Microsoft Office Suite Remote Code Execution Vulnerability (KB). Windows 10 1703 download iso italy covid 19th

The #COVID19 Government Measures Dataset puts together all the measures implemented by governments worldwide in response to the Coronavirus pandemic. The present study investigates the standardization process of contact tracing apps during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Due to the epidemiological urgency. Resolve Epson Printer Offline Windows 10 issue by following easy steps in the disinformation tactics during the COVID pandemic – EU DisinfoLab. Guided by the mathematical rationality recognised in the artefact, the paper illustrates the reasons for the reconstructive choices and then proposes a. The “Big Five” Lung Diseases in CoViD Pandemic – a Google Trends analysis Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Via S. Maugeri, 10, , Pavia, Italy.❿
 
 

❿

Windows 10 1703 download iso italy covid 19th – Description

These actors comprise individual firms, industry consortia, standards organizations, professional associations, and government agencies Leiponen, ; Yates and Murphy, ; Conde et al. Source: Obtained from Wiegmann et al. These multimodal relationships include committee and market actors e. Here, platforms refer to business models utilizing technology to enable various stakeholders to create and exchange value within an ecosystem Parker et al. The governance mechanisms of platforms are defined and established by the platform owner Ballon, ; Hein et al.

This is also in line with prior empirical research on standardization reporting on single cases e. From March onwards, the increasing number of cases resulted in governments implementing measures ranging from travel restrictions to lockdowns Cohen and Kupferschmidt, Our case study on the standardization of contact tracing apps in Europe is based on a variety of primary and secondary research data and has been conducted in three broad phases Table 2.

Modelled after the matrix data display for qualitative research in Verdinelli and Scagnoli Novid20 was considered a suitable data source for three reasons. First, the authors were granted access to various internal Novid20 meetings and documents. These documents contained information on other solutions, actors, marketing documents, pitch decks, app specifications, and meeting minutes.

To this end, we conducted a series of formal interviews with key personnel of Novid We augmented this information using publicly accessible secondary data. Hence, in this phase, the supplementary data collection focused on the various actors — market participants, committees, and government agencies — and their interactions.

The interview questions A ppendices A and B aimed to collect general information about the interviewees — their organizational role and experience with standards during the development process — and the collaboration between different actors. The collection of secondary data throughout Phases 2 and 3 was conducted with the broad selection criteria of source credibility and expected contribution to our understanding of the case.

We used Web of Science to identify relevant academic literature and Factiva and Pressreader to locate news articles. The various data sources allowed us to apply triangulation Amaratunga and Baldry, ; Maxwell and Reybold, to corroborate information and fill in gaps in our understanding of the case. In the first phase of the research, we employed inductive coding.

The second phase relied on a blended approach Skjott Linneberg and Korsgaard, that mixed certain deductive categories resulting from the research in Phase 1 with inductive coding, especially in such interviews revealing new information to us. For the third phase of the research, which was closer aligned with the Wiegmann et al. Table 4 provides an overview of the coding schemes and key categories. In South Korea, behavioral big data Shmueli, was pooled and provided to the authorities Park et al.

However, it became apparent that while effective in their home markets, these solutions would not work in Europe due to differences in data availability, as well as data privacy laws and norms Klonowska, If you consider digital contact tracing, it was clear to us that Bluetooth was the way to go. And all other proposed solutions in Europe were using Bluetooth, too. Subsequent standardization processes focused on the underlying data architecture and protocols. The market mode of standard setting highlights that solutions can be developed by anyone and that coordination happens as the various solutions compete in the market Wiegmann et al.

The emergence of different solutions might also be explained by the fact that some of the early solutions were not immediately released as open source, as the process of documenting the protocol and providing reference implementations takes some time ComputerWeekly.

We were operating under time pressure. For us, waiting for a standard was not a scenario that we considered. Rather, we built something based on our existing technological capabilities while ensuring the flexibility to adopt future standards. However, realizing the harmful effects of competing to become the national standard, Novid20 decided not to release its app:. Under normal circumstances, we should have released our app and let the market decide. We acted in the interest of the greater good, since two apps would have confused the Austrian population and negatively impacted public health.

Standardization through committees refers to a cooperative mode of coordination involving a wide array of stakeholders, such as SDOs, industry consortia, as well as professional and trade associations. The key question was what kind of protocol to run on top of Bluetooth. In the centralized approach, all apps are connected to a central authority. Conversely, in the decentralized approach, no entity is a sole authority or has control over the whole network and generated data Dar et al.

Participation in either of the two committees thus largely reflected support for either of these approaches. The ensuing discussion led to a rift, with proponents for both solutions openly criticizing the other solution while advocating for their own Reuters, d.

Governments can also play an important role by using a hierarchical position to coordinate and impose standards. They can either develop these standards themselves or mandate the use of an existing standard Wiegmann et al. France, for example, pushed for a domestic, centralized solution.

Specifically, certain Bluetooth functions are limited when the app is not active or the device is in standby mode. Hence, for full operability, on iPhones the app has to be running in the foreground, limiting the use of the device for other tasks. This issue constrained the functionality of the apps, and because of negative user experiences, threatened the widespread adoption of such apps.

This request was denied, leading to perpetual inoperability of the standard released by the French government Reuters, b. A similar case unfolded in the United Kingdom UK , where the government had decided to develop a national centralized solution. This was followed by the release of more detailed interoperability guidelines eHealth Network, a , b. Beyond the national level, governments usually do not possess the hierarchical means to directly influence the standardization process.

Nevertheless, their backing and support can send strong signals to the market Wiegmann et al. European governments engaged in various standardization efforts with market players. What these examples have in common is that governments picked a single solution from the many under development in their respective country, thus aiming to avoid the usual period of competition for dominance among market actors.

While governments used their hierarchical means to influence the standardization process on the national level by involving themselves in the competition between market actors, two important shortcomings remained. First, national governments and market actors were unable to compel Apple to allow the required Bluetooth functionality on iOS devices, thus rendering any coordinated standard epidemiologically useless.

Second, the coordinated standards were proprietary and not interoperable. As the Novid20 CTO remarked during the interview, market actors saw the committee as means to coordination and exchange, and to gain information on approaches being deliberated and developed.

Nevertheless, at the same time they continued pursuing the diffusion and adoption of their own standards. In some cases, a standard is the product of interplay between government and a committee.

Initially, governments supported whichever of these two committees included actors from their respective country. Thus, in the present case, governments were involved as powerful actors in both committees either through national research organizations, or as ardent promoters of a standard developed by committees in their respective countries.

In April , the centralized approach became the focus of serious criticism due to privacy and data protection concerns. France hasn\’t yet conceded that, but that is the reality. You could not build a contact tracing app on iOS without Apple\’s involvement, because of the security and privacy features of the system. We approached Apple and Google through our contacts, and send them a message — which was really a redundant message — that the two of them would have to work together so that there would be a solution that worked for all phones.

We pushed our solution, which was at that point developed and published. And it turns out that because of Apple\’s fairly strong position in favor of privacy, this was the more favored solution to them than the centralized protocol. And we worked with them and pushed them to implement a few other things. This led to the creation of a multitude of similar, yet mutually incompatible solutions. While the setting of standards through this mode benefits from legitimacy and network effects through the involvement of multiple stakeholders Koppell, , efforts can take years to result in a standard.

Eventually, and analogous to the market mode, committees did not have the opportunity to coordinate a standard. The sudden entrance of Apple and Google to the standardization process simply outpaced committee efforts to coordinate a standard. This is noteworthy, as these two committees were seen by many to possess more legitimacy due to their wide representation and were expected to raise fewer concerns regarding data protection and privacy than commercial actors.

Governments can impose newly developed or existing standards by virtue of their hierarchical position Wiegmann et al. In the present case, countries such as the UK and France developed their own proprietary solutions, while other governments, sometimes in addition to their own developments, backed the emerging committees.

Ultimately, the involvement of governments was not substantial in the setting of a common standard, as they were constrained by technical limitations and outpaced by Apple and Google entering the process.

Specifically, the EU and national authorities then focused on linking individual apps to national health infrastructure and across member states. Prior literature on standard setting shows that often standards are not set through a single mode, but through the interaction of multiple actors and mechanisms e.

The present case also highlights such avenues of collaboration and interplay between different modes. In the initial phase, it was especially the interaction between governments and the market, as individual governments either pushed for their own solutions or backed, mostly local, market players. This is clearly in line with how governments are setting standards hierarchically.

What grants Apple and Google this power is their absolute control over the platform. This highlights that platform owners should be seen as a distinct standardization actor. This setting adds to the literature on standardization, which typically has focused on cases with longer timeframes e. Platform owners fall outside of the previously discussed actors and modes of standardization, and represent a completely new category, that given their increasing prevalence, will rise in importance.

This technology should include mobile and wearable devices of citizens to leveraging ubiquitous and pervasive computing resources. This policy should clarify the following questions: Who sets the standards? Which parties are invited to provide technological solutions? Whom does the government endorse and by which process?

This is relevant for single market entities, such as the EU, and other regional blocs, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or the African Union. Regarding the increasing importance of mobile operating platforms in disaster and crisis response Manso and Manso, ; Tan et al.

Our research is focused on time pressure during a crisis acting on the involved entities and the coordination of a standard. Within the stream of standardization literature, our case is atypical as it unfolded in the course of only months, rather than years.

We expect future research to investigate other cases in which the timeframe differs from established literature to provide additional insights into standard setting in crises and other situations characterized by a high level of time pressure. Beyond that, time and temporal aspects provide a number of perspectives for future research. For instance, the startups and committees in our case study could be investigated from the perspective of temporary organizing see Bakker et al.

Given the nature of the crisis and response, some of the insights may not be generalized. To generalize the results, we expect future research to investigate the role of platform owners in the standardization process in various settings and from various perspectives, such as the avenues of influence for the platform users and how this role could affect innovation Eaton, No conflicting interests were reported by the authors.

The authors thank the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and valuable suggestions. He obtained his Ph. His research focuses on open innovation and entrepreneurship. Jan Fell is a concurrently a Ph. Klaus Marhold, Email: ta. Jan Fell, Email: wt. Published online Oct C Find articles by Jan Fell. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer.

Corresponding author. Introduction There is a strong interest in the literature about technological standards and the process through which they are created and implemented Narayanan and Chen, Theoretical background 2. Standards and standard setting Standards are rules facilitating compatibility between technological products Katz and Shapiro, ; Gandal, , 1 and thereby complement dominant designs Gallagher, , which alone do not imply mutual compatibility Afuah, Standards are developed in committees and only diffused if members agree on a common solution Solutions intended as a standard can be developed by anyone.

Open in a separate window. Method 3. Data collection and analysis Our case study on the standardization of contact tracing apps in Europe is based on a variety of primary and secondary research data and has been conducted in three broad phases Table 2. Table 2 Phases of research and employed research data.

Phase Focus Data and examples Phase 1: Initial observations Overall picture and timeline of the initial development process of contact tracing solutions from the perspective of one of the many startup actors involved in this effort. Analysis of the resultant standard and how it arose with the involvement of a new type of actor i. Table 3 Overview of formal interviews. Table 4 Data analysis approach. Findings 4. However, realizing the harmful effects of competing to become the national standard, Novid20 decided not to release its app: Under normal circumstances, we should have released our app and let the market decide.

Novid20 CTO. Conclusion 6. Limitations and directions for further research Our research is focused on time pressure during a crisis acting on the involved entities and the coordination of a standard. Acknowledgements The authors thank the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and valuable suggestions. Appendix A. In the beginning, were there any established standards or other solutions that you could build up on?

How is Novid20 affected by standards and consortia? Can you describe positive or negative influences? More recently, major tech firms Apple and Google have entered the scene and are developing a reference solution.

How does this affect Novid20, and how was this news received within your organization? Appendix B. Spread banking Trojan the Office 0day Vulnerability CVE technical analysis-vulnerability warning-the black bar safety net.

The latest exposure of the RTF vulnerability beside the use of research to explore the topic guide-vulnerability warning-the black bar safety net. Office of the senior threat vulnerability in the wild use analysis-vulnerability warning-the black bar safety net.

Oolong CVE samples and behind the idea-vulnerability warning-the black bar safety net. Recently being a hot Word 0day vulnerability has been used for malware spreading and the country attack-vulnerability warning-the black bar safety net.

❿
 
 

❿