Tag Archives: measures

WHAT ARE SOME POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS OF USING SELF REPORT MEASURES IN THIS STUDY

Leave a reply

One of the biggest potential limitations of self-report measures is biases related to social desirability and impression management. There is a risk that participants may not report private or sensitive information accurately because they want to present themselves in a favorable light or avoid embarrassment. For example, if a study is examining symptoms of depression, participants may under-report how frequently they experience certain feelings or behaviors because admitting to them would make them feel badly about themselves. This type of bias can threaten the validity of conclusions drawn from the data.

Another limitation is recall bias, or errors in a person’s memory of past events, behaviors, or feelings. Many self-report measures ask participants to reflect on periods of time in the past, sometimes going back years. Human memory is fallible and can be inaccurate or incomplete. For events farther back in time, details may be forgotten or reconstructed differently than how they actually occurred. This is a particular problem for retrospective self-reports but can also influence current self-reports if questions require remembering specific instances rather than overall frequencies. Recall bias introduces noise and potential inaccuracy into the data.

Response biases related to self-presentation are not the only potential for socially desirable responding. There is also a risk of participants wanting to satisfy the researcher or meet perceived demands of the study. They may provide answers they think the experimenter wants to hear or will make the study turn out as expected, rather than answers that fully reflect their genuine thoughts, feelings, and experiences. This threatens the validity of inferences about psychologically meaningful constructs if responses are skewed by a desire to please rather than a candid report of subjective experience.

Self-report measures also rely on the assumption that individuals have reliable insight into their own thoughts, behaviors, traits, and other private psychological experiences. There are many reasons why a person’s self-perceptions may not correspond perfectly with reality or with objective behavioral observations. People are not always fully self-aware or capable of accurate self-analysis and self-diagnosis. Their self-views can be biased by numerous cognitive and emotional factors like self-serving biases, selective attention and memory, projection, denial and reaction formation, and more. Relying only on self-report removes the capability for cross-validation against more objective measures or reports from knowledgeable others.

Practical difficulties inherent to the self-report format pose additional limitations. Ensuring participants interpret vague or complex questions as intended can be challenging without opportunity for clarification or explanation by the researcher. Response scales may not provide optimal sensitivity and precision for measuring psychological constructs. Question order effects, question wording choices, and other superficial qualities of the measure itself can unduly influence responses independent of the intended latent variables. And low literacy levels, language barriers, or limited attention and motivation in some participants may compromise reliability and validity if questions are misunderstood.

An issue that affects not just the accuracy but also the generalizability of self-report findings is that the psychological experience of completing questionnaires may itself shape responses in unforeseen ways. The act of self-reflection and item consideration activates certain cognitive and affective processes that do not mirror real-world behavior. And researchers cannot be sure whether measured constructs are elicited temporarily within the artificial context of research participation or indicative of patterns that generalize to daily life outside the lab. Ecological validity is challenging to establish for self-report data.

Practical difficulties also emerge from logistical demands of obtaining and interpreting self-report data. Large sample sizes are usually required to achieve sufficient statistical power given the noisiness of self-report. But recruitment and full participation across numerous multi-item measures poses challenges for both researchers and subjects. Substantial time, resources and effort are required on the part of researchers to develop quality measures, administer them properly, screen responses for quality, handle missing data, and quantitatively reduce information from numerous items into interpretable scores on underlying dimensions.

Some key limitations of self-report methods include issues with biases that threaten validity like social desirability, recall bias, and response bias to please researchers. Additional difficulties emerge from lack of objective behavioral measures for comparison or validation, imperfect self-awareness and insight, susceptibility to superficial qualities and context of the measures themselves, questionable generalizability beyond research contexts, and substantial logistical and resource demands for quality data collection and analysis. Many of these are challenging, though not impossible, to control for or address through research design features and statistical methods. Researchers using self-report must carefully consider these issues and their potential impact on drawing sound scientific conclusions from the results obtained.

CAN YOU PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON THE SAFETY MEASURES IN PLACE FOR SELF DRIVING CARS

Leave a reply

Self-driving cars have the potential to significantly reduce traffic accidents caused by human error, which account for over 90% of all accidents according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. For autonomous vehicles to be deployed safely on public roads, robust safety measures need to be in place. Vehicle manufacturers and researchers are taking safety very seriously and implementing redundant systems to minimize risks.

One of the most important safety aspects of self-driving car design is sensors and perception. Autonomous vehicles use cameras, lidar, radar and ultrasonic sensors to perceive the environment around the vehicle in all directions at once. These sensors provide a 360 degree awareness that humans cannot match. Relying on any single sensor could potentially lead to accidents if it fails or is disrupted. Therefore, multiple redundant sensors are used so that the vehicle can still drive safely even if one or more sensors experience an outage. For example, a vehicle may use four long range lidars, six cameras, twelve short-range ultrasonic sensors and four radars to observe the surroundings. The data from these diverse sensors is cross-checked against each other in real-time to build a confident understanding of the environment.

In addition to using multiple sensors, self-driving systems employ sensor fusion, which is the process of combining data from different sensors to achieve more accurate and consistent information. Sensor fusion algorithms reconcile data discrepancies from sensors and compensate for individual sensor limitations. This reduces the chances of accidents from undetected objects. Advanced neural networks are being developed to further improve sensor fusion capabilities over time via machine learning. Strong sensor coverage and fusion are vital to safely navigating complex road situations and avoiding collisions.

Once perceptions are obtained from sensors, the self-driving software (the “brain” of the vehicle) must make intelligent decisions quickly. This decision making component is another focus for safety. Researchers are developing models with built-in conservatism that prioritize avoiding risks over optimal route planning. obstacle avoidance maneuvers are chosen only after extensive validation testing shows they will minimize harm. The software also continuously monitors itself and runs simulations to ensure it is still operating as intended, with safeties that can stop the vehicle if any issues are suspected. Over-the-air updates further enhance safety as new situations are learned.

To account for any possible software or hardware faults that could lead to hazards, self-driving cars employ an entirely redundant autonomous driving software stack which is completely independent from the primary stack. This ensures that even a full failure in one stack would not cause loss of vehicle control. The redundant stack will be able to brake or change lanes if needed. There is always a fully functional human-operable primary driving mode available to fall back on. Drivers can also be remotely monitored and vehicles can be remotely stopped if any serious issues are detected during operation.

Self-driving cars are also designed with security in mind. Vehicle networks and software are tested to robustly resist hacking attempts and malicious code. Regular security updates further strengthen the systems over time. Driving data is also carefully managed to protect passenger privacy while still enabling ongoing learning and improvement of the technology. Strong cybersecurity is a fundamental part of ensuring safe adoption of autonomous vehicles on public roads.

Perhaps most significantly, self-driving companies extensively test vehicles under diverse conditions before deployment using simulation and millions of real-world miles. This gradual approach to introduction allows them to identify and address issues well before the public uses the technology. The testing process involves not just logging miles, but also performing edge case simulations, software and hardware-in-the-loop testing, redundant system checks and ongoing validation of operational design domain assumptions. Only once companies have achieved an exceptionally high level of safety are autonomous vehicles operated without a human safety driver behind the wheel or on public roads. Testing is core to the safety-first approach taken by researchers.

Through this multifaceted approach with redundant sensors and software, ongoing validation, security safeguards and meticulous testing prior to deployment, researchers are working to ensure self-driving cars can operate safely on public roads and avoid accidents even under complex conditions involving environmental changes, anomalies and unpredictable situations. While continued progress is still needed, the safety measures now in place have already brought autonomous vehicles much closer to matching and exceeding human levels of safety – paving the way for eventually preventing many of the tens of thousands of traffic fatalities caused by human mistakes each year. With appropriate oversight and care for safety remaining the top priority, self-driving cars have great potential to save lives.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE SECURITY MEASURES IMPLEMENTED IN THIS ARCHITECTURE?

Leave a reply

Data Encryption: AWS enables encryption of data both in transit and at rest. For data in transit, SSL/TLS is enabled for all AWS API requests. For data at rest, services like Amazon EBS and Amazon S3 support server-side encryption using AES-256. Customers can also manage their own encryption of data stored in AWS services.

Identity and Access Management (IAM): IAM allows creation of individual accounts and fine-grained access permissions for individuals or applications to only perform authorized actions. Authentication is enforced at the API level through signature version 4 signing process. Policies can be attached to users, groups and roles to control what resources they can access and the level of access. IAM enables integration with existing identity systems through SAML 2.0 and OpenID Connect.

Monitoring and Auditing: Detailed logging is enabled by default for all AWS API activity at granular level down to individual API calls and their parameters. CloudTrail service collects API activity logs from across all AWS regions and makes them available for monitoring, forensic analysis, and policy evaluation. Config service tracks configuration changes to resources and notifies customers of any changes that can impact compliance or security posture.

Network Security: Firewalls, security groups, network ACLs and WAFs provide network security controls. Security groups act as virtual firewall at the instance level, network ACLs filter traffic between subnets/Vpcs. WAFs protect web applications from common exploits and vulnerabilities. Direct internet access to EC2 instances is prevented by default. Access requires going through Load Balancers or application proxies which are exposed to internet.

Infrastructure Security: AWS infrastructure is isolated and segmented. Services and resource instances are deployed across multiple, isolated Availability Zones within a Region with their own independent power, network and physical security. Regions are isolated from each other with minimal connectivity required between them, providing greater fault tolerance. Physical security controls include – badge access, biometric recognition systems, video surveillance, intrusion detection systems etc. Strict protocols are followed for hardware and software delivery and maintenance.

Incident response: Detailed incident response plans, automated response procedures and regular DR exercises ensure availability of services. Postmortem reviews following incidents help improve security controls. The AWS security team stays up to date on the latest threats through direct information sharing with customers, research groups and other providers

Operational Best Practices: Guidelines provided through AWS Compliance Programs help customers achieve security and compliance standards like PCI DSS Level 1, FedRAMP Moderate, HIPAA, SOC 1/SOC 2/SOC 3. CIS benchmarks provide security configuration recommendations. Well-Architected Framework helps build secure and reliable systems. Automation tools like CloudFormation enables confidential infrastructure as code.

Service Specific Security: Features like S3 Vault lock for sensitive data access, secrets management through Secrets Manager, database security through VPC endpoints, fine grained IAM policies improve security of individual services.Encryption, authentication and authorization is enforced at the service level and vulnerabilities are addressed through regular patching and updates.

Third Party Assessment & Validation: AWS undergoes regular external audits and assessments by third parties like independent auditors under SOC, PCI, and FedRAMP programs to validate security controls. Penetration tests also help identify vulnerabilities. Attestations and certifications provide customers with confidence in AWS security posture.

AWS implements a defense-in-depth approach to security spanning people, processes and technologies. Strong identity and access management, encryption, monitoring capabilities, infrastructure segmentation, incident response plans and compliance help secure the cloud platform and assist customers in building and operating secure systems on AWS. Regular reviews and third party validations further strengthen the security control environment. Together, these measures provide customers with industryleading security to deploy applications and run their workloads securely on AWS. AWS security capabilities enable customers to focus on their applications rather than the underlying infrastructure security issues.

WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF CYBER NORMS AND CONFIDENCE BUILDING MEASURES THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED

Leave a reply

One of the early efforts to develop cyber norms and confidence-building measures was the 2015 Report of the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security. This report established some consensus around the applicability of international law to state behavior in cyberspace. It affirmed that states should not conduct or knowingly support cyber operations that intentionally damage critical infrastructure or otherwise harm civilians. The report helped lay the groundwork for further international discussions on expanding norms of responsible state behavior in cyberspace.

Since that initial 2015 report, there have been ongoing multilateral efforts through forums like the UN Open-Ended Working Group, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and other bodies to develop new and strengthen existing cyber norms. Some of the cyber norms that have emerged through these discussions and begun to gain widespread acceptance include calls for states to: refrain from cyber operations that intentionally damage critical infrastructure or disrupt the public emergency response; protect electoral and political processes from cyber interference; uphold principles of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states; and consider the likelihood of collateral damage when conducting cyber operations.

In addition to norms, states have also sought to establish confidence-building measures that can reduce risks and misperceptions between states regarding cyber threats and state-sponsored activity. An early cyber CBM proposal came from the US and Russia in 2013, which suggested measures like inviting foreign experts to observe national cyber defense exercises, notifying other states of impending tests or network scans, and establishing communication channels for managing incidents or addressing vulnerabilities. While that initial US-Russia CBM proposal did not gain traction, the ideas have influenced subsequent discussions.

One notable confidence-building effort has been an ongoing series of cyber talks between the US and China since 2013. Through these discussions, the two powers have implemented practical CBMs like establishing a cybersecurity working group and hotline for managing crises, notifying each other of major cyber incidents, and hosting annual roundtables to increase transparency and discuss their national cyber policies. Observers see these US-China talks as helping to limit further escalation between the two countries in cyberspace, even as tensions remain high in other geostrategic issues.

On a broader scale, the UN has worked to develop a consensus set of global CBMs through the Open-Ended Working Group process. In 2021, the OEWG finalized 11 non-binding UN CBMs for countries to voluntarily adopt, covering areas like information exchanges on national cyber policies, building partnerships on cybercrime, cooperating on tracking and attributing cyber operations, establishing contacts for managing crises, and participating in international capacity building efforts. While these CBMs lack an enforcement mechanism, supporters argue they can promote stability if adopted widely.

Meanwhile, some regional blocs have also attempted tailored CBM frameworks. For instance, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe established a comprehensive set of cybersecurity CBMs in 2016 that 55 OSCE participating states can implement on a voluntary basis. These CBMs include transparency measures like exchanging details on national cyber strategies, creating points of contacts, and hosting consultations to reduce tensions. The ASEAN Regional Forum has also floated some modest CBM proposals focused more on norms of state behavior and cooperation on cybercrime.

While significant challenges remain, there has been progress in developing a basic framework of cyber norms and confidence-building measures through multilateral forums. Widespread adoption of existing CBM proposals could help improve stability between states by increasing transparency, managing risks, and lowering the probability of escalation from misunderstandings in cyberspace. As malicious cyber activities continue rising globally, further strengthening international consensus on responsible state behavior and trust-building will remain a high priority.

WHAT ARE THE KEY SECURITY MEASURES THAT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED TO PROTECT SENSITIVE CUSTOMER DATA

Leave a reply

We take customer data security extremely seriously. Safeguarding sensitive information and upholding the highest standards of privacy and data protection are fundamental to maintaining customer trust.

Our information security management system has been designed according to the ISO/IEC 27001 international standard for information security. This ensures that information risks are properly identified and addressed through a robust set of security policies, procedures, and controls.

We conduct regular security audits and reviews to identify any gaps or issues. Any non-conformities identified through auditing are documented, assigned ownership, and tracked to completion. This allows us to continually evaluate and improve our security posture over time.

All customer-related data is stored within secure database servers located in ISO/IEC 27017 compliant data centers. The data centers have stringent physical and environmental controls to prevent unauthorized access, damage, or interference. Entry is restricted and continuously monitored with security cameras.

The database servers are deployed in a segmented, multi-tier architecture with firewalls and network access controls separating each tier from one another. Database activity and access is logged for audit and detection purposes. Critical systems and databases are replicated to secondary failover instances in separate availability zones to ensure continuity of operations.

Encryption is implemented throughout to protect data confidentiality. Data transmitted over public networks is encrypted using TLS 1.3. Data stored ‘at rest’ within databases and files is encrypted using AES-256. Cryptographic keys are securely stored androtated regularly per our key management policy.

We perform regular vulnerability scanning of internet-facing applications and network infrastructure using manual and automated tools. Any critical or high-risk vulnerabilities identified are prioritized and remediated immediately according to a defined severity/response matrix.

Access to systems and data is governed through the principle of least privilege – users are only granted the minimal permissions necessary to perform their work. A strong authentication system based on multi-factor authentication is implemented for all access. User accounts are reviewed periodically and deactivated promptly on staff termination.

A centralized identity and access management system provides single sign-on capability while enforcing centralized access controls, approval workflows and automatic provisioning/deprovisioning of accounts and entitlements. Detailed system change, access and activity logs are retained for audit and reviewed for anomalies.

Robust monitoring and threat detection mechanisms are put in place using security information and event management (SIEM) solutions to detect cybersecurity incidents in real-time. Anomalous or malicious activity triggers alerts that are reviewed by our security operations center for an immediate response.

Data loss prevention measures detect and prevent unauthorized transfer of sensitive data onto systems or removable media. Watermarking is used to help identify the source if confidential data is compromised despite protective measures.

Vendor and third party access is tightly controlled and monitored. We conduct security and compliance due diligence on all our service providers. Legally binding agreements obligate them to implement security controls meeting our standards and to notify us immediately of any incidents involving customer data.

All employees undergo regular security awareness training to learn how to identify and avoid social engineering techniques like phishing. Strict policies prohibit connections to unsecured or public Wi-Fi networks, use of removable storage devices or unauthorized SaaS applications. Breaches are subject to disciplinary action.

We conduct simulated cyber attacks and tabletop exercises to evaluate the efficacy of our plans and responses. Lessons learned are used to further improve security controls. An independent external auditor also conducts annual privacy and security assessments to verify ongoing compliance with security and privacy standards.

We are committed to safeguarding customer privacy through stringent controls and will continue to invest in people, processes and technologies to strengthen our defenses against evolving cyber threats. Ensuring the highest standards of security is the priority in maintaining our customers’ trust.