A recent extension to the cultural relationship with death is the increasing number of people who die having created a large amount of digital content, such as social media profiles, that will remain after death. This may result in concern and confusion, because of automated features of dormant accounts (e.g. birthday reminders), uncertainty of the deceased's preferences that profiles be deleted or left as a memorial, and whether information that may violate the deceased's privacy (such as email or browser history) should be made accessible to family. Issues with how this information is sensitively dealt with are further complicated as it may belong to the service provider (not the deceased) and many do not have clear policies on what happens to the accounts of deceased users. While some sites, including Facebook and X (formerly Twitter), have policies related to death, others remain dormant until if applicable, deleted due to inactivity or transferred to family or friends. The FADA (Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act) was set in place to make it possible to transfer digital possessions legally. More broadly, the heavy increase in social media use is affecting cultural practices surrounding death. "Virtual funerals" and other forms of previously physical memorabilia are being introduced into the digital world, complete with public details of a person's life and death. == E-mail == Gmail and Hotmail allow the email accounts of the deceased to be accessed provided certain requirements are met. Yahoo! Mail will not provide access, citing the No Right of Survivorship and Non-Transferability clause in the Yahoo! terms of service. In 2005, Yahoo! was ordered by the Probate Court of Oakland County, Michigan, to release emails of deceased US Marine Justin Ellsworth to his father, John Ellsworth. == By website == === Facebook === ==== Policies ==== In its early days, Facebook used to delete profiles of dead people, but does not anymore. In October 2009, the company introduced "memorial pages" in response to multiple user requests related to the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting. After receiving a proof of death via a special form, the profile would be converted into a tribute page with minimal personal details, where friends and family members could share their grief. In February 2015, Facebook allowed users to appoint a friend or family member as a "legacy contact" with the rights to manage their page after death. It also gave Facebook users an option to have their account permanently deleted when they die. As of January 2019, all 3 options were active. ==== Controversies ==== In 2013, BuzzFeed criticized Facebook for the lack of control over memorialization that resulted in a "Facebook death" prank aimed at locking users out of their own accounts. In 2017, Reuters reported that a German court rejected a mother's demand to access her deceased daughter's memorialized account stating that the right to private telecommunications outweighed the right to inheritance. In July 2018, Dubai's DIFC Courts ruling clarified that Facebook, Twitter and other social media accounts should be bequeathed in legally binding will. Social media networks have also been criticized for not responding to relatives' requests to alter information on memorialized accounts. Another criticism is that Facebook users often are unaware that their content is ultimately owned not by them, but by Facebook. === Dropbox === ==== Policies ==== Dropbox determines inactive accounts by looking at sign-ins, file shares, and file activity over the previous 12 months. Once an account is determined inactive, Dropbox deletes the files on the account. To request access to the account of a deceased person, heirs are required to send appropriate documents by physical mail. === Google === ==== Policies ==== In April 2013, Google announced the creation of the 'Inactive Account Manager', which allows users of Google services to set up a process in which ownership and control of inactive accounts is transferred to a delegated user. Google also allows users to submit a range of requests regarding accounts belonging to deceased users. Google works with immediate family members and representatives to close online accounts in some cases once a user is known to be deceased, and in certain circumstances may also provide content from a deceased user's account. === X (formerly Twitter) === ==== Policies ==== Until 2010, Twitter (launched in July 2006) did not have a policy on handling deceased user accounts, and simply deleted timelines of deceased users. In August 2010, Twitter allowed memorialization of accounts upon request from family members, and also provided them with an option of either deleting the account or obtaining a permanent backup of the deceased user's public tweets. In 2014, Twitter updated its policy to include an option to delete deceased user photographs. This policy was implemented after multiple Twitter trolls sent Zelda Williams, daughter of Robin Williams, photoshopped images of her father. As of January 2019, the only option that Twitter offered for the accounts of dead people was account deactivation. Previously published content is not removed. To deactivate an account Twitter requires an immediate family member to present a copy of their ID and a death certificate of the deceased. Twitter specified that it does not provide account access to anyone, but does allow people having account login information to continue posting. A prominent example is Roger Ebert's account maintained by his wife Chaz. ==== Controversies ==== In 2012, The Next Web columnist Martin Bryant noticed that since Twitter, unlike Facebook, did not have a "one account per real person" emphasis, memorializing accounts presented a difficulty to the service. He also criticized the service for the lack of control over hacking of such accounts and disapproved the practice of passing dead people's usernames to new owners after a certain period of inactivity. In 2013, Variety ran a feature about Cory Monteith's Twitter account that had 1.5 million followers at the moment on his death and gained almost 1 million new followers afterwards. Monteith's fans also launched #DontDeleteCorysTwitter campaign. As of February 2019, the celebrity's account had 1.63 million followers. Various media reported awkward incidents related to automatic posting and account hacking. === iTunes === ==== Policies ==== iCloud and iTunes accounts are "non transferable" since the content is not owned — users only have a licence to access it. === Wikipedia === Users who have made at least several hundred edits or are otherwise known for substantial contributions to Wikipedia can be noted at a central memorial page. Wikipedia user pages are ordinarily fully edit-protected after the user has died, to prevent vandalism. === YouTube === YouTube grants access to accounts of deceased persons under certain conditions. It is one of the data options that one can select to give access to a trusted contact with Google's Inactive Account Manager. === Instagram === ==== Policies ==== As of the COVID-19 pandemic, Instagram has notified its users of a delay in time of reviewing reports of deceased users due to the limited staff the pandemic has caused. Users that submit a report on a deceased user on Instagram can either memorialize the account or remove it from Instagram's platform. Through memorializing the account, Instagram secures and protects a platform of a deceased user, but per their policy, they do not supply any of the login credentials to the account. For both memorializing or removing a deceased users account, a verified user needs to submit a tangible document that shows proof of death of the user. However, to fully remove an account, the user must be a close or direct family member to the deceased person, and show proof of credibility as well. === Microsoft === ==== Policies ==== Per Microsoft's policies, they do not supply any of the login credentials to a deceased user's Microsoft account. A user does not have to contact or notify Microsoft of the deceased user, as the related user is able to close the account themselves. At default, Microsoft removes accounts after 2 years of inactivity. If the user does not have access to the deceased user's account, Microsoft recommends that the user deletes all bank accounts linked to that of the deceased to ensure no subscriptions are still going through. If the user wants to request to gain access to the deceased user's account, a court order or a subpoena has to be provided to Microsoft, but does not guarantee access to the deceased user's account. For users that live in Germany, more documentation is needed to gain access of a deceased user's account, including the deceased user's death certificate, a form of ID, and a documentation of consent from the deceased. The requesting user needs to provide a form of ID as well. == Digital inheritance == Digital inheritance is the process of handing over
Representation collapse
Representation collapse is a phenomenon in machine learning and representation learning where a model maps different inputs to the same or very similar embeddings, which means it loses important information about how the data is spread out. It is frequently encountered in self-supervised learning, especially within contrastive and non-contrastive frameworks, when training objectives or model architectures do not maintain variance across representations. Collapse results in degenerate solutions characterized by uninformative learned features, significantly impairing downstream task performance. Various techniques have been proposed to mitigate representation collapse, including the use of negative samples, architectural asymmetry, stop-gradient operations, variance regularization, and redundancy reduction objectives, as seen in methods such as SimCLR, BYOL, and VICReg. Comprehending and averting representation collapse is regarded as a fundamental challenge in the advancement of stable and efficient self-supervised learning systems.
Data independence
Data independence is the type of data transparency that matters for a centralized DBMS. It refers to the immunity of user applications to changes made in the definition and organization of data. Application programs should not, ideally, be exposed to details of data representation and storage. The DBMS provides an abstract view of the data that hides such details. There are two types of data independence: physical and logical data independence. The data independence and operation independence together gives the feature of data abstraction. There are two levels of data independence. == Logical data independence == The logical structure of the data is known as the 'schema definition'. In general, if a user application operates on a subset of the attributes of a relation, it should not be affected later when new attributes are added to the same relation. Logical data independence indicates that the conceptual schema can be changed without affecting the existing schemas. == Physical data independence == The physical structure of the data is referred to as "physical data description". Physical data independence deals with hiding the details of the storage structure from user applications. The application should not be involved with these issues since, conceptually, there is no difference in the operations carried out against the data. There are three types of data independence: Logical data independence: The ability to change the logical (conceptual) schema without changing the External schema (User View) is called logical data independence. For example, the addition or removal of new entities, attributes, or relationships to the conceptual schema or having to rewrite existing application programs. Physical data independence: The ability to change the physical schema without changing the logical schema is called physical data independence. For example, a change to the internal schema, such as using different file organization or storage structures, storage devices, or indexing strategy, should be possible without having to change the conceptual or external schemas. View level data independence: always independent no effect, because there doesn't exist any other level above view level. == Data independence == Data independence can be explained as follows: Each higher level of the data architecture is immune to changes of the next lower level of the architecture. The logical scheme stays unchanged even though the storage space or type of some data is changed for reasons of optimization or reorganization. In this, external schema does not change. In this, internal schema changes may be required due to some physical schema were reorganized here. Physical data independence is present in most databases and file environment in which hardware storage of encoding, exact location of data on disk, merging of records, so on this are hidden from user. == Data independence types == The ability to modify schema definition in one level without affecting schema of that definition in the next higher level is called data independence. There are two levels of data independence, they are Physical data independence and Logical data independence. Physical data independence is the ability to modify the physical schema without causing application programs to be rewritten. Modifications at the physical level are occasionally necessary to improve performance. It means we change the physical storage/level without affecting the conceptual or external view of the data. The new changes are absorbed by mapping techniques. Logical data independence is the ability to modify the logical schema without causing application programs to be rewritten. Modifications at the logical level are necessary whenever the logical structure of the database is altered (for example, when money-market accounts are added to banking system). Logical Data independence means if we add some new columns or remove some columns from table then the user view and programs should not change. For example: consider two users A & B. Both are selecting the fields "EmployeeNumber" and "EmployeeName". If user B adds a new column (e.g. salary) to his table, it will not affect the external view for user A, though the internal schema of the database has been changed for both users A & B. Logical data independence is more difficult to achieve than physical data independence, since application programs are heavily dependent on the logical structure of the data that they access.
Point-to-point encryption
Point-to-point encryption (P2PE) is a standard established by the PCI Security Standards Council. Payment solutions that offer similar encryption but do not meet the P2PE standard are referred to as end-to-end encryption (E2EE) solutions. The objective of P2PE and E2EE is to provide a payment security solution that instantaneously converts confidential payment card (credit and debit card) data and information into indecipherable code at the time the card is swiped, in order to prevent hacking and fraud. It is designed to maximize the security of payment card transactions in an increasingly complex regulatory environment. == The standard == The P2PE Standard defines the requirements that a "solution" must meet in order to be accepted as a PCI-validated P2PE solution. A "solution" is a complete set of hardware, software, gateway, decryption, device handling, etc. Only "solutions" can be validated; individual pieces of hardware such as card readers cannot be validated. It is also a common mistake to refer to P2PE validated solutions as "certified"; there is no such certification. The determination of whether or not a solution meets the P2PE standard is the responsibility of a P2PE Qualified Security Assessor (P2PE-QSA). P2PE-QSA companies are independent third-party companies who employ assessors that have met the PCI Security Standards Council's requirements for education and experience, and have passed the requisite exam. The PCI Security Standards Council does not validate solutions. == How it works == As a payment card is swiped through a card reading device, referred to as a point of interaction (POI) device, at the merchant location or point of sale, the device immediately encrypts the card information. A device that is part of a PCI-validated P2PE solution uses an algorithmic calculation to encrypt the confidential payment card data. From the POI, the encrypted, indecipherable codes are sent to the payment gateway or processor for decryption. The keys for encryption and decryption are never available to the merchant, making card data entirely invisible to the retailer. Once the encrypted codes are within the secure data zone of the payment processor, the codes are decrypted to the original card numbers and then passed to the issuing bank for authorization. The bank either approves or rejects the transaction, depending upon the card holder's payment account status. The merchant is then notified if the payment is accepted or rejected to complete the process along with a token that the merchant can store. This token is a unique number reference to the original transaction that the merchant can use should they ever be needed to perform research or refund the customer without ever knowing the customer's card information (tokenization). There are also Qualified Integrator and Reseller (QIR) Companies, which are businesses authorized to "implement, configure, and/or support validated" PA-DSS Payment Applications, and perform qualified installations. == Solution providers == According to the PCI Security Standards Council:The P2PE solution provider is a third-party entity (for example, a processor, acquirer, or payment gateway) that has overall responsibility for the design and implementation of a specific P2PE solution, and manages P2PE solutions for its merchant customers. The solution provider has overall responsibility for ensuring that all P2PE requirements are met, including any P2PE requirements performed by third-party organizations on behalf of the solution provider (for example, certification authorities and key-injection facilities). == Benefits == === Customer benefits === P2PE significantly reduces the risk of payment card fraud by instantaneously encrypting confidential cardholder data at the moment a payment card is swiped or "dipped" if it is a chip card at the card reading device (payment terminal) or POI. === Merchant benefits === P2PE significantly facilitates merchant responsibilities: With a P2PE validated solution, merchants save significant time and money as PCI requirements may be greatly reduced. Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS). For organizations who use a P2PE validated solution provider, the PCI Self Assessment Questionnaire is reduced from 12 sections to 4 sections and the controls are reduced from 329 questions to just 35. In the event of fraud, the P2PE Solution Provider, not the merchant, is held accountable for data loss and resulting fines that may be assessed by the card brands (American Express, Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and JCB). The PCI Security Standards Council does not assess penalties on Solution Providers or Merchants. The payment process with P2PE is quicker than other transaction processes, thus creating simpler and faster customer–merchant transactions. == Point-to-point encryption versus end-to-end encryption == === Point-to-point === A point-to-point connection directly links system 1 (the point of payment card acceptance) to system 2 (the point of payment processing). A true P2PE solution is determined with three main factors: The solution uses a hardware-to-hardware encryption and decryption process along with a POI device that has SRED (Secure Reading and Exchange of Data) listed as a function. The solution has been validated to the PCI P2PE Standard which includes specific POI device requirements such as strict controls regarding shipping, receiving, tamper-evident packaging, and installation. A solution includes merchant education in the form of a P2PE Instruction Manual, which guides the merchant on POI device use, storage, return for repairs, and regular PCI reporting. === End-to-end === End-to-end encryption as the name suggests has the advantage over P2PE that card details are not unencrypted between the two endpoints. If the endpoints are a PCI PED validated PIN pad and a POS acquirer, there is no opportunity for the card details to be intercepted. It is obviously important that the endpoints (the PED and gateway) are provided by PCI accredited organisations. == PCI point-to-point encryption requirements == The requirements include: Secure encryption of payment card data at the point of interaction (POI), P2PE validated application(s) at the point of interaction, Secure management of encryption and decryption devices, Management of the decryption environment and all decrypted account data, Use of secure encryption methodologies and cryptographic key operations, including key generation, distribution, loading/injection, administration, and usage.
Back-Up Interceptor Control
Backup Interceptor Control (BUIC, ) was the Electronic Systems Division 416M System to backup the SAGE 416L System in the United States and Canada. BUIC deployed Cold War command, control, and coordination systems to SAGE radar stations to create dispersed NORAD Control Centers. == Background == Prior to the SAGE Direction Centers becoming operational, the USAF deployed data link systems at NORAD Control Centers with ground computers for controlling crewed interceptors. After SAGE IBM AN/FSQ-7 Combat Direction Centrals became operational and the Super Combat Centers with improved (digital) computers were cancelled, a backup to SAGE was planned in the event the above-ground SAGE Air Defense Direction Center failed. == General Electric AN/GPA-37 Course Directing Group == BUIC began with deployment of General Electric AN/GPA-37 Course Directing Groups to several Long Range Radar stations. Units designated included the "U.S. Air Force 858th Air Defense Group (BUIC) [which became] a permanent operating facility" at Naval Air Station Fallon in Nevada. == BUIC II == BUIC II was used to command and control sites using the Burroughs AN/GSA-51 Radar Course Directing Group. North Truro AFS became the first ADC installation configured for BUIC II. == BUIC III == The AN/GYK-19 (initially AN/GSA-51A) was an upgraded version of the BUIC II system designated AN/GSA-51A and required a larger building than the AN/GSA-51. The first BUIC III site was Fort Fisher AFS, and Air Defense Command's was first installed at Fort Fisher Air Force Station, North Carolina. Although more advanced systems were contemplated, the final design of the BUIC III system was an upgraded version of the BUIC II with around twice the performance. == Closure and upgrade == In 1972, the USAF decided to shut down most of the BUIC sites; most of the sites mothballed by 1974, except for the BUIC III site at Tyndall Air Force Base. In Canada the BUIC site at Senneterre was shut down, but St Margarets remained open. The remaining sites were closed between 1983-1984 when SAGE was replaced by the Joint Surveillance System. The AN/FYQ-47 Common Digitizer for the Joint Surveillance System, and the Radar Video Data Processor (RVDP) was a combined system for the Air Force and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), it replaced the SAGE Burroughs AN/FST-2 Coordinate Data Transmitting Sets.
TIMIT
TIMIT is a corpus of phonemically and lexically transcribed speech of American English speakers of different sexes and dialects. Each transcribed element has been delineated in time. TIMIT was designed to further acoustic-phonetic knowledge and automatic speech recognition systems. It was commissioned by DARPA and corpus design was a joint effort between the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, SRI International, and Texas Instruments (TI). The speech was recorded at TI, transcribed at MIT, and verified and prepared for publishing by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). There is also a telephone bandwidth version called NTIMIT (Network TIMIT). TIMIT and NTIMIT are not freely available — either membership of the Linguistic Data Consortium, or a monetary payment, is required for access to the dataset. == Data == TIMIT contains ~5 hours of speech, of 10 sentences spoken by each of 630 speakers. The sentences were randomly sampled from a corpus of 2342 sentences. The speakers were native speakers of American English, classified under 8 major dialect regions: New England, Northern, North Midland, South Midland, Southern, New York City, Western, Army Brat (moved around). The speakers were 70% male and 30% female. Recordings were made in a noise-isolated recording booth at Texas Instrument, using a semi-automatic computer system (STEROIDS) to control the presentation of prompts to the speaker and the recording. Two-channel recordings were made using a Sennheiser HMD 414 headset-mounted microphone and a Brüel & Kjær 1/2" far-field pressure microphone (#4165). The speech was digitized at a sample rate of 20 kHz then and downsampled to 16 kHz. == History == The TIMIT telephone corpus was an early attempt to create a database with speech samples. It was published in the year 1988 on CD-ROM and consists of only 10 sentences per speaker. Two 'dialect' sentences were read by each speaker, as well as another 8 sentences selected from a larger set Each sentence averages 3 seconds long and is spoken by 630 different speakers. It was the first notable attempt in creating and distributing a speech corpus and the overall project has produced costs of 1.5 million US$. An update was released in October 1990. It included full 630-speaker corpus; checked and corrected transcriptions; word-alignment transcriptions; NIST SPHERE-headered waveform files and header manipulation software; phonemic dictionary; new test and training subsets balanced for dialectal and phonetic coverage; more extensive documentation. The full name of the project is DARPA-TIMIT Acoustic-Phonetic Continuous Speech Corpus and the acronym TIMIT stands for Texas Instruments/Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The main reason why a corpus of telephone speech was created was to train speech recognition software. In the Blizzard challenge, different software has the obligation to convert audio recordings into textual data and the TIMIT corpus was used as a standardized baseline.
Hardware random number generator
In computing, a hardware random number generator (HRNG), true random number generator (TRNG), non-deterministic random bit generator (NRBG), or physical random number generator is a device that generates random numbers from a physical process capable of producing entropy, unlike a pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) that utilizes a deterministic algorithm and non-physical nondeterministic random bit generators that do not include hardware dedicated to generation of entropy. Many natural phenomena generate low-level, statistically random "noise" signals, including thermal and shot noise, jitter and metastability of electronic circuits, Brownian motion, and atmospheric noise. Researchers also used the photoelectric effect, involving a beam splitter, other quantum phenomena, and even nuclear decay (due to practical considerations the latter, as well as the atmospheric noise, is not viable except for fairly restricted applications or online distribution services). While "classical" (non-quantum) phenomena are not truly random, an unpredictable physical system is usually acceptable as a source of randomness, so the qualifiers "true" and "physical" are used interchangeably. A hardware random number generator is expected to output near-perfect random numbers ("full entropy"). A physical process usually does not have this property, and a practical TRNG typically includes a few blocks: a noise source that implements the physical process producing the entropy. Usually this process is analog, so a digitizer is used to convert the output of the analog source into a binary representation; a conditioner (randomness extractor) that improves the quality of the random bits; health tests. TRNGs are mostly used in cryptographical algorithms that get completely broken if the random numbers have low entropy, so the testing functionality is usually included. Hardware random number generators generally produce only a limited number of random bits per second. In order to increase the available output data rate, they are often used to generate the "seed" for a faster PRNG. PRNG also helps with the noise source "anonymization" (whitening out the noise source identifying characteristics) and entropy extraction. With a proper PRNG algorithm selected (cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator, CSPRNG), the combination can satisfy the requirements of Federal Information Processing Standards and Common Criteria standards. == Uses == Hardware random number generators can be used in any application that needs randomness. However, in many scientific applications additional cost and complexity of a TRNG (when compared with pseudo random number generators) provide no meaningful benefits. TRNGs have additional drawbacks for data science and statistical applications: impossibility to re-run a series of numbers unless they are stored, reliance on an analog physical entity can obscure the failure of the source. The TRNGs therefore are primarily used in the applications where their unpredictability and the impossibility to re-run the sequence of numbers are crucial to the success of the implementation: in cryptography and gambling machines. === Cryptography === The major use for hardware random number generators is in the field of data encryption, for example to create random cryptographic keys and nonces needed to encrypt and sign data. In addition to randomness, there are at least two additional requirements imposed by the cryptographic applications: forward secrecy guarantees that the knowledge of the past output and internal state of the device should not enable the attacker to predict future data; backward secrecy protects the "opposite direction": knowledge of the output and internal state in the future should not divulge the preceding data. A typical way to fulfill these requirements is to use a TRNG to seed a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator. == History == Physical devices were used to generate random numbers for thousands of years, primarily for gambling. Dice in particular have been known for more than 5000 years (found on locations in modern Iraq and Iran), and flipping a coin (thus producing a random bit) dates at least to the times of ancient Rome. The first documented use of a physical random number generator for scientific purposes was by Francis Galton (1890). He devised a way to sample a probability distribution using a common gambling die. In addition to the top digit, Galton also looked at the face of a die closest to him, thus creating 64 = 24 outcomes (about 4.6 bits of randomness). Kendall and Babington-Smith (1938) used a fast-rotating 10-sector disk that was illuminated by periodic bursts of light. The sampling was done by a human who wrote the number under the light beam onto a pad. The device was utilized to produce a 100,000-digit random number table (at the time such tables were used for statistical experiments, like PRNG nowadays). On 29 April 1947, the RAND Corporation began generating random digits with an "electronic roulette wheel", consisting of a random frequency pulse source of about 100,000 pulses per second gated once per second with a constant frequency pulse and fed into a five-bit binary counter. Douglas Aircraft built the equipment, implementing Cecil Hasting's suggestion (RAND P-113) for a noise source (most likely the well known behavior of the 6D4 miniature gas thyratron tube, when placed in a magnetic field). Twenty of the 32 possible counter values were mapped onto the 10 decimal digits and the other 12 counter values were discarded. The results of a long run from the RAND machine, filtered and tested, were converted into a table, which originally existed only as a deck of punched cards, but was later published in 1955 as a book, 50 rows of 50 digits on each page (A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates). The RAND table was a significant breakthrough in delivering random numbers because such a large and carefully prepared table had never before been available. It has been a useful source for simulations, modeling, and for deriving the arbitrary constants in cryptographic algorithms to demonstrate that the constants had not been selected maliciously ("nothing up my sleeve numbers"). Since the early 1950s, research into TRNGs has been highly active, with thousands of research works published and about 2000 patents granted by 2017. == Physical phenomena with random properties == Multiple different TRNG designs were proposed over time with a large variety of noise sources and digitization techniques ("harvesting"). However, practical considerations (size, power, cost, performance, robustness) dictate the following desirable traits: use of a commonly available inexpensive silicon process; exclusive use of digital design techniques. This allows an easier system-on-chip integration and enables the use of FPGAs; compact and low-power design. This discourages use of analog components (e.g., amplifiers); mathematical justification of the entropy collection mechanisms. Stipčević & Koç in 2014 classified the physical phenomena used to implement TRNG into four groups: electrical noise; free-running oscillators; chaos; quantum effects. === Electrical noise-based RNG === Noise-based RNGs generally follow the same outline: the source of a noise generator is fed into a comparator. If the voltage is above threshold, the comparator output is 1, otherwise 0. The random bit value is latched using a flip-flop. Sources of noise vary and include: Johnson–Nyquist noise ("thermal noise"); Zener noise; avalanche breakdown. The drawbacks of using noise sources for an RNG design are: noise levels are hard to control, they vary with environmental changes and device-to-device; calibration processes needed to ensure a guaranteed amount of entropy are time-consuming; noise levels are typically low, thus the design requires power-hungry amplifiers. The sensitivity of amplifier inputs enables manipulation by an attacker; circuitry located nearby generates a lot of non-random noise thus lowering the entropy; a proof of randomness is near-impossible as multiple interacting physical processes are involved. === Chaos-based RNG === The idea of chaos-based noise stems from the use of a complex system that is hard to characterize by observing its behavior over time. For example, lasers can be put into (undesirable in other applications) chaos mode with chaotically fluctuating power, with power detected using a photodiode and sampled by a comparator. The design can be quite small, as all photonics elements can be integrated on-chip. Stipčević & Koç characterize this technique as "most objectionable", mostly due to the fact that chaotic behavior is usually controlled by a differential equation and no new randomness is introduced, thus there is a possibility of the chaos-based TRNG producing a limited subset of possible output strings. === Free-running oscillators-based RNG === The TRNGs based on a free-running oscilla