This is not a replacement for TCP protocol. The protocol described is a mechanism to send different API messages using the same HTTP SSE connection with ability to track acknowledgements. Once we switch to gRPC bi-directional stream, the protocol will be simplified as we can send messages and acknowledgements on the same connection.
"and it turned out this wasn’t driven by memory pressure. Rather, the new capacity had caused all of the servers in the fleet to exceed the maximum number of threads allowed by an operating system configuration."
An auto scaling irony for AWS! We seem to be back to the late 1990s :)
India has a strong legal framework and unfortunately very poor implementation (the arrest is an example of poor implementation/bullying by the state). When you say illegal, you should be able to specify the law under which it is illegal.
Broadly classifying anything not convenient to the state as illegal does not stand ground, AFAIK there is no law which prohibits automation of forms on any website?
The car parking analogy does not fit. But if you want to use a similar analogy. Assume there is toll road which allows the first 100 cars.
This guy uses his superior tech skills, to get his clients (cars) in the first 100. He charges them a premium.
Now the toll road keepers, arrest him for helping his clients? That I think is wrong. If his clients had complained that he didn't deliver on his promise but charged money, then that could amount to cheating. He didn't do that. He used code he wrote to provide a service to his clients.
Yes I agree, it could be hacky code, and it worked because the website was itself sub optimal. But putting him into prison because the website couldn't be made better (prevent his hack) amounts to bullying to hide the technical incompetence.
Under that analogy, pretty much all cracking is fair game.
Reselling credit card numbers you pilferred from a poorly secured website's database? You just helped your customers access information that was basically already publically available.
You're attacking a strawman here. The issue was that he was making a profit by reselling tickets, not by automating filling forms in a website. The mechanism is not particularly relevant.
By analogy, it is legal to park my car in my own garden, but not legal to park it in my neighbour's garden. If I were to do that, I might expect to be punished for "parking my car".
You start by accusing him of using a strawman, then using an analogy which doesn't even remotely apply. It's closer to your neighbour selling you the rights to park in their garden, then you selling those rights to someone else. Far from a criminal, arrestable offence, so their point on the broad-brush of being "illegal" stands.
Even my closer analogy is still pretty far off and it's much more innocent. Maybe closer to charging a fee to use a very tricky to figure out parking meter.
> It's closer to your neighbour selling you the rights to park in their garden, then you selling those rights to someone else. Far from a criminal, arrestable offence, so their point on the broad-brush of being "illegal" stands.
That's a good analogy, but perhaps not for the reason you think. In many situations where you acquire property rights from an owner, there are clauses which restrict or limit sub-leasing to a third party, or using the land for commercial gain. If I was doing what you are describing, I would want to read the lease or agreement very carefully to see whether I am allowed to do that.
Again, I think the developer acted in good faith, but it seems a bit naive to resell something for profit (no matter how small) without seeking legal advice, or at very least reading the T&Cs. We also cannot accuse the government of setting arbitrary restrictions - ticket touting is a problem, even if the government probably could have done more to make it easier for people to buy tickets legitimately.
Under the Railways Act, all those who help passengers with ticketing are expected to register with the IRCTC as an agent. Does this apply for app creators? The officer reserved his comment.
I think the case depends on how the court interprets that question.
There is a difference between "guilty until proven innocent" and "innocent until proven guilty". In India, the former is how the law-enforcement works for most people while the justice system says the latter. Most people entangled in the slow legal system just want to get out of it even if it means injustice towards themselves. And the laws are so convoluted and in this case he has a behemoth monopoly to fight against.
They do have API's but they aren't open. They gives access to them to some popular online travel portals. They have a process around giving access to their APIs
Yes. thats because technically thats what he seems to have done. Since tatkal tickets are limited in number, by prefilling and automating the forms he effectively helps his clients jump the queue.
This is a clear hack, but I find it irrational to arrest a person because the website is suboptimal and cannot prevent his hack from running. This similar to what Github did when they pulled down youtube-dl, bully your way to compliance.
