With 38 gold medals, India came up second, just behind Australia, in the Commonwealth Games that was held in October 2010. "Delhi has delivered. The competitions went well, and it was a comfortable, satisfactory experience," said Commonwealth Games Federation President Michael Fennell regarding India's performance as a host.. Both are commendable achievements for India. But, this high profile event also brings to the forefront some lessons worth pondering about.
Last minute heroism: “We have this great Indian culture of doing everything at the last minute. Whether it is marriage or anything else, but we do end up doing it well,” quipped Indian Union Minister S Jaipal Reddy. This is a culture we appear to be developing from our childhood. The school and college folklore is about those 'cats' who managed to 'crack' the exams without studying, attending classes or doing projects. Planned and systematic effort with commitment to milestones are often seen as weaknesses even in workplace. Last minute rush and 'touch-and-go" finish are perceived as mark of genius and heroism. What we often forget are the wasteful efforts, avoidable expenditure, possible risk and unwarranted tension for the participants and last minute compromises that result on account of such heroics.
There can be no doubt that one of the contributors of the astronomical cost overrun associated with CWG could also have been this last minute heroism. It was not just the cost; there was terrible loss in reputation for India in the world stage which almost led to boycott of the games by many nations.
Blatant Corruption: There are serious concerns of financial bungling and corruption; not just incompetence, but willful malpractices. I don’t think this financial mis-handling is an exception. The team that was put in place to manage the games cannot be in any way more in-efficient or more corrupt than the leaders of many other large projects. The prime difference in this case is that it was a very high profile event (or that some were unlucky to get caught?). It again highlights the need to have more transparency and better accountability in public expenditure. A vision as a country we need to aspire for is a vision to improve our rating in corruption index and not just increase in medal tally.
It is heartening to note that some actions are being taken to identify the culprits. I hope this will not end up as temporary eyewash.
Sensational Journalism: The press played a remarkable role in bringing to public attention the bungling and corruption that took place. But often the press gets carried away and give gossips, exaggerations, innuendos and aspersions more importance than it deserves and fails to place facts in perspective. Looking through the press reports and TV coverage up till the opening ceremony, I got a feeling that we have messed up the games so badly that it would be a total failure and a national shame.
But what I saw in the TV, what I read in the press and the narration of those who witnessed and experienced the conduct of the games gave a comfort that the implementation had a certain quality that we can feel proud of. The medal tally could also be an expression of a resurgent India. First time in history we came second, ahead of England.and Canada
The news reports focused more on the warts and putrefying sores with practically no reference to anything positive till the games opened. I agree, it is important to play the role of a whistle blower but it is also important to recognize the efforts of many officers, laborers, volunteers and athletes who gave their wholehearted best with no malice in their hearts.
This again is nothing unique about CWG. What sells in media both in press and in TV is sensationalism and it has become the fashion. A sense of balance or willingness to place facts in perspective seems to be losing its glamour and a yellow hue appear to getting more popular.
“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” Marcus Aurelius
Friday, October 22, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Aadhaar – The First Milestone
“Aadhaar” Unique Id (UID) for Indian residents was inaugurated by the Prime Minister of India on September 29 2010 at Nandurbar District of Maharashtra at a function which was attended by a large contingent of political bigwigs including Ms. Sonai Gandhi, Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Mr. Ashok Chavan, his deputy Mr. Chhagan Bhujbal and the UID chief Mr. Nandan Nilekani.
This ceremony sent out two messages. Firstly it demonstrates that we have been able to keep the promise of rolling out of this project within 18 months. Secondly, by commencing this project at Tembhali in Maharashtra State which is a tribal village, it shows our commitment that we intend to give focus to the poorer segment who today suffers the most on account of lack of broadly acceptable identity.
Aadhaar is a new tool which could find multiple applications in a variety of areas. It can help to prevent ghost claimants, repeated claimants and proxy claimants of various benefits offered by governmental and aid agencies which in turn can reduce leakage. It can also help to give direct benefit to deserving candidates instead of carpet bombing of benefits which is often cornered by unscrupulous people.
But, this does not mean it is a panacea for all problems; even for the problem related to targeted social protection measures. It just means that we have a stronger tool which if properly employed can significantly reduce leakage and improve targeted delivery. UIDAI has come out with papers on how the UIDAI can be of help in different fields. Some of these ideas will fructify and some will not. But there is no doubt that such a tool can be truly transformational. The transformation we have seen in financial markets, especially in capital market on account of sensible use of technology to improve efficiencies and reduce fraud have helped us to become one the best settlement infrastructure in the world from one of the worst in the world in less than a decade.
We see in the press, from the so called intelligentsia the concerns on the cost –benefit balance of this initiative and issues of privacy. Sometime it appears to me as issues blowm out of proportion. Aadhaar is not unique in the world. Many other countries have already attempted this exercise. America has been using Social Security Number as a unique id for it residents. What is unique about our Aadhaar is the magnitude of challenge of issuing a unique id to a billion people and using the technology and processes to prevent duplicates or keep it to absolute minimum.
Nobody is claiming that the Aadhaar project can eliminate duplicates to absolute zero. But I have confidence that if properly implemented, technology and processes are available that can keep uniqueness to such high levels that no other methods can match. With such powerful identity verification tool, a large number of agencies providing services to millions of peoples, (banks, ration shops, insurance companies etc, etc) can save enormous cost of identity verification.
Other concern is about privacy. Let us look at this a little more deeply. Aadhaar takes only very few demographic details (name, gender, date of birth, address, parent’s name, etc ) along with biometric details. In a true sense, it need have taken only biometric details of an individual and it could have issued a unique number. But today’s level of technology needs few more fields for exception handling and more importantly the users of this identity has not reached the level of technology sophistication to map each of its clients on the basis of only a number with biometric mapping. Therefore, Aadhaar requires few critical demographic details.
The list of demographic data insisted at the time of issuance of Aadhaar is so general and is even less than the details taken for KYC verifications by most services providers. There is practically nothing in there that can be used for racial profiling or such measures. The UIDAI act is specifically providing for the same.
Aadhaar does not make this information available to anybody even for verification. Its verification service is limited to a “Yes/ No” response to an enquiry of whether a biometrical reading (finger print) taken from a person and the Aadhaar claimed by that person matches with the Aadhaar database. This does not compromise any private data.
Next concern is that once this number is widely prevalent among various service providers, it will be easy to integrate these data to develop total profile of people. If profiling is a concern or to be prevented fighting Aadhaar is not the solution. Today most service providers have so much of personal information like name, date of birth, even cell number which is sufficient to map one person among the multiple data bases with the current level of technology. What Aadhaar prevents is the ability of one person faking multiple identities among multiple service providers. I don’t think this is a right we need to offer to any person or protect.Though it sounds a bit harsh, the opinion expressed by Richard Posner, (Judge and legal expert from USA) has raises an interesting point. “As a social good, I think privacy is greatly overrated because privacy basically means concealment. People conceal things in order to fool other people about them. They want to appear healthier than they are, smarter, more honest and so forth.”
If we are concerned about misuse of profiling we need to establish legal frameworks that will prohibit such actions, we need to have mechanism to protect those who blow the whistle on violations and we need to have rules on the extent to which data can be shared across agencies. There is no point in preventing issuance of UID which comes with a host of other merits. It is barking up the wrong tree. But, it is fashionable to fight the establishment which I think is one of the strengths of a democratic society; with so many people barking at so many trees some may just hit the target!
“When it comes to privacy and accountability, people always demand the former for themselves and the latter for everyone else.” David Brin - American science-fiction writer b.1950
Read Also
Privacy Fantasies
Why no one cares about privacy anymore
This ceremony sent out two messages. Firstly it demonstrates that we have been able to keep the promise of rolling out of this project within 18 months. Secondly, by commencing this project at Tembhali in Maharashtra State which is a tribal village, it shows our commitment that we intend to give focus to the poorer segment who today suffers the most on account of lack of broadly acceptable identity.
Aadhaar is a new tool which could find multiple applications in a variety of areas. It can help to prevent ghost claimants, repeated claimants and proxy claimants of various benefits offered by governmental and aid agencies which in turn can reduce leakage. It can also help to give direct benefit to deserving candidates instead of carpet bombing of benefits which is often cornered by unscrupulous people.
But, this does not mean it is a panacea for all problems; even for the problem related to targeted social protection measures. It just means that we have a stronger tool which if properly employed can significantly reduce leakage and improve targeted delivery. UIDAI has come out with papers on how the UIDAI can be of help in different fields. Some of these ideas will fructify and some will not. But there is no doubt that such a tool can be truly transformational. The transformation we have seen in financial markets, especially in capital market on account of sensible use of technology to improve efficiencies and reduce fraud have helped us to become one the best settlement infrastructure in the world from one of the worst in the world in less than a decade.
We see in the press, from the so called intelligentsia the concerns on the cost –benefit balance of this initiative and issues of privacy. Sometime it appears to me as issues blowm out of proportion. Aadhaar is not unique in the world. Many other countries have already attempted this exercise. America has been using Social Security Number as a unique id for it residents. What is unique about our Aadhaar is the magnitude of challenge of issuing a unique id to a billion people and using the technology and processes to prevent duplicates or keep it to absolute minimum.
Nobody is claiming that the Aadhaar project can eliminate duplicates to absolute zero. But I have confidence that if properly implemented, technology and processes are available that can keep uniqueness to such high levels that no other methods can match. With such powerful identity verification tool, a large number of agencies providing services to millions of peoples, (banks, ration shops, insurance companies etc, etc) can save enormous cost of identity verification.
Other concern is about privacy. Let us look at this a little more deeply. Aadhaar takes only very few demographic details (name, gender, date of birth, address, parent’s name, etc ) along with biometric details. In a true sense, it need have taken only biometric details of an individual and it could have issued a unique number. But today’s level of technology needs few more fields for exception handling and more importantly the users of this identity has not reached the level of technology sophistication to map each of its clients on the basis of only a number with biometric mapping. Therefore, Aadhaar requires few critical demographic details.
The list of demographic data insisted at the time of issuance of Aadhaar is so general and is even less than the details taken for KYC verifications by most services providers. There is practically nothing in there that can be used for racial profiling or such measures. The UIDAI act is specifically providing for the same.
Aadhaar does not make this information available to anybody even for verification. Its verification service is limited to a “Yes/ No” response to an enquiry of whether a biometrical reading (finger print) taken from a person and the Aadhaar claimed by that person matches with the Aadhaar database. This does not compromise any private data.
Next concern is that once this number is widely prevalent among various service providers, it will be easy to integrate these data to develop total profile of people. If profiling is a concern or to be prevented fighting Aadhaar is not the solution. Today most service providers have so much of personal information like name, date of birth, even cell number which is sufficient to map one person among the multiple data bases with the current level of technology. What Aadhaar prevents is the ability of one person faking multiple identities among multiple service providers. I don’t think this is a right we need to offer to any person or protect.Though it sounds a bit harsh, the opinion expressed by Richard Posner, (Judge and legal expert from USA) has raises an interesting point. “As a social good, I think privacy is greatly overrated because privacy basically means concealment. People conceal things in order to fool other people about them. They want to appear healthier than they are, smarter, more honest and so forth.”
If we are concerned about misuse of profiling we need to establish legal frameworks that will prohibit such actions, we need to have mechanism to protect those who blow the whistle on violations and we need to have rules on the extent to which data can be shared across agencies. There is no point in preventing issuance of UID which comes with a host of other merits. It is barking up the wrong tree. But, it is fashionable to fight the establishment which I think is one of the strengths of a democratic society; with so many people barking at so many trees some may just hit the target!
“When it comes to privacy and accountability, people always demand the former for themselves and the latter for everyone else.” David Brin - American science-fiction writer b.1950
Read Also
Privacy Fantasies
Why no one cares about privacy anymore
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Privacy Fantasies
The technological leap in integration of varied sources of data raises a number of questions on privacy. I have attempted a time travel of 200 years into the future to take a look at these concerns. I would consider that the 200 year time period that I have given for these developments could be an over estimation than an under estimation.
New Delhi, January 15th, 2210: The Society is grappling to come in terms with the impact of the recent invention and proliferation of the Mind X-Ray Vision (Mind –X); a tool that helps us to read and feel with ease the thoughts and feeling of people around. The ultimate tool for transparency; its impact on human relationships, family lives, corporate strategies and matters of governance is unimaginable.
For a society that for years has progressed with the right, option and capability for privacy of thoughts and fantasies, this new invention is a totally disruptive development. A person who can wear this tool like a watch in his arm can now read the array of emotions that passes through minds of the person with whom he is now conversing. No more suspense about what he is thinking; of whether he is happy, sad, suspicious or is aroused. It is no more a matter of guessing.
A truly scary and a loss of control for some and a feeling of freedom and power for the other! It could allow us to be honest about our feelings and misgivings or it could make us self-conscious about what bubbles at the bottom of our heart.
The strategies for competition can no more be built on secrecy, obscurity or obfuscation but based on open manoeuvres. It is no more a game of poker; but a game of chess.
Isn’t this the next transition in the long journey to transparency? Some years ago we got the gadget that could search googols of digital information to find the answers to a question that popped up in our mind and transmit the answer back to our brain. The googols of information also contained sufficient information about each of us from the day we were born that there was practically no private life. This was possible with the tremendous growth of internet, Google and Social Networking in early 21st century.
In a way we have come full circle from the small village life we spent few thousands of years ago where there was practically no secret and everybody knew everything about everybody else in the village. The world has become one big village.
The worries and concerns on the Mind-X reminds me about the privacy concerns that were out there when the internet, Google and then Face book became popular laying bare the information that were once considered private. It was a scary proposition then. With the exploding computing power and the sophistication of the data mining tools, it became practically possible to develop individual profiles with publically available databases. The government with its right to access more confidential data had much more detailed data.
It taught us not to be judgemental about another person based on few incidences of indiscretion and accept the fact that most people become responsible over a period of time. It has also taught us on how to be more sensible in our conduct and how we publish it. There were worries that this increased transparency could be misused by the government and its agencies. There were also incidences of such events. Then many of these transgressions also became matter of public knowledge. But then we learned to address these issues. It brought about stronger checks and balances on how such interlinked data could be used even by the government.
Similar sentiments were expressed when photography became popular in late 19th century. Louis Brandies, one of the most renowned legal experts who also was a justice in the supreme court of United States and his partner Samuel Warren discussed snapshot photography, a (then) recent innovation in journalism that allowed newspapers to publish photographs and statements of individuals without obtaining their consent. They argued that private individuals were being continually injured and that the practice weakened the "moral standards of society as a whole” {1}
But then, can we protect privacy by arresting the growth of technology? Can we stop the usage and proliferation of new technologies for the benefit of our society because it can also be used to harm it? Tools are nothing but tools and it is for us decide how to use it. If we want a government that is fair, we need to elect one and we need be willing to play an active role in making it one. We also have to strengthen the governance structures and its oversight in how the information is used. If we are concerned about our reputation, we have to learn how we manage it.
We can’t fight an idea whose time has come. Mind You, Mind-X is here to stay!
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant." — William O Douglas
{1} Source Wikipedia
New Delhi, January 15th, 2210: The Society is grappling to come in terms with the impact of the recent invention and proliferation of the Mind X-Ray Vision (Mind –X); a tool that helps us to read and feel with ease the thoughts and feeling of people around. The ultimate tool for transparency; its impact on human relationships, family lives, corporate strategies and matters of governance is unimaginable.
For a society that for years has progressed with the right, option and capability for privacy of thoughts and fantasies, this new invention is a totally disruptive development. A person who can wear this tool like a watch in his arm can now read the array of emotions that passes through minds of the person with whom he is now conversing. No more suspense about what he is thinking; of whether he is happy, sad, suspicious or is aroused. It is no more a matter of guessing.
A truly scary and a loss of control for some and a feeling of freedom and power for the other! It could allow us to be honest about our feelings and misgivings or it could make us self-conscious about what bubbles at the bottom of our heart.
The strategies for competition can no more be built on secrecy, obscurity or obfuscation but based on open manoeuvres. It is no more a game of poker; but a game of chess.
Isn’t this the next transition in the long journey to transparency? Some years ago we got the gadget that could search googols of digital information to find the answers to a question that popped up in our mind and transmit the answer back to our brain. The googols of information also contained sufficient information about each of us from the day we were born that there was practically no private life. This was possible with the tremendous growth of internet, Google and Social Networking in early 21st century.
In a way we have come full circle from the small village life we spent few thousands of years ago where there was practically no secret and everybody knew everything about everybody else in the village. The world has become one big village.
The worries and concerns on the Mind-X reminds me about the privacy concerns that were out there when the internet, Google and then Face book became popular laying bare the information that were once considered private. It was a scary proposition then. With the exploding computing power and the sophistication of the data mining tools, it became practically possible to develop individual profiles with publically available databases. The government with its right to access more confidential data had much more detailed data.
It taught us not to be judgemental about another person based on few incidences of indiscretion and accept the fact that most people become responsible over a period of time. It has also taught us on how to be more sensible in our conduct and how we publish it. There were worries that this increased transparency could be misused by the government and its agencies. There were also incidences of such events. Then many of these transgressions also became matter of public knowledge. But then we learned to address these issues. It brought about stronger checks and balances on how such interlinked data could be used even by the government.
Similar sentiments were expressed when photography became popular in late 19th century. Louis Brandies, one of the most renowned legal experts who also was a justice in the supreme court of United States and his partner Samuel Warren discussed snapshot photography, a (then) recent innovation in journalism that allowed newspapers to publish photographs and statements of individuals without obtaining their consent. They argued that private individuals were being continually injured and that the practice weakened the "moral standards of society as a whole” {1}
But then, can we protect privacy by arresting the growth of technology? Can we stop the usage and proliferation of new technologies for the benefit of our society because it can also be used to harm it? Tools are nothing but tools and it is for us decide how to use it. If we want a government that is fair, we need to elect one and we need be willing to play an active role in making it one. We also have to strengthen the governance structures and its oversight in how the information is used. If we are concerned about our reputation, we have to learn how we manage it.
We can’t fight an idea whose time has come. Mind You, Mind-X is here to stay!
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant." — William O Douglas
{1} Source Wikipedia
Friday, October 1, 2010
“Rule of Law”
“Vendor Lock-in” is a major concern for any buyer, especially if the product/ service procured is of high value and has long-term implication on future procurement. The concern is quite natural and justified because if the product/ technology has locked-in the buyer, it is quite possible that the seller could use this dependency to extract more than what is fair.
There are quite a lot of discussions on this topic and there are quite a lot of strategies that try to address this. The mirror image of this is the “buyer- squeeze”. In this case the buyer who has significant market power can use the market power to squeeze the vendor to extent that he really may really bleed to death. (take a look at "Market Power & Relationships" for a discussion on Market Power in interpersonal relationships)
Different companies address this problem in different fashion. Some try to avoid over dependency on single buyers; some try to build in strong contracts and so on. One of the most difficult buyers in this respect can be government; especially because of the buying power and the plea of executive necessity. If the legal structure is not sufficiently evolved this risk can be quite high. This is very critical when we are exporting products or services abroad.
Indian law in this aspect has established quite a strong principle on this matter. Our law makers have appreciated that if this issue is not addressed properly, some executives, with short-term view could use this plea of executive necessity to drive his personal agenda and this in long term would discourage availability of high-quality service providers from both within the country and abroad to deal with the government.
The judgment by Justice P N Bhagvati who has served as the Chief Justice of India has addressed this matter lucidly in Motilal Sugar Mills case (AIR 1979 SC 621). I have quoted some parts of his judgment for the sheer beauty, brilliance and clarity of this judgment. "The law may therefore now be taken to be settled as a result of this decision that where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promises and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution”
He has further elaborated, “Why should the government not be held to a high "standard of rectangular rectitude while dealing with its citizens"? There was a time when the doctrine of executive necessity was regarded as sufficient justification for the government to repudiate even its contractual obligations, but let it be said to the eternal glory of this court, this doctrine was emphatically negatived in the, Indo-Afghan Agencies case and the supremacy of the rule of law was established. It was laid down by this Court that the government cannot claim to be immune from the applicability of the rule of promissory estoppel and repudiate a promise made by it on the ground that such promise may fetter its future executive action."
When we try to understand the strength of the rule of law of any country, the existence and enforcement of such fair dealing by government in any contractual relationship is an excellent indicator.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton
There are quite a lot of discussions on this topic and there are quite a lot of strategies that try to address this. The mirror image of this is the “buyer- squeeze”. In this case the buyer who has significant market power can use the market power to squeeze the vendor to extent that he really may really bleed to death. (take a look at "Market Power & Relationships" for a discussion on Market Power in interpersonal relationships)
Different companies address this problem in different fashion. Some try to avoid over dependency on single buyers; some try to build in strong contracts and so on. One of the most difficult buyers in this respect can be government; especially because of the buying power and the plea of executive necessity. If the legal structure is not sufficiently evolved this risk can be quite high. This is very critical when we are exporting products or services abroad.
Indian law in this aspect has established quite a strong principle on this matter. Our law makers have appreciated that if this issue is not addressed properly, some executives, with short-term view could use this plea of executive necessity to drive his personal agenda and this in long term would discourage availability of high-quality service providers from both within the country and abroad to deal with the government.
The judgment by Justice P N Bhagvati who has served as the Chief Justice of India has addressed this matter lucidly in Motilal Sugar Mills case (AIR 1979 SC 621). I have quoted some parts of his judgment for the sheer beauty, brilliance and clarity of this judgment. "The law may therefore now be taken to be settled as a result of this decision that where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promises and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution”
He has further elaborated, “Why should the government not be held to a high "standard of rectangular rectitude while dealing with its citizens"? There was a time when the doctrine of executive necessity was regarded as sufficient justification for the government to repudiate even its contractual obligations, but let it be said to the eternal glory of this court, this doctrine was emphatically negatived in the, Indo-Afghan Agencies case and the supremacy of the rule of law was established. It was laid down by this Court that the government cannot claim to be immune from the applicability of the rule of promissory estoppel and repudiate a promise made by it on the ground that such promise may fetter its future executive action."
When we try to understand the strength of the rule of law of any country, the existence and enforcement of such fair dealing by government in any contractual relationship is an excellent indicator.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)