Denmark’s Welfare State Became a Surveillance Nightmare
wired.com
wired.com
2. The social contract of welfare is that you have a right to receive money from government when you hit hard times and the corresponding responsibility to not abuse the privilege. It's not a contract if it isn't enforceable by either of the parties.
To me, it seems society should have some ability to do this for the sake of public health, however I also understand not wanting to wanting to grant this kind of power to the state, even if we are trading it for welfare.
Will there be some free riders? Sure. But in any system where support is available, accessible, and sufficient, that will always be the case. I'm not falling for the nirvana fallacy and you shouldn't either.
Edit: as an aside, consider that these discussions always center around the fraud rate--that is the number of people receiving benefits who shouldn't--and not the unintended exclusion rate--that is the number of people who genuinely needed help but couldn't get it. That skewed framing is all about undermining the value of the welfare state over promoting it's health for the good of the citizenry.
I share your doubts... I suspect that there is an error in the article as the document (from French gov, in French) it links to mentions numbers that are much higher, 3.5+% and up to 10% for specific things.
In the end I came to the conclusion that the blind pursuit of model performance and thereby business metrics in this realm was simply incompatible with the idea of privacy. One must be willing to philosophically accept a level of fraud just as a free society accepts a level of dissent or a parent a level of rebellion in her/his children.
The optimal amount is the one where you lose less value from fraud than you would have lost with overly-strict checks and false positives.
My take: we've asked the state to supplant the good part of old support networks (economic and social support through welfare), and hoped it wouldn't do what we didn't like about those support networks (enforce social conformity, now with networked computers). Turns out the state likes power and will take over all available mechanisms if we let it! Why are we perpetually surprised
Freedom requires keeping the responsibility, duties, and outcomes clustered together as tightly as possible. If I break it, it affects me.
Which let's also clarify what we're calling "socialism" here. In this case we using it to describe having the government provide a social safety net. All too often "socialism" gets applied as a blanket term for "any government provided service" which obfuscates the actual issues rather than clarifying anything. It just makes the whole conversation devolve into a pointless ideological battle.
Not really.
Or, rather, that claim is being used as justification for overreach and power grabs from the same authoritarians who claim to be against fascism.
In principal, no, non-fascist authoritarianisms can exist. In modern practice, they are comparatively rare. Leninism in the narrow sense was internationalist rather than nationalist, but most of its later derivatives (starting, in the USSR with “socialism in one country”) have shaded progressively more toward nationalism. Superficially “left” authoritarianisms (again, largely, Leninism and its derivatives) may have a rhetorical bent toward egalitarianism that contrasts with fascisms elitist/heirarchicalism, but even in old-school Leninism its distinction from Marxism is its adoption of vanguardism which naturally tends toward hierarchy, and that’s even more intense in its subsequent derivatives, both institutionalized with state power and, in many case, in revolutionary movements; the necessity of armed power to maintain authoritarian systems makes institutionalized authoritarianism naturally tend toward militarism even when as movements they might present as anti-militaristic. All of the modern authoritarian movements are corporatist, whether by bringing “outside” groups formally into regime decision-making, or abolishing them and replacing them with formal state institutions, or by assuring that “outside” interests are run by people connected to the regime and informally coordinating power, even if there aren’t part of formal decisionmaking.
For Nazis the oligarchy gets its power from bigger businesses (and still, the army and police, like all authoritarians). This is a very managerial system that promotes internal competition (Chapoutot wrote a book extremely interesting about it, especially when you lived through poorly implemented agile/scrum). It's basically the cousin of Fascim, one of their parents being Bonapartism.
I suppose communism/socialism/stalinism (depending on your definition) the oligarchy gets its power from the bureaucracy once they capture it from the proletariat. Again, a cousin of the two previous system, with the same parent (according to Trotsky, Kronstad's butcher)
For platformism (the most authoritative version of anarchism), it never got to the point of having that much authority, but it could have gone towards Bonapartism too. With a much weaker power base consisting of only the army and basic nationalism, so if you don't have Napoleon or Nestor Makhno, it probably won't work (and Makhno was too anti-nationalist to build his power on that, so I guess it wouldn't work).
'Oligarchic' and 'monarchic' aren't political ideologies btw. They're political systems.
In Leninism and derived systems, there is no need for the oligarchy to seize anything from the proletariat, the distinction between then and their notional parent in Marxism is vanguardism, which already incorporates an elite which becomes the oligarchy when seizing power “in the name of” the proletariat.
The last Republican president Trump, did so many things that invoked echos of the last major wave of fascism (Hitler and Mussolini) that one of the foremost experts on Nazism (Christopher Browning [1]) wrote a piece in the media directly making the comparison - not something experts on that period generally do lightly. [2]
That was in 2018, and it was followed by two more years of authoritarian power grabs culminating in an attempted coup.
Since then, Trump has continued to largely drive the policy and political approach of the Republican party. And other leading Republicans, like Desantis, have followed his lead. Those attacks have extended to the media (there's currently advancing in Florida that would require bloggers to register with the state if they cover the state) and there were calls to "eradicate trans people" at CPAC to resounding cheers (which is literally how the holocaust started [3])
So while I am not a fan of the Democratic party (there isn't a party in American politics that represents my political views), there is only one party that is clearly a neo-fascist party. And that party is far too close to regaining power for comfort.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Browning [2] https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/25/suffocation-of-d... [3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-his...
You know what a moral panic is, right? "Trump is Literally Hitler!!!!" is another moral panic. No, I don't expect anyone caught in the grips of one to believe they are caught in the grips of one, especially when prominent journalists, celebrities and pundits are also caught in it, so I won't try to convince you. iykyk.
Personally, I think a President lying to get his country into two (2) ruinous wars simultaneously, and the resultant, decades-long occupations is far more destructive than anything Trump could manage.
Overseeing FISA courts, mass surveillance, assassination lists did far more destruction to democracy than Trump even tried to do, but we're not ready for that conversation.
So, no, Trump is not heralding a wave of neo-fascism. Maybe if folks who believe so could put down the torches and pitchforks long enough to actually listen to the people who voted for him, we all could work together to vote in a principled President at least once in my lifetime. No, repeating to each other that Trump's voters were all hick white supremacist neo-fascists is not actually listening. Empathetic listening is listening. But, again, I don't expect to convince anyone of that here and now.
From the democrats or republicans? ("Both" would be closest to correct, if we assume your statement is true.)
Edit: oooh did I make the left or the right angry with this comment? Both sides are authoritarian and infringing on your rights wherever they can, while simultaneously convincing their followers that only the opponents do it.
Yes, there are always elements of the far-left and far-right who lean authoritarian, and any of the "-isms" (fascism, communism, etc.) are fully correlated or anti-correlated to authoritarianism.
But, in this current situation, to claim it is "both sides" is either naive or willful ignorance, and plays right into the authoritarian line.
The FACT is that a number of countries have fallen from democracy into authoritarianism (Hungary, turky, etc.), and these are Right-Wing movements. In the US, while the Dem party works to protect voting rights, the Republican party has gone full authoritarian, literally stating that democracy is less preferable thatn their rule, actively taking measures to select their voters, control the academy, the press, and industry, all of which are flat-out authoritarian. Their leader literally has just declared that "I am your retribution.”. That is not the statement of anyone even remotely working to lead a democratic society; it is the statement of someone who wants authority to lead a minority in crushing and killing anyone who opposes him.
False equivalency is a cheap cop-out at best, and more accurately actively promoting ignorance and failure to respond to emerging authoritarianism. In the current situation, it is frankly disgusting.
Stop it.
The Democrats are actively ignoring Supreme Court rulings (Bruen case and the Hochul administration in NY doing exactly what the Supreme Court told them they could not do, which was to declare the entire state a “sensitive location”).
The Democrats also redraw voting districts as they like, just as they accuse the republicans of.
You have states like CA intentionally leaking the names, addresses and purchase lists of gun owners.
The entirety of “social authoritarianism” belongs to the democrats.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/561825-comedians-are-ri...
Acting as if it is the same as the leader of a party claiming that "I am your retribution!"?
Acting as if it is the same as attempting to pass laws to require registration of anyone who writes about the govt and govt officials?
Acting as if it is the same as implementing laws to restrict other states from providing legal medical services, and using the entire state and commercial surveillance apparatus to criminally prosecute people who get medical treatment they don't like?
Directly writing laws that restrict teaching of actual history and other subjects they don't like?
This isn't small govt, this is authoritarianism.
In a free society, all of the institutions are relatively independent and in a balance of power and freedom, from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of govt, to the press, the academy, industry, religions, etc. Under authoritarianism, all of these institutions are coerced into service of the executive.
The Rs are actively coercing all of the other institutions into their service. The Ds are doing the exact opposite (I have plenty of issues vs Ds in other time periods, but this is the situation today).
Even on gerrymandering, the Ds are trying to pass national laws to use actual representative districting, the Rs arent. I cannot fault them for doing it defensively, and I guarantee you if offered a deal to stop it in EVERY state, the Ds would sign up that week, and the Rs would filibuster it to death. The Rs only hold the house because of massive gerrymandering.
If you cannot see any of that, you are beyond help. Just don't pretend to be some kind of even-handed, above-the-fray commentator. You are posting straight-up authoritarian apologias.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Just because it doesn’t affect you it’s “not that bad.” It is that bad. It is not “minor”. NYS is openly defying a Supreme Court Order, infringing on constitutional rights, saying “I don’t need data to prove (these laws) will change anything”, while citing racist laws from the 1800s as proof that their restrictions have history.
Antonyuk v Bruen: NYS Defense of the “good moral character clause” is “ From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms”. But that’s fine justification for you, because you don’t like guns. NYS literally defended its requirement for character references with a CT law from the 1800s that said “any free negro who wishes to carry a firearm must obtain character references from several white neighbors, attesting to his character and temperament”. If this was any other topic, the dems would be decrying this racist rhetoric, but instead they’re the ones pushing it forward and standing behind it, while pretending to be the arbiters of racial equality.
I’m not disagreeing with you on the republicans poor behavior. But if you think the dems are the saints here and are “upholding democracy, law and order” or something, then I don’t think you can be helped. You’re just as blind as the republicans followers, and doing the same “frothing at the mouth” that they do about how bad the other side is, while ignoring pretending your side is the savior.
Also on the gerrymandering, here, also from a source you’ll probably like: https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-ho.... Don’t pretend the dems would change anything about this.
On voting, more critically, who is trying to pass laws enabling voting, and who is passing laws restricting voting? Ds are trying to get more voting, and Rs are restricting it, restricting times, polling locations, even banning people handing out water in voting queues (which wouldn't exist if they weren't trying to restrict voting. In democracies, voters elect their leaders, in autocracies, the leaders select their voters, which is what Rs are doing.
For the sake of discussion, even if I grant you 100% that NYs actions on gun control are not legal, those will get sorted UNDER THE LAW, and rolled back, and penalized.
Meanwhile I do see Ds doing zero and Rs doing ALL of these pre-authoritarian steps, identical to those in pre-authoritarian Germany 1930s, Chile 1970s, & Hungary & Turkey 2000s:
— Threatening to use the state to jail enemies (Trump from "Lock her up!" chants to most recently at CPAC)
— Infringing 1A free speech, requiring registration of writers
— Actively and pre-emptively denying valid election results
— Infiltrating police departments and the enlisted ranks of the military
— Taking over school boards and local boards of elections
— Banning books
— Burning books
— Firing principals and teachers who defend multiracial, multicultural democracy while banning books that contain such “dangerous” ideas
— Demonizing queer people and outlawing drag shows (again infringing 1A rights)
— Demonizing Jews and blacks
— Actively and completely rewriting history, in particular January 6th
— Gerrymandering states so regardless of how people vote, Republicans control the levers of power
— Changing election laws so they can both make it harder for city-dwellers to vote and to ignore and then change the outcomes of elections they don’t like
— Building media structures that will support the authoritarian takeover when it happens
— Organizing armed paramilitary militias, with back-channel connections to local police
— Creating legal organizations to sanitize and rationalize ending messy democracy
— Spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories about Democrats and Jews using the dog whistle of “George Soros”
— Firebombing Texas Democratic Party’s Austin headquarters and threatening them that if they don’t stop trying to get Democrats elected worse will come
Sorry, a4a4a4, but the Ds are doing exactly zero of this
False equivalency is a lie. What you are doing is called "whataboutism", simply attempting to deflect the conversation from the crimes of your side to avoid accountability and change. Or, perhaps you really are merely fooled. Rethink, because you've got next to nothing convincing.
1) "Look what they're doing and how bad it is" 2) "We would never do something like that" 3) Do something like that. 4) "What do you mean we're doing that? This is 'whataboutism', we were talking about how terrible the other group is!"
I hope you will come around some day. I'm equally worried about the authoritarianism of both parties, and can't decide which dystopia I'd rather live in. Option A: No right to self-defense but having abortion rights, letting violent criminals out on $0 bail. Option B: A right to self-defense but living in a country which wants to legislate based on religion.
I grew up in an R household, cast my first vote for an R POTUS candidate, and wrote the software that ran the 1996 R national convention (invited back, but the company had moved on to a different focus). I got a very intimate inside look and crash course during that '96 project.
These Rs are nothing like the current Rs. Back then, it was literally "Big Tent", and they were very concerned when Buchanon won some primaries, as those were uncompromising 'crazies'.
Today's crop is literally the inmates running the asylum.
Seriously, where are Dems attempting to RESTRICT the vote, or restrict anything else?
Where are they actually infringing on 2A "as part of a well-regulated militia"?
I've seen noting that is more than common-sense requirements so that literal lunatics can't get weapons of war as easily as a hamburger. I live Massachusetts, one of the most restrictive states, and it is nothing more than an inconvenience (3 hour course, regular bkgd check), and no, I can't have an AR-15, which is a weapon for people who can't shoot straight (literally designed for that). Oh, and airguns are entirely unregulated, so I can get a gun firing a 50-grain .45-caliber pellet at 900 fps with around 400 foot-pounds of energy without any question.
My personal view on gun restrictions is that it should be regulated by increasing firepower and firing rate. Kid's .22? Just a safety course and test, and you're good to go. More courses and tests of safety & marksmanship as firepower increases. By the time you get to AR-15++ (and I think ++ should go up to just short of WMD and NBC weapons), you'll have to prove high levels of skill, safety, psychological stability, and have insurance. And, when licensed, you'll be subject to militia call-up. Freedom, and responsibility as part of a well-regulated militia. Claiming that 2A means that any random angry nutjob can buy any weapon anytime is just lunacy, and it kills people by the hour.
No one is talking about no right to self-defense. Again, in the strictest state of MA, I can have a very nice arsenal. What we don't have is random mass shootings.
You are right about the "country which wants to legislate based on religion", but vastly understating it. Just go look at some of the literal Christo-fascist movements. You also overlook that under R authoritarianism, the right to self-defense will only be available to white males.
There is, and I've not seen you cite any even partial equivalence on the Dem side. I also see on the Dem side clear movements against the $0 bail, and the "Defund The Police" movement was effectively shut down, and the POTUS is strongly pro-police.
Yes, there are some pushing for "$0 bail", but two things. First, this is not autocracy, it is idiocy. Second, those rapidly get shut down, as people realize that living crime-free is also kind of a right that needs to be enforced.
As far as I can tell, the Ds are about PERMISSION and building, not locking down everything for the state.
Please show me where the Ds are actually doing anything like the list I presented of live, current R activities and bills that take away people's rights.
EDIT: add 2nd-to-last para.
Moreover this behavior extends to denying that the violent January 6h insurrection was "merely tourists". Again, nearly every R and an entire RW media circus is propounding such lies. Yet there is zero equivalece anywhere else on the rest of today's political spectrum.
Calling our "whataboutism" is NOT simply complaining that you are complaining that Ds do similar stuff. It is that you attempt to deflect the conversation by calling out DIFFERENT, IRRELEVANT faults. Of course anyone can find faults, it's the easiest thing in the world to do. Clever of you to try to say that claims of "whataboutism" are merely complaining about getting called out for the same thing, but it is not the case. j
I note that you have claimed only that "Ds also do bad stuff", never acknoweledged any of the the wholesale list of outright R moves to authoritarianism, and never actually cited anything remotely similar to R authoritarian actions. Show some actual equivalence or you are merely running interference for actual authoritarianism.
If there is some ACTUAL meaningful (and plausible, not merely some powerless loon saying nonsense) moves by Ds towards real authoritarianism — undermining independence of branches of govt, the press, the academy, religions, industry, or bringing religion into govt — I'm all ears. But I've heard nothing but a small complaint about one state maybe overreaching on gun restrictions.
Seriously, I'm all about authoritarianism vs democracy, but I need real evidence.
False. Authoritarianism has nothing to do with socialism.
Authoritarianism thrives because the people fail at holding their leaders accountable for their actions.
The leaders will keep overreaching with their power as long as they see no consequences for them.
I hate to tell you this but
> The US incarceration rate peaked in 2008 when about 1,000 in 100,000 U.S. adults were behind bars. That's 760 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages. This incarceration rate was similar to the average incarceration levels in the Soviet Union during the existence of the infamous Gulag system, when the Soviet Union's population reached 168 million, and 1.2 to 1.5 million people were in the Gulag prison camps and colonies.
> The total of arrests given in the Shvernik report for 1937-38 is 1 372 392, of whom 681 692 are given as shot. The total entering Gulag camps in that period as given by Zemskov is 1 853 513.
this is for one year mind you
The conservative preference to avoid one undeserving person receiving benefits even if it risks the liberty and security of many deserving people is what pushes towards authoritarian implementations of benefits policies.
You see the same in the US - it’s states like Florida that insist on drug testing for benefits recipients. The issue is not the benefits program - it’s that the benefits program is being administered by a conservative government who fundamentally believe that benefits should only go to those who ‘deserve’ them.
The authoritarianism problem is not ‘socialist programs’ - it’s what happens when conservative perspectives on how socialist programs should be administered gain sway. In Denmark, even a broadly left coalition government contains more conservative members, and has to appease conservative voters to maintain power.
Authoritarianism is not inherently socialist or conservative, it can infect either end of the political spectrum.
Please note the clear wording: "The perception ...". The far-right/populist in the EU is very good at using such perception to increase surveillance and control.
Again it is largely because large numbers of immigrants have a destabilising effect on society, which fuels resentment and at least the perception that the national welfare system is being too generous and abused by immigrants, which in turn leads to politicians calling for more restrictions and controls, etc.
It's the same across Europe and it's not helpful to blame the far right for this. The far right only uses existing concerns to its advantage like all political parties do, especially when other parties sometimes refuse to acknowledge those concerns.
From the same folks who benefit from that perception.
> The far right only uses existing concerns
No, they're happy to invent/exaggerate concerns. (As, to be clear, are other parts of the political spectrum.)
They do and that is plain to see across Europe. That's an observation.
Burying your head in the sand only makes things worse and actually plays into the far right's hands, like also calling people names (eg. labeling them racist or xenophobic) because they have concerns, which can be valid.
Certainly, asylum laws and procedures are being abused, that is not perception. For instance here in the UK there are apparently 23,000 pending asylum applications made by... Albanian citizens. So clearly migrants have realised that claiming asylum currently immediately stops them from being treated as 'illegal immigrants' and allows them to stay while their application is pending... And the situation looks similar across Europe.
Did you even read how Denmark is treating immigrants?
Basically putting them in prisons [1] because they deemed their origin country safe even if they can't be actually deported.
And even if you learned Danish and already started working and producing income, you are still under threat from getting deported.
They are also stealing their jewelry [2] to "cover immigration costs".
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/07/world/europe/denmark-syri...
2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/26/danish-parliam...
When government says they're doing something that increases their power over people at their expense you need to look at it the same as BigCo doing something that increases profit at the expense of consumers. Sure the pretext of fraud or theft or ambulance chasing lawyers might exist but it is not the whole story.
When it comes to welfare schemes, I'm very skeptical (like the current top post) that fraud rate can be as low as presented.
I didn't see this in the article. The eligibility requirements and punishments remain the same regardless of the surveillance. It's just that with surveillance you're more likely to get caught.
The most compelling case against large scale surveillance is that future regimes can abuse that power. Surveillance itself is agnostic until employed to some end. The question becomes what level of use do people find acceptable. Of course this will always result in some level of minority abuse when certain activities are frowned upon my the majority.
The somewhat good news in the welfare case is that it's only enforcing existing laws, it only covers a subset of the entire population, and those in the subset have at least the theoretical choice to remove themselves from the surveillance.
But the real question is why they don't do the same for tax evasion?
Because "taxpayers" are a big enough demographic that you can't just kick them in the dick without consequence. Welfare recipients are a smaller and poorer demographic so the state can abuse them with invasive policy with less blow-back.
Tax evasion will generally run up against well informed and heavily lawyered entities (people or corporations).
Alternatively, it will again degenerate to destroying the lives of small time tax dodgers.
Who says they don't?
If I had to guess, I would say the magnitude of the problem is just more complex. The tax system is more complicated and impacts more people.
They did attempt to change the law to give the tax agency more similar powers[1]. Last I checked, it was rejected due to public outcry[2]. I do not expect this to be the last attempt.
--
[1] https://kammeradvokaten.dk/nyheder/nyt-lovforslag-kunstig-in...
[2] https://pro.ing.dk/datatech/artikel/efter-massiv-kritik-mini...
Here in the US, they don't. https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-ea...
"Congress asked the IRS to report on why it audits the poor more than the affluent. Its response is that it doesn’t have enough money and people to audit the wealthy properly. So it’s not going to."
They bumped down financial institution income reporting down to $600. Going after low earners instead of going after the affluent.
The other thing is of course that you don't want to piss off the people who give you money, while you don't worry too much about pissing off the people who take money from you. If you drive those away who give you money, you have less money. If you drive those taking money away, you have more money.
We see this in the US, too. Conservative politicians who are also trying to cut down welfare, but maybe not through such extreme means, are also very much against a recent expansion of the IRS (the US' tax enforcement group).
Well let's see how long that trust lasts, it certainly didn't last in Europe[1]
1. https://www.dw.com/en/danish-secret-service-helped-us-spy-on...
Allies also spy on each other to make sure they're still on the same team and not dealing under the table with non-friendlies. The weren't spying on average joe citizens, but on high ranking politicians and weapons manufacturers. When you're in a military alliance with them you want to know what those parties are really up to.
I meant that the government isn't particularly trustworthy, so they will spy on everyone.
They did it on their allies, they will do it on their own citizens and use it against them too.
> Allies also spy on each other to make sure they're still on the same team and not dealing under the table with non-friendlies. The weren't spying on average joe citizens, but on high ranking politicians and weapons manufacturers.
I doubt your reaction would be the same if it was Germany spying on the US.
I'm not American but European and I support US spying on German politicians if it means keeping them in check from their ties and dependency they had with Russia till recently, since we're all in this political alliance called the EU and in this military alliance called NATO, and if German politicians decide to do some dumb shit, if affects us all in a big way as Germany is Europe's biggest economy so if they sneeze we all catch a cold.
US and allies warned Germany repeatedly over their overdependence on Russian gas and Germany said "nah mate, it'll be fine".
As a high ranking politician you wave your right to privacy when entering office and being handed insane amounts of power, so expect to be spied on. "Trust but verify" should be the norm for them.
You know that there is no way that america wants good for the EU right?
Also no, politicians definitely have right to privacy, otherwise they would've made all their plans in public.
"news-style=scientific"
so that the article will aitomatically be transformed from
"In a sparsely decorated corner office …"
into something which I would read.
This “unique” number in India is assigned to residents (not just citizens) based on biometrics (probabilistic) across a population of more than a billion people (which magnifies the effect of even tiny error rates). Aadhaar is claimed by the government as saving money, but its results have been denial of benefits, including causing deaths due to starvation and people not getting pensions that they’re entitled to.
It has also suffered a lot of scope creep where it is now the only document that the government as well as private entities demand as an identity document for various purposes.
> Armed with questionable data on the amount of benefits fraud taking place, conservative politicians have turned Denmark’s famed safety net into a polarizing political battleground.
> The perception of widespread welfare fraud has empowered Jacobsen to establish one of the most sophisticated and far-reaching fraud detection systems in the world.
Same thing happened in India. The “savings” were also debunked through information obtained from the government (though the Supreme Court of India just took the government’s words on savings at face value and eventually decided that this whole program is constitutional).
> The bill was backed by all of the major political parties in Denmark and became law in April 2015.
In India, though the opposition political parties opposed the bill, there has been no difference on the ground. All the state governments, including those where the opposition parties (centrally) are in power have embraced this number. All of them have a standard formula:
a) link Aadhaar with everything
b) deny subsidies to beneficiaries due to network issues, biometric issues, etc. (Aadhaar is a centrally managed database that requires network connectivity for authentication)
c) deeply cut or remove the subsidies entirely after some time
> Jacobsen says her algorithms don’t actually cancel benefits—they only flag people as suspicious. Ultimately, it is up to a human fraud investigator to make the final call, and citizens have the right to appeal their decisions.
In India too, the law says that nobody shall be denied any benefit for want of Aadhaar. But the reality is that nothing moves without it working.
At least Denmark would have to consider privacy issues and privacy laws. India does not yet have a privacy and data protection law. It’s been open season for a lot of private companies (and probably other countries) for a long time with the amount of data that has leaked and/or is cheaply available.
One egregious example is that it is effectively mandatory to share Aadhaar ID to visit the popular Venkateshwara temple(often considered as one of the richest in the world) in Tirumala, south India.
A government has no business in tracking religious practices of its citizens, yet it happens in the name of fraud detection and convenience.
And they, horror of horrors, don't look like you.