I can understand the liberty v/s security implications, but I don't understand when people in the US feel they are better off in terms of liberty.
This is essentially SSN implemented in the 21st century. And you can't get a job, buy/rent a house, or get a bank account without an SSN
The fact that you can be anonymous in the U.S. and still live a life inside of regular society is a complete myth. And I think most people accept the fact that the SSN is in fact necessary.
India does not have any such system, instead of the SSN, they have ten different numbers attached to a person. All this does is make the ID part of it uniform.
The biometric part is not the focus here, the ID part is, which pretty much every developed country already has. The biometric part is just a means to get the ID part done better.
Just to reiterate, I understand the liberty v/s security implications, but americans have already given theirs up for security, so maybe that's just the price to pay of being a developed nation.
I've actually noticed that citizens of the US need to provide their SSN in a huge number of situations that I would never need to provide any kind of government identification.
The closest thing we have to an ID that every citizen has is an IRD number for the purposes of tax. You would give that to your bank and your employer so that they can pay tax on your behalf, but even that is optional. If you don't provide it then they will assume that you pay tax at the highest rate.
Compare to when I was staying a friends house in the US and heard him give his SSN to the phone company when he was troubleshooting his internet. I find it baffling that you would need a government issued ID number just to form a relationship with a phone company.
But the biometric part means that scanners/computers/systems can ID you with your consent and/or knowledge. At least with a SSN, you have to consent and give them it.
I guess with this: "The fact that you can be anonymous in the U.S. and still live a life inside of regular society is a complete myth."
True
" And I think most people accept the fact that the SSN is in fact necessary."
False.
"I understand the liberty v/s security implications, but americans have already given theirs up for security, so maybe that's just the price to pay of being a developed nation."
What??????
Good God man! Americans have made a HUGE number of EXTREMELY bad decisions, from insane foreign policy to eating so much crap we are dying from it, to bankrupting ourselves!
"just the price to pay of being a developed nation." NOT!!!!
Just total insane stupidity! Do not copy the U.S.!
Where are they giving up liberty. You have to look at the problems from an India perspective not a first world one. Personal identification is a solved problem here but in India lack of trust and lack of access prevents many people from gaining liberty. This system will allow a greater number of people to access government programs, education, and financial tools like bank accounts. That being said there needs to be some safe guards in place to prevent the police state scenarios that many here seem to be worried about.
Biometric security has always been a disaster which is why real projects using it almost never end up being realized. The article portrays it as if the reason India is the first to do this is because they are somehow uniquely able to take advantage of technology. The reality is that the reason they are the first is that everybody realized how flawed it is.
In terms of liberty - a biometric id is, by definition, an "involuntary" identity. It's something you're unable to change or refuse to yield, even if you choose to. A person with a non-biometric identity can freely destroy all forms of that identity and then they cannot be identified any more by it. They have the freedom to produce it when they wish to be identified, and to choose not to when they wish to remain anonymous. A biometric identity is a non "opt out" identity. It can never be changed or altered, and can be forcibly read by anybody with physical control over you. Hence there is a great loss of liberty in a biometric identity, and when you really think it through, almost no advantages that can't be obtained from a non-biometric identity.
I'm Indian, I've looked at it from an Indian perspective and plain logic tells me this is insane.
Heck leave alone our country men and their talent at finding loopholes or the corruption of our system.
When I know first hand that the debate internally amongst the world bank and nandan nilekani went from trying to tackle the privacy issues to "my role is to give every Indian a number" (second hand quote) my hair stands on end.
Not to mention that the system already creates duplicates and overlaps, which then compound which each subsequent generation.
Or the fact that we already have bad data from outsourcers who just jammed info into the system, or the fact that the laptops were stolen. I think we lost data recently too.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. - Benjamin Franklin.