A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems e) The majority opinion in the Aadhaar judgment is significantly less concerned with security risks, partly because of the offline storage used in the Aadhaar system.100 The majority also highlights the potential data protection law101 and limits the length of time for which data can be stored. The majority found the time period to be unreasonable and too great a risk to an individual’s right to be forgotten.102 f) The Supreme Court of the Philippines identified a risk that, in the event of a security breach, an intruder could access or manipulate the information stored in an identity system, leading to exposure or alteration of an individual’s loan availments, income tax returns, and documents regarding sensitive medical information.103 37. The storage of biometric data for authentication in an identity interferes with the right to privacy because the data is permanent, and its collection and storage inhibits an individual’s ability to be forgotten. a) The majority opinion in the Aadhaar judgment discusses the right to be forgotten,104 although it ultimately finds the identity system to be constitutionally permissible.105 The majority conceives of the right to be forgotten as the “right to prevent or restrict disclosure of personal data by a fiduciary.”106 b) Influential scholarly sources for the dissenting opinion in the Aadhaar judgment argue that biometric data collection specifically implicates the right to remain anonymous.107 Anonymity is inextricably associated with the right to privacy as an individual cannot have a reasonable expectation that 100 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 48 at 57. 101 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 225 at 298. 102 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 205 at 283. 103 Blas F. Ople, Part III at 5. 104 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 205 at 282. 105 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 308 at 376. 106 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 225 at 298. 107 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 127 of dissent. 28