Social media as a public utility is a theory postulating that social networking sites (such as Meta - ie:Facebook & Instagram or Alphabet - ie: YouTube & Google, but also independent sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Snapchat etc.) are essential public services that should be regulated by the government, in a manner similar to how electric and phone utilities are typically government regulated. It is based on the notion that social media platforms have monopoly power and broad social influence. == Background == === Definitions === Social media is defined as "a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content." Furthermore, the New Zealand Government of Internal Affairs describes it as "a set of online technologies, sites, and practices which are used to share opinions, experiences and perspectives. Fundamentally it is about the conversation. In contrast with traditional media, the nature of social media is to be highly interactive." Moreover, the term social media is described as online tools that let people interact and communicate with each other. This has become a standard word for online cultural exchange and a dominant way for individuals to engage on the internet. By using social media individuals become more closely and strongly connected than ever before. The traditional definition of the term public utility is "an infrastructural necessity for the general public where the supply conditions are such that the public may not be provided with a reasonable service at reasonable prices because of monopoly in the area." Conventional public utilities include water, natural gas, and electricity. In order to secure the interests of the public, utilities are regulated. Public utilities can also be seen as natural monopolies implying that the highest degree of efficiency is accomplished under one operator in the marketplace. Public utility regulation for social media has been largely criticized because people believe it would produce undesirable and indirect effects. However, others say that truly effective government regulation would produce valuable results. Social media as a public utility is a crucial debate because utilities get regulated, so marking social media websites as utilities would require government regulation of various social media websites and platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Applying the term public utility to social media implies that social media websites are public necessities, and, consequently, should be regulated by the government. While social media are not as essential for survival as traditional public utilities such as electricity, water, and natural gas, many people believe it has become vital for living in an interconnected world and without it, living a successful life would be difficult. Therefore, many people believe that social media has reached utility status and should be treated as a public utility. However, others believe that this is not true because social media are constantly revolutionizing and giving such platforms "utility status" would result in government regulation, which would consequently hinder innovation. Over the past decade many have debated and questioned whether or not "Internet service providers should be considered essential facilities or natural monopolies and regulated as public utilities." === Monopoly === A monopoly is defined as "a firm that is the only seller of a product or service having no close substitutes." A natural monopoly is when the entire demand within a relevant market can be satisfied at lowest cost by one firm rather than by two or more, and if such a market contains more than one firm then the firms will "quickly shake down to one through mergers or failures, or production will continue to consume more resources than necessary." In a monopoly competition is said to be short-lived, and in a natural monopoly it is said to produce inefficient results." Public utility companies can be regulated to prevent them from gaining monopolistic control. In November 2011 AT&T's proposal for merging with T-Mobile was rejected because it would have "diminished competition," and have led to the company having monopolistic power within the telephone industry. Such regulation is permitted because the telephone industry is a public utility. Similarly, Microsoft has also been prevented from taking various business actions that could result in the company gaining monopolistic power. If social media were a public utility then regulation of Google and Facebook would similarly dictate what they could and could not do. The possibility was raised in 2018 by U.S. Representative Steve King during a House Judiciary hearing on social media filtering practices. == Arguments == Advocates of this theory believe that social media websites already act like public utilities, and therefore regulation is needed. Additionally, advocates say that in the 21st century, using such websites are as necessary for communication as using traditional public utilities such as telephone, water, electricity, and natural gas are for other everyday uses. Specifically, advocates note that Google search should be treated as a public utility and needs to be regulated because it dominates the search engine market and no website can afford to ignore it. There is the position that a social media website such as Google "is a common carrier and should be regulated as such (Newman 2011)." These are reinforced by a perception that social media companies fail to properly maintain fair platforms for discourse. === Individual level === Advocates of regulating social media as a public utility believe that having an Internet presence using social media websites is imperative for individuals to adequately take part in the 21st century. Consequently, they argue that these sites are public utilities that need to be regulated to ensure that the constitutional rights of users are protected. For example, regulation may be needed to protect freedom of speech against risks such as Internet censorship and deplatforming. Social media affects people's behavior. For instance, it plays an important role in shaping its users' decisions and actions pertaining to health. This is demonstrated in a Pew Research Center research, which showed that 72 percent of American adults turned to social media for health information in 2011. Around 70 percent of people with chronic illnesses also use the platform to find cure, diagnoses, and other health answers. This development becomes a public issue as social media are likely to provide wrong medical information. Additionally, social media sites can also facilitate deleterious health behavior such as smoking, drug use, and harmful sexual behavior. === Business level === Advocates of social media as a public utility maintain that social media services dominate the Internet and are mainly owned by three or four companies that have unparalleled power to shape user interaction, and because of this power such businesses need to be regulated as public utilities. Zeynep Tufekci, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, claims that services on the Internet such as Google, eBay, Facebook, Amazon.com, are all natural monopolies. She has stated that these services "benefit greatly from network externalities[,] which means that the more people on the service, the more useful it is for everyone," and thus it is difficult to replace the market leader. === Government level === Advocates of social media as a public utility believe that the government should impose restrictions on social media websites, such as Google, that are designed to benefit its rivals. Due to the recent substantial growth of social media websites such as Google, advocates claim that such a website "might need search neutrality regulation modeled after net neutrality regulation and that a Federal Search Commission might be needed to enforce such a regime." danah boyd expresses a future issue which the government may have to deal with in her research: Facebook is becoming an international social media website, specifically prevalent in Canada and Europe which are "two regions that love to regulate their utilities." Furthermore, recent books by New America Foundation Senior Fellow Rebecca MacKinnon and law professor Lori Andrews advise society to start considering Facebook and Google as nation-states or the "sovereigns of cyberspace." Overall, advocates of social media as a public utility believe that due to the immense popularity and necessity of social media websites, it is imperative that the Government imposes regulations in the same manner they do for electricity, water, and natural gas. == Counterarguments == Opponents of this theory say that social media websites should not be treated as public utilities because these platforms are changing every year, and because they are not essential services for s
Automated penetration testing
Automated penetration testing (also known as autonomous penetration testing or automated offensive security) is the application of software-driven workflows and orchestration to simulate cyberattack techniques. These methods are used to identify, validate, and exploit security vulnerabilities in IT assets such as networks, applications, and cloud infrastructure. Automated penetration testing is the use of software to simulate cyberattacks in order to rapidly identify exploitable vulnerabilities across systems without relying solely on human testers. In technical literature, the term describes a spectrum of activities ranging from scripted exploit orchestration to experimental systems designed for fully autonomous attack planning. Automated Penetration Testing falls short of testing using manual experts in terms of discovery of deep complex vulnerabilities and contextual business logic vulnerabilities. == Terminology and scope == The label “automated penetration testing” appears frequently in vendor and practitioner writing but lacks a single, neutral, standards-based definition. In the literature the term’s scope varies: some authors use it to mean automation of specific penetration-testing tasks (scanning, exploitation attempts, evidence collection), others to describe integrated, repeatable assessment pipelines, and a smaller body of work investigates autonomous decision-making agents that select attack steps algorithmically. To avoid implying consensus, this article describes common techniques and architectures reported in the literature and industry, and it notes where claims are primarily found in practitioner publications or early-stage research. Its important to note the differences between automated penetration testing and traditional penetration testing using human skill. The most important difference is scope and speed. Automated penetration testing generally fails at discovering exposures and weakness associated with business logic due to a lack of contextual understanding. The benefit of Automated Penetration testing is speed at which it can be conducted. Traditional penetration testing also is expected to be accurate and contain no false positives. This is due to the human validation aspect of the test. Automated approaches are expected to contain mistakes and false positives which need to be validated upon completion of the test. == History == Automated offensive techniques build on decades of tools and scripting that aided vulnerability discovery and exploitation. Early vulnerability scanners and community scripting in the 1990s and 2000s created the first layers of automation. Later, modular exploitation frameworks (notably Metasploit) integrated scanning and exploitation modules and made automated proof-of-concept attacks more accessible. Over the 2010s–2020s, as cloud platforms, APIs and continuous delivery practices increased the need for frequent validation, academic and industry interest in formalizing automated approaches also grew. == Methodologies and architectures == Descriptions in the literature and technical reports cluster automated capabilities into several overlapping models: Scripted/engineered playbooks (task automation): Predefined workflows or playbooks encode common attack paths (for example, web application exploit sequences or lateral-movement chains). These playbooks are designed to reproduce known techniques in a controlled way to validate exploitability and reduce manual repetition. Exploit-oriented orchestration: Automation orchestrates exploitation modules from established frameworks to perform controlled proof-of-concept attacks that confirm exploitability rather than simply flagging potential weaknesses. This approach can reduce false positives versus passive scanning when tests are run in an appropriately controlled environment. Orchestrated multi-tool pipelines: A coordinated toolchain integrates reconnaissance, vulnerability scanning, credential testing, exploitation modules and reporting. Data and state persist across stages so that multi-step workflows (e.g., discover → escalate → pivot) can be executed repeatably, approximating manual penetration-test methodologies at larger scale. Continuous / CI-integrated testing: Automation embedded in build or deployment pipelines (CI/CD) triggers assessments automatically on new builds, configuration changes, or on a schedule, supporting frequent, repeatable validation aligned with DevOps practices. Academic theses and experimental work describe CI/CD-integrated proof-of-concept systems for web applications and internal networks. Research on autonomous planning and learning: Recent academic work explores machine learning and reinforcement-learning approaches to select or prioritise attack steps, generate attack sequences, or optimize the testing path; these approaches are largely experimental and raise distinct validation and safety questions. == Tools and vendors == Automated penetration testing is provided by a mix of open-source projects, commercial platforms, and professional services. These often follow the penetration testing as a service (PTaaS) model, which integrates automated scanning with manual validation by security analysts. Examples of widely known tools and vendors in the space include exploitation frameworks such as Metasploit, commercial automated platforms and PTaaS providers, and specialist vendors that offer breach-and-attack simulation (BAS) or continuous testing capabilities. == Applications and deployment models == In industry practice, some organizations deploy automated techniques through dedicated security validation platforms rather than bespoke toolchains. These platforms are typically used for continuous or scheduled validation in pre-production or controlled environments and are often positioned alongside, rather than in place of, human-led penetration testing. Examples discussed in secondary literature include platforms such as Pentera, which are commonly classified under breach-and-attack simulation or automated security validation rather than as standalone penetration-testing methodologies.
SqueezeNet
SqueezeNet is a deep neural network for image classification released in 2016. SqueezeNet was developed by researchers at DeepScale, University of California, Berkeley, and Stanford University. In designing SqueezeNet, the authors' goal was to create a smaller neural network with fewer parameters while achieving competitive accuracy. Their best-performing model achieved the same accuracy as AlexNet on ImageNet classification, but has a size 510x less than it. == Version history == SqueezeNet was originally released on February 22, 2016. This original version of SqueezeNet was implemented on top of the Caffe deep learning software framework. Shortly thereafter, the open-source research community ported SqueezeNet to a number of other deep learning frameworks. On February 26, 2016, Eddie Bell released a port of SqueezeNet for the Chainer deep learning framework. On March 2, 2016, Guo Haria released a port of SqueezeNet for the Apache MXNet framework. On June 3, 2016, Tammy Yang released a port of SqueezeNet for the Keras framework. In 2017, companies including Baidu, Xilinx, Imagination Technologies, and Synopsys demonstrated SqueezeNet running on low-power processing platforms such as smartphones, FPGAs, and custom processors. As of 2018, SqueezeNet ships "natively" as part of the source code of a number of deep learning frameworks such as PyTorch, Apache MXNet, and Apple CoreML. In addition, third party developers have created implementations of SqueezeNet that are compatible with frameworks such as TensorFlow. Below is a summary of frameworks that support SqueezeNet. == Relationship to other networks == === AlexNet === SqueezeNet was originally described in SqueezeNet: AlexNet-level accuracy with 50x fewer parameters and <0.5MB model size. AlexNet is a deep neural network that has 240 MB of parameters, and SqueezeNet has just 5 MB of parameters. This small model size can more easily fit into computer memory and can more easily be transmitted over a computer network. However, it's important to note that SqueezeNet is not a "squeezed version of AlexNet." Rather, SqueezeNet is an entirely different DNN architecture than AlexNet. What SqueezeNet and AlexNet have in common is that both of them achieve approximately the same level of accuracy when evaluated on the ImageNet image classification validation dataset. === Model compression === Model compression (e.g. quantization and pruning of model parameters) can be applied to a deep neural network after it has been trained. In the SqueezeNet paper, the authors demonstrated that a model compression technique called Deep Compression can be applied to SqueezeNet to further reduce the size of the parameter file from 5 MB to 500 KB. Deep Compression has also been applied to other DNNs, such as AlexNet and VGG. == Variants == Some of the members of the original SqueezeNet team have continued to develop resource-efficient deep neural networks for a variety of applications. A few of these works are noted in the following table. As with the original SqueezeNet model, the open-source research community has ported and adapted these newer "squeeze"-family models for compatibility with multiple deep learning frameworks. In addition, the open-source research community has extended SqueezeNet to other applications, including semantic segmentation of images and style transfer.
International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing
ICASSP, the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, is an annual flagship conference organized by IEEE Signal Processing Society. Ei Compendex has indexed all papers included in its proceedings. The first ICASSP was held in 1976 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, based on the success of a conference in Massachusetts four years earlier that had focused specifically on speech signals. As ranked by Google Scholar's h-index metric in 2016, ICASSP has the highest h-index of any conference in the Signal Processing field. The Brazilian ministry of education gave the conference an 'A1' rating based on its h-index. == Conference list ==
One-class classification
In machine learning, one-class classification (OCC), also known as unary classification or class-modelling, is an approach to the training of binary classifiers in which only examples of one of the two classes are used. Examples include the monitoring of helicopter gearboxes, motor failure prediction, or assessing the operational status of a nuclear plant as 'normal': In such scenarios, there are few, if any, examples of the catastrophic system states – rare outliers – that comprise the second class. Alternatively, the class that is being focused on may cover a small, coherent subset of the data and the training may rely on an information bottleneck approach. In practice, counter-examples from the second class may be used in later rounds of training to further refine the algorithm. == Overview == The term one-class classification (OCC) was coined by Moya & Hush (1996) and many applications can be found in scientific literature, for example outlier detection, anomaly detection, novelty detection. A feature of OCC is that it uses only sample points from the assigned class, so that a representative sampling is not strictly required for non-target classes. == Introduction == SVM based one-class classification (OCC) relies on identifying the smallest hypersphere (with radius r, and center c) consisting of all the data points. This method is called Support Vector Data Description (SVDD). Formally, the problem can be defined in the following constrained optimization form, min r , c r 2 subject to, | | Φ ( x i ) − c | | 2 ≤ r 2 ∀ i = 1 , 2 , . . . , n {\displaystyle \min _{r,c}r^{2}{\text{ subject to, }}||\Phi (x_{i})-c||^{2}\leq r^{2}\;\;\forall i=1,2,...,n} However, the above formulation is highly restrictive, and is sensitive to the presence of outliers. Therefore, a flexible formulation, that allow for the presence of outliers is formulated as shown below, min r , c , ζ r 2 + 1 ν n ∑ i = 1 n ζ i {\displaystyle \min _{r,c,\zeta }r^{2}+{\frac {1}{\nu n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\zeta _{i}} subject to, | | Φ ( x i ) − c | | 2 ≤ r 2 + ζ i ∀ i = 1 , 2 , . . . , n {\displaystyle {\text{subject to, }}||\Phi (x_{i})-c||^{2}\leq r^{2}+\zeta _{i}\;\;\forall i=1,2,...,n} From the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions for optimality, we get c = ∑ i = 1 n α i Φ ( x i ) , {\displaystyle c=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\Phi (x_{i}),} where the α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} 's are the solution to the following optimization problem: max α ∑ i = 1 n α i κ ( x i , x i ) − ∑ i , j = 1 n α i α j κ ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle \max _{\alpha }\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\kappa (x_{i},x_{i})-\sum _{i,j=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\alpha _{j}\kappa (x_{i},x_{j})} subject to, ∑ i = 1 n α i = 1 and 0 ≤ α i ≤ 1 ν n for all i = 1 , 2 , . . . , n . {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}=1{\text{ and }}0\leq \alpha _{i}\leq {\frac {1}{\nu n}}{\text{for all }}i=1,2,...,n.} The introduction of kernel function provide additional flexibility to the One-class SVM (OSVM) algorithm. === PU (Positive Unlabeled) learning === A similar problem is PU learning, in which a binary classifier is constructed by semi-supervised learning from only positive and unlabeled sample points. In PU learning, two sets of examples are assumed to be available for training: the positive set P {\displaystyle P} and a mixed set U {\displaystyle U} , which is assumed to contain both positive and negative samples, but without these being labeled as such. This contrasts with other forms of semisupervised learning, where it is assumed that a labeled set containing examples of both classes is available in addition to unlabeled samples. A variety of techniques exist to adapt supervised classifiers to the PU learning setting, including variants of the EM algorithm. PU learning has been successfully applied to text, time series, bioinformatics tasks, and remote sensing data. == Approaches == Several approaches have been proposed to solve one-class classification (OCC). The approaches can be distinguished into three main categories, density estimation, boundary methods, and reconstruction methods. === Density estimation methods === Density estimation methods rely on estimating the density of the data points, and set the threshold. These methods rely on assuming distributions, such as Gaussian, or a Poisson distribution. Following which discordancy tests can be used to test the new objects. These methods are robust to scale variance. Gaussian model is one of the simplest methods to create one-class classifiers. Due to Central Limit Theorem (CLT), these methods work best when large number of samples are present, and they are perturbed by small independent error values. The probability distribution for a d-dimensional object is given by: p N ( z ; μ ; Σ ) = 1 ( 2 π ) d 2 | Σ | 1 2 exp { − 1 2 ( z − μ ) T Σ − 1 ( z − μ ) } {\displaystyle p_{\mathcal {N}}(z;\mu ;\Sigma )={\frac {1}{(2\pi )^{\frac {d}{2}}|\Sigma |^{\frac {1}{2}}}}\exp \left\{-{\frac {1}{2}}(z-\mu )^{T}\Sigma ^{-1}(z-\mu )\right\}} Where, μ {\displaystyle \mu } is the mean and Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is the covariance matrix. Computing the inverse of covariance matrix ( Σ − 1 {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{-1}} ) is the costliest operation, and in the cases where the data is not scaled properly, or data has singular directions pseudo-inverse Σ + {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{+}} is used to approximate the inverse, and is calculated as Σ T ( Σ Σ T ) − 1 {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{T}(\Sigma \Sigma ^{T})^{-1}} . === Boundary methods === Boundary methods focus on setting boundaries around a few set of points, called target points. These methods attempt to optimize the volume. Boundary methods rely on distances, and hence are not robust to scale variance. K-centers method, NN-d, and SVDD are some of the key examples. K-centers In K-center algorithm, k {\displaystyle k} small balls with equal radius are placed to minimize the maximum distance of all minimum distances between training objects and the centers. Formally, the following error is minimized, ε k − c e n t e r = max i ( min k | | x i − μ k | | 2 ) {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{k-center}=\max _{i}(\min _{k}||x_{i}-\mu _{k}||^{2})} The algorithm uses forward search method with random initialization, where the radius is determined by the maximum distance of the object, any given ball should capture. After the centers are determined, for any given test object z {\displaystyle z} the distance can be calculated as, d k − c e n t r ( z ) = min k | | z − μ k | | 2 {\displaystyle d_{k-centr}(z)=\min _{k}||z-\mu _{k}||^{2}} === Reconstruction methods === Reconstruction methods use prior knowledge and generating process to build a generating model that best fits the data. New objects can be described in terms of a state of the generating model. Some examples of reconstruction methods for OCC are, k-means clustering, learning vector quantization, self-organizing maps, etc. == Applications == === Document classification === The basic Support Vector Machine (SVM) paradigm is trained using both positive and negative examples, however studies have shown there are many valid reasons for using only positive examples. When the SVM algorithm is modified to only use positive examples, the process is considered one-class classification. One situation where this type of classification might prove useful to the SVM paradigm is in trying to identify a web browser's sites of interest based only off of the user's browsing history. === Biomedical studies === One-class classification can be particularly useful in biomedical studies where often data from other classes can be difficult or impossible to obtain. In studying biomedical data it can be difficult and/or expensive to obtain the set of labeled data from the second class that would be necessary to perform a two-class classification. A study from The Scientific World Journal found that the typicality approach is the most useful in analysing biomedical data because it can be applied to any type of dataset (continuous, discrete, or nominal). The typicality approach is based on the clustering of data by examining data and placing it into new or existing clusters. To apply typicality to one-class classification for biomedical studies, each new observation, y 0 {\displaystyle y_{0}} , is compared to the target class, C {\displaystyle C} , and identified as an outlier or a member of the target class. === Unsupervised Concept Drift Detection === One-class classification has similarities with unsupervised concept drift detection, where both aim to identify whether the unseen data share similar characteristics to the initial data. A concept is referred to as the fixed probability distribution which data is drawn from. In unsupervised concept drift detection, the goal is to detect if the data distribution changes without utilizing class labels. In one-class classification, the flow of data is not important. Unseen data is classified as typical or outlier depending on its characteristics, whether it is from the initi
International Clinical Trials Registry Platform
The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) is a platform for the registration of clinical trials operated by the World Health Organization. The ICTRP combines data from multiple cooperating clinical trials registries to generate a global view of clinical trials worldwide, with a search portal that allows access to the entire dataset. It requires a minimum standard set of database fields, the WHO Trial Registration Data Set, to be present for a trial to be registered. All entries are given a Universal Trial Number (UTN) that identifies them uniquely. The organization has sought to assist various national governments in establishing their own clinical trials databases. It combines data from the following primary registries and data providers: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBec) Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) Clinical Research Information Service (CRiS), Republic of Korea ClinicalTrials.gov Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS), European Medicines Agency Clinical Trials Registry - India (CTRI) Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials (RPCEC) EU Clinical Trials Register (EU-CTR) German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) ISRCTN (UK) International Traditional Medicine Clinical Trial Registry (ITMCTR) Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) Japan Primary Registries Network (JPRN) Lebanese Clinical Trials Registry (LBCTR) Overview of Medical Research in the Netherlands (OMON) Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR) Peruvian Clinical Trial Registry (REPEC) Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry (SLCTR)
LogitBoost
In machine learning and computational learning theory, LogitBoost is a boosting algorithm formulated by Jerome Friedman, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. The original paper casts the AdaBoost algorithm into a statistical framework. Specifically, if one considers AdaBoost as a generalized additive model and then applies the cost function of logistic regression, one can derive the LogitBoost algorithm. == Minimizing the LogitBoost cost function == LogitBoost can be seen as a convex optimization. Specifically, given that we seek an additive model of the form f = ∑ t α t h t {\displaystyle f=\sum _{t}\alpha _{t}h_{t}} the LogitBoost algorithm minimizes the logistic loss: ∑ i log ( 1 + e − y i f ( x i ) ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i}\log \left(1+e^{-y_{i}f(x_{i})}\right)}