Sham ID Aadhaar-PAN Link - A Ridiculous Statement - CBDT

The Pune Mirror quotes the former Chairman of CBDT as making some ridiculous claims.
I hope and presume that he was mis-quoted by Mirror journo with misplaced exuberance.
Surely, the Chairman can’t be so ignorant.
The Mirror report claims that the Chairman said that the department wants to find out the spending pattern of bank accounts!
Is the former CBDT Chairman admitting that the IT department wants to watch ALL bank accounts to find out the spending pattern? If so, did the government lie to the Supreme Court that the purpose of linking the Sham ID, 'Aadhaar'  to PAN is for detecting duplicate / multiple PANs? Deetcting duplicates or multiple PANs is in any case impossible with the Sham-ID-Aadhaar link to PAN, since, biometrics results in false matches, a person can obtain many Aadhaar numbers.
Militants when arrested were found in possession of more than one "Aadhaar card". Further, as per Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, the Aadhaar number is not proof of citizenship. So, any foreigner could have the Sham-ID-Aadhaar number. 
In 2017, a Pak spy working in the embassy in Delhi not only had obtained the Sham-ID-Aadhaar number, he had also opened bank account and received LPG subsidy.
CBDT Chairman - please note.
The foolishness of the former CBDT Chairman’s statement is even more apparent when one reads that he said that “with "Aadhaar" link, it would be easier to gauge whether the benefits of welfare schemes are availed by eligible persons.
Is he so ignorant that he does not know that people on welfare in any country in the world, including “Digital India” would not fall in the income tax bracket?
Here's the link to the story
 

 

 

 

RERA or KAOA or KOFA or a Combination of These?

Even after the enactment of The Real Estate Regulation Act, 2016, (RERA) the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 (KAOA) and the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972 (KOFA) remain in the statutes.

This has and is creating confusion among apartment buyers.

Promoters / builders of Real Estate Projects take advantage of this situation.

Some promoters have registered under KAOA and refuse to register under RERA.

KAOA, though ostensibly intended to provide apartment-buyers with “marketable title”, does not, in fact, do so.

Section 5 of KAOA read with Rule 5 of KAO Rules, 1974 and paragraph 5 of Form ‘A’ made under the said Rules, only mandate purchase / issue of at least ONE share in a co-operative society or company which is to be formed by the promoter under Section 10 of KOFA.

Some apartment owners – especially those who had unsavoury experiences with their apartment owners’ associations – have clutched at The Co-operative societies Act, 1959 to settle scores and in the bargain are harming themselves and other confused apartment owners.

Here is a You Tube video explaining the Acts and their implications

Also attached is PPT which could viewed along with the video for ease of understanding.

If viewers have any doubts, please feel to email me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or call me on +919880000401.

 

Lessons not learnt from 26/11

We are novices at handling terror or intelligence or diplomacy. Just look at the faux pas of Republic Day Chief Guest invitation. We missed the build-up across the border before Kargil. Our agencies and politicians never learn. They are so focussed on fighting each other. Some even join our Nation’s enemies.

Look at “Aadhaar” which, I call, “Sham ID” because it is not an ID card. Yet, almost all people, including Supreme Court refer to it as "Aadhaar card". It is a letter acknowledging enrollment and assigning an allegedly unique number. The letter tells the recipient to cut a portion of it and use it.

The letter also informs the recipient that it is not proof of citizenship. It can’t differentiate between citizens and non-citizens. Still, RBI, banks encourage its use as KYC.

EC would like to link it to names in voter lists. Does not EC know that resident non-citizens should not be in our voter lists? Worse, the de-duplication process to assign the ostensibly unique number is done by foreign private companies. Does EC want foreign entities to control enrolment into our voter lists. I had written to EC explaining this but did not receive any reply.

Even our Armed Force personnel are asked to enrol in Sham ID, 'Aadhaar'. As per UIDAI’s contracts with Biometric Solution Providers (foreign entities), all data is not only provided to them but they are also authorised to do whatever they wish to with the data. No one realises that the deployment and movement of our Defence Forces would be known minute-by-minute to external agencies.

Our PM uses an iPhone given to him by Apple’s Tim Cooke!

Back to tackling 26/11 type situations. Our police need helicopters and drones. Is anyone in government even contemplating provision of these?

As for intelligence, we are so gullible that despite Snowden, most Indian government departments have Facebook pages and Twitter handles.

To prevent another 26/11, our intelligence agencies need to be more intelligent – use their brains. We did not even insist on interrogating David Headley in India. He was certainly not a DEA agent turned rogue. That’s what they would have us believe. No need for watch lists. He was travelling between US, Pakistan and India. Even an idiot cop at the immigration counter could have smelt a rat.

Below is an article from "Outlook" Magazine datelined 15-11-2018

Dead Man Speaks - Exposes Sham ID Aadhaar 

Can't Identify without Sham ID Aadhaar Number, says UIDAI

“Not possible to use biometrics to identify bodies: UIDAI”

Says, the headline in ‘The Hindu’ datelined 12 Nov 2018.

Reporting a statement made in the Delhi High Court, the paper quoted UIDAI as telling the court that it is not possible to use biometrics to identify (dead) bodies.

UIDAI’s justification? ‘Matching done on 1:1 basis and Aadhaar number is needed’

So, all the b******t about unique identities lays exposed by a dead man talking through a PIL.

This is exactly what I have been requesting anyone who will listen to understand – “Biometrics cannot identify people across large populations.”

If biometrics cannot identify a person if it is not matched in the UIDAI database against the Sham ID number, then how can it be used to issue unique numbers or de-duplicate? In de-duplication, the Sham ID number is not issued. So, the biometrics of the person enrolling has to be checked against all people already enrolled in the database.

UIDAI now admits that it cannot identify without the Sham ID number because 1:1 matching, that is, a person’s biometrics has to be checked only against her / his biometrics already stored in the database.

Here’s the link to the article in ‘The Hindu’

 

Sham ID Aadhaar Supreme Court Judgment with My Comments

The PDF below is the Sham ID Aadhaar Judgment with my comments.

The main points I made therein are the following.

1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court missed the fact that the UIDAI contracts with Biometric Solution Providers are illegal because, the entire data is not merely handed over to these private companies, but they are also authorised to collect (more data), use, store, transfer, process and link the data to individuals. This fact appears to NOT have been brought to the notice of the Court. 

  1. The contracts violate the Act which, says in Section 29 that data cannot be shared except under certain specific circumstances. If the Act is valid, (which, in my view, it is not) as per the Supreme Court, then the contracts are invalid. If the contracts are invalid, all data collected under the contracts are illegally collected and hence, cannot be used for purposes of the Act.
  2.  The Sham ID Aadhar number is for all residents. It make no distinction between non-citizen residents and citizens. Hence, it cannot be used a KYC for any purpose for which citizenship is essential. This fact too is not mentioned anywhere in the judgement.
  3.  The Court assumed that biometrics results in unique identities. This is disproved by both scientific research and mathematical proof. It is substantiated by ground data which shows millions, 80 million people – to be exact – have been excluded due to false matches, that is, one person’s biometrics being mistaken for another’s. This is an inherent property or fallibility of biometric identification systems. De-duplication of biometric identities in large populations is impossible.