Srikanth.CashlessConsumer | ஸ்‌ரீகாந்த்

TNEB under Senthil Balaji broke all previous records of corruption. Now hard disks from the department vanish. One very interesting thing about Vijay's campaign. AFAIK he never promised that he will put the corrupt in jail, only that he will provide a clean adminstration. At least the former wasn't a key campaign plank though it would have worked very well with the overall cinematic approach of the party.

It's mostly for educational purposes and OSINT (something I've been working on and researching on from more than 10 years now) - won't delete it, will be publishing more research and tools on this topic. I personally don't feel what Palantir does is bad either, they just do OSINT & defense-tech on a commercial scale.

Statement : Two transfers and a closed inquiry are not a fix Yesterday, on June 2, 2026 the Centre transferred CBSE's Chairman and Secretary and named a one-member committee under S. Radha Chauhan to examine On-Screen Marking procurement. These actions confirm the problem is real but what it ordered falls short of any meaningful remedy. Here, transferring two officials does not repair a broken system and a limited inquiry held in private, limited to how the contract was awarded, cannot deliver the structural change required due to the coercive, irrational and insecure digitalisation of education in India. Here, we reiterate our earlier requests on May 30, 2026 when we asked for an independent, published security audit of every institution of learning’s digital examination stack that may be implemented in a phased manner, encouraging trust and accountability in digital systems. This is not a CBSE problem alone and Srikanth of Cashless Consumer has shown the same code runs at least thirty evaluation portals. We also asked for the full tender file to be made public, not handed to a closed committee. Here, Sarthak Sidhant, who analysed the tender, has shown how it was rewritten to qualify a firm that earlier operated as Globarena. We asked for an IT Act amendment to protect good-faith security research, so ethical security researchers such as Nisarga Adhikary and Tirth Parmark, who found and reported these flaws, are not the one facing prosecution. None of it has been done. The government answered the narrowest of demands in the narrowest way open to it. The constitution of the inquiry also stops short of the real question. This is not the accident of one bad vendor. It reflects how education in India is being digitised as a dogma and made compulsory, turned into a market for private contractors, and adopted without evidence that it works. It was imposed over teachers who asked for a pause. It was procured as a contract in haste, with the contract's terms, not students' needs or their data's safety, driving its design. Further, it has clearly not delivered on its promises of efficiency and scale to an extent that a record four lakh students sought re-evaluation, four times last year's figure. IFF reiterates and extends its requests given this is a structural problem not limited to execution of one portal, or the award of one tender alone: 1. An independent, published security audit of every board/educational institution on the platform, and immediate fixes. 2. Public disclosure of the full tender file and the decisions that cleared this vendor with an investigation into the role of CERT-In. 3. An amendment to the IT Act that protects good-faith security researchers. 4. A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to examine the wider issue of digitalisation of the education sector. May 3, 2026 New Delhi