Academic mumbo-jumbo. The professor needed a paper/article to go into his resume. You must distrust anything that a professor writes on his chosen field
Ok, I am half-kidding. But really, the professor does not give an argument on how the card causes such national calamity, and why NOT having the card is a better thing. We can only use the technology that is available. Better than nothing for sure, and it can hopefully get better over time. At least we will have the younger people before their fingerprints are all gone from labor etc, identified. Over a period of time, it should work. He makes a wrong parallel about something that went wrong in UK. Different population, different concerns that caused public outcry. He didn't say what would go wrong in India. Is there a public outcry already?
I don't believe that the 15% error rate quoted is correct, If so, finger prints would not be used for criminal cases for so long. Something is odd there, and I need to look it up to see if the professor is fudging something. How does 200million being out of the registry become better than 1000million not identified? The poor would be the ones who would not get the ration supplies or something? Something like that would be asking for serious social trouble that no government can allow, and I am sure there can be remedial measures taken for that. The prof does not get into any of this. The people who are working on this scheme are not idiots, even if ONE professor thinks he knows better.
Academicians like to complain about something or other and NOT talk about the angles against their pet theses. I speak from experience, you know
By the way, for full disclosure, I am speaking about a topic on which I have only read one article. This one. That never stops an academician from commenting, which also you know