challenged.

So the Attorney General committed perjury to defend the government's obsession with surveillance of citizens and when they got soundly defeated anyway, now R S Prasad is claiming that they supported the peititoners who fought against them? This is so absurd as to make no sense. If the government respects privacy as a fundamental right, why does Aadhaar exist at all? Why are people being forced to get an Aadhaar if they want to use essential services like the subsidies they are entitled to or to pay tax or to hold a bank account or even a phone?

Conclusion: R S Prasad is lying. It is the beginning of the usual jumble of words you see around this government and particularly around Aadhaar cover ups that turns their actual meanings into their opposites.

Something strange came to my attention today. An otherwise anonymous Twitter profile, but it had an Aadhaar UID number in the place of the name. The profile said the person was a IITian, a Brajwasi, Swayamsewak, BJPite, Gaurakshak and slave of the Indian state. Oooookay.

After speaking and tweeting and writing critically about the Aadhaar (as well as the Modi government), finding Modi supporters who will go to any extents, however insane to defend whatever he does has sort of started looking like a normal occurrence.

I believed that the Twitter handle was challenging those who claim that Aadhaar to be vulnerable to hack it and prove it. After all, Aadhaar's greatest fake troll profile, run by Sharad Sharma himself had once tossed out a number saying it was an Aadhaar number as a challenge. It wasn't inconceivable that another person would pull a similar stunt.

And honestly, after the brazen arguments the government had made in court to deny Indians a right to privacy, I was pisssed enough to want to show someone just how far a person could go with an access to an Aadhaar number. So, the first order of the day was to check whether the number was an actual Aadhaar number. For those who don't know, this part is easy. UIDAI will do it for you without giving out too much identifiable information without authentication. The number was real.

Okay, so that raised the stakes a bit. Someone's UID was out there. You read "gourakshak" on a profile and given the sort of news making headlines on a daily basis, you want to make sure at the very least that it is their own identity they are compromising and not some hapless other persons. So I decided to find out who he was. It was fairly easy to find his Facebook profile. That gave me his name and surname. Searching for that name and surname along with "Uttar Pradesh" (from the UIDAI website in above screenshot) got me one potential hit on a relatively less known networking site.

I now had an email and phone number. The last three digits of the phone number didn't match those on the UIDAI website - last digit was different. As far as phone numbers go, a non-match is a non-match, but I remember making a note of it. I plugged the number I had into truecaller. That number gave me a domain name as his website.

The .in TLD doesn't offer privacy - I know this as someone who owns .in domains. So the chances were good that the information he provided the registrar while booking, was public. So I checked the whois data of that website, and voila. I had a phone number for him with three digits that matched the UIDAI website, as well as an address. Incidentally, it differed from the first number by only one digit.

Truecaller showed his name for the second number as well. This isn't a careless man. This phone profile hardly had much public information and it was used for what you'd call digital assets - ownership of a site, ownership of digital identity. The other seems to be the one for more casual use. But he'd made a big mistake using it for buying a domain that didn't protect his contact information.

How far can a person go with this information? I don't know. Available information suggests very very far, with some skill and tenacity. But it was about as far as I was willing to go to make a point about an irritation on Social Media. So far everything I had accessed was publicly available information, only collected from various sites and the address and three digits of the phone number matching that gave me the verification of the anonymous profile was publicly available information. The government may not believe citizens have a right to privacy, but I do, so I did not proceed further. I had all this is in less than 15 minutes of idling around on my computer. No major effort needed.

I may have drawn an ethical line, but I wasn't done being irritated with the foolishness and decided that at the very least, a good scare was in order. I would ask him why he had put that number there, and if he issued a Sharad-like challenge to hack it, I'd reply with partial data for his personal information to show how easy it was to know his Aadhaar number and the phone number linked to it and given the straight matches in data, I wouldn't be surprised if the address was correct too.

So I asked him. And I was in for the shock of my life. You may read the Twitter conversation that followed from this tweet on Twitter:

Suffice it to say, this man is batshit crazy. He is also probably the only Modi supporter I respect. He believes in Modi, but he is alarmed about several of his decisions and is definitely against Aadhaar. He is being forced to link his Aadhaar to everything, so in a protest of extreme compliance, he is attaching his Aadhaar to his identity EVERYWHERE. Twitter included. As you see in the thread, once I realized what he is doing, I was uncharacteristically polite with him. Because damn hell, if this isn't a Gandhian Satyagraha being done by a bhakt no less. Talk of the mind benders Twitter can throw at you. Long story short, I tried and failed to convince him to protect himself. I even told him the information I found out about him and how easily, but he did not relent.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

Done ignoring him, laughing at his folly, fighting to convince him, I had to concede he won. So I am now helping make sure his sacrifice does not go in vain. Yep. Let history note this moment, I'm openly supporting the actions of a staunch supporter of Modi - of all people.

Here is his explanation for why he is doing this. I hope the Modi and his cartel realize the kind of faith gullible people invest in them and try to serve citizens honestly instead of this digital colonization being imposed on the country without regard for individual or national safety.

I am an IITian. I studied Computer Science & Engineering for about half a decade at IIT Kharagpur. I thereby am quite initiated into the innate nuances and implications of the universe of computing. However my personal convictions took me to serve my homeland in Braj - the land of Sri Krishna - where I have been fighting relentless battles to protect, preserve and restore the heritage associated with Krishna's pastimes.
 
I have been chased by mining mafia on gun point for resisting their attempt to decimate the heritage hills of Krishna frequented by millions from across the globe; have been wounded by encroachers in our bid to transform sludge tanks back to their natural splendour; have been extended death threats by the goons of religious organisations for pressing the practice of the precept; have been booked under various malicious sections of the IPC by errand officials of the state who couldn't respond to the intellectual contest thus posed. I have been a fighter who has put my entire self to risk to bring home a point. So I don't fear anything.
 
I do revere Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have immense respect for his sincere hard work, original thinking and political gravitas, but am getting extensively alarmed with his inordinate push for policies, projects and platforms without mulling over their far reaching implications both internally and internationally. Developing India within a single generation is a laudable vision, but can it be advanced at once by pushing the simpleton citizenry of this country to a precipice, remains a perpetual concern for me as a die-hard nationalist, developmental professional and technical insider.
 
Aadhar is one such platform which never had had enticed me since inception. I have seen it as an abrogation of personal liberties in consonance with Gandhi's discomfort of carrying a fingerprinted ID paper while being in South Africa. Gandhian protest of those times sufficed with the doctrine of Passive Resistance and mass scale Civil Disobedience. But the dynamics in an ever inter-connected information age call for a different set of techniques to protest the supposed wrong doings on the part of powers of the day where citizens are being robbed off their basic liberties by a host of sinister but smart machinizations. You can only offer a creative resistance to such an oppression which does unfurl itself in ennobling eccentricities and eclectic excuses.
 
I thereby have chosen to 'purge' this all pervading monster of Aadhar by laying it open in the public domain. I chose this 98th Anniversary of Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak's death as it's somewhere the death of the ideal of Swaraj which he propounded and charged up the nation toiling under the clutches of British tyranny. The Aadhar tyranny is not going to be any different, it would be even worse.
 
If this is the ID, which would ensure my very existence, let it be out in the open. Let I surrender and forfeit my social identity of my name, surname, caste, religion et al and simply graduate to this all powerful ID. If this ID is required to make India a surveillance state, I am all out eager to wear a badge to this effect and to take a gps tracer injected in my blood stream so that the agents of the state can keep track of me in real time - What all I do, how much I do, how much more productive I can be.
 
I am all out to surrender myself as the Slave of Indian State, a condemned inmate who has got no rights & liberties. Let this Creative Resistance of mine be explicitly known to the mandarins of the state whose fetish for power is incessantly insatiable. Let me persecute & purge my own self dignity which was dearer to me more than my physical life for this incessant striving for a supposed national transformation. I invite the Indian State and all its actors to pounce upon me and squeeze out the minutest strands of self-pride, honor and self-respect left in me. I am after all an inmate of World's largest prison called India. I am all out to celebrate this. Are you game?

~ Raghav

Since the last few weeks, there has been a sudden uptick of anonymous accounts supporting Aadhaar and dismissing concerns and news of information leaks, security and privacy issues. These accounts were all either created in may or scrubbed of all content and began tweeting afresh in May. Some of them are propaganda accounts that tweet only positives about Aadhaar and/or gloss over issues raised on grounds of law, constitutionality, fundamental rights, privacy, ethics, security, national security and so on.

Here are some of the accounts.

Out of these the @supportaadhaar has been separately claimed by Rashmi Ranjan so far

But there were more serious handles that were created in May, anonymous and interacted specifically with critics of Aadhaar in various ways that ranged from defamation to threats of legal action. For example, these handles.

It did not take us long to figure out what was going on. Prominent handles that had criticized Aadhaar on technical grounds (not lawyers, or political or ethical grounds) were the main targets. It was rapidly obvious that these were fronts for people from the tech community. Likely people profiting from Aadhaar, because it is really not plausible that the abundantly detailed flaws revealed in Aadhaar could not be understood by them.

When one of these handles, @confident_india tangled with Kiran Jonnalgadda, he was able to make an educated guess at its identity and proved it by verifying the troll account against a real phone number. That phone number belonged to the co-founder, governing body member and director of iSPIRIT - Sharad Sharma. The director of iSPIRIT was going around using a fake handle and planting allegations of profiting from criticism of Aadhaar against critics. Planting allegations about them working for foreign intelligence agencies (ironically, MongoDB that Aadhaar uses is funded by the CIA).

Allegations of foreign intelligence affiliations
Who is funded by the CIA Allegations of foreign intelligence affiliations

On a stray note, after these allegations started happening, Nandan Nilekani ("mentor" to this circus) too referred to critics of Aadhaar with vested interests from his real account while promoting that childish data free article asking personal questions related to motivations of aadhaar critics that is replied to here.

Kiran informed several of us about his investigation into this troll (aka director of iSPIRIT, Sharad Sharma) and we independently verified that his number was indeed attached to the fake account, because he knew that once he exposed Sharad Sharma in public, the phone number would immediately be removed and perhaps the anonymous account as well.

He made this video public in a tweet and later blogged about it. Thiyagarajan M, a fellow at iSPIRIT blogged a reply on medium.com as well stating that Sharad had denied the allegations and they would be investigated, while he admits that the presentation Kiran mentions exists and is just a strategy document that does not recommend anonymous trolling. He states that they were aware that some of them had created an anonymous campaign and claims it is not an official campaign by iSPIRIT. As though an official campaign would be put in writing formally.

We are aware that some volunteers and their friends have created an anonymous campaign to Support Aadhaar. This is not a troll campaign, but an informational one. It is also not an iSPIRT campaign.

I am not sure what remains to investigate. If it is about investigating how Sharad can possibly be taken off the hook, it shouldn't need an organization existing because of an authentication based product too long to realize that there really is no sane way.

No official handle related with iSPIRIT has so far published any statement to the best of my knowledge. Sharad Sharma and the troll have both promptly denied to it, of course. Except, in the process of denying that he was @confident_india, Sharad seems to have proved himself to be @indiaforward2 as well! He accidentally tweeted his denial of being @confident_india from the @indiaforward2 handle as well as his real handle, before tweeting the new tweets with his real handle. He deleted the tweets that went from both handles of course, but not before someone quick made a timely screenshot. So here we are.

 

Sharad tweeting as @indiaforward2

The denial from his main handle was read by many, but I don't have a screenshot of it... yet. However, he didn't delete it fast enough. Factordaily updated their reporting of the Sharad Sharma controversy with his denial

Sharad Sharma woke to tweetstorm in Atlanta
Sharad Sharma woke to tweetstorm in Atlanta just like @indiaforward2
Sharad tweeting as himself.
Sharad's denial of trolling from his real account
Sharad's denial of trolling from his real account

My immediate thought about it wasn't even so much that people in power use sneaky, unethical methods to get their way and undermine obstacles, but that the director of a company that is a collective of software developers and who were all defending Aadhaar on grounds of security and privacy were so ignorant about securing something as elementary as an anonymous account!

Once this expose was public, several people independently verified that they too had been able to authenticate access to the troll account with Sharad Sharma's personal number. For example:

 

Rohin Dharmakumar went a step ahead and showed how a mobile phone can't simply be attached to a Twitter account without actually verifying the number.

 

There are also a lot of people unaware of the developments in that country called Digital India who are aghast at what they are discovering. This is what you get for being gullible. Here. Educational. Video published from official iSPIRIT handle. Watch Pramod Varma, Sanjay Jain ex-UIDAI now "volunteer" at the ISpirt that "donates" to Govt and how this serves to avoid oversight by CAG, RTI.

In other words, what you have here is a bunch of private people who are creating products off big data collected from all citizens in a manner that allows them to evade accountability to the citizens for it. They also fund the government, push the expansion of Aadhaar in spite of extensive risks and violations of citizens rights being documented. In spite of the fact that Aadhaar effectively allows any infiltrator to become a "citizen" of the country by facilitating the creation of all documents that a citizen would have. And when the concerns raised get too alarming and there is no coherent defense of them possible, they make fake accounts to go around undermining dissenters so that the imposition of Aadhaar that puts citizens and country at risk may not be challenged.

If you do not speak up for your rights, they will be trampled on by profiteers out to exploit them at any cost.