Does your business need its own VPN? – IT PRO

Posted on March 24, 2020 by admin

In the past 12 months there have been 480 million downloads of mobile VPN apps an increase of 50% on the previous year. Thats according to the 2019 Global Mobile VPN reportand it shows that consumers around the world are starting to understand the benefits of connecting to the internet via a virtual private network when outand about.

3 reasons why now is the time to rethink your network

Changing requirements call for new solutions

But what about businesses? Have you ever stopped to think whether your business ought to be providing a VPN service to remote workers, or taking advantage of one to protect your sensitive data? We talked to industry experts to find out whether your business needs a VPN.

Before we can address the question of whether your business needs its own VPN, you need to understand exactly what a VPN can do for you and what it cant.

Advertisement - Article continues below

The network encryption provided by a VPN provides a business with confidentiality your data cant be read in transit and integrity your data, messages and transactions cant be tampered with, explainsCharl van der Walt, chief security strategy officer at security services provider SecureData. VPN services achieve this by creating a virtual tunnel between a remote device and your corporate network, requiring strict user authentication and allowing you to enforce access control.

Advertisement - Article continues below

The benefits of this should be obvious. When employees need to provide additional credentials remotely, said Chris Hykin, technical services director at Stone Group, it reduces the chance of the system being accessed by third parties, and prevents flexible working becoming a compromise to security.

Thats not necessarily all your VPN will do.As most VPN products require the installation of a low-level agent on the endpoint, many products also extend into the broader domain ofendpoint and internet protection, providing features like content filtering and blocking malicious sites, addsvan der Walt.

Advertisement - Article continues below

Your company VPN can, therefore, be more than simply a network service: you can think of it as the foundation of secure communication between systems, people and sites. With remote working becoming an increasingly important aspect of the business environment, the value of that is clear.

This all sounds super, smashing and lovely, but there are certain misconceptions about VPNs to clear up. SecureDatas van der Walt told us that, as VPNs have gradually become a commodity, some people have lost sight of their actual capabilities.

VPNs are often seen by the enterprise as a catch-all system that offers everything from confidentiality to access control, he said. Products are frequently over-simplified when theyre sold and deployed; subtle points are overlooked, sometimes resulting in more harm than good.

One important thing to realise is that all of the features offered by a VPN work differently in different phases of the data journey from the endpoint itself onto to the internet, through the VPN gateway and onto the LAN. As an example, lets think about cloud-based VPN products, where the gateway is hosted by a provider somewhere in the cloud.

Advertisement - Article continues below

The confidential data passing through the tunnel terminates at a single point, managed by a third party, which makes it a highly attractive target for attack, compromise or lawful (or unlawful) interception, van der Walt pointsout. These thirdparties often store logs and authentication data in ways which arevulnerable to compromise, as we saw recently withthe breach of NordVPN.

Advertisement - Article continues below

Its also important to recognise that a VPN product can provide complex functionality on both the endpoint and the gateway, which increases the potential exposure to attacks.

Enterprise VPN products that integrate with a directory (like Microsoft Active Directory) are susceptible to phishing, credential reuse, credential stuffing and other forms of credential theft exposing critical internal systems directly to an attacker over the internet, warnsvan der Walt. Indeed, he mentioned that hed seen precisely this type of attack being used successfully, both by red teamers security experts who carry out simulated attacks to expose holes in a companys defences and by genuine bad guys. Its safest to assume that all VPN gateway technologies even from the biggest names will be aggressively targeted in the wild, and any vulnerabilities will be exploited mercilessly.

Advertisement - Article continues below

Another vital point is that, while VPN services may be integrated into broader security solutions, the secure tunnel itself doesnt do anything to detect, block or remove malware or other unwanted content.

If the data payload travelling overthe VPN is infected, saysRyanOrsi, director of product management at WatchGuard, the VPN will securely deliver it to the endpoint where it could run wild if the endpoint doesnt have proper malware protection.

Lastly, we need to talk about the encryption misconception. That may sound like an episode of The Big Bang Theory, but its actually even less funny indeed, the consequences to your business of getting this concept wrong could be pretty darn serious.

A VPN does not encrypt any data at rest, only in transit, explained PaulBischoff, a privacy advocate at Comparitech.com. If the VPN server is acting as a middleman between theuser and the internet, that users traffic is only encrypted up to the VPNserver. The traffic between the VPN server and the final destination a website, for example is not encrypted by the VPN. In other words, the VPN doesnt provide true end-to-end encryption, and if youre relying on a third-party provider they could theoretically be monitoring your traffic, or storing it in a form that could later be released under the weight of legal pressure.

Advertisement - Article continues below

Indeed, the possibility of data logging is more than just a theoretical threat: in certain countries, such as China, its required. In other words, insome territories, private networks are fundamentally compromised by design

Now weve got a grip on those issues, we can start to address the actual question: does your business really need its own VPN, or not?

If youre looking for a simple answer, its yes. As David Emm, principal security researcher at Kaspersky, told PC Pro: A VPN is a necessary part of a business cybersecurity strategy, as it helps ensure that the credentials used to access corporate systems and websites that require input from a login and password cant be intercepted. In a cybersecurity landscape thats dynamically evolving with new threats and vulnerabilities at every turn, it makes sense to embrace all theprotection you can get.

3 reasons why now is the time to rethink your network

Changing requirements call for new solutions

At this point you might be wondering whether that really applies to all businesses. What if you dont have any remote workers, and all your office computers are connected to a wired LAN thats managed by a competent IT services provider? In such a scenario, VPN services are admittedly less critical. The added layer of encryption is good, notesPaul Rosenthal, CEO and co-founder of Appstractor. But for many companies, I would consider putting a VPN on each workstation asicing on the cake rather than essential.

Advertisement - Article continues below

Even then, though, a VPN has benefits, as it ensures that your activities cant be snooped on, and cuts down the possible avenues for a data leak.

And things change as soon as you introduce Wi-Fi into the equation, as this greatly increases your exposure to possible attacks. Its very easy for hackers to either intercept your traffic or trick you to connect to a fake access point, where all kinds of attacks can be launched, potentially exposing confidential and sensitive data, Rosenthal remindesus. In his view its pretty much essential that every non-wired device used by every employee should use a VPN.

For home users, choosing a VPN provider largely boils down to simple metrics such as speed and price. As Rosenthal puts it, arguably there isnt a huge amount of difference between the main consumer VPN brands, in terms of the technical level of security they provide.

Advertisement - Article continues below

In a professional context, however, there are other issues to think about. Businesses face a fundamentally different challenge, Rosenthal says, making sure that every device used by every employee has the VPN not only installed, but also switched on and used properly.

This is a key reason why you shouldnt rely on a consumer VPN service for business security: the client software doesnt support central management. Look for a VPN thats designed for deployment in a business, advisesRosenthal, where installation and administration are simplified, and compliance can be enforced. Otherwise youre leaving huge gaps in your cybersecurity defences.

The other option is to operate your own VPN, which you might do eitherby installing or enabling services on your internal servers, or investing in a dedicated gateway appliance.

Either way, the self-hosted approach has the advantage of putting you fully in control of your own security and the use case really kicks in when your business has multiple locations requiring access to a central network. Indeed, the value of this sort of system is understood even in environments that are broadly unfriendly to VPN usage.

Advertisement - Article continues below

In many cases, even countries that block VPN usage will allow corporate entities access to one by requiring either a fee or the collection of data relating to how the VPN is used, explainsLarry Trowell, principal security consultant at Synopsys.

That said, there are scenarios where running your own VPN is an unnecessary investment. Trowell points out that if your workers arent actively collaborating on documents, and you just need to periodically exchange and synchronise data, a secure FTP or email server may be all thats needed.

If you have decided toset up your own VPN, you will need toconfront the question of how its configured. The simplest approach is to route all your traffic through the VPN tunnel, but this can have an impact onperformance. If youre forcing all your network traffic through the VPN tunnel, your latency will increase, and the connection will be slower, warnsRon Winward, a security evangelist at Radware.

Advertisement - Article continues below

The solution could be split tunnelling, which routes only certain types of traffic over the VPN.

Perhaps you have a resource inside of the network that needs remote access, but dont want all your internet traffic to go through the VPN server, Winward says. Split tunnelling allows this. But if you do use split tunnelling, make sure your users understand that not all traffic traverses the VPN tunnel. Dont create a false sense of security for them.

Clearly there are multiple reasons and ways to use a VPN, and many people actually use several VPNs for different purposes. As a global business traveller, Winward says, I run my own VPN servers at trusted locations where I control the network devices on the remote end. Doing so gives him the confidence that his traffic is kept secure as it traverses networks outside of his control. But thats not the whole story: I also connect to other VPNs for different needs, including work, lab access, and basic security hygiene.

3 reasons why now is the time to rethink your network

Changing requirements call for new solutions

The upshot is that its essential to properly consider exactly what you want to achieve by using a VPN. Your needs could be best met by a third-party provider, or by running your own VPN or a combination of the two approaches.

Advertisement - Article continues below

Each option has its own considerations, Winward concludes. A service requires that you trust the vendor with your data and your privacy. Buying your own device requires knowledge and support of the device, as well as the cost of purchasing and maintaining it. Open source might reduce your capex spend, but at the cost of not having support from a vendor when you might need it most.

Top 5 challenges of migrating applications to the cloud

Explore how VMware Cloud on AWS helps to address common cloud migration challenges

3 reasons why now is the time to rethink your network

Changing requirements call for new solutions

All-flash buyers guide

Tips for evaluating Solid-State Arrays

Enabling enterprise machine and deep learning with intelligent storage

The power of AI can only be realised through efficient and performant delivery of data

Go here to read the rest:
Does your business need its own VPN? - IT PRO

Microsoft Teams vs Zoom: What does Microsoft have to be afraid of? – OnMSFT

Posted on March 24, 2020 by admin

Microsoft Teams and Slack arent the only names when it comes to remote teleconferencing solutions. Along with many others, theres also Zoom, which apparently experienced recent growth to 13 million monthly active users.

With a recent internal video leaking online, some have gone as far as to say that Microsoft at one point felt that Zoom video conferencing was as an emerging threat. So, what does Microsoft have to be afraid of? And how does Zoom stack up against Teams? In this guide, well pit the two against each other and help you see the difference.

To begin, well touch on the price. Just like Microsoft Teams, Zoom has a free plan and other paid options. However, its important to note that, unlike paid Teams plans with Office 365, paid Zoom plans do not come bundled with extra software. Zoom is mainly just a teleconferencing solution and not meant to be the Office 365 collaboration hub like Teams is.

There are, however, extra features in paid Zoom plans that help enhance the experience, which we describe more in-depth in the next section. These are divided into a $14.99 Pro plan, a $19.99 Business plan with a minimum of 10 hosts, and a $19.99 Enterprise plan, that has a minimum of 50 hosts. you can read more about the plans here.

Keep in mind that in Zoom terms, these prices are per host. This is someone who schedules, starts and controls the settings in a meeting. A standard Zoom free plan also allows you to invite up to 100 participants in a meeting. However, you can buy more as an add-on for $50 per month or choose a paid Business or Enterprise plan which has access to 300 or 500 participants.

Microsoft Teams and Slack aren't the only names when it comes to remote teleconferencing solutions. Along with many others, there's also Zoom, which apparently experienced recent growth to 13 million monthly active users. With a recent internal video leaking online, some have gone as far as to say t

On the Microsoft Teams front, you can always go with a Free plan, but there are multiple paid Office 365 plans which include Teams at no added cost, depending on the size of your company or business. These cover Office 365 Business Essentials, Office 365 Business Premium, and Office 365 Business. For larger corporations, there is also Office 365 Enterprise plans.

Under Office 365 Business Essentials, Microsoft Teams will start at $5.00 per user, per month. This is best for small businesses as it has the bare essentials. Then, theres Office 365 Business Premium, which is $12.50, per user, per month. Finally, there is Office 365 Business, which is $8.25 per user per month.

For larger organizations, Microsoft takes things a bit further as it has special Office 365 Enterprise plans (with Teams included.) Office 365 E1 plans include Teams for $8.00 per user, per month. Then, Office 365 E3 plans include Teams for $20.00 per user per month. Again, the differences in these plans boil down between access to email, Office apps, and a few other things, which weve explained here. Theres a lot of extra value in Teams if you need it for more than just video conferencing.

Weve explained the differences in these plans in a separate post, but it boils down to access to other Microsoft services, Office apps, and the Outlook email service. Again, you might not need these features, but its still great to have for day-to-day operations.

When it comes to features included, Zoom makes it pretty easy. The base plan of Zoom includes hosts of up to 100 participants. Theres also unlimited 1 to 1 meeting, but a 40 minute limit on group meetings. As for features of meetings, you can create an unlimited amount of meetings and even online support if things are to go wrong and you need help.

All Zoom Free plans also include HD video and voice calls, active speaker view, full-screen gallery view, screen sharing, and the ability to join by phone. Other features included in Zooms free plans can be seen below. These all carry over into the other tiers as well. However, please be aware that under the free plan if 3 or more participants join a meeting, the meeting will time out after 40 minutes. Other features covered in all Zoom plans can be seen in the chart below.

As we said under the pricing section, the biggest difference paid versions of Teams is that it gets you bonus features of Office 365. However, Teams mainly shares the same features across free and paid plans. Essentially, the differences between the free and paid versions of Microsoft Teams comes down to maximum members, file storage sizes, extra features in recording meetings as well as phone calls.

Free versions of Teams have a limit of up to 300 members (users) per organization. You also can enjoy up to 250 people on a meeting in Teams which is different from Zooms 100 person limit for the free plan.

Elsewhere, Free Microsoft Teams plans limit storage to 2GB per user, with 10GB shared storage. Paid plans, meanwhile, bump the storage up to 1TB per user. Paid Teams plans can also upgrade you to more maximum members and users per organization. All of the following features are included in both Free and paid versions of Teams.

Just like Zoom, Paid versions of Teams offer up Admin tools for managing users and apps, usage reporting for Office 365 services, 99.9% financially-backed SLA uptime, and Configurable user settings and policies. Compared to Zoom, Teams might work better as a phone solution, though, as paid versions of the plan let you include phone calling for $12-$20 per month. Zoom is a $15 per month add on.

Finally, you might be wondering where Teams and Zoom stands when it comes to security and privacy. Recently, a Twitter thread revealed that Zoom could be monitoring the activity on your computer. Some have also worried that it could collect data on the programs running. Prontonmail gives a good insight into all the privacy flaws of Zoom, so you give it a read.

The concerns, though, are in fact true, though Zoom seemed to dismiss it in a Tweet. Zooms Privacys page notes the following: Whether you have Zoom account or not, we may collect Personal Data from or about you when you use or otherwise interact with our Products. Zoom also claims that its Communications are established using 256-bit TLS encryption and all shared content can be encrypted using AES-256 encryption. Chats are also encrypted end-to-end by TLS 1.2 with the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) 256-bit algorithm.

When it comes to Microsoft Teams, the story is different. Microsoft explains that it does not use your data for anything other than providing you with the service that you have subscribed to. The company claims it does not scan your email, documents, or teams for advertising or for purposes that are not service-related. Microsoft also doesnt have access to your uploaded content.

As far as encryption goes in Teams, it has one disadvantage to Zoom. Microsoft is using the lesser secure type of encryption policy. According to this support page, Microsoft Teams data is encrypted in transit and at rest. Unlike with end-to-end encryption, the data is not encrypted on a senders system or device, and not only the recipient is able to decrypt it. Teams is also Tier D-compliant. This includes the following standards: ISO 27001, ISO 27018, SSAE16 SOC 1 and SOC 2, HIPAA. More information on that is available here.

In choosing either Teams or Zoom, everything comes down to your needs as a business. Zoom is a great alternative for Teams when it comes to just video conferencing. It gives you access to calling without all the extra stuff. Teams, though, again has the most value for businesses. Its paid plans not only include audio and video calling under Teams, but you also get access to other Office 365 apps and Microsoft 365 services. This isnt something that everyone will need, but it sure might be useful for smaller organizations.

But its not to say that Zoom is just for small companies. Zoom is currently used by 21st Century Fox, Delta, Dropbox, Logitech, Rakuten, Salesforce, and many more. Thats just as Microsoft Teams, too, which is currently being used by BP, GE, NASCAR, Northwhell Health, Toshiba and many Fortune 500 companies, too.

Read the original here:
Microsoft Teams vs Zoom: What does Microsoft have to be afraid of? - OnMSFT

CPH:DOX Goes Live (and Virtual): Online Talks and Debates – Filmmaker Magazine

Posted on March 23, 2020 by admin

CPH:DOX, having already established itself as one of the most cutting-edge festivals on the circuit, can now take the prize for the ballsiest fest around. As a global pandemic causes cancellations and postponements from SXSW to Tribeca on these shores, the feisty Copenhagen International Documentary Festival has nevertheless refused to concede defeat. Within hours of the Danish government announcing restrictions on public gatherings, the festival made an announcement of its own. CPH:DOX 2020 would keep calm, carry on, and simply pivot to the virtual world. And as manmade natural disasters are primed to become the new normal, it might also be ushering in a brand new festival world.

And while the new virtual cinema (an eclectic selection of 40 films from the program, with more to come) is only accessible to those based in Denmark (though at 6 euros per film its a socially-isolating family bargain if you are), and live broadcasts from the five-day CPH:CONFERENCE strictly for accredited guests, the festival has decided to make its first-ever digital debate programme something for everyone. CPH:DOX Live is comprised of 15 debates that can be experienced for free and live throughout the festival at 4pm and 8pm daily. You can follow the debate either through a link on our website or on Facebook, where the debates will be broadcast live. (Though the talks are paired with specific docs, no film watching is required.)

So at the festivals urging to Make yourself comfortable on the couch, while enjoying these important conversations of a world that keeps on revolving, even when we need to stay at home, Ive picked out a handful of mind-engaging debates I cant wait to tune in on in order to tune out that head-spinning world.

Black Holes

At 8PM on March 20th, I hope to learn the answer to the question, What can black holes tell us about humanity? Harvard professor Peter Galison, the director of The Edge of All We Know an exploration of the black hole pursuit by both the Event Horizon Telescope and Stephen Hawking and his team == will be in conversation with astrophysicists Marianne Vestergaard and Brooke Simmons. The event will also serve as the online virtual opening night of the CPH:SCIENCE program. A fitting start for the unknown future of humanity, too.

Crazy, Not Insane

Alex Gibneys latest delves into the world of murderers through the lifes work of forensic psychiatrist Dorothy Otnow Lewis, whos interviewed everyone from Ted Bundy, to Arthur Shawcross to Joel Rifkin. And at 4PM on March 21st, the doc will serve as a launching pad for Copenhagen University senior physician and senior researcher Anne Mette Brandt-Christensen and Janni Pedersen, a crime reporter and journalist, to challenge the conventional wisdom surrounding the brains of those who choose to kill.

Citizen K

While a Gibney double feature will only be a possibility for those in Denmark, the chance to hear from this films oligarch star is available to all. At 8PM on March 22nd the Russian dissident Mikhail Khodorkovsky, sentenced to nearly a decade in prison after publicly challenging the corrupt Russian government back in 2003, will be chatting with Leif Daviden, a Russia expert and author, about what else? Putins Russia. Though also, one hopes, about how exactly a 90s gangster capitalist became a current champion of democracy and human rights.

Citizenfour and AI

Though Laura Poitrass 2015 Oscar-winner wont be screened, on March 23rd at 8PM another dissident and champion of democracy and human rights with (forced) ties to Russia can be beamed in via live-stream to a smartphone near you. Yes, the iconic whistleblower Edward Snowden is set to discuss how AI is impacting the global surveillance state with science and tech correspondent Henrik Moltke. And if you happen to be in Denmark, you can pair this potentially Orwellian talk with Tonje Hessen Scheis 2019 film iHuman, which explores how artificial intelligence might curb climate change and save the world or end society as we know it.

Oliver Sacks

Finally, Ric Burnss Oliver Sacks: His Own Life, an exhaustive cinematic dissection of the famed neurologist and author, forms the basis of this conversation scheduled for March 24th at 8PM. The University of Copenhagens associate professor of psychology Signe Allerup Vangkilde and neuroscientist Troels W. Kjr will fill us in on how Sacks changed the way we see the brain and possibly humankind itself. (A true meeting of the minds to be sure.)

A battle with the NSA, and Netflix subscribers flock to pandemic classic: This week’s best and biggest on Netflix – HalifaxToday.ca

Posted on March 23, 2020 by admin

Check out Jordan Parker's 'The week's best and biggest on Netflix' every Friday on HalifaxToday.ca.

Escape From Alcatraz

Before he was a crackerjack director, Clint Eastwood was a stoic, incredible actor with a penchant for being the litmus test for a good film.

If Eastwood was in it, it was worth the price of admission. Escape From Alcatraz based on a real-life prison escape is no different.

This slick, engrossing adventure film features Eastwood in a trademark tough guy role, as one of three men who attempts escape from the infamous Alcatraz.

Featuring a young Fred Ward, this movie has a committed ensemble cast and will keep you entirely entertained.

Its an Eastwood classic and a great title to check out.

4/5 Stars

The Last Stand

When Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to make a comeback, some relished the idea. Others groaned. I was the latter.

The former California governor, 1980s action star and king of one-liners took a break after the disappointing Terminator 3 in 2003. Seven years later, he decided to pop up in Sly Stallone comeback vehicle The Expendables.

But here in The Last Stand Schwarzenegger cant rely on an ensemble. He is the star. But for all the misfires hes had since 2010, this is one of his better efforts.

Completely underappreciated upon arrival, this story of a sheriff who must staff off a cartel kingpin at the Mexican border is a lot of fun.

Far below his classic titles, Arnie still manages to wrangle laughs and huge action along with Forest Whitaker and Johnny Knoxville.

It wont change your life, but this is more than enough to give you a nostalgic kick.

3.5/5 Stars

United 93

This real-time film about the foiled terrorist plot aboard United Flight 93 on September 11, 2001, is one of the most comprehensive, emotional films about the topic.

Written and directed by Bourne maestro Paul Greengrass, this is an evocative film that doesnt lean on some celebrity cast to get performances.

To see the heroics of the passengers against certain death is a really beautiful thing, and this is one of those movies that will stay with you.

Its a crowning achievement for Greengrass, and must-see viewing for all of you.

4/5 Stars

Contagion

I know I just featured this flick a few months back, but given COVID-19, the people have spoken.

This movie has catapulted back into Netflixs Top 10 most-viewed films of the week, and while its timely, its also an incredible achievement.

The story of health professionals, government and citizens working through a deadly pandemic rings so true right now, and though the film wasnt as appreciated on release, people are responding right now.

Steven Soderberghs direction is enviable, and he creates tension, suspense and terror like youve never seen.

With Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Jude Law and more incredible actors on board, its a heck of an acting ensemble, but itll also make the germophobe in everyone wince at every sneeze for days.

4/5 Stars

Snowden

This film about agency employee and whistleblower Edward Snowden is one of the most provocative of the last 10 years.

The story of the man who leaked the NSAs surveillance techniques to the public paints him in so many lights.

Snowden is considered two different things, depending on who you ask: traitor or patriot, hero or villain. The man has been in hiding from extradition for years, and its perfect this subject matter is handled by Oliver Stone.

Its great directing, and one of the best films Stone known for JFK and Natural Born Killers has done in years. With Melissa Leo, Nicolas Cage, a disappointing Shailene Woodley and Zachary Quinto on board, its a heck of a cast.

But make no mistake, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the star here. His idiosyncrasies as Snowden are incredible, and this is one of the best performances of his career so far.

4/5 Stars

Jordan Parker's weekly film reviews can be found on his blog, Parker & The Picture Shows.

Original post:
A battle with the NSA, and Netflix subscribers flock to pandemic classic: This week's best and biggest on Netflix - HalifaxToday.ca

What is the USA PATRIOT Act? – IT PRO

Posted on March 23, 2020 by admin

Next year will mark the 20th anniversary of one of the most controversial laws in U.S. history. The USA PATRIOT Act was a direct response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S.

Signed into law less than two after 9/11, it expanded the rights of law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the U.S., leading to an unprecedented level of data collection on American citizens and laying the groundwork for Edward Snowden's revelations 12 years later. What did the PATRIOT Act do and why is March 15, 2020 such an important date for the legislation?

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act began as H.R 2975 in the House of Representatives and S.1510 in the Senate. It modified existing law to grant new powers in what lawmakers saw as an emerging battle against terrorism.

Advertisement - Article continues below

While the Act's author has said publicly that it was never intended for bulk data collection, it nevertheless made it easier for law enforcement to cast the net.

"Companies hold a lot of information that can be considered 'tangible things' that they collect from their users," explains James Mariani, an associate at law firm Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC. "This information is undeniably useful for investigation, especially at the inception of an investigation when you are casting a wide net and looking for leads.

The legislation amended a swathe of prior laws including the 1986 the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The ECPA had locked down eavesdropping on electronic communications and telephone calls by the U.S. government, carving out specific conditions in which it would be allowed.

Sections 201 and 202 of the PATRIOT Act expanded the list of serious crimes that would warrant government eavesdropping to include computer and terrorist crimes. Under the Act, intentional access to protected government computers is now a crime that can trigger a wiretap application.

Advertisement - Article continues below

Section 209 made it easier to collect voicemail by putting it in the same category as email rather than treating it as a phone call when it came to surveillance. This lowered its standard of protection, making it easier to gather.

Section 210 of the Act added to the kinds of records authorities could subpoena from a communication services provider. It now included records of session times and duration, temporarily assigned network addresses and credit card or bank account numbers.

Section 216 extended pen register and trap and trace orders for electronic communications covering "dialing, routing, addressing, or signalling information". That expanded its coverage to internet communications including email and web surfing. Along with section 219, this section also expands the application of pen register surveillance warrants so any district court could issue them for anywhere else in the country.

Under section 217, the Act also allowed law enforcement agencies to intercept communications with a trespasser in a protected computer system (assuming the system's owner agreed). The definition of a protected computer is one used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, which really means any internet-connected computer. This hides the surveillance from judicial oversight while, according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center, allowing even file sharers to be watched.

Advertisement - Article continues below

One of the most controversial sections of the PATRIOT Act was section 215, also known as the "tangible things" or "business records" section of the law. This amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), expanding the kinds of records the FBI could ask a business to provide. These now included books, records and documents. The list was wide enough that it applies to any records relevant to an individual, according to EPIC, including medical and educational records.

The American Library Association criticised this section, warning it allowed the authorities to collect information about peoples' borrowing habits en masse without any reason to believe that they were engaged in illegal activity. It also introduced a gag order that stopped businesses from mentioning these requests, so if the FBI asked an ISP for a customer's email, it wasn't allowed to let that customer know.

The US government relied on section 215 of the PATRIOT Act when it instigated a mass-surveillance program that hoovered up records of U.S. citizens' phone calls under President Bush in 2002.

Advertisement - Article continues below

According to a class-action lawsuit in 2006, the NSA conspired with AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon to collect and hand over the records. It was followed by an ongoing bulk telephone-metadata collection program authorized by the FISA Court in 2006, which came to light in 2013.

The new measures that the PATRIOT Act introduced were supposed to expire -- U.S. lawmakers called it 'sunsetting -- in 2005. It was renewed then and again in 2011 and then again in the USA Freedom Act on June 2, 2015. That Act was passed in a hurry after the PATRIOT Act provisions sunsetted the day before, crippling the NSA's information-gathering capabilities.

The USA Freedom Act extended section 215's sunset period to December 2019, but to win that concession, supporters of the NSA's surveillance program had to compromise by curtailing the mass collection of phone and internet metadata and limiting the government's data collection to the "greatest extent reasonably practical."

Advertisement - Article continues below

Now, instead of handing over to the NSA, the phone companies would have to hold onto the call metadata. Government agencies could only query it using specific sectors to limit the number of records gathered.

It was a start, but there's still a long way to go, says Marc Rotenburg, president at EPIC. "[There was] some progress after the Freedom Act, but still 215 requires reforms," he warns.

The EFF and some senators agree. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) wrote to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in 2019 asking whether the intelligence community is using section 215 to collect location-based data from citizens' phones or carriers. He said, If Congress is to reauthorize Section 215 before it expires in December, it needs to know how this law is being interpreted now, as well as how it could be interpreted in the future. The DNI responded that it hasn't used section 215 in this way yet and hadn't decided if it was appropriate to do so.

Advertisement - Article continues below

The situation is even more complex. In April 2019 the NSA asked the White House for permission to end its mass phone-surveillance program because of the technical complexity involved. The new restrictions seemed to make the program not worth the effort, and the extra-careful handling now required made errors more likely.

The NSA admitted in June 2018 that "technical irregularities" meant it had collected some call data records that it wasn't supposed to.

Nevertheless, the NSA is still arguing for the right to reintroduce the program at a future time, against fierce opposition from lawmakers.

"They are likely hoping that the promise of only using it within tighter and more publicly acceptable constraints (e.g. more clearly linked and relevant to detecting international terrorism) will keep it on the table rather than ending their 'business records' power altogether," says Mariani.

Lawmakers will vote on whether to extend section 215 on March 15, after putting off the decision for 90 days in December. It'll be another landmark date in the USA's long and stormy history of domestic surveillance.

Top 5 challenges of migrating applications to the cloud

Explore how VMware Cloud on AWS helps to address common cloud migration challenges

3 reasons why now is the time to rethink your network

Changing requirements call for new solutions

All-flash buyers guide

Tips for evaluating Solid-State Arrays

Enabling enterprise machine and deep learning with intelligent storage

The power of AI can only be realised through efficient and performant delivery of data

Visit link:
What is the USA PATRIOT Act? - IT PRO

Trump Isn’t the First President to Attack the Press – The Nation

Posted on March 23, 2020 by admin

Donald Trump at the NBC Universal 2015 Winter TCA Press Tour. (Joe Seer / Shutterstock)

EDITORS NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Every month, it seems, brings a new act in the Trump administrations war on the media. In January, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo exploded at National Public Radio reporter Mary Louise Kelly when he didnt like questions she askedand then banned a colleague of hers from the plane on which he was leaving for a trip to Europe and Asia. In February, the Trump staff booted a Bloomberg News reporter out of an Iowa election campaign event.Ad Policy

The president has repeatedly called the press an enemy of the peoplethe very phrase that, in Russian (vrag naroda),was applied by Joseph Stalins prosecutors to the millions of people they sent to the gulag or to execution chambers. In that context, Trumps term for BuzzFeed, a failing pile of garbage, sounds comparatively benign. Last year, Axios revealed that some of the presidents supporters were trying to raise a fund of more than $2 million to gather damaging information on journalists at The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other media outfits. In 2018, it took a court order to force the White House to restore CNN reporter Jim Acostas press pass. And the list goes on.

Yet it remains deceptively easy to watch all the furor over the media with the feeling that its still intact and safely protected. After all, didnt Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan rail against the press in their presidencies? And dont we have the First Amendment? In my copy of Samuel Eliot Morisons 1,150-page Oxford History of the American People, the word censorship doesnt even appear in the index; while, in an article on The History of Publishing, the Encyclopedia Britannica reassures us that in the United States, no formal censorship has ever been established.

So how bad could it get? The answer to that question, given the actual history of this country, is: much worse.

Though few remember it today, exactly 100 years ago, this countrys media was laboring under the kind of official censorship that would undoubtedly thrill both Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo. And yet the name of the man who zestfully banned magazines and newspapers of all sorts doesnt even appear in either Morisons history, that Britannica article, or just about anywhere else either.

The story begins in the spring of 1917, when the United States entered the First World War. Despite his reputation as a liberal internationalist, the president at that moment, Woodrow Wilson, cared little for civil liberties. After calling for war, he quickly pushed Congress to pass what became known as the Espionage Act, which, in amended form, is still in effect. Nearly a century later, National Security Agency whistle-blower Edward Snowden would be charged under it, and in these years he would hardly be alone.

Despite its name, the act was not really motivated by fears of wartime espionage. By 1917, there were few German spies left in the United States. Most of them had been caught two years earlier when their paymaster got off a New York City elevated train leaving behind a briefcase quickly seized by the American agent tailing him.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

Rather, the new law allowed the government to define any opposition to the war as criminal. And since many of those who spoke out most strongly against entry into the conflict came from the ranks of the Socialist Party, the Industrial Workers of the World (famously known as the Wobblies), or the followers of the charismatic anarchist Emma Goldman, this in effect allowed the government to criminalize much of the Left. (My new book, Rebel Cinderella, follows the career of Rose Pastor Stokes, a famed radical orator who was prosecuted under the Espionage Act.)

Censorship was central to that repressive era. As the Washington Evening Star reported in May 1917, President Wilson today renewed his efforts to put an enforced newspaper censorship section into the espionage bill. The Act was then being debated in Congress. I have every confidence, he wrote to the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, that the great majority of the newspapers of the country will observe a patriotic reticence about everything whose publication could be of injury, but in every country there are some persons in a position to do mischief in this field.

Subject to punishment under the Espionage Act of 1917, among others, would be anyone who shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States.

Who was it who would determine what was disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive? When it came to anything in print, the Act gave that power to the postmaster general, former Texas Congressman Albert Sidney Burleson. He has been called the worst postmaster general in American history, writes the historian G. J. Meyer, but that is unfair; he introduced parcel post and airmail and improved rural service. It is fair to say, however, that he may have been the worst human being ever to serve as postmaster general.

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nations work.

Burleson was the son and grandson of Confederate veterans. When he was born, his family still owned more than 20 slaves. The first Texan to serve in a cabinet, he remained a staunch segregationist. In the Railway Mail Service (where clerks sorted mail on board trains), for instance, he considered it intolerable that whites and blacks not only had to work together but use the same toilets and towels. He pushed to segregate Post Office lavatories and lunchrooms.

He saw to it that screens were erected so blacks and whites working in the same space would not have to see each other. Nearly all Negro clerks of long-standing service have been dropped, the anguished son of a black postal worker wrote to the New Republic, adding,Every Negro clerk eliminated means a white clerk appointed. Targeted for dismissal from Burlesons Post Office, the writer claimed, was any Negro clerk in the South who fails to say Sir promptly to any white person.

One scholar described Burleson as having a round, almost chubby face, a hook nose, gray and rather cold eyes and short side whiskers. With his conservative black suit and eccentric round-brim hat, he closely resembled an English cleric. From President Wilson and other cabinet members, he quickly acquired the nickname The Cardinal. He typically wore a high wing collar and, rain or shine, carried a black umbrella. Embarrassed that he suffered from gout, he refused to use a cane.

Like most previous occupants of his office, Burleson lent a political hand to the president by artfully dispensing patronage to members of Congress. One Kansas senator, for example, got five postmasterships to distribute in return for voting the way Wilson wanted on a tariff law.

When the striking new powers the Espionage Act gave him went into effect, Burleson quickly refocused his energies on the suppression of dissenting publications of any sort. Within a day of its passage, he instructed postmasters throughout the country to immediately send him newspapers or magazines that looked in any way suspicious.

And what exactly were postmasters to look for? Anything, Burleson told them, calculated tocause insubordination, disloyalty, mutinyor otherwise to embarrass or hamper the Government in conducting the war. What did embarrass mean? In a later statement, he would list a broad array of possibilities, from saying that the government is controlled by Wall Street or munition manufacturers or any other special interests to attacking improperly our allies. Improperly?

He knew that vague threats could inspire the most fear and so, when a delegation of prominent lawyers, including the famous defense attorney Clarence Darrow, came to see him, he refused to spell out his prohibitions in any more detail. When members of Congress asked the same question, he declared that disclosing such information was incompatible with the public interest.

One of Burlesons most prominent targets would be the New York City monthly The Masses. Named after the workers that radicals were then convinced would determine the revolutionary course of history, the magazine was never actually read by them. It did, however, become one of the liveliest publications this country has ever known and something of a precursor to the New Yorker. It published a mix of political commentary, fiction, poetry, and reportage, while pioneering the style of cartoons captioned by a single line of dialogue for which the New Yorker would later become so well known.

From Sherwood Anderson and Carl Sandburg to Edna St. Vincent Millay and the young future columnist Walter Lippmann, its writers were among the best of its day. Its star reporter was John Reed, future author of Ten Days That Shook the World, a classic eyewitness account of the Russian Revolution. His zest for being at the center of the action, whether in jail with striking workers in New Jersey or on the road with revolutionaries in Mexico, made him one of the finest journalists in the English-speaking world.

Get unlimited digital access to the best independent news and analysis.

A slapdash gathering of energy, youth, hope, the critic Irving Howe later wrote, The Masses was the rallying centerfor almost everything that was then alive and irreverent in American culture. But that was no protection. On July 17, 1917, just a month after the Espionage Act passed, the Post Office notified the magazines editor by letter that the August issue of the Masses is unmailable. The offending items, the editors were told, were four passages of text and four cartoons, one of which showed the Liberty Bell falling apart.

Soon after, Burleson revoked the publications second-class mailing permit. (And not to be delivered by the Post Office in 1917 meant not to be read.) A personal appeal from the editor to President Wilson proved unsuccessful. Half a dozenMassesstaff members including Reed would be put on trialtwicefor violating the Espionage Act. Both trials resulted in hung juries, but whatever the frustration for prosecutors, the countrys best magazine had been closed for good. Many more would soon follow.

When editors tried to figure out the principles that lay behind the new regime of censorship, the results were vague and bizarre. William Lamar, the solicitor of the Post Office (the departments chief legal officer), told the journalist Oswald Garrison Villard, You know I am not working in the dark on this censorship thing. I know exactly what I am after. I am after three things and only three thingspro-Germanism, pacifism, and high-browism.

Within a week of the Espionage Act going into effect, the issues of at least a dozen socialist newspapers and magazines had been barred from the mail. Less than a year later, more than 400 different issues of American periodicals had been deemed unmailable. The Nation was targeted, for instance, for criticizing Wilsons ally, the conservative labor leader Samuel Gompers; the Public, a progressive Chicago magazine, for urging that the government raise money by taxes instead of loans; and the Freemans Journal and Catholic Register for reminding its readers that Thomas Jefferson had backed independence for Ireland. (That land, of course, was then under the rule of wartime ally Great Britain.) Six hundred copies of a pamphlet distributed by the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, Why Freedom Matters, were seized and banned for criticizing censorship itself. After two years under the Espionage Act, the second-class mailing privileges of 75 periodicals had been canceled entirely.

From such a ban, there was no appeal, though a newspaper or magazine could file a lawsuit (none of which succeeded during Burlesons tenure). In Kafkaesque fashion, it often proved impossible even to learn why something had been banned. When the publisher of one forbidden pamphlet asked, the Post Office responded: If the reasons are not obvious to you or anyone else having the welfare of this country at heart, it will be uselessto present them. When he inquired again, regarding some banned books, the reply took 13 months to arrive and merely granted him permission to submit a statement to the postal authorities for future consideration.

In those years, thanks to millions of recent immigrants, the United States had an enormous foreign-language press written in dozens of tongues, from Serbo-Croatian to Greek, frustratingly incomprehensible to Burleson and his minions. In the fall of 1917, however, Congress solved the problem by requiring foreign-language periodicals to submit translations of any articles that had anything whatever to do with the war to the Post Office before publication.

Censorship had supposedly been imposed only because the country was at war. The Armistice of November 11, 1918 ended the fighting and on the 27th of that month, Woodrow Wilson announced that censorship would be halted as well. But with the president distracted by the Paris peace conference and then his campaign to sell his plan for a League of Nations to the American public, Burleson simply ignored his order.

Until he left office in March 1921more than two years after the war endedthe postmaster general continued to refuse second-class mailing privileges to publications he disliked. When a U.S. District Court found in favor of several magazines that had challenged him, Burleson (with Wilsons approval) appealed the verdict and the Supreme Court rendered a timidly mixed decision only after the administration was out of power. Paradoxically, it was conservative Republican President Warren Harding who finally brought political censorship of the American press to a halt.

Could it all happen again?

In some ways, we seem better off today. Despite Donald Trumps ferocity toward the media, we haventyetseen the equivalent of Burleson barring publications from the mail. And partly because he has attacked them directly, the presidents blasts have gotten strong pushback from mainstream pillars like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN, as well as from civil society organizations of all kinds.

A century ago, except for a few brave and lonely voices, there was no equivalent. In 1917, the American Bar Association was typical in issuing a statement saying, We condemn all attemptsto hinder and embarrass the Government of the United States in carrying on the war. We deem them to be pro-German, and in effect giving aid and comfort to the enemy. In the fall of that year, even the Times declared that the country must protect itself against its enemies at home. The Government has made a good beginning.

In other ways, however, things are more dangerous today. Social media is dominated by a few companies wary of offending the administration, and has already been cleverly manipulated by forces ranging from Cambridge Analytica to Russian military intelligence. Outright lies, false rumors, and more can be spread by millions of bots and people cant even tell where theyre coming from.

This torrent of untruth flooding in through the back door may be far more powerful than what comes through the front door of the recognized news media. And even at that front door, in Fox News, Trump has a vast media empire to amplify his attacks on his enemies, a mouthpiece far more powerful than the largest newspaper chain of Woodrow Wilsons day. With such tools, does a demagogue who loves strongmen the world over and who jokes about staying in power indefinitely even need censorship?

Visit link:
Trump Isn't the First President to Attack the Press - The Nation

Vitalik Buterins latest thoughts on Ethereum 2.0 – Decrypt

Posted on March 23, 2020 by admin

Vitalik Buterin hasnt let the coronavirus crisis and ensuing market mayhem hold up development on Ethereum 2.0the platforms mammoth scaling project. On Wednesday, the Ethereum cofounder tweeted his vision of what lies ahead in the next five to 10 years.

Ethereum is the second biggest blockchain platform after Bitcoin, by market cap. Its in the midst of huge changes which, over the next few years, should make it scalable, and capable of supporting many more users.

But it wont be easy.

Five to 10 years is a lifetime in the volatile and fast moving crypto space. Buterin maintains it will be worth itnot just for scalability, but for security too.

The biggest change is that Ethereum is moving from proof of work (PoW) to proof of stake (PoS). This changes the way in which new Ethereum blocks are created and how the network is run. (For a comparison of the two consensus methods, see here.) Switching to PoS, Buterin maintains, will make attacking the network more costly.

The roadmap he presented shows a birds eye view on the Ethereum network as it will evolvein Buterins mind. Half of it looks at the current state of Ethereum and focuses on making sure it continues to improve. The other half deals with Ethereum 2.0.

Phase 0 gets the blockchain ready for the switchover to PoS. Phase 1 is when it actually makes the switch. At this point it enables an interesting technology, called rollups, that could help Ethereum support more transactions.

Eth2 is all about scale

Vitalik Buterin

At this point, Ethereum 1 and the new, PoS blockchain will merge together and become one blockchain (with all of the past transactions stored on it).

Then, we get to the main tenets of Ethereum 2.0. This is where advanced cryptography will come in, including potential quantum resistant cryptography. Other tools will be introduced to make the network offer more capabilities.

In Wednesdays tweet thread, Buterin was also careful to emphasize that the new roadmap was subject to change as new technology or information came to light. And he added that it reflected only his own views.

Buterin underlined an increasing focus on maintaining compatibility, to ensure a smooth transition to Eth2, together with a solid shift from blue sky researchtrying to understand what is possibleto concrete research and development.

Answering criticisms about Ethereums complexity hindering its ability to scale, Buterin insisted that many of the changes are actually in the direction of reducing complexity. Not that it comes across in the roadmap.

Challenged on how Eth2 could be better than Bitcoin, Buterin posted a six-point riposte.

Top of the list were sharding and Zero Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs). Sharding is a way of splitting the blockchain up, making it a lighter load for those keeping the network running. Zero knowledge proofs are experimental privacy technologies that make it easier to send anonymous crypto transactions.

Buterin said these two factors would make the network cheaper to use, especially compared to Bitcoin. And they would help it to accommodate more transactions. Eth2 is all about scale, he insisted.

He also argued again that PoS will be a superior consensus mechanismwhen its built. But with a five to 10 year roadmap, thats easier said than done.

Link:
Vitalik Buterins latest thoughts on Ethereum 2.0 - Decrypt

Blockchain Revolution Series: Citigroup Ventures With Ethereum-Based Komgo To Target Trade Finance Domain – EconoTimes

Posted on March 23, 2020 by admin

One of the reputed global banking giant, Citibank has geared-up with its investment in the Ethereum-based decentralized trade financing start-up Komgo.

The global head of commodity trade finance at Citigroup, Mr. Kris van Broekhoven, has divulged the news of raising their equity in Komgo with an objective of enabling the company to further developing in commodity trade finance.

Companies like IBM laid emphasis on cryptography/tokenization and have promoted the integration of Blockchain based system with the conventional businesses from trade finance banking to supply chain management system. Evidently, it has instigated the Blockchain-based trial to track the shipment of various commodities.

With that said, the renowned global banking giant, citibank has time and again appeared to have been in the news of its investment. Recently, they invested in Contour which is the blockchain-driven trade finance network, per theannouncement.

For now, Kris clarified in the recent past whilespeakingwith ConsenSys as to how some of the largest institutions across the globe are coming together to build an end-to-end solution for commodities trade financing with the deployment of blockchain technology.

Of late, trade finance business and blockchain seem to be making the best combination in the advance era of technology and finance.

Whilekomgo happens appears to be dedicated to establishing a decentralized digital platform for end-to-end solution of trade finance in the commodities space.

Citi is one of the founding investors of komgo when it was incepted in early 2018, and recently topped up their equity to allow the company to continue developing.For over a century, the banking industry has been highly relied on the exchange and manual processing of paper documentation. Now, blockchain technology serves as a catalyst to disrupt the industry towards the processing of electronic data. Banks and clients are eyeing on simplified,well-designedand swift user experience that is compatible with the digital tools.

Picking up the quantum technology baton – The Hindu

Posted on March 23, 2020 by admin

In the Budget 2020 speech, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman made a welcome announcement for Indian science over the next five years she proposed spending 8,000 crore (~ $1.2 billion) on a National Mission on Quantum Technologies and Applications. This promises to catapult India into the midst of the second quantum revolution, a major scientific effort that is being pursued by the United States, Europe, China and others. In this article we describe the scientific seeds of this mission, the promise of quantum technology and some critical constraints on its success that can be lifted with some imagination on the part of Indian scientific institutions and, crucially, some strategic support from Indian industry and philanthropy.

Quantum mechanics was developed in the early 20th century to describe nature in the small at the scale of atoms and elementary particles. For over a century it has provided the foundations of our understanding of the physical world, including the interaction of light and matter, and led to ubiquitous inventions such as lasers and semiconductor transistors. Despite a century of research, the quantum world still remains mysterious and far removed from our experiences based on everyday life. A second revolution is currently under way with the goal of putting our growing understanding of these mysteries to use by actually controlling nature and harnessing the benefits of the weird and wondrous properties of quantum mechanics. One of the most striking of these is the tremendous computing power of quantum computers, whose actual experimental realisation is one of the great challenges of our times. The announcement by Google, in October 2019, where they claimed to have demonstrated the so-called quantum supremacy, is one of the first steps towards this goal.

Besides computing, exploring the quantum world promises other dramatic applications including the creation of novel materials, enhanced metrology, secure communication, to name just a few. Some of these are already around the corner. For example, China recently demonstrated secure quantum communication links between terrestrial stations and satellites. And computer scientists are working towards deploying schemes for post-quantum cryptography clever schemes by which existing computers can keep communication secure even against quantum computers of the future. Beyond these applications, some of the deepest foundational questions in physics and computer science are being driven by quantum information science. This includes subjects such as quantum gravity and black holes.

Pursuing these challenges will require an unprecedented collaboration between physicists (both experimentalists and theorists), computer scientists, material scientists and engineers. On the experimental front, the challenge lies in harnessing the weird and wonderful properties of quantum superposition and entanglement in a highly controlled manner by building a system composed of carefully designed building blocks called quantum bits or qubits. These qubits tend to be very fragile and lose their quantumness if not controlled properly, and a careful choice of materials, design and engineering is required to get them to work. On the theoretical front lies the challenge of creating the algorithms and applications for quantum computers. These projects will also place new demands on classical control hardware as well as software platforms.

Globally, research in this area is about two decades old, but in India, serious experimental work has been under way for only about five years, and in a handful of locations. What are the constraints on Indian progress in this field? So far we have been plagued by a lack of sufficient resources, high quality manpower, timeliness and flexibility. The new announcement in the Budget would greatly help fix the resource problem but high quality manpower is in global demand. In a fast moving field like this, timeliness is everything delayed funding by even one year is an enormous hit.

A previous programme called Quantum Enabled Science and Technology has just been fully rolled out, more than two years after the call for proposals. Nevertheless, one has to laud the governments announcement of this new mission on a massive scale and on a par with similar programmes announced recently by the United States and Europe. This is indeed unprecedented, and for the most part it is now up to the government, its partner institutions and the scientific community to work out details of the mission and roll it out quickly.

But there are some limits that come from how the government must do business with public funds. Here, private funding, both via industry and philanthropy, can play an outsized role even with much smaller amounts. For example, unrestricted funds that can be used to attract and retain high quality manpower and to build international networks all at short notice can and will make an enormous difference to the success of this enterprise. This is the most effective way (as China and Singapore discovered) to catch up scientifically with the international community, while quickly creating a vibrant intellectual environment to help attract top researchers.

Further, connections with Indian industry from the start would also help quantum technologies become commercialised successfully, allowing Indian industry to benefit from the quantum revolution. We must encourage industrial houses and strategic philanthropists to take an interest and reach out to Indian institutions with an existing presence in this emerging field. As two of us can personally attest, the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), home to Indias first superconducting quantum computing lab, would be delighted to engage.

R. Vijayaraghavan is Associate Professor of Physics at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and leads its experimental quantum computing effort; Shivaji Sondhi is Professor of Physics at Princeton University and has briefed the PM-STIAC on the challenges of quantum science and technology development; Sandip Trivedi, a Theoretical Physicist, is Distinguished Professor and Director of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research; Umesh Vazirani is Professor of Computer Science and Director, Berkeley Quantum Information and Computation Center and has briefed the PM-STIAC on the challenges of quantum science and technology development

You have reached your limit for free articles this month.

Find mobile-friendly version of articles from the day's newspaper in one easy-to-read list.

Enjoy reading as many articles as you wish without any limitations.

A select list of articles that match your interests and tastes.

Move smoothly between articles as our pages load instantly.

A one-stop-shop for seeing the latest updates, and managing your preferences.

We brief you on the latest and most important developments, three times a day.

Not convinced? Know why you should pay for news.

*Our Digital Subscription plans do not currently include the e-paper ,crossword, iPhone, iPad mobile applications and print. Our plans enhance your reading experience.

View post:
Picking up the quantum technology baton - The Hindu

Ethereum (ETH) Up $1.84 On 4 Hour Chart; Entered Today Down 7.75% – CFD Trading

Posted on March 23, 2020 by admin

Ethereum 4 Hour Price Update

Updated March 23, 2020 05:35 AM GMT (01:35 AM EST)

Ethereums 5 four-hour candle negative has officially concluded, as the candle from the last 4 hour candle closed up 1.5% ($1.84). Out of the 5 instruments in the Top Cryptos asset class, Ethereum ended up ranking 4th for the four-hour candle in terms of price change relative to the last 4 hour candle.

Ethereum is down 7.75% ($10.28) since the previous day, marking the 3rd day in a row a decline has happened. The change in price came along side change in volume that was down 1.39% from previous day, but up 1041346709.4% from the Sunday of last week. Out of the 5 instruments in the Top Cryptos asset class, Ethereum ended up ranking 4th for the day in terms of price change relative to the previous day. Here is a daily price chart of Ethereum.

The clearest trend exists on the 30 day timeframe, which shows price moving down over that time. For another vantage point, consider that Ethereums price has gone down 5 of the previous 10 trading days.

Behold! Here are the top tweets related to Ethereum:

Israeli government is seriously considering postponing/cancelling daylight savings, which is supposed to go into effect in 5 days, because they think it will encourage people to stay homeYou cant cancel daylight savings with a 5 days notice you plebs, this isnt Ethereum

$ETH is a store of value (digital gold), a medium of exchange (currency), the energy that powers the #ethereum network (gas), the equity that controls the network (PoS), and so much more. It is a multi-dimensional asset unlike any weve seen before.

This week a senior engineer at an Ethereum killer told me:Ethereum is just 20-something technologists, they dont have cryptography experience nor a database engineering pastYet this is precisely how innovation happens: young beginner minds thinking from first principles.

As for a news story related to Ethereum getting some buzz:

Full Stack Hello World Voting Ethereum Dapp Tutorial Part 1

In this post, lets build a simple Hello World! application which is a Voting application.The goal is not to just code an application but to learn the process of compiling, deploying and interacting with it.Unlike in the web world where every deploy of your code overwrites the old code, deployed code in the blockchain is immutable.Now lets compile the code and deploy it to ganache blockchain.You first create a contract object (deployedContract) which is used to deploy and initiate contracts in the blockchain.We use the web3 deploy function along with send to deploy the contract to the blockchain.

The rest is here:
Ethereum (ETH) Up $1.84 On 4 Hour Chart; Entered Today Down 7.75% - CFD Trading