Jonathan Prince Leaves Spotify for Role at Slack

first_imgPrince was also with Spotify at the time of its public sparring with Taylor Swift over royalty rates, and had been an outspoken critic of Apple Music’s “app tax,” in which the company takes a 30%  commission on every subscription sold on its App Store. Popular on Variety Jonathan Prince, the Spotify executive who helped lead the company’s ill-fated policy against “hateful conduct” last year, has left the company to join the work-flow platform Slack, according to his LinkedIn profile. A rep for Spotify did not immediately respond to Variety’s request for comment; the news was first reported in Music Business Worldwide.Prince’s profile states that last month he became Slack’s Head of Strategic Communications and Senior Advisor to the CEO. Since 2014 he had been Spotify’s VP, head of marketplace and content policy and vp, global head of communications and public policy.Prince, who previously held advisory roles in the Clinton and Obama administrations, was described by a source as being at the “center” of Spotify’s controversial policy against “hateful conduct” last year, which essentially amounted to banning the music of two artists — R. Kelly and XXXTentacion — from the platform’s playlists. The announcement met with immediate backlash from the media, artists, legal experts and even, according to sources, several senior Spotify executives, and was quickly walked back in the face of fierce criticism over its vaguely stated criteria, the impracticality of policing it, Spotify’s seeming hubris in making such determinations, and especially the fact that it has thus far targeted only black males who have been accused but not convicted of serious crimes.center_img ×Actors Reveal Their Favorite Disney PrincessesSeveral actors, like Daisy Ridley, Awkwafina, Jeff Goldblum and Gina Rodriguez, reveal their favorite Disney princesses. Rapunzel, Mulan, Ariel,Tiana, Sleeping Beauty and Jasmine all got some love from the Disney stars.More VideosVolume 0%Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcutsKeyboard Shortcutsplay/pauseincrease volumedecrease volumeseek forwardsseek backwardstoggle captionstoggle fullscreenmute/unmuteseek to %SPACE↑↓→←cfm0-9Next UpJennifer Lopez Shares How She Became a Mogul04:350.5x1x1.25×1.5x2xLive00:0002:1502:15last_img read more

With moms green card on the line family forgoes autism services for

first_imgReviewed by James Ives, M.Psych. (Editor)Feb 1 2019As U.S. immigration enforcement becomes stricter under the Trump administration, more immigrant families are cutting ties with health care services and other critical government programs, according to child advocates who work with such families.In Texas, researchers studying the issue say it’s a major reason why more children are going without health insurance.Ana, who lives in Central Texas with her husband and two children, has been increasingly hesitant to seek help from the government. In particular, she’s worried about getting help for her 9-year-old daughter, Sara, who was diagnosed with autism a few years ago.Ana entered the country without documentation about 10 years ago, which is why NPR and KHN have agreed not to use her last name. Both of her children were born in the United States and have been covered by Medicaid for years. But ever since President Donald Trump took office, Ana has been using the program only for basics — such as checkups and vaccinations for the kids.This decision to forgo care comes at a cost. Managing Sara’s behavior has been challenging, even after the autism diagnosis brought her parents some clarity. Sara acts out and has tantrums, sometimes in public places. Ana finds it difficult to soothe her daughter, and the situation has become more awkward as Sara grows.“To other people, Sara just seems spoiled or a brat,” Ana said.After the diagnosis, Ana felt unsure about her next steps. She eventually went to a nonprofit in Austin that guides and supports parents whose children have disabilities. It’s called Vela (“candle” in Spanish).At Vela, Ana learned about a range of services Sara could get access to via her Medicaid plan — including therapy to help the child communicate better.However, the thought of asking for more government services for her daughter increased Ana’s anxiety. “I am looking for groups who are not associated with the government,” Ana explained.Ana is in the middle of the long, expensive legal process of applying for permanent resident status, known informally as a “green card.” Recently, the Trump administration announced that it may tighten part of this process — the “public charge” assessment. The assessment scrutinizes how many government services a green card applicant currently uses — or might use later in life. If a person uses many government services, they could pose a net financial burden on the federal budget — or so goes the rationale. The government’s algorithms are complex, but “public charge” is part of the determination for who gets a green card and who doesn’t.The rule change proposed by the Trump administration — which might not come to pass — has already led many applicants, or would-be applicants, to be wary of all government services, even those that wouldn’t affect their applications.“I am afraid they will not give me a legal resident status,” Ana said.Her husband already has a green card, and the couple is determined to not jeopardize Ana’s ongoing application. So they have decided — just to be safe — to avoid seeking any more help from the government. That’s even though their daughter, who is a citizen, needs more therapy than she’s getting right now.“I feel bad that I have to do that,” Ana said.She says she would love to treat her daughter’s autism, but has decided that there is nothing more important than getting that green card, in order to keep the family together in the U.S.“I’m running into families that, when it’s time for re-enrollment or reapplication, they are pausing and they are questioning if they should,” said Nadine Rueb, a clinical social worker dealing with Ana’s case at Vela.Related StoriesNeuroscientists find anatomical link between cognitive and perceptual symptoms in autismScientists make breakthrough in understanding the genetics of common syndromic autismResearchers develop new technique to accurately detect ASD in childrenRueb said a range of fears are behind immigrants’ avoidance of government services. Some are staying under the radar to avoid immediate deportation. Others are more like Ana — they just want to be in the best position possible to finally get permanent legal status and move on with their lives.“The climate of fear is so pervasive at this point, and there is so much misinformation out there,” said Cheasty Anderson, a senior policy associate with the Children’s Defense Fund in Texas.Anderson said she thinks the parents’ fears have led to an uptick in children going without health coverage in Texas.A recent study from Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families found that 1 in 5 uninsured kids in the U.S. lives in Texas. And a big percentage of those uninsured children are Latino.The report shows that after years of steady decline, the number (and percentage) of uninsured children in the U.S. increased in 2017, the first year of Trump’s presidency. Nationally, 5 percent of all kids are uninsured — and in Texas the rate rose to 10.7 percent, up from 9.8 percent in 2016.Joan Alker, author of the Georgetown report, said the Trump administration’s effort to crack down on both legal and illegal immigration is one of many factors driving up the uninsured rates. And it’s especially perceptible in Texas, where a quarter of children have a parent who is either undocumented, or who is trying to become a legal resident.“For these mixed-status families, there is likely a heightened fear of interacting with the government, and this may be deterring them from signing up their eligible children for government-sponsored health care,” Alker said in a phone call with reporters in November, when the report was released.Anderson, of the Children’s Defense Fund in Texas, said the repercussions fall hardest on kids with disabilities — kids who need services.“Texas is proud to be Texas in so many ways, but this is one way in which we are failing ourselves,” she said.From the perspective of Rueb, a disability rights specialist, timing is an essential issue for these children.“The sooner you catch [the diagnosis or condition], the sooner you support the child [and] the sooner you support the family,” Rueb said. “I think it’s just a win-win for everybody. You are supporting the emotions of the family, and then that supports the child.”For now, said Ana, she’s relying on the services offered by her daughter’s public school — which aren’t counted in the federal government’s “public charge” assessment. And she’ll keep doing that until she gets that green card.This story is part of a partnership that includes KUT, NPR and Kaiser Health News. This article was reprinted from khn.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.last_img read more

Study examines links between workplace sexism and womens mental health job satisfaction

first_img Source:https://newsroom.wiley.com/press-release/journal-applied-social-psychology/workplace-sexisms-effects-womens-mental-health-and-j Reviewed by Alina Shrourou, B.Sc. (Editor)Feb 6 2019A new Journal of Applied Social Psychology study investigates the associations between workplace sexism, sense of belonging at work, mental health, and job satisfaction for women in male-dominated industries.In the study of 190 women from a large Australian trade union that represented mainly male-dominated jobs, organizational sexism and interpersonal sexism were associated with a poorer sense of belonging in the industry, which was associated with poorer mental health. A poorer sense of belonging also explained the negative effect of organizational sexism on job satisfaction.Related StoriesCombat veterans more likely to exhibit signs of depression, anxiety in later lifeParticipation in local food projects may have positive effect on healthOnline training program helps managers to support employees’ mental health needsThe results fit a theoretical model in which workplace sexism reduces sense of belonging because it represents a form of bullying, rejection, and ostracism by men against their female co-workers. This reduced sense of belonging then impacts negatively on women’s mental health and job satisfaction due its association with feelings of loneliness and alienation.”Strategies that integrate women more thoroughly into male-dominated industries and give them a better sense of belonging may help to increase their mental health and job satisfaction” said corresponding author Associated Professor Mark Rubin, of The University of Newcastle, Australia. “However, we also need better strategies to reduce sexism in the workplace if we are to tackle this problem at its root.”last_img read more

Cancer patients and those with anemia should not be denied opioids says

first_imgBy Sally Robertson, B.Sc.Apr 11 2019Reviewed by Kate Anderton, B.Sc. (Editor)The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued a letter clarifying that people suffering from severe pain caused by cancer or sickle-cell anemia should not be denied prescriptions for opioid pain-killers.The letter, which was issued on Tuesday, emphasizes that the guidelines restricting the use of opioid medications were not intended to apply to patients undergoing cancer treatment or to any patients suffering from chronic pain.David Smart | ShutterstockIn an attempt to curb the nation’s opioid addiction epidemic, some medical societies had called for physicians to limit their prescription of the potent painkillers. In 2016, the CDC released guidelines advising primary care doctors that in the majority of cases, opioids should only be prescribed as a last resort.At the time, Thomas R. Frieden, Former Director of the CDC said, “The guideline was developed to support primary care clinicians who prescribe about half of all opioid pain medications in relieving patient’s pain, preventing patient’s suffering, and promoting patient’s well-being. This guideline helps by offering a flexible tool. Not a one size fits all tool…”.Despite this, there was an unintended consequence; some insurance companies have refused to cover prescriptions for cancer patients/survivors and sickle-cell patients who are suffering with acute or chronic pain.To estimate the impact of this outcome, the American Cancer Society sponsored surveys of cancer patients and survivors across the nation.The results showed that the number of patients who were refused coverage for opioid prescriptions rose from 11% to 30% between 2016 and 2018. Furthermore, many more patients reported restrictions on how many opioid pills and refills they could have, as well as difficulty finding pharmacies prepared to fill the prescriptions.Hematology society member Dr. Deepika Darbari, who treats young patients with sickle cell anemia reports that she has experienced insurers who refuse to cover IV opioids for patients experiencing severe pain, based on the CDC guidelines.Now, the CDC has published a letter clarifying that the guidelines were never intended to deny such patients the painkillers, after three medical societies (the American Society of Hematology, the American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) brought the problem to the agency’s attention.The new clarification was issued to the societies in the form of a letter written by the lead author of the guidelines and top CDC medical officer Deborah Dowell. Read next:Impact of legalizing cannabis on the opioid crisis. The opioid epidemic is one of the most pressing public health issues in the United States today. Last year, more Americans died from drug overdoses than car crashes. And these overdoses have hit families across our entire nation.”  Sylvia Burwell, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary This clarification from the CDC is critically important because, while the agency’s guideline clearly states that it is not intended to apply to patients during active cancer and sickle-cell disease treatment, many payers have been inappropriately using it to make opioid coverage determinations for those exact populations.”Clifford Hudis, ASCO Chief Executive Officer “The guidelines [that the] CDC is releasing today will provide safer pain management while helping us reduce opioid abuse. It’s an important step in our work to combat the opioid epidemic.” The CDC also stated that pain management in sickle cell anemia is complicated and that treatment approaches and reimbursement should be planned based on the guidelines that have been developed specifically for the disease.Chief executive officer of NCCN, Robert Carlson, says the CDC’s letter will be made publicly available online and that it can be cited by physicians and patients if they experience problems with their opioid prescriptions being approved.He also announced that NCCN has published recommendations to help cancer specialists evaluate the risk of opioid abuse “while still ensuring people with cancer don’t suffer unnecessary, severe pain.”last_img read more

New research shows slightly different picture of trauma soldiers experience from war

first_imgPerforming actions that violate moral principles can involve killing an innocent person.”For example, an officer may order a person shot because it looks as if he is wearing a suicide vest. But then it turns out that he wasn’t, and a civilian ends up being killed,” he says.”Another example could be when an officer supervises and instructs an Afghan unit, and then learns that someone in that unit is abusing small children. It can be difficult to intervene in that kind of situation, but easy for a Norwegian officer to think afterwards that he should have done something,” Nordstrand explains.Far more symptomsThere is a marked difference between how danger-based and non-danger-based stressors affect the symptoms of psychological distress.The study shows that both danger-based and non-danger-based stressors lead to an increase in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD can involve being hyper-alert, jumpy, sleeping poorly and reliving events after they’ve happened.”The experience that lasted a long time and burdened him afterwards was when he went out on the battlefield after a bomb had gone off and found a glittery child’s shoe spattered with blood.”Related StoriesTransobturator sling surgery shows promise for stress urinary incontinenceRevolutionary gene replacement surgery restores vision in patients with retinal degenerationNew network for children and youth with special health care needs seeks to improve systems of careBut non-danger-based stressors are likely to trigger far more symptoms of psychological distress.”In our study, we found that depression, chronic sleep disorders and anxiety were much more linked to non-danger-based stressors than having been in fear for one’s life,” says Nordstrand.Appreciate life moreThe research results also show that exposure to personal life threats often leads to positive personal development. This type of trauma can contribute to the individual appreciating life more, getting closer to relatives and experiencing greater faith in their ability to handle situations.Non-danger-based stressors, on the other hand, usually lead to negative personal development, where the person values life less, feels more distant from others and has less faith in himself.Nordstrand said he didn’t expect there to be such a big difference.Nordstrand’s idea for the study came to him through his job as a psychologist in the Norwegian Armed Forces stress management service, where he noticed that often other issues than having been shot at were plaguing the soldiers.”A lot of soldiers told stories of how witnessing someone else’s suffering, especially of children who became victims of the war – were tough to work through,” says Nordstrand.One of the soldiers he’s followed up with had participated in lots of battles without dwelling on them.”The experience that stayed with him and burdened him afterwards was when he went out onto the battlefield after a bomb had gone off and found a child’s sparkly shoe spattered with blood,” the psychologist says.According to Nordstrand, a lot of people hide their non-danger-based trauma and don’t talk about it to their family, friends or colleagues. He thinks this relates to the fact that non-danger-based trauma is often linked to shame and guilt, and that it can be more difficult to talk about than that they were scared in an exchange of fire.”A lot of soldiers are probably afraid of feeling alienated if they would tell their family and civilian friends of all the horrors they saw and experienced. Such experiences often don’t fit very well with the world view we protected Norwegians have,” says Nordstrand.Wants to focus on the spectrumThe researcher hopes the study can help direct attention to the fact that there is a wide range of traumatic experiences. He would like to see the focus be not only on people who have been in life-threatening situations, but also on assistance personnel, police and firefighters who are exposed to non-danger-based stressors in their occupations on a daily basis.Other studies, including Swedish ones, show that firefighters are a group that is vulnerable to depression and suicide.”We tend to turn on the blue light and rush to help when someone has been in a life-threatening situation. I think we can do a much better job of helping people by acknowledging that there’s a real risk of mental illness after being exposed to non-danger-based trauma. We should develop protocols so that we can capture those who are vulnerable and figure out how we can better utilize our resources,” says Nordstrand. Source:Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyJournal reference:Nordstrand, A E. et al. (2019) Danger and Non-Danger Based Stressors and their Relations to Posttraumatic Deprecation or Growth in Norwegian Veterans Deployed to Afghanistan. European Journal of Psychotraumatology. doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2019.1601989 Reviewed by James Ives, M.Psych. (Editor)Jun 24 2019We usually think that trauma from war is related to the fact that soldiers have been under constant threat of death. New research shows a slightly different picture.The types of trauma that Norwegian soldiers were exposed to in Afghanistan greatly affected the psychological aftermath of their experiences.Psychologist Andreas Espetvedt Nordstrand and his research team have looked at how exposure to different types of traumatic experiences influenced Norwegian veterans who were in Afghanistan.The study shows that being exposed to life-threatening situations results in fewer post-traumatic stress symptoms for soldiers than when they experience suffering and death without being in danger themselves.Nordstrand is affiliated with the Norwegian University of Science and Technology’s (NTNU) Department of Psychology and is one of the authors of the study, published in the European Journal of Psychotraumatology.The study is part of a comprehensive survey of how veterans are faring after the war in Afghanistan.Just over 7000 Norwegian soldiers participated in the war in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2011, and 4053 of them participated in this investigation.Violation of moral principleTrauma is roughly divided into danger-based and non-danger-based stressors.Soldiers can be exposed to danger-based trauma in classic military settings, such as being shot or ambushed. It is an active threat that is linked to anxiety.Non-danger-based trauma is divided into two subgroups:Witnessing: seeing suffering or death of others, without being in danger oneself.Moral Challenges: seeing or performing an act that violates a person’s own moral beliefs. An example of witnessing might be that a suicide bomber triggers a bomb that hurts or kills children and civilians. Then our soldiers come in to clean up or secure the area after the bomb has gone off and experience the devastation.”Andreas Espetvedt Nordstrand, Psychologist, Norwegian University of Science and Technologylast_img read more

Record highs record heists where is cryptocurrency heading

What goes up…. A hacking theft that netted $530 million, a ban on Facebook advertising, regulation even in Russia and more wild price swings: despite another stomach-churning week for cryptocurrencies, analysts say they are here to stay. Japan raids hacked crypto exchange, bitcoin plunges further Explore further Coincheck executives were suitably apologetic after hackers stole hundreds of millions of dollars in digital assets “Hacks occur. People who choose to use this technology must be aware of the danger associated with it,” he told AFP. “I expect to see users becoming more selective when choosing exchanges.”To ensure client safety and improved use of the technology, virtual currency exchanges should face strict regulations like banks and brokerages, he suggested.Banks and e-commerce firms could use the most stable cryptocurrencies among themselves, while others could be traded as alternative assets, Kawai said.With investor interest apparently insatiable, regulators are likely to introduce a range of tighter checks, including requiring exchanges to verify the identity of their clients.They could also impose outside cyber audits to protect against the kind of security loopholes that appear to have led to the Coincheck theft.Cryptocurrency trading is also likely to come under the scrutiny of tax authorities, potentially cooling investor appetite if particularly steep new tariffs are rolled out, analysts say.Kanemitsu said bitFlyer would welcome “good and reasonable regulation” as “an opportunity.”Hikaru Kusaka, co-founder of blockhive, an innovation incubator, said consumers will eventually weed out the weak virtual currencies and only the best will survive.”To put it dramatically, maybe not all the cryptocurrencies will disappear, but new ones will emerge, and there will be a process of picking and choosing,” said Kusaka. But despite the negative publicity and the growing attention of regulators, enthusiasm for cryptocurrencies does not appear to be waning.BitFlyer, Japan’s main bitcoin exchange, told AFP it had actually seen increased interest after the Coincheck hack was revealed.”Many people got interested in cryptocurrencies. On our platform, the number of new account applications increased,” bitFlyer CFO Midori Kanemitsu said.And Innes said virtual currency had “a sort of Teflon persona.”He said he expected to see dips down to around $6,000 “before the market irons out.” “Given recent trading patterns, I suspect $10,000-$15,000 will be the sweet spot, and as more traditional market makers enter the fray… volatility will decrease.”‘More selective’Industry professionals say there is no stopping the technology behind virtual currencies and while some cryptocurrencies may disappear, others will likely pop up in their place.”All kinds of new ideas are emerging,” said lawyer Ken Kawai, an expert in financial regulation and the blockchain technology behind cryptocurrencies. This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. Is bitcoin for mugs? Regulators have already clamped down in South Korea and China and even in Russia, where a draft law was drawn up last week aimed at controlling the production and creation of virtual money.On Thursday India’s Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said the government did not consider cryptocurrencies legal tender and would “take all measures to eliminate” their use as part of a payment system and in funding illegitimate activities.Innes said such regulatory oversight was long overdue, as the current framework was “far too lax given investors’ vulnerabilities from both market volatility and cybercriminals.””In general, the regulatory framework in Asia was terrible, which offered criminals mouth-watering targets,” he added.’Systemically important’Crypto regulation was also on the minds of the global elite at this year’s World Economic Forum, with British finance minister Philip Hammond urging governments to be “cautious.” While headline-grabbing hacks like that suffered by Japan’s Coincheck are likely to attract the attention of regulators, experts say the “Teflon” crypto boom is now part of the economic landscape.Cryptocurrencies have “been down numerous times, but always able to get off the canvas,” Stephen Innes, head of Asia-Pacific trading at OANDA, told AFP.Virtual currencies have certainly taken some hefty blows recently.In the dead of night, hackers stole $530 million in Japanese virtual currency from Coincheck, sending prices plunging and underlining the vulnerability, and volatility, of cryptocurrencies.The January 26 hack appears to be the largest cryptocurrency theft ever, exceeding even the $480 million stolen in 2014 from another Japanese virtual currency exchange, MtGox.In the wake of the MtGox theft, Japan’s government introduced regulations requiring exchanges to obtain a government-issued licence.And the news from Coincheck again piqued regulators’ interest, with Finance Minister Taro Aso admitting this week that the government “needs to strengthen our supervision.”Coincheck “did not store the important things separately. I think they lacked fundamental knowledge or common sense,” he said. “Possibly we do need to look at the way we regulate this environment before the amount of outstanding bitcoin becomes large enough to be systemically important in the global economy,” he told Bloomberg TV.Tech giant Facebook then got in on the act, banning all ads related to cryptocurrencies in an effort to fight scams.All this has taken its toll on the value of bitcoin—the best-known virtual currency—which soared to nearly $20,000 before dropping back to less than half that value with wild daily swings. It has been a rollercoaster week for virtual currencies like bitcoin Citation: Record highs, record heists: where is cryptocurrency heading? (2018, February 2) retrieved 18 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-02-highs-heists-cryptocurrency.html © 2018 AFP read more

Cyber attacks are rewriting the rules of modern warfare—and we arent prepared

first_imgCredit: Structuresxx/Shutterstock This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Governments are becoming ever more reliant on digital technology, making them more vulnerable to cyber attacks. In 2007, Estonia was attacked by pro-Russian hackers who crippled government servers, causing havoc. Cyber attacks in Ukraine targeted the country’s electricity grid, while Iran’s nuclear power plants were infected by malware that could have led to a nuclear meltdown. This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. Cyber attacks are a serious challenge for established laws of armed conflict. Determining the origin of an attack isn’t impossible, but the process can take weeks. Even when the origin can be confirmed, it may be difficult to establish that a state was responsible. This is especially true when cyber operations could be perpetrated by hackers in other countries routing their attacks through different jurisdictions. NATO experts have highlighted the issue in the Tallinn Manual on International Law Applicable to Cyberwarfare. There is no consensus on whether a state is responsible for a cyber attack originating from its networks if it did not have explicit knowledge of the attack. Failure to take appropriate measures to prevent an attack by a host state could mean that the victim state is entitled to respond through proportionate use of force in self defence. But if there’s uncertainty around who is to blame for the attack, any justification for a counter-attack is diminished. Even if the problem of attribution is resolved, a state’s right to respond with force to a cyber attack would normally be prohibited. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter protects the territorial integrity and political structures of states from attack. This can be lawfully bypassed if a state can claim they’re defending themselves against an “armed attack”.The International Court of Justice explains that: “It will be necessary to distinguish between the most grave forms of the use of force (those constituting an armed attack) from other less grave forms.”So a cyber-attack would justify force as self-defence if it could be considered an “armed attack”. But is that possible? Only when the “scale” and “effect” of a cyber-attack are comparable to an offline “armed attack”, such as attacks that lead to deaths and widespread damage to infrastructure. If so, self-defence is justified. But what about when a cyber attack has been successfully defended against? Then, its effects can only be guessed at. This makes deciding a proportional response even trickier. Physical force used as self-defence after the cyber attack has already been successfully defended against could be considered unnecessary and therefore, illegal. An exception, however, might be made for a preemptive defence against an imminent or possible attack.When self-defence is considered reasonably necessary, the nature of the force permitted can vary. Proportionate counter-attacks with conventional military weapons can be acceptable responses to cyber operations under international law.These issues are only the start of the challenges posed by cyberwarfare, which will get more complicated as technology develops. The intellectual challenges this will generate are numerous, but we still can’t help but be fearful.Societies face potentially devastating consequences from cyberwarfare as we become more reliant on information technologies and communication networks for everyday life – and we’re only just starting to ask questions about it. In the US, president Trump recently declared a “national emergency” to recognise the threat to US computer networks from “foreign adversaries”.Politically-motivated cyber attacks are becoming increasingly commonplace but unlike traditional warfare between two or more states, cyberwarfare can be launched by groups of individuals. On occasion, the state is actually caught in the crosshairs of competing hacking groups. This doesn’t mean that states don’t actively prepare for such attacks. British defence officials have said they’re prepared to conduct cyber attacks against Moscow’s power grid, should Russia decide to launch an offensive.In most cases, cyberwarfare operations have been conducted in the background, designed as scare tactics or displays of power. But the blending of traditional warfare and cyberwarfare seems inevitable and a recent incident added a new dimension.How to respond to cyber attacksIsraeli Defence Forces bombed a building allegedly housing Hamas hackers, after they had attempted to, according to the IDF, attack “Israeli targets” online. This is the first time a cyber attack has been met with physical force by a state’s military. But who is to blame and how should states respond when defending against cyber attacks? center_img Provided by The Conversation Explore further German military to launch cyber command Citation: Cyber attacks are rewriting the ‘rules’ of modern warfare—and we aren’t prepared for the consequences (2019, May 17) retrieved 17 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-05-cyber-rewriting-modern-warfareand-consequences.htmllast_img read more