Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 and availability and media response plan (slide 31). The respondents also pointed out that all security principles are followed inasmuch as: (a) there is PKI-2048 encryption from the time of capture, meaning thereby, as soon as data is given at the time of enrolment, there is an end to end encryption thereof and it is transmitted to the Authority in encrypted form. The said encryption is almost foolproof and it is virtually impossible to decipher the same; (b) adoption of best-in-class security standards and practices; and (c) strong audit and traceability as well as fraud detection. Above all, there is an oversight of Technology and Architecture Review Board (TARB) and Security Review Committee. This Board and Committee consist of very high profiled officers. Therefore, the Act has endeavoured to provide safeguards67. 67 We may also take on record responsible statements of the learned Attorney General and Mr. Dwivedi who appeared for UIDAI that no State would be interested in any mass surveillance of 1.2 Billion people of the country or even the overwhelming majority of officers and employees or professionals. The very idea of mass surveillance by State which pursues what an ANH does all the time and based on Aadhaar is an absurdity and an impossibility. According to them, the petitioners submission is based on too many imaginary possibilities, viz.: (i) Aadhaar makes it possible for the State to obtain identity information of all ANH. It is possible that UIDAI would share identity information/authentication records in CIDR notwithstanding statutory prohibition and punitive injunctions in the Act. It is possible that the State would unleash its investigators to surveil a sizeable section of the ANH, if not all based on the authentication records. It is submitted that given the architecture of the Aadhaar Act, there are no such possibilities and in any event, submission based on imaginary possibility do not provide any basis for questioning the validity of Aadhaar Act. (ii) None of the writ petitions set forth specific facts and even allegations that any Aadhaar number holder is being subjected to 154) Issue (b) relates to data protection. According to the petitioners there is no data protection and there is a likelihood of misuse of data/personal information of the individuals. 155) The question to be determined is whether the safeguards provided for the protection of personal biometric data in the Aadhaar Act and Rules are sufficient. The crucial tasks that the Court needs to undertake are (i) to discuss the significance of data in the world of technology and its impact; (ii) to determine the magnitude of protection that should be accorded to collection, storage and use of sensitive biometric data, so that they can qualify as proportionate; and (iii) to determine whether the Aadhaar Act and Rules provide such data protection, thereby obviating any possibility of surveillance. (i) Significance of Data: 156) Alvin Toffler in his illuminating article titled What will our future be like? has presented mind boggling ideas. Toffler traces the transition from agriculture society to industry society to knowledge based society. If we go back to the beginnings of time, surveillance by UIDAI or the Union/States. The emphasis during the argument was only on the possibility of surveillance based on electronic Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 124