Aadhaar and related projects as per the article are "arbitrary because there was no feasibility study and no cost-benefit analysis that preceded their launch." The author is talking about analysis prior to the launch of the project. You say, "National Institute of Public Finance and Policy had done the cost benefit study in 2012." UID/Aadhaar was launched on September 29, 2009. As to the analysis by National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, the fact is that it is "based almost entirely on unrealistic assumptions." The anonymous authors of this report failed to disclose their affiliation with UIDAI. This report MacroFinance group at NIPFP, a government-funded institution had a project from UIDAI on financial inclusion. It is apparent that the cost-benefit analysis itself was effectively sponsored by the UIDAI. Funding from the UIDAI to this entity created a conflict of interest, which was not disclosed in the report. It fails to take into "account alternative technologies that could achieve the same or similar savings, possibly at lower cost." NIPFP report admits that there are no “robust” estimates of duplicates and ghosts.
This article is retrograde and does not contain the full facts. The statement in the article that there was no cost benefit analysis was done prior to implementing Aadhar scheme is totally wrong. National Institute of Public Finance and Policy had done the cost benefit study in 2012.As per this detailed study the IRR (Internal Rate of Return) generated by Aadhar 52.85% with a quantified overall benefit of Rs.20,265 Crores which is very high and a strong positive factor. Though right to privacy is a fundamental right as per article 21 of the Indian Constitution, these rights are not absolute rights and they are subject to restrictions. I do agree that the systems have to be strengthened to ensure data security of Aadhar (biometric and Iris features that are personal and unique to each and every individual). I do agree that there can not be zero probability of duplication in Aadhar. However,of all the existing methods Aadhar is has a superior technology and a sophisticated one to weed out the bogus beneficiaries in government welfare schemes. No system can be fool proof and because of that we cant say that we will not have any system. Any way the matter is under the constitution bench of the supreme court and therefore it is not appropriate to comment further in this regard.
Re: Aadhar card
by krishna on Nov 27, 2017 01:04 PM
The article states "They’re arbitrary because there was no feasibility study and no cost-benefit analysis that preceded their launch." You say, "National Institute of Public Finance and Policy had done the cost benefit study in 2012." UID/Aadhaar was launched on September 29, 2009. As to the analysis by National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, the fact is that it is "based almost entirely on unrealistic assumptions." The anonymous authors of this report failed to disclose their affiliation with UIDAI. This report MacroFinance group at NIPFP, a government-funded institution had a project from UIDAI on financial inclusion. It is apparent that the cost-benefit analysis itself was effectively sponsored by the UIDAI. Funding from the UIDAI to this entity created a conflict of interest, which was not disclosed in the report. It fails to take into "account alternative technologies that could achieve the same or similar savings, possibly at lower cost." NIPFP report admits that there are no “robust” estimates of duplicates and ghosts.
This article is retrograde and does not contain the full facts. The statement in the article that there was no cost benefit analysis was done prior to implementing Aadhar scheme is totally wrong. National Institute of Public Finance and Policy had done the cost benefit study in 2012.As per this detailed study the IRR (Internal Rate of Return) generated by Aadhar 52.85% with a quantified overall benefit of Rs.20,265 Crores which is very high and a strong positive factor. Though right to privacy is a fundamental right as per article 21 of the Indian Constitution, these rights are not absolute rights and they are subject to restrictions. I do agree that the systems have to be strengthened to ensure data security of Aadhar (biometric and Iris features that are personal and unique to each and every individual). I do agree that there can not be zero probability of duplication in Aadhar. However,of all the existing methods Aadhar is has a superior technology and a sophisticated one to weed out the bogus beneficiaries in government welfare schemes. No system can be fool proof and because of that we cant say that we will not have any system. Any way the matter is under the constitution bench of the supreme court and therefore it is not appropriate to comment further in this regard.
Re: Aadhar card
by krishna on Nov 27, 2017 01:06 PM
The article states "They’re arbitrary because there was no feasibility study and no cost-benefit analysis that preceded their launch." The author is talking about analysis prior to the launch of the project. You say, "National Institute of Public Finance and Policy had done the cost benefit study in 2012." UID/Aadhaar was launched on September 29, 2009. As to the analysis by National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, the fact is that it is "based almost entirely on unrealistic assumptions." The anonymous authors of this report failed to disclose their affiliation with UIDAI. This report MacroFinance group at NIPFP, a government-funded institution had a project from UIDAI on financial inclusion. It is apparent that the cost-benefit analysis itself was effectively sponsored by the UIDAI. Funding from the UIDAI to this entity created a conflict of interest, which was not disclosed in the report. It fails to take into "account alternative technologies that could achieve the same or similar savings, possibly at lower cost." NIPFP report admits that there are no “robust” estimates of duplicates and ghosts.
This article is retrograde and does not contain the full facts. The statement in the article that there was no cost benefit analysis was done prior to implementing Aadhar scheme is totally wrong. National Institute of Public Finance and Policy had done the cost benefit study in 2012.As per this detailed study the IRR (Internal Rate of Return) generated by Aadhar 52.85% with a quantified overall benefit of Rs.20,265 Crores which is very high and a strong positive factor. Though right to privacy is a fundamental right as per article 21 of the Indian Constitution, these rights are not absolute rights and they are subject to restrictions. I do agree that the systems have to be strengthened to ensure data security of Aadhar (biometric and Iris features that are personal and unique to each and every individual). I do agree that there can not be zero probability of duplication in Aadhar. However,of all the existing methods Aadhar is has a superior technology and a sophisticated one to weed out the bogus beneficiaries in government welfare schemes. No system can be fool proof and because of that we cant say that we will not have any system. Any way the matter is under the constitution bench of the supreme court and therefore it is not appropriate to comment further in this regard.
Re: Aadhar card
by krishna on Nov 27, 2017 01:15 PM
Aadhaar and related projects as per the article are "arbitrary because there was no feasibility study and no cost-benefit analysis that preceded their launch." The author is talking about analysis prior to the launch of the project. You say, "National Institute of Public Finance and Policy had done the cost benefit study in 2012." UID/Aadhaar was launched on September 29, 2009. As to the analysis by National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, the fact is that it is "based almost entirely on unrealistic assumptions." The anonymous authors of this report failed to disclose their affiliation with UIDAI. This report MacroFinance group at NIPFP, a government-funded institution had a project from UIDAI on financial inclusion. It is apparent that the cost-benefit analysis itself was effectively sponsored by the UIDAI. Funding from the UIDAI to this entity created a conflict of interest, which was not disclosed in the report. It fails to take into "account alternative technologies that could achieve the same or similar savings, possibly at lower cost." NIPFP report admits that there are no “robust” estimates of duplicates and ghosts.
They are ready to submit biometric data USA and other European countries for visa. These people compare India and the USA and say USA has social security number and card and are happy to share any information there but not in India because it is against the privacy. What nonsense logic.
It seems you support the system that can easily be bypassed by Crookes ,as being followed by Kangress regime.When you go to US ,you submit all these biometric data,but when Indian Govt. wants it ,you shout foul,it is breaching your privacy.Very funny you idiot.
AUTHOR SEEMS TO BE WRITING NON SENSE.IN OUR COUNTRY ALL 150 CRORE INDIANS BLINDLY TRUST MODI SIR,AMIT SHAH SIR AND TEAM BJP.AADHAR CARD IS OK WITH ALL AT PRESENT AND IN FUTURE IF MODI SIR AND TEAM SAYS IT IS BAD ,IT WILL BE BAD FOR ALL 150 CRORE INDIANS THATS IT. S.S.KASANA
Re: AADHAR
by Parameswaran on Nov 23, 2017 06:26 PM
Had the congress ruled country , the same aadhar would have become very scientific and reliable in the eyes of author
Re: AADHAR
by krishna on Nov 27, 2017 01:17 PM
Aadhaar and related projects as per the article are "arbitrary because there was no feasibility study and no cost-benefit analysis that preceded their launch." The author is talking about analysis prior to the launch of the project. You say, "National Institute of Public Finance and Policy had done the cost benefit study in 2012." UID/Aadhaar was launched on September 29, 2009. As to the analysis by National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, the fact is that it is "based almost entirely on unrealistic assumptions." The anonymous authors of this report failed to disclose their affiliation with UIDAI. This report MacroFinance group at NIPFP, a government-funded institution had a project from UIDAI on financial inclusion. It is apparent that the cost-benefit analysis itself was effectively sponsored by the UIDAI. Funding from the UIDAI to this entity created a conflict of interest, which was not disclosed in the report. It fails to take into "account alternative technologies that could achieve the same or similar savings, possibly at lower cost." NIPFP report admits that there are no “robust” estimates of duplicates and ghosts.
