Page 11234..1020..»

5 best software to analyze chess games in 2019 –

This is a strong open source chess engine which is offered for free, and is available for both desktop and mobile platforms.

Stockfish has consistently ranked number one or near the top of most chess engine rating lists, and is one of the strongest open-source engines worldwide. It uses up to 512 CPU cores in multiprocessor systems, with a maximal transposition table size of 1 terabyte.

Features include an alpha-beta search, bitboards, great search depth because of more aggressive pruning and late move reductions, and support for Chess960, plus much more.

The program comes from the Glaurung, an open-source chess engine released first in 2004, and four years later, Costalba took over and renamed it Stockfish because it was produced in Norway and cooked in Italy Costalba is Italian, and Romstad (creator of Glaurung) is Norwegian.

Stockfish is powerful and much stronger than the best human chess grandmasters. Unlike most chess engines, it is open source (GPL License), so you can read the code, modify it, contribute back and use it in your own projects.

You can also run it anywhere, including Windows operating system and on your smart devices, so you can get world-class chess analysis wherever you are.

Get Stockfish chess software

Follow this link:
5 best software to analyze chess games in 2019 -

Read More..

Hedera Hashgraph (HBAR) Founder Says Quantum Computing Is Not a Threat to Cryptocurrency, Although That Claim Is Debatable Crypto.IQ | Bitcoin and…

Dr. Leemon Baird, the Founder of Hedera Hashgraph (HBAR) which is a relatively new cryptocurrency that boasts 10,000 transactions per second, has claimed that quantum computing is no threat to cryptocurrency at the Web Summit 2019.

The debate over quantum computing is popping up due to Google and NASA researchers creating the first computer that has achieved quantum supremacy, meaning it can perform a specific but non-useful task faster than the worlds top supercomputer. Specifically, the quantum computer performed a task in 200 seconds that would take the worlds top supercomputer 10,000 years to perform.

This has re-ignited fears that one day quantum computers will be strong enough to break through top encryption algorithms, which could theoretically cause all cryptocurrencies to be compromised.

Dr. Baird compares this situation to Y2K, saying like Y2K; yes, we had to make some changes to software at Y2K. Was it the end of the world? Actually, no. Dr. Baird goes on to describe how quantum computers may take over a decade to become powerful enough to crack Bitcoins (BTC) cryptography, and at that point Bitcoin (BTC) and all other cryptocurrencies could switch to a new encryption algorithm.

Indeed, as Dr. Baird points out, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) is holding a contest to find the best new encryption algorithm, and Dr. Baird thinks that cryptocurrencies could easily switch to that algorithm when quantum computing becomes a real threat.

However, it is debatable as to whether quantum computing is no threat at all. Even Dr. Baird admits quantum computing will one day be strong enough to crack the cryptography of cryptocurrencies, just that they could easily switch algorithms by then.

It remains to be seen if any classical computing algorithm will be strong enough to withstand quantum computers, since there may come a point where quantum computers are becoming exponentially more powerful. Ultimately, quantum cryptography may be the only long term answer, and that would require everyone to have quantum computers.

The question then becomes, how long will it take for the public to have quantum computers and therefore access to quantum cryptography, after the first quantum computers are made which can crack top classical encryption algorithms?

Visit link:
Hedera Hashgraph (HBAR) Founder Says Quantum Computing Is Not a Threat to Cryptocurrency, Although That Claim Is Debatable Crypto.IQ | Bitcoin and...

Read More..

Innovation Focused Firms Issue Open Call for Hackers – IndustryWeek

Sometimes friendly competition is the best route to realizing new innovations.

This is the primary goal of two recently annouced an open call for hackathons participants taking place between now and mid-December.

01 Communique LaboratoryQuantum encryption

01 Communique Laboratory Inc. launched its quantum hackathon tackling the threat of quantum computing. Cybersecurity companies, computer science students and hackers have begun challenging the Companys quantum-safe encryption in a $100,000 hackathon.

On November 6th, the Company hosted an innovation celebration event with technology presentations from industry experts in artificial intelligence and cyber security. Andrew Cheung, 01 Communiques CEO, was one of the presenters addressing business people, students, and hackers on the threat quantum computers present with respect to keeping your data safe. He revealed the purpose behind the hackathon and why he is confident enough to offer a $100,000 prize.

Andrew Cheung enthusiastically described the hackathon challenge, Our hackathon will show the world that our encryption is rock-solid. We are the only Canadian company and the first post-quantum encryption to offer a prize of $100,000. We have invested over three years in developing our IronCAP technology with a development team that has combined 50 years of experience in code-based encryption. We are very confident that our technology will withstand any attempt by any participant to crack the code in our hackathon.

01 expects contestants from around the world to challenge its quantum-safe encryption. The hackathon is available online globally. Anyone to who has a Google or Facebook account can sign up to participate. Contestants will be given 30 days to crack IronCAPs code. A cash prize of $100,000 will be awarded to the first person (if there is any) who is able to break the encryption. A paper describing the method used to crack the encryption is required to be submitted by the participant.

Innovative people working in tech along with researchers, computer scientists, students and hackers are encouraged to sign up for the hackathon. Signup will be accepted online atwww.ironcap.cabeginning November 11, 2019, and the contest closes on December 12, 2019. Result will be announced on or about December 16, 2019.

Taking flight

Global IT provider Stefanini is hosting an Innovation Hackathon on Dec. 6, 2019 at its Southfield Innovation Center. The focus for this hackathon is to fly a Tello drone using voice commands. The event is open and free and requires some technology knowledge: HTML, Javascript and CSS, HTTP REST API, C# (.NET). Familiarity with Microsoft PowerBI streaming datasets and dashboards is a plus.

This event will provide manyopportunities for participants, both personally and professionally, as they co-create solutions for their future, said Renata Galle, vice president of innovation and digital business at Stefanini.

The companys goal is to attract talent through a dynamic and interactive process, identify and foster new skills within its employees, and connect students and professionals in the local market with its Digital Talent Mall and job opportunities.

A voice recognition platform and a software development kit for the drone will be provided. The teams will have to code the app to interact with the drone, send commands, extract flight information from it, and display some of this flight information back into a visualization dashboard. Each participant will be evaluated and may bepart of Stefaninis Digital Projects and Talent Mall based on:

The teams will have at their disposal different paths to follow to achieve the goal.Those interested in participating are encouraged to registeronline. Details are available here.

Excerpt from:
Innovation Focused Firms Issue Open Call for Hackers - IndustryWeek

Read More..

Cloud Computing in Industrial IoT Market in-depth approaches behind the Success of Top Players like Cisco, GE, ChargePoint, Honeywell, Intel, IBM -…

The Internet of Things (IoT) involves the internet-connected devices we use to perform the processes and services that support our way of life.The worker can use a cloud computing service to finish their work because the data is managed remotely by a server. Cloud Computing in Industrial IoT Market research reports growth rates and the market value based on market dynamics, growth factors. The complete knowledge is based on the latest innovations in the industry, opportunities, and trends. In addition to SWOT analysis by key suppliers, the report contains a comprehensive market analysis and major players landscape.

The Cloud Computing in Industrial IoT Market size is expected to grow at a CAGR of +7% during the forecast period 2019-2025

Sample Report with Latest Industry Trends @:

Top Key Companies Players Analyzed in this Report are: Cisco, GE, ChargePoint, Honeywell, Intel, IBM, ABB, Rockwell Automation, Siemens, Huawei, Bosch, Kuka, Texas Instruments, Dassault Systmes, PTC, ARM, and NEC are a few major players in the industrial IoT market.

Major highlights of this research report:

The report on the Cloud Computing in Industrial IoT Market has newly added by QYReports to its huge repository. The global market is expected to increase from 2019 to 2026. Primary and secondary research methodologies have been used for curating this research report.

Get Discount on This Report:

The competitive landscape of the Cloud Computing in Industrial IoT Market is described in terms of the players and their statistics. For each key player, the report reveals production rates, costing, overall pricing, revenue generation, and market share within the Market.

The research on the Cloud Computing in Industrial IoT Market will be applicable to investors, business owners, industry experts, and various c level peoples. Profiling of the several top-level industries has been included in this informative report.

The research study has taken the help of graphical presentation techniques such as infographics, charts, tables, and pictures. It provides guidelines for both established players and new entrants in the Cloud Computing in Industrial IoT Market.

*If you have any special requirements, please let us know and we will offer you the report as per your requirements.

For Any Customization, Ask Our Experts:

Table of Contents:

About QYReports:

We at, QYReports, a leading market research report published accommodate more than 4,000 celebrated clients worldwide putting them at advantage in todays competitive world with our understanding of research. Our list of customers includes prestigious Chinese companies, multinational companies, SMEs and private equity firms whom we have helped grow and sustain with our fact-based research. Our business study covers a market size of over 30 industries offering unfailing insights into the analysis to reimagine your business. We specialize in forecasts needed for investing in a new project, to revolutionize your business, to become more customer centric and improve the quality of output.

Continued here:
Cloud Computing in Industrial IoT Market in-depth approaches behind the Success of Top Players like Cisco, GE, ChargePoint, Honeywell, Intel, IBM -...

Read More..

Task force on artificial intelligence hearing: AI and the evolution of cloud computing – key testimony on the risks, challenges and opportunities -…

On October 18, 2019, the Task Force on Artificial Intelligence, which is a task force within the House Financial Services Committee (FSC), held a hearing titled AI and the Evolution of Cloud Computing: Evaluating How Financial Data is Stored, Protected, and Maintained by Cloud Providers. In a memorandum published before the hearing, the FSC noted that financial institutions have adopted cloud computing for non-core purposes (e.g., human resources, customer relationship management, etc.) while exercising caution when migrating over core services and activities (e.g., payments and retail banking). However, the memorandum notes that over the next five to 10 years, the expectation is that banks will move over more core functions to the cloud. The FSC notes that AI is a component of cloud computing because it helps streamline tasks, improves how data is managed and provides real-time cyber defense.

Financial institutions that use cloud computing and cloud service providers (CSP) have legal compliance obligations when financial institutions use cloud computing to perform both non-core and core functions. For example, federal regulators require CSPs to meet the same regulatory requirements as if the financial institution performed the activities (e.g., complying with the Bank Service Company Act or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)). As the FSC memorandum notes, examiners from the Federal Reserve recently visited a large CSP, and the CSP balked when the Federal Reserve asked the CSP to provide additional information after the on-site examination. Further, the CSP sought clarity from the Federal Reserve on how the Federal Reserve would use and store that information and who would have access to it. Therefore, the concerns over data privacy run both ways. As numerous witnesses in the hearing and members of the FSC noted, greater clarity from regulators regarding the use of CSPs by financial institutions would be beneficial. This echoed a 2018 Treasury report on Nonbank Financials, Fintech, and Innovation, which noted that [f]inancial services firms face several regulatory challenges related to the adoption of cloud, driven in large part by a regulatory regime that has yet to be sufficiently modernized to accommodate cloud and other innovative technologies.

The hearing addressed these compliance issues as well as issues related to consolidation, privacy and security. Below is a summary of the participants presentations.

The question and answer session that followed repeatedly focused on security issues posed by the use of CSPs, including whether and how CSPs can be better trained to understand the financial regulatory requirements imposed on their financial institution clients. Another concern mentioned was the difficulty associated with attribution when an error or breach occurs with a CSP (from the perspective of who may have been at fault and who actually committed the act Ms. Broussard noted that AI is useful in helping identify and protect against known vulnerabilities but that it struggles with unknown unknowns). Finally, near the end of the question and answer session, Mr. Benda noted the difficulties associated with the need to comply with both state laws which can vary, sometimes significantly, in their requirements and federal laws and requested that one harmonized approach be adopted so that banks do not have to answer to 51 masters.

This was the third hearing of the Task Force on Artificial Intelligence. You can watch the full hearing here.

View post:
Task force on artificial intelligence hearing: AI and the evolution of cloud computing - key testimony on the risks, challenges and opportunities -...

Read More..

The Internet: Looking Back and Forward 50 Years – Security Boulevard

The numbers are staggering. More than 4.4 billion people now use the Internet.

Collectively, we:

Watch this BBC click video to learn more about our Internet history and how it all got started.

There is no doubt that the Internet has revolutionized life in America over the past 5 decades. Forbes Magazine, and many others say the Internet is the greatest invention since the printing press, but quickly point out that we are really talking about the world-wide web (www). When this all started in 1969, no one could possibly have imagined the technological changes that would occur by 2019.

The Internet 2069

So where is this technological journey heading in the long run? Where will our innovation take us in the next fifty years?

Next month, I will be taking a detailed look at the cyber outlook for the next decade, as seen by the top tech and security companies around the world. My annual blog on cybersecurity predictions, similar to this list of top security predictions for 2019, will cover a wider span and look beyond just the year 2020.

Nevertheless, I am writing this blog to highlight the incredible work by Pew Research and Elon University which looks in detail at what will happen in another 50 years of digital life as seen by many of the top global experts from various academic disciplines.

Before I begin, I want to strongly urge readers to take the time to read the full Pew Research report. The excerpts and opinions which I offer as a summary (Read more...)

The rest is here:
The Internet: Looking Back and Forward 50 Years - Security Boulevard

Read More..

Internet security Market Outlook 2019: Business Overview And Top Company Analysis Forecast By 2026 – The Market Publicist

Internet security Market Overview:

This research study is one of the most detailed and accurate ones that solely focus on the Internet security Market. It sheds light on critical factors that impact the growth of the Internet security market on several fronts. Market participants can use the report to gain sound understanding of the competitive landscape and strategies adopted by leading players of the Internet security market. The authors of the report segment the Internet security market according to type of product, application, and region. The segments studied within the report are analyzed on the idea of market share, consumption, production, market attractiveness, and other vital factors.

Global Internet security Market was valued at USD 32.67 Billion in 2017 and is projected to reach USD 61.42 Billion by 2025, growing at a CAGR of 8.2% from 2018 to 2025.

The geographical analysis of the Internet security market provided in the research study is an intelligent tool that interested parties can use to identity lucrative regional markets. It helps readers to become aware of the characteristics of different regional markets and how they are progressing in terms of growth. The report conjointly offers a deep analysis of market dynamics, as well as drivers, challenges, restraints, trends and opportunities, and market influence factors. It provides statistical analysis of the Internet security market, which includes CAGR, revenue, volume, market shares, and other important figures. On the whole, it comes out as a complete package of various market intelligence studies focusing on the Internet security market.

Request a Sample Copy of this report @

Key Players Mentioned in the Internet security Market Research Report:

Internet security Market: Regional Segmentation

For a deeper understanding, the research report includes geographical segmentation of the Internet security Market. It provides an evaluation of the volatility of the political scenarios and amends likely to be made to the regulatory structures. This assessment gives an accurate analysis of the regional-wise growth of the Internet security Market.

Internet security Market: Research Methodology

The research methodologies used by the analysts play an integral role in the way the publication has been collated. Analysts have used primary and secondary research methodologies to create a comprehensive analysis. For an accurate and precise analysis of the Internet security Market, analysts have bottom-up and top-down approaches.

Ask for Discount @

Table of Content

1 Introduction of Internet security Market

1.1 Overview of the Market1.2 Scope of Report1.3 Assumptions

2 Executive Summary

3 Research Methodology of Verified Market Research

3.1 Data Mining3.2 Validation3.3 Primary Interviews3.4 List of Data Sources

4 Internet security Market Outlook

4.1 Overview4.2 Market Dynamics4.2.1 Drivers4.2.2 Restraints4.2.3 Opportunities4.3 Porters Five Force Model4.4 Value Chain Analysis

5 Internet security Market, By Deployment Model

5.1 Overview

6 Internet security Market, By Solution6.1 Overview

7 Internet security Market, By Vertical

7.1 Overview

8 Internet security Market, By Geography8.1 Overview8.2 North America8.2.1 U.S.8.2.2 Canada8.2.3 Mexico8.3 Europe8.3.1 Germany8.3.2 U.K.8.3.3 France8.3.4 Rest of Europe8.4 Asia Pacific8.4.1 China8.4.2 Japan8.4.3 India8.4.4 Rest of Asia Pacific8.5 Rest of the World8.5.1 Latin America8.5.2 Middle East

9 Internet security Market Competitive Landscape

9.1 Overview9.2 Company Market Ranking9.3 Key Development Strategies

10 Company Profiles

10.1.1 Overview10.1.2 Financial Performance10.1.3 Product Outlook10.1.4 Key Developments

11 Appendix

11.1 Related Research

Complete Report is Available @

We also offer customization on reports based on specific client requirement:

1-Freecountry level analysis forany 5 countriesof your choice.

2-FreeCompetitive analysis of any market players.

3-Free 40 analyst hoursto cover any other data points

About Us:

Verified Market Research has been providing Research Reports, with up to date information, and in-depth analysis, for several years now, to individuals and companies alike that are looking for accurate Research Data. Our aim is to save your Time and Resources, providing you with the required Research Data, so you can only concentrate on Progress and Growth. Our Data includes research from various industries, along with all necessary statistics like Market Trends, or Forecasts from reliable sources.

Contact Us:

Mr. Edwyne FernandesCall: +1 (650) 781

Read the original here:
Internet security Market Outlook 2019: Business Overview And Top Company Analysis Forecast By 2026 - The Market Publicist

Read More..

The American Internet Sucks. The Alternative Is China. – BuzzFeed News

Congratulations! After a grueling campaign, you have been elected president of Discursia, a small nation somewhere in the Global South.

Discursia is peaceful and prosperous compared to its neighbors. But in 2028, how long can that last? Your economy is booming, but a small cadre of elites hoards its spoils. A restive minority group clamors for rights its been denied rights it might take up arms to obtain. And thousands of refugees mass at your borders, driven by the scarcity of a scorched planet.

Your mandate is to preserve democracy and stability, with minimal immiseration.

Outside your office, two trade delegations are waiting. Theyre from the two most powerful nations on Earth: the United States and the Peoples Republic of China.

The Americans go first. They propose a sweeping trade package, a plank of which is a 10-year commitment to American social networks: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. On these networks, Discursians can assume any identity they want, and post any content they want. (Except female nipples. Those are strictly forbidden.) The American platforms will resist requests from your government to take down content, including posts that could foment violence. Also, the deal prevents you from suing the platforms over content posted on them, even if it leads to something really bad, like a genocide. And yet, freedom of expression, baby! Just look at what its done for our country, the Americans say.

Next files in a group of Chinese government officials with a deal of their own. They want to refinance the debt they hold on the highway and ports theyve already built for you. But first, you have to commit to a 10-year partnership with platforms built by homegrown Chinese tech giants like Tencent and ByteDance. The Chinese networks are a lot like the American ones, with four major differences. The first is: Discursians cant say anything bad about the Chinese government, like that it might be committing a genocide. The second is: Despite assurances to the contrary, you suspect the Chinese Communist Party will have unfettered access to your citizens data. The third is: No aliases. Each account is linked to a national ID number. The fourth: These companies will be much more amenable to taking down anything you ask them to.

Everything in these deals washes out except for the platforms. You want whats best for Discursia. You also want to get reelected. Youve got to choose one.

This is an oversimplification, sure. But it is the way the global internet is trending. The rise of cyber sovereignty, the idea that governments should control the internet that their citizens use and the data they generate, proved in its most extreme form in China, heralds a fragmentation of the digital world. Countries are already blocking each others social networks as agents of foreign influence, requiring data to be housed on local servers or heading that way, and threatening to cut themselves off from the worlds internet in a pinch. Bipolar spheres of digital influence radiating out from Washington, DC, and Beijing are not only not out of the question they may be likely.

Move fast and break things. Let people post what they want and may the consequences be damned. Profits over patriotism. For years, these have been the values of the American-led social internet and its masters in Silicon Valley. Defined by lucratively reckless expansion and the total absence of planning, this laissez-faire model now faces, for the very first time, a real competitor. It doesnt come from Sens. Elizabeth Warren or Josh Hawleyled antitrust, nor from European-style data protection regimes. It is not an adjustment but a different paradigm entirely. Built to the specifications of the CCP, this model operates according to a much different principle: Shut up and leap forward. And to a world shifting from unipolar American leadership to something much less certain, an internet governance that stresses central state control, order, and authority may well be the rational, if terrifying, choice.

Terrifying: Uighurs thrown in vast prison camps for verboten speech on their smartphones. A pro-democracy intellectual suspended from China's version of Twitter on the flimsiest of pretexts. An influencer jailed for singing a lighthearted version of the national anthem. These models aren't morally equivalent far from it. The Chinese one lends itself directly to mass repression, while the American one leads to mass amplification, with sometimes horrible consequences. But despite that difference, or perhaps because of it, it's the former that's on the rise.

The Chinese internet governance model is the first real challenge to a free and open internet, Samm Sacks, a fellow of cybersecurity policy and Chinese digital economy at New America, told me recently. And as we see Chinese social media platforms gain real market share in countries that arent emerging economies, we are confronted head-on with this question.

That question: Which model will the world adopt ruthless government control, or chaotic, corporate-approved freedom?

Mark Zuckerberg speaks at Georgetown University in a "conversation on free expression" in Washington, DC, on Oct. 17.

This schism is the future Mark Zuckerberg asked Americans to envision last month in a curious speech in Washington, DC. Anchored to a lectern at Georgetown University, he forecast a great-power competition over the nature of online expression. In one corner were Made-in-the-USA platforms like his own, which, for all their faults, were inspired by the American tradition of free speech.

While we may disagree on exactly where to draw the line on specific issues, he said, we at least can disagree. The fact that we can even have this conversation means that were at least debating from some common values. If another nations platforms set the rules, our discourse will be defined by a completely different set of values.

That other nation, of course, is China. And while Zuckerberg didnt deign to name its values god help him if he had tried its clear that he was referring to censorship of the kind Chinese social media companies have for years imposed on Chinese citizens at the behest of the CCP.

Until recently, the internet in almost every country outside China has been defined by American platforms with strong free expression values, he said. Theres no guarantee these values will win out. A decade ago, almost all of the major internet platforms were American. Today, six of the top 10 are Chinese.

Critics were quick to point out the self-interestedness and hypocrisy of Zuckerbergs alarming forecast. For one thing, Facebook only started to use China as a foil recently as calls in Washington for regulation and possible antitrust action against it intensified. (The companys argument: Chinese tech platforms are so huge and so closely bound to the Chinese government that breaking Facebook up would weaken a key American industry and cede the global market to China, thus weakening the US.) And Zuckerberg is the guy, after all, who was once so eager to crack open the worlds most populous market that he reportedly asked Chinese President Xi Jinping to name his firstborn child. (Xi declined.)

Zuckerberg gave his speech at a time of deep, probably overdue, American concern about Chinese censorship coming home to roost on the wings of Western corporations. The issue burst onto the national stage in early October after the Houston Rockets general manager, Daryl Morey, tweeted in support of pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. The furious reaction from the Chinese government and segments of the Chinese public, along with conciliatory statements by NBA players and officials, led to charges from figures across the American political spectrum that the league was placing money before the time-honored American value of free speech.

This was hardly the first example of an American or European company humbling itself to the Chinese government following an incident of freedom of expression. In 2018 alone, Gap apologized for selling a T-shirt in Canada that featured a map of China without Taiwan; Marriott apologized for listing Tibet and Taiwan as countries on a customer survey; Daimler apologized for using a quote from the Dalai Lama in a social media post; and several US airlines acceded to Chinese demands to remove references to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau from drop-down menus of countries on their websites. This year, Givenchy, Versace, and Coach lost all-important Chinese celebrity brand ambassadors after releasing T-shirts that listed Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan as separate countries. They all apologized. Activision Blizzard not only apologized it even punished an esports player for expressing support for the Hong Kong protesters; it promised, on the Chinese microblogging site Weibo, to resolutely safeguard the countrys dignity.

The language on both sides of these flare-ups has been all about pride and disgrace, and who respects whom. Against the background of President Donald Trumps trade war, the apologetics have played in the American context as humiliations, exposures of the relative cheapness of the American value of free speech in an international marketplace with an irresistibly rich new buyer. (Its worth noting that maximizing shareholder value is also an American value.) Zuckerberg who once said Facebook is more like a government than a company came to Washington, DC, to announce that he had glimpsed a future where such humiliations are the rule and discovered that he runs a very American company after all.

"We are now in a position that we're much more free to stand up for what we believe in than the other companies," he reiterated in a conference call Wednesday.

To be clear: Facebooks vision of free speech is flawed, extravagantly so. But putting aside the opportunism of Zuckerbergs argument for a moment, which he made only after Facebook failed to enter the Chinese market and regulators began knocking on his door, his point about the vulnerability of the American model of free speech around the world is correct.

PostCold War narratives about the inevitable triumph of open societies and American mass culture have run aground. Authoritarian regimes that shutter universities and arrest journalists have prospered. China has become the world's second-largest economy through economic liberalization without democratic reform.

Meanwhile, the chaotically open and user-hungry communications platforms we have created and exported have inherent, obvious weaknesses: They are vulnerable to meddling, conducive to demagoguery, and damaging to social trust. They mishandle Americans data and broadcast the USs profound divisions throughout the world. And they now have a competitor that takes the flow of information very, very seriously.

A man walking past an image of China's President Xi Jinping on a propaganda billboard in Nuanquan in China's northern Hebei province.

In 2013, shortly after he took power, Xi addressed the CCPs top leadership behind closed doors. This summer, the CCPs main journal of political theory, Qiushi, published a version of that speech, titled Uphold And Develop Socialism With Chinese Characteristics. In the document, translated by Tanner Greer at Palladium Magazine, Xi presents the conflict between China and the West not as primarily economic but on the level of ideas: Why did the Communist Party of the Soviet Union fall to pieces? An important reason is that in the ideological domain, competition is fierce! ... This is a lesson from the past! ... For a fairly long time yet, socialism in its primary stage will exist alongside a more productive and developed capitalist system. In this long period of cooperation and conflict, socialism must learn from the boons that capitalism has brought to civilization economic, technological, and military might.

These warring philosophies, Xi suggests, will produce dueling systems of propaganda: We must face the reality that people will use the strengths of developed, Western countries to denounce our countrys socialist development. Here we must have a great strategic determination, resolutely rejecting all false arguments that we should abandon socialism. We must consciously correct the various ideas that do not accord with our current stage.

Xi has given contradictory statements about whether the CCP wants to export its system abroad. In 2017, he told a forum for foreign political groups that we will not import other countries models, and will not export the China model. Last year, in a speech to nonparty political advisers, he called the China model a new type of political party system that is a great contribution to political civilization of humanity a flourish that seemed to signal just the opposite.

Indeed, influential hardline theorists within the CCP have begun to predict a large-scale, neo-imperial struggle between the US and China to center the world around their respective values. In such a struggle, these values will clash and seek to eradicate each other, even in very small ways, like Gap T-shirts that dont respect Chinas territorial sovereignty.

Today, short of a hot war, a nation pushes itself into a broader space primarily through the export of its technology: infrastructure, equipment, consumer goods, cyberwarfare, social media, and all the permutations thereof. Unsurprisingly, many observers see Trumps trade war against China as primarily a technological one: pushing Chinese tech companies out of Western markets, forcing Western tech companies to stop doing business with Chinese ones, and blocking Chinese investments in the US tech sector.

The trade war isnt popular, and it has taken a financial toll on working Americans but that doesnt mean Chinese tech firms arent also American adversaries. The CCP very plainly sees its homegrown tech giants as vectors to advance what it defines as the national interest.

The leadership of Xi Jinping aspires to be a superpower in cyberspace in science and tech, Sacks, the New America fellow, told me. Creating national champion companies that can go out and be globally competitive is fundamental to that.

These arrangements arent just implied or hoped for; more often, theyre formalized and enforced. Under Xi, party membership has become even more of a professional boon. Private companies set up dedicated party cells to comply with Article 19 of Chinas corporate legal code, which requires companies [to] provide the necessary conditions for the Party organizations to carry out their activities. In practice, according to one China analyst, that has increasingly meant party members with influence over executive-level decision-making. Signs hung up around tech offices, according to the analyst, read This company will not betray party values.

On the one hand I have not gone looking for a document where they say tech companies should act as platforms to retransmit party values and norms, another China analyst at a major American think tank told me. On the other hand, that document probably exists because thats how they describe literally every other media platform. The party seeks to instrumentalize all of Chinese society as a vessel for its ambitions and preferred norms.

And when the CCP decides a tech platform is harming its ambitions, the consequences can be severe.

In April 2018, the Chinese government forced ByteDance the $75 billion company headquartered in Beijing that makes TikTok, the outrageously popular app for video sharing to shut down a popular app called Neihan Duanzi. Its infraction? Hosting lewd jokes and comments that obliquely poked fun at the CCP. After the shutdown, ByteDance CEO Zhang Yiming performed an elaborate apology in a public letter. Our product took the wrong path, and content appeared that was incommensurate with socialist core values, he wrote. In the future, he added, the company would further deepen cooperation with authoritative media.

For a comparison, imagine Jack Dorsey apologizing to Trump for all the sick owns by Twitter users, then offering to build deeper synergies with Fox News.

What exactly the CCPs ideological struggle as instrumentalized through tech platforms looks like beyond China's borders isnt yet clear.

Chuanying Lu, a research fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies and a visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told me that the international spread of its digital model is a much lower priority for the Chinese government than its domestic effect. "The data security, privacy, and social stability concerns are far more important than projecting influence around the world," he said.

But that doesn't mean it isn't happening. WeChat, the billion-user-strong Chinese messaging and payments app, has tens of millions of users outside of China. Media reports and China analysts both indicate that Tencent, the company that owns WeChat, has turned its frighteningly sophisticated censorship apparatus on foreign users by disallowing sensitive news stories and blocking dissidents who live overseas from sending messages.

Meanwhile, TikTok, the worlds most-downloaded app this year and Chinas greatest global social media success, has strenuously denied censoring users content about the Hong Kong protests. But TikToks algorithm, like those of Facebook and Twitter, is a black box, and its impossible to tell the degree to which it limits content that challenges the CCP narrative versus what is the mere result of normal algorithmic activity. Last week, the Washington Post reported that ByteDance exerts strict control over what content can appear on the US version of the app, following a Reuters report that the US government had opened a national security investigation into TikTok. President Trumps ban in May on American firms doing business with Huawei, the Chinese telecom giant, suggests that restrictions against Chinese-made social platforms, mirroring the Chinese bans on Twitter, Facebook, and Google, arent outside the realm of possibility.

But there are other markets: Turkey, Pakistan, Brazil, Nigeria, India. The whole rest of the world.

And the whole rest of the world can see exactly whats happening in the US. Its all right there, online. And when viewed without sentimentality about the primacy of the US and its values, the chaos machines of American social media become a much harder sell.

The US is in the midst of an identity crisis, one that has been hastened, for better or worse, by the mass use of largely unregulated social networks. Recently, a former Facebook executive encouraged me to think of our internet model as a proposition with costs and benefits. There are a lot of both.

Benefit: Americans have never had more information about their elected officials. Cost: Americans have never been more vulnerable to foreign influence in their elections. Benefit: Isolated young men find companionship in online affinity groups. Cost: Those affinity groups sometimes produce white nationalist terrorists. Americans have never heard more from politicians on social media. Americans have never heard more from politicians on social media. Et cetera.

It can be hard to know how to deal with the costs without canceling out the benefits; indeed, the openness of the American social networks can appear to be at once their greatest strength and most intractable weakness. And those weaknesses are real. Social trust in the US has imploded, and, according to a Pew poll, Americans list social media as the third-most-likely reason why (after Societal/political problems and Government activity/inactivity.)

The US is a mature, if imperiled, democracy, with strong, if imperiled, institutions. But other countries dont necessarily share Americans relative capacity for nonviolent social conflict. So when American platforms tout the benefits of the unregulated internet in foreign markets, it can sound insane, like a raving drunk urging you to take a swig of Jack Daniels.

We have pushed around the world an internet freedom agenda that says dont try too hard to control social media, Andrew Keane Woods, a law professor at the University of Arizona and a scholar of international law and technology, told me. Were still emphasizing a model of internet governance that was good for us when it was good for us.

The US government and US tech companies emphasize it not just through rhetoric about free speech, but through trade deals and enforcement decisions. Recent agreements with Mexico, Canada, and Japan have tucked in legal protections for internet companies based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the controversial legislation that shields internet service providers from liability for content posted by third-party users. In other words: Your American speech device malfunctioned and hurt someone? Sorry, you cant sue us. And foreign governments have had a notoriously difficult time getting networks like Facebook and Twitter to comply with local laws in the interest of taking down content. Sometimes Twitter has a good reason for that; a government might spuriously label a rival political group a terrorist organization in order to get Twitter to remove its content. But at other times, governments have simply had to block or shut out entire American social networks to prevent the spread of violence.

I recently talked to an executive at a major American social platform who speculated that Chinese social networks would quickly comply with any takedown request from a non-Chinese government.

You will not see them battle for users, they said. How we respond to government requests is built around American notions of due process. Theyre not thinking about these as values-based decisions the way we are.

But the American tech platforms seem incapable of admitting that some governments and the people who support them may see authority and control as greater virtues than untrammeled speech or even human rights, especially when taking into account the bloody history of these platforms abroad. They facilitated the Arab Spring, yes. But also: They facilitated the Arab Spring! American social networks have fueled genocide in Myanmar, an authoritarian dystopia in the Philippines, and lynchings in India. I asked the same executive at a major social network what their companys value proposition would be compared to a hypothetical Chinese app that offers equivalent features, strong control, and pro forma takedowns. The answer was an appeal to incumbency. The rest of the world is on us, they told me.

The scale advantage is even more powerful in tech than it is elsewhere. Maybe thats the end of the conversation. But there is an irony to a Silicon Valley executive stressing incumbency as a sales pitch; if anyone should be afraid of a disruptor, offering a service no one else does, shouldnt it be them?

Yes, its true that most of the worlds people who go online do so via American internet companies. But its also true that these platforms are young, and they dont sell a physical product like the ones that led the globalization of American culture in the second half of the 20th century. They offer a service that to the vast majority of people in the world will look no different from a Chinese competitor.

That doesn't, of course, mean they're the same.

Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are in many cases not good actors, the China analyst at the major American think tank told me. They are not forthcoming about how information spreads on their platform. But they are still light-years better than any Chinese social media platform.

And yet, in a bipolar future where China wields economic clout comparable to that of the US, its easy to imagine governments choosing the devil they control over the devil they dont.

The values are so different, the analyst said. China has the juice to affect literally what path countries in Africa, Latin American, and the Middle East choose to take. The United States is never going to become an authoritarian country because of China, but hundreds of millions or billions of people will see their futures altered by the rise of this influence.

Last month, after the NBA and several of its stars publicly undermined Daryl Moreys support of the Hong Kong protesters, the American left and right united in their criticism. However briefly, they came together to heap scorn on so-called woke capitalism the practice of supporting progressive social causes as long as they dont hurt the bottom line, or indeed because they are good for it.

While it is easy to defend freedom of speech when it costs you nothing, equivocating when profits are at stake is a betrayal of fundamental American values, read a letter that was cosigned by eight members of Congress, including political foes Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The intensity of the reaction to the NBAs capitulation These spineless weaklings have shamed themselves and their country, read a column in the Washington Post at the time seemed to exceed mere patriotic indignation. Trump, who literally invites foreign powers to investigate his political enemies, has never drawn such a furiously nationalistic condemnation.

Remember, though, that the woke causes of NBA players tend to be issues of racial injustice, which threaten foundational American stories about equality and opportunity. Remember that this discourse plays out mostly on Twitter and Facebook. Indeed, there is a deeper factor at work here in this messy collision of our open model of cyber sovereignty and Chinas territorial aspirations: anger that Americans who persistently question the countrys legitimacy on American speech platforms wont in turn question the legitimacy of the CCP in the same way. More than that, there is anxiety, even shame, over a market-driven world order that doesnt revolve around US values. That the US has produced global brands the NBA and Facebook with a higher allegiance to the bottom line than to the flag is simply a tension inherent in the libertarian capitalist American ethos, one the Chinese government will never allow its corporations to have.

Heres another way of thinking about it. The Chinese Communist Party has built an internet with its own best interests at its core. US internet companies have built an internet with their best interests at their core. Where this gets complicated is when actors celebrities, brands, and tech companies themselves are torn between serving the interests of the Chinese Communist Party and those of the US internet companies. Yet absent any other imperative, they will likely follow the money.

This explains Zuckerbergs sudden patriotic turn. In a digital world increasingly drawn along allied national boundaries, it makes the most sense for his bottom line to be as big and as close as possible to the US government; something like a communications version of Boeing or Lockheed Martin. In a different tech sector, Amazon is already taking this path.

Breaking up our tech giants could absolutely have negative implications for our competition with China, which presents a far more coherent and predictable model of digital control.

US and Chinese tech companies are actively competing for users and advertising, so its naive to think that breaking up a large successful American tech company would have no impact on the economic Cold War being fought between the two countries, Matt Perault, the director of the Duke University Center for Science & Technology Policy and the former director of public policy at Facebook, told me recently.

But the cost of inaction might be worse.

A Facebook bloated from the government teat might never have to clarify its murky privacy and data collection policies, Samm Sacks, the New America fellow, said. This could precipitate a race to the bottom with China, in which the Zuckerbergs of the world use free speech as a fig leaf while exploiting their users more than ever; corporate overreach in the US would mirror state overreach in China. That would be an enormous propaganda victory for the CCP, which could then claim, cynically, that each countrys tech giants are equally dependent instruments of monolithic powers.

Indeed, the challenge for the American digital model in the future is to make the case that even in a time of extraordinary uncertainty around the world, freedom online is preferable to order.

And to deliver that message effectively, we first have to actually believe it.

View original post here:
The American Internet Sucks. The Alternative Is China. - BuzzFeed News

Read More..

Cybersecurity and digital trade: What role for international trade rules? – Brookings Institution

Trade and cybersecurity are increasingly intertwined. The global expansion of the internet and increased use of data flows by businesses and consumersfor communication, e-commerce, and as a source of information and innovationare transforming international trade. 1 The spread of artificial intelligence, the internet of things, (IoT) and cloud computing will accelerate the global connectivity of businesses, governments, and supply chains.2

As this connectivity grows, however, so does our exposure to the risks and costs of cyberattacks.3As the Presidents National Security Telecommunications Advisory Council observed, the U.S. is faced with a progressively worsening cybersecurity threat environment and an ever-increasing dependence on internet technologies fundamental to public safety, economic prosperity, and overall way of life. Our national security is now inexorably linked to cybersecurity.4

Not only are traditional defense and other national security targets at risk of cyberattack, so too is the broader economy. This includes critical infrastructuresuch as telecommunications, transport, and health carewhich relies on software to network services. There is also cybertheft of intellectual property (IP) and manipulation of online information. More broadly, these risks undermine business and consumer trust in the internet as a basis for commerce and trade.5

Many countries are adopting policy measures to respond to the threat.6 According to one estimate, at least 50 percent of countries have adopted cybersecurity policies and regulations. 7 Some of these policies recognize a need for international cooperation: the EU identified a need for closer cooperation at a global level to improve security standards, improve information, and promote a common global approach to network and information security issues 8 and the most recent U.S. Cybersecurity Strategy reaffirms the need to strengthen the capacity and interoperability of those allies and partners to improve our ability to optimize our combined skills, resources, capabilities, and perspectives against shared threats. 9

Cybersecurity policy is also increasingly risk-based, requiring governments, organizations, and businesses to assess the risk of attack, determine potential harm, and develop appropriate measures to reduce the risk or impacts.10This includes addressing cybersecurity risk over global supply chains. Some proposed measures are likely to constitute barriers to data flows and digital trade. These include data-flow restrictions, data-localization requirements, and import restrictions on information technology (IT) products, including software from countries or supply chains where cyber risk is high. Countries may also resort to import restrictions including higher tariffs as a means of punishing and deterring cyberattacks.

By treating goods, services, or data from high-risk countries less favorably than those from countries where cyber risk is lower, cybersecurity measures may violate various World Trade Organization (WTO) and free trade agreement (FTA) commitments. Where a government is in breach of such commitments, they can seek to justify the cybersecurity regulations under the security or general exception provision of the relevant treaty.

Until recently, governments have largely avoided relying on the security exception to justify trade restrictions. There had been no WTO case dealing with the security exception provision prior to 2018. This was largely because of the potential for abuse of this provision to justify trade restrictions. However, changes in the global security environment, in particular the end of the notion that major powers would converge and stop treating each other as rivals,11 has revealed once again that economic integration can be a source e of vulnerability,12 Digital connectivity over the internet and through cross-border data flows has expanded opportunities for trade and integration more broadly. In parallel, this has created vulnerability to cyberattacks. This includes use of cyber methods to attack another governments defense and industrial base, or steal its IP or trade secrets or manipulate online information to sow discord.

These developments are underpinning a broader turn by governments to economic instruments to promote or defend what are seen as national security, leading to greater reliance on the WTO security exception to justify these measures.13 The Trump administrations reliance on national security to justify tariffs on steel and aluminum, and potentially on imports of automobiles, points to this trend. U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports is also in part an effort to deter Chinese cyber theft of U.S. IP and trade secrets.14 This administration is not alone in resorting to security to justify trade barriers. Russia relied on a WTO security exception to justify restrictions on the transit of Ukrainian goods and services, leading to the first WTO case on the security exception. The UAE is also using the WTO security exception to justify trade restrictions with Qatar as part of its broader dispute.

The rising need for cybersecurity creates two distinct challenges for the rules-based trading system. The first is the role of the security or general exceptions provision in the WTO and in FTAs in distinguishing between genuine cybersecurity measures taken by governments and those that are merely disguised protectionism. The second is that as economies become more digital and connected, there is likely to be significant growth in trade restrictions for legitimate cybersecurity purposes.

As discussed in this paper, the WTO security exception was designed to address a more traditional set of security measures: it is not well designed to deal with measures that restrict trade to address cybersecurity risk. In particular, the approach in the WTO to determining what is a security issue, and the requirement that security measures be taken in response to a security issue, is at odds with how governments are responding to the diffuse, longer-term nature of cyber risk. FTA security exceptions provide more flexibility. Yet here, the risk is that growth in cybersecurity regulation will blow a hole in FTA digital trade commitments.

The alternative to relying on the security exception is to justify cybersecurity regulation under the WTO and FTA general exceptions. Yet, governments are unlikely to tolerate the higher levels of WTO scrutiny that goes with seeking to justify what they see as increasingly important security measures. Moreover, the complexity of the issues, and the mix of economic and security concerns that leads government to rely on classified information, will present significant hurdles to using the general exceptions provision as a way to discipline disguised protectionism.

Addressing these issues requires a new way of thinking about the trade rules for cybersecurity. What is needed is a more fine-grained understanding of the types of cybersecurity risk. Consideration should be given to developing a new set of cybersecurity-specific trade rules.

It is also necessary to build cooperation on cybersecurity: this paper outlines areas where this can happen, including around sharing and access to data and the development of cybersecurity standards. Indeed, where the ethics of cybersecurity are about reducing harm and building trust, cybersecurity can be a vital part of the digital economy and trade. Yet, in the absence of cooperation, cybersecurity risks becoming a core organizing principle for the digital economy, leading to increasing trade with trusted partners and less exposure to countries presenting cyber risk.

This paper proceeds as follows:

View post:
Cybersecurity and digital trade: What role for international trade rules? - Brookings Institution

Read More..

3 types of email you should never open – AndroidPIT

Internet security is an issue that should concern us all. While users tend to become more responsible with experience, the traps are becoming more sophisticated and the malicious people who invent them are constantly renewing their tactics. Email is one of the main gateways for cybernetic offenders who want to exploit a flaw in our systems.

Phishing is a form of computer fraud that aims to convince a user, using a graphical interface similar to that of a company or a bank, that he or shecan enter their contact details. Of course, they are then received by the malicious person who created the interface. This is one of the most common tactics for appropriating our personal information.

There is a simple rule to ensure security in emails: always be wary of anything you receive. If you apply this strategy, your devices and personal information will be a little more secure. However, here are three types of e-mails that you should absolutely avoid opening:

No company or bank will send you an email asking you to "confirm" your personal data through a form or by replying to the email or following a link. If they need to verify your identity or any of your data, the process will be done personally or from the company's website.

Congratulations, you are the lucky winner of a prize of one hundred thousand dollars! The situation is simple: if you have not entered a contest or sweepstakes, it is impossible for you to have won something, and therefore to receive an email notification. Emails warning you that you have inherited a huge fortune from an unknown relative also fall into this category.

Generating fear is an effective strategy for others to do what we want. In the case of technology, what is scarier than a virus? It is not impossible that our devices may be contaminated, but if so, the virus will manifest itself through system errors or an antivirus alert, but certainly not by email.

Remember that it is best to delete these emails without opening them. If you have any doubts, open them; but do not answer or click on the links in the email.

Have you ever been the victim of an Internet trap? Share your stories in the comments section below.

3 types of email you should never open - AndroidPIT

Read More..