Tag Archive for: statements

CSA launches Cybersecurity Industry Call for Innovation 2023 with Challenge Statements by Three End-Users


More than 50 Proposals Received for CyberCall 2022, Four Proposals Selected

The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA), together with National University of Singapore (NUS) Enterprise, launched the Cybersecurity Industry Call for Innovation 2023 (CyberCall 2023) today. The launch was announced by Mrs Josephine Teo, Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Smart Nation and Cybersecurity at the Cybersecurity Innovation Day 2023 held today, 29 September 2023, at the Sands Expo and Convention Centre.

2      The CyberCall initiative, first launched in 2018, seeks to catalyse the development of innovative cybersecurity solutions. Through this, CSA aims to strengthen organisations’ cyber resilience and at the same time provide opportunities for cybersecurity companies to contribute to the development of innovative solutions that shows potential to be applied in many organisations’ systems.  Each selected solution that fulfils the eligibility criteria may receive a funding of up to S$1,000,000 under CSA’s Cybersecurity Co-Innovation and Development Fund (CCDF).

CyberCall 2023

3      This year’s CyberCall is looking for proposals in the following areas: 

a. Cybersecurity for Artificial intelligence (AI) 

To safeguard AI systems and the data they process from various cyber attacks in order to maintain the integrity, confidentiality, trustworthiness and reliability of AI applications in an increasingly connected and digital world.

b. Using AI for cybersecurity

To harness the power of AI to strengthen organisations’ cyber defences to protect their systems, data and networks, improve threat detection, and respond more effectively to cyber attacks.

c. Operational Technology (OT) / Internet of Things (IoT) security

To safeguard critical infrastructure, Industrial Control Systems (ICS) and internet-connected devices from cyber threats and vulnerabilities. 

d. Cloud security

To safeguard infrastructure, data and applications hosted in cloud environments, while maintaining the confidentiality, integrity and availability of resources in the cloud.

e. Privacy-Enhancing Technologies (PET)

To safeguard the privacy of individuals…

Source…

Exclusive: Grindr’s US security review disclosures contradicted statements made to others


NEW YORK: When Grindr Inc’s Chinese owner sold the popular dating app to an investor consortium last year to comply with a U.S. national security panel order, the parties to the deal gave information to authorities that contradicted disclosures to potential investors and Chinese regulators, Reuters has learned.

They told the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that James Lu, a Chinese-American businessman who is now Grindr’s chairman, had no previous business relationship with a key adviser to the seller, a man named Ding’an Fei, according to a Reuters review of the parties’ written submissions to CFIUS.

Fei, a former private equity executive, was acting as an adviser to Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd, Grindr’s owner at the time, on the deal, the documents show.

“The investors and Ding’an Fei have at no time conducted business together in their personal capacities prior to the proposed transaction,” Kunlun and the investor group, called San Vicente Holdings LLC, wrote to CFIUS in a response dated March 27, 2020.

However, when Lu was raising funds to buy Grindr in the second half of 2019 and early 2020, potential investors were told by firms helping him raise the money that Fei was involved in the effort with him in various capacities, a review of four different fundraising documents shows.

The duo had also done business together in other ventures: Fei was a member of the board of a Chinese restaurant operator in which Lu served as chief executive officer, according to that restaurant company’s 2018-2019 annual report.

The discrepancies and omissions in the parties’ response to U.S. authorities, reported by Reuters for the first time, could prompt a new review from CFIUS, according to six former U.S. officials and lawyers familiar with the panel’s rules. If CFIUS were to find the statements were not true, it can also lead to civil penalties and criminal charges under the false statement provisions of the U.S. penal code, they said.

“If a transaction was approved based on misrepresentations, that could well invalidate the approval of the transaction,” said Brent…

Source…

Houston Police Chief Says He’ll Prosecute People For False Statements About COVID-19 Response; Won’t Debate 1st Amendment

We already went over this with Newark, NJ, but now Houston’s top law enforcement officer is falsely claiming he can and will prosecute people for making false statements about Houston’s COVID-19 response. It started with rumors on social media that the city was going to go into lockdown — which is not a crazy rumor given that plenty of other places in the country (and the world) have more or less done this exact thing already (including the entire state of California). But Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner tweeted that this was false information and he was asking law enforcement to investigate:

That says:

There is a video on social media of a person saying she was in a meeting with government officials confirming that there will be a city lockdown this weekend or Monday. All of this is false. I am asking HPD and Harris County DAs Office to investigate for possible prosecution.

Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo then responded to the mayor on Twitter, saying that the police “have launched an investigation” and something about “nation actors intentionally spreading misinformation.”

Now, it should be noted that we’ve written about Art Acevedo a few times now, including his ridiculously bad response to his officers completely botched a no knock raid that killed two innocent people. Acevedo, who came to Texas (first to Austin, then to Houston) promising “reform” and cleaning up police departments hasn’t always done such a great job of that — but you’d at least expect him to know how the 1st Amendment works.

But, no, that’s too much apparently. Also, when confronted on this… he trotted out the very wrong “fire in a crowded theater” line:

As a reminder, that line is not good law, and is the excuse most commonly used by bumbling idiots to defend unconstitutional censorship.

Even once a bunch of experts in this space piled on to point out to Acevedo he was wrong, he kept it up, with a ridiculous press conference in which he said that he had no time to debate 1st Amendment lawyers:

We have opened a multi-jurisdictional investigation. I had a 1st Amendment lawyer arguing with me on Twitter, and the mayor on his tweet. We’re not gonna debate the law. I’ll just say that the US Attorney’s Office is now involved in this investigation. Our federal partners are now involved in this investigation and we will prosecute anyone to the fullest extent of the law. I’ve been in touch with the DA’s office. I’ve been in touch with our federal partners. And the bottom line is that we have investigations ongoing.

Yeah, except (1) you can’t prosecute people for mere rumors on social media, and (2) saying that you are going to prosecute false information is incredibly dangerous because it stops people from sharing valuable and useful information if they’re afraid that it might not be fully verified. We saw this in China, where police went after the doctor who was trying to raise the alarm about COVID-19 and it silenced him and probably slowed worldwide (and local) attention to the risks of COVID-19.

Even more ridiculous, right before saying that he was going to prosecute people for false statements, Acevedo said (and I kid you not) that you shouldn’t listen to anyone on social media, but you should listen to the President — the very same President who has been a veritable fire hose of misinformation regarding COVID-19. Meanwhile, much of the good and useful information has been spreading by experts on social media, just as Acevedo is saying not to listen to any of it.

As it relates to the individuals who continue to spread false information: you should be ONLY listening to your elected officials, or to your appointed officials, for information on what is happening or is about to happen. If there’s a change, only believe it when you hear it from the Mayor, the judge, the Governor, the President or the people that they appoint for these type of responses.

Now, sure, you should listen to officials to get specifics on the official response, but mentioning the President at a time when he’s spewing so much disinformation and then immediately insisting that disinformation is criminal, is just crazy. Oh, and then he also insists that the misinformation is coming from foreign sources:

Secondly, the majority of this information, a lot of, it’s not just coming from individuals, but from nation states. I’m gonna repeat: nation states, that are purposefully putting out information that try to cause pandemonium. That try to get a reaction from the public.

Citation needed, chief. Yes, I’m sure that some information on social media is being put out by nation state trolls trying to wreak havoc. But “the majority” of it? Come on. Also, again, importantly, there’s been a ton of incredibly useful information and details on social media talking about how to best respond to this, from how to “flatten the curve,” how to stay safe, how to wash your hands, how to practice social distancing, even to the point of how to help make medical equipment to help protect medical professionals. Telling everyone not to listen to any of it and that you’ll prosecute people for posting that info is downright dangerous by itself.

I don’t expect everyone to understand the ins-and-outs of the 1st Amendment, but a police chief of a major city, certainly should.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.