However, being a document that detailed a person’s personal information, it was akin to giving out a mobile phone number, or a bank account number or a PAN card and ought to be “ordinarily protected” to ensure a person’s privacy, it was said. It has then on multiple occasions publicly stated that Aadhar details, without biometric information, couldn’t be used to impersonate a person. On November 11, 2016, the UIDAI from its official handle tweeted: “We urge you to be very discreet abt (sic) your Aadhar and other identity documents. However, in view of the possibility of the misinterpretation of the Press Release, the same stands withdrawn with immediate effect.”
Alternatively, a masked Aadhaar which displays only the last 4 digits of Aadhaar number, can be used. On Sunday, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the parent body of the UIDAI, said, “The release advised the people to not to share photocopy of their Aadhaar with any organisation because it can be misused. Hotels and cinema halls weren’t authorised to collect photocopies of Aadhar.įollowing this advisory on May 27, social media erupted with claims that the advisory had come too late as several outlets, ranging from hospitals to hotels, insisted on retaining photocopies of Aadhar cards. That notification also advised against using a public computer to download electronic versions of the Aadhar and only those organisations with a ‘user licence’ from the UIDAI could use Aadhar for establishing a person’s identity.
The Bengaluru Regional Office of the UIDAI, on May 27, published a notification asking people to not share photocopies of their Aadhaar card as it could be “misused”. A perusal of past tweets by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), which manages Aadhar, shows the about-turn reveals confusion on its policy regarding photocopies of Aadhar. Two days after it issued an advisory cautioning people against sharing a photocopy of their Aadhar card, the government on Sunday withdraw the notification, claiming that it could be “misinterpreted”.
0 kommentar(er)
