Hi Ish,
At 05:27 30-04-2017, Ish Sookun wrote:
>The affidavits serve as a legal document whereby the persons who
>attended the ceremony attest that the deletion of the database happened
>in front of them. I believe such was required to gain the trust of
>citizens who cast doubts of the deletion happening or not. The ability
>of the persons to understand the deletion procedure and then attest the
>same could be questioned.
Here is what I understood from the above; the persons making the
legal attestation would have to understand the deletion procedure or
else the attestation cannot be trusted. It is not possible to gain
trust when there is misleading information or when the matter is
shrouded in secrecy.
>The "responsibility" does not correspond to just deletion of the
>fingerprint database but it covers the "storage and causing to be
>stored" of any biometric data. I am pushed to believe that the persons
>involved in the project are in fact recording fingerprints because they
>saw a line in the legislation that allows them to do so.
I don't know what to believe given the contradictory information
about the card.
>There is another advantage of the card. A person working in a hospital
>does not have to type the identity card number of a patient as it can be
>read using the bar code printed at the back of the card. :-)
There is paragraph about "primary identifier" at
http://www.elandsys.com/~sm/mnic-id-card.html
If that is an advantage, why hasn't it been deployed yet?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Received on Sun Apr 30 2017 - 13:52:08 PST