Unique Identification Authority of India CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey today gave a PowerPoint presentation on Aadhaar in the Supreme Court as part of the proceedings in the ongoing case about the legality of the unique identification project. Arguing that Aadhaar provided people a way to obtain services and subsidies in an efficient manner as it is not as difficult as getting a ration card to get public distribution grains. He argued that no Aadhaar data is shared without consent and in exceptional circumstances, never without the permission of a district judge or in the cases of national security.Contending that the data is safe and secure inside the Aadhaar’s 2048 bit encryption system, which is eight times stronger than the usual encryption used in financial systems, Pandey said that “it will take the whole universe’s strength to break this encryption.” Even as Pandey batted for the security measures in place in the Aadhaar system to reassure the five-judge bench, he had to face tough follow up questions from the bench regarding the petitioners’ claims. 

Unique Identification Authority of India CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey today gave a PowerPoint presentation on Aadhaar in the Supreme Court as part of the proceedings in the ongoing case about the legality of the unique identification project. Arguing that Aadhaar provided people a way to obtain services and subsidies in an efficient manner as it is not as difficult as getting a ration card to get public distribution grains. He argued that no Aadhaar data is shared without consent and in exceptional circumstances, never without the permission of a district judge or in the cases of national security.Contending that the data is safe and secure inside the Aadhaar’s 2048 bit encryption system, which is eight times stronger than the usual encryption used in financial systems, Pandey said that “it will take the whole universe’s strength to break this encryption.” Even as Pandey batted for the security measures in place in the Aadhaar system to reassure the five-judge bench, he had to face tough follow up questions from the bench regarding the petitioners’ claims.