This project has the ability to reshape the way the poor in thecountry receive their benefits. The biometric data makes the identity exclusive and it also ensures that migrants within the country can get the benefits. Most of todays workers or lower middle class people are migrant workers. By bypassing the middleman, this could ensure that the benefits reach the people with limited leakages in the system. Considering that most of the corruption in the country is at the lower middle man level, the potential of this impact is massive. Unfortunately, most of the intellectual discussion has been polarizing and not inclusive. For example, if there are issues with the biometric testing, why are people talking about scrapping the entire thing rather than discussing about how it can be improved or made more robust? Another major concern is about the lack of a data privacy act. Being an advocate of stringent privacy laws, I agree with this view point. The issue I have here is why is the discussion again being polarized? Why can't the critics come up with a draft of a data privacy law which can aid the functioning of the UID? The concerns voiced by critics are no doubt valid. These concerns need to be addressed at the respective forums but being an active civil society; I think we need to adopt an inclusive approach to make the implementation of the concept of UID better. [emphasis mine]It's hard not to notice that UID critics already have an ID.
See also:
"Many Ugandans, if you ask them, 'When were you born?' They say, 'I don't know.'" Poor ID Management Infrastructure Prevents Uganda Little League Baseball Team from World Series Participation
How Much Fraud is Acceptable in NPR, UID? How do you go from a situation where you have a billion people and no rigorous ID management to a system where everyone has a permanent, singular, legally-enforceable, government-backed identity?
