Re: Deletion of biometric data

From: Ish Sookun <>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 11:37:41 +0400

Hi SM,

On 08/05/17 11:17, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Has there been any local study about that identity number? Should that
> unique identity number be used solely because it is convenient to use
> it? What are the implications?

I do not know whether there has been any local study. I read the
following at

        « One of the examples used in 1998 to illustrate the absence of a
common unique identifier in health-related database was about a hospital
"that does not make use of the NIC number as a primary identifier". From
a database design perspective, it is bad practice as the value of the
(SQL) field could be null, e.g. *in the case of a patient who is not a
citizen of Mauritius*. It is not clear whether it would be in breach of
the security or privacy rules of a government agency to use the NIC
Number as a (SQL) primary key. »

You mentioned two things.

         1. identity number as primary identifier is a bad practice,
        2. (possible) breach of security or privacy.

If we have people on this list with experience in database design, it'll
be helpful to have their opinion on number 1.

I'm trying to understand number 2. In what way would it be a breach?


Ish Sookun
Received on Mon May 08 2017 - 07:38:03 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon May 08 2017 - 07:45:01 PST