"We are all concerned about the IDs. We have written to the ministry of finance pleading. We have put pressure for additional funds but maybe the resource envelope is small. We shall try to work within what was given and try a phased approach," Onek resignedly said.
In 2010 government signed a 64m Euros (sh205b) agreement with Muehlbauer High Tech International for the supply of equipment and provision of training services. The goal was to set up a biometric register upon which the issuance of ID cards and numbers will be based under the National Security Information System (NSIS) Project. The government has paid Muehlbauer 51m (163b) Euros and owes them 13m Euros (sh42b).
The Electoral Commission has also expressed concerns about the effect of delay of implementation of the Project on the commission's continuous by-elections and general elections of 2016.
Showing posts with label advocates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advocates. Show all posts
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Delays threaten Uganda National ID and Voter Registration System
Uganda: Govt to Delay National ID Project Again (All Africa)
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Privacy: How to Hide From Google
"If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold."
In yesterday's post, EPIC Fail, I took the privacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) to task for taking out it's frustrations with Google & Facebook, which are organizations, by lobbying for a ban on a technology: facial recognition.
If you share EPIC's frustrations but would like to channel them in a more productive way, Wired offers some helpful hints in a "How-To Wiki": Hide from Google
Instead of using what influence they have on trying to ban technology, groups like EPIC should be doing a better job of educating the public about the privacy implications of their everyday activities, very few of which have anything even remotely to do with facial recognition.
Helping people to understand technology so as to make informed decisions about what to share and what to keep private is a noble endeavor (see Wired article above). Going over their heads to limit their choices is not.
Often, however, EPIC is quite good at educational efforts. This is demonstrated by their role in the organization of, and participation in, the Twitter privacy chat, #PrivChat (which begins in 8 min. and features Microsoft Chief Privacy Officer, Brendon Lynch).
This is when they're at their best.
—blue_beetle, Metafilter discussion.
In yesterday's post, EPIC Fail, I took the privacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) to task for taking out it's frustrations with Google & Facebook, which are organizations, by lobbying for a ban on a technology: facial recognition.
If you share EPIC's frustrations but would like to channel them in a more productive way, Wired offers some helpful hints in a "How-To Wiki": Hide from Google
Instead of using what influence they have on trying to ban technology, groups like EPIC should be doing a better job of educating the public about the privacy implications of their everyday activities, very few of which have anything even remotely to do with facial recognition.
Helping people to understand technology so as to make informed decisions about what to share and what to keep private is a noble endeavor (see Wired article above). Going over their heads to limit their choices is not.
Often, however, EPIC is quite good at educational efforts. This is demonstrated by their role in the organization of, and participation in, the Twitter privacy chat, #PrivChat (which begins in 8 min. and features Microsoft Chief Privacy Officer, Brendon Lynch).
This is when they're at their best.
Monday, February 6, 2012
EPIC Fail
EPIC Calls for Moratorium on Facial Recognition Technology (EPIC.org)
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has published its comments to the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC). "In the absence of guidelines and legal standards, EPIC recommends a moratorium on the commercial deployment of facial recognition techniques."
In the "absence of guidelines and legal standards," advocating for the development of guidelines and legal standards makes a lot more sense than a moratorium, and banning (however temporarily) a technology makes it impossible to gain the real-world experience necessary to develop informed, rational, reasonable and fair guidelines and standards.
Also, since biometric technologies including facial recognition, are useful in privacy protection, a moratorium on commercial facial recognition applications curtails an individual's right to make decisions about how to protect their own privacy in the most convenient and cost-effective way.
The EPIC document is long on risks and short on abuses. I noticed only two cases of abuse (one by Google and one by Facebook) cited in the entire 24 page document and a repetition of the Pitt-Patt red herring addressed here. Many, including EPIC, have found fault with what Google and Facebook have done with facial recognition technology. As EPIC notes, they acted in violation of their own privacy policies, i.e. they lied. What's facial recognition got to do with that?
Moratoriums and bans are seldom the best way to ameliorate a new technology's negative effects. EPIC fails to recommend an appropriate length of time for a moratorium and a moratorium without an end date is a ban. This is a disproportionate response to the risks EPIC cites in its comments. By advocating for such strong measures in response to the facts it cites, EPIC risks casting itself as a threat to individual rights (including the right to privacy) and courts skepticism of its motives.
For a couple of more balanced takes on the subject of facial recognition, see:
Face Recognition in the Era of the Cloud and Social Media: Is it Time to Hit the Panic Button?
by Joseph J. Atick and
Face Recognition: Improved Benefit? Or Erosion of Privacy? by Carl Gohringer
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has published its comments to the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC). "In the absence of guidelines and legal standards, EPIC recommends a moratorium on the commercial deployment of facial recognition techniques."
In the "absence of guidelines and legal standards," advocating for the development of guidelines and legal standards makes a lot more sense than a moratorium, and banning (however temporarily) a technology makes it impossible to gain the real-world experience necessary to develop informed, rational, reasonable and fair guidelines and standards.
Also, since biometric technologies including facial recognition, are useful in privacy protection, a moratorium on commercial facial recognition applications curtails an individual's right to make decisions about how to protect their own privacy in the most convenient and cost-effective way.
The EPIC document is long on risks and short on abuses. I noticed only two cases of abuse (one by Google and one by Facebook) cited in the entire 24 page document and a repetition of the Pitt-Patt red herring addressed here. Many, including EPIC, have found fault with what Google and Facebook have done with facial recognition technology. As EPIC notes, they acted in violation of their own privacy policies, i.e. they lied. What's facial recognition got to do with that?
Moratoriums and bans are seldom the best way to ameliorate a new technology's negative effects. EPIC fails to recommend an appropriate length of time for a moratorium and a moratorium without an end date is a ban. This is a disproportionate response to the risks EPIC cites in its comments. By advocating for such strong measures in response to the facts it cites, EPIC risks casting itself as a threat to individual rights (including the right to privacy) and courts skepticism of its motives.
For a couple of more balanced takes on the subject of facial recognition, see:
Face Recognition in the Era of the Cloud and Social Media: Is it Time to Hit the Panic Button?
by Joseph J. Atick and
Face Recognition: Improved Benefit? Or Erosion of Privacy? by Carl Gohringer
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
India UID Wins Bureaucratic Victory
via @silicontrust
UIDAI to be fully independent (Hindustan Times)
UID is a very big effort that will require a lot of money and buy-in from a lot of individuals and groups with vested interests in the status quo. Any program that attempts to radically reduce corruption will be met with hooray's and huzzah's in public while those who benefit from the corruption will fight tooth and nail behind the scenes to scupper any attempts at reforming a system that works quite well as far as they are concerned.
When corruption is as endemic as it is in India, that's a lot of scuppering.
On a related note: Opponents of biometric identity management techniques (privacy advocates) often accuse biometrics providers of a lack of good faith for advocating for the use of the technologies they offer. They should at least be fair-minded enough to recognize the possibility that those who are against the adoption of biometric ID management technologies may be as self-interested as they assume the technology providers to be.
See Also:
India: UID is the Easy Part (Sept. 20, 2011)
As technologically, logistically, politically and organizationally challenging as the UID project is, it's the easy part. It makes tackling even harder problems possible.
India: Is UID Under Siege? (Sept. 27, 2011)
Identity management is about people. The people issues are always thornier than the technological problems. And, yes, UID will upset many applecarts. That's why it's important and that's why it will be hard.
India: Insight into the Bureaucratic Struggle for UID (Sept. 30, 2011)
Unique Identity Authority of India (UIDAI) chairman, Nandan Nilekani, vigorously defended his body against criticism from various government departments and dismissed concerns about the lack of checks and balances in its functioning.
UIDAI to be fully independent (Hindustan Times)
Nandan Nilekani-headed Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) mandated to issue unique IDs or Aadhaar cards to every resident in India will get full "functional autonomy", but its future role in enrolment will be decided by the Union cabinet later this month. Planning Commission's deputy chairperson Montek Singh Ahluwalia is expected to inform the finance ministry on Wednesday that it is willing to delegate all powers to the authority and it should have full "autonomy" without any panel's monitoring.UIDAI to have a free hand over finances (Times of India)
The authority is all set to get financial autonomy to implement the UPA II's pet project. "We are fully backing the UIDAI," deputy chairman of Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia said.This tiny story is huge news.
UID is a very big effort that will require a lot of money and buy-in from a lot of individuals and groups with vested interests in the status quo. Any program that attempts to radically reduce corruption will be met with hooray's and huzzah's in public while those who benefit from the corruption will fight tooth and nail behind the scenes to scupper any attempts at reforming a system that works quite well as far as they are concerned.
When corruption is as endemic as it is in India, that's a lot of scuppering.
On a related note: Opponents of biometric identity management techniques (privacy advocates) often accuse biometrics providers of a lack of good faith for advocating for the use of the technologies they offer. They should at least be fair-minded enough to recognize the possibility that those who are against the adoption of biometric ID management technologies may be as self-interested as they assume the technology providers to be.
See Also:
India: UID is the Easy Part (Sept. 20, 2011)
As technologically, logistically, politically and organizationally challenging as the UID project is, it's the easy part. It makes tackling even harder problems possible.
India: Is UID Under Siege? (Sept. 27, 2011)
Identity management is about people. The people issues are always thornier than the technological problems. And, yes, UID will upset many applecarts. That's why it's important and that's why it will be hard.
India: Insight into the Bureaucratic Struggle for UID (Sept. 30, 2011)
Unique Identity Authority of India (UIDAI) chairman, Nandan Nilekani, vigorously defended his body against criticism from various government departments and dismissed concerns about the lack of checks and balances in its functioning.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Transcript: Tweet Chat on Biometric Technology 10/06/11
Subject: Privacy
The discussion, moderated by M2SYS, with James Baker of NO2ID dealt with the issue: Biometrics & Privacy.
The discussion, moderated by M2SYS, with James Baker of NO2ID dealt with the issue: Biometrics & Privacy.
 |
Click image to view chat
|
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Part V: Filling in the framework; Absolute advocacy dos and don'ts
Introduction
Part I: The Right to Privacy
Part II: The Nature of Consent
Part III: Transparency
Part IV: A Framework for the Consideration of Privacy Issues
Part V: Filling in the framework; Absolute advocacy dos and don'ts
Using the framework proposed in Part IV, there is certainly proper role for privacy advocacy in a free and open society.
With any interaction that can be categorized as mandated/opaque or mandated/vague a privacy advocate can be seen as simply using their right to free speech to argue for their own individual privacy rights. Since mandated interactions are mandated by the government and laws, ideally, are enforced equally, any change the privacy advocate spurs affects everyone. In a democracy this is completely appropriate.
The same can be said for interactions falling within the mandated/customary and mandated/transparent categories, but these are likely to be well-worn areas in the marketplace of ideas with little space for advocates to advance the public debate.
The other region of the framework that will attract advocates is the area of the opaque interactions to the right of the mandated section. But since the further right you move along the x-axis, the more consensual the interaction, the character of the advocates’ actions changes. Activity in this region is no longer petitioning the government for changes to the laws under which everyone must live; it is more nuanced than that. Activities in this region must attempt to educate individuals about the nature of these interactions or they short-circuit an individual’s freedom of choice by attempting to make the issue a legal one. Depending upon the issue at stake, either activity might be appropriate, but there is a real and substantial difference between the advocate’s activities re mandated and more consensual interactions.
So there are two regions of the framework that are sure to attract privacy advocates, where they have a legitimate role even though the nature of that role might change substantially.
There is also at least one region of the chart where there is absolutely no role for a privacy advocate who wishes to avoid invading the privacy of others and earning the label of hypocrite. That region is, of course the explicit/transparent area. An advocate who wishes to intrude upon this area does not wish to protect an individual’s right to privacy; he wishes to dictate the behavior of private individuals according to his own aesthetic.
The chart below shows the area of the previously suggested framework where it is reasonable to take an absolutist position. Advocates have an absolute right to act within the green area, and an absolute duty to refrain from activity in the red area (click to enlarge).
Part VI: Filling in the framework, subjectivity and interpretation
Part I: The Right to Privacy
Part II: The Nature of Consent
Part III: Transparency
Part IV: A Framework for the Consideration of Privacy Issues
Part V: Filling in the framework; Absolute advocacy dos and don'ts
Using the framework proposed in Part IV, there is certainly proper role for privacy advocacy in a free and open society.
With any interaction that can be categorized as mandated/opaque or mandated/vague a privacy advocate can be seen as simply using their right to free speech to argue for their own individual privacy rights. Since mandated interactions are mandated by the government and laws, ideally, are enforced equally, any change the privacy advocate spurs affects everyone. In a democracy this is completely appropriate.
The same can be said for interactions falling within the mandated/customary and mandated/transparent categories, but these are likely to be well-worn areas in the marketplace of ideas with little space for advocates to advance the public debate.
The other region of the framework that will attract advocates is the area of the opaque interactions to the right of the mandated section. But since the further right you move along the x-axis, the more consensual the interaction, the character of the advocates’ actions changes. Activity in this region is no longer petitioning the government for changes to the laws under which everyone must live; it is more nuanced than that. Activities in this region must attempt to educate individuals about the nature of these interactions or they short-circuit an individual’s freedom of choice by attempting to make the issue a legal one. Depending upon the issue at stake, either activity might be appropriate, but there is a real and substantial difference between the advocate’s activities re mandated and more consensual interactions.
So there are two regions of the framework that are sure to attract privacy advocates, where they have a legitimate role even though the nature of that role might change substantially.
There is also at least one region of the chart where there is absolutely no role for a privacy advocate who wishes to avoid invading the privacy of others and earning the label of hypocrite. That region is, of course the explicit/transparent area. An advocate who wishes to intrude upon this area does not wish to protect an individual’s right to privacy; he wishes to dictate the behavior of private individuals according to his own aesthetic.
The chart below shows the area of the previously suggested framework where it is reasonable to take an absolutist position. Advocates have an absolute right to act within the green area, and an absolute duty to refrain from activity in the red area (click to enlarge).
Part VI: Filling in the framework, subjectivity and interpretation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
