Trying Out Bhuvan, India’s Satellite Mapping Tool
Bhuvan, a satellite mapping tool similar to Google Earth, was launched last week by the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO). It’s launch is ironic, given that the both the central and state governments in India have raised concerns about the amount of detail available.
Will Maharshtra’s Home Ministry also ask for Bhuvan to be censored? Political concerns aside, we really didn’t want to write about Bhuvan without trying it out first (remember the $10 laptop?). Our short, politically-correct verdict is that “it’s a start”, and it’s definitely not a myth.
Bhuvan details: Registration Plugin Download (11.3MB, EXE)
The non-politically correct verdict is a lot harsher, particularly given how difficult it was to review this product:
Installation & Registration Issues
10/23/09
Skype – Make free calls and great value calls on the internet:-is now in news
Intelligence agencies have asked the government to consider blocking Skype as operators of the popular global VoIP (Voice over Internet
Protocol) engine are refusing to share the encryption code that prevents Indian investigators from intercepting conversations of suspected terrorists. The Cabinet Committee on Security has accepted the recommendation in principle but has not set a date for initiating action. The urgency to track Skype calls stems from the fact that terrorists -- as the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai showed -- are increasingly using VoIP services. The shift to VoIP has been prompted by the growing ability of intelligence agencies to intercept mobile and other calls. Like the BlackBerry service, VoIP operators send their signals under a specific code which makes it difficult for others to decipher. Sources said Skype has shared its encryption code with the US, China and other governments but is refusing to accept similar Indian requests. Since Skype is not registered here, Indian authorities have been forced to mull the drastic option of blocking its gateways here. This, however, may not be entirely effective as Skype can route traffic through other service providers. The agencies feel blocking the gateways will at least serve as a signal to local service providers against carrying traffic from Skype or any other similar service provider which does not share the encryption code with the government. Sections 4 and 5 of the Telegraph Act gives government the right to grant licence for any kind of telephony and also the right to intercept. Last year, government amended Section 69 of the Information Technology Act to empower itself to take over servers of Net and telecom service providers and demand the encryption code. This may still be no remedy against recalcitrant overseas service providers who usually have their servers abroad. Last year, the government had a similar run-in with Canada's Research in Motion, BlackBerry makers and service providers, and the UAE-based satphone operator Thuraya. Indian agencies are also keeping their fingers crossed, not sure whether the department of telecom -- with a stake in sectoral growth -- would like to lean on VoIP service providers on the issue of sharing encryption code. Besides, there's also a feeling that the government would be wary of people's response to the snapping of Skype. The free service is used by a vast majority of urban middle class Indians for communicating with families and friends spread across the world. Last year, TRAI had sent a recommendation (with data from 2007), that Skype and Goggle should be asked to pay a licence fee, after being brought within the licence regime. However, government turned it down saying they were not based in India.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Spooks-want-govt-to-block-Skype/articleshow/5082066.cms
Protocol) engine are refusing to share the encryption code that prevents Indian investigators from intercepting conversations of suspected terrorists. The Cabinet Committee on Security has accepted the recommendation in principle but has not set a date for initiating action. The urgency to track Skype calls stems from the fact that terrorists -- as the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai showed -- are increasingly using VoIP services. The shift to VoIP has been prompted by the growing ability of intelligence agencies to intercept mobile and other calls. Like the BlackBerry service, VoIP operators send their signals under a specific code which makes it difficult for others to decipher. Sources said Skype has shared its encryption code with the US, China and other governments but is refusing to accept similar Indian requests. Since Skype is not registered here, Indian authorities have been forced to mull the drastic option of blocking its gateways here. This, however, may not be entirely effective as Skype can route traffic through other service providers. The agencies feel blocking the gateways will at least serve as a signal to local service providers against carrying traffic from Skype or any other similar service provider which does not share the encryption code with the government. Sections 4 and 5 of the Telegraph Act gives government the right to grant licence for any kind of telephony and also the right to intercept. Last year, government amended Section 69 of the Information Technology Act to empower itself to take over servers of Net and telecom service providers and demand the encryption code. This may still be no remedy against recalcitrant overseas service providers who usually have their servers abroad. Last year, the government had a similar run-in with Canada's Research in Motion, BlackBerry makers and service providers, and the UAE-based satphone operator Thuraya. Indian agencies are also keeping their fingers crossed, not sure whether the department of telecom -- with a stake in sectoral growth -- would like to lean on VoIP service providers on the issue of sharing encryption code. Besides, there's also a feeling that the government would be wary of people's response to the snapping of Skype. The free service is used by a vast majority of urban middle class Indians for communicating with families and friends spread across the world. Last year, TRAI had sent a recommendation (with data from 2007), that Skype and Goggle should be asked to pay a licence fee, after being brought within the licence regime. However, government turned it down saying they were not based in India.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Spooks-want-govt-to-block-Skype/articleshow/5082066.cms
10/17/09
9/1/09
For KVS LIBRARIAN....
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. In view of the past work done in respect of School libraries the NCERT should work as a Nodal Agency for monitoring the development of School Libraries in the country. 2. The school library sector comprises of those of Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools. The organization and services of these libraries should be spelt out while framing guidelines and norms or best practices. 3. The post of a professionally trained Librarian may be included in the skeleton staff of the secondary schools not withstanding the strength of students. 4. The school library budget should be of at least 5% of the school’s educational budget. 5. National census of school libraries in India is strongly recommended 6. Guidelines regarding Collection development strategies may be framed keeping in mind the need of the students. 7. Standards for libraries and services should be developed by the apex bodies in the form of handbooks/manuals. 8. NCERT to conduct in service or professional development programs for school librarians from time to time on regular basis. 9. Integration of Information literacy across the curriculum. 10. LIS expert to be in the accreditation team for recognizing the schools. 11. LIS courses to add school librarianship modules in universities and vocational streams. 12. Representation at National Forum to advocate for school libraries.
13. Compulsory Performa to be circulated to the students to know “What they want”. 14. IT incorporation in the libraries. 15. Provision for State/ Central awards for school librarians by NCERT/Govt. bodies
1. In view of the past work done in respect of School libraries the NCERT should work as a Nodal Agency for monitoring the development of School Libraries in the country. 2. The school library sector comprises of those of Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools. The organization and services of these libraries should be spelt out while framing guidelines and norms or best practices. 3. The post of a professionally trained Librarian may be included in the skeleton staff of the secondary schools not withstanding the strength of students. 4. The school library budget should be of at least 5% of the school’s educational budget. 5. National census of school libraries in India is strongly recommended 6. Guidelines regarding Collection development strategies may be framed keeping in mind the need of the students. 7. Standards for libraries and services should be developed by the apex bodies in the form of handbooks/manuals. 8. NCERT to conduct in service or professional development programs for school librarians from time to time on regular basis. 9. Integration of Information literacy across the curriculum. 10. LIS expert to be in the accreditation team for recognizing the schools. 11. LIS courses to add school librarianship modules in universities and vocational streams. 12. Representation at National Forum to advocate for school libraries.
13. Compulsory Performa to be circulated to the students to know “What they want”. 14. IT incorporation in the libraries. 15. Provision for State/ Central awards for school librarians by NCERT/Govt. bodies
8/18/09
The Digital Divide Inside the Library
The Digital Divide Inside the Library
Technology and reference are intertwining strands of public service. The task of keeping up with Librarians (and their jobs) is getting techier. As our systems get more sophisticated and our desire to overhaul and remake those systems gets more intense, libraries need librarians who are tech savvy and back office staff who are pure tech. It's not uncommon to hear librarians declare that "Technology is Reference", but is that a one-way street? There's no doubt that reference librarians need a strong technology skill set, but do our techies need to have public service experience or skills?
I often tell people that I have a Sesame Street job. That is, "librarian" is a job that just about everyone has heard of and everyone has some idea of how it works. Of course, as we all know, most people believe that we read books all day and are incredulous that graduate school is required for wielding a date stamp (I once told a doctor that we had a "whole semester on using that stamp"). But I suspect that doctors, police officers, firefighters, teachers and everyone else with a Sesame Street job has the same problem with outsiders' perceptions of their work. I can't tell you how disappointed I was when I learned that astronomers had to be really, really good at math.
As with any job that we've watched a muppet perform, it can be surprising to folks outside of libraryland that getting a first library job is often a challenge. Like many professions, we subject ourselves and our pools of applicants to a newbie paradox: you need experience to get a job, but how do you get a experience without a job?
"Experience" in this case, usually means something fairly specific: public service. Like many other librarians, I leveraged retail experience in an interview for my first job at a reference desk. Librarians are frequently mid-life career changers, so we are often open to letting people learn on the job when it comes to many aspects of library work. Despite that, we never want to gamble when it comes to face-time with our patrons.
In large part, this is due to the unteachable aspects of working with people. It's much easier to teach someone to use an ILS than it is to teach a new hire to be personable. Technology can be learned in a way that service skills can't. Sort of.
Technology and reference are intertwining strands of public service. The task of keeping up with Librarians (and their jobs) is getting techier. As our systems get more sophisticated and our desire to overhaul and remake those systems gets more intense, libraries need librarians who are tech savvy and back office staff who are pure tech. It's not uncommon to hear librarians declare that "Technology is Reference", but is that a one-way street? There's no doubt that reference librarians need a strong technology skill set, but do our techies need to have public service experience or skills?
The answer may just be a personal one. I have been a back-office techie and found that I was somewhat unmoored by the experience. I felt that I was a walking bundle of solutions looking for problems. But I did have time to explore technology I wasn't as familiar with and I learned a lot. Keeping up with technology isn't something easily done from a public service desk.
The highs and lows are different, too. Every technology worker knows the doldrums of a seemingly unfixable problem and the ecstatic thrill of technojoy when a solution is finally found. Working with the public can provide similar ups and downs, but it more frequently offers a fuzzy middle. It's easy to see librarians as overly cautious, but that caution is often the result of the endless shades of gray that public service offers. Even the smallest decisions invite feedback, both good and bad. Librarians are secretly brilliant actors, maintaining a poker face and neutral body language no matter what the question or comment.
That seemingly effortless neutrality does have a price, though. Human nature makes it easier for front line staff to remember (and try to avoid) complaints. Public service also puts staff in constant contact with the library's least tech-savvy patrons. Dedicated librarians see themselves as advocates for their patrons, which, when combined with sufficient time on a public desk can result in a more tempered enthusiasm. There's a reason our tech folk often start sentences with "wouldn't it be cool if..." while librarians are seen as pushing back with "how is that going to work?" It's not that public service makes us negative, just that it inspires a let's-think-about-this-a-minute outlook that can come as a cold splash of water.
Each area of librarianship offers a valuable perspective, but I see a lot of snark online that's veering towards a dismissive attitude toward public service librarians who seem hesitant about techie insights and ideas. Like any good bipartisan, I think it's important to remember that we're all driven by the same goals--we want to provide the very best to our patrons. Often, that librarian with the "negative" perspective is thinking of patron complaints she has handled in the past. Chances are, those angry patrons have been mollified and assuaged by the very person who seems to be raining on everyone's parade. That's not always the case, of course, but if we think it's important to listen to our crankiest of patrons, shouldn't we also pay attention to our coworkers who help them?
I've been advocating for kindness as a guiding principle for working with patrons, but it's an equally important value for working with each other. We can celebrate each other's "wouldn't it be cool" moments and projects with fervor and still appreciate the learned caution of the public service staff. Rather than rolling our eyes about unions or veteran librarians who haven't mastered the new CMS, kindness encourages us to ask those front liners about their concerns and get to the root of their caution. Online, librarians are focused on pushing forward those who are resistant to change. We vent on twitter and blogs about the luddite librarians who don't understand why they can't change the text in an image on their library's website or who panic at the prospect of migrating to an open source ILS.
Libraries need change and we need to get better and quicker at adapting--there isn't room for actual luddites in the library. But when it comes to working with our colleagues, I think we're headed toward a double standard. We need our front line staff to understand tech, to be sure, and even in the short time that I've been a librarian, I've seen huge leaps forward in that area. Tech savvy is increasingly like public service experience--it's something organizations are unwilling to take a chance on. We expect librarians to keep up with tech and be willing to learn more about it, but we're less skilled at differentiating between problematic resistance to change and thoughtfulness.
In any organization, the IT staff has a lot of power. They know things the rest of us don't. Passwords, how to get the printer to work, why the screen on that public machine is upside down...but I think we're doing them a disservice if we don't give them access to our end-users. Our patrons are at the heart of our libraries and time spent with them shapes and informs staff perspectives. It's easy to huff at experienced librarians who seem slow to learn new technologies and dismiss their concerns, but it's also lazy and immature. We owe it to our users and our colleagues to take the time to look for insight from all corners of our organization.
Technology and reference are intertwining strands of public service. The task of keeping up with Librarians (and their jobs) is getting techier. As our systems get more sophisticated and our desire to overhaul and remake those systems gets more intense, libraries need librarians who are tech savvy and back office staff who are pure tech. It's not uncommon to hear librarians declare that "Technology is Reference", but is that a one-way street? There's no doubt that reference librarians need a strong technology skill set, but do our techies need to have public service experience or skills?
I often tell people that I have a Sesame Street job. That is, "librarian" is a job that just about everyone has heard of and everyone has some idea of how it works. Of course, as we all know, most people believe that we read books all day and are incredulous that graduate school is required for wielding a date stamp (I once told a doctor that we had a "whole semester on using that stamp"). But I suspect that doctors, police officers, firefighters, teachers and everyone else with a Sesame Street job has the same problem with outsiders' perceptions of their work. I can't tell you how disappointed I was when I learned that astronomers had to be really, really good at math.
As with any job that we've watched a muppet perform, it can be surprising to folks outside of libraryland that getting a first library job is often a challenge. Like many professions, we subject ourselves and our pools of applicants to a newbie paradox: you need experience to get a job, but how do you get a experience without a job?
"Experience" in this case, usually means something fairly specific: public service. Like many other librarians, I leveraged retail experience in an interview for my first job at a reference desk. Librarians are frequently mid-life career changers, so we are often open to letting people learn on the job when it comes to many aspects of library work. Despite that, we never want to gamble when it comes to face-time with our patrons.
In large part, this is due to the unteachable aspects of working with people. It's much easier to teach someone to use an ILS than it is to teach a new hire to be personable. Technology can be learned in a way that service skills can't. Sort of.
Technology and reference are intertwining strands of public service. The task of keeping up with Librarians (and their jobs) is getting techier. As our systems get more sophisticated and our desire to overhaul and remake those systems gets more intense, libraries need librarians who are tech savvy and back office staff who are pure tech. It's not uncommon to hear librarians declare that "Technology is Reference", but is that a one-way street? There's no doubt that reference librarians need a strong technology skill set, but do our techies need to have public service experience or skills?
The answer may just be a personal one. I have been a back-office techie and found that I was somewhat unmoored by the experience. I felt that I was a walking bundle of solutions looking for problems. But I did have time to explore technology I wasn't as familiar with and I learned a lot. Keeping up with technology isn't something easily done from a public service desk.
The highs and lows are different, too. Every technology worker knows the doldrums of a seemingly unfixable problem and the ecstatic thrill of technojoy when a solution is finally found. Working with the public can provide similar ups and downs, but it more frequently offers a fuzzy middle. It's easy to see librarians as overly cautious, but that caution is often the result of the endless shades of gray that public service offers. Even the smallest decisions invite feedback, both good and bad. Librarians are secretly brilliant actors, maintaining a poker face and neutral body language no matter what the question or comment.
That seemingly effortless neutrality does have a price, though. Human nature makes it easier for front line staff to remember (and try to avoid) complaints. Public service also puts staff in constant contact with the library's least tech-savvy patrons. Dedicated librarians see themselves as advocates for their patrons, which, when combined with sufficient time on a public desk can result in a more tempered enthusiasm. There's a reason our tech folk often start sentences with "wouldn't it be cool if..." while librarians are seen as pushing back with "how is that going to work?" It's not that public service makes us negative, just that it inspires a let's-think-about-this-a-minute outlook that can come as a cold splash of water.
Each area of librarianship offers a valuable perspective, but I see a lot of snark online that's veering towards a dismissive attitude toward public service librarians who seem hesitant about techie insights and ideas. Like any good bipartisan, I think it's important to remember that we're all driven by the same goals--we want to provide the very best to our patrons. Often, that librarian with the "negative" perspective is thinking of patron complaints she has handled in the past. Chances are, those angry patrons have been mollified and assuaged by the very person who seems to be raining on everyone's parade. That's not always the case, of course, but if we think it's important to listen to our crankiest of patrons, shouldn't we also pay attention to our coworkers who help them?
I've been advocating for kindness as a guiding principle for working with patrons, but it's an equally important value for working with each other. We can celebrate each other's "wouldn't it be cool" moments and projects with fervor and still appreciate the learned caution of the public service staff. Rather than rolling our eyes about unions or veteran librarians who haven't mastered the new CMS, kindness encourages us to ask those front liners about their concerns and get to the root of their caution. Online, librarians are focused on pushing forward those who are resistant to change. We vent on twitter and blogs about the luddite librarians who don't understand why they can't change the text in an image on their library's website or who panic at the prospect of migrating to an open source ILS.
Libraries need change and we need to get better and quicker at adapting--there isn't room for actual luddites in the library. But when it comes to working with our colleagues, I think we're headed toward a double standard. We need our front line staff to understand tech, to be sure, and even in the short time that I've been a librarian, I've seen huge leaps forward in that area. Tech savvy is increasingly like public service experience--it's something organizations are unwilling to take a chance on. We expect librarians to keep up with tech and be willing to learn more about it, but we're less skilled at differentiating between problematic resistance to change and thoughtfulness.
In any organization, the IT staff has a lot of power. They know things the rest of us don't. Passwords, how to get the printer to work, why the screen on that public machine is upside down...but I think we're doing them a disservice if we don't give them access to our end-users. Our patrons are at the heart of our libraries and time spent with them shapes and informs staff perspectives. It's easy to huff at experienced librarians who seem slow to learn new technologies and dismiss their concerns, but it's also lazy and immature. We owe it to our users and our colleagues to take the time to look for insight from all corners of our organization.
3/6/09
2/28/09
VOIP - New challenge to cyber crime
Terrorists relying on newer technologies like proxy internet servers and Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) as indicated by Pakistan's probe into the recent Mumbai attacks pose a new challenge to police investigations, feel cyber experts."There is so much data communication on the internet at all times that it is very difficult to detect VOIP that is malicious in nature. Even if it is detected, decoding the communication, tracing the locations of the terrorists, monitoring them, etc, is very difficult," says Ankit Fadia, a cyber security expert.VOIP software usually encrypts or encodes the communication, hence making it very difficult for police to decode intercepted calls."Most VOIP software companies like Skype or Google Talk are based outside India. This is a further hindrance to investigation, since it takes a long time to get response from these companies abroad," says Fadia, winner of Indo-American young achiever award.Cyberlaw experts say there are many loopholes that makes it difficult to keep track of terror transactions."At the time when different countries have come up with distinct legislation they have an impact of Cyber Terrorism, having a single provision on Cyber Terrorism, is not likely to help India in the long run," says Pavan Duggal, a cyber law expert.While adding there is a need for specialised cyber terror courts to be established, Duggal says, "Indian government needs to be complimented for coming up with the detailed provision on Cyber Terrorism which makes it as a penal offence punishable with life imprisonment and fine, he says.Fadia says that Indian police is not very equipped to handle cyber crime investigations."Although India is the IT capital of the world, in computer security it is far lagging behind. At a recent conference in Delhi, one police official asked me, "yeh internet ki building kidhar hain" (Where is this internet building?).Pakistan in its findings had said that their national Javed Iqbal had acquired VoIP phones from Spain for Mumbai attackers. And it was the also revealed by the Mumbai police that terrorists used VoIP calling platforms to communicate with their masters on 26/11."With use of proxy servers and other anonymous softwares and devices, it is possible for any person to use the VOIP for the purposes of transmitting his terrorist designs and activities, says Duggal.As per the Indian Cyberlaw, Section 69 of the Information Technology Act 2000 provides for interception of any electronic communication transmitted through any electronic resource within India.But the interception can only be ordered on the orders of the Controller of Certifying Authorities (CCA), which is a statutory authority under the IT Act."The Central Government could apply to the CCA and if it is satisfied that the same is necessary in interest of sovereignty of the country, friendly relations with other nations, or for preventing any incitement to the commission of any offence or contravention of public order, the CCA may direct any interception of any electronic communication passed into any computer resource," Duggal says.Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 has brought in certain amendments under which both the Central and State government could direct interception blocking or monitoring depending on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case However the same have not yet been notified.http://newsx.mywebdunia.com/2009/02/19/1235030460000.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
