To read more about iHacked, click here


The very fact that this piece of news was published in the New York Times is testament to the rapid change in the society we live in. Our environment is becoming more and more saturated with technology and gadgetry, and these modern marvels are becoming more and more essential to our lives.

In the last twenty years technology has advanced at an amazing rate. Twenty years ago, the idea of a mobile phone was unheard of, but now nearly everyone in the developed world owns at least one, and more and more advanced models are popping up in the market, capable of being a planner, alarm clock, camera, music player and a phone.

However, the exponential and astronomical rise of the star of technology has brought along with it a whole slew of new problems, dilemmas, and moral and legal wrangles. How do you regulate gadgets that are now entering use so quickly and being replaced by even more advanced models so quickly that regulations trawling through the molasses of red tape and bureaucracy have no chance at keeping up?

Just a century ago, the pace of technology’s advance was markedly slower. New products and inventions, for example Thomas Edison’s electrical lighting, were slowly tried and tested. As they were being put into use on a large scale, the regulation of such appliances was brought along simultaneously. However, in our modern day and age, new technologies move just far too quickly for notoriously slow bureaucracies.

The case reported in this article comments on the “battle” independent users and “hackers” against companies that “unfairly restrict customer choice”. Most consumers accept the multi-year contracts that their cellphone providers bind them to, but obviously there is an underground community that seeks to protest against this oppression.

The crux of this issue lies in the legal rights of the individual, and the extent to which a service provider and good retailer can control the consumer’s choice. Apple have restricted consumers to only using AT&T as a service provider, those who protest against this through their hacking no doubt believe this to be an infringement of their liberties. This also raises the interesting issue of principles versus practicality. Users who actually download the hacked software may be doing so for the advantages of using a rival service provider, but the hackers themselves are generally doing do only on a matter of principle.

What needs to be brought to conclusion is the extent of individual liberties. However, there is no clear cut solution to this conundrum, simply because this problem is so new. This issue has arisen only because of the release of this new product, the iPhone, and legislation will need time to catch up. No doubt the legal case that resolves this issue will be highly interesting and set a landmark precedent for future hackers and corporations alike.

Sikh outrage at US airport security


The tragic events of September 11, 2001 shaped the new decade, and will definitely remain unforgotten well into the next. As a global citizen, I can scratch the surface of the impacts of the event, but I can hardly fathom how deeply ingrained it is into the American national psyche.

The profound effect of these events are still widely felt to this day, six years after the event. Coalition troops are embroiled in bloody war in Afghanistan and Iraq, security, especially at airports, is at levels higher than ever seen before 2001, and we read of terrorist events occurring across the globe, from Madrid to London to Glasgow and the streets of Baghdad. However, should we not be doing our best to fight these agents of terror?

Terrorists seek to sow discord and dissension more than cause any lasting physical damage. Bombings will affect your public transport network for a couple of days, it will cost the government money and time, but more importantly it causes fear and terror. Fear gives rise naturally to distrust and animosity, especially towards those perceived as outsiders.

Since 2001, many racial and religious minorities in the United States, especially those that hail from the middle east, or give the appearance of doing so, have faced increased hatred and persecution. Discrimination and racism have always been problems in society, but the event of 2001 have severely exacerbated this.

America has declared a “war on terror”, not a war on terrorists”. She needs to recognise that terror is a construct of the mind in people; the terrorists merely feed it. America need to crack down on policies that allow this terror, fear and animosity to fester and breed. Under the new regulations mentioned in this report, Airport officials have been given free reign in searching sacred religious symbols.

This is blatant and outrageously discrimination against the religious minority of Sikhs in the United States. No authority in the States would ever pass a regulation that permits officials free reign in searching Christian religious symbols; it should be no different for persons of any religion.

Of course, one must understand that the halcyon days prior to September 11 that the United States enjoyed are long past. The turban poses a small security risk for sure. However, as the article said, there was an old policy in place that gave Sikhs a high amount of privacy regarding their turbans. However, America cannot allow the kind of discrimination shown in this regulation to continue. This does not help reduce terrorism, it promotes fear and distrust that that hate of terrorism feeds on.