AI For Students With Adhd

AI For Students With Adhd — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

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 →
Ultra (cryptography)

Ultra was the designation adopted by British military intelligence in June 1941 for wartime signals intelligence obtained by breaking high-level encrypted enemy radio and teleprinter communications at the Government Code and Cypher School (GC&CS) at Bletchley Park. Ultra eventually became the standard designation among the western Allies for all such intelligence. The name arose because the intelligence obtained was considered more important than that designated by the highest British security classification then used (Most Secret) and so was regarded as being Ultra Secret. Several other cryptonyms had been used for such intelligence. The code name "Boniface" was used as a cover name for Ultra. In order to ensure that the successful code-breaking did not become apparent to the Germans, British intelligence created a fictional MI6 master spy, Boniface, who controlled a fictional series of agents throughout Germany. Information obtained through code-breaking was often attributed to the human intelligence from the Boniface network. The U.S. used the codename Magic for its decrypts from Japanese sources, including the "Purple" cipher. Much of the German cipher traffic was encrypted on the Enigma machine. Used properly, the German military Enigma would have been virtually unbreakable; in practice, shortcomings in operation allowed it to be broken. The term "Ultra" has often been used almost synonymously with "Enigma decrypts". However, Ultra also encompassed decrypts of the German Lorenz SZ 40/42 machines that were used by the German High Command, and the Hagelin machine. Many observers, at the time and later, regarded Ultra as immensely valuable to the Allies. Winston Churchill was reported to have told King George VI, when presenting to him Stewart Menzies (head of the Secret Intelligence Service and the person who controlled distribution of Ultra decrypts to the government): "It is thanks to the secret weapon of General Menzies, put into use on all the fronts, that we won the war!" F. W. Winterbotham quoted the western Supreme Allied Commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower, at war's end describing Ultra as having been "decisive" to Allied victory. Sir Harry Hinsley, Bletchley Park veteran and official historian of British Intelligence in World War II, made a similar assessment of Ultra, saying that while the Allies would have won the war without it, "the war would have been something like two years longer, perhaps three years longer, possibly four years longer than it was." However, Hinsley and others have emphasized the difficulties of counterfactual history in attempting such conclusions, and some historians, such as John Keegan, have said the shortening might have been as little as the three months it took the United States to deploy the atomic bomb. == Sources of intelligence == Most Ultra intelligence was derived from reading radio messages that had been encrypted with cipher machines, complemented by material from radio communications using traffic analysis and direction finding. In the early phases of the war, particularly during the eight-month Phoney War, the Germans could transmit most of their messages using land lines and so had no need to use radio. This meant that those at Bletchley Park had some time to build up experience of collecting and starting to decrypt messages on the various radio networks. German Enigma messages were the main source, with those of the German air force (the Luftwaffe) predominating, as they used radio more and their operators were particularly ill-disciplined. === German === ==== Enigma ==== "Enigma" refers to a family of electro-mechanical rotor cipher machines. These produced a polyalphabetic substitution cipher and were widely thought to be unbreakable in the 1920s, when a variant of the commercial Model D was first used by the Reichswehr. The German Army (Heer), Navy, Air Force, Nazi party, Gestapo and German diplomats used Enigma machines in several variants. Abwehr (German military intelligence) used a four-rotor machine without a plugboard and Naval Enigma used different key management from that of the army or air force, making its traffic far more difficult to cryptanalyse; each variant required different cryptanalytic treatment. The commercial versions were not as secure and Dilly Knox of GC&CS is said to have broken one before the war. German military Enigma was first broken in December 1932 by Marian Rejewski and the Polish Cipher Bureau, using a combination of brilliant mathematics, the services of a spy in the German office responsible for administering encrypted communications, and good luck. The Poles read Enigma to the outbreak of World War II and beyond, in France. At the turn of 1939, the Germans made the systems ten times more complex, which required a tenfold increase in Polish decryption equipment, which they could not meet. On 25 July 1939, the Polish Cipher Bureau handed reconstructed Enigma machines and their techniques for decrypting ciphers to the French and British. Gordon Welchman wrote, Ultra would never have got off the ground if we had not learned from the Poles, in the nick of time, the details both of the German military Enigma machine, and of the operating procedures that were in use. At Bletchley Park, some of the key people responsible for success against Enigma included mathematicians Alan Turing and Hugh Alexander and, at the British Tabulating Machine Company, chief engineer Harold Keen. After the war, interrogation of German cryptographic personnel led to the conclusion that German cryptanalysts understood that cryptanalytic attacks against Enigma were possible but were thought to require impracticable amounts of effort and investment. The Poles' early start at breaking Enigma and the continuity of their success gave the Allies an advantage when World War II began. ==== Lorenz cipher ==== In June 1941, the Germans started to introduce on-line stream cipher teleprinter systems for strategic point-to-point radio links, to which the British gave the code-name Fish. Several systems were used, principally the Lorenz SZ 40/42 (codenamed "Tunny" by the British) and Geheimfernschreiber ("Sturgeon"). These cipher systems were cryptanalysed, particularly Tunny, which the British thoroughly penetrated. It was eventually attacked using Colossus machines, which were the first digital programme-controlled electronic computers. In many respects the Tunny work was more difficult than for the Enigma, since the British codebreakers had no knowledge of the machine producing it and no head-start such as that the Poles had given them against Enigma. Although the volume of intelligence derived from this system was much smaller than that from Enigma, its importance was often far higher because it produced primarily high-level, strategic intelligence that was sent between Wehrmacht high command (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, OKW). The eventual bulk decryption of Lorenz-enciphered messages contributed significantly, and perhaps decisively, to the defeat of Nazi Germany. Nevertheless, the Tunny story has become much less well known among the public than the Enigma one. At Bletchley Park, some of the key people responsible for success in the Tunny effort included mathematicians W. T. "Bill" Tutte and Max Newman and electrical engineer Tommy Flowers. === Italian === In June 1940, the Italians were using book codes for most of their military messages, except for the Italian Navy, which in early 1941 had started using a version of the Hagelin rotor-based cipher machine C-38. This was broken from June 1941 onwards by the Italian subsection of GC&CS at Bletchley Park. === Japanese === In the Pacific theatre, a Japanese cipher machine, called "Purple" by the Americans, was used for highest-level Japanese diplomatic traffic. It produced a polyalphabetic substitution cipher, but unlike Enigma, was not a rotor machine, being built around electrical stepping switches. It was broken by the US Army Signal Intelligence Service and disseminated as Magic. Detailed reports by the Japanese ambassador to Germany were encrypted on the Purple machine. His reports included reviews of German assessments of the military situation, reviews of strategy and intentions, reports on direct inspections by the ambassador (in one case, of Normandy beach defences), and reports of long interviews with Hitler. The Japanese are said to have obtained an Enigma machine in 1937, although it is debated whether they were given it by the Germans or bought a commercial version, which, apart from the plugboard and internal wiring, was the German Heer/Luftwaffe machine. Having developed a similar machine, the Japanese did not use the Enigma machine for their most secret communications. The chief fleet communications code system used by the Imperial Japanese Navy was called JN-25 by the Americans, and by early 1942 the US Navy had made considerable progress in decrypting Japanese naval messages. The US Army also made progress on the
Read more →
Cryptographic nonce

In cryptography, a nonce is an arbitrary number that can be used just once in a cryptographic communication. It is often a random or pseudo-random number issued in an authentication protocol to ensure that each communication session is unique, and therefore that old communications cannot be reused in replay attacks. Nonces can also be useful as initialization vectors and in cryptographic hash functions. == Definition == A nonce is an arbitrary number used only once in a cryptographic communication, in the spirit of a nonce word. They are often random or pseudo-random numbers. Many nonces also include a timestamp to ensure exact timeliness, though this requires clock synchronisation between organisations. The addition of a client nonce ("cnonce") helps to improve the security in some ways as implemented in digest access authentication. To ensure that a nonce is used only once, it should be time-variant (including a suitably fine-grained timestamp in its value), or generated with enough random bits to ensure an insignificantly low chance of repeating a previously generated value. Some authors define pseudo-randomness (or unpredictability) as a requirement for a nonce. Nonce is a word dating back to Middle English for something only used once or temporarily (often with the construction "for the nonce"). It descends from the construction "then anes" ("the one [purpose]"). A false etymology claiming it to stand for "number used once" or similar is incorrect. == Usage == === Authentication === Authentication protocols may use nonces to ensure that old communications cannot be reused in replay attacks. For instance, nonces are used in HTTP digest access authentication to calculate an MD5 digest of the password. The nonces are different each time the 401 authentication challenge response code is presented, thus making replay attacks virtually impossible. The scenario of ordering products over the Internet can provide an example of the usefulness of nonces in replay attacks. An attacker could take the encrypted information and—without needing to decrypt—could continue to send a particular order to the supplier, thereby ordering products over and over again under the same name and purchase information. The nonce is used to give 'originality' to a given message so that if the company receives any other orders from the same person with the same nonce, it will discard those as invalid orders. A nonce may be used to ensure security for a stream cipher. Where the same key is used for more than one message and then a different nonce is used to ensure that the keystream is different for different messages encrypted with that key; often the message number is used. Secret nonce values are used by the Lamport signature scheme as a signer-side secret which can be selectively revealed for comparison to public hashes for signature creation and verification. === Hashing === Nonces are used in proof-of-work systems to vary the input to a cryptographic hash function so as to obtain a hash for a certain input that fulfils certain arbitrary conditions. In doing so, it becomes far more difficult to create a "desirable" hash than to verify it, shifting the burden of work onto one side of a transaction or system. For example, proof of work, using hash functions, was considered as a means to combat email spam by forcing email senders to find a hash value for the email (which included a timestamp to prevent pre-computation of useful hashes for later use) that had an arbitrary number of leading zeroes, by hashing the same input with a large number of values until a "desirable" hash was obtained. Similarly, the Bitcoin blockchain hashing algorithm can be tuned to an arbitrary difficulty by changing the required minimum/maximum value of the hash so that the number of bitcoins awarded for new blocks does not increase linearly with increased network computation power as new users join. This is likewise achieved by forcing Bitcoin miners to add nonce values to the value being hashed to change the hash algorithm output. As cryptographic hash algorithms cannot easily be predicted based on their inputs, this makes the act of blockchain hashing and the possibility of being awarded bitcoins something of a lottery, where the first "miner" to find a nonce that delivers a desirable hash is awarded bitcoins.
Read more →
Philco computers

Philco was one of the pioneers of transistorized computers, also known as second-generation computers. After the company developed the surface-barrier transistor, which was much faster than previous point-contact types, it was awarded contracts for military and government computers. Commercialized derivatives of some of these designs became successful business and scientific computers. The TRANSAC (Transistor Automatic Computer) Model S-1000 was released as a scientific computer. The TRANSAC S-2000 mainframe computer system was first produced in 1958, and a family of compatible machines, with increasing performance, was released over the next several years. However, the mainframe computer market was dominated by IBM. Other companies could not deploy resources for development, customer support and marketing on the scale that IBM could afford, making competition in this segment difficult after the introduction of the IBM 360 family. Philco went bankrupt and was purchased in 1961 by Ford Motor Company, but the computer division carried on until the Philco division of Ford exited the computer business in 1963. The Ford company maintained one Philco mainframe in use until 1981. == The surface-barrier transistor == The surface-barrier transistor developed by Philco in 1953 had a much higher frequency response than the original point-contact transistors. The transistor was made of a thin crystal of germanium, which was electrolytically etched with pits on either side forming a very thin base region, on the order of 5 micrometers. Philco's process for etching was United States patent number 2,885,571. Philco surface-barrier transistors were used in TX-0, and in early models of what would become the DEC PDP product line. Although relatively fast, the small size of the devices limited their power to circuits operating at a few tens of milliwatts. == Military and government == Between 1955 and 1957, Philco built transistor computers for use in aircraft, models C-1000, C-1100, and C-1102, intended for airborne real-time applications. By 1957, the C-1102 had been used by a civilian sector customer. The BASICPAC AN/TYK 6V (first delivery in 1961), COMPAC AN/TYK 4V (not completed), and LOGICPAC systems were built for the US Army as transportable computer systems for use with their Fieldata concept of integrated information management. BASICPAC was a transistorized computer with up to 28,672 words of 38-bit core memory (including sign and parity), available in several configurations from a minimum system, to a truck-borne mobile version, to a fully expanded system. Basic clock periods was 1 microsecond (which gives a clock rate of 1 MHz), with 12 microsecond memory access and a fixed-point multiplication taking 242 microseconds. Input/output was by paper tape reader and punch, or through a teletypewriter. With additional hardware, magnetic tape storage was also available, with up to seven I/O devices. The instruction set had 31 basic operation codes and nine opcodes for I/O === CXPQ === Philco was contracted by the US Navy to build the CXPQ computer. One model was completed and installed at the David Taylor Model Basin. This design was later adapted to become the commercial TRANSAC S-2000. Only one CXPQ was built. The CXPQ is a 48-bit transistorized computer. === SOLO === In 1955, the National Security Agency through the US Navy contracted with Philco to produce a computer suitable for use as a workstation, with an architecture based on the vacuum-tube computer system called Atlas II already in use at the NSA, and similar to the commercial UNIVAC 1103. At the time, Philco was the largest producer of surface barrier transistors, which were the only type available with the speed and quantities required for a computer. The SOLO prototype was delivered in 1958, but required extensive debugging at NSA. Difficulties were encountered with core memory and power supplies. SOLO used paper tape and teleprinter machines for input and output. SOLO cost about $1 million US, and contained 8,000 transistors. While the system was extensively used for training, testing, research and development, no additional units were ordered. SOLO was removed from active service in 1963. The design of the SOLO became commercialized as Philco's TRANSAC Model S-1000. == Commercial == === S-1000 === The TRANSAC S-1000 was a scientific computer with a 36-bit word length and 4096 words of core memory. It was packaged in a container about the size of a large office desk, and used only 1.2 kilowatts, much less than vacuum-tube-based computers of similar capacity. In a 1961 survey, about 15 S-1000 computer installations had been identified. It weighed about 1,650 pounds (750 kg). === S-2000 === The TRANSAC S-2000 was a large mainframe system intended for both business and scientific work. It had a 48-bit word length and supported calculations in fixed point, floating point and binary-coded decimal formats. The original S-2000 "TRANSAC" (Transistor Automatic Computer) released in 1958 was later designated Model 210; it was used internally at Philco. Similar to the Control Data Corporation Model 1604, it was a 48-bit fully transistorized computer. Three succeeding models were released in the series, all compatible with the software of the original model. The Model 211 was introduced in 1960, using micro-alloy diffused field-effect transistors, requiring significant redesign of circuits compared to the original. The TRANSAC S-2000/Philco 210/211 weighed about 2,000 pounds (910 kg). By 1964, eighteen Model 210, eighteen Model 211 and seven Model 212 systems had been sold. After Philco was purchased by Ford Motor Company, the Model 212 was introduced in 1962 and released in 1963. It had 65,535 words of 48-bit memory. Initially made with 6-microsecond core memory, it had better performance than the IBM 7094 transistor computer. It was later upgraded in 1964 to 2-microsecond core memory, which gave the machine floating-point performance greater than the IBM 7030 Stretch computer. A Model 213 was announced in 1964 but never built. By that time competition from IBM had made the Philco computer operations no longer profitable for Ford, and the division was closed down. The Model 212 could carry out a floating-point multiplication in 22 microseconds. Each word contained two 24-bit instructions with 16 bits of address information and eight bits for the opcode. There were 225 different valid opcodes in the Model 212; invalid opcodes were detected and halted the machine. The CPU had an accumulator register of 48 bits, three general-purpose registers of 24 bits, and 32 index registers of 15 bits. Main memory size ranged from 4K words to 64K words. Only the first model had a magnetic drum memory; later editions used tape drives. The Model 212 weighed about 6,500 pounds (3.3 short tons; 2.9 t). Software for the S-2000 initially consisted of TAC (Translator-Assembler-Compiler), and ALTAC, a FORTRAN II-like language with some differences from the IBM 704 FORTRAN implementation. A COBOL compiler was also available, targeted at business applications. The Philco 2400 was the input/output system for the S-2000. Operations such as reading cards or printing were carried out through magnetic tapes, thereby offloading the S-2000 from relatively slow input/output processing. The 2400 had a 24-bit word length and could be supplied with 4K to 32K characters (1K to 8K words) of core memory, rated at 3-microsecond cycle time. The instruction set was aimed at character I/O use. The idea of base registers, implemented in Philco computers, influenced the design of IBM/360. The last Philco TRANSAC S-2000 Model 212 was taken out of service in December 1981, after 19 years of service at Ford.
Read more →
BBC Own It

The BBC Own It app was a British information site designed to protect and support children using the Internet. The app was launched in 2017 and retired in 2022, though the website retired in 2024 and has since moved to BBC Teach. As part of the BBC's partnership with Internet Matters, the not-for-profit contributed to content on the BBC Own It website. == History == In 2016, The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge established The Royal Foundation Taskforce on the Prevention of Cyberbullying. Work began in 2017 by the BBC to create an app about cyberbullying and online safety (later titled Own It) in response to a call for action from the Taskforce. In December 2017, the BBC launched Own It. In November 2018, work on the BBC Own It App was announced by Prince William. In September 2019, the BBC Own It App was launched into the AppStore and Google Play. In 2022, the BBC discontinued the app, although the website was still active, however in 2024, the website was discontinued, and now any links to the website now redirect to a BBC Teach page. == Awards == UXUK award for Best Education or Learning Experience (2019) Banff World Media Festival Rockies Award for Children & Youth Interactive Content (2020) CogX Award for Best Innovation In Natural Language Processing (2020)
Read more →
NRENum.net

The NRENum.net service is an end-user ENUM service run by TERENA and the participating national research and education networking organisations (NRENs), primarily for academia. NRENum.net is considered as a complementary service and a valid alternative to the Golden ENUM tree. The domain nrenum.net is being populated in order to provide the infrastructure in DNS for storage of E.164 numbers. The NRENum.net service includes the operation of the Tier-0 root Domain Name Server(s) and the delegation of county codes to NRENum.net Registries. NRENum.net is a registered community trademark of TERENA. == Service description == E.164 Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) is a standard protocol that is the result of work of the Internet Engineering Task Force's Telephone Number Mapping working group. ENUM translates a telephone number into a domain name. This allows users to continue to use the existing phone number formats they are familiar with, while allowing the call to be routed using DNS. This makes ENUM a quick, stable and cheap link between telecommunications systems and the Internet. RFC 3761 discusses the use of the Domain Name System for storage of E.164 numbers. More specifically, how DNS can be used for identifying available services connected to one E.164 number. The RIPE NCC provides DNS operations for e164.arpa (known as Golden ENUM tree) in accordance with the instructions from the Internet Architecture Board. The NRENum.net service is an end-user ENUM service run by TERENA and the participating NRENs primarily for academia. NRENum.net is considered as a complementary service and a valid alternative to the Golden ENUM tree. The domain nrenum.net is being populated in order to provide the infrastructure in DNS for storage of E.164 numbers. The NRENum.net service includes the operation of the Tier-0 root Domain Name Servers and the delegation of county codes to NRENum.net Registries. NRENum.net is a registered community trademark of TERENA. NRENum.net facilitates services such as Voice over IP and videoconferencing. NRENum.net tree refers to the tree structure where: Tier-0 root Domain Name Servers (technically one master and several secondary servers ensuring resilience) are run by the hosting organisations and coordinated by the NRENum.net Operations Team. Tier-1 Domain Name Servers are run by the NRENum.net (national or regional) Registries responsible for the country code(s) delegated. Tier-2 and lower DNS sub-delegations may be implemented, regulated by the national service policies. An NRENum.net Registry is an entity that is authorised by the NRENum.net Operations Team to operate the national or regional Tier-1 Domain Name Server and be responsible for the county code(s) delegated. In many countries there is a National Research and Education Networking organisation (NREN) that acts as the Registry of the country. An NRENum.net Registrar is responsible for the number/block registration in the Tier-1 DNS and a Number Validation Entity is responsible for the validation of the E.164 telephone numbers to be registered. The NREN may at the same time have the role of the NRENum.net Registry, Registrar and Validation Entity for the country code(s) delegated. A Registrant (end user) is an E.164 telephone number holder. Holders of E.164 numbers who want to be listed in the service must contact the appropriate NRENum.net Registrar. Number (block) delegation is the technical process of assigning country codes to national registries, or number blocks under country codes to end users. Number (block) registration is the technical process of configuring DNS and populating it with the appropriate ENUM records (i.e., adding NAPTR records to DNS) via registrars. The ITU-T strictly regulates the number structure of valid E.164 telephone numbers and assigns number blocks to national authorities (telecom regulators) or recently to global entities directly. The national authorities can further delegate the number ranges to local operators within the country or region. A virtual number has either a non-valid E.164 number structure (e.g., longer than 15 digits) or has a valid structure but is not assigned to any national authorities or operators. The number Validation Entity is responsible for checking the numbers to be registered to NRENum.net. == History == The idea for the NRENum.net service was conceived in 2006. NRENum.net became operational in August 2006, and was run by Bernie Höneisen, a staff member of SWITCH, and Kewin Stöckigt, a staff member of AARNet, as a private service, with technical support from SWITCH and the participants in the TERENA Task Force on Enhanced Communication Services (TF-ECS). When that task force completed its activities in 2008, TERENA agreed to take over the coordination of the NRENum.net service. By that time, nine NRENs had joined NRENum.net. The service continued to grow during the next years, and in March 2012 NRENum.net went global when RNP from Brazil joined the service as its 14th partificpant and the first outside Europe. In 2011, the participants decided to migrate the operation of the service's master Domain Name Server to NIIF and the operation of the two secondary DNSs to CARNET and SWITCH. In 2013, Internet2, AARNet and NORDUnet set up additional secondary Domain Name Servers for their regions, thereby completing the global distribution of DNS slaves and bringing the resilience of the NRENum.net infrastructure to a high level. == Governance == TERENA has established a lightweight global governance structure. The Global NRENum.net Governance Committee (GNGC) is the highest-level strategic body responsible for overall NRENum.net service definition, sustainability and long-term strategy. This includes formulating and recommending service governance principles and policies. Its members are nominated by the NRENum.net Registries in the various world regions, and are appointed by TERENA. The GNGC is composed of two members representing Europe, two representing the Asia-Pacific region, and two representing the Americas. The NRENum.net Operations Team is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Tier-0 root DNSs and the handling of country code delegation requests. It may escalate technical or policy issues to the GNGC for discussion. TERENA is responsible for ensuring the correct and secure operations of the NRENum.net service performed by the NRENum.net Operations Team and governance by the GNGC. TERENA also supports the development of technical improvements to the NRENum.net service and promotes the deployment of NRENum.net worldwide. == Geographical deployment == Thirty-two county codes are delegated in the NRENum.net service. Below these are listed per world region. === Europe === === Asia-Pacific === === North America === +1 United States (Internet2) === Latin America === === Caribbean === === Africa === +262 Réunion, Mayotte (RENATER)
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 →
Multistage interconnection networks

Multistage interconnection networks (MINs) are a class of high-speed computer networks usually composed of processing elements (PEs) on one end of the network and memory elements (MEs) on the other end, connected by switching elements (SEs). The switching elements themselves are usually connected to each other in stages, hence the name. MINs are typically used in high-performance or parallel computing as a low-latency interconnection (as opposed to traditional packet switching networks), though they could be implemented on top of a packet switching network. Though the network is typically used for routing purposes, it could also be used as a co-processor to the actual processors for such uses as sorting; cyclic shifting, as in a perfect shuffle network; and bitonic sorting. == Background == Interconnection network are used to connect nodes, where nodes can be a single processor or group of processors, to other nodes. Interconnection networks can be categorized on the basis of their topology. Topology is the pattern in which one node is connected to other nodes. There are two main types of topology: static and dynamic. Static interconnect networks are hard-wired and cannot change their configurations. A regular static interconnect is mainly used in small networks made up of loosely couple nodes. The regular structure signifies that the nodes are arranged in specific shape and the shape is maintained throughout the networks. Some examples of static regular interconnections are: Completely connected network In a mesh network, multiple nodes are connected with each other. Each node in the network is connected to every other node in the network. This arrangement allows proper communication of the data between the nodes. But, there are a lot of communication overheads due to the increased number of node connections. Shared busThis network topology involves connection of the nodes with each other over a bus. Every node communicates with every other node using the bus. The bus utility ensures that no data is sent to the wrong node. But, the bus traffic is an important parameter which can affect the system. RingThis is one of the simplest ways of connecting nodes with each other. The nodes are connected with each other to form a ring. For a node to communicate with some other node, it has to send the messages to its neighbor. Therefore, the data message passes through a series of other nodes before reaching the destination. This involves increased latency in the system. TreeThis topology involves connection of the nodes to form a tree. The nodes are connected to form clusters and the clusters are in-turn connected to form the tree. This methodology causes increased complexity in the network. Hypercube This topology consists of connections of the nodes to form cubes. The nodes are also connected to the nodes on the other cubes. ButterflyThis is one of the most complex connections of the nodes. As the figure suggests, there are nodes which are connected and arranged in terms of their ranks. They are arranged in the form of a matrix. In dynamic interconnect networks, the nodes are interconnected via an array of simple switching elements. This interconnection can then be changed by use of routing algorithms, such that the path from one node to other nodes can be varied. Dynamic interconnections can be classified as: Single stage Interconnect Network Multistage interconnect Network Crossbar switch connections == Crossbar Switch Connections == In crossbar switch, there is a dedicated path from one processor to other processors. Thus, if there are n inputs and m outputs, we will need nm switches to realize a crossbar. As the number of outputs increases, the number of switches increases by factor of n. For large network this will be a problem. An alternative to this scheme is staged switching. == Single Stage Interconnect Network == In a single stage interconnect network, the input nodes are connected to output via a single stage of switches. The figure shows 88 single stage switch using shuffle exchange. As one can see, from a single shuffle, not all input can reach all output. Multiple shuffles are required for all inputs to be connected to all the outputs. == Multistage Interconnect Network == A multistage interconnect network is formed by cascading multiple single stage switches. The switches can then use their own routing algorithm, or be controlled by a centralized router, to form a completely interconnected network. Multistage Interconnect Network can be classified into three types: Non-blocking: A non-blocking network can connect any idle input to any idle output, regardless of the connections already established across the network. Crossbar is an example of this type of network. Rearrangeable non-blocking: This type of network can establish all possible connections between inputs and outputs by rearranging its existing connections. Blocking: This type of network cannot realize all possible connections between inputs and outputs. This is because a connection between one free input to another free output is blocked by an existing connection in the network. The number of switching elements required to realize a non-blocking network in highest, followed by rearrangeable non-blocking. Blocking network uses least switching elements. == Examples == Multiple types of multistage interconnection networks exist. === Omega network === An Omega network consists of multiple stages of 22 switching elements. Each input has a dedicated connection to an output. An NN omega network has log2(N) stages and N/2 switching elements in each stage for a perfect shuffle between stages. Thus the network has complexity of 0(N log(N)). Each switching element can employ its own switching algorithm. Consider an 88 omega network. There are 8! = 40320 1-to-1 mappings from input to output. There are 12 switching element for a total permutation of 2^12 = 4096. Thus, it is a blocking network. === Clos network === A Clos network uses 3 stages to switch from N inputs to N outputs. In the first stage, there are r= N/n crossbar switches and each switch is of size nm. In the second stage there are m switches of size rr and finally the last stage is a mirror of the first stage with r switches of size mn. A clos network will be completely non-blocking if m >= 2n-1. The number of connections, though more than omega network is much less than that of a crossbar network. === Beneš network === A Beneš network is a rearrangeably non-blocking network derived from the clos network by initializing n = m = 2. There are (2log2(N) - 1) stages, with each stage containing N/2 22 crossbar switches. An 88 Beneš network has 5 stages of switching elements, and each stage has 4 switching elements. The center three stages has two 44 benes network. The 44 Beneš network, can connect any input to any output recursively.
Read more →
Imaging phantom

An imaging phantom, or simply phantom (less commonly spelled fantom), is a specially designed object that is scanned or imaged in the field of medical imaging to evaluate, analyze, and tune the performance of various imaging devices. A phantom is more readily available and provides more consistent results than the use of a living subject or cadaver, while also avoiding direct risks to living subjects. Phantoms were originally employed in 2D x-ray–based imaging techniques such as radiography or fluoroscopy, but more recently phantoms with desired imaging characteristics have been developed for 3D techniques such as SPECT, MRI, CT, ultrasound, PET, and other imaging modalities. == Design == A phantom used to evaluate an imaging device should respond in a similar manner to how human tissues and organs would act in that specific imaging modality. For instance, phantoms made for 2D radiography may hold various quantities of x-ray contrast agents with similar x-ray absorbing properties (such as the attenuation coefficient) to normal tissue to tune the contrast of the imaging device or modulate the patient's exposure to radiation. In such a case, the radiography phantom would not necessarily need to have similar textures and mechanical properties since these are not relevant in x-ray imaging modalities. However, in the case of ultrasonography, a phantom with similar rheological and ultrasound scattering properties to real tissue would be essential, but x-ray absorbing properties would not be relevant. The term "phantom" describes an object that is designed to resemble human tissue and can be evaluated, analyzed or manipulated to study the performance of a medical device. Phantoms are created using a digital file that is rendered through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computer-aided design (CAD). The digital files allow for quick modifications that are read by the 3D printer. The 3D printer will create the product in successive layers using polymeric materials. There are several types of phantoms including tissue-mimicking, radiological phantoms, dental phantoms, BOMABs (used to calibrate whole-body counters), and more.
Read more →
Brooklyn Bridge (software)

The Brooklyn Bridge from White Crane Systems was a data transfer enabler. Although it came with some hardware, it was the software which was the basis of the product. It also could transform the data's format. == Overview == The New York Times described its category as being among "communications packages used to transfer files." In an era of 300 baud, Brooklyn Bridge operated at "115,200 baud" so that a transfer which "at 300 baud took 4 minutes and 36 seconds" only needed 5 seconds. Unlike some communications packages, this one retains the original version-date, so as not to alarm people when they seem to have what looks like an update, when it's not. == Description == Once the software is installed, users comfortable with typing the word "COPY" can do so as readily as they sneakernet. An earlier review described it as "less cumbersome than conventional communications software" The use of neither specialized hardware nor specialized software is ideal in an era when this can be done using online or other "outside" services.
Read more →
Social search

Social search is a behavior of retrieving and searching on a social searching engine that mainly searches user-generated content such as news, videos and images related search queries on social media like Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram and Flickr. It is an enhanced version of web search that combines traditional algorithms. The idea behind social search is that instead of ranking search results purely based on semantic relevance between a query and the results, a social search system also takes into account social relationships between the results and the searcher. The social relationships could be in various forms. For example, in LinkedIn people search engine, the social relationships include social connections between searcher and each result, whether or not they are in the same industries, work for the same companies, belong the same social groups, and go the same schools, etc. Social search may not be demonstrably better than algorithm-driven search. In the algorithmic ranking model that search engines used in the past, relevance of a site is determined after analyzing the text and content on the page and link structure of the document. In contrast, search results with social search highlight content that was created or touched by other users who are in the Social Graph of the person conducting a search. It is a personalized search technology with online community filtering to produce highly personalized results. Social search takes many forms, ranging from simple shared bookmarks or tagging of content with descriptive labels to more sophisticated approaches that combine human intelligence with computer algorithms. Depending on the feature-set of a particular search engine, these results may then be saved and added to community search results, further improving the relevance of results for future searches of that keyword. The principle behind social search is that human network oriented results would be more meaningful and relevant for the user, instead of computer algorithms deciding the results for specific queries. == Research and implementations == Over the years, there have been different studies, researches and some implementations of Social Search. In 2008, there were a few startup companies that focused on ranking search results according to one's social graph on social networks. Companies in the social search space include Sproose, Mahalo, Jumper 2.0, Scour, Wink, Eurekster, and Delver. Former efforts include Wikia Search. In 2008, a story on TechCrunch showed Google potentially adding in a voting mechanism to search results similar to Digg's methodology. This suggests growing interest in how social groups can influence and potentially enhance the ability of algorithms to find meaningful data for end users. There are also other services like Sentiment that turn search personal by searching within the users' social circles. In 2009, a startup project called HeyStaks (www.heystaks.com) developed a web browser plugin "HayStaks". HeyStaks applies social search through collaboration in web search as a way that leads to better search results. The main motivation for HeyStaks to work on this idea is to provide the user with features that search engines didn't provide at that time. For instance, different searches have indicated that about 70% of the time when user search for something, a friend or a coworker have found it already. Also, studies have shown that approximately, 30% of people who use online search, search for something that they have found before. The startup believe that they help avoid these kind of issues by providing a shared and rich search experience through a list of recommendations that get generated based on search results. In October 2009, Google rolled out its "Social Search"; after a time in beta, the feature was expanded to multiple languages in May 2011. Before the expansion however in 2010 Bing and Google were already taking into account re-tweets and Likes when providing search results. However, after a search deal with Twitter ended without renewal, Google began to retool its Social Search. In January 2012, Google released "Search plus Your World", a further development of Social Search. The feature, which is integrated into Google's regular search as an opt-out feature, pulls references to results from Google+ profiles. The goal was to deliver better, more relevant and personalized search results with this integration. This integration however had some problems in which Google+ still is not wildly adopted or has much usage among many users. Later on, Google was criticized by Twitter for the perceived potential impact of "Search plus Your World" upon web publishers, describing the feature's release to the public as a "bad day for the web", while Google replied that Twitter refused to allow deep search crawling by Google of Twitter's content. By Google integrating Google+, the company was encouraging users to switch to Google's social networking site in order to improve search results. One famous example occurred when Google showed a link to Mark Zuckerberg's dormant Google+ account rather than the active Facebook profile. In November 2014 these accusations started to die down because Google's Knowledge Graph started to finally show links to Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites. In December 2008, Twitter had re-introduced their people search feature. While the interface had since changed significantly, it allows you to search either full names or usernames in a straight-forward search engine. In January 2013, Facebook announced a new search engine called Graph Search still in the beta stages. The goal was to allow users to prioritize results that were popular with their social circle over the general internet. Facebook's Graph search utilized Facebook's user generated content to target users. Although there have been different researches and studies in social search, social media networks have not vested enough interest in working with search engines. LinkedIn for example has taken steps to improve its own individual search functions in order to stray users from external search engines. Even Microsoft started working with Twitter in order to integrate some tweets into Bing's search results in November 2013. Yet Twitter has its own search engine which points out how much value their data has and why they would like to keep it in house. In the end though social search will never be truly comprehensive of the subjects that matter to people unless users opt to be completely public with their information. == Social discovery == Social discovery is the use of social preferences and personal information to predict what content will be desirable to the user. Technology is used to discover new people and sometimes new experiences shopping, meeting friends or even traveling. The discovery of new people is often in real-time, enabled by mobile apps. However, social discovery is not limited to meeting people in real-time, it also leads to sales and revenue for companies via social media. An example of retail would be the addition of social sharing with music, through the iTunes music store. There is a social component to discovering new music Social discovery is at the basis of Facebook's profitability, generating ad revenue by targeting the ads to users using the social connections to enhance the commercial appeal. == Social search engines == A social search engine in an aspect can be thought of as a search engine that provides an answer for a question from another answer by identifying a person in the answer. That can happen by retrieving a user submitted query and determining that the query is related to the question; and provides an answer, including the link to the resource, as part of search results that are responsive to the query. Few social search engines depend only on online communities. Depending on the feature-set of a particular search engine, these results may then be saved and added to community search results, further improving the relevance of results for future searches of that keyword. Social search engines are considered a part of Web 2.0 because they use the collective filtering of online communities to elevate particularly interesting or relevant content using tagging. These descriptive tags add to the meta data embedded in Web pages, theoretically improving the results for particular keywords over time. A user will generally see suggested tags for a particular search term, indicating tags that have previously been added. An implementation of a social search engine is Aardvark. Aardvark is a social search engine that is based on the "village paradigm" which is about connecting the user who has a question with friends or friends of friends whom can answer his or her question. In Aadvark, a user ask a question in different ways that mostly involves online ways such as instant messaging, email, web input or other non-online ways such as text message or voice. The Aar
Read more →
Social Media Working Group Act of 2014

The Social Media Working Group Act of 2014 (H.R. 4263) is a bill that would direct the United States Secretary of Homeland Security to establish within the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) a social media working group (the Group) to provide guidance and best practices to the emergency preparedness and response community on the use of social media technologies before, during, and after a terrorist attack. The bill was introduced into the United States House of Representatives during the 113th United States Congress. == Background == === Social media === Social media is the social interaction among people in which they create, share or exchange information and ideas in virtual communities and networks. Andreas Kaplan and Michael Haenlein define social media as "a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content." Furthermore, social media depend on mobile and web-based technologies to create highly interactive platforms through which individuals and communities share, co-create, discuss, and modify user-generated content. They introduce substantial and pervasive changes to communication between organizations, communities, and individuals. Social media differ from traditional or industrial media in many ways, including quality, reach, frequency, usability, immediacy, and permanence. === Virtual Social Media Working Group === First responders have increasingly used social media in emergency response and recovery operations. Social media tools are used to connect with citizens after a disaster and share information. The Virtual Social Media Working group (VSMWG) is an online platform that gives advice to first responders on how to safely and effectively use social media in emergency response operations. The working group is made up of subject matter experts from across the U.S. It was created by DHS in December 2010 and gives first responders guidance and best practices regarding the use of social media during emergencies. The DHS S&T and the VSMWG work with local and state governments, academics and nonprofits. Meetings of the VSMWG are chaired by the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Science and Technology. == Provisions of the bill == This summary is based largely on the summary provided by the Congressional Research Service, a public domain source. The Social Media Working Group Act of 2014 would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the United States Secretary of Homeland Security to establish within the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) a social media working group (the Group) to provide guidance and best practices to the emergency preparedness and response community on the use of social media technologies before, during, and after a terrorist attack. The bill would require the Group to submit an annual report that includes: (1) a review of current and emerging social media technologies being used to support preparedness and response activities related to terrorist attacks, of best practices and lessons learned on the use of social media during the response to terrorist attacks that occurred during the period covered by the report, and of available training for government officials on the use of social media in response to a terrorist attack; (2) recommendations to improve DHS's use of social media and to improve information sharing among DHS and its components and among state and local governments; and (3) a summary of coordination efforts with the private sector to discuss and resolve legal, operational, technical, privacy, and security concerns. == Congressional Budget Office report == This summary is based largely on the summary provided by the Congressional Budget Office, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Homeland Security on June 11, 2014. This is a public domain source. H.R. 4263 would direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a working group to provide guidance and best practices on the use of social media technologies, specifically during a terrorist attack or other emergency. The group would prepare guidance for the emergency preparedness and response community. The bill would define the membership of the working group, which would include more than 20 experts from federal, state, local, and tribal governments along with nongovernmental organizations. The working group would be exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act and would be authorized to hold virtual meetings to fulfill the requirement to meet twice a year. The working group would be required to submit an annual report on emerging trends and best practices for emergency response through social media. Based on the cost of similar activities carried out under the DHS Acquisition and Accountability Efficiency Act and the Critical Infrastructure Research and Development Advancement Act of 2013, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the new DHS responsibilities and the annual report required by H.R. 4263 would cost a total of less than $500,000 annually, assuming the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. H.R. 4263 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. == Procedural history == The Social Media Working Group Act of 2014 was introduced into the United States House of Representatives on March 14, 2014, by Rep. Susan W. Brooks (R, IN-5). It was referred to the United States House Committee on Homeland Security and the United States House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications. On June 19, 2014, it was reported (amended) alongside House Report 113-480. On July 8, 2014, the House voted in Roll Call Vote 369 to pass the bill 375–19. == Debate and discussion == Nate Elliott, a social media expert at Forrester Research, explains that "the hope is when government or another authority tweets something, people will share it for them," but that this often doesn't happen. This problem, that "messages wash away very quickly," is the reason that the federal government is trying to formulate a better social media strategy. Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS), who co-sponsored the bill, stated that "social media has played a crucial role in emergency preparedness and response in Mississippi, including during disasters like Hurricane Isaac and the tornadoes that hit the Hattiesburg area a little over a year ago." He said that their goal with the bill was to "build upon existing public-private partnerships and use social media in a more strategic way in order to help save lives and property."
Read more →
Fuse Services Framework

Fuse Services Framework is an open source SOAP and REST web services platform based on Apache CXF for use in enterprise IT organizations. It is productized and supported by the Fuse group at FuseSource Corp. Fuse Services Framework service-enables new and existing systems for use in enterprise SOA infrastructure. Fuse Services Framework is a pluggable, small-footprint engine that creates high performance, secure and robust services in minutes using front-end programming APIs like JAX-WS and JAX-RS. It supports multiple transports and bindings and is extensible so developers can add bindings for additional message formats so all systems can work together without having to communicate through a centralized server. Fuse Services Framework is now a part of Red Hat JBoss Fuse. Fabric8 is a free Apache 2.0 Licensed upstream community for the JBoss Fuse product from Red Hat.
Read more →
Communications security

Communications security is the discipline of preventing unauthorized interceptors from accessing telecommunications in an intelligible form, while still delivering content to the intended recipients. In the North Atlantic Treaty Organization culture, including United States Department of Defense culture, it is often referred to by the abbreviation COMSEC. The field includes cryptographic security, transmission security, emissions security and physical security of COMSEC equipment and associated keying material. COMSEC is used to protect both classified and unclassified traffic on military communications networks, including voice, video, and data. It is used for both analog and digital applications, and both wired and wireless links. Voice over secure internet protocol VOSIP has become the de facto standard for securing voice communication, replacing the need for Secure Terminal Equipment (STE) in much of NATO, including the U.S.A. USCENTCOM moved entirely to VOSIP in 2008. == Specialties == Cryptographic security: The component of communications security that results from the provision of technically sound cryptosystems and their proper use. This includes ensuring message confidentiality and authenticity. Emission security (EMSEC): The protection resulting from all measures taken to deny unauthorized persons information of value that might be derived from communications systems and cryptographic equipment intercepts and the interception and analysis of compromising emanations from cryptographic equipment, information systems, and telecommunications systems. Transmission security (TRANSEC): The component of communications security that results from the application of measures designed to protect transmissions from interception and exploitation by means other than cryptanalysis (e.g. frequency hopping and spread spectrum). Physical security: The component of communications security that results from all physical measures necessary to safeguard classified equipment, material, and documents from access thereto or observation thereof by unauthorized persons. == Related terms == ACES – Automated Communications Engineering Software AEK – Algorithmic Encryption Key AKMS – the Army Key Management System CCI – Controlled Cryptographic Item - equipment which contains COMSEC embedded devices CT3 – Common Tier 3 DTD – Data Transfer Device ICOM – Integrated COMSEC, e.g. a radio with built in encryption KEK – Key Encryption Key KG-30 – family of COMSEC equipment KOI-18 – Tape Reader General Purpose KPK – Key production key KYK-13 – Electronic Transfer Device KYX-15 – Electronic Transfer Device LCMS – Local COMSEC Management Software OTAR – Over the Air Rekeying OWK – Over the Wire Key SKL – Simple Key Loader SOI – Signal operating instructions STE – Secure Terminal Equipment (secure phone) STU-III – (obsolete secure phone, replaced by STE) TED – Trunk Encryption Device such as the WALBURN/KG family TEK – Traffic Encryption Key TPI – Two person integrity TSEC – Telecommunications Security (sometimes referred to in error transmission security or TRANSEC) Types of COMSEC equipment: Authentication equipment Crypto equipment: Any equipment that embodies cryptographic logic or performs one or more cryptographic functions (key generation, encryption, and authentication). Crypto-ancillary equipment: Equipment designed specifically to facilitate efficient or reliable operation of crypto-equipment, without performing cryptographic functions itself. Crypto-production equipment: Equipment used to produce or load keying material == DoD Electronic Key Management System == The Electronic Key Management System (EKMS) is a United States Department of Defense (DoD) key management, COMSEC material distribution, and logistics support system. The National Security Agency (NSA) established the EKMS program to supply electronic key to COMSEC devices in securely and timely manner, and to provide COMSEC managers with an automated system capable of ordering, generation, production, distribution, storage, security accounting, and access control. The Army's platform in the four-tiered EKMS, AKMS, automates frequency management and COMSEC management operations. It eliminates paper keying material, hardcopy Signal operating instructions (SOI) and saves the time and resources required for courier distribution. It has 4 components: LCMS provides automation for the detailed accounting required for every COMSEC account, and electronic key generation and distribution capability. ACES is the frequency management portion of AKMS. ACES has been designated by the Military Communications Electronics Board as the joint standard for use by all services in development of frequency management and crypto-net planning. CT3 with DTD software is in a fielded, ruggedized hand-held device that handles, views, stores, and loads SOI, Key, and electronic protection data. DTD provides an improved net-control device to automate crypto-net control operations for communications networks employing electronically keyed COMSEC equipment. SKL is a hand-held PDA that handles, views, stores, and loads SOI, Key, and electronic protection data. == Key Management Infrastructure (KMI) Program == KMI is intended to replace the legacy Electronic Key Management System to provide a means for securely ordering, generating, producing, distributing, managing, and auditing cryptographic products (e.g., asymmetric keys, symmetric keys, manual cryptographic systems, and cryptographic applications). This system is currently being fielded by Major Commands and variants will be required for non-DoD Agencies with a COMSEC Mission.
Read more →
Opinion Space

Developed at UC Berkeley, "Opinion Space" (also known as The Collective Discovery Engine) is a social media technology designed to help communities generate and exchange ideas about important issues and policies. Version 1.0 was launched on April 4, 2009, at UC Berkeley, and explored the question "Do you think legalizing marijuana is a good idea?" It has since undergone 4 different iterations, and been used in partnership with various organizations including The Occupy movement (Version 4.0, 5/24/2013) and the African Robots Network (Version 4.0, 5/25/2013). Opinion Space has also been used in collaboration with the United States State Department and the University of California's Berkeley Center for New Media (Version 2.0, 12/1/2009 and Version 3.0, 2/25/2012) to gain public perspective on foreign policy issues. Then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton explained, "Opinion Space will harness the power of connection technologies to provide a unique forum for international dialogue. This is...an opportunity to extend our engagement beyond the halls of government directly to the people of the world" (2010). The website uses data visualization and statistical analysis to present and develop public opinion and ideas. Opinion Space is a self-organizing system that uses an intuitive graphical "map" that displays patterns, trends, and insights as they emerge and employs the wisdom of crowds to identify and highlight the most insightful ideas. The system uses a game model that incorporates techniques from deliberative polling, collaborative filtering, and multidimensional visualization.
Read more →