Hacker News Reader

other governments have proposed similar things - in europe there is a widespread distrust of these systems because they were used very effectively by the Nazi's - record keeping in the Netherlands was very good - 75% of jews were killed, in france the people collecting data conspired to protect jews by not punching the jew slot on the punched card and only 25% were killed

a belgian company sold an ID system to the rwandan government, it was used by one tribe to find people from another tribe so they could kill them

these systems are deadly in the wrong hands - if the info is not there, it can't be abused.

> in europe there is a widespread distrust of these systems

What makes you think that? In the UK maybe, but certainly in Spain no one thinks twice about their ID cards. It's just something you have and use to identify yourself - both in public administration and in private transactions, for example paying money into a bank over the counter.

there are other countries apart from the uk and spain in europe

We have had Personal identity number system in Sweden since 1947. Maybe because we where spared most of the atrocities of WWII I don't know of any strong resistance against it. But it is also combined with laws that strongly forbid registration of some types of information, such as ethnic group or political leaning.

And it is oh so convenient! I'm moving in a few weeks, and I had to fill in a form on a website and the tax authorities sent me some papers to sign and return. And that is all! Now all government agencies, the banks and larger companies that I deal with, and all magazines I subscribe to will have my new correct address in their system within days.

The Nazis didn't need IDs, they just used census data.

I do not agree with the point that if Nazis used X to kill Jews then we should not use X. For example, Nazis used trains to transport arrested Jews. No government should build railroads then?

"these systems are deadly in the wrong hands" - In the context of this thread, I hope you are not comparing Indian government with the Nazis. Such a comparison would be misusing the Nazi term and insulting the severity of crimes committed against Jews.

"if the info is not there, it can't be abused" - We can't move to the stone age now. Your car registration details at the DMV can be used against you. Your SSN details can be used against you. Information is stored about every citizen, in every country.

I hope that people realize that schemes such as UID present many benefits - reducing corruption, bring transparency, and ultimately, giving power to the people.

railroads is a foolish argument

i wasn't comparing the Indian government with the Nazi's - but i will say there has been a long history of religious bloodshed in India, it doesn't take a major leap of imagination to see that someone with nefarious intent towards Hindu's, Muslims, Sikh's etc should not have access to extensive information about them - human nature being what it is, and looking at what has happened in those circumstances throughout history.

> We are nowhere near US or China in mass surveillance.

Just because no one else in here (or even the original article) has mentioned it: cell phone encryption is illegal in India. All GSM is done in the clear. Think about that for a second. It means any citizen with a few hundred dollars worth of hardware can rival the best abilities of the NSA.

Are you sure? I thought GSM was encrypted by definition. I know it's been used as a NATO backup communications channel. Once the signal hits the base station, though, it's usually sent unencrypted down the wire.

India uses A5/0: http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/gsm-india-26616.html

Blackberry threatened with suspension because of encryption: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/blackberry-india/5732

(I guess not all GSM is done in the clear since you can use encryption but must share your keys.)

The tower can (unilaterally, probably without any notification on the handset) select "A5/0" as the encryption algorithm. That's no encryption.

Oh, ok, news to me, but it sounds plausible.

.... But, uh, why would the government require that, when they can just listen to the signal after it's been unencrypted at the base station?

So that not even the people at the cell phone base station know just how absurdly much data they are pulling in.

Edit: Cannot reply to "monsterix"'s comment. The only relevant line in the posted link [1] is "However, a complaint regarding misuse of address proof was received". Is there something I have missed?

[1] http://www.rediff.com/news/report/uidai-gets-first-complaint...

Edit: I see two more new links.

One of them talks that a NGO has filed a case against UID agency. Government's welfare schemes now require UID. Why? I have given some of the reasons in the first paragraph of the parent comment.

For the second link, government wants everyone to have a bank account. Because now the money from different welfare programs will be directly transferred to the bank accounts. No need to go to government office and collect money. Please read more explanation towards the end of the article you posted!

Edit: Your claim: "I know at least 22 cases that have been suppressed". What you have provided: 3 links from a quick Google search, that too without checking their content.

UID is clearly surveillance tool. Its aim is to make the citizen's feel powerless. The scheme can be implemented with single fingerprint to prevent duplication, still iris scan is done. The privacy law is still not passed which could limit the access of UID data. It was forced on banks and petroleum marketers undemocratically.

"It was forced on banks and petroleum marketers undemocratically."

Oh, so their elected officials weren't really elected democratically? Because, you know, that's something you have to prove first before you can make assertions such as the one above.

Nilekani's appointment itself was undemocratic

Perhaps they don't have the homegrown ability, but when they restrict access to a market of 1b+ consumers, that helps "convince" a lot of companies to do it for them. You probably remember this: http://www.heydary.com/publications/Inside-the-Rim-Decryptin...

> The fear of it being misused is currently unjustified and without any proof.

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/uidai-gets-first-complaint...

http://kractivist.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/india-your-aadhaa...

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/aadhar-scheme-how-safe-an...

I know at least 22 cases that have been suppressed so far. You can safely assume the number to be much higher, misunderstood and often under-reported. Dig deep and you'll find a lot of unreported reality!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propiska_in_the_Soviet_Union

You grossly underestimated India based on the politicians. Dude they just sent a rocket to mars.

https is not that secure, most of the root ca are owned by big corp/gov. It is trivial for any big gov to decode your https traffic.

It is not trivial, and you'd get found out and lose the CA.

Yeah...no way India can invest billions of dollars storing and processing peta bytes of data like NSA does. Its just too poor to do that.

You don't just buy the hardware, you have to maintain a staff of individuals with the related expertise. This is difficult to achieve on a scale that the US Government does with the NSA et al.

Right now a lot of ex-intelligence employees are whoring themselves out to state governments and international businesses, offering their products and consulting services. There's a lot of money to be made, especially since a lot of the expertise is held quite tightly by the incumbents.

The HN libertarians, for some reason, have an incredibly strongly held conviction that governments should not be able to identify their citizens, even in person, even for legitimate reasons. If you support any reasonably secure government-operated authentication system on HN, you will be downvoted to oblivion (as you just were).

governments should not be able to identify their citizens

This is subtly different from "citizens can authenticate themselves to the government". Universal identity systems result in no place to hide from the system, which can be used against people that the government (or individual corrupt officials!) doesn't like.

I'm not a libertarian (for HN, in fact, I qualify as a statist) and I have a problem with universal identification. I thought we had a decent balance struck before Hiibel.

>"reasonably secure government-operated authentication system"

Do you believe that the government can keep private information on a need-to-know basis? There is a lot of evidence they cannot.[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT

Deleted comment

What argument?