"DISCLOSING" · 총 14건
필터 보기현재 지수
50.3
0 = 부정 우세
50 = 중립
100 = 긍정 우세
최근 7일 기준 86,917건을 분석한 결과, 뉴스 심리지수는 50.2(균형)입니다. 긍정 4,359건(5.0%)·중립 80,414건(92.5%)·부정 2,144건(2.5%)이며, 중립 비중이 뚜렷하게 높습니다. 성향 지수는 종합 14.7(중도 균형)입니다.
The full supervisory board of Milieudefensie has stepped down following criticism over its handling of revelations about former director Donald Pols.
Chinese spies are posing as job recruiters to trick staff in western governments into disclosing sensitive information, the Five Eyes alliance of security agencies has warned. China’s military intelligence services advertise false jobs such as foreign policy or defence analysts on platforms including LinkedIn, the spy agencies of Britain, the United States, Australia, Canada and […]
Without disclosing that work has been generated using the technology, faith in existing industries will continue to be undermined Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcas When a university vice-chancellor this week admitted to using AI in writing an opinion piece for a major Australian masthead, but did not disclose that use prior to publication, it highlighted the growing gap between people’s use of AI and trust in the technology. Data from Roy Morgan this week showed 13.6m or 58% of the population older than 14 now use AI each month, with ChatGPT being the most popular, followed by Google’s Gemini and Microsoft Copilot. Continue reading...
Not all deceptions are equal.
LONDON, June 5 — Chinese spies are posing as job recruiters to trick staff in western governments into disclosing...
The children’s music program Kids Top 20 has returned on social media with a fully AI-generated presenter named Jess, with the creators not disclosing in a promotional Instagram video that the host
New Delhi [India]: The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a penalty of Rs 7 lakh on Vajiram and Ravi IAS Study Centre LLP for allegedly publishing misleading advertisements and concealing material information related to the success of candidates in the UPSC Civil Services Examination (CSE).According to a press release issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, the final order was passed by the CCPA, headed by Chief Commissioner Nidhi Khare and Commissioner Anupam Mishra, after the authority found that the coaching institute had prominently advertised the achievements of successful UPSC CSE 2023 candidates without disclosing the specific courses undertaken by those candidates.According to the press release, the institute had claimed on its official website that "8 Rank Holders in the Top 10 are from Vajiram & Ravi", "37 Rank Holders in the Top 50 are from Vajiram & Ravi", and that "more than 30 per cent of the officers selected through UPSC Civil Services Examination are students of Vajiram & Ravi" every year.The CCPA's investigation reportedly found that seven of the eight top-10 rank holders and 29 of the 37 candidates in the top 50 had enrolled only in the institute's free Interview Guidance Programme (IGP).Also Read: Nearly 5.49 lakh candidates appeared in civil services preliminary exam: UPSCThe authority further noted that a large majority of successful candidates associated with the institute in recent years had participated only in the IGP. According to the findings cited in the press release, 86.36 per cent of successful candidates in 2021, 78.31 per cent in 2022, 97.56 per cent in 2023, and 71.69 per cent in 2024 had enrolled solely in the interview guidance programme.The CCPA observed that the Interview Guidance Programme begins only after candidates independently clear the Preliminary and Mains stages of the UPSC examination. By featuring such candidates in advertisements for comprehensive coaching programmes without clarifying the nature of their enrolment, the institute allegedly created the impression that their success was attributable to its full-length coaching courses.The authority held that the non-disclosure of important information regarding the courses opted for by successful candidates amounted to a misleading advertisement under Section 2(28)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and violated consumers' right to be informed under Section 2(9) of the Act, the release said.The press release stated that the CCPA has so far issued more than 60 notices to coaching institutes for misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices and has imposed penalties exceeding Rs 1.46 crore on coaching centres preparing students for examinations such as UPSC, IIT-JEE, NEET, RBI and other competitive tests.
India has signed a deal with Vietnam under which it will supply BrahMos missiles which it has jointly developed with Russia and is in “final stages” for a similar deal with Indonesia, India’s Defence Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh said on Saturday. India has a strong commitment to Asean nations, Singh said, without disclosing more details of the deals related to BrahMos. Singh was speaking at Asia’s premier defence forum, the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. India, which has been...
Microsoft is facing criticism for its handling of zero-day exploits. Someone going by the name Nightmare Eclipse has been publicly feuding with the company, posting proof-of-concept exploit code. Some of their posts suggest that they're a disgruntled former employee. But what caught cyber security researcher Kevin Beaumont's eye was how Microsoft has responded. Microsoft suggests […]
The Hong Kong action master’s deliriously violent 1990 epic fuses gangland thriller, war movie and tragic melodrama into a spectacular vision of greed and moral collapse The title of this 1990 John Woo extravaganza might lead the uninitiated to expect a chillingly focused, targeted assassination. Actually, there are innumerable bullets and innumerable heads in this over-the-top gonzo spectacle. It is a crime thriller, a wartime action film set in Vietnam, but it offers something other than the usual Hollywood perspective; it is a parable of greed comparable to The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, and even a kind of romantic melodrama. There is, however, one key bullet in a head, a literal bullet lodged in the skull of someone who achieves a macabre zombie-like semi-survival, the bullet being symbolic of the way violence takes root in the brain, dehumanising its victim. The final “boardroom” scene disclosing this image is toweringly mad and strange. Yet in this movie, as in so many other Woo films, we can see how the director counterintuitively uses sad music – harmonica, woodwind – over grisly, brutal action sequences, as if what he wants us to register is not the violence or the shock but just how poignantly futile and pathetic it all is. Continue reading...
The interviews were used by Mr Biden and his writing partner to develop his 2017 memoir.
“Social engineering” sounds like something out of a conspiracy thriller, charged with totalitarian control and fringe paranoia. More mundanely, it’s come to be associated with phishing and other scams, in which fraudsters manipulate people into disclosing personal information. Yet the concept is older and more benign: it is the deliberate shaping of human behavior, often at scale. It predates silicon—and became pervasive, and ungoverned, especially once its practitioners learned to hide it. Authoritarian regimes and more recently scammers and big companies have profited from it. To defend ourselves from bad actors, and to benefit from social engineering’s good side, we need to reclaim the name, and govern it prudently. The roots of engineering In 1894, Dutch entrepreneur Jacques van Marken urged companies to hire “social engineers” to manage human systems such as insurance, education, and profit sharing for workers as carefully as they did mechanical ones. Fifteen years later, reformer William H. Tolman published Social Engineering, describing how U.S. industrialists optimized workers’ conditions alongside manufacturing methods. If industrialists could shape steel and electricity on demand, why not society itself? By the 1920s, that confidence had spread. The architect Le Corbusier declared that dwellings were “machines for living in,” imagining cities as orderly lattices where people moved like parts on a conveyor belt. Civilization would run like a Swiss watch. The idea soon darkened. Authoritarian regimes pushed it to extremes, promising to fashion “the New Man.” In Nazi Germany, engineer Fritz Todt founded Organization Todt, a vast state engineering enterprise that emerged from the autobahn highway system and later operated concentration camps using slave labor. In the Soviet Union, leaders adopted U.S. scientific management techniques to plan factory-worker movements and classify populations through centralized records, feeding both rapid industrialization drives and the gulag system of forced labor. The same tools and managerial methods used to build highways and enact five-year plans worked for repression and mass control. By the 1950s, “social engineering” had become a contaminated phrase. The revelations of Nazi and Soviet abuses, along with Cold War critiques of grand social planning turned the term from a progressive slogan into a warning label. Banishing the words pushed the practice underground, making it harder to recognize when it resurfaced in new forms—such as organizational psychology and systems management that still relied on classification and behavioral influence techniques but under softer, less loaded labels. Social engineering’s more subtle spread In the postwar years, the new social-engineering lexicon included “human factors” and “urban planning,” all promising integration rather than command. As computing advanced, the language shifted again: “customer journey mapping” to track interactions, “user experience” to script them. Engineering, which began as a means of reshaping physical space, set its sights on shaping behavior. Digital design features embedded in our smartphones now target our attention and desire. Language helps conceal these modern forms of social engineering. “Data analytics” sounds neutral beside “surveillance.” “Personalization” flatters individuality while still sorting users into predictable categories. “Behavioral nudges” guide decisions without the sense of intrusion. We attach “social” as a favorable modifier to sciences, capital, and media, yet recoil when it meets “engineering.” That discomfort is a clue. Engineering implies control, and control prompts us to ask who directs whom, toward what ends, and with whose permission. Not all social engineering these days is hidden. Hackers don’t need to break a firewall if someone hands over their password. Romance scammers cultivate intimacy the way farmers cultivate crops. They succeed not through force but by exploiting trust. If even these obvious attacks work, the invisible kind, with roots in social engineering, are a shoo-in. Most of the social engineering we encounter is proprietary and beyond our control. Firms build recommendation algorithms tuned to boost engagement and profit with no hearings or right of appeal. Browser and cookie defaults decide what data we surrender. A single autoplay toggle can cost users hours and build unhealthy habits. These are acts of engineering as deliberate as laying a road or redrawing an electoral district. They create a kind of curated itch by which boredom never settles, and satisfaction never arrives. The results are predictable—users click on targeted ads, make purchases, form habits, and lock in opinions. Consent has transformed along with it. Once straightforward and revocable, it is now subtle and persistent, buried in defaults or opaque terms of service too quickly accepted. You remain free to opt out, much as you are free to refuse roads or electricity. Consent has become the preselected setting of modern life. When social engineering operated more in the open, citizens could contest it, at least in societies with responsive government. Today’s invisible version diffuses accountability so thoroughly that scrutiny becomes hard to direct. Despite recent congressional hearings on social media’s impact on youth mental health and juries agreeing that firms are knowingly designing algorithms that cause harm, pinpointing responsibility remains elusive. When the mechanism is buried inside a system used by billions, we cannot easily point to a single decision-maker or trace the precise moment of manipulation. Today’s social engineering is less overt and theatrical than its predecessors. Earlier versions arrived on public posters and loudspeakers for mass audiences. Today’s version is more intimate, delivered through personal devices and constant feeds tailored to the individual. The model succeeds because participation feels like freedom, not control. Not all social engineering is dystopian. Well-kept parks foster community, accessible buildings extend dignity, vaccines and seatbelts save lives. Even in the digital realm, positive examples exist: browser extensions that automatically block hidden trackers, search engines that refuse to build personalized surveillance profiles, and decentralized social platforms that give users greater control over their own data and feeds. The term “social engineering” still unsettles, though. But “asocial” engineering, which ignores human consequences entirely, is worse. Recognition of the human dimension to engineering is the beginning of repair. Only by seeing the machinery clearly and naming it honestly can we decide who engineers what and why. The machinery will not dismantle itself. Once named, it becomes subject to choice. That negotiation of purpose, power, and process are the defining political questions of any real democracy. We cannot ensure that social engineering serves and sustains society so long as we dodge the words.
Tom Steyer, a multimillionaire candidate, is under fire for hiring content creators who posted campaign videos in his favor without clearly disclosing they had been paid to support him
Tulsi Gabbard is resigning from her post as director of national intelligence, disclosing that her husband is battling cancer.