AI Chat Helper

AI Chat Helper — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

FreshBooks

FreshBooks is accounting software operated by 2ndSite Inc. primarily for small and medium-sized businesses. It is a web-based software as a service (SaaS) model, that can be accessed through a desktop or mobile device. The company was founded in 2003 and is based in Toronto, Canada. == History == FreshBooks was founded in 2004 by Mike McDerment, Levi Cooperman, and Joe Sawada in Toronto, Ontario. McDerment incorporated a second company, BillSpring in January 2015 to work on new product development. It was rolled back into FreshBooks as an updated interface in 2016. Initially FreshBooks functioned like an electronic invoicing program targeting IT professionals. After the release of the new interface, the initial release of FreshBooks was referred to as "FreshBooks Classic." FreshBooks Classic was discontinued in 2022 after migrating users to the new platform. FreshBooks Classic's front-end application was built in PHP, and the backend services were built in Python while the new FreshBooks uses the same backend services with a JavaScript single-page application. == Product == FreshBooks is a subscription-based accounting software platform that provides features such as invoicing, accounts payable, expense and time tracking, retainers, fixed asset depreciation, purchase orders, payroll integrations, mileage tracking, double-entry accounting, and standard business reporting. Financial data is stored in the cloud on a unified ledger, enabling access from desktop and mobile devices. The platform includes a free API for integration with external applications and supports multiple tax rates and currencies. It also offers project management and payroll functionalities. Pricing is based on a recurring monthly fee. FreshBooks supports country-specific tax calculations, including GST and HST in Canada, sales taxes in the United States, and MTD compliance in the UK. == Operations == FreshBooks has its headquarters in Toronto, Canada with operations in North America, Europe and Australia. Founder Mike McDerment was the chief executive officer of the company from 2003 until 2021, when he stepped down and was replaced by Don Epperson, but stayed as the executive chair. Don Epperson had previously joined FreshBooks as executive director in 2019. == Funding == FreshBooks was initially self-funded. In 2014, the company raised a Series A venture investment of $30 million led by the venture capital firm Oak Investment Partners, with participation by Georgian Partners and Atlas Venture. In 2017, FreshBooks announced that it raised another $43 million in funding from Accomplice, Georgian Partners and Oak Investment Partners. On August 10, 2021, FreshBooks announced that it had secured $80.75 million in Series E funding and $50 million in debt financing. FreshBooks also reached a valuation of more than $1 billion.
Read more →
Social computing

Social computing is an area of computer science that is concerned with the intersection of social behavior and computational systems. It is based on creating or fostering existing social conventions and social contexts through the use of software and technology. Blogs, email, instant messaging, social network services, wikis, social bookmarking and other instances of what is often called social software illustrate ideas from social computing. The rise in social computing is attributed to the prevalence of personal devices and increased overall computing power. This enables a growing number of users to participate in sharing content and interact with another. == Definitions == Humans—and human behavior—are profoundly social. Humans tend to orient to one another and develop abilities to interact with each other and other species. This ranges from expression and gesture through spoken, written, and body language. Humans are influenced by the behavior of those around them and can rely on social context and cues to make decisions. An example of a behavior relying on social contexts is applauding at the end of the play. This is based on the context that the show ended, and other audience members are applauding. Social information provides a basis for inferences, planning, and coordinating activity. == Examples == Common tools include blogs, email, instant messaging, social networking sites, wikis, and social bookmarking platforms. These technologies enable users to generate content, share knowledge, and interact in real time. == Applications == The rise of social computing has highlighted opportunities for businesses. Businesses are interacting on social computing platforms and investing in facilities to support and research social computing.Business models can leverage the massive customer bases that accumulate through social computing channels. Some organizations have started their own blogs and networks (McAfee, 2006, Joe, 2005). Organizations from diverse industry sectors such as Google, Cisco, and Fox, have sought to acquire or invest in successful social computing enterprises. A business blog can serve as a source of information and promotion for the company. This allows the company to share content about the company and their initiatives. Businesses have also interacted with social computing to market themselves and interact with customers. A notable example is Wendy's with their X (formerly Twitter) account. The account was primarily used to promote business promotions and interact with users in a playful or meaningful way. E-commerce web sites have allowed users to leave reviews and feedback on purchases which has improved online shopping experience for sellers and consumers.As another example of social computing’s business applications, many e-commerce Web sites have adopted online product/vendor feedback/reputation systems. Such systems provide an asynchronous platform for the consumer community to share experiences collectively and influence their purchasing behavior. They also provide a vehicle for eliciting feedback information valuable to the vendors and e-commerce site operators.Consumers can use the feedback systems to make a more educated choice on a purchase by comparing reviews between products or vendors. Sellers can track consumer behaviors and trends regarding a product and adjust their supply according to the demand. == Challenges and criticism == Social computing raises several concerns related to privacy, data security, and algorithmic bias. The widespread collection and analysis of user-generated data can lead to ethical dilemmas, especially when users are unaware of how their information is used. Critics also highlight issues of digital labor, surveillance, and the spread of misinformation, which can influence public opinion and social dynamics. === Term appearance === The term appeared in the mid 1990s after technology advancements and development of the web. In 1994, the concept of social computing was first proposed by Schuler. He thought, "Social computing is a computing application, with software as the medium or focus of social relationships." === Premise === The premise of social computing is that it is possible to design digital systems that support useful functionality by making socially produced information available to their users. This information may be provided directly, as when systems show the number of users who have rated a review as helpful or not. Or the information may be provided after being filtered and aggregated, as is done when systems recommend a product based on what else people with similar purchase history have purchased. Alternatively, the information may be provided indirectly, as is the case with Google's page rank algorithms which orders search results based on the number of pages that (recursively) point to them. In all of these cases, information that is produced by a group of people is used to provide or enhance the functioning of a system. Social computing is concerned with systems of this sort and the mechanisms and principles that underlie them. Social computing can be defined as follows: "Social Computing" refers to systems that support the gathering, representation, processing, use, and dissemination of information that is distributed across social collectivities such as teams, communities, organizations, and markets. Moreover, the information is not "anonymous" but is significantly precise because it is linked to people, who are in turn linked to other people. More recent definitions, however, have foregone the restrictions regarding anonymity of information, acknowledging the continued spread and increasing pervasiveness of social computing. As an example, Hemmatazad, N. (2014) defined social computing as "the use of computational devices to facilitate or augment the social interactions of their users, or to evaluate those interactions in an effort to obtain new information." Social computing has to do with supporting "computations" that are carried out by groups of people, an idea that has been popularized in James Surowiecki's book, The Wisdom of Crowds. Examples of social computing in this sense include collaborative filtering, online auctions, reputation systems, computational social choice, tagging, and verification games. The social information processing page focuses on this sense of social computing. == History == === Technology infrastructure === Users were able to interact more with websites after the development of Web 2.0. This was an advancement from Web 1.0. Comode G. and Krishnamurthy B. (2008) note that "content creators were few in Web 1.0 with the vast majority of users simply acting as consumers of content." Web 2.0 provided functionalities that allowed for low-cost web-hosting services and introduced features with browser windows that used basic information structure and expanded it to as many devices as possible using HTTP, or Hypertext Transfer Protocol. Sometimes referred to as "Enterprise 2.0", a term derived from Web 2.0, social software for enterprise generally refers to the use of social computing in corporate intranets and in other medium- and large-scale business environments. It consisted of a class of tools that allowed for networking and social changes to businesses at the time. It was a layering of the business tools on Web 2.0 and brought forth several applications and collaborative software with specific uses. FinanceElectronic negotiation, which first came up in 1969 and was adapted over time to suit financial markets networking needs, represents an important and desirable coordination mechanism for electronic markets. Negotiation between agents (software agents as well as humans) allows cooperative and competitive sharing of information to determine a proper price. Recent research and practice has also shown that electronic negotiation is beneficial for the coordination of complex interactions among organizations. Electronic negotiation has recently emerged as a very dynamic, interdisciplinary research area covering aspects from disciplines such as Economics, Information Systems, Computer Science, Communication Theory, Sociology and Psychology.Social computing has become more widely known because of its relationship to a number of recent trends. These include the growing popularity of social software and Web 3.0, increased academic interest in social network analysis, the rise of open source as a viable method of production, and a growing conviction that all of this can have a profound impact on daily life. A February 13, 2006 paper by market research company Forrester Research suggested that: === Developments === PLATO was one of the earliest examples of social computing in a live production environment with initially hundreds and soon thousands of users. The PLATO computer system was developed by the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign in 1960s. In the 70s, the system supported social software applications for multi-us
Read more →
Sharenting

"Sharenting" is a portmanteau of "sharing" and "parenting", describing the practice of parents publicizing a large amount of potentially sensitive content about their children on internet platforms, most notably on social media. While the term was coined as recently as 2010, sharenting has become an international phenomenon with widespread presence in the United States, Spain, France, and the United Kingdom. Proponents of sharenting frame the practice as a natural expression of parental pride in their children and argue that critics take sharenting-related posts out of context. Detractors find that it violates child privacy and hurts a parent–child relationship. Academic research has been conducted over the potential social motivations for sharenting and legal frameworks to balance child privacy with this parental practice. Researchers have conducted several psychological surveys, outlining social media accessibility, parental self-identification with children, and social pressure as potential causes for sharenting. Legal scholars have identified international human rights laws, labor protections, and recent online child privacy statutes as potential legal standards to check sharenting abuses. == History == The origins of the term "sharenting" have been attributed to the Wall Street Journal, where they called it "oversharenting," a portmanteau of "oversharing" and "parenting." Priya Kumar suggests that recording life moments of children rearing is not a new practice: people have been using diaries, scrapbooks and baby log books as the media of documentation for centuries. Scholars assert that sharenting has become popular as a result of social media, which has made many people more comfortable with sharing their lives and those of their children online. The trend of oversharing on social media has raised public attention in the 2010s and become the focus of a number of editorials and academic research projects. It was also added to Times Word of the Day in February 2013 and Collins English Dictionary in 2016 given its influence. == Popularity == Several studies describe sharenting as an international phenomenon with widespread prevalence across households. In the United States, researchers at the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children's Hospital found that almost 75% of American parents were familiar with someone who over-shared information about their child on social media, and an AVG survey determined that 92% of all American two-year-olds had some presence on the internet. In Australia, Fisher-Price conducted a survey which revealed that 90% of Australian parents admitted to over-sharing. In Spain and Czech Republic, a survey of approximately 1,500 parents found that 70-80% participated in sharenting. In the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy, a Research Now report revealed that almost three-quarters of surveyed parents said that they were "willing to share images of their infants". Some claim that sharenting presents a violation of child privacy, and this backlash includes anti-sharenting sites and apps that block baby pictures. One particular outlet of protest was the blog STFU Parents, founded in 2009 to criticize parental oversharing on social media. Some parents felt that these criticisms of sharenting often took posts out of context and neglected some positive aspects of the practice, including advancing a stronger sense of online community. Others, while acknowledging the potential privacy violations of sharenting, suggested a more tailored approach that would only permit posting under certain conditions, notwithstanding audience and identification restrictions for social media posts. == Motivations == Research has suggested that sharenting is associated with a mix of parent self-identification with children, mothering pressures, and the accessibility of social media. Conducting 17 interviews with mothers in the United Kingdom, a London School of Economics study found that parent bloggers often re-explained their sharing practices in terms of expressing their own personal identity, representing their own child as part of themselves. In particular, the report surveyed the use of blogs as a networking vehicle to connect parents with similar family situations and found that sharenting parents, by filtering self-presentation through their parent-child relationship, adopted a more relational identity on social media websites. This included identifying oneself in terms of parental circumstances, whether it be raising a child with a disability or being a single mother. Alternatively, some have suggested that these online expressions indicate the infiltration of individual pride into the sphere of parenting, as family photography becomes a means to "show off" one's children to the others and strengthens a parent's sense of individuated self. Addressing the prevalence of mothers engaging in sharenting, those who purport this view argue that the rise of digital communication has pressured mothers into performing the role of a "good" parent on social media platforms. They claim that these developments may reinforce a dominant vision of a "normal" family, as sharenting posts could be motivated by the need to converge to a normative interpretation of family. == Controversy == While some people assert that online platforms enable parents to establish a community and seek parenting support, others are concerned about the children's data privacy and their lack of informed consent. Sharing content may not only embarrass children but also creates an initial digital footprint, a history of online activity, that the children themselves have no control over. This might bring some negative consequences, such as being ridiculed at school or leaving a negative impression on future employers. === Parental benefits === Many parents use social media to seek parenting advice and share information about their children. With the convenience of online platforms, parent bloggers can easily connect with other people in similar situations as well as those who are willing to contribute meaningful advice. By forming a community, parents can receive encouragement from empathetic peers and assistance from experts in children rearing. Parents whose children need special educational accommodations or have disabilities often found themselves detached from the mainstream parenting style. Therefore, they regard online blogs as a means to gain support from others and support back. Online blogging enables parents of children with disabilities and special needs to connect with other parents. The advice from similarly situated families can open up new possibilities that help the parents "negotiate the complexities of social services, health care, and schools". However, in some cases, posting online about a parent's struggles can cause a backlash, as advocates may accuse the parent of presenting people with that condition in a bad light, or wonder how the child will feel, if they later read these posts and see how much their parents struggled to care for them. Such advantages of social media are not limited to particular groups of parents. In general, most parents benefit from exchanging parenting experience. Statistically speaking, 72% of parents rate social media useful for emotional connection and affirmations, and 74% of them receive support about parenting from friends on social media. Sharenting also plays a role in fostering interpersonal relationships. As the images and words about children's lives initiate conversations, parents use sharenting to stay connected with distant friends and relatives. In particular, mothers, as a research study reveals, are willing to engage in sharenting since they believe that the positive contents can help avoid digital conflicts and maintain close relations with those in their social circles. Researchers also found that female participants in this study carefully chose photos and phrases to express love and present laudable behaviors of children in their updates, which indicates their intention to convey positive messages. These messages also promote a close social network for a child as the parents invites supportive family members and friends into daily life. === Children's privacy === Given the potential misuse of digital data, people are critical about sharenting, and the majority of parents are cautious about the wrongdoing with online posts. The disclosure of minors' personal information, such as geographic location, name, date of birth, pictures, and the schools they attend, might expose them to illegal practices by recipients with malicious intentions. Sharented information is often abused for "identity theft", when imposters manage to track, stalk, commit fraud against children, or even blackmail the family. According to Barclays, online fraud targeting the young generation will contribute to a loss of £670 million (approximately $790 million) by 2030, and two-thirds of identity fraud will be related to s
Read more →
Undeniable signature

An undeniable signature is a digital signature scheme which allows the signer to be selective to whom they allow to verify signatures. The scheme adds explicit signature repudiation, preventing a signer later refusing to verify a signature by omission; a situation that would devalue the signature in the eyes of the verifier. It was invented by David Chaum and Hans van Antwerpen in 1989. == Overview == In this scheme, a signer possessing a private key can publish a signature of a message. However, the signature reveals nothing to a recipient/verifier of the message and signature without taking part in either of two interactive protocols: Confirmation protocol, which confirms that a candidate is a valid signature of the message issued by the signer, identified by the public key. Disavowal protocol, which confirms that a candidate is not a valid signature of the message issued by the signer. The motivation for the scheme is to allow the signer to choose to whom signatures are verified. However, that the signer might claim the signature is invalid at any later point, by refusing to take part in verification, would devalue signatures to verifiers. The disavowal protocol distinguishes these cases removing the signer's plausible deniability. It is important that the confirmation and disavowal exchanges are not transferable. They achieve this by having the property of zero-knowledge; both parties can create transcripts of both confirmation and disavowal that are indistinguishable, to a third-party, of correct exchanges. The designated verifier signature scheme improves upon deniable signatures by allowing, for each signature, the interactive portion of the scheme to be offloaded onto another party, a designated verifier, reducing the burden on the signer. == Zero-knowledge protocol == The following protocol was suggested by David Chaum. A group, G, is chosen in which the discrete logarithm problem is intractable, and all operation in the scheme take place in this group. Commonly, this will be the finite cyclic group of order p contained in Z/nZ, with p being a large prime number; this group is equipped with the group operation of integer multiplication modulo n. An arbitrary primitive element (or generator), g, of G is chosen; computed powers of g then combine obeying fixed axioms. Alice generates a key pair, randomly chooses a private key, x, and then derives and publishes the public key, y = gx. === Message signing === Alice signs the message, m, by computing and publishing the signature, z = mx. === Confirmation (i.e., avowal) protocol === Bob wishes to verify the signature, z, of m by Alice under the key, y. Bob picks two random numbers: a and b, and uses them to blind the message, sending to Alice: c = magb. Alice picks a random number, q, uses it to blind, c, and then signing this using her private key, x, sending to Bob: s1 = cgq ands2 = s1x. Note that s1x = (cgq)x = (magb)xgqx = (mx)a(gx)b+q = zayb+q. Bob reveals a and b. Alice verifies that a and b are the correct blind values, then, if so, reveals q. Revealing these blinds makes the exchange zero knowledge. Bob verifies s1 = cgq, proving q has not been chosen dishonestly, and s2 = zayb+q, proving z is valid signature issued by Alice's key. Note that zayb+q = (mx)a(gx)b+q. Alice can cheat at step 2 by attempting to randomly guess s2. === Disavowal protocol === Alice wishes to convince Bob that z is not a valid signature of m under the key, gx; i.e., z ≠ mx. Alice and Bob have agreed an integer, k, which sets the computational burden on Alice and the likelihood that she should succeed by chance. Bob picks random values, s ∈ {0, 1, ..., k} and a, and sends: v1 = msga and v2 = zsya, where exponentiating by a is used to blind the sent values. Note that v2 = zsya = (mx)s(gx)a = v1x. Alice, using her private key, computes v1x and then the quotient, v1xv2−1 = (msga)x(zsgxa)−1 = msxz−s = (mxz−1)s. Thus, v1xv2−1 = 1, unless z ≠ mx. Alice then tests v1xv2−1 for equality against the values: (mxz−1)i for i ∈ {0, 1, …, k}; which are calculated by repeated multiplication of mxz−1 (rather than exponentiating for each i). If the test succeeds, Alice conjectures the relevant i to be s; otherwise, she conjectures random value. Where z = mx, (mxz−1)i = v1xv2−1 = 1 for all i, s is unrecoverable. Alice commits to i: she picks a random r and sends hash(r, i) to Bob. Bob reveals a. Alice confirms that a is the correct blind (i.e., v1 and v2 can be generated using it), then, if so, reveals r. Revealing these blinds makes the exchange zero knowledge. Bob checks hash(r, i) = hash(r, s), proving Alice knows s, hence z ≠ mx. If Alice attempts to cheat at step 3 by guessing s at random, the probability of succeeding is 1/(k + 1). So, if k = 1023 and the protocol is conducted ten times, her chances are 1 to 2100.
Read more →
Video browsing

Video browsing, also known as exploratory video search, is the interactive process of skimming through video content in order to satisfy some information need or to interactively check if the video content is relevant. While originally proposed to help users inspecting a single video through visual thumbnails, modern video browsing tools enable users to quickly find desired information in a video archive by iterative human–computer interaction through an exploratory search approach. Many of these tools presume a smart user that wants features to interactively inspect video content, as well as automatic content filtering features. For that purpose, several video interaction features are usually provided, such as sophisticated navigation in video or search by a content-based query. Video browsing tools often build on lower-level video content analysis, such as shot transition detection, keyframe extraction, semantic concept detection, and create a structured content overview of the video file or video archive. Furthermore, they usually provide sophisticated navigation features, such as advanced timelines, visual seeker bars or a list of selected thumbnails, as well as means for content querying. Examples of content queries are shot filtering through visual concepts (e.g., only shots showing cars), through some specific characteristics (e.g., color or motion filtering), through user-provided sketches (e.g., a visually drawn sketch), or through content-based similarity search. == History == Video browsing was originally proposed by Iranian engineer Farshid Arman, Taiwanese computer scientist Arding Hsu, and computer scientist Ming-Yee Chiu, while working at Siemens, and it was presented at the ACM International Conference in August 1993. They described a shot detection algorithm for compressed video that was originally encoded with discrete cosine transform (DCT) video coding standards such as JPEG, MPEG and H.26x. The basic idea was that, since the DCT coefficients are mathematically related to the spatial domain and represent the content of each frame, they can be used to detect the differences between video frames. In the algorithm, a subset of blocks in a frame and a subset of DCT coefficients for each block are used as motion vector representation for the frame. By operating on compressed DCT representations, the algorithm significantly reduces the computational requirements for decompression and enables effective video browsing. The algorithm represents separate shots of a video sequence by an r-frame, a thumbnail of the shot framed by a motion tracking region. A variation of this concept was later adopted for QBIC video content mosaics, where each r-frame is a salient still from the shot it represents. === Video Notebook === Modern video browsing solutions include Video Notebook, a Menlo Park startup founded in 2021 by Mike Lanza, which uses computer vision to extract slides and optical character recognition and speech recognition to facilitate video search. The software can be either used on the client side (using a browser extension), where the slides and text are extracted while the video is watched (e.g. on a video platform like YouTube or Udemy), or on the server side. Processed videos, which can be viewed in the Video Notebook web app, feature a video browsing user interface with extracted timestamped slides, a search bar for querying the video (or a collection of videos), and text chapters. Video Notebook customers include organisations like Ernst & Young. === Video Browser Showdown === The Video Browser Showdown (VBS) is an annual live evaluation competition for exploratory video search tools, where international researchers use video browsing tools to solve ad-hoc video search tasks on a moderately large data set as fast as possible. The main goal of the VBS, which started in 2012 at the International Conference on MultiMedia Modeling (MMM), is to advance the performance of video browsing tools. Since 2016, the VBS also collaborates with TRECVID. The aim of the VBS is to evaluate video browsing tools for efficiency at known-item search (KIS) tasks with a well-defined data set in direct comparison to other tools.
Read more →
Knapsack cryptosystems

Knapsack cryptosystems are cryptosystems whose security is based on the hardness of solving the knapsack problem. They remain quite unpopular because simple versions of these algorithms have been broken for several decades. However, that type of cryptosystem is a good candidate for post-quantum cryptography. The most famous knapsack cryptosystem is the Merkle-Hellman Public Key Cryptosystem, one of the first public key cryptosystems, published the same year as the RSA cryptosystem. However, this system has been broken by several attacks: one from Shamir, one by Adleman, and the low density attack. However, there exist modern knapsack cryptosystems that are considered secure so far: among them is Nasako-Murakami 2006. Knapsack cryptosystems, when not subject to classical cryptoanalysis, are believed to be difficult even for quantum computers. That is not the case for systems that rely on factoring large integers, like RSA, or computing discrete logarithms, like ECDSA, problems solved in polynomial time with Shor's algorithm.
Read more →
Social media measurement

Social media measurement, also called social media controlling, is the management practice of evaluating successful social media communications of brands, companies, or other organizations. Key performance indicators may be measured by extracting information from social media channels, such as blogs, wikis, micro-blogs such as Twitter, social networking sites, or video/photo sharing websites, forums from time to time. It is also used by companies to gauge current trends in the industry. The process first gathers data from different websites and then performs analysis based on different metrics like time spent on the page, click through rate, content share, comments, text analytics to identify positive or negative emotions about the brand. Some other social media metrics include share of voice, owned mentions, and earned mentions. The social media measurement process starts with defining a goal that needs to be achieved and defining the expected outcome of the process. The expected outcome varies per the goal and is usually measured by a variety of metrics. This is followed by defining possible social strategies to be used to achieve the goal. Then the next step is designing strategies to be used and setting up configuration tools that ease the process of collecting the data. In the next step, strategies and tools are deployed in real-time. This step involves conducting Quality Assurance tests of the methods deployed to collect the data. And in the final step, data collected from the system is analyzed and if the need arises, it is refined on the run time to enhance the methodologies used. The last step ensures that the result obtained is more aligned with the goal defined in the first step. == Data Acquisition == Acquiring data from social media is in demand of an exploring the user participation and population with the purpose of retrieving and collecting so many kinds of data(ex: comments, downloads etc.). There are several prevalent techniques to acquire data such as Network traffic analysis, Ad-hoc application and Crawling Network Traffic Analysis - Network traffic analysis is the process of capturing network traffic and observing it closely to determine what is happening in the network. It is primarily done to improve the performance, security and other general management of the network. However concerned about the potential tort of privacy on the Internet, network traffic analysis is always restricted by the government. Furthermore, high-speed links are not adaptable to traffic analysis because of the possible overload problem according to the packet sniffing mechanism Ad-hoc Application - Ad-hoc application is a kind of application that provides services and games to social network users by developing the APIs offered by social network companies (Facebook Developer Platform). The infrastructure of Ad-hoc application allows the user to interact with the interface layer instead of the application servers. The API provides a path for application to access information after the user login. Moreover, the size of the data set collected vary with the popularity of the social media platform i.e. social media platforms having high number of users will have more data than platforms having less user base. Scraping is a process in which the APIs collect online data from social media. The data collected from Scraping is in raw format. However, having access to these types of data is a bit difficult because of its commercial value. Crawling - Crawling is a process in which a web crawler creates indexes of all the words in a web-page, stores them, then follows all the hyperlinks and indexes on that page and again stores them. It is the most popular technique for data acquisition and is also well known for its easy operation based on prevalent Object-Orientated Programming Language (Java or Python etc.). And most important, social network companies (YouTube, Flicker, Facebook, Instagram, etc.) are friendly to crawling techniques by providing public APIs == Applications == === For branding === Monitoring social media allows researchers to find insights into a brand's overall visibility on social media, to measure the impact of campaigns, to identify opportunities for engagement, to assess competitor activity and share of voice, and to detect impending crises. It can also provide valuable information about emerging trends and what consumers and clients think about specific topics, brands or products. This is the work of a cross-section of groups that include market researchers, PR staff, marketing teams, social-engagement, and community staff, agencies and sales teams. Several different providers have developed tools to facilitate the monitoring of a variety of social media channels - from blogging to internet video to internet forums. This allows companies to track what consumers say about their brands and actions. Companies can then react to these conversations and interact with consumers through social media platforms. === In government === Apart from commercial applications, social media monitoring has become a pervasive technique applied by public organizations and governments. Monitoring is a tradition within the public sector, and social-media monitoring provides a real-time approach to detecting and responding to social developments. Governments have come to realize the need for strategies to cope with surprises from the rapid expansion of public issues. Sobkowicz introduced a framework with three blocks of social-media opinion tracking, simulating and forecasting. It includes: real-time detection of emotions, topics and opinions information-flow modelling and agent-based simulation modeling of opinion networks Bekkers introduced the application of social media monitoring in the Netherlands. Public organizations in the Netherlands (such as the Tax Agency and the Education Ministry) have started to use social media monitoring to obtain better insights into the sentiments of target groups. On the one hand, the public sector will be enabled to provide timely and efficient answers to the public by using social media monitoring techniques, but on the other hand, they also have to deal with concerns about ethical issues such as transparency and privacy. == Quantifying social media == Social media management software (SMMS) is an application program or software that facilitates an organization's ability to successfully engage in social media across different communication channels. SMMS is used to monitor inbound and outbound conversations, support customer interaction, audit or document social marketing initiatives and evaluate the usefulness of a social media presence. It can be difficult to measure all social media conversations. Due to privacy settings and other issues, not all social media conversations can be found and reported by monitoring tools. However, whilst social media monitoring cannot give absolute figures, it can be extremely useful for identifying trends and for benchmarking, in addition to the uses mentioned above. These findings can, in turn, influence and shape future business decisions. In order to access social media data (posts, Tweets, and meta-data) and to analyze and monitor social media, many companies use software technologies built for business. These range from in-platform analytics dashboards to dedicated third-party platforms, which offer more advanced capabilities including cross-platform audience intelligence, sentiment analysis, and trend detection at scale. == Location-based == Most social media networks allow users to add a location to their posts (reference all of our feeds). The location can be classified as either 'at-the-location' or 'about-the-location'. "'At-the-location' services can be defined as services where location-based content is created at the geographic location. 'About-the-location' services can be defined as services which are referring to a particular location but the content is not necessarily created in this particular physical place." The added information available from geotagged (link to Geotagging article) posts means that they can be displayed on a map. This means that a location can be used as the start of a social media search rather than a keyword or hashtag. This has major implications for disaster relief, event monitoring, safety and security professionals since a large portion of their job is related to tracking and monitoring specific locations. == Technologies used == Various monitoring platforms use different technologies for social media monitoring and measurement. These technology providers may connect to the API provided by social platforms that are created for 3rd party developers to develop their own applications and services that access data. Facebook's Graph API is one such API that social media monitoring solution products would connect to pull data from. Some social media monitoring and analytics companies use calls to data providers each time an end-user d
Read more →
Information leakage

Information leakage happens whenever a system that is designed to be closed to an eavesdropper reveals some information to unauthorized parties nonetheless. In other words: Information leakage occurs when secret information correlates with, or can be correlated with, observable information. For example, when designing an encrypted instant messaging network, a network engineer without the capacity to crack encryption codes could see when messages are transmitted, even if he could not read them. == Risk vectors == A modern example of information leakage is the leakage of secret information via data compression, by using variations in data compression ratio to reveal correlations between known (or deliberately injected) plaintext and secret data combined in a single compressed stream. Another example is the key leakage that can occur when using some public-key systems when cryptographic nonce values used in signing operations are insufficiently random. Bad randomness cannot protect proper functioning of a cryptographic system, even in a benign circumstance, it can easily produce crackable keys that cause key leakage. Information leakage can sometimes be deliberate: for example, an algorithmic converter may be shipped that intentionally leaks small amounts of information, in order to provide its creator with the ability to intercept the users' messages, while still allowing the user to maintain an illusion that the system is secure. This sort of deliberate leakage is sometimes known as a subliminal channel. Generally, only very advanced systems employ defenses against information leakage. Following are the commonly implemented countermeasures : Use steganography to hide the fact that a message is transmitted at all. Use chaffing to make it unclear to whom messages are transmitted (but this does not hide from others the fact that messages are transmitted). For busy re-transmitting proxies, such as a Mixmaster node: randomly delay and shuffle the order of outbound packets - this will assist in disguising a given message's path, especially if there are multiple, popular forwarding nodes, such as are employed with Mixmaster mail forwarding. When a data value is no longer going to be used, erase it from the memory.
Read more →
Synthesia (company)

Synthesia Limited is a British multinational artificial intelligence company based in London, United Kingdom. It is a synthetic media-generation software developer and creator of AI-generated video content, including audio-visual agents and cloned avatars. Britain's largest generative-AI firm, it is used by 70% of FTSE 100 and over 90% of Fortune 100 companies. == Overview == Synthesia is most often used by corporations for localized communication, orientation, employee training videos, advertising campaigns, reporting, product demonstrations, customer service, and to create chatbots. Its software algorithm mimics speech and facial movements based on video recordings of an individual’s speech and facial expressions. From this, a text-to-speech video is created to look and sound like the individual. Swiss bank UBS incorporated Synthesia AI-powered avatars of their human financial experts, for instance, in 2025. Users create content via the platform's pre-generated AI presenters or by creating digital representations of themselves, or personal avatars, using the platform's AI video editing tool. These avatars can be used to narrate videos generated from text. As of August 2021, Synthesia's voice database included multiple gender options in over 60 languages. Its free voice library doubled by 2025, to 140 languages and accents, and its Express-Voice technology can clone a user's own voice, or generate a synthetic one. === Deepfakes === The platform prohibits use of its software to create non-consensual clones, including of celebrities or political figures for satirical purposes. Explicit consent must be provided in addition to a strict pre-screening regimen for use of an individual's likeness to avoid “deepfaking”. While the company prohibits use of its technology for misinformation or "news-like content", an October 2023 Freedom House report stated that Synthesia tools had been used by governments in Venezuela, China, Burkina Faso, and Russia to create videos of fake TV news outlets with AI-generated avatars in order to spread propaganda. Actor Dan Dewhirst signed a contract with the company in 2021, becoming one of the first actors whose likeness would be made into an AI avatar, finding his likeness used in the Venezuelan generated-videos. The company stated, in February 2024, that it had improved its misuse detection systems, and, in April 2024, that new users of its technology are screened by the company, and content employing it is further vetted by Synthesia moderators. == History == Synthesia's software utilizes deep learning architecture developed by Lourdes Agapito and Matthias Niessner. The company was co-founded in 2017 by Agapito, Niessner, Victor Riparbelli, and Steffen Tjerrild. In 2018, the company first demonstrated the software's capabilities on the BBC programme Click when it presented a digitization of Matthew Amroliwala speaking Spanish, Mandarin, and Hindi. Through Synthesia's first two years of existence, it employed 10 people and struggled to make sales, leading to an expansion of the company's focus. It moved on from just targeting entertainment studios to a variety of businesses. In 2020, Synthesia users were reported to include Amazon, Tiffany & Co. and IHG Hotels & Resorts. In January 2024, the company introduced its AI video assistant, which turns text-to-video. That April, with a reported 55,000 customers, including half of the Fortune 100, Synthesia launched "expressive avatars". That September, an enhanced dubbing feature was launched, to translate video in 30 languages with naturalized lip-syncing. Peter Hill joined Synthesia as CTO in January 2025, following 25 years at Amazon, and two years as CEO and CPO of Wildfire Studios. That March, a million dollar base of shares was formed to furnish human actors, employed to generate digital avatars, with company stock, which all of its employees hold. By June of that year, 150,000 individuals from among Synthesia's 65,000 customers had created AI-generated avatars of themselves. In July 2025, the company's new global headquarters at Regent’s Place was opened by London mayor Sadiq Khan, who described Britain's largest generative-AI company, then valued at over $2 billion, as a "London success story". By that October, its technology was employed by 90% of the Fortune 100, and Synthesia 3.0 was launched, with hyper-realistic digital avatars equipped with AI-powered dubbing and translation, and a built-in video assistant. In January 2026, it reached a $4 billion valuation, with 70% of FTSE 100 companies noted among its customers. === Funding === The company raised $3.1 million in seed funding in 2019. In April 2021, the company raised $12.5 million in Series A funding. In December 2021, it raised $50 million in a Series B funding round led by Kleiner Perkins and GV (then Google Ventures). Synthesia gained a total valuation of $1 billion, and achieved unicorn status, when it raised $90 million from Accel and Nvidia partnership NVentures, in June 2023, during its Series C funding round. Counting 60,000 customers by January 2025, including over 60% of Fortune 100 companies; the company raised $180 million in a Series D round led by NEA, with new investors World Innovation Lab (WiL), Atlassian Ventures and PSP Growth, as well as existing investors GV, MMC Ventures and FirstMark, doubling Synthesia's valuation to $2.1 billion. Capital raised by 2025 had reached $330 million, with investments slated to further product innovation, talent growth, and company expansion in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia. In April 2025, Adobe Inc. invested £10 million in the company for a strategic partnership. Synthesia subsequently rejected a $3 billion acquisition offer from Adobe, choosing to remain independent. With a revenue stream then exceeding $100 million annually; GV led a Series E funding round in October 2025, resulting in Synthesia's $4 billion valuation, raising $200 million from GV, Nvidia and Accel to develop, in 2026, interactive audio-visual avatar "agents" that converse on topic, for automated sales training and corporate communications, such as recruiting. == Recognition == In 2021, Synthesia partnered with Lay's to create the Messi Messages campaign featuring Argentine footballer Lionel Messi. Users created personalized messages with Synthesia's software and sent custom artificial reality video messages from Messi based on their text input. The campaign received a Cannes Lion Award under the Bronze category. In February 2025, UK Science and Technology Minister Peter Kyle commended Synthesia's "pioneering generative AI innovations."
Read more →
Kerckhoffs's principle

Kerckhoffs's principle (also called Kerckhoffs's desideratum, assumption, axiom, doctrine or law) of cryptography was stated by the Dutch cryptographer Auguste Kerckhoffs in the 19th century. The principle holds that a cryptosystem should be secure, even if everything about the system, except the key, is public knowledge. This concept is widely embraced by cryptographers, in contrast to security through obscurity, which is not. Kerckhoffs's principle was phrased by the American mathematician Claude Shannon as "the enemy knows the system", i.e., "one ought to design systems under the assumption that the enemy will immediately gain full familiarity with them". In that form, it is called Shannon's maxim. Another formulation by American researcher and professor Steven M. Bellovin is: In other words—design your system assuming that your opponents know it in detail. (A former official at NSA's National Computer Security Center told me that the standard assumption there was that serial number 1 of any new device was delivered to the Kremlin.) == Origins == The invention of telegraphy radically changed military communications and increased the number of messages that needed to be protected from the enemy dramatically, leading to the development of field ciphers which had to be easy to use without large confidential codebooks prone to capture on the battlefield. It was this environment which led to the development of Kerckhoffs's requirements. Auguste Kerckhoffs was a professor of German language at Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales (HEC) in Paris. In early 1883, Kerckhoffs's article, La Cryptographie Militaire, was published in two parts in the Journal of Military Science, in which he stated six design rules for military ciphers. Translated from French, they are: The system must be practically, if not mathematically, indecipherable; It should not require secrecy, and it should not be a problem if it falls into enemy hands; It must be possible to communicate and remember the key without using written notes, and correspondents must be able to change or modify it at will; It must be applicable to telegraph communications; It must be portable, and should not require several persons to handle or operate; Lastly, given the circumstances in which it is to be used, the system must be easy to use and should not be stressful to use or require its users to know and comply with a long list of rules. Some are no longer relevant given the ability of computers to perform complex encryption. The second rule, now known as Kerckhoffs's principle, is still critically important. == Explanation of the principle == Kerckhoffs viewed cryptography as a rival to, and a better alternative than, steganographic encoding, which was common in the nineteenth century for hiding the meaning of military messages. One problem with encoding schemes is that they rely on humanly-held secrets such as "dictionaries" which disclose for example, the secret meaning of words. Steganographic-like dictionaries, once revealed, permanently compromise a corresponding encoding system. Another problem is that the risk of exposure increases as the number of users holding the secrets increases. Nineteenth century cryptography, in contrast, used simple tables which provided for the transposition of alphanumeric characters, generally given row-column intersections which could be modified by keys which were generally short, numeric, and could be committed to human memory. The system was considered "indecipherable" because tables and keys do not convey meaning by themselves. Secret messages can be compromised only if a matching set of table, key, and message falls into enemy hands in a relevant time frame. Kerckhoffs viewed tactical messages as only having a few hours of relevance. Systems are not necessarily compromised, because their components (i.e. alphanumeric character tables and keys) can be easily changed. === Advantage of secret keys === Using secure cryptography is supposed to replace the difficult problem of keeping messages secure with a much more manageable one, keeping relatively small keys secure. A system that requires long-term secrecy for something as large and complex as the whole design of a cryptographic system obviously cannot achieve that goal. It only replaces one hard problem with another. However, if a system is secure even when the enemy knows everything except the key, then all that is needed is to manage keeping the keys secret. There are a large number of ways the internal details of a widely used system could be discovered. The most obvious is that someone could bribe, blackmail, or otherwise threaten staff or customers into explaining the system. In war, for example, one side will probably capture some equipment and people from the other side. Each side will also use spies to gather information. If a method involves software, someone could do memory dumps or run the software under the control of a debugger in order to understand the method. If hardware is being used, someone could buy or steal some of the hardware and build whatever programs or gadgets needed to test it. Hardware can also be dismantled so that the chip details can be examined under the microscope. === Maintaining security === A generalization some make from Kerckhoffs's principle is: "The fewer and simpler the secrets that one must keep to ensure system security, the easier it is to maintain system security." Bruce Schneier ties it in with a belief that all security systems must be designed to fail as gracefully as possible: Kerckhoffs's principle applies beyond codes and ciphers to security systems in general: every secret creates a potential failure point. Secrecy, in other words, is a prime cause of brittleness—and therefore something likely to make a system prone to catastrophic collapse. Conversely, openness provides ductility. Any security system depends crucially on keeping some things secret. However, Kerckhoffs's principle points out that the things kept secret ought to be those least costly to change if inadvertently disclosed. For example, a cryptographic algorithm may be implemented by hardware and software that is widely distributed among users. If security depends on keeping that secret, then disclosure leads to major logistic difficulties in developing, testing, and distributing implementations of a new algorithm – it is "brittle". On the other hand, if keeping the algorithm secret is not important, but only the keys used with the algorithm must be secret, then disclosure of the keys simply requires the simpler, less costly process of generating and distributing new keys. == Applications == In accordance with Kerckhoffs's principle, the majority of civilian cryptography makes use of publicly known algorithms. By contrast, ciphers used to protect classified government or military information are often kept secret (see Type 1 encryption). However, it should not be assumed that government/military ciphers must be kept secret to maintain security. It is possible that they are intended to be as cryptographically sound as public algorithms, and the decision to keep them secret is in keeping with a layered security posture. == Security through obscurity == It is moderately common for companies to keep the inner workings of a system secret. Some argue this "security by obscurity" makes the product safer and less vulnerable to attack. A counter-argument is that keeping the innards secret may improve security in the short term, but in the long run, only systems that have been published and analyzed should be trusted. Steven Bellovin and Randy Bush commented: Security Through Obscurity Considered Dangerous Hiding security vulnerabilities in algorithms, software, and/or hardware decreases the likelihood they will be repaired and increases the likelihood that they can and will be exploited. Discouraging or outlawing discussion of weaknesses and vulnerabilities is extremely dangerous and deleterious to the security of computer systems, the network, and its citizens. Open Discussion Encourages Better Security The long history of cryptography and cryptoanalysis has shown time and time again that open discussion and analysis of algorithms exposes weaknesses not thought of by the original authors, and thereby leads to better and more secure algorithms. As Kerckhoffs noted about cipher systems in 1883 [Kerc83], "Il faut qu'il n'exige pas le secret, et qu'il puisse sans inconvénient tomber entre les mains de l'ennemi." (Roughly, "the system must not require secrecy and must be able to be stolen by the enemy without causing trouble.")
Read more →
Cognos ReportNet

Cognos ReportNet (CRN) was a web-based software product for creating and managing ad hoc and custom-made reports. ReportNet was developed by the Ottawa-based company Cognos (formerly Cognos Incorporated), an IBM company. The web-based reporting tool was launched in September 2003. Since IBM's acquisition of Cognos, ReportNet has been renamed IBM Cognos ReportNet like all other Cognos products. ReportNet uses web services standards such as XML and Simple Object Access Protocol and also supports dynamic HTML and Java. ReportNet is compatible with multiple databases including Oracle, SAP, Teradata, Microsoft SQL server, DB2 and Sybase. The product provides interface in over 10 languages, has Web Services architecture to meet the needs of multi-national, diversified enterprises and helps reduce total cost of ownership. Multiple versions of Cognos ReportNet have since been released by the company. Cognos ReportNet was awarded the Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) 2005 Codie awards for the "Best Business Intelligence or Knowledge Management Solution" category. CRN's capabilities have been further used in IBM Cognos 8 BI (2005), the latest reporting tool. CRN comes with its own software development kit (SDK). == Launch == Early adopters of Cognos ReportNet for their corporate reporting needs included Bear Stearns, BMW and Alfred Publishing. Around this same time of launch, Cognos competitor Business Objects released version 6.1 of its enterprise reporting tool. Cognos ReportNet has been successful since its launch, raising revenues in 2004 from licensing fees. == Controversy == Cognos rival Business Objects announced in 2005 that BusinessObjects XI significantly outperformed Cognos ReportNet in benchmark tests conducted by VeriTest, an independent software testing firm. The tests performed showed Cognos ReportNet performed poorly when processing styled reports, complex business reports and combination of both. The tests reported a massive 21 times higher report throughput for BusinessObjects XI than Cognos ReportNet at capacity loads. Cognos soon dismissed the claims by stating Business Objects dictated the environment and testing criteria and Cognos did not provide the software to participate in benchmark test. Cognos later performed their own test to demonstrate Cognos ReportNet capabilities. == Components == Cognos Report Studio – A Web-based product for creating complex professional looking reports. Cognos Query Studio - A Web-based product for creating ad-hoc reports. Cognos Framework Manager – A metadata modeling tool to create BI metadata for reporting and dashboard applications. Cognos Connection – Main portal used to access reports, schedule reports and perform administrator activities. == Versions == Cognos ReportNet 1.1 – Java EE-style professional web-based authoring tool. (base version) Cognos ReportNet IBM Special Edition – comes with an embedded version of IBM WebSphere as its application server and IBM DB2 as its data store. Cognos Linux – for Intel-based Linux platforms.
Read more →
Embedded analytics

Embedded analytics enables organisations to integrate analytics capabilities into their own, often software as a service, applications, portals, or websites. This differs from embedded software and web analytics (also commonly known as product analytics). This integration typically provides contextual insights, quickly, easily and conveniently accessible since these insights should be present on the web page right next to the other, operational, parts of the host application. Insights are provided through interactive data visualisations, such as charts, diagrams, filters, gauges, maps and tables often in combination as dashboards embedded within the system. This setup enables easier, in-depth data analysis without the need to switch and log in between multiple applications. Embedded analytics is also known as customer facing analytics. Embedded analytics is the integration of analytic capabilities into a host, typically browser-based, business-to-business, software as a service, application. These analytic capabilities would typically be relevant and contextual to the use-case of the host application. == History == The term "embedded analytics" was first used by Howard Dresner: consultant, author, former Gartner analyst and inventor of the term "business intelligence" said Howard Dresner while he was working for Hyperion Solutions, a company that Oracle bought in 2007. Oracle started then to use the term "embedded analytics" at their press release for Oracle Rapid Planning on 2009 . == Considerations with embedded analytics == When evaluating embedding analytics, consideration would normally be given to integration at various levels, these would likely include: security integration, data integration, application logic integration, business rules integration, and user experience integration. This is in contrast to traditional BI, which expects users to leave their workflow applications to look at data insights in a separate set of tools. This immediacy makes embedded analytics much more intuitive and likely to be valued by users. A December 2016 report from Nucleus Research found that using BI tools, which require toggling between applications, can take up as much as 1–2 hours of an employee's time each week, whereas embedded analytics eliminate the need to toggle between apps.
Read more →
STIT logic

STIT logic (from seeing to it that) is a family of modal and branching-time logics for reasoning about agency and choice. A typical STIT operator has the form [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} , usually read as "agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ", and is interpreted in models where agents choose between alternative possible futures. STIT logics are used in action theory, deontic logic, epistemic logic, and the theory of intelligent agents to formalise notions such as "could have done otherwise", responsibility, joint action, and strategic ability in an indeterministic world. == Etymology == The acronym STIT comes from the English phrase "seeing to it that", introduced in influential work by Nuel Belnap and Michael Perloff on the logical analysis of agentive expressions. In this tradition, "to see to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } " is treated as a primitive agency operator, rather than being reduced to ordinary modal necessity. == History == Modern STIT logic arose in the 1980s in the context of branching-time semantics and formal theories of agency. Belnap and Perloff's article "Seeing to it that: A canonical form for agentives" introduced the idea of treating expressions of the form "agent i sees to it that φ" as a primitive modal operator, and analysed such sentences using a branching tree of moments and histories. This approach was further developed in a series of papers on indeterminism and agency and provided the conceptual core for later STIT formalisms. In the 1990s the basic formal systems of STIT logic were worked out. Horty and Belnap's influential paper on the deliberative STIT operator distinguished between a "Chellas" STIT that merely records the result of an agent's present choice and a "deliberative" STIT that requires the agent's choice to make a difference, and connected STIT with issues of action, omission, ability and obligation. Around the same time, Ming Xu proved completeness and decidability results for basic STIT systems, including a single-agent logic with Kripke-style semantics and axiomatizations for multi-agent deliberative STIT, thereby establishing STIT as a well-behaved normal modal framework. This early work was systematised in Belnap, Perloff and Xu's monograph Facing the Future: Agents and Choices in Our Indeterminist World, which presents a general branching-time semantics for individual and group STIT operators, discusses independence-of-agents conditions and articulates the metaphysical picture of an indeterministic "tree" of moments. At roughly the same time, Horty's book Agency and Deontic Logic developed deontic STIT logics in which obligations are tied to agents' available choices rather than to static states of affairs, and used the resulting systems to analyse "ought implies can", contrary-to-duty obligations and deontic paradoxes. These works helped to position STIT at the intersection of action theory, temporal logic and deontic logic. From the late 1990s and 2000s onward, STIT logics were combined with epistemic, temporal and strategic modalities. Broersen introduced complete STIT logics for knowledge and action and deontic-epistemic STIT systems that distinguish different modes of mens rea, with applications to responsibility and the specification of multi-agent systems. Work on group and coalitional agency investigated axiomatisations and complexity results for group STIT logics, and related STIT-based analyses of agency to coalition logic and alternating-time temporal logic (ATL) by exhibiting formal embeddings between the frameworks. Explicit temporal operators were added to STIT in so-called temporal STIT logics. Lorini proposed a temporal STIT with "next" and "until" operators along histories and showed how it can be applied to normative reasoning about ongoing behaviour and commitments. Ciuni and Lorini compared different semantics for temporal STIT, clarifying the relationships between branching-time, game-based and epistemic approaches, while Boudou and Lorini gave a semantics for temporal STIT based on concurrent game structures, thus strengthening links with standard models of multi-agent interaction used for ATL and strategy logic. In parallel, complexity-theoretic work by Balbiani, Herzig and Troquard and by Schwarzentruber and co-authors investigated the satisfiability and model-checking problems for various STIT fragments, showing for instance that many expressive group STIT logics are undecidable or of high computational complexity. In the 2010s, STIT ideas were combined with justification logic, imagination operators and refined deontic notions. Justification STIT logics, developed by Olkhovikov and others, merge explicit justifications with STIT-style agency so that producing a proof can itself be treated as an action that brings about knowledge, and they come with completeness and decidability results. Olkhovikov and Wansing introduced STIT imagination logics, together with axiomatic systems and tableau calculi, to model acts of voluntary imagining and their role in doxastic control. Other authors have proposed STIT-based logics of responsibility, blameworthiness and intentionality for use in philosophical and AI settings. Xu's survey article "Combinations of STIT with Ought and Know" (2015) reviews many of these developments and emphasises the interplay between deontic and epistemic STIT logics. Current research on STIT focuses on proof theory, automated reasoning and richer expressive resources. Lyon and van Berkel, building on earlier work on labelled calculi for STIT, have developed cut-free sequent systems and proof-search algorithms that yield syntactic decision procedures for a range of deontic and non-deontic multi-agent STIT logics and support applications such as duty checking and compliance checking in autonomous systems. Sawasaki has proposed first-order cstit-based STIT logics that can distinguish de re and de dicto readings of agency statements and has proved strong completeness results for Hilbert systems over finite models, moving the STIT programme beyond the purely propositional level. Further work investigates interpreted-system and computationally grounded semantics for STIT and its extensions in order to model the behaviour of autonomous agents in multi-agent settings, and proposes STIT-based semantics for epistemic notions based on patterns of information disclosure in interactive systems. == Branching-time semantics == STIT logics are usually interpreted over branching-time models. A standard STIT frame consists of: a non-empty set of moments T {\displaystyle T} , partially ordered by < {\displaystyle <} so that ( T , < ) {\displaystyle (T,<)} forms a tree (every pair of moments with a common predecessor has a greatest lower bound); a set of histories, each history being a maximal linearly ordered subset of T {\displaystyle T} ; a non-empty set of agents A g {\displaystyle Ag} ; for each agent i ∈ A g {\displaystyle i\in Ag} and moment m {\displaystyle m} , a choice function c h o i c e i m {\displaystyle {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}} that partitions the set of histories passing through m {\displaystyle m} into choice cells. The idea is that a moment represents a time at which choices are made, and histories represent complete possible future courses of events. At each moment, each agent's choice corresponds to selecting one of the available cells of histories determined by their choice function. Formulas are evaluated at pairs ( m , h ) {\displaystyle (m,h)} of a moment and a history through that moment (sometimes written m / h {\displaystyle m/h} ). A valuation assigns truth-values to atomic propositions at such indices; Boolean connectives are interpreted pointwise as in Kripke-style modal logic. == Chellas and deliberative STIT operators == Several STIT operators have been distinguished in the literature. A common approach uses two closely related operators, often called Chellas STIT and deliberative STIT. Let H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} be the set of histories passing through a moment m {\displaystyle m} , and write H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} ⟦ φ ⟧ m = { h ∈ H m ∣ M , m / h ⊨ φ } {\displaystyle {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}=\{h\in H_{m}\mid M,m/h\models \varphi \}} for the set of histories at m {\displaystyle m} where φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds. The Chellas STIT operator, often written [ i c s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]} , is given by M , m / h ⊨ [ i c s t i t : φ ] iff c h o i c e i m ( h ) ⊆ ⟦ φ ⟧ m . {\displaystyle M,m/h\models [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]\quad {\text{iff}}\quad {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}(h)\subseteq {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}.} Intuitively, agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } if φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds at all histories compatible with their present choice. The deliberative STIT operator, [ i d s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {dstit}}:\varphi ]} , adds
Read more →
Completeness (cryptography)

In cryptography, a boolean function is said to be complete if the value of each output bit depends on all input bits. This is a desirable property to have in an encryption cipher, so that if one bit of the input (plaintext) is changed, every bit of the output (ciphertext) has an average of 50% probability of changing. The easiest way to show why this is good is the following: consider that if we changed our 8-byte plaintext's last byte, it would only have any effect on the 8th byte of the ciphertext. This would mean that if the attacker guessed 256 different plaintext-ciphertext pairs, he would always know the last byte of every 8byte sequence we send (effectively 12.5% of all our data). Finding out 256 plaintext-ciphertext pairs is not hard at all in the internet world, given that standard protocols are used, and standard protocols have standard headers and commands (e.g. "get", "put", "mail from:", etc.) which the attacker can safely guess. On the other hand, if our cipher has this property (and is generally secure in other ways, too), the attacker would need to collect 264 (~1020) plaintext-ciphertext pairs to crack the cipher in this way.
Read more →
Cover-coding

Cover-coding is a technique for obscuring the data that is transmitted over an insecure link, to reduce the risks of snooping. An example of cover-coding would be for the sender to perform a bitwise XOR (exclusive OR) of the original data with a password or random number which is known to both sender and receiver. The resulting cover-coded data is then transmitted from sender to the receiver, who uncovers the original data by performing a further bitwise XOR (exclusive OR) operation on the received data using the same password or random number. ISO 18000-6C (EPC Class 1 Generation 2) RFID tags protect some operations with a cover code. The reader requests a random number from the tag, and the tag responds with a new random number. The reader then encrypts future communications with this number, using bitwise XOR, to the data it sends. Cover coding is secure if the tag signal can't be intercepted and the random number is not re-used. Compared to the loud transmissions from the reader, tag backscatter is much weaker and difficult -- but not impossible -- to intercept.
Read more →