A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems 54. system is legislatively prescribed to be voluntary, the spread of requirements across public and private life make consent arguably illusory. The most vulnerable populations are at greater risk of losing the practical ability to withhold consent because of the power imbalances that exist between individuals and the state. This issue is further complicated by widespread sharing of data among public and private actors involved in the identity system’s administration and application.209 This sharing occurs without safeguards and judicial oversight in many contexts.210 Finally, multinationals are frequently involved in the design and implementation of identity systems, further expanding the scope of data sharing involved in the systems.211 Without these safeguards, there can be no guarantee that an identity system is implicating privacy rights in the least intrusive way to accomplish state objectives.212 55. This section of the guide illustrates arguments surrounding data protection law and its relationship to identity systems, while providing context from several of the national court judgments analysing the systems. Advocates and human rights defenders should use these arguments to challenge the implementation of identity systems designed without the requisite internal safeguards and background data protection frameworks to protect individuals’ rights. 209 See Madhewoo v. The State of Mauritius and Anor, 2015 SCJ 177 http://ionnews.mu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Biometric-ID-Card_Madhewoo-vs-State.pdf at 32. 210 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 339(14)(f) of dissent. 211 See Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 232 of dissent. 212 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 306 of dissent. 49