SBI, Whistleblower or Law Breaker? I
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 мар 2024
- As details of political funding of major parties have been published by the SBI, new revelations about the donors, their companies and links to political parties are making waves. Witness the petitioner, who challenged the use of electoral bonds, go head-to-head with the former secretary responsible for their implementation.
Barkha Dutt speaks to
Subhash Garg I Former Finance Secretary
Jagdeep Chhokar I Lawyer and activist
#Electoralbonds #elections2024 #sbi
Become A Mojo Story Member Now: / @mojostory
Subscribe to us for more updates:
Follow us on Twitter: / themojostory
Like us on Facebook: / themojostory
Instagram: / mojostory.in
For more videos: / @mojostory
Disclaimer: The views of guests who appear on Mojo Story, as well as the views of interviewees or speeches by public figures or those in the news, are their personal opinions. At no point do they reflect the views of the organization.
I think I get what Mr Garg says. Since the alphanumeric number was a mere security feature, SBI was not supposed to record the number when it was issued or when it was deposited by the recipient. For example, when we withdraw currency notes from an ATM, it doesn't record the serial number of the currency notes against the account holder. Similarly, when the same currency notes are deposited by another account holder, no such recording takes place. Had the SBI not recorded the alphanumeric number when it was issued to the buyer and when it was honored by the recipients, there was no way one could connect the buyer and the recipient.
However, it's turned out that SBI did record the serial number (invisible to the naked eye) clandestinely, "illegally", to use Mr. Garg's word. I think here at least Mr. Garg is wrong. SBI wouldn't have done such tracking on their own. I feel that there was specific instructions from someone in authority to keep such a record, because only then they could blackmail and extort money from those who donated money to opposition parties.
SBI recorded the number to satisfy the second requirement of the law. SBI was mandated by same law to provide donor and recipient details if a competent court or agency asked for it in say a Quid-Pro-Quo case. Without recording the number SBI would not have been able to provide matching info to court or agency. I think what Mr. Garg is failing to understand is that Anonymity was achieved by keeping donor and recipient information in separate silos. Even though both silos did record the number they were kept isolated from each other and never accessible together. But if a court asked for details then someone had to manually access those silos individually and pull up records and match them. SBI has designed the system correctly. The design which Mr. Garg or the government wanted was to implement 3 silos. Donor silo, Recipient Silo and Bond Printer Silo. In this scenario only bond printer silo would have noted the alpha numeric numeric. Only Printer silo would be accessed to verify if a bond is authentic or a fake. But in this 3 silos implementation SBI would not have met the court requirement.
Yes, that’s his point. But he himself confuses saying no when she mentioned currency serial number. Problem is they are all talking past each other.
Mr Garg was neither confused nor failed to understand anything. He is pretty clear on the abc of the scheme bcoz he was one of the architect of this scheme. He was simply bluffing for last one month on TV shows. You see all his appearances in Barkha's show. In every show you will find him saying something which contradicts to what he says in the next session. Somebody of his stature and the position he had held earlier, he can't be that naive on his own scheme. He was clearly lying.
Dont you think that a company that donates to any political party will WANT the political party to know that they donated to them so there can be sufficient quid pro quo. So the anonymity factor just doesnt make any sense.
Anonymity only begins to make sense when such anonymity is to keep everyone in the dark other than a few key persons in ruling party. As regards Mr Garg, less said the better.
One is determined to explain and other is determined not to agree. In such scerario , wise person needs to keep shut. My respect to Mr. Garg.
This is a fantastically amusing conversation. If someone asks me what is ‘SBI’, this is what I’ll show them.
Mr Garg has wonderfully put the argument. What he said is truth and fact. The SBI has identified the security feature and used that frature to answer the audit requirement.But the SBI was to devise a system for audit which they failed. Alphanumeric feature used and found by SBI turned out to be a number. Instead of creating or evolving a new method .
SBI by recording the numbers have scuttled the “baby” of government , the government should be livid on SBI. And Mr Garg is quite happy about the fact.
This will never get old❤️
From where was the loss making company getting the crores to buy electtoral bonds.
What has significantly changed after electoral bonds is the sheer volume of funds that could be easily transferred to parties... Earlier Harshad Mehta had to carry a suitcase to carry a few crores, now a single sheet of paper is enough, so the "ease of bribery" has increased manifold.
Not only that, the overall secrecy around this i.e, no one except SBI and the Central govt could find out all the information
Sir you are at the forefront among the saviors.AMEN
I really appreciate the fact that you considered doing this again. You corrected your mistake from the last discussion. Continue the great efforts. 😊
These are unique numbers for each bond. Security features will be common for all bonds.
The gaslighting is on another level
Solution was worsed than remedy. Such high officials only give bad advice to politicians.
SBI recorded alpha numeric number to satisfy the second requirement of the law. SBI was mandated by same law to provide donor and recipient details if a competent court or agency asked for it in say a Quid-Pro-Quo case. Without recording the number SBI would not have been able to provide matching info to court or agency. I think perhaps what Mr. Garg is failing to understand is that SBI achieved Anonymity by keeping donor and recipient information in separate silos(Harish Salve mentioned this in court). Even though both silos did record the number they were kept isolated from each other and never accessible together. But if a competent court or agency asked for donor recipient details(mandated by same law) in a Quid-Pro-Quo case, then someone from SBI had to manually access these silos independently and pull up records and match them. SBI has designed the system correctly. The design which Mr. Garg or the government wanted(even CJI or one of the judges inferred it) was to implement 3 silos, Donor silo, Recipient Silo and Bond Printer Silo. In this scenario only bond printer silo would have noted down alpha numeric number when it printed it. Bond Printer silo would be accessed by SBI to verify if a bond is authentic or a fake. But in this 3 silos implementation, SBI would NOT have met the court or investigative agency requirement of the same law
A replay of “Yes Minister”!! Bureaucrats r the same everywhere.. non existent feature indeed!!
Can the invisible number be called non existent??!! 🤦🏽♀️ It just means, it is existent but invisible. And later Mr. Gary says, non-existent to the world!
One Buys a Bank Draft and it moves as a Number ..... As such the Election Bond security number was not to used identify the Buyer --- SBI has moved beyond its mandate of that there absolutely NO DOUBT !!!
This is the funniest episode I have seen so far😂
The loss making company is taking its shareholders for a merry ride but it is perfectly fair for it to buy EBs. Does this make any sense?
Ms Poonam s post in media after the 11 Mar 24 , was the key factor.... even the lawyers were surprised....with respect Cmdr Lokesh Batra had may infos, these respected peoples should've been in this discussion.... cat should ve off the bag.....
एलेक्ट्रोल बांड का नंबर है भी और नहीं भी है,
निराकार वालों के लिए नहीं है साकार वालों के लिए है
Madam Barkha, who i know for the last 20yrs plus, unable to stop tear , is it out of pleasure or on the plight of Mr Garg or Govt policy...
Mr.Garg's arguments are 😂😂
So Mr Garg wanted it to be inpossible for anyine ro track who paid whom how much. The only people in the know would be the party paying the money and the reciever.
Now, because of SBI, everyone knows who bribed and what benefit they recieved afterwards.
Good Job by the SBI!
Hi Hu Barkha,One question -who asked to put a hidden no.on the bonds and why?RBI or the treasury.this question is to both the experts.cheers
What about transparency of judiciary
Nonee of the modes of donations in luding cheques, bank draft and electoral trust are barred. Why the need for anonymous instruments like electoral bonds
Please check how much funding actually happens legally with traceable methods before electoral bonds. Huge huge black money
You are welcome to continue debating the existence or non-existence of the alphanumeric feature as a security measure. However, it is undeniable that the alphanumeric feature has become a biggest dilemma from which the Modi government seems unable to extricate itself and have found themselves in a trap. Credit is due to the SBI for championing the implementation of this feature, although their request to delay in providing the data may draw criticism.
If you want to get the Truth in respect to the Electoral Bond Scam give the Job to an Independant International Agency.
I'm sorry, I don't agree with Subash Garg. A security feature will be constant on all bonds, whatever it is. This particular 'security feature' was different on each bond, which is obvious that each separate bond could be tracked. The fact that it was hidden is again obvious.
Barkhaji, I am very por indian but from the discussion, what i understood , is that, it can be proved by uvl nos. Matching with kyc
Ask him - “was the process ever meant to be transparent or opaque??”
What a fantastic debate irrespective of which side you are on.
Mr Garg told about SBI done unlawful, SC is supreme, why he is not coming clean, let him be investigated, many answer might tumble, sorry Sir, how to do auditing, pl answer.....with respect .....
He is not wrong, he said as per the rules given by the authorities while making the bonds, this act by SBI was unlawful. It's not his job to decide what is right and wrong. His job is to implement the rules and as per those rules what SBI did was unlawful.
@@randhirnikam Well, the rules also said that the bonds are not eligible to be traded. Pray tell use, what system did this very smart person devise to make sure that the bonds didn't change hands? So much for the rules!!
@@asusgs1 what are you on about? The one and only purpose of bonds was election funding.
Company A buys bonds for ₹10 crore and hands over the bond to BJP.
BJP hands over that bond to SBI and gets ₹10 crore. The bond has an expiry date of 15 days from the day it was purchased by Company A.
What trading are you talking about?
@@randhirnikam Company A has 1cr in declared income, Company B has 1cr in undisclosed assets. B gives money to A to buy the bond, then takes it and donates to the party in exchange for some favour. In the exchange, A gets full tax exemption and maybe even kicks a part of it back to B. Now make this chain (A
@@asusgs1 ok got it. Yes you are right, this sure can happen and I'm sure some companies are doing this as well. But consider this, in the past all was happening behind the scenes. I'm ok with the electoral bonds but there should be no anonymity.
The problem with having no anonymity is that the government in power can retaliate against companies donating to opposition. This is a serious problem for which proper thought must be given.
We cannot stop money flowing into politics, that has not been possible even in advanced economies.
Normally when you issue a ticket you always number them. Alpha numerical or not there should have been a number to track how many were sold. Common sense
To me it reads like it’s that line on a currency note that’s meant as a security feature. But obe would only be concerned with the denomination or at best the serial no unless they want to check the veracity of the note. The mistake seems to be using a lab alpha numeric number instead of a hologram kind of feature that would have saved this confusion. Happy to be corrected.
From the first session on this topic in this channel, I got a sense that Mr Garg was bluffing. Thanks to the other gentleman that he exposed Mr Garg's childish lies, which even Barkha was not questioning in her earlier sessions.
The problem is that the government knew and could get the matching done for opposition bonds
Mr. Choker and Bharkha Dutta should do Data Analytics course to understand what Mr Garg is saying. Mr Garg is right
Mr. Garg and Pawan Kumar Jha do Logic 101 course to understand what every one else is saying. Mr. Garg is either a fool or thinks that the rest of us are.
If the number was not supposed to exist as far as the SBI was concrerned, then how did the SBI know it had to check for that number, let alone note it down?
Obviously they decided to put a "unique" code/number/security feature whatever you want to call it, so that the SBI could
1. verify that the bond was real and
2. provide an audit trail to law enforcement.
To do 2, it needed to be unique otherwise how else could they reveal it to law enforcement/courts at a later date?
Both statements cannot be true. a. the bond has no unique identification b. It needs to be auditable.
One possible way to hide the link would be that another 2 unique but different codes are generated on the recipient side and the donor side separately but linked to this original alphanumeric code through some method of encryption. so that they can only be decrypted one by one.
eg. buyer A with code "a" bought bond X(stored physically only). once you have bond X you can then decrypt the recipient code R and find out who redeemed it.
Mr Chokkhar is an idiot !!! A company is a legal entity and an independent decision making Body which can extinguish itself by making a Loss .... The court cannot stop a Body from committing Financial Suicide or ensure it makes Profits by Judicial Dictate !!!
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Ok, let me simplify this 1 hour debate / conversation - cos they both are getting stuck on semantic
What SBI was suppose to do :
1. Purchaser buys a bond
2. Alpha-numeric unique string gets generated along with Amount (Stored in Silo 1)
3. Purchaser details recorded (Name, Amount etc excluding Alpha-Numeric number recorded in Silo 2)
4. Purchaser gives bond to Political party
5. Political party deposits the bond to bank (Bond should be scanned and Alpha-numeric number is crossed checked with amount, the amount is deposited to political party) Record kept on redeemer details (excluding alpha-numeric number in Silo 3)
-- By this way there is no way to track unless Both purchaser and redeemer noted down the bond and revealed voluntarily
What SBI did:
1. Purchaser buys a bond (SBI recorded everything including Alpha-numeric number in Silo 1)
2. Purchaser gives the bond to Political party
3. Political party redeems the bond with SBI (SBI recorded Alpha-Numeric number along with redeemer details in Silo 2)
-- This was illegal if the anonymity was the core corner stone of this schema. By this way anyone who knows excel can do VLOOKUP and find out who purchased and given to who. 😂
By this analogy -
When SBI said they need 3 months to match both the record is completely lie on record. (perjury by SBI .? can a purchaser sue SBI .?)
barkaji.... why should the security number be different in different bonds as usually security nos is
same all over
Suppose I go to X bank and withdraw Rs100 and go to Y bank and deposit the same 100 Rupee note in Y bank,this transaction doesn't get matched as long as both the banks don't record the serial number of the 100 Rupee note.If both the bank chose to to record the serial number which they need not it's gets matched unintentionally. Correct me if I am wrong.
Mr Garg's arguments although idealistic are impossible for system to work upon. A question to Mr Garg, when he say at 31:20 to 32:05 that the security feature would be checked only when SBI would have received more bonds for redemption than the number of bonds issued by it. By his logic to match this, issued numbers and received numbers of bonds within the redemption span of 15 days there should have been continuous tracking of bonds in circulation in all 29 branches of SBI. But factually the scheme has not provided for such tracking.
Mr Garg is making circular argument when he says that since there was no occasion when fake bond has actually come into the system, (as there was no mismatch, as put by him) there was no occasion for SBI to use security feature. But how come SBI would come to know that any of the bonds (in circulation for which he himself uses the term quasi currency) is fake without using UV light, and without recording its number.
The power to record the unique number by SBI both at the time of issuing and at the time of redemption was implied if the system to work upon. He is presenting ' non- existing ' issue.
SBI has disclosed the data when asked by Court of Law. Until then it had implied Power to record it, if it was supposed to be unique number.
Mr.Garg is correct,
Jagdeep doesn't understand banking,
even Barkha is ignorant of banking
1:01:40 Mr Garg says that there's a built in feature in Electoral Bond Scheme that if any kind of illegality is committed by the Companies who brought the bond, the bond would be used as a collateral evidence to prove that. But, Mr Garg has been repeatedly saying that SBI was not supposed to keep any record connecting the buyer and seller. In which case, how could the bond be used as an evidence?
To be fair, the investigative agencies are adept at pulling evidence out of their a**, so it would have been alright either way :P
SBI Is govt bank and BJP FM and PM must have asked it to record and match. match😢
Serial number is very much on the number visible or not!!
This is hilarious 😂
What a nonstarter.
Transparency,my foot,
What about cash?
Now,what is the Avenue of availing it?
Will it be transparent?
Foolish who approached the court
Then it should make no difference to us, right? As far as the general public is concerned, EB was about as transparent as cash. Gross figures about how much money is being donated are meaningless without info about who is donating and why!!
Why did he not suggested for tracking.... are you not supposed to be part of petitioner in SC when in TOP court ... simple... Donor purchases, amt goes to one Central ELECTROAL FUND, wherever it is redeemed, debit from that fund and give to Party.... sorry Sir, you were wrong, even Mr Salve was caught off the guard..
What was the purpose of this alphanumeric number security feature?? For whom was it for?
it was for the central govt to track donations made to opposition parties so that ED, CBI, IT etc. can harass the donors
41:49 Okay this is quite easy, anyone with average security exposure in computer science WILL ALSO TELL YOU... this scheme is smelling of "security by obscurity". This scheme assumes that some hidden feature will not be found out by the adversaries, and therefore its secure. This is THE WORST FORM OF SECURITY... assuming he calls it SECURITY FEATURE.
The right way to do t his would have been to put some type of tamper proof label/seal on the security feature, and consider bond invalidated if the label was tampered (this for example is used on medical bottles).
Seems like SBI sort of hijacked a free ride on security feature, I think they are guilty party here, and EC is too clever and gave them a feature that they could use, but EC would remain free of any responsibility. (this is my assumption, maybe EC is incompetent, but given their EVM design, it doesn't look like it).
In Mr. Garg's defence, he is the WORST FORM OF PUBLIC SERVANT. So its a good match!
If the SBI was not told not to record the alphanumeric number by the govt, how can Mr Garg say the SBI recording it was illegal? Dal me kaala hai.
aur woh Garg ji ka dil hai!!
If any company gives donation to a party, opposition will accuse the party for quid pro quo or vice versa. So in that case, donation should be banned, because every time opposing parties will accuse each other if any donation is given. So either donation should not be allowed, but if it is allowed, then you should not say quid pro quo.
Sorry, not buying. Either donations should be banned or they will definitely say quid pro quo.
1. Companies that deal in government contracts should not be allowed to donate to the government. There are no dearth of NGOs, social initiatives and needy people in India.
2. If the ruling party had an iota of shame, they would never except money from companies that were under investigation by central agencies.
@@asusgs1Donation is not given by NGOs mostly, in reverse they tend to get donation from these same companies for their survival. Also, this will not address quid pro quo for future contracts they may deal with donation. so, be practical in who can give donation. All political parties need "enough" money to run their affairs, small amount of donation may not work practically. There are only two things: either donate or not to donate. If court allows donation, even if a company gives 2000 rs, opposing parties will say quid pro quo, and this quid pro quo applies to everyone-- individual, NGO, companies and any entity. So political funding is complex issue and is not as simple as it looks to be if you want to eliminate criminality in it (quid pro quo).
@@pawankumarjha3344 You misunderstood, I meant that corporates can donate money to NGOs if they are so civic hearted - they don't have to give to political parties.
You also be practical! No on will claim criminality for a 2k donation - if a political party raises 100cr by taking small (less than 20k) in donations from many people that is as clean as it can get, because there is no way a government could provide favours to that many different people. The problem of quid pro quo arises because there are few people and companies giving crores of rupees. Have a look at how electoral campaign spending has increased over the last 2 decades years - star campaigners zipping around the country in private jets, massive ads, huge party organization down to the booth level consisting of paid acolytes not volunteers. It wasn't always so! Compare our electoral spending with our per-capita income and contrast with developed countries - the disparity is even more stark. I think elections can run just fine with a lot less money!
He is splitting throat telling that its a securoty feature, was not supoose to record, but arguer wants to draw his own meaning. He clearly says that SBI is recording it unlawfully.
Simple analogy, whether bank nlrecords 2000 rypee note when giving to somebody. But if they decide to record then? This is unnecessary and unfeuctifying debate.
Very complicated
Choker proved himself a Joker😂😂😂
Instead of Alpha-numerical code .. if a '3-d hologram' or special 'security strip' had been put inside the bonds .. then SBI could know that bond presented for encashing is not fake and also there wouldn't have been anything to note down unique to that bond .. using unique alpha-numeric code defeated the purpose of anonymity.
Thank fully so, because it is this very purpose of anonymity that the SC held to be violating our fundamental rights.
'Principle of Anonymity' is also a great democratic principle .. for example - it is rightly applied in elections in India where a voter's choice is kept secret as to which political party he/she has given his/her vote.. however, in this judgment the Supreme Court has given primacy to another great principle of democracy i.e. 'Principle of Transparency' .. But my larger argument is that donors will resort to 'cash' being the primary mode of donation bec nobody wants to be victim of political witch-hunt in case the party they donated to doesn't win election .. anyway I haven't able to reach any conclusion as to what should be the mode of clean election funding .. perhaps state funding .. but that too won't be effective till cash exists.@@asusgs1
Can I under stand there is no serial number
Marked on bond Visible then
How sbi can surmise for it self how much it collected from sales and wo have purchased like cinema ticket s bought across window
Cinema ticket will have row and seat number looks funny
Mr Garg utters such BS when he says that loss-making companies should be allowed to contribute more than their profits so there's a level playing field. What low minds has the country produced?!!!
Mr Garg talks about being practical even if it's in a corrupt way. Dump morality down the drain.
Let us compare, MS POONAM vs Mr Garg.... who is Patriot....you were a top bureaucrat, are you supposed to tow the wrong policies Govt
SBI has committed an illegal thing, amounting to crime. Is the government recording an FIR against SBI and going to follow it up?
After they SBI threw itself on the sword trying to protect the government , it would be delicious irony if that government turned against it 😂
This petioner seems fool, security measure may be identical or may be not and may not be unique so that single bond is identified.
It’s difficult to sit through some of Mr. Garg’s “explanations.” The language of “non-existent feature” is just obtuse.
In 2019, SC told that , let the records be kept , subject to final verdict... why, companies not taken note of it, is he not aware of it, why he didn't advise FRAUD GOVT....😊😊
Garg is sent here by Fekuchand to Fake the shit out of people and fool them😂
Mr. Garg is trying his hands at inception type of a story. Unnecessarily complicating a straight forward scenario.
Only cash
I think nobody seems to understand Mr Garg’s point. When you withdraw 1000 rs from your bank, it does not records the serial number of each currency note dispensed to you against your 1000 rs withdrawal transaction. Similarly, SBI was not supposed to OR should not have recorded this number against the buyer. And similarly at redemption / deposit. If this was not recorded, the matching is impossible. People are unable to understand this nuance that Mr Garg is explaining.
The 1000 Rupee note is not invalid after 15 days, and not restricted to use by registered political parties only at specific SBI branches. So there is no reason to track them.
@@asusgs1 Agreed. But you can still check the validity of the bond by checking the security code against a master list of valid codes and their issuance/expiry dates at the time of redemption, without having to record the code number against the redeemer. Essentially the point is, the security code had this purpose of verification of the validity and authenticity of the bond but wasn't meant to be used for getting recorded as a tracking number against the issuance and redemption transactions.
@@arunmoola You obviously haven't read Point 7(4) of the Gazette notification on Electoral Bonds issued by the ministry of finance. Please read up. It was always intended to serve as both security feature (by virtue of how it was embedded and visible in UV light) *and* as an audit trail for its evidentiary value as is obvious from its content.
Sbi is a broker between bjp and electora bond purchasers
What a dumb discussion this is! If the number was only a security feature, why did each bond have a DIFFERENT number embedded in it?? Why not the same number in ALL bonds??
What Modi did is right and what Kejriwal did is not right,while both are same
Actually Garg should know in democracies this kind of schemes should be unlawful and schemers should send to jail
I wonder if Mr Garg has any idea what he's talking about.
Barhka at times seems naive. See how the UK and other European countries do it. The US has a screwed up system. Not the European systems. Read about them.
Sorry Barkha , this the first debate of yours, I am leaving in between only. He is treating Mr. Garg as if he is a culprit. The arguer should have been respectful. Now i take him as cry baby. By the way, I am neither for or against of bond. But I wanted to make my opinion thrpugh this debate.
Either Mr. Garg is ignorant or he is lying. Either way, no one forced him to say anything, he could just have kept his opinions to himself. You put yourself out in the public domain, you will be checked on what you say.
This is not even an argument. Hate or love for government aside Mr. Garg is right! Real scam is why did SBI check numbers and under whose orders. Garg failed to explain or mischievously didn't. chokkar guy was just being hysteric or again mischievously refusing to understand.
Chhokar doesn't know banking practise.
Garg is correct
Jagdeep and co. are fools,what moral base?
Do political parties undergo morally?
Nice try. Real scam is the connection between who was giving money to which party and why??
@@asusgs1 of course. why are you stating the obvious? whats interesting is when will case against SBI will be filed for recording the numbers and by whom? if no one files then it will be really interesting.
Why so much importance given by you to Mr Garg?Opinion of RBI & Election Commission didn't matter one bit .. So why try create an image that he was responsible in any way for the scheme or any of it's intent or design. He only had the responsibility of executing the instructions. Poor Mr Garg being made to appear responsible for the wrong s
Mr. Garg is volunteering to be held responsible, the least he could do is be truthful and admit when he doesn't know something.
Ye jyada hoshiyari me galati kar baithe, Garg Sahab.
Best way to summarise. 😃
Barkha Dutt pls go back to the year 2002 ur reporting against gujarat gov
The embedded number was intentionally put so that Govt could track who are donating money to opposition parties so that ED/CBI/IT can be used against them. Plain and simply
If the alphanumeric code was just the same on all bonds, the government would not have faced this issue. This was a bug or a deliberate bug.
No ... Then anyone could have counterfeited the Bonds !!! Bonds are far easier to Print than Currencies !!!
Boy clearly Jagdeep and Barkha are noobs.
Bhai this number was never supposed to be used to track the transaction and hence "didn't exist" for that purpose. It's a mistake by SBI to have used this number for security purposes. They have violated the set law with this feature.
Its good that numbers are out and can be used for tracking. That doesn't mean that what SBI did is right or that some how Jagdeep cracked the case. Someone with an above-average IQ in tech could have made them spin headless in this case, but hey its SBI.
Trying hearing the conversation again: Not only did Jagdeep never claim to crack the case, he said quite clearly that ADR neither asked for nor expected these numbers to be revealed. They had only asked for the scheme to be scrapped prospectively.
@@asusgs1- No beef with his desire to scrap the scheme and that's a fair ask.
But he fails to understand that a security feature's primary purpose is not for identity management and tracking. he keeps laughing when the gentleman articulates that SBI has done illegal in the context of the passed law.
Stupid finance secretary, whether the hidden code is identification or for security, either ways, if it is different on each bond, it can be used to match the donor and recipient within seconds! The SBI is guilty of not only perjury but also trying to take the Supreme Court on a ride!
Sir
Using a word stupid is wrong and not fair. He is a man who has achieved a lot. The state/ Cabinet has ordered him to formulate a scheme for political funding and he has done his job.
@@user-yb1fo6io6q
While the word is unparliamentary, but is not not wrong. As a senior IAS officer Garg should have known that by defending the electoral bond he is serving the interest of those who are bent upon dismantling democracy.
I don't know why Barkha and the other idiot guy finding it so difficult to understand what Mr Garg is saying. There is security feature, which is kind of encrypted and not to be known for common people.
It is hardly encrypted, if you know what that word means. It is straightforward combination of the time of issue and denomination of a bond along with a serial number.
@@asusgs1 I am giving an analogy, where a common man while using a secured website does not know the underlying security features, he just uses the website for his work or interests.
@@rc2k22 What the hell are you talking about? If you knew even a little bit about computer security, you'd know that security features are never built on a presumption that no one will know about it, rather a guarantee that it cannot be easily exploited even if everyone knows about it. Encryption by definition means a one-way function, where reversal is way more difficult and expensive. If SBI thought that the simple fact that they've embedded something to only be visible under UV light meant that people wouldn't find out about it, they're the idiots, not Mr. Chokhar!
@@asusgs1 I think you did not listen to the conversation properly. SBI has not implemented that security feature. It was implemented by a third printing company which the government engaged with. Regarding security and encryption, please tell me all the common people who surf on Google and visit various websites, do everybody know about the underlying cloud or security Infrastructure ?
@@rc2k22 My point remains: encryption on a website works the same way, even when common people know about it. But your concept of encryption by way of the unique number breaks down as soon as we shine a UV light on it. That is not really encryption.