Man overcharged 20 rupees for India train ticket wins 22-year legal battle
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
In London our transport network is managed by TFL. Their website lets you search for routes, and in the route options you can go for the fastest route, or choose this option: "Routes with the least changes". Every year on the same date, I would contact them and ask them to change that to "Routes with the fewest changes" and they would respond with something to the effect of "thanks for the feedback, passed it on, go away now".
I think I did this for over 10 years until one day it did get changed on their site. They did accompany it with a greater set of changes, that made the results more convoluted with pointless waypoints that clutter the results, but that's a new matter to pursue.
How long did his LinkedIn say he was still at Google afterwards? I have to imagine that sometimes being reasonable in the face of infallible bureaucracy would either drive you crazy enough to leave or drive your coworkers crazy enough to get someone to make you leave.
Of course, that ship has long sailed; everyone uses HTTP now, even for things where it doesn't make sense, and one should at least have a tiny web server pointed to by the bare domain which redirects to the correct "www"-prefixed address. The fate of bare domains was sealed when browsers started prefixing "www." and suffixing ".com" whenever one typed a bare word in the address bar.
Of course, it's even better if you can use an L4 load balancer, put that on the root domain, and tell it what internal machines to access based on port.
As it stands now, we have conventions for port numbers, and load balancers / VIPs for mapping the address in the DNS response to an actual computer running the desired services. We could kill a lot of complexity by letting user agents do the work of the load balancer here.
(The port number is a personal pet peeve of mine. I want to run HTTP/3 for my website, but my cloud provider's load balancer can't represent a configuration where port 443/TCP and port 443/UDP are both managed by the same load balancer. Interestingly, browsers are configured to do HTTP/3 with an Alt-Svc on an HTTP/2 or HTTP/1.1 response, which includes the port number. Chrome refuses to use anything other than port 443, while Firefox is happy with something like 30443. As a result, I have to reconfigure my network, or my cloud provider has to fix their bugs... and there is just no need. The browser could do this for me for free!)
DNS as used most commonly by far on the internet is a non-authenticated non-encrypted protocol. Everyone with access to the network can see what DNS requests you are making, so putting even more information in them is not great.
Further, DNS is already a single point of failure, but it at least has the advantage of relatively long cache times - so clients who already resolved the IP they need can keep working. Relying on the DNS Server instead of a separate LB seems like it would greatly increase the risk that you'd constantly be updating DNS records (for example, when your service auto-scales, you have to add/remove DNS records now) meaning you'd want very very short caches etc.
Finally, fixed port numbers are a critical part of having a low attack footprint. Even if you convinced browsers to talk to your service on port 30443 automatically, you'd soon discover that many corporate customers can't reach your service, because their network/firewall blocks outbound traffic to unknown ports. Having dynamic port numbers for protocols would be an anti-feature in most cases.
DNS is already doing the most that it should do. Bloating it with even more responsibility should be avoided, not encouraged.
_sip._tls.example.com SRV 5 100 5060 sip.example.com.
Not at all. It makes sense to allow it, but never makes sense to require it.
"Why should the machine pointed to by the bare domain be the web server, instead of for instance the FTP server or the Gopher server?"
We use ports to distinguish protocols. A more salient question is: Why should there only be one web server in a domain?
In fact, it used to be common to have dozens of web servers on differently named hosts in a domain, all of which might be running several internet servers like http, ftp, etc. If you're actually old-school you'll remember knowing the names of individual machines at a site and visiting urls like http://foo.building.company.com
There are some technical reasons why you might not want your web server's A record in the @ for a zone, but they mostly no longer apply.
www has never, ever been required.
Your browser does that? Mine opens a (hard to change) default search engine.
That said, I think it's a shame SRV hasn't been more widely adopted.
Yes, and if you're opening a connection to TCP/21, it's a safe assumption that you want the FTP server. But what if these two are different machines, possibly even in separate and distant networks?
Exactly.
To put it simply, in that old-school thinking, the bare domain should have only SOA and NS (these two being required for the domain to work), MX and SRV (these two being protocol-specific), things like TXT for SPF, and the DNSSEC stuff, but not A or AAAA or CNAME (and AFAIK using CNAME in a bare domain can cause problems, since it's not supposed to be used together with anything else, and a bare domain always has at least SOA and NS).
The historic structure of DNS is that names were given to systems within a domain. So you might have pikachu.company.com, squirtle.company.com, etc. It wouldn't make sense to just assign an address to the domain itself because we simply didn't have the technology to drive sophisticated consolidated sites on one system. You might need to get some files off one host, and some off another. We didn't have load balancers, and we often didn't have drive space to hold everything in one place.
MX doesn't have this problem of scale, as MX specifies multiple systems per SMTP spec.
Sometimes people would create www.pikachu.company.com, and sometimes they wouldn't. The www prefix was sometimes a handy default, but certainly wasn't ubiquitous.
The real change here is the rise of single endpoints for a domain. This began by assigning "www" as place to look for web content for the entire domain and almost in unison people began to also add A records to the domain itself. After all, why wouldn't we?
CNAME is different, of course, because CNAME aliases all record types - not just A records.
Any protocol can be used to talk to a system. They are all equal.
Lol, I see your point, but if a bank has an un-firewalled FTP or Gopher server on their domain there might be a couple of bigger issues to contemplate
case in point, www.incometax.gov.in works but incometax.gov.in does not.
haven't you learned in domain setup tutorials to set your A records straight? i guess they didn't and its been like 1.5/2 years and its still a problem. go figure
looking at all the scammer payback videos, most of the scammers take your remote tool, make you open the banking website and then they edit the source, reload and here is your money. Indian banks don't let you do that, they make you give an OTP for every transaction, if you reload, you get logged out, you can't paste or open inspect element which actually makes these scams very very difficult on indian netbanking customers....
that makes me wonder,why don't american banks have reload security for one? like if you reload a page it should log you out?
I don't see how these four things are related. Banks in the Netherlands require 2FA (i.e. smartphone or dedicated 2FA device) for every transaction, but this does not prohibit you from pasting an account number or reloading the page.
In particular, I don't see how opening the developer tools and reloading the page are related. If you reload a page, changes you made using the developer tools are lost.
why would you do that? reloading is a normal process, what if you are on a bad connection and sometimes files don't load? you hit reload and now everything works...
apparently the government spent like INR 4500 Crores or almost $ 500 Million US building this.
it regularly crashes, has weird bugs, half the website doesn't work most of the time....
Some stuff still uses the LCB look ASP.net, but the newer .nic websites seem to be much better done.
FWIW I don't understand why forwarding the bare domain to the www subdomain would increase traffic so much so that they'd need to provision extra servers...
... but hey, I'm not working for NASA, so I can't say.
A few people have decided to start a strange grammatical crusade on the usage of less and fewer, despite the fact that for all recorded history with the usage of these words up and including modern day, less is used for both countable and uncountable nouns. Some people have a preference for using fewer instead but that doesn't make the usage of less incorrect
Completely agree on the language crusade, we have these fads and memes all the time where some people decide there’s only one way and try to forcefully correct others without understanding the history of these words. I have even been guilty of doing this on occasion in the past but have learned over time that language policing is almost never correct. It is not wrong to say “myriad of”. The word “literally” has been used for figurative emphasis for hundreds of years by some of our greatest writers. Responding to a ‘how are you?’ with “I’m good” or “I’m doing good” rather than “well” is not incorrect and does not communicate that you’re an angel. People, all of us I think, are just prone to getting notions about what’s right and wanting to demonstrate our found knowledge, but it’s easy to not be aware of alternatives.
[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/descript...
Didn't it? I've never seen a "10 items or fewer" lane at a supermarket but I sure see "10 items or less"
In terms of language I see and read daily I see less occurrences of fewer than less (In London, UK. I'm sure it varies slightly by region)
Neverthefewer (/s), I try to use fewer when the items are obviously countable. But less seems to have a natural advantage of having one syllable only; people usually try to express their point as quickly as possible, and -1 syllable is better.
Fixed that for you
For example in Czech, the former is in reflexive form, to "teach oneself".
učit se (learn) and učit (teach)
to learn someone how to play the piano
> the learn/teach distinction was made up by grammarians
That distinction exists in some languages, and not in others. Perhaps they mean that this difference didn't used to exist in English, but in later years grammarians popularized it..?
Looking up the etymology of "learn", I found the answer.
> Transitive use (He learned me (how) to read), now considered vulgar (except in reflexive expressions, I learn English), was acceptable from c. 1200 until early 19c.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/14778/is-learn-t...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/teach-em-or-le...
Tell me, do either of us see people championing this for other languages? I don't. I think, if a white man learned Chinese and butchered it, and a Chinese man corrected him, that would be fine. Why is it different for English?
Without prescriptivism, we'll see "Me love you long time" be considered to be as acceptable as "I will love you for a long time" and the very thought sickens me.
Doesn’t your wording here clarify why using ‘fewer’ might actually be incorrect from their point of view? You’re referring to changes that are qualitatively larger, just like TFL may have been trying to communicate changes that are qualitatively smaller, routes with less noticeable changes to a smaller number of riders, or even a smaller number of rider-trips, without having to include an explanatory paragraph. The number of changes might be irrelevant to most people, and it’s a good thing if TFL is trying to tell you whether statistically you should expect to notice changes based on your usage, and not whether the potentially somewhat meaningless total number of changes is lower.
‘Least’ is a word that allows subjective interpretation, while ‘fewer’ is not. Saying ‘fewer changes’ implies something more specific than saying ‘least changes’, and in making it more specific it may literally communicate the wrong thing.
They could have said (albeit hideously): "The routes with the least change". In this case, change is an uncountable noun.
But they didn't. They said "The routes with the least changeS", which uses the plural of the countable noun "change". So quantifier "fewest" is correct. The quantifier "least" is not.
That said, there are still two separate reasons why “least” might be acceptable, the first reason that I used above is weaker, while the second reason is stronger IMO.
1- not all changes are equivalent. The main factor most people care about, I assume, is total trip time. It’s definitely possible to have two routes to a destination where one route has more transfers but the shortest trip time. In that specific case, “least changes” can mean something different than “fewest changes”. I’m stretching a little, and I have no idea if any pair of TFL routes does this, but purely from a language perspective, it might not be as black and white as you say.
2- Use of “least” to compare countable quantities has existed for a long time. Yes there’s a rule of thumb for fewest vs least, but this is by no means absolute.
“This rule is simple enough and looks easy enough to follow, but it's not accurate for all usage. The fact is that less is also sometimes used to refer to number among things that are counted.
“Origins of The Fewer vs Less Rule
“This isn't an example of how modern English is going to the dogs. Less has been used this way for well over a thousand years—nearly as long as there's been a written English language. But for more than 200 years almost every usage writer and English teacher has declared such use to be wrong. The received rule seems to have originated with the critic Robert Baker, who expressed it not as a law but as a matter of personal preference. Somewhere along the way—it's not clear how—his preference was generalized and elevated to an absolute, inviolable rule.”
No, a change in this context (TFL messaging on result) very explicitly means getting off the train and onto another one, possibly at a different station. The GPs use of "changes" later just refers to changes in the UI.
> The number of changes might be irrelevant to most people
The number of changes is a key bit of information to everyone as it's vital to how you actually get to your destination.
There could still be reasons to use ‘least’ subjectively - for example the locations, time of day, traffic, and wait time between transfers may matter.
So, "least charges", but "fewest transfers" or "fewest stops".
I'll say it's more likely to be amusement or entertainment value, something to distract us from our mundane lives, and perhaps some PR value as well.
If I were a lawyer, I wouldn't mind doing this, provided the cost, including time spent, is not too much.
principle
If you think it's crazy for this lone lawyer to have gone through this crusade, keep in mind that Indian Railways fought in a 100 hearings for ~25 cents, and their lawyers don't work for free. How bonkers is that?
The plaintiff may not have incurred any legal costs, but the railway certainly cost the court a lot of money over the years.
If they are suddenly on hook for refunds in a way they weren't before, there's a loss of potential future revenue and the additional cost of refund issuance bureaucracy. In a country the size of india even a 0.1% overcharge rate could add up to significant money. I can see why they would want to limit customers to disputing prices at the time of ticket issue.
It's not hard to find examples of private companies litigating over matters that seem superficially petty.
It’s a joke. Always has been, from the colonial times.
I called customer care and asked if they could delete my account. They said, and I quote, "due to RBI regulations, we can't". Naturally, I asked "which regulation document? do you have a number?". The other person did not have an answer and escalated my call. They said they would get back to me and in the meantime, I read all the regulations there were. The regulations clearly stated that issuers shall give an option to close the account at any time. There was no such option in the app.
I pressed again to close the account to prevent misuse and/or fraud. The person on the other end of the call asked me (beratingly) to logout and delete the app. Because it was the same as deleting the account. I argued that it is not the same thing. To which his tone was more or less like, [my words, this is how it sounded] "you blithering idiot, you blasphemous imbecile, do you know how miniscule you are in the grand scheme of things. I am God here and you should bow down to my superiority and accept my solution"
I wonder if I should have sued.
and for insult case, in court, am sure you will get your revenge by 2042..
:D
This man is a hero! As he says, it is not about the money
Indian legal battles stretch for so long that many times people die without hearing a judgement for the case but my granddad was lucky enough to get the house back a few years before he died.
I'm not sure how strong tenant protection is in India, but here in the Netherlands, it's well-understood that purchasing a property is not a valid reason to evict its tenants. Rental properties are sold and purchased with the understanding that they are investments, and that the property owners will not be able to live there (unless the tenants voluntarily leave).
Real estate is the riskiest asset class in India
They fight tiny battles and when they win, they benefit everyone.
Like this story of a man who fought for a similar amount which ended up forcing the railways to refund hundreds of thousands to thousands of people:
https://www.news18.com/news/business/a-5-year-fight-with-rai...
Another case I remember off the top of my head was vendors charging beyond MRP for beverages in airports. Someone fought that in court over years and as a result, every vendor is now forced to sell bottled beverages at MRP now.
I bet Indian Railways mischarged someone in the time it took for you to make this comment.
So you'd be fine paying say 99% of your income to hire someone to follow you around and cite you for speeding or jaywalking or any other infraction you commit?
Obviously this is hyperbole, but every society places a price on upholding the law, and a hundred hearings over a quarter is a huge waste of that budget. The only benefit anyone gets is a small smug feeling that for once things went right.
The only benefit anyone gets is a small smug feeling that for once things went right.
I can't understand why you are upset at this man for keeping up the case for so long and not at Indian Railways for the same? All Indian railways had to do was say sorry and refund 20 bucks. The fact that they kept fighting him for a measly 20 rupees for over two decades tells you everything you need to know about what they think of the ordinary citizen. This attitude is not unique to Indian railways or to India, btw.
None of my criticism has been directed solely at the man, but at all three parties that let this happen. The Railways should have accepted their mistake at the time, the courts should have immediately thrown out or ruled on a case over a quarter, and the man should have accepted that sometimes small mistakes happen.
You seem to hold this as some hero fighting the good fight over corruption, and I don't see that position at all. Yes corruption is an issue, in India and elsewhere. This waste of time had nothing to do with it.
What's notable here (and often true in stories like this) is that the litigant is a lawyer. They have the skill to manage the case and it is only costing them personal time, which might pay for itself in terms of professional or commercial reputation in addition to emotional satisfaction.
The political leadership could easily find solutions to stop such abuses of the public legal system, and direct resources to high priority cases with large public impact. By deliberately allowing such cases to bog down the justice system and waste limited public resources, they ensure rule of law cannot operate effectively. It's a typical story.
I tire of hearing excuses like "our judges can't adjudicate simple matters in fewer than three generations [because they are busy and have A Hard Job]", or "we can't have healthcare because the sous chef du jour did not include it on the menu, and we must respect the venerable and time-honored tradition of the sous chef du jour in designing the menu"
Just once, I'd rather hear them say "Obama of Nantucket relayed a vision in which 12 great dragons appeared, all pissed about the price of oil, the upcoming NATO summit, the Franklin County Republican primaries, and the wearing of pocket squares with striped suits. On healthcare, saith the Orange Dragon: put an onion in your sock and go to MedExpress if you get sick, and you'll probably be fine."
Even if nothing substantive changed, at least the comments sections and over-the-shoulder graphics on the news would be cooler, anyway.
Most interesting tidbit for me. Is this really true?
Edit: The rich/powerful people give a return of their "winnings" to the judges/court-employees. This is one of the main reasons for delays on cases that can be easily closed.
The only way anyone is gonna get sued is because of such "stubborn" individuals that keep on going. But alas, a few individuals can't fix the whole system.
He shared a story with me of a particular lawyer that ends up being paid millions of dollars per hour, because he's able to leverage his connections to help corporate clients jump to the front of the line.
Telecom companies cannot take small subscribers to court in India. You don't pay your bills, they can send legal notices, but not much beyond that. We have ~1B+ subscribers. Even if a small percentage goes into dispute, our judicial system will completely collapse.
When Rakuten finally shuttered the forums I think the thread was about 13 years old; it was about a minor estate (mid 7 figures??) from someone who died inestate being divided up among an extended family, complicated by a random multi-year pause in the proceedings while no lawyers did anything to advance the case, and by the periodic appearance of purported long-lost relatives.
I have no idea what happened there and I'll always wonder. I do see that one of the bureaucrats from the thread was in the news ( https://nypost.com/2013/06/29/administrators-mishandled-more... ).
Someone who worked for us 20 years+ ago charged you too much. Sorry, it wouldn't happen now.
Most of the paper work(judiciary / non judiciary) involves similar template , SSH/SSA , agreements etc. It need not be this complex. Most of the manual work involved in the process should be automated
The length of the battle comes from an overcrowded judicial system which has many reasons like this to be overcrowded via constraint of supply.
Supply constraint mechanisms are a way for labour to extract value from society. It happens with the AMA here and the judiciary there.
There needs to be some sort of common sense oversight in the Raliways (and most probably in other Indian government organizations also).
Also I wonder on what grounds the Railways was fighting on? The prices of the tickets are well known and widely published, and even though they do change over time, a lawyer like Chaturvedi would have kept all documentation.
courts in india have like 100 year backlog or something crazy amount. reason? i get the whole "principle" thing but get in line.
because of "principled people" like this man, inmates incarcerated for 10+ years without a trial are being delayed because once admitted, each case has to be completed to the full and these shall i say "worthless petty cases" are one of the causes of delay. want to know how much delay? apparently the case, over 22 years had over 100 hearing. that means, the 100 times the court was in session, some other case got pushed back, just a tiny bit but over 100 times, that counts to a lot.
now, i am not saying people should not fight for "principle" but when you are being pompous assholes for fighting over pennies while innocent men and women are being subjected to horrendous conditions in indian jails or thousands of victims of sexual crimes or other more serious issue, these principled people are causing the delay.
why dont you do arbitration whereby you go outside the traditional court system and fight your battles however long you like. why are they holding up courts?
they did and they still didn't care. that is the problem, not the courts per se.
If they had just given up, none of that needed to happen. Why is that not your focus for fixing the courts?
the judge looks at his calender, thinks "hmm, how about 3 months from now".
on that date, either of the lawyers says "judge, i need more time for an affidavit, why dont you give me 4 more months"...... on and on..
oh, btw, the next time the court does hear your case, its a different judge so you have to explain it once again and then the judge goes "next hearing date 4 months"....
Lawyer: "judge, i need more time for an affidavit, why dont you give me 4 more months"
Judge: "gtfo. judgment is for the prepared party"
Does India have something similar?
You have to value your time and energy. 22 years of hearings for such a small amount of money really isn't worth it.
There was a time in my life when I would probably have fought this on principle, but I value my time a lot more now.