TechCrunch.com had a post up sometime claiming that India's largest software company Tata Consultancy Services' website, www.tcs.com had been 'hacked'. The update to the post confirms that only some users are seeing the compromised version of the home page ie. this is a classic DNS hack and only certain name servers seem to be affected.A DNS (domain name server) is basically a centralized online directory/database which keeps a list of IP addresses corresponding to the domain names that we type into our browser. If it's compromised, typing in a URL could take you to a completely different site as intended by the hacker, often (though not in this case) with dangerous consequences. When twitter.com recently fell victim to such an attack, the perpetrators could have got access to twitter usernames and passwords if they'd put up a fake login page so that users would think they were entering the information into twitter.com as usual. Luckily it was just a political statement by Iranian hackers.
If TCS is to blame at all here, it should be for poor housekeeping. I mean, which large company, especially in tech, lists third parties (honeybeetechnology.com doesn't even look legit??!!) as its "administrative & technical contacts" on the WHOIS page? Certainly not TCS' competitors! See Infy's WHOIS page here and Wipro's here.
Nevertheless this is going to be a bit of a headache for the TCS PR team, especially since publications like the Washington Post syndicate TechCrunch content, lending the news an air of credibility in the Indian company's primary market. Also, one can always bank on a few idiots to give a racist slant to this news.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Gateway To Web — It’s Living
The Cake is not a lie, after all. Valve, the company which collided energy beams long before scientists in Geneva dreamed of it and gave us games like Half-Life, Counter Strike and Team Fortress 2, is working on a Portal sequel. The official announcement came a few days after some cryptic messages coded inside Morse code and audio streams were released to Steam users. Portal 2, which is expected to pick the story inside decrepit and abandoned Aperture Science Laboratories, will be released in “coming holiday season”, or in other words, at the end of the year.
I am sure that many readers here may not share my excitement at this news. So let me fill you in a bit on the story of Portal and why the game has achieved a cult following. It was released in 2007, bundled inside Valve's Orange Pack. Portal was supposed to be a slick little game that could provide gamers, most of them hardcore first-person shooter players, some relief from the endless cycle of run, gun and sniping.
In a break from the usual fare, in this game you were only armed with a Portal Gun and were supposed to solve a number of puzzles to advance inside the Aperture Science Laboratories created by a mad scientist. In the beginning, puzzles were basic — like creating a portal between two rooms and hence overcoming the wide gulf that separated them — but as the players progressed, the difficulty level increased. The same was true for design of the game. Initially, it seemed very basic where you were the only living creature, trying to make your way through a peculiarly designed science lab full of cubes and lit in yellow and blue light. But once you walked through the levels, you realized it was no ordinary game. After all, captivating the gamers accustomed to thick and fast action with just one gun and puzzles was no mean feat.
Everything about Portal was unique, brilliant and it reflected in countless awards that the game won in 2007 and often featured in list of most influential games of the decade at the end of last year. Though it was supposed to be an add-on, the game went on to eclipse even tremendously crafty and imaginative games like Half-life 2 and Team Fortress 2. Not only did its design and puzzles win some rave reviews, even its script and music — Still Alive became an instant hit — were lauded by gaming industry as path-breaking. The dialogues in the game were particularly impressive, helping Valve designers to make this game — where the character controlled by gamers is the only living thing — more human than the games like Call of Duty that have legions of paratroopers.
Of course, to fully grasp the game-changing nature of Portal, you have to actually play it. The rush starts to build only when you start cracking puzzles, create tunnels between the square rooms, run ahead carrying your companion cube with pink hearts on its sides and face automated turrets that fire at you and cry “no hard feeling” when you disable them. And then the significance of the game hits you in the face as you listen to GLaDOS, the mysterious and cunning A.I. of the facility, as she comforts, cajoles, threatens, pleads, mocks, lies, tells you to “marry the cube”, and even offers “some cake” to you — the Black Forest cake towards which you extend your hand in the end, only to be thwarted by mean machines living inside the bowels of Aperture Science Laboratory.
I am sure that many readers here may not share my excitement at this news. So let me fill you in a bit on the story of Portal and why the game has achieved a cult following. It was released in 2007, bundled inside Valve's Orange Pack. Portal was supposed to be a slick little game that could provide gamers, most of them hardcore first-person shooter players, some relief from the endless cycle of run, gun and sniping.
In a break from the usual fare, in this game you were only armed with a Portal Gun and were supposed to solve a number of puzzles to advance inside the Aperture Science Laboratories created by a mad scientist. In the beginning, puzzles were basic — like creating a portal between two rooms and hence overcoming the wide gulf that separated them — but as the players progressed, the difficulty level increased. The same was true for design of the game. Initially, it seemed very basic where you were the only living creature, trying to make your way through a peculiarly designed science lab full of cubes and lit in yellow and blue light. But once you walked through the levels, you realized it was no ordinary game. After all, captivating the gamers accustomed to thick and fast action with just one gun and puzzles was no mean feat.
Everything about Portal was unique, brilliant and it reflected in countless awards that the game won in 2007 and often featured in list of most influential games of the decade at the end of last year. Though it was supposed to be an add-on, the game went on to eclipse even tremendously crafty and imaginative games like Half-life 2 and Team Fortress 2. Not only did its design and puzzles win some rave reviews, even its script and music — Still Alive became an instant hit — were lauded by gaming industry as path-breaking. The dialogues in the game were particularly impressive, helping Valve designers to make this game — where the character controlled by gamers is the only living thing — more human than the games like Call of Duty that have legions of paratroopers.
Of course, to fully grasp the game-changing nature of Portal, you have to actually play it. The rush starts to build only when you start cracking puzzles, create tunnels between the square rooms, run ahead carrying your companion cube with pink hearts on its sides and face automated turrets that fire at you and cry “no hard feeling” when you disable them. And then the significance of the game hits you in the face as you listen to GLaDOS, the mysterious and cunning A.I. of the facility, as she comforts, cajoles, threatens, pleads, mocks, lies, tells you to “marry the cube”, and even offers “some cake” to you — the Black Forest cake towards which you extend your hand in the end, only to be thwarted by mean machines living inside the bowels of Aperture Science Laboratory.
Why India Shouldn't Gloat About Google vs China........
The short answer: Because we're equally bad if not worse when it comes to policing the web. I would argue 'worse', because we're hypocrites. At least the Chinese make no bones about being an authoritarian state. We on the other hand like to use fancy phrases like "freedom of speech & expression" and "civil liberties" but happily go and notify the 2008 amendments to the Information Technology Act (on October 27th 2009) without any sort of real public debate.
The particularly damning addition to the original IT Act 2000:
69 (1) Where the central Government or a State Government or any of its officer specially authorised by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information transmitted received or stored through any computer resource.
FYI: from Article 21 of the Constitution:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
So while the Chinese had to try hard to hack into Gmail accounts of human rights activists, any Indian official can practically walk up to Google and order the company to hand private data over. No court order or magistrate nod needed - and even something as vague as "friendly relations with foreign states" can be reason enough.
...
It's not a very well kept secret that Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and even board member Ram Shriram avoided visiting India for a couple of years for fear of being detained because of a criminal case against them pertaining to content on blogspot.com, where Google was refusing to divulge information. A similar case against them last year was stayed but only after Google India resorted to some fairly creative arguments. International sites have started putting India on the list of "safe search" countries but the move has had little impact.
The amended IT Act is just the culmination of a decade of 'sarkari' fumbling in cyberspace. Here's a quick jog down memory lane of the best of this century:
2001: The tragi-comic case of India's 'first cyber crime' that was 'cracked' by the Mumbai cops. The lunacy of it all is best summed up in this Wired story.
2002: Delhi Police arrests noted Kashmiri journalist Iftikar Gilani on charges of spying after finding "sensitive information" on his computer. The case falls apart after it is confirmed that the documents recovered from his computer were freely available on the Internet. They later book him for obscenity based on porn-spam mails in his inbox.
2003: Yahoo Groups gets blacked out in India because of one North-east e-group with mild separatist propoganda. BBC report shows that they had a Jt. Secy in the Dept. of IT openly telling them on camera, that "If it's anti-national, we will ban it!"
2004: Baazee (now eBay India) CEO gets arrested by the same cops whom he offered to fully co-operate with, in a case of pornographic content being uploaded on the site. He later told me how they tricked him into coming to the police station on a Friday so that they could jail him over the weekend without a hearing till Monday.
2005: President APJ Abdul Kalam (followed by others including the National Security Adviser) wags a finger at Google Earth. While some claim it's a legit concern, I think that anyone seriously interested in planning an attack is not going to sit and look at 3-5 year old maps that are being sourced from freely available satellite imagery.
2006: The Government goes into overdrive on internet censorship and knocks off most of the blogosphere in the process of targeting 17 (at first random looking, but clearly politically motivated) sites and blogs.
2007: Cops pick up the wrong guy and keep him in custody for 50 days. Apparently the ISP (Airtel) mapped an incorrect physical address to the IP address that was posting anti-Shivaji content.
2008: The government suddenly decides that Blackberry services are illegal nearly 3 years after they've debuted in the country and a handful of operators are offering the service. The issue magically disappears after "meetings" with RIM representatives.
2009: While the Chinese are hacking away at our vital IT, the government decides that banning the Savita Bhabi comic strip is far more important, in the process giving it much wider publicity and readership than it ever had.
The particularly damning addition to the original IT Act 2000:
69 (1) Where the central Government or a State Government or any of its officer specially authorised by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information transmitted received or stored through any computer resource.
FYI: from Article 21 of the Constitution:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
So while the Chinese had to try hard to hack into Gmail accounts of human rights activists, any Indian official can practically walk up to Google and order the company to hand private data over. No court order or magistrate nod needed - and even something as vague as "friendly relations with foreign states" can be reason enough.
...
It's not a very well kept secret that Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and even board member Ram Shriram avoided visiting India for a couple of years for fear of being detained because of a criminal case against them pertaining to content on blogspot.com, where Google was refusing to divulge information. A similar case against them last year was stayed but only after Google India resorted to some fairly creative arguments. International sites have started putting India on the list of "safe search" countries but the move has had little impact.
The amended IT Act is just the culmination of a decade of 'sarkari' fumbling in cyberspace. Here's a quick jog down memory lane of the best of this century:
2001: The tragi-comic case of India's 'first cyber crime' that was 'cracked' by the Mumbai cops. The lunacy of it all is best summed up in this Wired story.
2002: Delhi Police arrests noted Kashmiri journalist Iftikar Gilani on charges of spying after finding "sensitive information" on his computer. The case falls apart after it is confirmed that the documents recovered from his computer were freely available on the Internet. They later book him for obscenity based on porn-spam mails in his inbox.
2003: Yahoo Groups gets blacked out in India because of one North-east e-group with mild separatist propoganda. BBC report shows that they had a Jt. Secy in the Dept. of IT openly telling them on camera, that "If it's anti-national, we will ban it!"
2004: Baazee (now eBay India) CEO gets arrested by the same cops whom he offered to fully co-operate with, in a case of pornographic content being uploaded on the site. He later told me how they tricked him into coming to the police station on a Friday so that they could jail him over the weekend without a hearing till Monday.
2005: President APJ Abdul Kalam (followed by others including the National Security Adviser) wags a finger at Google Earth. While some claim it's a legit concern, I think that anyone seriously interested in planning an attack is not going to sit and look at 3-5 year old maps that are being sourced from freely available satellite imagery.
2006: The Government goes into overdrive on internet censorship and knocks off most of the blogosphere in the process of targeting 17 (at first random looking, but clearly politically motivated) sites and blogs.
2007: Cops pick up the wrong guy and keep him in custody for 50 days. Apparently the ISP (Airtel) mapped an incorrect physical address to the IP address that was posting anti-Shivaji content.
2008: The government suddenly decides that Blackberry services are illegal nearly 3 years after they've debuted in the country and a handful of operators are offering the service. The issue magically disappears after "meetings" with RIM representatives.
2009: While the Chinese are hacking away at our vital IT, the government decides that banning the Savita Bhabi comic strip is far more important, in the process giving it much wider publicity and readership than it ever had.
In the prison of technology, Lays there a Kinght !!!!!!!
There was a time I could multiply 196 by 832, call my friends, family, lovers without referring to a phone book, remember the birthdays of those who mattered most to me, spell every word I knew without the slightest hesitation. Yes, I had a calculator on my desk but that was not to add, subtract, divide or multiply. It was for multiple calculations, finding square roots of impossibly large figures which I needed while solving mathematical puzzles, my favourite source of short term amusement.
Today I use my cell phone to add and subtract, recall phone numbers and faces, remind me about birthdays. My laptop tries to correct my spellings, language, grammar and often makes mistakes itself.No, I don't need to remember anything at all. Google helps me find it in an instant.When will Rajiv's assassins walk out of jail? Who was India's first Education Minister? Which was the first big scam that shook Independent India? What did Mountbatten say when he first caught Edwina in Jawaharlal's arms? How does one become a citizen of Austria? Google has an answer for most things, from curing your cat's diarrhoea to which old bookshop in London may have the 1921 edition of Lorca's Libro de Poemas. When Google fails, there's twitter. Somebody, somewhere will always have an answer to the question bothering you. The answer need not always be right. None of us look for right answers in life. We look for answers that comfort us. It's a bit like finding God. If he doesn't exist, we'll have to manufacture him.
No, it is not Alzheimer's nor stress (nor the refusal to eat fish) that's slaying my memory cells. It's this continuous acceptance of technology that's being thrust into my face, demanding it be used. I may not be as quick as a calculator but I'm certainly better than a dictionary or thesaurus. I may not be able to do Rubik's cube in under two minutes, as Aamir Khan apparently does, but I'm ready to take a Mental test with anyone. The problem is not in my facilities. It lies in the dependencies being forced onto me by technology I have no need for.I fear I'm becoming a technology victim.
I'm not alone. That's pretty obvious.Do we need so much technology in our lives? Do we really need taps that go off on their own or lights that come on when we walk into a room? Don't we want to do these things ourselves? Do we really need 11 digit phone numbers that no one can recall without assistance? What about simple, easy to remember word/number combinations like Maggie69Wow? Must we perfunctorily celebrate all birthdays? Why not stick to 20 people who really matter to you and call them instead of sending fancy bouquets to hundreds of people with notes from florists? Why send a V-Day e-card when a simple kiss can do? Why do I need 8GB of music on my iPod when running in the gym? Why can't I let my imagination chase that gorgeous babe two treadmills away? Why must technology isolate us instead of bonding us with a real world of real people, real passions? How can internet sex be a substitute for The Real Thing? Yet porn is the biggest business on the net. How can a Tamagotchi (or any e-pet) replace the love of a real pug? Yet the Japanese are hooked on it. How can any cell phone chat (with a zillion call drops) be a substitute for talking face to face with someone you love? Yet 700 million cell phone users here cootchie coo on it.
So as this year stumbles to an end, I make this promise to myself. Let me slave technology, not let it run my life for me.
Today I use my cell phone to add and subtract, recall phone numbers and faces, remind me about birthdays. My laptop tries to correct my spellings, language, grammar and often makes mistakes itself.No, I don't need to remember anything at all. Google helps me find it in an instant.When will Rajiv's assassins walk out of jail? Who was India's first Education Minister? Which was the first big scam that shook Independent India? What did Mountbatten say when he first caught Edwina in Jawaharlal's arms? How does one become a citizen of Austria? Google has an answer for most things, from curing your cat's diarrhoea to which old bookshop in London may have the 1921 edition of Lorca's Libro de Poemas. When Google fails, there's twitter. Somebody, somewhere will always have an answer to the question bothering you. The answer need not always be right. None of us look for right answers in life. We look for answers that comfort us. It's a bit like finding God. If he doesn't exist, we'll have to manufacture him.
No, it is not Alzheimer's nor stress (nor the refusal to eat fish) that's slaying my memory cells. It's this continuous acceptance of technology that's being thrust into my face, demanding it be used. I may not be as quick as a calculator but I'm certainly better than a dictionary or thesaurus. I may not be able to do Rubik's cube in under two minutes, as Aamir Khan apparently does, but I'm ready to take a Mental test with anyone. The problem is not in my facilities. It lies in the dependencies being forced onto me by technology I have no need for.I fear I'm becoming a technology victim.
I'm not alone. That's pretty obvious.Do we need so much technology in our lives? Do we really need taps that go off on their own or lights that come on when we walk into a room? Don't we want to do these things ourselves? Do we really need 11 digit phone numbers that no one can recall without assistance? What about simple, easy to remember word/number combinations like Maggie69Wow? Must we perfunctorily celebrate all birthdays? Why not stick to 20 people who really matter to you and call them instead of sending fancy bouquets to hundreds of people with notes from florists? Why send a V-Day e-card when a simple kiss can do? Why do I need 8GB of music on my iPod when running in the gym? Why can't I let my imagination chase that gorgeous babe two treadmills away? Why must technology isolate us instead of bonding us with a real world of real people, real passions? How can internet sex be a substitute for The Real Thing? Yet porn is the biggest business on the net. How can a Tamagotchi (or any e-pet) replace the love of a real pug? Yet the Japanese are hooked on it. How can any cell phone chat (with a zillion call drops) be a substitute for talking face to face with someone you love? Yet 700 million cell phone users here cootchie coo on it.
So as this year stumbles to an end, I make this promise to myself. Let me slave technology, not let it run my life for me.
Is Net distorting our history ?
We have traditionally split history into two eras, BC and AD. Don't ask me about the 32 years in between. I have no clue. But one thing's clear: AD overrides BC as it's much better chronicled. Civilisation and history go together. The Guttenberg press in 1450 was such a powerful instrument of change because it allowed us to preserve history through printed books. If one copy got lost, others survived. Earlier books, hand written, lost us an irreplaceable part of history every time they were stolen, vandalised or lost. That's the reason why burning or destroying books, a la the Nazis, is still considered such a heinous crime. Those who destroy books and libraries destroy history.
But history's no longer easy to destroy. Two technological marvels have changed everything. Digital is one. The other is the internet. It's my belief that future generations will see the world not as BC and AD but as BI and AI, the internet dividing the two eras. I should know. My own life has been sliced into two and I can see the impact of this change. No, I'm not talking about how useful the net is, or digital technology. I'm talking about how the future will remember us, about the making of history, what will be part of it, what will quietly disappear. Technology has become the new arbiter.Everything AI would be incandescent, memorable. Everything BI would be faded, remembered only in bits and pieces, based on whatever survives on crumbling newsprint and scratched, grainy celluloid.
This means even the worst film makers of today will be remembered more than the greatest film makers of the BI era whose works were not preserved. James Cameron will look more important to future generations than Satyajit Ray and Vittorio De Sica. Justin Bieber will appear more popular than Elvis and the Rolling Stones. R-Patz will be remembered as a bigger star than Errol Flynn and Cary Grant put together. Borat will be bigger than Chaplin. Alice in Wonderland will stay alive as a Johnny Depp film. People of the future may be forgiven for thinking Lewis Carroll wrote its screenplay. Just as millions of Indians will remember Aamir Khan as the actor, not as the last century's greatest classical singer. The net, I fear, will distort history, perspectives, our understanding of things.
Will the future remember Balasaraswati or Birju Maharaj, even though digital archives and the net will not give them half the space devoted to Dance India Dance? Satyajit Ray's cinematic tribute to Balasaraswati has disintegrated and even its restoration in California has stopped owing to lack of funds.So will Rahujan Mahajan be remembered, not Balraj Sahni? Rakhi Sawant, not Madhubala? Will anyone read Nirad C Chaudhuri? Can future generations find access to copies of Harijan? Will they forget Dr Ambedkar and remember Mayavati as the great benefactor of the lower castes? Will we think of the Mahatma as Ben Kingsley? Will 3 Idiots outlast Dostoevsky's Idiot? Will we remember Hafeez Contractor as a bigger architect than the guy who built Humayun's tomb? Will future generations remember Amir Khusru when no one even knows what he looked like? Will Mika outlive Kishore Kumar?
How do you expect the net to keep track of it? So, given the way we have archived our past, won't the net distort our entire understanding of history, music, literature, movies and the arts by keeping alive only pop history in the AI era?
But history's no longer easy to destroy. Two technological marvels have changed everything. Digital is one. The other is the internet. It's my belief that future generations will see the world not as BC and AD but as BI and AI, the internet dividing the two eras. I should know. My own life has been sliced into two and I can see the impact of this change. No, I'm not talking about how useful the net is, or digital technology. I'm talking about how the future will remember us, about the making of history, what will be part of it, what will quietly disappear. Technology has become the new arbiter.Everything AI would be incandescent, memorable. Everything BI would be faded, remembered only in bits and pieces, based on whatever survives on crumbling newsprint and scratched, grainy celluloid.
This means even the worst film makers of today will be remembered more than the greatest film makers of the BI era whose works were not preserved. James Cameron will look more important to future generations than Satyajit Ray and Vittorio De Sica. Justin Bieber will appear more popular than Elvis and the Rolling Stones. R-Patz will be remembered as a bigger star than Errol Flynn and Cary Grant put together. Borat will be bigger than Chaplin. Alice in Wonderland will stay alive as a Johnny Depp film. People of the future may be forgiven for thinking Lewis Carroll wrote its screenplay. Just as millions of Indians will remember Aamir Khan as the actor, not as the last century's greatest classical singer. The net, I fear, will distort history, perspectives, our understanding of things.
Will the future remember Balasaraswati or Birju Maharaj, even though digital archives and the net will not give them half the space devoted to Dance India Dance? Satyajit Ray's cinematic tribute to Balasaraswati has disintegrated and even its restoration in California has stopped owing to lack of funds.So will Rahujan Mahajan be remembered, not Balraj Sahni? Rakhi Sawant, not Madhubala? Will anyone read Nirad C Chaudhuri? Can future generations find access to copies of Harijan? Will they forget Dr Ambedkar and remember Mayavati as the great benefactor of the lower castes? Will we think of the Mahatma as Ben Kingsley? Will 3 Idiots outlast Dostoevsky's Idiot? Will we remember Hafeez Contractor as a bigger architect than the guy who built Humayun's tomb? Will future generations remember Amir Khusru when no one even knows what he looked like? Will Mika outlive Kishore Kumar?
How do you expect the net to keep track of it? So, given the way we have archived our past, won't the net distort our entire understanding of history, music, literature, movies and the arts by keeping alive only pop history in the AI era?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)