Page 1,991«..1020..1,9901,9911,9921,993..2,0002,010..»

Joyalukkas Exchange partners with Effiya Technologies to leverage Artificial intelligence in fight against Financial Crimes – Devdiscourse

Dubai [UAE]/ Noida (Uttar Pradesh) [India] July 1 (ANI/BusinessWire India): Joyalukkas Exchange one of the leading money exchanges houses in the Gulf has partnered with Effiya Technologies an Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) solutions provider on AML/CFT compliance for greater efficiency and effectiveness in real-time screening transactions. They have a hybrid ensemble approach with seamless integration and better algorithms backed with machine learning models to generate the most accurate hits. The implementation of this technology has helped reduce the false positives to a greater extent without compromising potential matches by generate real-time alerts and hence empowering the overall compliance performance.

Antony Jos - Managing Director, Joyalukkas Exchange quoting on this partnership said, "At Joyalukkas Exchange, adherence to compliance is non-negotiable and we don't like it be compromised at any level. We are diligent on this, to ensure a safe and secure experience for all our customers in line with Regulations and global AML standards. For us building a culture of effective compliance will always remain a critical factor. Our aim with this collaboration is to help and strengthen our responsibility and commitment as a regulated entity licensed by the Central Bank of the UAE to manage safe and secure transactions for our customers."

This story is provided by BusinessWire India. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article. (ANI/BusinessWire India)

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Original post:
Joyalukkas Exchange partners with Effiya Technologies to leverage Artificial intelligence in fight against Financial Crimes - Devdiscourse

Read More..

A new Mayflower that uses artificial intelligence has crossed the Atlantic and is set to dock in Plymouth – The Boston Globe

During its ambitious technological journey, the ship, which launched from Plymouth, England, in April, collected data and information to help researchers better understand issues affecting marine wildlife and ocean health, including acidification, microplastics, and global warming, according to project details.

MAS represents a significant step in fulfilling Promares mission to promote marine research and exploration throughout the world, Ayse Atauz Phaneuf, Promares president, said in a statement. This pioneering mission is the result of years of work and a global collaboration between Promare, IBM, and dozens of partners from across industries and academia.

Promare, IBM, and their partners have been chronicling MAS400s voyage through social media updates and a collection of livestream cameras that provide a first-hand account of what it encounters at sea like the time a school of dolphin swam alongside it.

People can also explore whats happening on deck by using a mission control dashboard on the projects website.

According to IBM, there are 6 AI-powered cameras, more than 30 sensors, and 15 Edge devices on the MAS400, which input into actionable recommendations for the AI Captain to interpret and analyze.

The technology makes it possible for the ship to adhere to maritime law while making crucial split-second decisions, like rerouting itself around hazards or marine animals, all without human interaction or intervention, the company said.

The ship is propelled and powered by magnetic electric propulsion motors, batteries, and solar panels on its exterior. It has a backup diesel engine.

While the project has set the stage for future unmanned journeys across the ocean, the ship did encounter some hiccups, researchers said.

The vessel had to make at least two pit stops to deal with technical interruptions, including a problem with its generator and the charging circuit for the generator starter batteries.

The problems prompted diversions to both the Azores and Nova Scotia in May.

Still, the teams behind the voyage took the setbacks in stride.

From the outset our goal was to attempt to cross the Atlantic autonomously, all the while collecting vital information about our ocean and climate, said Brett Phaneuf, who co-created the vessel. Success is not in the completed crossing, but in the team that made it happen and the knowledge we now possess and will share so that more and more ships like MAS can safely roam our seas and teach us more about the planet on which we live.

The 10,000 pound vessel left Nova Scotia on June 27 to complete its voyage. Its expected to arrive in Plymouth Harbor around noon Thursday, where it will be greeted by excited researchers.

A welcome ceremony will be held at 3 p.m., as MAS400 docks next to its namesake, the Mayflower II, a replica of the original ship that brought the Pilgrims to America in 1620.

Throughout the centuries, iconic ships have made their mark in maritime technology and discovery through journeys often thought impossible, Whit Perry, captain of the Mayflower II, said in a statement. How exciting to see history being made again on these shores with this extraordinary vessel.

Steve Annear can be reached at steve.annear@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @steveannear.

Originally posted here:
A new Mayflower that uses artificial intelligence has crossed the Atlantic and is set to dock in Plymouth - The Boston Globe

Read More..

ERTEC completes UAS TARSIS test campaign, an artificial intelligence project applied to flight safety sponsored by the European Defence Agency – sUAS…

The ATLAS Experimental Flight Center in Spain has hosted the final phase of the SAFETERM (Safe Autonomous Flight Termination System) project, sponsored by the European Defense Agency and developed by technological companies GMV and AERTEC.

SAFETERM addresses the use of state-of-the-art artificial intelligence/machine learning technologies to increase the level of safety in specific emergency situations leading to flight termination.

AERTECs TARSIS 75 unmanned aerial system was used for the flight campaign, in which a prototype of the SAFETERM System was embarked for evaluation. These tests have attracted the interest of several dozen professionals and heads of agencies and organizations throughout Europe.

The ATLAS Experimental Flight Center in Jan, Spain has hosted the final phase of SAFETERM (Safe Autonomous Flight Termination System), a project sponsored by the European Defence Agency (EDA) and developed by technology companies GMV and AERTEC.

Unmanned aerial systems are in full expansion and development phase, with safety in all flight phases and its integration in the airspace being a priority issue. The objective of the SAFETERM project is to improve current medium-altitude, long-duration (MALE) RPAS flight termination systems and procedures by applying state-of-the-art artificial intelligence/machine learning technologies to increase the level of safety in specific emergency situations, in case of failure of both the autonomy and the ability to control the remote pilot.

The system aims to provide tools to enable aircraft to autonomously determine Alternative Flight Termination Areas (AFTA) where the risk to third parties can be minimized. In the event of a loss of communication with the aircraft and the subsequent identification of an emergency that prevents reaching planned Flight Termination Areas, the aircraft quickly identifies a safe area to land, avoiding buildings, roads or inhabited areas.

Final flight campaign of the UAS TARSIS 75The validation phase of the project has concluded with a flight campaign in a live operational environment at the ATLAS Experimental Flight Center, using AERTECs TARSIS 75 unmanned aerial system. The aircraft had an on-board prototype of the SAFETERM System for evaluation of its viability. To this end, several flights were made during three full days, in which the system behaved as expected during the course of the project.

During the tests, loss of communication and the subsequent emergency situations were simulated. Next, using the images obtained from the TARSIS sensor, the SAFETERM system autonomously identified possible safe landing areas, ultimately enabling TARSIS to make the guided flight to the safest landing area.

The fact that AERTEC is the firm in charge of Design Engineering and Integration of the TARSIS 75 has played a key role in the timely execution of this project, which required the development of new modules and integrating a new system (SAFETERM), first in a simulation environment and finally in our unmanned system, adds Juanjo Calvente, director of RPAS at AERTEC.

These tests have attracted the interest of several dozen professionals and heads of agencies and organizations from all over Europe, who have attended the call of the European Defense Agency (EDA) to present the results of SAFETERM.

About AERTECAERTEC is an international company specializing in aerospace technology. The company will celebrate its 25th anniversary in 2022 and develops its activity in the aerospace, defense, and airport industries.

AERTEC is a preferred supplier (Tier 1) of engineering services for AIRBUS in all its divisions: Commercial, Helicopters, Defense and Space, at the different AIRBUS sites globally. Its participation in the main global aeronautical programs stands out, such as the A400M, A330MRTT, A350XWB, A320, Beluga and the C295, among others.

The company designs embedded systems for aircraft, unmanned aerial platforms, and guidance solutions, both in the civil and military fields. It has light tactical UAS of its own design and technology, such as the TARSIS 75 and TARSIS 25, for observation and surveillance applications and also for support to military operations. Likewise, it designs, manufactures, and deploys systems for the digitization of work environments and the automation of functional tests, under the smart factory global concept.

As regards the airport sector, the company is positioned as the engineering firm with the strongest aeronautical focus, partaking in investment, planning and design studies, consultancy services for airport operations and terminal area and airfield process improvement. It has references in more than 160 airports distributed in more than 40 countries in five continents.

AERTECs staff consists of a team of more than 600 professionals, and has companies registered in Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Colombia, Peru, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates.

Read the original:
ERTEC completes UAS TARSIS test campaign, an artificial intelligence project applied to flight safety sponsored by the European Defence Agency - sUAS...

Read More..

What is Hermit spyware? – The Indian Express

Hermit is the latest sophisticated spyware in the news, and it is believed to have targeted iPhones and Android devices in Italy and Kazakhstan. Hermits deployment the spyware has been developed by an Italian vendor called RCS Lab was first reported by cyber security researchers at the Lookout, a San-Francisco-based cybersecurity firm. Then Googles Threat Analysis Group (TAG) put out a detailed blog post last week, explaining how they believed Hermit was used to target devices.

Hermit is a spyware on the lines of Pegasus by NSO Group. Once installed on a device, it can record audio on the device, carry out unauthorised calls, and carry out many unauthorised activities. According to Lookout, the spyware can steal stored account emails, contacts, browser bookmarks/searches, calendar events, etc. It can also take pictures on the device, steal device information such as details about applications, the kernel information, model, manufacturer, OS, security patch, phone number, etc. It can also download and install APK (the app software files on Android) on a compromised phone.

The spyware can also upload files from the device, read notifications, and take pictures of the screen. Because it can gain access to the root or the privilege access of an Android system, Lookouts research showed, it can uninstall apps like Telegram and WhatsApp. According to the researchers, the spyware can silently uninstall/reinstall Telegram. Except the reinstalled version is likely a compromised one. It can also steal data from the old app. For WhatsApp, it can prompt the user to reinstall WhatsApp via Play Store.

So, once Hermit has been deployed to a phone, it can control and track data from all key applications.

Sophisticated spyware such as Hermit and Pegasus cost millions of dollars in licensing fees, and these are not simple operations. Its not like common malware targeting regular users. And in the case of Hermit, it appears the operations used were complex. According to Googles TAG team, all campaigns started with a unique link sent to the victims phone. When the user clicked, the page installed the application on both Android and iOS.

According to Google, they believed the actors targeting the victims had to work with the targets Internet Service Provider or ISP. Google notes, We believe the actors worked with the targets ISP to disable the targets mobile data connectivity. Once disabled, the attacker would send a malicious link via SMS asking the target to install an application to recover their data connectivity. We believe this is the reason why most applications masquerade as mobile carrier applications.

When ISP involvement was not possible, the spyware would pretend to be a messaging app. According to Googles screenshot example, the link would pretend to be a recovery page for a Facebook account and ask users to download a version of either WhatsApp, Instagram or Facebook. This is when the device was an Android. These were obviously compromised versions of these messaging apps.

According to Lookout, some attacks in Kazakhstan masqueraded as pages for Oppo, Samsung and Vivo all well-known phone brands. Further, their research shows that RCS Lab also worked with Tykelab Srl, a telecommunications solutions company. Lookout believe that this is likely a front company for RCS Lab, and their blogpost claims to show several links between these two.

In Apples case, Googles research showed that the spyware exploited Apples enterprise certificate, which is given to apps by select enterprises. This certification allows companies to distribute their own in-house apps for direct downloads on iOS devices, bypassing the App Store. The Hermit spyware apps had managed to get these certifications which have since been revoked by Apple.

Google said that a company named 3-1 Mobile SRL had the necessary certificate, as it was enrolled in the Apple Developer Enterprise Program. Google also stressed they do not believe the apps were ever available on the App Store. These apps once installed exploited several known flaws and other zero-day exploits to gain more access and carry out surveillance. According to a new report by 9to5Mac, Apple has now revoked the certificates for these compromised apps.

As noted, Hermit is not a common spyware. Lookouts analysis shows that in Kazakhstan, an entity of the national government is likely behind the campaign. Google also noted that it had identified and alerted all Android victims in Italy and Kazakhstan. It also said it had implemented changes in Google Play Protect and disabled all Firebase projects used to command and control the campaign.

Lookout also states theyve seen this deployed in Syria. In Italy, documents showed it had been misused in an anti-corruption operation. The document mentioned an iOS version of Hermit and linked RCS Lab and Tykelab to the malware, which corroborates our analysis, notes the blog.

According to them, mobile devices are the perfect target for surveillance. While not all of us will be targeted, users should continue to follow basic tips. This includes regularly updating your phones, as each update includes a patch for previously known or unknown vulnerabilities. Once again, users should avoid clicking on unknown links, even if done out of curiosity. It is also recommended that users periodically review apps on their device to keep track of whether something unknown was added.

Newsletter | Click to get the days best explainers in your inbox

Googles blog post also offers strong condemnation of surveillance tools being used by the state, and notes that in many instances, these are being used by governments for purposes antithetical to democratic values: targeting dissidents, journalists, human rights workers and opposition party politicians.

Meanwhile, RCS Labs has denied any wrongdoing, saying its products and services comply with European rules and help law enforcement investigate crimes, as per a Reuterss report.

More:
What is Hermit spyware? - The Indian Express

Read More..

New Cybersecurity Requirements in Critical Infrastructure: Assessing the Impact of Bill C-26, An Act Respecting Cyber Security (ARCS) – Fasken

On June 14, 2022, the Canadian government tabled Bill C-26, An Act Respecting Cyber Security (ARCS), [1] which introduces significant new cybersecurity requirements for federally regulated industries and new national security requirements for the telecommunications sector. As it is currently drafted, ARCS would create a comprehensive framework for regulating the security of Canadian critical infrastructure and enhancing oversight over telecommunications security:

As noted in the official Backgrounder, ARCS is intended to empower the Canadian government to respond to emerging cyber threats and strengthen baseline cyber security for vital services and systems. In the current cyber risk landscape, operators of critical infrastructure are recognized as being at a heightened risk of cyber-attacks from malicious actors given the potential for severe disruption. [2] For enterprises in the telecommunications, energy, finance, and transport sectors in particular, ARCS is a strong signal that the Canadian government intends to take these risks seriously by increasing its regulatory supervision and intervention going forward.

CCSPA would apply to operators in the telecommunications, energy, finance, and transport sectors. More specifically, under the CCSPA, the Canadian government may designate:

The requirements of CCSPA apply to designated operators that own, control or operate a system of interdependent digital services, technologies, assets or facilities that form the infrastructure for the reception, transmission, processing or storing of information [] that, if its confidentiality, integrity or availability were compromised, could affect the continuity or security of a vital service or vital system (critical cyber system).

Although the current draft of CCSPA lists no designated operators in its Schedule 2, it enumerates six vital systems and services in its Schedule 1, each with a corresponding regulator:

Designated operators must comply with four key requirements under CCSPA:

1. Establish, implement, maintain, and review a cyber security program;2. Report cyber security incidents;3. Comply with cyber security directions; and4. Maintain records of compliance and incidents.

Designated operators must establish, implement, and maintain a cyber security program as it relates to their critical cyber systems. In addition to any requirements prescribed by regulations, these cyber security programs must include reasonable steps to:

1. Identify and manage cyber security risks, including risks associated with their supply chain and their use of third-party products and service providers;2. Protect their critical cyber systems from being compromised;3. Detect cyber security incidents that are affecting or potentially may affect their critical cyber systems; and4. Minimize the impact of cyber security incidents affecting critical cyber systems.

Within 90 days after being designated (or a longer period at the regulators discretion), designated operators must establish their cyber security program, notify the appropriate regulator in writing confirming same, and provide them with a copy. Designated operators must also:

Designated operators must immediately report cyber security incidents affectingtheir criticalcyber systems to the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), [3] followed by notification to the appropriate regulator, who is entitled to a copy of the report from both the designated operator and the CSE upon request.

CCSPA defines a cyber security incident as an act, omission, or circumstance that interferes or may interfere with (a) the continuity or security of a vital service or system; or (b) the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of a critical cyber system.

These reporting obligations are in addition to existing obligations. For example:

Designated operators must comply with cyber security directions made by the Canadian government, which may include specific measures and conditions for the purpose of protection of a critical cyber system, as well as a timeline for compliance.

Cyber security directions must be kept confidential by the designated operator, which may not disclose their existence and content, except to the extent required for compliance. However, CCSPA expressly permits extensive information collection and sharing between designated Canadian government officials and entities in relation to cyber security directions.

Designated operators must keep records related to each of their obligations under CCSPA, which differ from recordkeeping requirements in privacy laws. Records must document reported cyber security incidents and steps taken to implement the cyber security program, to mitigate supply chain or third-party risks, and to implement cyber security directions.

In addition, designated operators are required to keep all records in a prescribed manner in Canada, at a prescribed location or otherwise at their place of business. Absent evidence to the contrary, entries in records will serve as proof against the person who made the entry or the designated operator required to keep the record.

Regulators are granted broad enforcement powers to verify compliance or prevent non-compliance with CCSPA. Regulators may enter a place where they have reasonable grounds to believe that a CCSPA-regulated activity is being conducted or that a document, information or thing relevant to that purpose is located there. Regulators may exercise powers such as examining anything at the place, taking or copying any document or data, and using any cyber system (or causing it to be used) to examine information available through the system. Moreover, regulators are entitled to all reasonable assistance from the owner or operator of the place, and anyone found there.

To prevent non-compliance or mitigate the risks thereof, regulators may also audit an operator and issue a compliance order.

CCSPA also balances its broad disclosure requirements with certain protections for confidential information, which is defined as information (1) about vulnerabilities or protection measures of critical cyber systems of a designated operator that is treated confidentially; (2) that could reasonably be expected to have a material financial impact on the operator or prejudice their competitive position; or (3) that could reasonably be expected to interfere with their negotiations.

Accordingly, confidential information may only be disclosed under specific circumstances, including legal requirements, consent of the designated operator, and necessity for the protection of vital services, systems or critical cyber systems. Moreover, confidential information may be shared under agreements or arrangements between certain government entities and regulators.

CCSPA relies on both an administrative monetary penalty regime and statutory offences regime for enforcement of its provisions, similar to the one in the Telecommunications Act. Either regime can involve the personal liability of directors and officers that direct, authorize, assent to, acquiesce in or participate in a violation of the CCSPA, which can result in significant fines or imprisonment.

Eventual regulations may classify violations as minor, serious or very serious and determine the maximum penalty for each type of violation. However, penalties for each violation may not exceed $1,000,000 for individuals and $15,000,000 for other cases.

Designated operators have the right to make representations or exercise a defence of due diligence. Regulators are granted discretion to correct errors in a notice of violation, cancel it or enter into compliance agreements with terms the regulator considers appropriate, including the reduction of the amount of the penalty in part or in whole.

Violations of certain provisions of CCSPA is a punishable offence. Individuals and corporations are liable for fines at the discretion of the court. Moreover, individuals may be sentenced to a term of up to two years on summary conviction or five years upon conviction on indictment.

ARCS also establishes special rules for securing the telecommunications sector, recognizing its importance to national security. Part 1 of ARCS would amend the Telecommunications Act to provide the Canadian government and the Minister of Industry with sweeping new regulatory powers to secure the Canadian telecommunications system.

The amendments would also add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system to the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives. Thiswould provide the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (or CRTC) with an express statutory basis to consider security ramifications when crafting regulatory policies affecting the industry.

ARCS would amend the Telecommunications Act to enable the Canadian government and the Minister to make orders respecting a TSPs (i) use of products and services of specific vendors and other TSPs in telecommunications networks; and (ii) provision of specific telecommunications services in Canada (each a form of a security order).

This distinction between these two types of security order is important one form of security order relates to inputs (both physical products and services) into telecommunications networks and the other relates to the type of telecommunications services that a TSP may offer using telecommunications networks. However, both must be based on the opinion that the security order is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system, including against the threat of interference, manipulation or disruption.

Specifically, the Canadian government may make a security order that:

Separately, the Minister of Industry will be given the authority to:

The Minister of Industry will also have the power to order precise measures, such as imposing conditions on a TSPs use of a specific product or service, prohibiting a TSP from entering a service agreement (or requiring the termination of an existing agreement), requiring TSPs to develop a security plan, requiring a TSP to conduct vulnerability assessments and mitigate identified vulnerabilities, or requiring that a TSP implement specified standards in relation to their products and services. The enumerated powers are not exhaustive, meaning the Minister has very broad power to determine the contents of a security order, subject only to general administrative law principles.

Significantly, the Canadian government and the Minister willhave the authority to prohibit the disclosure or publicization of any security order, meaning these decision-makers will have the ability to make each form of security order without other actors in the telecommunications industryor, indeed, the publicbeing aware.

Similar to the CCSPA, ARCS also provides the Minister of Industry with a broad power to compel the production of information, subject to limited exceptions. Specifically, the Minister may require any person to provide any information that the Minister believes on reasonable grounds is relevant for the purpose of making, amending or revoking a security order. Information provided in response may be designated as confidential if it includes trade secrets, commercial, scientific or technical information that is consistently treated as confidential, and information that may result in economic prejudice if disclosed.

The Minister may designate any qualified person as an inspector for the purpose of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with a security order.

ARCS extends the existing administrative monetary penalty regime in the Telecommunications Act to ensure compliance with the security order provisions and other new obligations. Specifically, violations of these new obligations expose individuals and corporations to penalties of up to $25,000 and $10,000,000, respectively, for a first violation and to $50,000 and $15,000,000, respectively, for each subsequent violation. These penalties are made even more substantial by the fact that each day that a violation continues constitutes a separate violation.

Although many details will need to be clarified in its regulations, ARCS becoming law would represent a significant development in Canadian cybersecurity law and the telecommunications security landscape.

Operators involved with critical cyber systems in federally regulated industries, particularly those which qualify as a vital system or service, should carefully review its provisions and evaluate the potential compliance issues based on their existing cybersecurity practices. In particular, operators potentially subject to these requirements should consider preparatory measures, including:

Given the requirements for designated operators to manage third-party risks, service providers and suppliers who do business with them should prepare for closer scrutiny of their cybersecurity standards and consider similar preparatory measures.

TSPs should strategically prepare for federal political decision makers being given new legal and policy tools to shape the Canadian telecommunications industry by denying access to commercial actors who may present a risk to the Canadian telecommunications system.

From a national security perspective, ARCS and the anticipated CCSPA represent the fulfilment of a national critical infrastructure protection initiative that began in 2009 with the first federal-provincial National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure. [4] With the advent of the Internet of Things, cyber threats to Canadas essential security interests can increasingly manifest into real world consequences. The growing digital interconnectivity of these systems in relation to critical infrastructure represents a vulnerability that ARCS looks to address with the achievement of a baseline level of cyber resilience and recoverability.

Fasken offers a suite of services to assist organizations in their cybersecurity journey, including:

Please contact our Privacy and Cybersecurity group, National Security group, or Technology, Media and Telecommunications group for more information.

For more information on the potential implications of the new Bill C-27, Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022, please see our bulletin on this topic.

[1]Short title for Bill C-26, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, 1st Sess, 44th Parl, 2022, 70-71 (First Reading, June 2022)

[2] See Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, National cyber threat assessment 2020 (2020), online: https://www.cyber.gc.ca/en/guidance/national-cyber-threat-assessment-2020

[3] Subject to being prescribed in CCSPA or its regulations, engagement with the CSE will potentially be conducted through the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, which is the arm of the CSE responsible for securing national critical infrastructure.

[4] For the most recent version, see: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/srtg-crtcl-nfrstrctr/index-en.aspx.

Continued here:
New Cybersecurity Requirements in Critical Infrastructure: Assessing the Impact of Bill C-26, An Act Respecting Cyber Security (ARCS) - Fasken

Read More..

Unknown connections: How safe is public WiFi in Aotearoa? – IT Brief New Zealand

Kiwis often rely on the internet when they are out and about. Whether it's to check a bus timetable or bank balance, grab an Uber, check an email or even stream a movie, using a public WiFi hotspot may often seem like an easy and painless way to not chew up your personal 4G.

But with a seemingly simple process comes plenty of questions. If it's not your own household WiFi, then who has control of your data and is your connection actually safe?

In 2017, security company Norton in partnership with Symantec released a groundbreaking study on public WiFi safety in Aotearoa and around the globe. The results revealed that Kiwis were surprisingly oblivious to the risks involved.

Two-thirds of the 1001 people surveyed thought their personal information was generally safe when they use public WiFi, but 71% actually acted unsafely when their behaviours were examined. 84% admitted to taking risks while on public WiFi.

Risky behaviour was described as all actions that require users to send or receive information. This includes logging into personal email accounts, logging into social media accounts and checking bank or financial information.

Kiwis also struggled to define the difference between secure and unsecure WiFi, with 38% of respondents being unsure of what constitutes unsecure and secure WiFi. 66% of New Zealanders said they felt safe using public WiFi in general.

"There is a deep divide between what people think is safe when it comes to using public WiFi versus the reality," said Symantec executive vice president, consumer business unit Fran Rosch when commenting on the results.

"What someone thinks is private on their personal device can easily be accessed by cybercriminals through unsecure WiFi Networks or even apps with privacy vulnerabilities."

Norton business unit director Mark Gorrie agreed, saying that there's a significant divide between what Kiwis think is safe on public WiFi and what the reality actually is.

"Often what someone thinks is private on their personal device can easily be accessed by cybercriminals through unsecure WiFi Networks or even apps with privacy vulnerabilities," he remarked.

As the years have passed since the survey, COVID-19 has also played a pivotal role in determining public internet usage in Aotearoa. The need to be able to work from anywhere at any time due to the global health situation has only heightened reliance on public WiFi, and with this comes even more chances for security risks if people continue to practice unsafe behaviours.

While human factors undeniably play the most pivotal role in safe public WiFi usage, it also comes down to the network and network providers themselves.

Techday spoke to two key NZ organisations (One public and one private) who provide public WiFi services and asked them questions about public WiFi safety and security. These were the Auckland Council and telco provider Spark NZ.

"Auckland Council provides free public WiFi services at its libraries, service centres, Auckland Botanic Gardens, community centres, community halls and venues for hire more than 200 sites in total," says Auckland Council Director ICT, Mark Denvir.

With an extensive network like this, data security and privacy are seen to be paramount, and the Council ensures they do not collect or retain sensitive data.

"This service is provided by a third-party supplier, which takes care of all basic security requirements. The Council, and our supplier, does not collect user data or registration information, users are only required to accept terms and conditions," says Denvir.

While security measures are an essential factor, Denvir says that there are also complex sociological and societal elements at play, and personal responsibility should play a key role in public WiFi safety as well.

"The provision of public WiFi is a balance between providing internet services for those who are unable to otherwise access them and applying necessary safety mechanisms, without these becoming barriers to access," he says.

"Public WiFi usage inherently requires personal responsibility, so we encourage users of any public WiFi services to make sure they follow best practice guidelines. Further advice can be sought from the government's Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT)."

Spark NZ is another provider of free public WiFi, with sites around New Zealand located on some of the company's public payphones.

The company says that free WiFi is more readily available in a range of places, from public libraries to malls and restaurants. They also say that because consumers also have access to large or unlimited data packs at increasingly cheaper rates, the use of their WiFi hot spots is on a downwards trajectory.

When commenting on the nature of the WiFi security, a company spokesperson said that they have clear security measures and processes in place.

"Spark's WiFi network is designed in a way that keeps end user traffic and core network functions separate. Access to the equipment is controlled by industry standard methods (TACACS+, LDAP)," they said.

"Both hardware and software firewalls are deployed in the network, and we don't permit inbound traffic to end users' devices. This prevents third parties from conducting network scans to find vulnerable devices."

The company also says that when it comes to data security, they do not require any user access details.

"Unlike some other public WiFi services, we do not require users to enter their email address or other personal information in order to access Spark public WiFi."

They also have a team that monitors network security to prevent further cybersecurity issues.

"Spark's public WiFi network is monitored by Spark's First Response Operations and Network Operations Centre," says the spokesperson.

"These teams provide 24/7 monitoring and assurance of the network. In addition, a virtual team conducts day to day maintenance and upgrades."

Spark agrees that online responsibility plays a key role in preventing cybersecurity issues when using public WiFi and suggests a number of tips to help users bolster safety:

They also recommend devices have all operating systems and security updates installed.

Both organisations reinforced the fact that personal responsibility is vital to WiFi usage security. While the research shows Kiwis are worried, they should have comfort in knowing that there are tools and systems in place to keep us safe, and if they exercise their own personal responsibility when using public WiFi, they can check that bus timetable or watch that TikTok with comfort.

Originally posted here:
Unknown connections: How safe is public WiFi in Aotearoa? - IT Brief New Zealand

Read More..

The link between cybersecurity, extremist threat and misinformation online in Aotearoa – SecurityBrief New Zealand

Cybersecurity threats come in many different forms. While things like malware, bugs and phishing attacks can cause serious harm in their own right, when coupled with threat and misinformation it can often lead devestating impacts.

These kinds of threats are formed in various ways and evade cybersecurity and personal cyber safety measures with ease. Long story short, it's often the case that misinformation, threat and extremism link closely to cybersecurity issues and cyber harm.

Hate speech, threat and extremism are issues that have caused significant problems in Aotearoa, and the root of much of it is unfortunately active in an online environment. Threat actors with sinister agendas covertly break down cybersecurity and threat prevention barriers to promote their own unique brand of hate and extremism, using a variety of tools and systems to cause widespread harm.

It is often the case that much of the harm is initiated in dark corners of the internet, blocked by complex coding and security technology. It can also be initiated on social media, with large companies struggling to police and monitor with efficient legal security measures. Threat actors hide behind fake profiles, and even with the strongest regulations and cybersecurity and safety measures, misinformation can break down these walls in an instant.

Threat and misinformation come in a variety of forms. Concerning statistics from InternetNZ show that 58% of New Zealanders - up from 42% last year - are either 'extremely concerned' or 'very concerned' about online conspiracy theories. Kiwi's general level of concern about misinformation has also dramatically risen this year, with 66% of New Zealanders being either extremely or very concerned that information is misleading or wrong. The number of people who said they were extremely or very concerned about hate speech online has also jumped from 58% to 65%.

Research like this highlights that we need solid cyber safety and security measures in place to prevent long-lasting damage.

"InternetNZ wants to see an Internet where everyone in Aotearoa can fully participate online. Scams, cybersecurity risks, and abusive behaviours online are all linked in that they make it harder for people in our community to be safe," says InternetNZ senior policy advisor James Ting-Edwards.

"It is vital that work to address these issues starts by listening to the people most affected by abusive behaviours online, whether these are threats to the security of people's computers and bank accounts, or threats to their personal safety and their ability to go online without facing harassment."

He says there needs to be an extended community effort to prevent threatening behaviour, and laws and technologies can only do so much.

"Governments and online services are well aware of these issues, but the gap we see is a need for more work to include community voices in developing solutions," he says.

"This is not just about laws and technologies, it's about how communities in Aotearoa get a voice in the online environments we participate in."

Dr Ethan R. Plaut from the University of Auckland reinforced that hate speech and threat should be perceived as a matter of our national security, and it is an increasingly prevalent issue worldwide.

"Online hate speech is a matter of national security in multiple different ways," he says.

"This is clearly true in the sense that foreign actors may be involved in the creation and circulation of hateful misinformation, and in the sense that domestic online extremism has been implicated in the radicalisation of people involved in violent attacks, including here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

"These issues also intersect in online attacks against people doing advocacy for Mori, women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ and other vulnerable communities, who are vulnerable to doxxing, threats, and other forms of online attacks."

A prominent example of these types of threats in action can be seen both before and after the devastating Christchurch terror attacks in 2019.

The perpetrator was highly active in a covert online environment, operating to promote hate and infiltrating various social media platforms to spread it. The terrorist also released a manifesto and live-streamed his actions, causing widespread significant harm. CERT NZ reported a variety of issues in the wake of the tragedy, saying that scammers and attackers were using the tragic event as an opportunity to perform targeted online cyber attacks against New Zealanders. Some of these included:

So it's clear that cybersecurity and safety intersect with hate speech and threat, so what can be done to help prevent serious issues in the future?

While Netsafe, CERT NZ and other organisations play a key advisory role in helping inform the public of threats and stop the spread of misinformation here in Aotearoa, there is also a collective agreement in place that aims to tackle these issues at the source. The Christchurch Call was formed in Paris on May 15 2019, and acted as a collective agreement from countries around the world aiming to create a safer online environment that stops hate, threat and misinformation in its tracks.

Consisting of over 50 countries and delegations worldwide, the Paris and New Zealand initiated agreement found that outlines collective, voluntary commitments from Governments and online service providers that aim to address the issue of terrorist and violent extremist content online and to prevent the abuse of the internet as occurred in and after the Christchurch attacks.

The agreement highlights five key points that governments should collectively aim to achieve, with topics ranging from using law and regulation, to supporting frameworks for companies in order to combat hate and abuse online.

While some of the points apply directly to broadcast media, when examining ones relating to cyber safety and security the framework advises:

Social media giants such as Meta, Twitter, Google and YouTube are some of the many organisations that have pledged support to the agreement; however it may take years for them to fully implement secure systems and technologies worldwide.

As with many things online, cybersecurity and safety remain distinctly human issues and can often only be adequately solved with a widespread community effort.

As governments worldwide struggle with increasing threat, misinformation and extremism, there is hope that leadership shown through agreements like the Christchurch Call can promote safer online communities for everyone.

Visit link:
The link between cybersecurity, extremist threat and misinformation online in Aotearoa - SecurityBrief New Zealand

Read More..

How physicists are probing the Higgs boson 10 years after its discovery – Science News Magazine

Javier Duarte kicked off his scientific career by witnessing the biggest particle physics event in decades. On July 4, 2012, scientists at the laboratory CERN near Geneva announced the discovery of the Higgs boson, the long-sought subatomic particle that reveals the origins of mass. Duarte was an eager graduate student whod just arrived at CERN.

I was physically there maybe a week before the announcement, Duarte says. As buzzing throngs of physicists crowded together to watch the announcement at CERN, Duarte didnt make it to the main auditorium. That space was for VIPs and those determined enough to wait in line all night to snag a seat. Instead, he says, he found himself in the basement, in an overflow room of an overflow room.

But the enthusiasm was still palpable. It was a very exciting time to be getting immersed into that world, he says. Since then, he and thousands of other physicists from around the world working on CERN experiments have gone all out exploring the particles properties.

Scientists predicted the existence of the Higgs boson back in 1964, as a hallmark of the process that gives elementary particles mass. But finding the particle had to wait for CERNs Large Hadron Collider, or LHC. In 2010, the LHC began smashing protons together at extremely high energies, while two large experiments, ATLAS and CMS, used massive detectors to look through the debris.

Headlines and summaries of the latest Science News articles, delivered to your inbox

Thank you for signing up!

There was a problem signing you up.

The particles discovery filled in the missing keystone of the standard model of particle physics. That theory explains the known elementary particles and their interactions. Those particles and interactions are behind just about everything we know. The particles serve as building blocks of atoms and transmit crucial forces of nature, such as electromagnetism. And the mass of those particles is key to their behavior. If electrons were massless, for example, atoms wouldnt form. Without the Higgs boson, then, one of scientists most successful theories would collapse.

The Higgs boson discovery dominated headlines around the globe. About half a million people tuned in to watch the livestreamed announcement, and footage from the event appeared on more than 5,000 news programs. Even oddball minutiae made it into the press, with a few articles analyzing the physicists use of the often-scorned font Comic Sans in their presentation. Little more than a year later, the discovery garnered a Nobel Prize for two of the scientists who developed the theory behind the Higgs boson, Franois Englert and Peter Higgs for whom the particle is named.

Now, as the discovery turns 10 years old, that initial excitement persists for Duarte and many other particle physicists. As a professor at the University of California, San Diego and member of the CMS experiment, Duartes research still revolves around the all-important particle. Progress in understanding the Higgs has been stunning, he says. Weve come so much farther than we expected to.

Physicists have been working through a checklist of things they want to know about the Higgs boson. They spent the last decade cataloging its properties, including how it interacts with several other particles. Though measurements have so far been in line with the predictions made by the standard model, if a discrepancy turns up in the future, it may mean there are unknown particles yet to be discovered.

And theres still more on the agenda. An especially important item is the Higgs bosons interaction with itself. To help pin down this and other Higgs properties, scientists are looking forward to collecting more data. Scientists turned on an upgraded LHC for a new round of work in April. At the time of the Higgs discovery, collisions at the LHC reached an energy of 8 trillion electron volts. Collisions are expected to roll in at a record 13.6 trillion electron volts starting July 5, and data-taking will continue until 2026. These higher energies offer opportunities to spot heavier particles. And the High-Luminosity LHC, a more powerful iteration of the LHC, is expected to start up in 2029.

Finding a particle, it sounds like the end of something, but its really only the beginning, says experimental particle physicist Mara Cepeda of CIEMAT in Madrid, a member of the CMS collaboration.

Studying the Higgs boson is like geocaching, says theoretical particle physicist Gudrun Heinrich of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany. Much like hobbyists use a GPS device to uncover a hidden stash of fun trinkets, physicists are using their wits to uncover the treasure trove of the Higgs boson. In 2012, scientists merely located the cache; the next 10 years were devoted to revealing its contents. And that investigation continues. The hope is that the contents will contain something like a map that is guiding us towards an even bigger treasure, Heinrich says.

Detailed study of the Higgs boson could help scientists solve mysteries that the standard model fails to explain. We know that the theory has limitations, says theoretical particle physicist Laura Reina of Florida State University in Tallahassee. For instance, the standard model has no explanation for dark matter, a shadowy substance that throws its weight around the cosmos, exerting a gravitational pull necessary to explain a variety of astronomical observations. And the theory cant explain other quandaries, like why the universe is composed mostly of matter rather than its alter ego, antimatter. Many proposed solutions to the standard models shortcomings require new particles that would alter how the Higgs interacts with known particles.

The Higgs boson itself isnt responsible for mass. Instead, thats the job of the Higgs field. According to quantum physics, all particles are actually blips in invisible fields, like ripples atop a pond. Higgs bosons are swells in the Higgs field, which pervades the entire cosmos. When elementary particles interact with the Higgs field, they gain mass. The more massive the particle, the more strongly it interacts with the Higgs field, and with the Higgs boson. Massless particles, like photons, dont directly interact with the Higgs field at all.

One of the best ways to hunt for Higgs-related treasure is to measure those interactions, known as couplings. The Higgs couplings describe what particles the Higgs boson decays into, what particles can fuse to produce Higgs bosons and how often those processes occur. Scientists gauge these couplings by sifting through and analyzing the showers of particles produced when Higgs bosons pop up in the debris of proton smashups.

Even if unknown particles are too heavy to show up at the LHC, the Higgs couplings could reveal their existence. Any of these couplings not being what you expect them to be is a very clear sign of incredibly interesting new physics behind it, says particle physicist Marumi Kado of Sapienza University of Rome and CERN, who is the deputy spokesperson for the ATLAS collaboration.

Physicists have already checked the couplings to several elementary particles. These include both major classes of particles in physics: bosons (particles that carry forces) and fermions (particles that make up matter, such as electrons). Scientists have measured the Higgs interactions with a heavy relative of the electron called a tau lepton (a fermion) and with the W and Z bosons, particles that transmit the weak force, which is responsible for some types of radioactive decay. Researchers also pegged the Higgs couplings to the top quark and bottom quark. Those are two of the six types of quarks, which glom together into larger particles such as protons and neutrons. (The Higgs is responsible for the mass of elementary particles, but the mass of composite particles, including protons and neutrons, instead comes mostly from the energy of the particles jangling around within.)

The couplings measured so far involve the standard models heavier elementary particles. The top quark, for example, is about as heavy as an entire gold atom. Since the Higgs couples more strongly to heavy particles, those interactions tend to be easier to measure. Next up, scientists want to observe the lighter particles couplings. ATLAS and CMS have used their giant detectors to see hints of the Higgs decaying to muons, the middleweight sibling in the electron family, lighter than the tau but heavier than the electron. The teams have also begun checking the coupling to charm quarks, which are less massive than top and bottom quarks.

So far, the Higgs has conformed to the standard model. The big thing we discovered is it looks pretty much like we expected it to. There have been no big surprises, says theoretical particle physicist Sally Dawson of Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y.

But there might be discrepancies that just havent been detected yet. The standard model predictions agree with measured couplings within error bars of around 10 percent or more. But no one knows if they agree to within 5 percent, or 1 percent. The more precisely scientists can measure these couplings, the better they can test for any funny business.

Before the LHC turned on, scientists had a clear favorite for a physics theory that could solve some of the standard models woes: supersymmetry, a class of theories in which every known particle has an undiscovered partner particle. Physicists had hoped such particles would turn up at the LHC. But none have been found yet. Though supersymmetry isnt fully ruled out, the possibilities for the theory are far more limited.

With no consensus candidate among many other theories for what could be beyond the standard model, a lot of focus rests on the Higgs. Physicists hope studies of the Higgs will reveal something that might point in the right direction to untangle some of the standard models snarls. Measuring [the Higgs bosons] properties is going to tell us much more about what is beyond the standard model than anything before, Reina says.

One question that scientists are investigating in LHC smashups is whether the Higgs is truly unique. All the other known elementary particles have a quantum form of angular momentum, known as spin. But the Higgs has a spin of zero, whats known as a scalar. Other types of particles tend to come in families, so its not outlandish to imagine that the Higgs boson could have scalar relatives. It could be theres a huge scalar sector somewhere hiding and we just saw the first particle of it, Heinrich says. Supersymmetry predicts multiple Higgs bosons, but there are plenty of other ideas that envision Higgs accomplices.

Its also possible that the Higgs is not actually elementary. Combinations of particles, such as quarks, are known to make up larger particles with spins of zero. Perhaps the Higgs, like those other scalars, is made up of yet unknown smaller stuff.

While hunting for these answers, physicists will be watching closely for any connection between the Higgs behavior and other recent puzzling results. In 2021, the Muon g2 experiment at Fermilab in Batavia, Ill., reported hints that muons have magnetic properties that dont agree with predictions of the standard model. And in April, scientists with the CDF experiment which studied particle collisions at Fermilab until 2011 found that the W bosons mass is heavier than the standard model predicts.

The Higgs bosons relative newness makes it ripe for discoveries that could help sort out these quandaries. The Higgs boson is the least explored elementary particle, and it could be a door to the other mysteries we still have to uncover or to shed light on, Heinrich says.

To work out thorny puzzles, physicists sometimes talk to themselves. Fittingly, another puzzle atop scientists Higgs to-do list is whether the particle, likewise, talks to itself.

This self-coupling, how Higgs bosons interact with one another, has never been measured before. But it turns out to be really just an incredible barometer of new physics, says theoretical particle physicist Nathaniel Craig of the University of California, Santa Barbara. For example, measuring the Higgs self-coupling could suss out hidden particles that interact only with the Higgs, oblivious to any of the other standard model particles.

The Higgs self-coupling is closely related to the Higgs potential, an undulating, sombrero-shaped surface that describes the energy of the universe-pervading Higgs field. In the early universe, that potential determined how the fundamental particles gained mass, when the Higgs field first turned on.

How, exactly, that transition from massless to massive happened has some big implications for the cosmos. It could help explain how matter gained the upper hand over antimatter in the early universe. If the Higgs field did play that role in the universes beginnings, Craig says, its going to leave some fingerprints on the Higgs potential that we measure today.

Depending on the full shape of the Higgs potentials sombrero, at some point in the exceedingly distant future, the Higgs field could shift again, as it did in the early universe. Such a jump would change the masses of fundamental particles, creating a universe in which familiar features, including life, are probably obliterated.

To better understand the Higgs potential, scientists will attempt to measure the self-coupling. Theyll do it by looking for Higgs bosons produced in pairs, a sign of the Higgs interacting with itself. Thats thought to happen at less than a thousandth the rate that individual Higgs bosons are produced in the LHC, making it extremely difficult to measure.

Even with the planned High-Luminosity LHC, which will eventually collect about 10 times as much data as the LHC, scientists predict that the self-coupling will be measured with large error bars of about 50percent, assuming the standard model is correct. Thats not enough to settle the matter.

If scientists just do what theyre on track to do, were going to fall short, Duarte says. But new techniques could allow physicists to better identify double-Higgs events. Duarte is studying collisions in which two particularly high-energy Higgs bosons each decay into a bottom quark and a bottom antiquark. Using a specialized machine learning technique, Duarte and colleagues put together one of the most sensitive analyses yet of this type of decay.

By improving this technique, and combining results with those from other researchers looking at different types of decays, we have a good hope that well be able to observe [the self-coupling] definitively, Duarte says.

Despite all his passion for the Higgs, Duarte notes that there have been disappointments. After that first rush of the Higgs announcement, I was hoping for a Higgs-level discovery every year. That didnt happen. But he hasnt lost his optimism. We expect there to be another twist and turn coming up, he says. Were still hoping its around the corner.

The wait for new physics is no shock to veterans of earlier particle hunts. Meenakshi Narain, a particle physicist at Brown University in Providence, R.I., and a member of the CMS experiment, was an undergraduate student around the time the bottom quark was discovered in the 1970s. After that discovery, Narain joined the search for the top quark. Even though physicists were convinced of the particles existence, that hunt still took nearly 20 years, she says. And it took nearly 50 years to uncover the Higgs boson after it was postulated.

The standard models flaws make physicists confident that there must be more treasures to unearth. Because of her past experiences with the long-haul process of discovery, Narain says, I have a lot of faith.

Read more from the original source:

How physicists are probing the Higgs boson 10 years after its discovery - Science News Magazine

Read More..

Why is Sangh Parivar engaged in rewriting history? – Deccan Herald

If one watches India's prime-time debates on the television channels or the internet, or even if one only reads news articles posted online and elsewhere, one is quite frequently confronted with the word 'narrative'.

Those who oppose the incumbent powers firmly believe they are indulging in a massive rewriting of history, obscuring facts not palatable to them and highlighting figures and events conducive to their agenda.

On the contrary, those in support of the ruling dispensation claim that their emphasis is only on "correcting" historical wrongs, which involves highlighting facts hitherto un-published, and demeaning facts which they see as instances of "historical injustice".

To an objective observer, the best route to understand who is in the more rationally or perhaps ethically justified position is to understand how history is written.

Ideally, history is written by academicians and scholars, who go through a rigorous process of peer review of their theories and accounts before they get published. How clean and transparent this review process is determining how factual any historical narrative is. In other words, the scientific method of observation, experiment and cataloguing is what dictates the global narratives of history. This hasn't been the case throughout most of history. Before the scientific revolution, history was taught more through anecdotes, i.e. personal reflection on the part of the individual scholar, and stories, i.e. fictionalised accounts of historical memories and narratives, were the order of the day when it came to the accounts of history. That is precisely the reason why the Mahabharata has references to events and entities that are considered 'impossible' by today's scientific standards. In other words, the distinction between story and history is not as old as a nave observer may assume.

Returning to the present, the attempt to revise history must be seen in the light of how the scientific method of chronological record-making proceeds. For this, a brief exposition of the scientific method itself is necessary.

The scientific method, developed not by scientists so much as by philosophers like Karl Popper, Quine, etc., is based on experimental observation and validation. In other words, what cannot be validated through observation is not considered science. Measurement or observation is key to the process here. That which cannot be substantiated through references, citations, and archaeological proofs is not considered history today.

The historical accounts of figures like Lord Ram, Prophet Muhammad, Jesus Christ, the Buddha, Arjun, Bhim or other characters in some of the great Indian epics have not been conceived on these lines. Why is this so? Did the historians of yesteryears have some insight into observation and measurement that today's 'scientific-minded' historians lack? Or was society intellectually very backward in that era - even during the days of Nalanda and Taxila, that they couldn't distinguish between fact and fiction?

A key to solving this mystery is in understanding the word measurement - a euphemism for observation in textbooks of modern science, especially those of theoretical physics pertaining to the quantum or sub-atomic realm of matter. In modern science, according to the most popular and accepted Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, introduced to the world by Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, pioneers of quantum physics, measurement is not an act separate from the one who is observing. In other words, although not many people seem to be aware of this, an act of observation is dependent on the person observing. There are no facts independent of the person checking them, just as there is no person independent of the environment he is surrounded with.

This does not mean that we can alter things by looking at them. It means that any scientific knowledge or any perception for that matter shows us not what things are but only shows us how we see things. In simpler words, any theory or piece of knowledge we acquire tells us more about ourselves and our own manners of perception rather than the thing perceived by us. In most crude language, anything we see, hear, taste, smell, feel, touch, or perceive in any possible manner, does not show us reality, but rather it shows us our brains perceiving reality.

Bringing us back to History and the battle of narratives being fought out on our television sets, computer screens and smartphones, what is the measurement or observation of a historical fact? Are the individual historians observing or researching a fact and modifying it while checking it? Are the institutions of historical scholarship and academia co-creating facts when they peer-review each other's research and publish only what is personally acceptable to their club, so to speak?

It could indeed be that historians are subconsciously or perhaps consciously changing history while observing it and that the 'clubs' of academic scholarship are being run by those who wish to dictate historical narratives based on their own self-defined notions of academic superiority and scholarship, which would even dictate what counts as 'proof'.

BJP loyalists, pejoratively called 'Bhakts' and 'Andh-Bhakts' by their opponents, might actually have a point when they question the validity of the erstwhile mainstream historical narrative or account. It is just that they're firing their bullets at the wrong target. Instead of focusing on "rewriting" while peddling it as "rediscovering" history, it would be more suitable for them to question the validity of historical narratives as being objective per se, with an as unbiased and non-political approach as possible.

In other words, we are indeed living in a 'post-truth' world, as those who keep shouting the words 'false narrative' to counter another person's point of view might have realised. But the point of realising that truth or at least knowledge is subjective is not to challenge the other person's subjectivity with one's own subjectivity, whether one supports the left, right or centre. It is to realise that we all live in our own subjective perceptual fields, which should ideally make us respect our opponent's point of view more and try to listen and learn from it. The truth will only emerge from a discussion between those who oppose and respect each other. It will not emerge from realising on the one hand that knowledge is relative and subjective and then immediately imposing this subjectivity upon another who we also acknowledge as being equally subjective.

Democracy is based on disagreement and reconciliation, not in self-imposed intellectual contradiction and forced imposition of this ailment upon others. If that were so, then we would all be mentally ill, and the whole world would be a 19th-century lunatic asylum, with no one fully communicating with anyone else, except that, in this case, even the healers and nurses would be patients with us, which is not a fantasy many of us would like to indulge in.

(The author is a research scholar)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.

Go here to read the rest:

Why is Sangh Parivar engaged in rewriting history? - Deccan Herald

Read More..

Postdoctoral / Research Fellow, Research School of Physics job with AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY (ANU) | 298867 – Times Higher Education

Classification: Academic Level A/BSalary package: $76,271 - $117,736 per annum plus 17% SuperannuationTerm:Fixed Term, Full-time appointment for 3 years

Postdoctoral, Research Fellow PD and Pewer.pdf

The Area

The Research School of Physics (RSPhys) represents Australia's largest university based research and teaching activity in the physics discipline.

The underlying impetus of our research is a belief in the fundamental importance of physics to all of science and technology and the key role physics must play in addressing the challenges facing the modern world. For example, in addressing climate change, we must better understand the physics of the atmosphere and develop new clean sources of energy. In medicine, further development of new procedures, such as positron therapy for cancer treatment, will not be possible without advancing the basic physics that underlies them. The communications revolution that is changing the world is driven by physics, and if progress is to continue, research must harness advances in electronic materials, lasers and optoelectronic devices. There is no better place to study and research physics than the Research School of Physics at The Australian National University.

The School is home to the Department of Quantum Science and Technology (DQST), which conducts fundamental and applied research in ultra-cold quantum gases, quantum optics, atomic physics, and quantum computing.

The Position

Based in the Atomlaser and Quantum Sensors Group within DQST, the Postdoctoral/Research Fellow will work closely with Professor John Close on the experimental implementation of a scheme to produce spin-squeezing on the existing Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) and atom interferometry apparatus. This experiment will take place on the existing ANU BEC atom interferometry experiment and uses a modification of the standard Mach-Zehnder scheme.

The Postdoctoral/Research Fellow will also interact closely with theoretical physicists Dr. Simon Haine and Professor Joe Hope, and our research collaborators Professor Mathew Davis, Dr Stuart Szigeti, and Dr. Sebastian Wuster.

The Person

To excel in this role you will have:

The Australian National University is a world-leading institution and provides a range of lifestyle, financial and non-financial rewards and programs to support staff in maintaining a healthy work/life balance whilst encouraging success in reaching their full career potential. For more information, please click here.

To see what the Science at ANU community is like, we invite you to follow us on social media at Instagram and Facebook.

For more information about the position please contact Dr Simon Haine on T: +61 474964745 or E: simon.haine@anu.edu.au.

ANU Values diversity and inclusion and is committed to providing equal employment opportunities to those of all backgrounds and identities. People with a disability are encouraged to apply. For more information about staff equity at ANU, click here.

Application information

In order to apply for his role, please make sure that you upload the following documents:

Applications which do not address the selection criteria may not be considered for the position.

Please note: The successful candidate will be required to undergo a background check during the recruitment process. An offer of employment is conditional on satisfactory results.

Job Close: 31 July 2022

Read more:

Postdoctoral / Research Fellow, Research School of Physics job with AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY (ANU) | 298867 - Times Higher Education

Read More..