A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems b) Justice Sykes of the Jamaican Supreme Court applies a proportionality framework in finding the Jamaican identity system unconstitutional.147 Justice Sykes holds that the system fails to meet the necessity stage of this analysis,148 while also determining that the interference with privacy is disproportionate to the system’s objective of providing citizens with reliable identification.149 c) The Judicial Yuan of Taiwan found an absence of a close relationship between the collection of fingerprints and preventing the misuse of identity cards, as well as a failure to achieve a balance of losses to informational privacy to gains of effective identification when reviewing a proposed identity card system.150 44. Proportionality of an identity system’s benefits and infringements on privacy cannot be satisfied unless sufficient data protection safeguards exist. a) The dissent in the Aadhaar judgment explicitly envisions a requirement for sufficient safeguards and consent in outlining its proportionality test.151 The failure to establish these safeguards is part of the dissent’s argument against the constitutionality of the Aadhaar system.152 b) The Kenyan High Court states: “the lack of a comprehensive legal framework” for the protection of personal data collected as part of the national identity system “is contrary to the principles of democratic governance and the rule of law, and thereby unjustifiable.”153 The absence of appropriate data protection safeguards was one of the two privacy infringements analysed by the court under its purported proportionality 147 Opinion of Justice Sykes, ¶ 247(B)(4)–(5). 148 Opinion of Justice Sykes, ¶ 247(B)(52). 149 Opinion of Justice Sykes, ¶ 247(B)(19). 150 Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 603, Taiwan, Reasoning (2005). 151 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 218 of dissent. 152 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 306 of dissent. 153 Huduma Namba Judgment, ¶ 922. 37