,
44 tweets,
19 min read
Read on Twitter
Some points to campaign against Aadhaar-PAN/ITR on internet... #DestroyTheAadhaar
1) SC has upheld Privacy as fundamental right, which is inviolable except under reasonable restriction. Forcing Aadhaar link with PAN/ITR is NOT a reasonable restriction because Aadhaar sucks at the cited rationale of deduplication! #DestroyTheAadhaar
2) Demonstrate examples of duplicate Aadhaar, from media or personally known examples [Yes very recently a family friend of ours also disclosed having 2 Aadhaars at 2 addresses, in same city!]
So how can Aadhaar deduplicate PAN? Court has been misled by govt! #DestroyTheAadhaar
So how can Aadhaar deduplicate PAN? Court has been misled by govt! #DestroyTheAadhaar
3) Show that PAN duplication itself is not as big a problem as government presents. Very few PAN duplicates have been found, both without and with Aadhaar. Eminent data diggers land curators ike @jamewils can help us with that. #DestroyTheAadhaar
4) If government/IT department has ever been asked by RTI or in Parliament or in any other way how many deduplications of PAN were done from the Aadhaars linked so far, highlighte their non-answers or absurd answers which surely prove it didn't help.
#DestroyTheAadhaar
#DestroyTheAadhaar
5) How can Aadhaar be a basis for deduplication when not only have stray duplicate Aadhaar been created by citizens without a guilty mind but exponentilaly large number of 'working' Aadhaar can be created if multiple people pool their biometrics
6) Both @wikileaks and anti-Aadhaar petitioners like @mathew111938 have indicated that Aadhaar is in control of Western secret agencies like CIA. Do we want our income and business data to be available to foreign spies? Absolutely not! Remove Aadhaar link from ITR/PAN & GST both!
7) Aadhaar is One ID to Rule Them All. If u do anything that some evil govt does not like, they can get your Aadhaar tied to that area, find your PAN by corresponding Aadhaar-PAN/ITR & GST linkage to harass u through tax officials.Absence of privacy & compartments kills democracy
8) Section 139aa only asks to quote Aadhaar. It does not ask to authenticate Aadhaar with fingerprint or iris or any biometric. So how exactly does it deduplicate anything? Some Mr. Gadkari can give his driver's Aadhaar number, while driver may not be in tax and ITR bracket! 
9) By considering the above view, if they start making it mandatory to authenticate Aadhaar number with biometrics, then a whole lot of problems will arise, related to biometrics, such as equipment, failures, needing third party infra, etc. So Aadhaar is useless + cumbersome.
10) Court upheld 139AA because it was misled to believe Aadhaar is a 'robust technology solution' when it's not. So as soon as we convince the SC about the truth that Aadhaar is NOT a robust tech solution 139AA crumbles. Please SC #DestroyTheAadhaar ASAP!
As a point of humour, the fake argument of Aadhaar being a 'robust technology solution' (HAHAHAHAHAGAGAGAGAJJAJA!) is stated in paragraph 420 of the judgement ;)
11) Apart from upholding Aadhaar for fake claims of being robust tech,court also considered it Unique and thus upheld 139AA serving a legitimate state interest. Again the court has been lied to. Lot of ways to get bogus/duplicate Aadhaar. Just prove non-unique, #DestroyTheAadhaar
12) Paragraph 422 again relies on premise that Aadhaar eliminates bogus/fraud identities. But that is false. So you see 420, 421,422 paragraphs all can be broken simply by proving that Aadhaar is NOT a robust tech and does not eliminate either duplicate or bogus/fraud identities.
13) Paragraph 423 makes a really lame and very transient point. Form 60/61 is when you don't have PAN. It says people put Aadhaar in that which helped find the PAN. But as time goes, fraudsters will not put Aadhaar also (which is to be put only if available) #DestroyTheAadhaar
14) I missed paragraph/section (whatever the legalese types say) no 419 before 420 of main Aadhaar judgement that upheld draconian 139AA. It suggests that info we gave for PAN application is comparable to one we give with Aadhaar & Aadhaar PAN link. Seems an imp point to attack.
We will explore point 14) in depth further when I get around to it, but you can also help me (and thus yourself) out by replying to this thread whether PAN form and process asks more demographics + biometrics or whether Aadhaar form and process does.
Further, they ask Aadhaar to be linked to much more than PAN. So effectively, through Aadhaar, they connect many more crucial areas of your life to crucial area like income. And one area may then create unjust adverse impact on other under increasingly dictatorial EVM regimes.
Further there is an important information theory concept. One bit of entropy can have 2 values 0 or 1. 2 bits of entropy can have 4 values 00, 01, 10, 11. 3 bits of entropy can have 8 values 000,001,010,011,100,101,110,111.
So by linear increase in data size, the data value possibilities increase exponentially. So by connecting more and info about you linearly, they know you in a refined way that increases exponentially. In a way one can say there is exponentially increasing breach of Privacy Right.
So at WHAT POINT, with this exponentially increasing breach of privacy, does this demand for Aadhaar for PAN and other things become disporportionate (one of the test criteria when selectively legally restricting a fundamental right!) @prasanna_s @gautambhatia88 @apargupta84
I have spoken about it, in context of Aadhaar itself. But I hadn't thought of it as a point that anti-aadhaar lawyers can use, as test of proportionality! So maybe its a 'good news' point,what say @prasanna_s @gautambhatia88? (@apargupta84 has blocked me)
See I have talked of it before, in context of Aadhaar in general not as a point petitioners can use, and not in context of proportionality test for PAN linking or any other Privacy breach by Aadhaar @Optimuspanky @prasanna_s @gautambhatia88 @apargupta84
As I said we (hopefully*) come back to 14) later, examine in depth how much info we used to give to taxman for mere PAN enrollment & how much more we give by Aadhaar+PAN & how much more privacy is thus lost.
*Why don't you all lazyasses exert yourself? How much can one guy do?
*Why don't you all lazyasses exert yourself? How much can one guy do?
15) Now we examine a point that @muso512 has been drawing our attention to, about which I was initially skeptical, but then I found some international jurisprudence literature surrounding it.
When Vernon sir @muso512 looks at 139AA he sees the word 'shall' as in 'shall be quoted' (said for the enrolment id of Aadhaar application form issued at time of enrolment). He says that 'shall' does not mean 'must' & hence quoting EID is not mandatory if you don't have Aadhaar.
Oh wait, forget enrollment id, even the legalese for quoting Aadhaar itself says 'shall' not 'must'. So let's see what jurisprudence seems to have evolved around 'must' and 'shall'.
Now I have some good news & bad news for @muso512 and for rest of the readers. The good news is that it seems US Supreme Court ruled that only must can mean mandatory, not shall [I have not read the judgement] & bad news is we are not US, though CIA rigs our EVM writes our laws.
Good news is that in USA @muso512 would be 100% right. A Federal Aviation Administration page, falling under US Department of Transportation clearly says only 'must' means 'mandatory',not 'shall'. Some SC judgement also mentioned which I have not explored. faa.gov/about/initiati…
However a website which seems to belong to a UK legal firm says in 2nd or 3rd person, 'shall' means compulsion & obligation, hough it recommends use of 'must' when you draf some legalese. Further also states interpretation depends on context blakemorgan.co.uk/news-events/ne…
Then there is this TransLegal dictionary website, created by US UK lawyers. It indicates shall means must be done. translegal.com/legal-english-…
Ok perhaps I misunderstood. Sincere apologies! But from my misunderstanding we learnt that in US, 'shall' no longer means mandatory. While UK, as recent as 2009 had a whole paper where it was pretty clear shall has mostly mandatory tone historically & now.
This is the 2008 (sorry, not 2009) considerations by UK cabinet office over use of 'shall' cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/190076/s…
The paper is gone from original location but luckily older state is accessible on archive.org web.archive.org/web/2009070310…
Anyway since 'shall' is not a point of contention (as I misunderstood),will not go into the detail of some Indian case laws regarding this which I was reading last night. Will try to bring in another point which I think @muso512 had been making (step by step,will reach 'may' too)
139AA directly asks you to give enrolment id if you don't have Aadhaar, as if you already have it. It does not ask you to actually go and enroll. It just assumes you did. This is where I think @muso512 sir finds it absurd like asking spouse name when you don't have any! Agree.
So if u don't have Aadhaar, 139AA wants your enrollment id with an assumption that u already enrolled. It does NOT, anywhere ask you to actually mandatory go and enroll for Aadhaar if you don't have an Aadhaar to link with PAN or quote with ITR. Very valid point @muso512. But...
But what if I want to challenge @muso512 sir's point, play devil's advocate? Then I would say that 139AA itself does not need to ask u to enroll for Aadhaar because Aadhaar Act already takes care of it.But is my 'authoritative sounding' claim probably matching govt's claim true?
Yeah I said it 4 tweets ago that Indian context degree of compulsion for may/shall/must etc is determined on context basis. Anyway let me continue with this thread. In the end I am going to agree with @muso512 but in slightly different way than him :)
Let's continue this 3 day old thread. We reached the point where we concluded that Section 139AA nowhere forces you to enroll for Aadhaar, but assumes you already have enrolment id because somewhere else you were forced. Could this force come from Aadhaar Act?
Aadhaar Act main part that seems to require or mandate enrollment is Section 7. As @muso512 points out, it says State/Centre may or may not require Aadhaar authentication or enrollment id. To translate it in less confusing terms, govt may/may not mandate Aadhaar auth/enrollment.
So what this means is Aadhaar Act itself doesn't mandate Aadhaar/enrollment id for anything but makes a provision that government may mandate it by some other act, law, notification, etc.
For PAN/ITR relevant part is section 139AA which mandates Aadhaar if u have it but does NOT mandate that you go and enroll for it if you do not have it! They 'forgot' to instruct you so! In absence of legal instruction anywhere, just don't do it!
So overall, even if we read 139AA and Aadhaar Act together, nowhere has government instructed people withough Aadhaar to go and enroll for it just to quote in ITR or link with PAN. So it's like @muso512 says, it's like asking for spouse name when you are not married. Ignore!
