India To Put All Citizen Info In a Central Database

Oracle Goddess writes "As part of a project to issue ID cards for all 1.1 billion of its citizens, India has announced plans to place information on every single citizen in what will be the world's second largest citizens' database. The government believes the scheme will aid the delivery of vital social services to the poorest people who often lack sufficient identification papers. It also sees the scheme as a way to tackle increasing amounts of identity fraud and theft, and, at a time of increased concern over the threat of militant violence, to boost national security and help police and law officials. 'This could be used as a security measure by the government which leaves migrant workers, refugees and other stateless people in India in limbo, without access to public services, employment and basic welfare,' said Charu Lata Hogg, an associate fellow of the Asia program at Chatham House."

Comments

Re:Better than Google

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I think it's not terrible that a government have a working list of its citizens, especially if they put vital medical and other data on it.

Then put it on a fob the citizen can wear around their neck, or clipped to their cell phone or in their pocket in the same place they would keep their ID card. No need to centralize.

Having an easy way to contact or locate any citizen is also important.

Then use a phone book and the citizens who don't want to be contacted can get unlisted numbers.

We're so accustomed in the West to distrust of government that we've lost sight of the basic truth: it matters who you get into government, and how willing they are to fight back corruption (entropy).

No, it really doesn't. Sooner or later everyone succumbs to the corruption of power. I don't want to have to put all of my trust in individuals - people lie, and politicians are especially good at fooling you. There isn't enough face time or research time in the world for even a significant minority of voters to really become familiar enough with any one politician, never mind all of them, to determine how corrupt they are. I want a system that severely restricts what the government can do, the less they can do the less people they can screw over.

We don't see these as visibly as "Big Brother" scenarios, so we don't talk about them.

Just because "big brother" is not the only risk of big government doesn't mean we should ignore it. For sure we worry about all those issues too, its foolish to claim that things like "bad wars" aren't also of significant concern. Especially after Bush's recent reign and the near constant criticism of it from day one.

Letting Google keep records on who we are may be more destructive.

Yes, Google is a significant threat too, and requires significant watchdogging. That doesn't mean take the watchdog off the government and set it on google, it means we worry about both.

Leftists claim government is capitalist and dominated by white men; Rightists claim government is socialist and against white men. It seems every group is projecting its fears outside of itself in order to claim innocence.

Actually, in your example, it seems like both sides are complaining government is too big and has too much influence over their own lives. I don't think that an argument for further increasing the scope and power of the government would go over so well from either of those simplified viewpoints.