Saturday, January 30, 2010

The automobile manufacturer Toyota has said that it will recall up to 1.8 million cars across Europe, after a problem with the accelerator pedal was discovered.

According to the firm, eight models were affected by the problem — AYGO, iQ, Yaris, Auris, Corolla, Verso, Avensis, and RAV4 — after it was discovered that the accelerator may become stuck in a depressed position, resulting in uncontrollable speeding.

On Thursday, Toyota said it would recall 1.1 million cars in the US; a day previous, it had suspended eight models from sales. Last week, 2.3 million cars in the US were recalled due to the pedal issues.

The chief executive of Toyota Motor Europe commented on the recall. “We understand that the current situation is creating concerns and we deeply regret it,” said Tadashi Arashima. The firm, however, noted that it wasn’t aware of any accidents resulted by the malfunctioning accelerator pedals, and not many pedal problem incidents were reported in Europe. “The potential accelerator pedal issue only occurs in very rare circumstances,” Arashima added.

The National Automobile Dealers Association, meanwhile, commented that Toyota showrooms could lose as much as US$2.47 billion worth of revenue due to the incident.

“Toyota veterans will likely hear the news with disbelief and keep faith in the brand, but new customers could definitely be scared off,” remarked Robert Rademacher, who is the president of the trade group ZDK, as quoted by Business Week. “This recall has a dimension which we’ve never seen before.”

There are concerns that the problem may result in reduced consumer trust in Toyota. Hans-Peter Wodniok, an analyst for Fairesearch GmbH & Co. in Germany, noted: “If this is a one-time event, huge as it is, Toyota may be forgiven. But if something happens again in the next months and years, they will have gambled away customer trust in Europe as well.”

Analysts for Morgan Stanley, however, said they believed Toyota would not suffer much from the incident. “The company’s actions to correct the situation are timely enough to avoid major brand damage,” they remarked in a note to investors.

Friday, April 25, 2008

The arsonist responsible for setting fire to the historic Sungnyemun gate (more commonly referred to as Namdaemun gate) in Seoul, South Korea in February has been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The 600-year-old landmark was considred one of the nation’s greatest and most iconic, with some sources describing it as the single most important one in the country.

The 69-year-old male defendant has a previous conviction from two years ago for attempting to torch the Changgyeong palace, for which he received a suspended prison sentence and was fined. It is understood he destroyed the Namdaemun gate and attacked the palace over an unconnected land ownership dispute which had angered him. He felt that the compulsory purchase of his home a decade ago had been inadequatly compensated for by the state.

After the fire, residents left flowers at the scene and wrote grieving notes.

Chae Jong-Gi, who admitted the crime, was told of the seriousness of the offence in a statement by the Seoul district court. “A heavy sentence is inevitable as the accused inflicted unbearable agony on the people and damaged national pride… (The monument was) the treasure among all treasures which had survived all kinds of historic disasters. Even if restored, the gate’s originality will never return. Therefore, the nature and consequences of this crime are very serious,” said the statement.

The man is thought to have selected the gate as a target due to lax security measures. In the fire’s aftermath, officials have been criticised over this and concerns that firefighting efforts were ineffective, and the Cultural Heritage Administration‘s chief resigned to show he accepted responsibility for the blaze.

The two storey gate in pagoda style was constructed in 1398 and despite a 1447 rebuild and multiple renovations still contained original timbers prior to the destruction in the fire. Only the stone base survived.

According to the Cultural Heritage Administration, a reconstruction effort will take two to three years and cost 20 billion won (US$21 million).

Friday, December 19, 2008

Camera company Polaroid has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States. The firm, famed for the introduction of instant photography, says alleged fraud by the founder of their parent group is to blame.

Owned since 2005 by Petters Group Worldwide, Polaroid says that the group’s founder Tom Petters is “under investigation for alleged acts of fraud that have compromised the financial condition of Polaroid.” Authorities believe Petter, currently in police custody, was running fraud worth £3 billion, something he denies.

Petters Group, itself, filed for bankruptcy in October. Both firms now face restructuring, which Polaroid is confident won’t affect daily operations — in fact, the company is “planning for new product launches in 2009,” and claims to have “entered bankruptcy with ample cash reserves sufficient to finance the company’s reorganization under Chapter 11.”

Polaroid has further said that employees will be paid without interruption, and that while members of Petters Group are under investigation for fraud, Polaroid’s management is not. The company, based in Minnesota, also has subsidiaries which will enter bankruptcy with it.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Randall Munroe is the writer of the popular webcomic xkcd. The comic is known for its geeky humor and minimalist drawing style that generally uses stick figures. Munroe worked as a contractor for NASA before writing xkcd full time in 2006.

Wikinews reporter Joshua Zelinsky interviewed Munroe at Vericon, Harvard’s annual science fiction convention.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

On the occasion of President Bush’s commencement speech at the United States Coast Guard Academy on Wednesday, hundreds of protesters gathered in New London, Connecticut.

The peaceful demonstration lasted from approximately 7:00 a.m. to noon. Most protesters, such as the large contingent from the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, were there to push for an immediate end to the Iraq War. Others, including a number of robed professors from nearby universities, carried signs focused on the Bush Administration‘s surveillance programs and science and environmental policies.

Across the street from the main group, a smaller number of counter-protesters voiced support for the war and denounced the protesters’ for what they considered lack of support for the troops.

Throughout the demonstrations at the corners of Mohegan Avenue and Williams Street, protesters and counter-protesters yelled at each other, separated by police and K-9 units. The protesters had a roster of speakers and a central loudspeaker system, while several counter-protesters had hand-held loudspeakers and bullhorns.

The crowd caught a brief glimpse of President Bush’s motorcade just before 11:00 a.m., but was otherwise well outside the range of the college’s graduation activities. Several television vans were on site and numerous reporters covered the demonstrations.

Monday, October 19, 2009

A report accidentally published on the Internet provides insight into a secretive European Union surveillance project designed to monitor its citizens, as reported by Wikileaks earlier this month. Project INDECT aims to mine data from television, internet traffic, cellphone conversations, p2p file sharing and a range of other sources for crime prevention and threat prediction. The €14.68 million project began in January, 2009, and is scheduled to continue for five years under its current mandate.

INDECT produced the accidentally published report as part of their “Extraction of Information for Crime Prevention by Combining Web Derived Knowledge and Unstructured Data” project, but do not enumerate all potential applications of the search and surveillance technology. Police are discussed as a prime example of users, with Polish and British forces detailed as active project participants. INDECT is funded under the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), and includes participation from Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

Indicated in the initial trial’s report, the scope of data collected is particularly broad; days of television news, radio, newspapers, and recorded telephone conversations are included. Several weeks of content from online sources were agglomerated, including mining Wikipedia for users’ and article subjects’ relations with others, organisations, and in-project movements.

Watermarking of published digital works such as film, audio, or other documents is discussed in the Project INDECT remit; its purpose is to integrate and track this information, its movement within the system and across the Internet. An unreleased promotional video for INDECT located on YouTube is shown to the right. The simplified example of the system in operation shows a file of documents with a visible INDECT-titled cover taken from an office and exchanged in a car park. How the police are alerted to the document theft is unclear in the video; as a “threat”, it would be the INDECT system’s job to predict it.

Throughout the video use of CCTV equipment, facial recognition, number plate reading, and aerial surveillance give friend-or-foe information with an overlaid map to authorities. The police proactively use this information to coordinate locating, pursuing, and capturing the document recipient. The file of documents is retrieved, and the recipient roughly detained.

Technology research performed as part of Project INDECT has clear use in countering industrial and international espionage, although the potential use in maintaining any security and predicting leaks is much broader. Quoted in the UK’s Daily Telegraph, Liberty’s director, Shami Chakrabarti, described a possible future implementation of INDECT as a “sinister step” with “positively chilling” repercussions Europe-wide.

“It is inevitable that the project has a sensitive dimension due to the security focussed goals of the project,” Suresh Manandhar, leader of the University of York researchers involved in the “Work Package 4” INDECT component, responded to Wikinews. “However, it is important to bear in mind that the scientific methods are much more general and has wider applications. The project will most likely have lot of commercial potential. The project has an Ethics board to oversee the project activities. As a responsible scientists [sic] it is of utmost importance to us that we conform to ethical guidelines.”

Although Wikinews attempted to contact Professor Helen Petrie of York University, the local member of Project INDECT’s Ethics board, no response was forthcoming. The professor’s area of expertise is universal access, and she has authored a variety of papers on web-accessibility for blind and disabled users. A full list of the Ethics board members is unavailable, making their suitability unassessable and distancing them from public accountability.

One potential application of Project INDECT would be implementation and enforcement of the U.K.’s “MoD Manual of Security“. The 2,389-page 2001 version passed to Wikileaks this month — commonly known as JSP-440, and marked “RESTRICTED” — goes into considerable detail on how, as a serious threat, investigative journalists should be monitored, and effectively thwarted; just the scenario the Project INDECT video could be portraying.

When approached by Wikinews about the implications of using INDECT, a representative of the U.K.’s Attorney General declined to comment on legal checks and balances such a system might require. Further U.K. enquiries were eventually referred to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who have not yet responded.

Wikinews’ Brian McNeil contacted Eddan Katz, the International Affairs Director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (E.F.F.). Katz last spoke to Wikinews in early 2008 on copyright, not long after taking his current position with the E.F.F. He was back in Brussels to speak to EU officials, Project INDECT was on his agenda too — having learned of it only two weeks earlier. Katz linked Project INDECT with a September report, NeoConopticon — The EU Security-Industrial Complex, authored by Ben Hayes for the Transnational Institute. The report raises serious questions about the heavy involvement of defence and IT companies in “security research”.

On the record, Katz answered a few questions for Wikinews.

((WN)) Is this illegal? Is this an invasion of privacy? Spying on citizens?

Eddan Katz When the European Parliament issued the September 5, 2001 report on the American ECHELON system they knew such an infrastructure is in violation of data protection law, undermines the values of privacy and is the first step towards a totalitarian surveillance information society.

((WN)) Who is making the decisions based on this information, about what?

E.K. What’s concerning to such a large extent is the fact that the projects seem to be agnostic to that question. These are the searching systems and those people that are working on it in these research labs do search technology anyway. […] but its inclusion in a database and its availability to law enforcement and its simultaneity of application that’s so concerning, […] because the people who built it aren’t thinking about those questions, and the social questions, and the political questions, and all this kind of stuff. [… It] seems like it’s intransparent, unaccountable.

The E.U. report Katz refers to was ratified just six days before the September 11 attacks that brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center. In their analysis of the never-officially-recognised U.S. Echelon spy system it states, “[i]n principle, activities and measures undertaken for the purposes of state security or law enforcement do not fall within the scope of the EC Treaty.” On privacy and data-protection legislation enacted at E.U. level it comments, “[such does] not apply to ‘the processing of data/activities concerning public security, defence, state security (including the economic well-being of the state when the activities relate to state security matters) and the activities of the state in areas of criminal law'”.

Part of the remit in their analysis of Echelon was rumours of ‘commercial abuse’ of intelligence; “[i]f a Member State were to promote the use of an interception system, which was also used for industrial espionage, by allowing its own intelligence service to operate such a system or by giving foreign intelligence services access to its territory for this purpose, it would undoubtedly constitute a breach of EC law […] activities of this kind would be fundamentally at odds with the concept of a common market underpinning the EC Treaty, as it would amount to a distortion of competition”.

Ben Hayes’ NeoConoptiocon report, in a concluding section, “Following the money“, states, “[w]hat is happening in practice is that multinational corporations are using the ESRP [European Seventh Research Programme] to promote their own profit-driven agendas, while the EU is using the programme to further its own security and defence policy objectives. As suggested from the outset of this report, the kind of security described above represents a marriage of unchecked police powers and unbridled capitalism, at the expense of the democratic system.”

Saturday, December 4, 2010

The British Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition government has scrapped plans by the previous government to change the rules on equal pay between men and women.

The previous Labour government included a provision in the Equality Act 2010—Section 78—to allow the government the option to introduce regulations that would require companies to publish details of the difference in pay between male and female employees. If the government had activated such regulations, they would have come into force in 2013. The current government have decided not to activate this requirement and instead will only ask businesses to provide this data voluntarily and will set an “aspiration” to dramatically increase the number of women in senior positions in business.

Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat MP and coalition Equalities Minister, in announcing the plans stated that the government wishes “to move away from the arrogant notion that government knows best, to one where government empowers individuals, businesses and communities to make change happen.”

Featherstone announced the policy at the School of Management at Cranfield University, who have conducted research finding that only 12.5% of directors of FTSE 100 companies are women, up from 12.2% last year—”glacially slow” progress according to business commentator David Prosser.

Featherstone justified not implementing the pay audits due to the economic costs: “Right at this moment of financial peril to the nation is perhaps not the moment to introduce mandatory pay audits.”

This breaks with a Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment, as well as contradicting Featherstone’s own words two years ago in support of the audit: “A voluntary audit system for private industry is hardly worth the paper it’s printed on. We need to know when the government actually plans to step in if progress isn’t made.”

Women’s groups and trade unions have condemned this move. Dave Prentis, the general secretary of UNISON, Britain’s second largest trade union, said that this is an example of the government “stripping down its commitment to equality”.

Prentis continued: “It is a disgrace that women are still getting paid less than men. This move threatens to turn the clock back on all the progress already made with equal pay.”

Ceri Goddard, the chief executive of the feminist campaigning group the Fawcett Society, condemned the plans: “The persistent gap in pay between men and women is one of the starkest examples of inequality in the UK today. The government’s decision not to bring into force section 78 is a huge disappointment and means this injustice will continue for a long time to come. The government has today consigned another generation of women to lower pay. Their proposal to rely only on voluntary business action on pay isn’t just naive, it sends a dangerous signal that tackling discrimination against women is a choice, not a requirement.”

Yvette Cooper, Featherstone’s shadow minister on the Labour benches, called the news “another broken promise from the government” and said that “scrapping Labour’s plan to increase transparency in pay is a backwards step for women’s equality.”

Sunday, November 7, 2010

The Indian stock market ended at an all time high on the Diwali 60-minute Special trading session on Friday. Diwali trading is arranged every year on the festival of Diwali to pay obeisance to Lakshmi, the Hindu goddess of wealth and prosperity; it is also seen as welcoming the New Year of the Samvat calendar. The Samvat calendar is 56.7 years ahead (in count) of the solar Gregorian calendar.

The benchmark 30-share Bombay Stock Exchange Sensitivity Index, Sensex, rose 0.53% or 111.39 points to a record close of 21,004.96. Sensex closes above 21k pts for the first-time in its 135 years history.

Indian markets have attracted about USD 26.74 billion this year of investment from foreign institutional investors. The sale of a 10% stake in Kolkata-based Coal India last month was the biggest share sale in Indian history and banked the government 3.4 billion dollars. Coal India has risen 43 percent since listing at the stock exchanges this week.

According to Mr. Rakesh Jhunjhunwala “This will continue for long periods of time. If you look at India we are 3% to 4% of world GDP, we are not even 0.5% of USD 30 to USD 35 trillion in the investment of institutions worldwide in equities. Our share is USD 250 billion, USD 200 billion may be and it could go up to USD 1 trillion. So I see no reason why money will not come. Don’t forget one thing that India is an open country. Indian companies have return on equity. Among the emerging markets we have the best corporate governance. We are well regulated; we have got good trading systems. Why will the money not come you tell me?” Mr.Rakesh Jhunjhunwala is tagged by the media as “India’s Warren Buffett”.