Ok, too much mis-information going on here. - Aadhar is not mandatory. The Supreme Court of india ruled on it and made it non-mandatory. Despite it being optional about 83% of the people are already registered for Aadhar and the rest are just being lazy or ignorant. So, nobody has forced anything.- There are strict guidelines on what the biometric information can be used for (again the supreme court ensured that). So, for ex. the biometric information can't be used by the Police etc. etc. It is purely for the welfare and social security system and general identification/authentication. There are a myriad cards or ids currently (like driving licence, PAN cards etc.), and Aadhar unifies various existing systems and eliminates wastage and crime. Unlike in developed countries, welfare crime in india is very high.- The article doesn't give enough information on what the government wants, but not attending a meeting where their requirements/justifications are presented is just stupid. Regarding Apple Pay, NFC is non-existent in india, don't see it picking up anytime soon. So, I don't think apple should even be bothered about it.
If China asks manufacturers for something similar I bet Apple would bend. The times where login biometrics are stored in a govt repository are surely coming. Requiring identification techniques like this would help defeat fraud and also help tracking of terrorists (they often hand off phones to one another to deceive govt snoopers tracking them). As Europe descends into a pseudo police state I'm sure they would like to have something like this.
If China asks manufacturers for something similar I bet Apple would bend.
sree said:- Aadhar is not mandatory.
"Go to your headquarters and work this out so that we can have Aadhaar-registered devices," Pandey reportedly said at the meeting.
If I have to choose the organisation that stores and manages my biometric details, I would prefer a democratic elected government much more than any private company. With an elected government , I can at least undo my mistake at the next election.When Tim Cook calls the democratically elected EU institutions crap, this just confirms my point. I don't want to put the control over my biometric details in the hands an arrogant CEO, who thinks he is allowed much more than any other person because his company is so successful.
- There are strict guidelines on what the biometric information can be used for (again the supreme court ensured that)
I'm reminded of being fingerprinted for the FBI along with every one of my primary school classmates way back in the day. I assume it was common. This was at a small school in a rural area too, not some big metro. Nobody thought anything of it AFAIK.
I see a lot of negative reactions. My own predilections run in the direction of protecting privacy from Big Brother, so I agree with that sentiment. However, isn't fingerprint tech a form of biometrics? If that can be walled-off, why not, say, an iris scan?
IMHO we tend to worry far too much about ultimately trivial matters that are unlikely to ever impact any specific person's quality of life while ignoring big stuff (water and food quality, health care problems, education reforms and children's advocacy).The whole "OMG... Privacy!" is an easy distraction that lets us avoid having to acknowledge or do anything about real issues that actually affect hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people everyday.