Although farm murders often occur and the government does not
consider them a priority crime, they remain shocking and unnecessary.
In the latest incident, Mr. Ernst Human was killed over the weekend at Jan Kempdorp in the Vaalharts area.
Mr. Human was part of a farm security group that was connected to
each other by radio. Other group members investigated after he did not
respond to his radio call.
The incident reiterates the vulnerability of people on farms and in rural areas, even within security groups.
The FF Plus’ prayers accompany Mr. Human’s loved ones.
Chances are some of your data has already been stolen, but that doesn’t mean you should shrug data breaches off.
WhataWin/iStock via Getty Images
When you enter your personal information or credit card number into a website, do you have a moment of hesitation? A nagging sense of vulnerability prompted by the parade of headlines about data breaches and hacks? If so, you probably push those feelings aside and hit the submit button, because, well, you need to shop, apply for that job, file that insurance claim, apply for that loan, or do any of the other sensitive activities that take place online these days.
First, the bad news. If you regularly enter sensitive information online, chances are you’ve had some data stolen somewhere at some point. By one estimate, the average American had data stolen at least four times in 2019. And the hits keep coming. For instance, a data breach at the wireless carrier T-Mobile reported in August 2021 affected 100 million people.
Now for some good news. Not all hacks are the same, and there are steps you can take to protect yourself. The Conversation gathered four articles from our archives that illuminate the types of threats to your online data, what data thieves do with your stolen information, and what you can do about it.
1. Take stock of your risk
Not all cyberattacks are the same, and not all personal data is the same. Was an organization that has your information the victim of a ransomware attack? Chances are your information won’t be stolen, though the organization’s copy of it could be rendered unusable.
If an organization you deal with did have customer data stolen, what data of yours did the thieves get? Merrill Warkentin, a professor of information systems at Mississippi State University, writes that you should ask yourself some questions to assess your risk. If the stolen data was your purchase history, maybe that won’t be used to hurt you. But if it was your credit card number, that’s a different story.
Data breaches are a good opportunity “to change your passwords, especially at banks, brokerages and any site that retains your credit card number,” he wrote. In addition to using unique passwords and two-factor authentication, “you should also consider closing old unused accounts so that the information associated with them is no longer available.”
2. The market for your stolen data
Most data breaches are financial crimes, but the hackers generally don’t use the stolen data themselves. Instead, they sell it on the black market, usually via websites on the dark web, for other criminals and scammers to use.
This black market is awash in personal data, so much so that your information is probably worth a lot less than you would guess. For example, stolen PayPal account information goes for $30.
Buyers use stolen data in several ways, writes Ravi Sen, an associate professor of information and operations management at Texas A&M University. Common uses are stealing your money or identity. “Credit card numbers and security codes can be used to create clone cards for making fraudulent transactions,” he writes. “Social Security numbers, home addresses, full names, dates of birth and other personally identifiable information can be used in identity theft.”
The T-Mobile breach revealed in August 2021 exemplifies the challenges consumers face when hackers steal their information from large corporations.
3. How to prepare for the inevitable
With all this bad news, it’s tempting to throw up your hands and assume there’s nothing you can do. W. David Salisbury, a professor of cybersecurity management, and Rusty Baldwin, a research professor of computer science at the University of Dayton, write that there are steps you can take to protect yourself.
“Think defensively about how you can protect yourself from an almost inevitable attack, rather than assuming you’ll avoid harm,” they write. The key is focusing on the information that’s most important to protect. Uppermost are your passwords, particularly for banking and government services. Use different passwords for different sites, and use long – though not necessarily complicated – passwords, they write.
The most effective way to protect your data is to add another layer of security via multifactor authentication. And rather than rely on websites to text or email you authentication codes, which can be hijacked, you should use an app or USB device that uses public-key encryption, they write.
4. Don’t make it easy for the thieves
The risk to your personal information isn’t just having it stolen from a third party. Phishing attacks can get you to do the thieves’ work for them. These emails fool people into entering personal information and passwords on fake websites controlled by data thieves.
It turns out that you’re probably pretty good at sensing when something is off about an email message. Rick Wash, an associate professor of information science and cybersecurity at Michigan State University, found that the average person is as good as a cybersecurity expert at sensing when something is weird about an email message.
The trick to protecting yourself from phishing attacks is remembering that phishing exists and could explain what you’re sensing about an email message.
“The people who were good at noticing phishing messages reported stories about specific phishing incidents they had heard about,” he wrote. “Familiarity with specific phishing incidents helps people remember phishing generally.”
Editor’s note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.
Thousands of the satellites orbiting Earth are small – like this cubical satellite seen here being released from the International Space Station.
NASA, CC BY-NCCC BY-ND
It seems like every week, another rocket is launched into space carrying rovers to Mars, tourists or, most commonly, satellites. The idea that “space is getting crowded” has been around for a few years now, but just how crowded is it? And how crowded is it going to get?
I am a professor of physics and director of the Center for Space Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Many satellites that were put into orbit have gone dead and burned up in the atmosphere, but thousands remain. Groups that track satellite launches don’t always report the same exact numbers, but the overall trend is clear – and astounding.
Since the Soviet Union launched Sputnik – the first human-made satellite – in 1957, humanity has steadily been putting more and more objects into orbit every year. Over the the second half of the 20th century, there was a slow but steady growth, with roughly 60 to 100 satellites launched yearly until the early 2010s.
But since then, the pace has been increasing dramatically.
By 2020, 114 launches carried around 1,300 satellites to space, surpassing the 1,000 new satellites per year mark for the first time. But no year in the past compares to 2021. As of Sept. 16, roughly 1,400 new satellites have already begun circling the Earth, and that will only increase as the year goes on. Just this week, SpaceX deployed another 51 Starlink satellites into orbit.
The ever-shrinking size of technology has led to tiny satellites like the one students are working on here.Edwin Aguirre/University of Massachusetts Lowell, CC BY-ND
Small satellites, easy access to orbit
There are two main reasons for this exponential growth. First, it has never been easier to get a satellite into space. For example, on Aug. 29, 2021, a SpaceX rocket carried several satellites – including one built by my students – to the International Space Station. On Oct. 11, 2021, these satellites will deploy into orbit, and the number of satellites will increase again.
The second reason is that rockets can carry more satellites more easily – and cheaply – than ever before. This increase isn’t due to rockets getting more powerful. Rather, satellites have gotten smaller thanks to the electronics revolution. The vast majority – 94% – of all spacecraft launched in 2020 were smallsats – satellites that weigh less than around 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms).
The majority of these satellites are used for observing Earth or for communications and internet. With a goal of bringing the internet to underserved areas of the globe, two private companies, Starlink by SpaceX and OneWeb together launched almost 1,000 smallsats in 2020 alone. They are each planning to launch more than 40,000 satellites in the coming years to create what are called “mega-constellations” in low-Earth orbit.
Large satellite constellations – like SpaceX’s Starlink, seen in the video above – are set to dramatically increase the number of objects orbiting Earth and are already causing problems.
Every disruptive technological advancement requires updates to the rules – or the creation of new ones. SpaceX has tested ways to lower the impact of Starlink constellations, and Amazon has disclosed plans to de-orbit their satellites within 355 days after mission completion. These and other actions by different stakeholders make me hopeful that commerce, science and human endeavors will find sustainable solutions to this potential crisis.
Black licorice may look and taste like an innocent treat, but this candy has a dark side. On Sept. 23, 2020, it was reported that black licorice was the culprit in the death of a 54-year-old man in Massachusetts. How could this be? Overdosing on licorice sounds more like a twisted tale than a plausible fact.
I have a longstanding interest in how chemicals in our food and the environment affect our body and mind. When something seemingly harmless like licorice is implicated in a death, we are reminded of the famous proclamation by Swiss physician Paracelsus, the Father of Toxicology: “All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison.”
The unfortunate man who succumbed to excessive black licorice consumption is not alone. There are a smattering of similar case reports in medical journals, in which patients experience hypertension crisis, muscle breakdown or even death. Adverse reactions are most frequently seen in people over the age of 40 who are eating far more black licorice than the average person. In addition, they are usually consuming the product for prolonged periods of time. In the most recent case, the Massachusetts man had been eating a bag and a half of black licorice every day for three weeks.
Licorice is a flowering plant native to parts of Europe and Asia. Its scientific name, Glycyrrhiza, is derived from the Greek words “glykos” (sweet) and “rhiza” (root). The aromatic and sweet extract from its root has long been used as an herbal remedy for a wide variety of health maladies, from heartburn and stomach issues to sore throats and cough. However, there is insufficient evidence to support that licorice is effective in treating any medical condition.
Glycyrrhizin (also called glycyrrhizic acid) is the chemical in black licorice that gives the candy its signature flavor, but it also leads to its toxic effects.
Glycyrrhizin mimics the hormone aldosterone, which is made by the adrenal glands when the body needs to retain sodium and excrete potassium. Sodium and potassium work together as a kind of cellular battery that drives communication between nerves and the contraction of muscles. Too much glycyrrhizin upsets the balance of these electrolytes, which can raise blood pressure and disturb the heart’s rhythm. Other symptoms of excessive licorice intake include swelling, muscle pain, numbness and headache. Examination of the man who died from consuming too much licorice revealed that he had dangerously low levels of potassium, consistent with glycyrrhizin toxicity.
It should be noted that a number of licorice-based foods do not contain real licorice, but use a flavoring substitute called anise oil, which does not pose the dangers discussed here. In addition, despite its name, red licorice rarely contains licorice extract. Instead, red licorice is infused with chemicals that impart its cherry or strawberry flavor.
Products that contain real licorice are usually labeled as such, and list licorice extract or glycyrrhizic acid among the ingredients. Be advised that some products, such as black jelly beans or Good & Plenty, are mixtures of different candies that contain both anise oil and licorice extract.
Glycyrrhizin has the distinct licorice flavor and is 50 times sweeter than sugar and has been used in other types of candy, soft drinks, tea, Belgian beers, throat lozenges and tobacco. This can make it challenging to keep track of how much glycyrrhizin has been consumed, and a combination of these products could trigger adverse effects.
Some people take dietary or health supplements that already contain licorice, which increases the risk of toxic effects from eating black licorice candy. Certain medications such as hydrochlorothiazide are diuretics that cause increased urination, which can lower potassium levels in the body. Glycyrrhizin also lowers potassium levels, further disrupting the balance of electrolytes, which can produce muscle cramps and irregular heart rhythms.
People with certain preexisting conditions are more susceptible to black licorice overdose.
For example, patients who already have low potassium levels (hypokalemia), high blood pressure or heart arrhythmia are likely to have greater sensitivity to the effects of excessive licorice. Those with liver or kidney deficiencies will also retain glycyrrhizin in their bloodstream for longer times, increasing their risk of experiencing its adverse effects.
What to do?
If you’re a fan of black licorice, there is no need to ban it from your pantry. Eaten in small quantities from time to time, licorice poses no significant threat to otherwise healthy adults and children. But it is advisable to monitor your intake.
With Halloween approaching, be sure to remind your kids that candy is a “sometimes food,” especially the black licorice. The FDA has issued warnings about the rare but serious effects of too much black licorice, advising that people avoid eating more than two ounces of black licorice a day for two weeks or longer. The agency states that if you have been eating a lot of black licorice and experience an irregular heart rhythm or muscle weakness, stop eating it immediately and contact your health care provider.
Some scientists have further cautioned against the routine use of licorice in the form of a dietary supplement or tea for its alleged health benefits, including the treatment of cough associated with COVID-19 or other respiratory infections. A review article from 2012 warned that “the daily consumption of licorice is never justified because its benefits are minor compared to the adverse outcomes of chronic consumption.”
Article updated to mention concerns about using licorice as a COVID-19 treatment.
Bill Sullivan, Professor of Pharmacology & Toxicology; author of Pleased to Meet Me: Genes, Germs, and the Curious Forces That Make Us Who We Are, Indiana University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
South African president and leader of the ruling ANC Cyril Ramaphosa.
Michele Spatari/NurPhoto via Getty Images
To understand South Africa today, we need to recognise that people can focus endlessly on a country’s problems but still live in a state of denial.
Hand-wringing about problems which are said to spell the doom of South Africa’s negotiated democracy is a well-established custom. It began only months after the first election in which all adults could vote in 1994. It has become louder over the past decade and dominates the national debate, which is the preserve of the minority who enjoy access to media.
But, while the issues change, claims that the country is in deep trouble are routine.
Despite this, the national debate – which is restricted to an elite comprising around a third of the population – is in denial.
How can this be?
The debate’s diagnoses of doom denounce what works in post-1994 South Africa while ignoring or misrepresenting the stubborn and very real problems which prevent democracy from realising its potential. In particular, blaming the governing African National Congress (ANC) has become a substitute for facing deep-rooted problems which would remain whoever governed.
How the denial works
To illustrate how this type of denial works, the three problems which are currently in focus are all real – but far too real to be blamed only on some politicians.
Yet it is blamed purely on police incompetence or poverty. And the ANC is blamed for both.
The attacks on judges are treated with alarm despite the fact that they are no threat to the constitutional order. They have little credibility in the national debate because they are clearly ploys by politicians desperate to escape prosecution for corruption. Their credibility is further undermined by the fact that those who denounce the judges never hesitate to use the courts when this suits them.
But a real threat to the justice system which has been evident for years – in which grassroots citizens whose living areas are plagued by violence are impatient with due legal process and the courts – is hardly noticed in the now routine rush to blame ANC politicians.
The unemployment figures have prompted much denunciation of the government. But there was no similar reaction in 2003 when the rate was 31%. This went unnoticed because the economy was doing well for the minority able to benefit from it. Since they dominate the debate, it simply ignored reality.
Nor has anyone pointed out that unemployment has been growing for 50 years and that the lowest jobless numbers of the past two decades were higher than those in the Netherlands during the Great Depression.
The debate is in denial over the reality that unemployment is a deep-rooted and long-standing problem.
The denial does not necessarily target the governing party directly. So, a prominent theme is criticism of the political system despite the fact that it works largely as it meant to for the minority whose voices are heard.
Moves are afoot to change the electoral system “to ensure more accountable government”, despite the fact that local government already has the system to which the debate wants to move and is widely agreed to be a site of very little accountability.
A set of hearings at the commission of inquiry into Zuma-era corruption began a pattern in which parliament is said to be defective because it did not hold the ANC to account. The search is on for legal fixes which will force it to do what the one-third who take part in the debate want. Secret ballots are demanded for parliamentary votes in the hope that legislators will do what the debate wants, not what the parties for whom citizens voted want.
None of the proposed changes would make democracy work better – most would weaken it. Changing to an electoral system used by deeply unpopular municipalities will solve nothing; encouraging legislators to hide from voters when they cast ballots will strengthen elites and weaken the citizenry.
The whole point of parliaments is that they give the power to make decisions to the party which wins a majority. Rules to curb that will take the country back to minority rule, not forward to a brighter future. South African democracy works well for those who can make themselves heard – so well that, in a country where it was once common to fear that the ANC would control too much, it is routinely denounced by anyone who wants to be taken seriously by the debate.
Why this frenzy to fix what is not broken? Because the political system will not satisfy the debate as long it allows the ANC to govern. Supporters of a changed electoral system claim it would weaken “party bosses”. So do those who want to force parliament to do what they want and those who want legislators to be allowed to cheat on their voters.
In all three cases, “party bosses” is code for the leadership of the governing party.
Facing deep-rooted problems
The key point here is not that the ANC should not be held to account. Trying to ensure that the governing party does what citizens want it to do is a core feature of democracy. Voters being rude about the governing party is a democratic habit.
The ANC has much for which it should be forced to account: it did not create most of the patterns for which it is blamed, but has done far too little to change them and often seems happy simply to live with them.
But there is a huge difference between holding a governing party to account and making it an excuse for failing to face deep-rooted problems. Fixating on the ANC has given the one-third an excuse not to face difficult realities.
South Africa is a country beset by many problems, only one of which it solved in 1994 – the fact that 90% of the population were denied citizenship rights. Its problems routinely create crises which could be opportunities to face deep-rooted problems. But the opportunities are routinely wasted by a national debate which finds blaming a political party and its current leaders a convenient way of ducking responsibility for tackling these realities.
As long as that continues, the problems will persist because the prospect of tackling them will be drowned out by angry denial.
