How to Link Aadhaar With PAN Card Online to File Tax Returns

How to Link Aadhaar With PAN Card Online to File Tax Returns

HIGHLIGHTS

  • You can link your Aadhaar and PAN via the e-filing website
  • For this to work, your PAN and Aadhaar details need to match
  • In case of a discrepancy, you will soon be able to link via OTP

With July 31 here, it is high time you file your IT returns for the 2017 fiscal. Of course, before you can go ahead with filing income tax returns, you need to link Aadhaar number and PAN card as it became mandatory from July 1. According to a new amendment to the tax proposals in the Finance Bill for 2017-18, anyone who has a PAN card must provide their Aadhaar number to the principal director general of income tax (systems) or DGIT (systems). If you want to link the two but are not sure how to do it, you can use the e-facility launched by the Income Tax department, which is the easiest way to link the two. In fact, you don’t even need to sign in to the IT website to link your Aadhaar number and PAN card.

ALSO SEEHow to Link Aadhaar and PAN card by SMS

How to link PAN card with Aadhaar online

If you want to link your Aadhaar with PAN card, head over to the Income Tax e-filing portal and follow the steps below:

  1. On the website, click on the link on the left saying Link Aadhaar.
  2. Now, enter your PAN number, Aadhaar number, name as per Aadhaar, and the Captcha, and then click on Link Aadhaar.
  3. This should link the PAN and Aadhaar, but if there is any discrepancy in your details, you’ll receive an Aadhaar OTP to confirm the linkage. Enter the OTP and click on Save to continue.
  4. You can also link the details after logging in to the income tax website. Log in as you normally would and then click on Profile Settings in the top menu.
  5. Next, find Link Aadhaar.
  6. Enter your Aadhaar number and click on Save to continue.

This will only work if the details on the PAN and the Aadhaar card match. In case of any discrepancies, you can upload a scan of your PAN card, or register via OTP on your linked mobile number as mentioned above.

ALSO SEEWondering How to Pay or File Income Tax Returns Online? These Websites Can Help

That’s all there is to it right now. Did this guide help you in linking your PAN to your Aadhaar card? Let us know via the comments, and check out the rest of our How-to articles.

The process of linking Aadhaar and PAN is, of course, mandatory only if you plan to file tax returns on July 1 or later. This means you can choose to file the tax returns today, and need not link the two IDs. Also, according to the Supreme Court ruling, those who do not have not been allotted Aadhaar number yet need not scramble for it, as the process is only for Aadhaar-holders. This has come as a major relief for those worried whether their PAN cards would become invalid if they do not link the two by July 1.

[“Source-gadgets.ndtv”]

Social Media and Shopping: Report Provides Potential Insights on North Korean Online Behavior

Image result for Social Media and Shopping: Report Provides Potential Insights on North Korean Online BehaviorA new report offers fascinating insight into Internet activity from North Korea, suggesting that average North Koreans and the upper echelons of the Workers’ Party and military aren’t nearly as cut off as commonly portrayed. However, no definitive conclusions can be drawn from the report about the source, frequency and range of this access because it doesn’t provide hard numbers for many of its conclusions and the raw data isn’t available. That is unfortunate because the findings are counter-intuitive to what we have assumed about North Korean online behavior. Opening the data to peer review may help us better understand the nature and scale of this activity and, if confirmed, could change the way the world deals with North Korea.

Findings

The report was published in July by the Insikt Group, the research arm of Massachusetts-based Recorded Future. The company utilizes machine learning to deliver online security threat intelligence to businesses. The basis for the report was Internet traffic captured outside of North Korea by Team Cymru, a computer security-focused non-profit that acts as Insikt’s “intelligence partner.”

In the report, researcher Priscilla Moriuchi, the director of strategic threat development at Recorded Future and a 12-year veteran of the US intelligence community, writes that users in North Korea spend much of their time online checking social media. Facebook was the most often accessed site with Google, Baidu and Instagram all attracting significant numbers of views. Alibaba, Amazon, Tencent and Apple rounded out the top eight social networking sites over the period of the data, which spanned April 1 to July 6 this year.

Just on April 1, for example, the report notes users accessed 163.com email accounts, streamed Chinese-language video from Youku and checked news on Xinhua and People’s Daily.

Team Cymru was vague about how it captured the data and exactly what it consisted of, but it has previously said it works with “data donors and sources.” It also declined to provide a copy of the North Korean data without subscription to its commercial service. But the report did provide details of how it decided what was “North Korean” traffic and it comes down to three blocks of Internet addresses.

  • The first was a block of 1,024 Internet addresses from 175.45.176.0 to 175.45.179.255. Those are addresses allocated to Star JV, North Korea’s sole Internet provider. All of the country’s websites sit within this range and it’s also used by the Koryolink 3G service for Internet access offered to resident foreigners and tourists.
  • The second was a smaller block of 256 addresses from 210.52.109.0 to 210.52.109.255. These are Chinese addresses but have been allocated to North Korea’s state-run telecom provider through China Netcom since before Star JV existed. North Korean websites sat in these addresses about 15 years ago.
  • The third group was another 256 addresses from 77.94.35.0 to 77.94.35.255. These are allocated to SatNet, a Russian satellite Internet provider and are currently registered as being used in Lebanon. In the past, these were registered as being used by North Korea, but information in the Internet address registration database isn’t verified so it’s unproven whether these were or are legitimate North Korean addresses.

Moriuchi feels sure the SatNet addresses were in use by North Korea during the time the data was collected and points to the similarity in access patterns between the SatNet addresses and the Star JV addresses; she didn’t see any traffic targeted at Lebanese websites, as might be expected. Again, the baseline data wasn’t available to illustrate or support that assertion. Moriuchi told me, however, that the SatNet traffic made up about 40 percent of the data with just 1 percent coming from the China Netcom block. The rest came from the North Korean IP range and that, if taken alone, would still support the general findings of the report.

Among Moriuchi’s research, she found a larger-than-expected amount of traffic from North Korea to India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nepal, Kenya and Mozambique. She said the amount of access was higher than would typically be expected and directed at sites such as a local news outlets and governments—the kind of sites only someone living there or with a link to the country might access.

In fact, one fifth of all activity observed in the data involved India—a surprising amount. According to the report, the traffic suggests North Korea has students at least seven universities and might be working with several research institutions in the country.

Of the countries mentioned, Malaysia and Indonesia also maintain diplomatic missions in North Korea, although Malaysia brought diplomats home as relations with Pyongyang broke down in the wake of the murder of Kim Jong Nam in Kuala Lumpur.

Perhaps most intriguingly, on May 17, Bitcoin mining traffic was observed. There had been none since the beginning of April but it suddenly spiked. The report notes the close timing with the release of the “WannaCry” malware that hit computers between May 12 and 15. WannaCry demanded a ransom in Bitcoin and was linked to North Korea by computer security companies.

The report also noted the use of at least seven different western VPN (virtual private network) services in traffic among the data. Such services require a credit card subscription, which isn’t impossible for a North Korean to arrange through overseas contacts, but again raises the question of who is behind the traffic.

The report notes, “one VPN was used by an iPad to check a Gmail account, access Google Cloud, check Facebook and MSN accounts, and view adult content. Other VPN and VPS (virtual private server) were used to run Metasploit (security software), make purchases using Bitcoin, check Twitter, play video games, stream videos, post documents to Dropbox, and browse Amazon.”

Caveats

An important caveat to many of the findings in the report is that it’s unclear how many people were covered and who they are. The report refers to those with Internet access as a “limited number,” but it didn’t acknowledge that several hundred foreigners might be present in Pyongyang at any one time, accessing the Internet and connecting to overseas sites. For them, using VPNs, accessing Facebook and Google and checking 163.com email accounts would be expected.

Moriuchi later told me she did see traffic that appeared to be foreign residents but it was just a small sliver of the overall data. But it’s impossible to know how much because the report doesn’t provide those numbers and Moriuchi wouldn’t disclose them.

Take the Indian traffic, for example. From the data provider, it’s impossible to determine whether the increased activity to India is just bored diplomats at India’s embassy Pyongyang. We also don’t know the amount of data analyzed, the number of websites accessed or even an estimate as to the number of Internet users in Pyongyang.

In a phone conversation, Moriuchi told me the traffic collected represented a significant number of records—it wasn’t just a handful of web sessions each day—but wouldn’t put numbers on it. When I asked her what it might compare to, she said it was about what you might expect from a medium-sized company—which is about 50 to 250 people according to most definitions.

Unanswered Questions

Just like almost everywhere else, Facebook is king for the people inside North Korea that have Internet access, and they also spend a fair amount of time on Google, Baidu and other major sites. If the traffic is really coming from North Koreans rather than resident or visiting foreigners, then they really are very much like us—more than we ever imagined.

However, while the report adds insight into the largely opaque area of access to the Internet from inside North Korea, it’s far from clear exactly what was captured and whether all of it was really from North Koreans.

I’ve spoken to several North Korea and Internet experts about the report and they all draw the same conclusion: that something is not quite right with the numbers. Perhaps a lot more of it is from foreigners than estimated or perhaps there’s an unknown Internet connection that wasn’t taken into account.

Or, perhaps we are all wrong and North Koreans really are going online and checking Amazon and Alibaba. Without more information, it’s impossible to know and that’s unfortunate because of the surprising nature of some of the findings.

Moriuchi says she’s sure about the results reached from the data set—the sites accessed, the traffic patterns, the activity—and I’m sure that’s true. Nonetheless, I’d love to do a deeper dive into the data to gain much greater granularity and insight into some of its conclusions.

[“Source-38north”]

China’s Authorities Tighten Noose Around Online Video, Audio Content

China's Authorities Tighten Noose Around Online Video, Audio Content

HIGHLIGHTS
China already keeps a close watch over the Internet
It seems necessary to ensure national security and social stability
Weibo, ACFUN, and Ifeng.com have been told to stop video service
China has told three major web portals to shut down their video and audio streaming services, saying they carry politically-related material that breaks state rules and social commentary which incites negative opinions.

China keeps a close watch over the Internet, deleting comments on social media it deems harmful and blocking popular foreign websites including Google and Facebook.

It has defended tight controls as necessary to ensure national security and social stability.

China’s Twitter-like service Sina Weibo, popular online video site ACFUN and news portal Ifeng.com will have to stop video streaming services that violate the country’s regulations, the TV and film watchdog said on Thursday.

It did not give any specific timeframe for when these programmes should be taken down and whether the move was permanent.
“This will provide a clean and clear Internet space for the wide number of online users,” the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television said in a brief statement on its website.

Weibo Corp said it was communicating with relevant government authorities to understand the scope of the notice and will also evaluate the impact of the government’s move on its operations and its administrative options.

ACFUN and Ifeng.com were not immediately available for comment.

China’s Internet shares tumbled after news of the clampdown with Weibo Corp’s down 9 percent, while SINA Corp, which has a stake in Weibo, fell 6 percent.

[“Source-ndtv”]

How to split the good from the bad in online reviews and ratings

Image result for How to split the good from the bad in online reviews and ratingsA lot of consumers, when searching online for something to buy, will take a look at an online review or rating for a product. It seems like a great way to get an unfiltered view on quality but research indicates most online reviews are too simple and may misguide consumers.

According to one United States survey, 78.5% of American consumers looked for information online about a product or service, and 34% had posted an online review. A global Nielsen survey found 70% of consumers trust online product reviews and use them in making decisions.

As a result, the average user rating of products has become a significant factor in driving sales across many product categories and industries. The proliferation of online reviews from many consumers sounds like a positive development for consumer welfare but some research shows otherwise.

User ratings and product quality

Consumers use online user ratings because they assume these provide a good indication of product or service quality. For example, you would expect a laptop with an average rating of four out of five stars to be objectively better than a laptop with an average rating of three out of five stars, 100% of the time.

In order to test this assumption, one researcher team put together an impressive dataset comprising of 344,157 Amazon.com ratings for 1,272 products, in 120 product categories. For each product, they obtained objective quality scores from the website Consumer Reports. They also collected data on prices, brand image measures, and two independent sources of resale values in the market for second hand or used goods.

The researchers found that average user ratings correlated poorly with the scores from Consumer Reports. For example, when the difference in average user rating between pairs of products was larger than one star, the item with the higher user rating was rated more favourably by Consumer Reports only about two-thirds of the time.

In other words, if you were comparing a laptop with an average rating of four out of five stars, with another laptop with an average rating of three out of five stars, the first laptop would only be objectively better 65% (not 100%) of the time. This is a far cry from a sure difference in quality. Moreover, the average user ratings did not predict resale value in the used-product marketplace.

The reasons online ratings don’t reflect the real thing

There are several reasons why average user ratings may not predict objective quality measures. User reviews may include a broader range of criteria than those Consumer Reports does, such as subjective aspects of the use experience (like aesthetics, popularity, emotional benefits).

Many reviews are also based on small samples. As any statistics teacher will tell you, all things being equal, the average user rating should be more informative as sample size increases relative to variability. Indeed, in the online rating study, the correlation between average user rating and Consumer Reports scores was higher when the sample size was large. Unfortunately, average user ratings are often based on small samples and high variability.

Online reviews are based on a biased subset of those who actually purchased the product. In general, reviews are left by those that “brag” or “moan” about their product experience, often resulting in a two mode distribution of ratings.

This is where the average does not give a good indication of the true population average. For example, in one comprehensive dataset for a large private label retailer, the percentage of buyers who left a review was just 1.5%. This means that 98.5% of the people eligible to leave a review chose not to do so.

Many groups also now actively seek to manipulate average ratings. This can be done in the form of fake reviews.

For example, businesses (or their agents) may post fictitious favourable reviews for their own products and/or post fictitious negative reviews for the products of their competitors. According to one study, roughly 16% of restaurant reviews on the website Yelp were suspicious or fake.

Websites like Yelp.com and Amazon.com try to mitigate such ingenuity. For example, one of the Ivanka Trump collection’s shoes has an average rating of four and a half out of five stars despite hundreds of (presumably fake) one-star reviews.

What you can actually tell from online reviews

There is a way to use the information from reviews and ratings despite all of these potential pitfalls. First, look for products with a high average user rating, many reviews, and not a lot of variance in the rating scores. Beware placing too much faith in average ratings that are based on few reviews and with high variance in the ratings.

You can also consider online reviews in light of additional sources that provide objective product evaluations, from technical experts. Sources of this kind of information include Consumer Reports, Choice, Consumers Union, Which? and CNET.

Where possible, you can consider employing technology designed to help you navigate the bias in online reviews. Examples include Fakespot and ReviewMeta. For example, ReviewMeta scans all reviews from a product’s online listing page, and then provides an adjusted average rating. This adjusted rating accounts for all sorts of suspicious activities such as a high proportion of reviews from users with unverified purchases.

So, the next time you’re evaluating products online, feel free to start with the average user rating, but be wary of making your final judgement based only on this cue.

[“Source-theconversation”]