AI Coding Quality

AI Coding Quality — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Recursive transition network

    Recursive transition network

    A recursive transition network ("RTN") is a graph theoretical schematic used to represent the rules of a context-free grammar. RTNs have application to programming languages, natural language and lexical analysis. Any sentence that is constructed according to the rules of an RTN is said to be "well-formed". The structural elements of a well-formed sentence may also be well-formed sentences by themselves, or they may be simpler structures. This is why RTNs are described as recursive. == Notes and references ==

    Read more →
  • Knapsack cryptosystems

    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 →
  • Pepper (cryptography)

    Pepper (cryptography)

    In cryptography, a pepper is a secret added to an input such as a password during hashing with a cryptographic hash function. This value differs from a salt in that it is not stored alongside a password hash, but rather the pepper is kept separate using another meachanism, such as a Hardware Security Module. Note that the National Institute of Standards and Technology refers to this value as a secret key rather than a pepper. A pepper is similar in concept to a salt or an encryption key. It is like a salt in that it is a randomized value that is added to a password hash, and it is similar to an encryption key in that it should be kept secret. A pepper performs a comparable role to a salt or an encryption key, but while a salt is not secret (merely unique) and can be stored alongside the hashed output, a pepper is secret and must not be stored with the output. The hash and salt are usually stored in a database, but, if stored, a pepper must be stored separately to prevent it from being obtained by the attacker in case of a database breach. == History == The idea of a site- or service-specific salt (in addition to a per-user salt) has a long history, with Steven M. Bellovin proposing a local parameter in a Bugtraq post in 1995. In 1996 Udi Manber also described the advantages of such a scheme, terming it a secret salt. However, he suggested not storing the value of the secret salt, but instead rediscovering it by trial and error at password verification time. The term pepper has been used, by analogy to salt, but with a variety of meanings. For example, when discussing a challenge-response scheme, pepper has been used for a salt-like quantity, though not used for password storage; it has been used for a data transmission technique where a pepper must be guessed; and even as a part of jokes. The term pepper was proposed for a secret or local parameter stored separately from the password in a discussion of protecting passwords from rainbow table attacks. This usage did not immediately catch on: for example, Fred Wenzel added support to Django password hashing for storage based on a combination of bcrypt and HMAC with separately stored nonces, without using the term. Usage has since become more common. == Types == There are multiple different types of pepper: A shared secret that is common to all users. A randomly-selected number that must be re-discovered on every password input. These mechanisms could be combined with password salting, iterated hashing or even one another. == Shared-secret pepper == Bellovin and Webster suggest prepend a shared secret to the password before hashing, which allows easy use of existing hash functions. For example, consider two users to be added to a database. This table contains two combinations of username and password. The password is not saved, and the 8-byte (64-bit) 44534C70C6883DE2 pepper is saved in a safe place separate from the output values of the hash, in this case SHA256. Unlike the salt, the pepper does not provide protection to users who use the same password, but protects against dictionary attacks, unless the attacker has the pepper value available. Since the same pepper is not shared between different applications, an attacker is unable to reuse the hashes of one compromised database to another. A complete scheme for saving passwords may include both salt and pepper use. For example, it has been suggested to combine the pepper by encrypting salted password hashes, which allows rotation of the pepper. In the case of a shared-secret pepper, a single compromised password (via password reuse or other attack) along with a user's salt can lead to an attack to discover the pepper, rendering it ineffective. If an attacker knows a plaintext password and a user's salt, as well as the algorithm used to hash the password, then discovering the pepper can be a matter of brute forcing the values of the pepper. This is why NIST recommends the secret value be at least 112 bits, so that discovering it by exhaustive search is prohibitively expensive. The pepper must be generated anew for every application it is deployed in, otherwise a breach of one application would result in lowered security of another application. Without knowledge of the pepper, other passwords in the database will be far more difficult to extract from their hashed values, as the attacker would need to guess the password as well as the pepper. A pepper adds security to a database of salts and hashes because unless the attacker is able to obtain the pepper, cracking even a single hash is intractable, no matter how weak the original password. Even with a list of (salt, hash) pairs, an attacker must also guess the secret pepper in order to find the password which produces the hash. The NIST specification for a secret salt suggests using a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF) with an approved Pseudorandom Function such as HMAC with SHA-3 as the hash function of the HMAC. The NIST recommendation is also to perform at least 1000 iterations of the PBKDF, and a further minimum 1000 iterations using the secret salt in place of the non-secret salt. == Randomly-selected pepper that must be re-discovered == The aim of this mechanism is to slow down password the password verification step, thus slowing attacks. The aim is similar increasing the iteration count on bcrypt or Argon2, but the mechanism is different. The secret salt or pepper must be rediscovered by the verifier or attacker each time by guessing. In this situation, the password hashing function is calculated using both the password and the pepper. At password storage time, the pepper is chosen randomly from a range between 1 and R, the hash output is calculated using the password and the pepper. The hash output is stored with the username. The pepper is then discarded. At password verification time, the verifier is provided with a username and password to verify. The originally calculated hash is retrieved for the given username, and then the hash of the password and each value between 1 and R is calculated. If any of these hash values match the stored password hash, the password is considered valid. Note, the possible values of the pepper should not be tested in a fixed order known to an attacker, otherwise a timing attack may reveal the pepper. If the password is correct, the correct pepper will be found in R/2 hash evaluations on average. If the password is incorrect, all R values must be tested before the password can be rejected.

    Read more →
  • Cambridge Semantics

    Cambridge Semantics

    Cambridge Semantics is a privately held company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with an office in San Diego, California. The company is an enterprise big data management and exploratory analytics software company. == History == Cambridge Semantics was founded in 2007 by Sean Martin, Lee Feigenbaum, Simon Martin, Rouben Meschian, Ben Szekely and Emmett Eldred who all previously worked at IBM's Advanced Technology Internet Group. In 2012, Cambridge Semantics appointed Chuck Pieper as chief executive. Pieper was previously at Credit Suisse. In January 2016, Cambridge Semantics acquired SPARQL City and its graph database intellectual property. On April 18, 2024, Altair Engineering acquired Cambridge Semantics. On 26 March 2025, Siemens announced the acquisition of Altair. == Products == Anzo Smart Data Lake uses Semantic Web Technologies. It allows IT departments and their business users to access data. AnzoGraph DB Graph database. AnzoGraph DB is a massively parallel processing (MPP) native graph database built for diverse data harmonization and analytics at scale (trillions of triples and more), speed and deep link insights. It is used for embedded analytics that require graph algorithms, graph views, named queries, aggregates, geospatial, built-in data science functions, data warehouse-style BI and reporting functions. It allows users to load and query RDF data using SPARQL or Cypher for OLAP-style analytics. == Marketing == Cambridge Semantics named SIIA Codie award 2018 finalist. Cambridge Semantics named 2018 Gold Stevie Award Winner for 'Big Data Solutions'. Cambridge Semantics named KMWorld’s 2018 ‘100 Companies That Matter in Knowledge Management’. Cambridge Semantics named to Database Trends and Applications' 'Trend-Setting Products in Data and Information Management for 2018'. Cambridge Semantics named to KMWorld Trend-Setting Products of 2017. Cambridge Semantics named to Database Trends and Applications 'DBTA 100: The Companies That Matter Most in Data'. Cambridge Semantics named SIIA Codie award 2017 winner for ‘Best Text Analytics and Semantic Technology Solution’. Cambridge Semantics named 2017 Silver Stevie Award Winner for 'Big Data Solutions'. Cambridge Semantics named KMWorld’s 2017 ‘100 Companies That Matter in Knowledge Management’. Cambridge Semantics named SIIA Codie award 2016 finalist. Cambridge Semantics named KMWorld’s 2016 ‘100 Companies That Matter in Knowledge Management’ and KMWorld Trend-Setting Products of 2015. Cambridge Semantics named 2016 Bio-IT World Best of Show People's Choice Award Contenders and 2015 Bio-IT best of show finalist. Anzo Insider Trading Investigation and Surveillance named 2015 CODiE Award finalist. Cambridge Semantics Selected as Finalist for 2014 MIT Sloan CIO Symposium's Innovation Showcase. Cambridge Semantics named SIIA CODiE Award 2014 finalist. Cambridge Semantics Win 2013 SIIA CODiE Award for best business intelligence and analytics solution. Cambridge Semantics wins KMWorld 2012 Promise Award. Cambridge Semantics wins Best of Show at 2012 Bio-IT World Conference.

    Read more →
  • NRD Cyber Security

    NRD Cyber Security

    NRD Cyber Security is a Lithuanian company that provides cybersecurity solutions, consulting, and other services. The organization specializes in CSIRT and SOC creation, modernization and training. It has helped to establish national and sectorial CSIRTs around the world, including countries, such as Bangladesh, Egypt, Bhutan, Kosovo, Malawi and others. NRD Cyber Security was found in 2013 to provide quality cybersecurity services to nations and organizations. In 2018 it was included in The Deloitte Technology Fast 50 in Europe list. In 2024 it was awarded the #98 place in MSSP Alert Top 250 world's managed security service providers. The company is a member of various cybersecurity organizations, such as Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST), The Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE), Unicrons Lt. It is a strategic partner of The Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre (GCSCC) at University of Oxford.

    Read more →
  • Pinoy baiting

    Pinoy baiting

    Pinoy baiting is a phrase that has been used to refer to acts by non-Filipino individuals, usually celebrities or YouTubers, of posting content online purportedly with the intention of getting the attention of Filipinos, by being surprised about the Philippines or its people. Pinoy baiters are defined as giving superficial and allegedly insincere praises and similar reactions that give recognition to the Philippines or its people. Subsequent responses by Filipinos to what have been referred to as acts of Pinoy baiting have been criticized as a form of cultural cringe. This criticism would subsequently give the advice that Filipinos should not constantly require validation from non-Filipinos about themselves or their country. == Pinoy baiting mediums == === Reaction videos === On social media such as YouTube, channels with specific focus on showing their reaction towards and opinions about certain videos or topics are called reaction channels. Reaction videos are very popular and require minimal effort to create, and thus made it easy for alleged Pinoy baiting to thrive within this video-making genre. === Travel vlogs === Vlogging, short for video blogging, grew in popularity in the 2020s. Most of the popular alleged Pinoy-baiting channels tend to be vlog channels, normally following the same script under such titles as "The Philippines changed us/me", "First impression of the Philippines", "Is this really Manila?" and "Filipinos are such Kind/Good People!", and made while travelling to touristy areas such as Boracay or Bonifacio Global City and taste-testing the fast food chain Jollibee, among others. == Criticism of the phrase == Philippines-based Korean vlogger Jessica Lee had been accused by some YouTube viewers of engaging in Pinoy baiting. In a response vlog, Lee acknowledged that there may be individuals engaging in this "business strategy" of gaining views and subscribers from one of the largest communities online. However, she questioned the objectivity of some use of the phrase, citing any vlogging subject as fair game for a negative impression of being a "baiting" tool for the vlogger treating of that subject. She also invoked vloggers' freedom to choose whatever subject they want to talk about in a deep or shallow manner, while enjoining citizens to exercise their free-market right to unfollow vloggers they hate and follow those vloggers that "make them happy". She also gave her critics an explanation why she ended up vlogging about Philippine and Filipino subjects.

    Read more →
  • Menu hack

    Menu hack

    A menu hack is a non-standard method of ordering food, usually at fast-food or fast casual restaurants, that offers a different result than what is explicitly stated on a menu. Menu hacks may range from a simple alternate flavor to "gaming the system" in order to obtain more food than normal. They are often spread on social media platforms such as TikTok, and are more popular with Generation Z, which has been known to customize their orders more than previous generations. Hacks are sometimes officially added to the menu after their popularity grows. However, in some cases, they have been criticized for overburdening fast food employees with outlandish requests, sparking debate as to whether certain menu hacks are unethical. The list of all possible menu hacks is called a secret menu. == History == The term "menu hack" stems from hacker culture and its tradition of overcoming previously imposed limitations. However, the tradition of ordering from a secret menu dates back to the early days of fast food. "Animal style" fries, a word of mouth menu item ordered from In-N-Out since the 1960s, was rumored to have been created by local surfers. In the Information Age, the rise of social media gave influencers the ability to communicate unique food combinations to their followers, which proved to go viral easily. Design mistakes in food ordering apps also proved to be easily exploitable. In some cases, these hacks boosted the profile of brands on social media, while in others, they caused financial harm when the company was unprepared to handle the sudden influx of unusual orders. One restaurant chain notable for the phenomenon is Chipotle Mexican Grill. A viral hack from Alexis Frost, suggesting a quesadilla with fajita vegetables inside, dipped in Chipotle vinaigrette mixed with sour cream, obtained 1.9 million views on TikTok, overloading the chain's workers, who had to work harder to prepare more vegetables and vinaigrette. Some restaurants began to deny the dish to customers, forcing them to only order meat and cheese on quesadillas. The company ultimately left the dish on the menu, but urged customers to stop ordering it via social media. When it later officially added the Fajita Quesadilla to the menu, digital sales nearly doubled. A method to order nachos, which are not officially on the menu, was also noted by customers. Starbucks is also famous for menu hacks, including the Pink Drink, a "Barbiecore" beverage in which coconut milk replaced the water in the strawberry açaí refresher. After it went viral, the company made it a permanent menu item and distributed it bottled in grocery stores. == Controversy == Menu hacks have been subject to a growing backlash, with employees stating that they "dread" younger customers due to the proliferation of unusual orders. Service industry workers, already overworked and underpaid, have called the rise of menu hacks and their difficulty to make an additional reason to unionize and demand higher wages.

    Read more →
  • Short Weather Cipher

    Short Weather Cipher

    The Short Weather Cipher (German: Wetterkurzschlüssel, abbreviated WKS), also known as the weather short signal book, was a cipher, presented as a codebook, that was used by the radio telegraphists aboard U-boats of the German Navy (Kriegsmarine) during World War II. It was used to condense weather reports into a short 7-letter message, which was enciphered by using the naval Enigma and transmitted by radiomen to intercept stations on shore, where it was deciphered by Enigma and the 7-letter weather report was reconstructed. == History == During World War II, during various times, different versions of the cipher were in operation. The first issue carried the codename Weimar. It was replaced by the edition Eisenach on 20 January 1942. On 10 March 1943, the third edition of the weather key, bearing the codename Naumburg, entered into force. On May 9, 1941, during Operation Primrose, the operation to occupy Åndalsnes and create a diversion south of Trondheim in Norway as part of the Norwegian Campaign, an intact Naval Enigma (M3) cipher machine, a copy of the "Weimar" version of the short weather cipher and a copy of the short signal book (German: Kurzsignalbuch or Kurzsignale for short) was recovered from the submarine U-110, that was captured in the North Atlantic east of Cape Farewell, Greenland. This enabled the cryptanalysts in Bletchley Park to break the encryption of the M3 and to decipher the German submarine radio messages. The Short Weather Cipher was critical in the cryptanalysis of the Naval Enigma M4 and yielded excellent cribs. On 30 October 1942, a copy of the Wetterkurzschlüssel, the short weather cipher, and of the short signal book, the Kurzsignale, were recovered as part of a daring raid on the U-boat U-559, when three Royal Navy sailors, Lieutenant Anthony Fasson, Able Seaman Colin Grazier and NAAFI canteen assistant Tommy Brown, then boarded the abandoned submarine, and recovered the documents after a 90-minute search. They reached the Government Code and Cypher at Bletchley Park after a three-week delay, on 24 November 1942. The documents which cost the lives of Fasson and Grazier proved to be particularly important in breaking the Naval Enigma M4. The version of the short weather cipher recovered was the Eisenach version. Unlike the first version Weimar, the Eisenach did not list the 26 rotor positions that were indicated by a letter, to be used in enciphering weather reports. Thus, Hut 8 cryptanalysts thought that all four rotors were used to encipher weather reports. Testing on the Bombes began to surface weather kisses (identical messages in two cryptosystems). On 13 December 1942, a crib obtained using the Short Weather Cipher gave a key with the Naval Enigma M4 rotatable Umkehrwalze (reversing roller or reflector) in the neutral position, making it equivalent to a standard Enigma and thus making B-Dienst messages potentially breakable on existing bombes. Hut 8 learned that the 4-letter indicators for regular U-boat messages were the same as 3-letter indicators for weather messages the same day, except for one extra letter. This meant that once the key was found for a weather message on any day, the fourth rotor had to be only tested in 26 positions to find the full 4-letter key. By the end of the day on Sunday 13 December, Rodger Winn of the Submarine Tracking Room at Bletchley Park knew that Shark Enigma Cipher was broken. When the third edition of the short signal book was introduced on 10 March 1943, Hut 8 was immediately deprived of cribs. However, by the 19 March, cribs were again being used by Hut 8 personnel, using the method of employing short signal sighting reports. These were reports made by U-boats when contact was made with Kurzsignalheft code book. Hut 8 managed to solve Shark for 90 out of 112 days before the end of June. Kurzsignalheft short sighting reports also used M4 in M3 mode. By the end of June, four-rotor bombes had entered service at Bletchley Park, and by August had been introduced by the US Navy. From September onwards, Shark was generally solved within 24 hours. == Operation == The U-boat encoded weather reports using the Short Weather Cipher, before being enciphered on the Naval Enigma. The shore patrol of the Kriegsmarine, deciphered the message and decoded it, then forwarding it to a central meteorological station, which rebroadcast the data as ship synoptics, after enciphering it with additive tables using a cipher, which was called Germet 3 by Hut 8 personnel. The short weather cipher coded weather reports using a polyphonic single-letter code with X missing. A = +28° ◦ B = +27° ◦ C = +26° ◦ D = +25° ◦ . . . ◦ W = +6° ◦ Y= +5° ◦ Z = +4° ◦ A = +3° ◦ B = +2° ◦ C = +1° ◦ D = 0° ◦ E =−1° ◦ F =−2° ◦ . . . ◦ Z = −21° ◦ In a similar way, water temperature, atmospheric pressure, humidity, wind direction, wind velocity, visibility, degree of cloudiness, geographic latitude, and geographic longitude had to be coded in a prescribed order with the weather report consisted of a single short word. Based on the approximate knowledge of the position of the submarine, the Kriegsmarine telegraphist who received the message could translate the letter "S", according to the above table, which could mean 10 °C or −15 °C, back to the correct temperature. Similarly, the direction and the type of swell was also coded with only a single letter: ----------------------------------------------------- Direction from which | Type of swell the swell comes | low | middle high | high | ----------------------------------------------------- N | a | i | q | NE | b | j | r | E | c | k | s | SE | d | l | t | S | e | m | u | SW | f | n | v | W | g | o | w | NW | h | p | x | No swelling | | | | y Intermittent | | | | z As an example of the cipher, a weather report for 68° North latitude, 20° West longitude (north of Iceland) with atmospheric pressure 972 millibars, temperature minus 5 °C, wind northwest Force 6 (on the Beaufort scale), 3/10 cirrus cloud cover, visibility 5 nautical miles, would be coded as MZNFPED. == Publications == Bauer, Arthur O. (1997), Funkpeilung als alliierte Waffe gegen deutsche U-Boote 1939–1945 [Direction finding as Allied weapon against German submarines from 1939 to 1945] (in German), Diemen, NL: Selbstverlag, ISBN 978-3-00-002142-8 Bauer, Friedrich L. (2007), Decrypted Secrets. Methods and Maxims of Cryptology (4., rev. and extended ed.), Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer, ISBN 978-3-540-24502-5 Pfeiffer, Paul N. (October 1998), "Breaking the German Weather Ciphers in the Mediterranean Detachment, 849th Signal Intelligence Service", Cryptologia, 22 (4): 354–369, doi:10.1080/0161-119891886975, ISSN 0161-1194 Ulbricht, Heinz (2005), Die Chiffriermaschine Enigma – Trügerische Sicherheit. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Nachrichtendienste [The Enigma cipher machine – Deceptive security. A contribution to the history of the intelligence services], Dissertation, Fachbereich Mathematik und Informatik, Technische Universität Braunschweig (in German)

    Read more →
  • Qloo

    Qloo

    Qloo (pronounced "clue") is a company that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to understand taste and cultural correlations. It provides companies with an application programming interface (API). It received funding from Leonardo DiCaprio, Elton John, Barry Sternlicht, Pierre Lagrange and others. Qloo establishes consumer preference correlations via machine learning across data spanning cultural domains including music, film, television, dining, nightlife, fashion, books, and travel. The recommender system uses AI to predict correlations for further applications. == History == Qloo was founded in 2012 by chief executive officer Alex Elias and chief operating officer Jay Alger. Qloo initially launched an app designed for consumers, allowing them to understand their own tastes and receive personalized recommendations. The company amassed several million users and built a large catalog of cultural entities and corresponding user sentiment. In 2012, Qloo raised $1.4 million in seed funding from investors including Cedric the Entertainer, and venture capital firm Kindler Capital. Qloo had a public beta release in November 2012 after its initial funding. In 2013, the company raised an additional $1.6 million from Cross Creek Pictures founding partner Tommy Thompson, and Samih Toukan and Hussam Khoury, founders of Maktoob, an Internet services company purchased by Yahoo! for $164 million in 2009. On November 14, 2013, a website and an iPhone app were announced. The company later released an Android app, and tablet versions, in mid-2014. In 2015, Twitter approached Qloo about powering personalized social feeds and targeted eCommerce ads on the platform based on what users were posting. Qloo developed an enterprise-grade API to support Twitter’s needs. Twitter ended up pivoting to enable brands to use the social platform for customer service and support, but Qloo was able to sell access to its cultural intelligence via API to many other enterprise clients, marking the official transition from a B2C company to a B2B company. In 2016, Qloo secured $4.5 million in venture capital investment. The $4.5 million was split between a number of investors, including Barry Sternlicht, Pierre Lagrange, and Leonardo DiCaprio. In July 2017, Qloo raised $6.5 million in funding rounds from AXA Strategic Ventures, and Elton John. Following the investment, the founders stated in an interview with Tech Crunch that they would use the investment to expand Qloo's database. They hoped the move would secure larger contracts with corporate clients. At the time, clients already included Fortune 500 companies such as Twitter, PepsiCo, and BMW. In 2019, the company announced that it had acquired cultural recommendation service TasteDive, with Alex Elias becoming chairman of TasteDive. In September 2019, Qloo was named among the Top 14 Artificial Intelligence APIs by ProgrammableWeb. In 2022, Qloo raised $15M in Series B funding from Eldridge and AXA Venture Partners, enabling the privacy-centric AI leader to expand its team of world-class data scientists, enrich its technology, and build on its sales channels in order to continue to offer premier insights into global consumer taste for Fortune 500 companies across the globe. Qloo was recognized as the "Best Decision Intelligence Company" at the 2023 AI Breakthrough Awards. Also in 2023, the company was awarded a Top Performer Award by SourceForge. As of 2024, Qloo is a three-time Inc. 5000 honoree: No. 360 (2022), No. 344 (2021), No. 187 (2020). Qloo raised $25 million Series C round on February 21, 2024. The round was led by AI Ventures with participation from AXA Venture Partners, Eldridge, and Moderne Ventures, allowing Qloo to address new commercial surface areas for Taste AI, including on-device learning and foundational models leveraging Qloo, as well as introduce self-service platform to make consumer and taste analytics available to small and mid-sized enterprises and individuals. Qloo also announced pursuing opportunistic M&A using its balance sheet along the lines of the TasteDive acquisition completed, which expanded Qloo's first-party data moat and corpus of cultural learning. This latest financing brought the total amount raised since the company's founding in 2012 to over $56 million. == Services and features == Qloo calls itself a cultural AI platform to provide real-time correlation data across domains of culture and entertainment including: film, music, television, dining, nightlife, fashion, books, and travel. Each category contains subcategories. Qloo’s knowledge of a user's taste in one category can be utilized to offer suggestions in other categories. Users then rate the suggestions, providing it with feedback for future suggestions. Qloo has partnerships with companies such as Expedia and iTunes. == Technology == Qloo’s Taste AI technology uses machine learning to decode and predict consumers’ interests, maintaining user anonymity. It is powered by 3.7 billion lifestyle entities (brands, music, film, TV, dining, nightlife, fashion, books, travel, and more) and trillions of anonymized consumer behavioral signals. Through AI, Qloo identifies patterns in these data signals, making predictions about how much interest a person or group has in a concept or thing. Central to Qloo’s technology are algorithms designed to detect and mitigate biases within datasets and models, allowing Qloo to assess the fairness of its AI systems with a focus on attributes such as age, gender, and race, enabling the company to fine-tune its AI models to align with their ethical standards. They also use visualization tools to probe the behavior of their AI models for conducting counterfactual analyses and for comparing the performances of the AI models across diverse demographic segments. Qloo’s Taste AI doesn’t collect or use any Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Instead, it derives recommendations for audience segments based on co-occurrences between lifestyle entities and anonymized behavioral signals. == Applications == Starbucks uses Qloo to create in-store music playlists tailored to specific neighborhoods. Hershey’s uses Qloo to customize the content of assorted candy bags. Michelin uses Qloo to serve recommendations in its Michelin Guide app. Netflix leverages Qloo’s technology to enhance merchandising by identifying actors who resonate with certain demographics. Qloo also works with PepsiCo, Samsung, The New York Mets, BuzzFeed, and Ticketmaster, Universal Music Group, and OOH advertising company JCDecaux.

    Read more →
  • Yao's test

    Yao's test

    In cryptography and the theory of computation, Yao's test is a test defined by Andrew Chi-Chih Yao in 1982, against pseudo-random sequences. A sequence of words passes Yao's test if an attacker with reasonable computational power cannot distinguish it from a sequence generated uniformly at random. == Formal statement == === Boolean circuits === Let P {\displaystyle P} be a polynomial, and S = { S k } k {\displaystyle S=\{S_{k}\}_{k}} be a collection of sets S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} of P ( k ) {\displaystyle P(k)} -bit long sequences, and for each k {\displaystyle k} , let μ k {\displaystyle \mu _{k}} be a probability distribution on S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} , and P C {\displaystyle P_{C}} be a polynomial. A predicting collection C = { C k } {\displaystyle C=\{C_{k}\}} is a collection of boolean circuits of size less than P C ( k ) {\displaystyle P_{C}(k)} . Let p k , S C {\displaystyle p_{k,S}^{C}} be the probability that on input s {\displaystyle s} , a string randomly selected in S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} with probability μ ( s ) {\displaystyle \mu (s)} , C k ( s ) = 1 {\displaystyle C_{k}(s)=1} , i.e. Moreover, let p k , U C {\displaystyle p_{k,U}^{C}} be the probability that C k ( s ) = 1 {\displaystyle C_{k}(s)=1} on input s {\displaystyle s} a P ( k ) {\displaystyle P(k)} -bit long sequence selected uniformly at random in { 0 , 1 } P ( k ) {\displaystyle \{0,1\}^{P(k)}} . We say that S {\displaystyle S} passes Yao's test if for all predicting collection C {\displaystyle C} , for all but finitely many k {\displaystyle k} , for all polynomial Q {\displaystyle Q} : === Probabilistic formulation === As in the case of the next-bit test, the predicting collection used in the above definition can be replaced by a probabilistic Turing machine, working in polynomial time. This also yields a strictly stronger definition of Yao's test (see Adleman's theorem). Indeed, one could decide undecidable properties of the pseudo-random sequence with the non-uniform circuits described above, whereas BPP machines can always be simulated by exponential-time deterministic Turing machines.

    Read more →
  • Social media use in hiring

    Social media use in hiring

    Social media use in hiring refers to the examination by employers of job applicants' (public) social media profiles as part of the hiring assessment. For example, the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies use social media as a tool to screen prospective employees and as a tool for talent acquisition. This practice raises ethical questions. Employers and recruiters note that they have access only to information that applicants choose to make public. Many Western-European countries restrict employer's use of social media in the workplace. States including Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin protect applicants and employees from surrendering usernames and passwords for social media accounts. Use of social media has caused significant problems for some applicants who are active on social media. A 2013 survey of 17,000 young people in six countries found that one in ten people aged 16 to 34 claimed to have been rejected for a job because of social media activity. Social media services have been reported to affect deception in resumes. While these services do not affect deception frequency, it does increase deception about interests and hobbies. == Ethical implications == This issue raises many ethical questions that some consider an employer's right and others consider discrimination. As of 2016, except in the states of California, Maryland, and Illinois, there are no laws that prohibit employers from using social media profiles as a basis of whether or not someone should be hired. Title VII also prohibits discrimination during any aspect of employment including hiring or firing, recruitment, or testing. Social media has been integrating into the workplace, and this has led to conflicts within employees and employers.[107] Particularly, Facebook has been seen as a popular platform for employers to investigate in order to learn more about potential employees. This conflict first started in Maryland when an employer requested and received an employee's Facebook username and password. State lawmakers first introduced legislation in 2012 to prohibit employers from requesting passwords to personal social accounts in order to get a job or to keep a job. This led to Canada, Germany, the U.S. Congress and 11 U.S. states to pass or propose legislation that prevents employers' access to private social accounts of employees.[108] Many Western European countries have already implemented laws that restrict the regulation of social media in the workplace. States including Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin have passed legislation that protects potential employees and current employees from employers that demand them to give forth their username or password for a social media account. Laws that forbid employers from disciplining an employee based on activity off the job on social media sites have also been put into act in states including California, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota, and New York. Several states have similar laws that protect students in colleges and universities from having to grant access to their social media accounts. Eight states have passed the law that prohibits post secondary institutions from demanding social media login information from any prospective or current students and privacy legislation has been introduced or is pending in at least 36 states as of July 2013. As of May 2014, legislation has been introduced and is in the process of pending in at least 28 states and has been enacted in Maine and Wisconsin. In addition, the National Labor Relations Board has been devoting a lot of their attention to attacking employer policies regarding social media that can discipline employees who seek to speak and post freely on social media sites. Use of social media by young people has caused significant problems for some applicants who are active on social media when they try to enter the job market. A survey of 17,000 young people in six countries in 2013 found that 1 in 10 people aged 16 to 34 have been rejected for a job because of online comments they made on social media websites. A 2014 survey of recruiters found that 93% of them check candidates' social media postings. Moreover, professor Stijn Baert of Ghent University conducted a field experiment in which fictitious job candidates applied for real job vacancies in Belgium. They were identical except in one respect: their Facebook profile photos. It was found that candidates with the most wholesome photos were a lot more likely to receive invitations for job interviews than those with the more controversial photos. In addition, Facebook profile photos had a greater impact on hiring decisions when candidates were highly educated. These cases have created some privacy implications as to whether or not companies should have the right to look at employee's Facebook profiles. In March 2012, Facebook decided they might take legal action against employers for gaining access to employee's profiles through their passwords. According to Facebook Chief Privacy Officer for policy, Erin Egan, the company has worked hard to give its users the tools to control who sees their information. He also said users shouldn't be forced to share private information and communications just to get a job. According to the network's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, sharing or soliciting a password is a violation of Facebook policy. Employees may still give their password information out to get a job, but according to Erin Egan, Facebook will continue to do their part to protect the privacy and security of their users. == Impacts == Use of social media by young people has caused significant problems for some applicants who are active on social media when they try to enter the job market. A survey of 17,000 young people in six countries in 2013 found that 1 in 10 people aged 16 to 34 have been rejected for a job because of online comments they made on social media websites. A 2014 survey of recruiters found that 93% of them check candidates' social media postings. Moreover, in 2015 professor Stijn Baert of Ghent University conducted a field experiment in which fictitious job candidates applied for real job vacancies in Belgium. They were identical except in one respect: their Facebook profile photos. It was found that candidates with the most wholesome photos were a lot more likely to receive invitations for job interviews than those with the more controversial photos. In addition, Facebook profile photos had a greater impact on hiring decisions when candidates were highly educated. These cases have created some privacy implications as to whether or not companies should have the right to look at employee's Facebook profiles. In March 2012, Facebook decided they might take legal action against employers for gaining access to employee's profiles through their passwords. According to Facebook Chief Privacy Officer for policy, Erin Egan, the company has worked hard to give its users the tools to control who sees their information. He also said users shouldn't be forced to share private information and communications just to get a job. According to the network's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, sharing or soliciting a password is a violation of Facebook policy. Employees may still give their password information out to get a job, but according to Erin Egan, Facebook will continue to do their part to protect the privacy and security of their users. == Policy Responses == 26 US states now have laws against an employer requiring a current or potential employee to give the employer their username and password.

    Read more →
  • Honey encryption

    Honey encryption

    Honey encryption is a type of data encryption that "produces a ciphertext, which, when decrypted with an incorrect key as guessed by the attacker, presents a plausible-looking yet incorrect plaintext." == Creators == Ari Juels and Thomas Ristenpart of the University of Wisconsin, the developers of the encryption system, presented a paper on honey encryption at the 2014 Eurocrypt cryptography conference. == Method of protection == A brute-force attack involves repeated decryption with random keys; this is equivalent to picking random plaintexts from the space of all possible plaintexts with a uniform distribution. This is effective because even though the attacker is equally likely to see any given plaintext, most plaintexts are extremely unlikely to be legitimate i.e. the distribution of legitimate plaintexts is non-uniform. Honey encryption defeats such attacks by first transforming the plaintext into a space such that the distribution of legitimate plaintexts is uniform. Thus an attacker guessing keys will see legitimate-looking plaintexts frequently and random-looking plaintexts infrequently. This makes it difficult to determine when the correct key has been guessed. In effect, honey encryption "[serves] up fake data in response to every incorrect guess of the password or encryption key." The security of honey encryption relies on the fact that the probability of an attacker judging a plaintext to be legitimate can be calculated (by the encrypting party) at the time of encryption. This makes honey encryption difficult to apply in certain applications e.g. where the space of plaintexts is very large or the distribution of plaintexts is unknown. It also means that honey encryption can be vulnerable to brute-force attacks if this probability is miscalculated. For example, it is vulnerable to known-plaintext attacks: if the attacker has a crib that a plaintext must match to be legitimate, they will be able to brute-force even Honey Encrypted data if the encryption did not take the crib into account. == Example == An encrypted credit card number is susceptible to brute-force attacks because not every string of digits is equally likely. The number of digits can range from 13 to 19, though 16 is the most common. Additionally, it must have a valid IIN and the last digit must match the checksum. An attacker can also take into account the popularity of various services: an IIN from MasterCard is probably more likely than an IIN from Diners Club Carte Blanche. Honey encryption can protect against these attacks by first mapping credit card numbers to a larger space where they match their likelihood of legitimacy. Numbers with invalid IINs and checksums are not mapped at all (i.e. have probability 0 of legitimacy). Numbers from large brands like MasterCard and Visa map to large regions of this space, while less popular brands map to smaller regions, etc. An attacker brute-forcing such an encryption scheme would only see legitimate-looking credit card numbers when they brute-force, and the numbers would appear with the frequency the attacker would expect from the real world. == Application == Juels and Ristenpart aim to use honey encryption to protect data stored on password manager services. Juels stated that "password managers are a tasty target for criminals," and worries that "if criminals get a hold of a large collection of encrypted password vaults they could probably unlock many of them without too much trouble." Hristo Bojinov, CEO and founder of Anfacto, noted that "Honey Encryption could help reduce their vulnerability. But he notes that not every type of data will be easy to protect this way. … Not all authentication or encryption system yield themselves to being honeyed."

    Read more →
  • Scientific Working Group – Imaging Technology

    Scientific Working Group – Imaging Technology

    The Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technology was convened by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1997 to provide guidance to law enforcement agencies and others in the criminal justice system regarding the best practices for photography, videography, and video and image analysis. This group was terminated in 2015. == History == As technology has advanced through the years, law enforcement has needed to stay abreast of emerging technological advances and use these in the investigation of crime. A factor that is considered when new technology is used in these investigations is the determination of whether the use of that new technology will be admissible in court. The judicial system in the United States currently has two standards used in the determination of admissibility of testimony regarding scientific evidence; the Daubert Standard and the Frye Standard. These standards guide the courts in the admissibility of testimony derived from the use of new technologies and scientific techniques. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), seeking to address possible admissibility issues with such testimony, established Scientific Working Groups starting with the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis and Methods (SWGDAM) in 1988. The goal of these groups is to open lines of communication between law enforcement agencies and forensic laboratories around the world while providing guidance on the use of new and innovative technologies and techniques. This guidance can lead to admissibility of evidence and/or testimony, provided proper methods in the collection of evidence and its analysis are employed. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences released a report entitled, "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward." This report addresses many topics including challenges and disparities facing the forensic science community, standardization, certification of practitioners and accreditation of their respective entities, problems related to the interpretation of forensic evidence, the need for research, and the admission of forensic science evidence in litigation. This report mentions the Scientific Working Groups and their role in forensic science. The history of imaging technology (photography) can be said to extend back to the times of Chinese philosopher Mo-Ti (470-390 B.C.) who described the principles behind the precursor to the camera obscura. Since that time, advances in imaging technology include the discovery of chemical photographic processes in the 19th century and the use of electronic imaging technology that includes analog video cameras and digital video and still cameras. By the mid 1990s, it was apparent that technologically advanced camera systems such as these were being adopted for use in the criminal justice system. This led the FBI to convene a meeting of individuals working in the field of forensic imaging from federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement, and the U.S. military, during the summer of 1997. As a result of this meeting, the Technical Working Group on Imaging Technology was formed from a core group of the meeting’s participants. This group later became the Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technology (SWGIT). Prior to the inception of SWGIT, some law enforcement agencies began adopting digital imaging technology. Due to the lack of guidelines or standards, some of these agencies attempted to replace all their film cameras with substandard digital cameras, only to find that the equipment they had purchased was not capable of accomplishing the mission for which they were intended. At that time only low resolution digital cameras were deemed affordable by some law enforcement agencies. Some of these agencies were forced to rethink their photography procedures and reverted to the use of film cameras or replaced their low-resolution digital cameras with higher quality, more expensive equipment. Also lacking at this early stage was guidance on how to store and archive digital image files. When SWGIT was formed, it was tasked with providing guidance to law enforcement and others in the criminal justice system by releasing documents that describe the best practices and guidelines for the use of imaging technology, to include these concerns and many others. This group was terminated in 2015. == SWGIT Function == During its existence, SWGIT provided information on the appropriate use of various imaging technologies including both established and new. This was accomplished through the release of documents such as the SWGIT Best Practices documents. As changes in technology occurred, these documents were updated. Over the course of its existence, SWGIT collaborated with other Scientific Working Groups to address imaging concerns within their respective disciplines. SWGIT published over 20 documents that dealt specifically with imaging technology. SWGIT also co-published documents with the Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) that had a component or components dealing with imaging technology. SWGIT also provided imaging technology guidance and input for documents from the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST), the Scientific Working Group for Forensic Document Examination (SWGDOC), and the Scientific Working Group on Shoeprint and Tire Tread Evidence (SWGTREAD). SWGIT assisted the American Society of Crime Lab Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) in the writing of definitions and standards for the accreditation of Digital and Multimedia Evidence sections of crime laboratories. In addition to releasing documents, SWGIT members disseminated best practices for law enforcement professionals where imaging technology was concerned. This was carried out by attending and lecturing at meetings and conferences of various forensic organizations that included: The American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) The International Association for Identification (IAI) The Law Enforcement and Emergency Services Video Association (LEVA) The American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD) The SWGIT membership consisted of approximately fifty scientists, photographers, instructors, and managers from more than two dozen federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as from the academic and research communities. The membership elected its officers from within. SWGIT was composed of the Executive Committee, four standing subcommittees, and ad hoc subcommittees appointed on an as-needed basis. The standing subcommittees were: Image Analysis, Forensic Photography, Video, and Outreach. This group was terminated in 2015. == Legal Proceedings == The following court cases have conducted Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) hearings in which SWGIT best practice documents have been cited as accepted protocol, methodology, and as generally accepted techniques in the forensic community: U. S. v. Rudy Frabizio, U.S. District Court, Boston, MA, 2008 (Image Authentication) U.S. v. Nobumochi Furukawa, U.S. District Court, Minnesota, 2007 (Video Authentication) U.S. v. John Stroman, U.S. District Court, South Carolina, 2007 (Facial Comparison Analysis) State of Texas v. Daniel Day, Tarrant County Texas, 2005 (Camera Identification to Images) U.S. v. Marc Watzman, U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois, 2004 (Video Authentication) U.S. v. McKreith, U.S. District Court, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2002 (Photo comparison of shirt) == Termination == This group was unfunded by the FBI in 2015.

    Read more →
  • Cambridge Analytica

    Cambridge Analytica

    Cambridge Analytica Ltd. (CA), previously known as SCL USA, was a British political consulting firm that came to prominence through the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. It was founded in 2013, as a subsidiary of the private intelligence company and self-described "global election management agency" SCL Group by long-time SCL executives Nigel Oakes, Alexander Nix and Alexander Oakes, with Nix as CEO. Cambridge Analytica was hired by a variety of political actors, including the Trinidadian government in 2010 and the 2016 presidential campaigns of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. The firm maintained offices in London, New York City, and Washington, D.C. The company closed operations in 2018 due to backlash from the scandal, although firms related to both Cambridge Analytica and its parent firm SCL still exist. == History == Cambridge Analytica was founded in 2013 as a subsidiary of the private intelligence company SCL Group, which describes itself as providing "data, analytics and strategy to governments and military organisations worldwide". The company was part of "an international web of companies" headed by the London-based SCL Group. Cambridge Analytica (SCL USA) was incorporated in January 2013 with its registered office being in Westferry Circus, London and consisting of just one staff member, director and CEO Alexander Nix (also appointed in January 2015). Nix was also the director of nine similar companies sharing the same registered offices in London, including Firecrest technologies, Emerdata and six SCL Group companies including "SCL elections limited". Nigel Oakes, known as the former boyfriend of Lady Helen Windsor, had founded the predecessor SCL Group in the 1990s, and in 2005 Oakes established SCL Group together with his brother Alexander Oakes and Alexander Nix; SCL Group was the parent company of Cambridge Analytica. Former Conservative minister and MP Sir Geoffrey Pattie was the founding chairman of SCL; Lord Ivar Mountbatten also joined Oakes as a director of the company. As a result of the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal, Nix was removed as CEO and replaced by Julian Wheatland before the company closed. Several of the company's executives were Old Etonians. The company's owners included several of the Conservative Party's largest donors such as billionaire Vincent Tchenguiz, former British Conservative minister Jonathan Marland, Baron Marland and the family of American hedge fund manager Robert Mercer. The company combined misappropriation of digital assets, data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis with strategic communication during electoral processes. While its parent SCL had focused on influencing elections in developing countries since the 1990s, Cambridge Analytica focused more on the western world, including the United Kingdom and the United States; CEO Alexander Nix has said CA was involved in 44 U.S. political races in 2014. In 2015, CA performed data analysis services for Ted Cruz's presidential campaign. In 2016, CA worked for Donald Trump's presidential campaign as well as for Leave.EU (one of the organisations campaigning in the United Kingdom's referendum on European Union membership). CA's role in those campaigns has been controversial and is the subject of ongoing inquiries in both countries. Political scientists question CA's claims about the effectiveness of its methods of targeting voters. == Data scandal == In March 2018, media outlets broke news of Cambridge Analytica's business practices. The New York Times and The Observer reported that the company had acquired and used personal data about Facebook users from an external researcher who had told Facebook he was collecting it for academic purposes. Shortly afterwards, Channel 4 News aired undercover investigative videos showing Nix boasting about using prostitutes, bribery sting operations, and honey traps to discredit politicians on whom it had conducted opposition research, and saying that the company "ran all of (Donald Trump's) digital campaign". In response to the media reports, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) of the UK pursued a warrant to search the company's servers. Facebook banned Cambridge Analytica from advertising on its platform, saying that it had been deceived. On 23 March 2018, the British High Court granted the ICO a warrant to search Cambridge Analytica's London offices. As a result, Nix was suspended as CEO, and replaced by Julian Wheatland. The personal data of up to 87 million Facebook users were acquired via the 270,000 Facebook users who used a Facebook app created by Aleksandr Kogan called "This Is Your Digital Life". This was a personality profiling app and asked simple personality questions similar to other Facebook quizzes. Kogan was a scientist and psychologist, also being an employed lecturer for the University of Cambridge from 2012 to 2018. Alexander Nix claimed they had close to five thousand data points on each person who participated. They also gathered information through other data brokers ending with them acquiring millions of data points from American citizens. Kogan's app exploited a feature of Facebook's Graph API (version 1.0), which permitted any third-party app to access not only the app user's data, but also the full profile data of all of that user's Facebook friends, without those friends' knowledge or consent. This platform-wide design was available to all developers and was used by tens of thousands of apps; Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg later told the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the company was auditing "tens of thousands" of apps that had had access to large amounts of user data. Because the average Facebook user at the time had approximately 300 friends, the 270,000 users who installed Kogan's app yielded data on up to 87 million people. Facebook deprecated the friends-data API in April 2014 and shut it down entirely in April 2015, but data already collected by apps remained in developers' possession. Kogan passed this data to Cambridge Analytica, breaching Facebook's terms of service. On 1 May 2018, Cambridge Analytica and its parent company SCL filed for insolvency proceedings and closed operations. Alexander Tayler, a former director for Cambridge Analytica, was appointed director of Emerdata on 28 March 2018. Rebekah Mercer, Jennifer Mercer, Alexander Nix and Johnson Chun Shun Ko, who has links to American businessman Erik Prince, are in leadership positions at Emerdata. The Russo brothers are producing an upcoming film on Cambridge Analytica. In 2019 the Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative complaint against Cambridge Analytica for misuse of data. In 2020, the British Information Commissioner's Office closed a three-year inquiry into the company, concluded that Cambridge Analytica was "not involved" in the 2016 Brexit referendum and found no additional evidence for Russia's alleged interference during the campaign. US sensitive polling and election data, however, were passed to Russian Intelligence via a Cambridge Analytica contractor Sam Patten, Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and Russian agent Konstantin Kilimnik, who was indicted during the affair. Publicly, parent company SCL Group called itself a "global election management agency", Politico reported it was known for involvement "in military disinformation campaigns to social media branding and voter targeting". SCL gained work on a large number of campaigns for the US and UK governments' war on terror advancing their model of behavioral conflict during the 2000s. SCL's involvement in the political world has been primarily in the developing world where it has been used by the military and politicians to study and manipulate public opinion and political will. Slate writer Sharon Weinberger compared one of SCL's hypothetical test scenarios to fomenting a coup. Among the investors in Cambridge Analytica were some of the Conservative Party's largest donors such as billionaire Vincent Tchenguiz, former Conservative minister Jonathan Marland, Baron Marland, Roger Gabb, the family of American hedge fund manager Robert Mercer, and Steve Bannon. A minimum of 15 million dollars has been invested into the company by Mercer, according to The New York Times. Bannon's stake in the company was estimated at 1 to 5 million dollars, but he divested his holdings in April 2017 as required by his role as White House Chief Strategist. In March 2018, Jennifer Mercer and Rebekah Mercer became directors of Emerdata limited. In March 2018 it became public by Christopher Wylie, that Cambridge Analytica's first activities were founded on a data set, which its parent company SCL bought 2014 from a company named Global Science Research founded by Aleksandr Kogan and his team present across the world who worked as a psychologist at Cambridge. During Boris Johnson's tenure as foreign secretary, the Foreign Office sought advice from Cambridge Analytica and Boris Johnson had a meeting with Alexander N

    Read more →
  • Data grid

    Data grid

    A data grid is an architecture or set of services that allows users to access, modify and transfer extremely large amounts of geographically distributed data for research purposes. Data grids make this possible through a host of middleware applications and services that pull together data and resources from multiple administrative domains and then present it to users upon request. The data in a data grid can be located at a single site or multiple sites where each site can be its own administrative domain governed by a set of security restrictions as to who may access the data. Likewise, multiple replicas of the data may be distributed throughout the grid outside their original administrative domain and the security restrictions placed on the original data for who may access it must be equally applied to the replicas. Specifically developed data grid middleware is what handles the integration between users and the data they request by controlling access while making it available as efficiently as possible. == Middleware == Middleware provides all the services and applications necessary for efficient management of datasets and files within the data grid while providing users quick access to the datasets and files. There is a number of concepts and tools that must be available to make a data grid operationally viable. However, at the same time not all data grids require the same capabilities and services because of differences in access requirements, security and location of resources in comparison to users. In any case, most data grids will have similar middleware services that provide for a universal name space, data transport service, data access service, data replication and resource management service. When taken together, they are key to the data grids functional capabilities. === Universal namespace === Since sources of data within the data grid will consist of data from multiple separate systems and networks using different file naming conventions, it would be difficult for a user to locate data within the data grid and know they retrieved what they needed based solely on existing physical file names (PFNs). A universal or unified name space makes it possible to create logical file names (LFNs) that can be referenced within the data grid that map to PFNs. When an LFN is requested or queried, all matching PFNs are returned to include possible replicas of the requested data. The end user can then choose from the returned results the most appropriate replica to use. This service is usually provided as part of a management system known as a Storage Resource Broker (SRB). Information about the locations of files and mappings between the LFNs and PFNs may be stored in a metadata or replica catalogue. The replica catalogue would contain information about LFNs that map to multiple replica PFNs. === Data transport service === Another middleware service is that of providing for data transport or data transfer. Data transport will encompass multiple functions that are not just limited to the transfer of bits, to include such items as fault tolerance and data access. Fault tolerance can be achieved in a data grid by providing mechanisms that ensures data transfer will resume after each interruption until all requested data is received. There are multiple possible methods that might be used to include starting the entire transmission over from the beginning of the data to resuming from where the transfer was interrupted. As an example, GridFTP provides for fault tolerance by sending data from the last acknowledged byte without starting the entire transfer from the beginning. The data transport service also provides for the low-level access and connections between hosts for file transfer. The data transport service may use any number of modes to implement the transfer to include parallel data transfer where two or more data streams are used over the same channel or striped data transfer where two or more steams access different blocks of the file for simultaneous transfer to also using the underlying built-in capabilities of the network hardware or specifically developed protocols to support faster transfer speeds. The data transport service might optionally include a network overlay function to facilitate the routing and transfer of data as well as file I/O functions that allow users to see remote files as if they were local to their system. The data transport service hides the complexity of access and transfer between the different systems to the user so it appears as one unified data source. === Data access service === Data access services work hand in hand with the data transfer service to provide security, access controls and management of any data transfers within the data grid. Security services provide mechanisms for authentication of users to ensure they are properly identified. Common forms of security for authentication can include the use of passwords or Kerberos (protocol). Authorization services are the mechanisms that control what the user is able to access after being identified through authentication. Common forms of authorization mechanisms can be as simple as file permissions. However, need for more stringent controlled access to data is done using Access Control Lists (ACLs), Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) and Tasked-Based Authorization Controls (TBAC). These types of controls can be used to provide granular access to files to include limits on access times, duration of access to granular controls that determine which files can be read or written to. The final data access service that might be present to protect the confidentiality of the data transport is encryption. The most common form of encryption for this task has been the use of SSL while in transport. While all of these access services operate within the data grid, access services within the various administrative domains that host the datasets will still stay in place to enforce access rules. The data grid access services must be in step with the administrative domains access services for this to work. === Data replication service === To meet the needs for scalability, fast access and user collaboration, most data grids support replication of datasets to points within the distributed storage architecture. The use of replicas allows multiple users faster access to datasets and the preservation of bandwidth since replicas can often be placed strategically close to or within sites where users need them. However, replication of datasets and creation of replicas is bound by the availability of storage within sites and bandwidth between sites. The replication and creation of replica datasets is controlled by a replica management system. The replica management system determines user needs for replicas based on input requests and creates them based on availability of storage and bandwidth. All replicas are then cataloged or added to a directory based on the data grid as to their location for query by users. In order to perform the tasks undertaken by the replica management system, it needs to be able to manage the underlying storage infrastructure. The data management system will also ensure the timely updates of changes to replicas are propagated to all nodes. ==== Replication update strategy ==== There are a number of ways the replication management system can handle the updates of replicas. The updates may be designed around a centralized model where a single master replica updates all others, or a decentralized model, where all peers update each other. The topology of node placement may also influence the updates of replicas. If a hierarchy topology is used then updates would flow in a tree like structure through specific paths. In a flat topology it is entirely a matter of the peer relationships between nodes as to how updates take place. In a hybrid topology consisting of both flat and hierarchy topologies updates may take place through specific paths and between peers. ==== Replication placement strategy ==== There are a number of ways the replication management system can handle the creation and placement of replicas to best serve the user community. If the storage architecture supports replica placement with sufficient site storage, then it becomes a matter of the needs of the users who access the datasets and a strategy for placement of replicas. There have been numerous strategies proposed and tested on how to best manage replica placement of datasets within the data grid to meet user requirements. There is not one universal strategy that fits every requirement the best. It is a matter of the type of data grid and user community requirements for access that will determine the best strategy to use. Replicas can even be created where the files are encrypted for confidentiality that would be useful in a research project dealing with medical files. The following section contains several strategies for replica placement. ===== Dynamic replication ===== Dynam

    Read more →