A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems b) The dissenting opinion in the Aadhaar judgment finds a lack of consent in the identity system particularly troubling.79 Consent is similar to the concept of personal autonomy that the majority focuses on because it directly involves an individual’s freedom to choose to accept or reject participation in the identity system in accordance with their values, interests, and desires. Ignoring or minimising the importance of consent therefore undermines personal autonomy and the freedom of choice. c) Justice Sykes of the Jamaican Supreme Court states the privacy of choice has been removed by the compulsory nature of the identity system reviewed in that case.80 Justice Sykes conceives of the freedom of choice as privacy protecting “an individual’s autonomy over fundamental personal choices.”81 d) The Kenyan High Court cites the ability to collect and match an individual’s biometric characteristics without their personal knowledge or consent in determining that DNA information should warrant protection.82 Additionally, the court’s conception of informational privacy, which it uses as its underlying basis in evaluating the Kenyan national identity system’s privacy implications, includes in its definition an element of control.83 35. The collection of personal data as part of an identity system is a disproportionate interference with the right to privacy because it enhances the state’s ability to engage in mass surveillance, or the systematic monitoring and tracking of all individuals enrolled in the identity system. a) The dissenting opinion in the Aadhaar judgment notes the danger posed by an identity system with respect to mass surveillance, observing that identity systems increase the potential for building comprehensive profiles 79 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 304 of dissent. 80 Opinion of Justice Sykes, ¶ 247(A)(10). 81 Opinion of Justice Sykes, ¶ 174. 82 Huduma Namba Judgment, ¶ 767. 83 See Huduma Namba Judgment, ¶ 750 (referring to informational privacy as “rights of control a person has over personal information”). 24