India’s Supreme Court rules on biometric ID system
by Xavier Symons | 30 Sep 2018 |
India’s Supreme Court has ruled to significantly limit the use of the country’s new “Aadhaar” biometric ID system.
A panel of five judges ruled 4-1 to approve the use of the program for government welfare and tax collection programs, including the distribution of food rations and other government benefits and the collection of income taxes. Yet it thwarted government plans to require the digital ID for other purposes, including verifying the identity of students taking exams. The Court also outlined new protections meant to prevent the government from misusing the data in the name of national security.
The Aadhaar system involves the collection of fingerprints and a retinal scan from Indian citizens, with the data being uploaded to a central register and linked to an individual ID number. The ID number is required for a range of public and private services, including phones and bank accounts. Poor residents use it to obtain food rations and older persons require it to receive a pension.
Writing for the court’s majority, Justice A.K. Sikri said that, with the stipulated restrictions, the Aadhaar Act “struck a fair balance between the right of privacy of the individual with right to life of the same individual as a beneficiary.”
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who wrote the lead opinion last year in a related casethat was the first to establish a fundamental right to privacy for Indians, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that the Aadhaar Act was unconstitutional.
Monday, October 1, 2018
It has been a dreadful weekend. On Saturday Collingwood lost the AFL Grand Final to the West Coast Eagles – in the last five minutes. It has taken me a while to get over this. On the brighter side, today the Roosters beat Melbourne Storm convincingly, 21-6, in the Rugby League Grand Final in Sydney. I just thought that our international readers might like to keep in touch with the world’s greatest sports.
These contests are a testimony to the strength and fitness of the athletes. It’s incredible that they can even walk after being buried beneath a mound of other bodies and sustaining a few quiet kicks to the ribs. But they rise, shake themselves and start sprinting around the paddock, begging for more punishment.
In an interesting analysis of American football below (the kind in which they wear helmets and shoulder pads and take four hours to complete a 60-minute game), two kinesiologists ask whether the sport should be considered unethical in the light of the significant injuries sustained by many players.
It’s a problem with all sports, including rugby league and AFL. Basketballers have terrible ankles; rugby union players have become quadriplegics; cricketers have died. They conclude: “Considering all the morally problematic aspects surrounding football, it is worth asking: Is this the kind of social practice around which Americans should imagine and build their national identity?”
What do you think? Should the threat of severe injury be enough to ban a sport? What level of harm is acceptable?
As for myself, I’m playing it safe. I’m sticking with my preferred sport, full-contact origami.
These contests are a testimony to the strength and fitness of the athletes. It’s incredible that they can even walk after being buried beneath a mound of other bodies and sustaining a few quiet kicks to the ribs. But they rise, shake themselves and start sprinting around the paddock, begging for more punishment.
In an interesting analysis of American football below (the kind in which they wear helmets and shoulder pads and take four hours to complete a 60-minute game), two kinesiologists ask whether the sport should be considered unethical in the light of the significant injuries sustained by many players.
It’s a problem with all sports, including rugby league and AFL. Basketballers have terrible ankles; rugby union players have become quadriplegics; cricketers have died. They conclude: “Considering all the morally problematic aspects surrounding football, it is worth asking: Is this the kind of social practice around which Americans should imagine and build their national identity?”
What do you think? Should the threat of severe injury be enough to ban a sport? What level of harm is acceptable?
As for myself, I’m playing it safe. I’m sticking with my preferred sport, full-contact origami.
 Michael Cook Editor BioEdge |  |  |  |
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Sep 30, 2018
Have you ever considered a black market in uteruses?by Michael Cook | Sep 30, 2018
What if the publication of research could be dangerous?by Michael Cook | Sep 30, 2018
Only public-reason-based arguments cut the mustardby Xavier Symons | Sep 30, 2018
A public inquiry has begun into the use of contaminated blood for patients with bleeding disorders.by Xavier Symons | Sep 30, 2018
HHS is conducting an audit of all acquisitions involving human fetal tissue.by Xavier Symons | Sep 30, 2018
The Indian government will be restricted in its use of the system's databy Xavier Symons | Sep 30, 2018
The report recommends palliative sedation as a legal alternative.IN DEPTH THIS WEEK
by Cesar R. Torres and Francisco Javier López Frías | Sep 29, 2018
It is not inherent violence but a culture of violence around the sport that is troublingBioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario