TASHKENT, 20 May 2015 – A two-day workshop on cyber and ICT security issues began in Tashkent today. The event brought together some 40 participants, including 10 international experts from Austria, Estonia, France, Germany, Switzerland, UK, USA as well as representatives of the national parliament, judiciary, ministries for information technology, foreign affairs, academia and law enforcement agencies.

The event facilitated discussions among international and national experts on global, regional and bilateral efforts to enhance international Cyber Security. Best practice and lessons learned in investigations in the field of counter-narrative strategies to counter extremism online as well as countering the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes were also debated. Participants also discussed current threats in cybercrime, local legislations and strategies in use.

“Cybercrime is a new kind of threat that makes people vulnerable to cyber-criminals who can commit crimes against victims located thousands of kilometres away”, stated Deputy Head of Police Academy, Abror Otajonov, in his opening remarks. “This threat to our security can only be addressed by ensuring close international cooperation and adopting comprehensive national policies and developing relevant capacities”.

Ben Hiller, Cyber Security Officer of the OSCE Transnational Threats Department, said: ”With its comprehensive and inclusive approach the OSCE represents a bridge between different national and international approaches to tackling cyber/ICT threats and allows various stakeholders dealing with different cyber threats to move forward in a complementary manner.“

This event was organized in co-operation with the OSCE Transnational Threats Department, as part of the multi-year support provided by the OSCE Project Co-ordinator in Uzbekistan to the National Police Academy to improve the staff training system. 

Related Stories

• OSCE promotes implementation of effective traffic safety measures in Uzbekistan
• OSCE Project Co-ordinator lights up central Tashkent with 20 solar-powered street lamps
• OSCE launches training seminar for Uzbek journalists on human trafficking

New storms and flooding hit Spain's southern Malaga province as EU debates crisis management

[This is a guest post by Conal Boyce] Recently I watched a video posted by Alexander Unzicker, a no-nonsense physicist who often criticizes Big Science (along the same lines as Sabine Hossenfelder — my hero). But in this case (link below) I was surprised to see Unzicker play back a conversation between himself and ChatGPT, […]

F1 did something it has never done before last weekend and moved a race start time earlier. But did that affect your ability to watch?

WE have all experienced it – engaging in a discussion where new information or an opposing viewpoint makes us feel like doubling down on our beliefs rather than reconsidering them. This phenomenon, known as the backfire effect, occurs when people react
to contradictory information by holding more firmly to their existing beliefs.

The backfire effect can create a barrier to constructive dialogue, fostering defensiveness and preventing us from learning, evolving and understanding each other. With complex social issues on the rise, understanding the backfire effect and learning how to counteract it is essential to creating productive and respectful conversations.

The backfire effect is most common in debates involving personal values or issues closely tied to identity, such as opinions on social, environmental or political matters.

For example, in Malaysia, discussions on humane stray management or environmental policy can often spark passionate debates where each side becomes more rooted in their stance.

Recognising when the backfire effect is influencing a conversation can help us redirect it, moving from argument to dialogue and creating spaces for understanding and potential solutions.

At its core, the backfire effect is rooted in psychological defensiveness. When people’s beliefs are challenged, particularly on issues they are deeply invested in, it can feel like a threat to their sense of self.

Psychologists suggest that this is because we tend to intertwine certain beliefs with our identity, making it difficult to separate disagreement with an idea from a personal attack. This effect is more pronounced when discussing issues tied to social identity, politics or moral values.

Additionally, the fear of admitting error can make us cling to our views. If we have championed a particular idea or belief, admitting that we may have been mistaken can be uncomfortable. The backfire effect is a subconscious way of defending against this discomfort by rejecting new information and doubling down on previous beliefs.

Techniques for engaging in constructive debates

Understanding the backfire effect is the first step towards overcoming it, but real progress requires adopting strategies that can help us and others engage in more open, constructive discussions.

Here are several techniques to help foster productive dialogue,
reduce defensiveness and encourage open-mindedness:

Lead with curiosity, not conviction

Entering a conversation with a desire to understand rather than persuade is essential. Leading with curiosity helps set a collaborative tone, showing others that you are genuinely interested in their perspective.

For example, if someone disagrees with humane stray management practices like trap-neuter-release (TNR), you may start by saying, “I’m interested in your view – what experiences shape your opinion on this?”

This approach can disarm defensiveness and invite the person to share their experiences, making them more likely to reciprocate by considering your perspective.

Share stories, not just statistics

Facts and figures are essential but they often fail to connect emotionally. To counter the backfire effect, try sharing personal stories or experiences instead of relying solely on statistics.

For instance, in conversations about environmental policy, instead of only quoting data about pollution or deforestation, share a personal story about how environmental changes have affected your community or family. Stories humanise issues, making it easier for others to empathise and consider different viewpoints.

Emphasise shared goals and values

Even when opinions differ, finding common ground can help make the conversation more collaborative. For instance, both sides of a debate on environmental policies may share the same goal – a cleaner environment and a better quality of life – but disagree on how to achieve it.

By highlighting these shared values, you shift the conversation from an “us vs them” dynamics to a joint problem-solving approach. Statements like “we both want what is best for future generations; we just have different ideas about how to get there” can help bridge divides and reduce defensiveness.

Introduce new information gradually

Presenting too much information at once can make people feel overwhelmed, triggering a defensive response. Instead, offer new ideas or evidence in small, manageable pieces.

For example, if discussing environmental laws, introduce one or two key points rather than a long list of statistics. Gradual information- sharing allows individuals to process new perspectives without feeling pressured to accept them immediately, which can reduce the likelihood of the backfire effect.

Reframe disagreements as learning opportunities

Changing the way you frame a discussion can help mitigate defensiveness. Rather than seeing a debate as a “battle” to be won, approach it as a chance to learn.

This mindset shift encourages openness and reduces the need for defensiveness. When someone feels that a discussion is about sharing knowledge rather than proving a point, they are more likely to listen and engage constructively.

Know when to step back

Not every debate will lead to agreement, and that is okay. If a discussion becomes heated or begins to feel unproductive, it may be time to disengage respectfully.

Try phrases like, “I appreciate hearing your perspective, and I think we may have to agree to disagree for now. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.”

This approach allows both parties to leave
the conversation without feeling pressured, preserving the relationship for future discussions.

In Malaysia, topics like stray animal management and environmental policies are prime examples of where the backfire effect
often arises.

On one side, many advocate for humane and sustainable stray management practices, such as TNR, which can reduce stray populations over time. Others, however, may believe in stricter measures, fearing that strays could pose health or safety risks.

In such debates, the backfire effect can quickly escalate, with both sides becoming more entrenched as they try to defend their views.

To move forward constructively, a focus on shared goals – like safer communities and reduced stray populations – can shift the conversation from debate to dialogue.

In Malaysia, environmental policies are at a crossroads, often sparking strong opinions due to their impact across different economic levels.

Stricter policies aimed at protecting natural resources are crucial, yet they also raise concerns about their potential economic burden on lower-income communities, who may rely heavily on resource-based jobs.

Balancing the urgent need for environmental protection with the livelihoods of these communities is complex but essential.

A sustainable path forward lies in building
a common ground around shared values – a commitment to a clean, healthy environment alongside economic stability for all. This inclusive approach can help foster productive dialogue and more resilient, equitable policies.

Ultimately, overcoming the backfire effect requires us to approach conversations with empathy, open-mindedness and a willingness to understand where others are coming from.

Constructive debates are less about changing someone’s mind on the spot and more about creating a space where learning and growth are possible.

By leading with curiosity, sharing personal stories and finding common ground, we
can transform difficult conversations into opportunities for connection and progress.

Dr Praveena is a certified
mental health and awareness practitioner specialising in narcissistic abuse recovery.
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

Chris Sherwood says the charity’s public profile can make it feel like a ‘goldfish bowl’

Washington – How can the federal workers’ compensation system balance the needs of injured workers with the wise use of taxpayer funds? The question was debated during a May 20 hearing convened by the House Workforce Protections Subcommittee.

The candidates are all in Iowa stumping for caucus votes, but Brady is here to round up the latest primary news, like whether TV debates are having a bigger effect on the primary than old-school retail politics. Plus: what Donald Trump rallies have in common with arena rock concerts or screenings of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and campaign voicemails magically transformed into garbled emails!

Prof. Eric Posner explains a voting system for protecting the rights of minorities

What’s being done to confront the coronavirus and stem the economic fallout from the pandemic are central to this year’s election campaigns. That was clear when the candidates in Minnesota’s 2nd and 6th Congressional Districts met in separate MPR News debates Friday.

The candidates for Congress in Minnesota’s 7th and 8th districts debated the major issues, on Politics Friday with host Mike Mulcahy.

The role of guns in U.S. society is a subject of intense policy debate and disagreement.

A growing and consistent theme in the policy debates in which the American Bakers Association (ABA) is engaged is the importance of science to fortify our position.

Euronews Debates | Profit vs public good: How can innovation benefit everyone?

"Firestorm erupts over requiring women to sign up for military draft", reads the headline on a story today on TheHill.com.

Unfortunately, that firestorm amounts mostly to an exchange of sound bites and social-media posts, not a real debate, much less a hearing with independent witnesses, in either the House or Senate. It focuses on the proposal included in the Senate version of the annual National Defense [sic] Authorization Act (NDAA) to expand registration with the Selective Service System to include young women as well as young men, rather than on what may be a more significant proposal in the House version of the same bill to try to make draft registration automatic by basing the list of potential draftees on information aggregated from other Federal records rather than provided by registrants themselves -- denying potential draftees the chance to indicate their opposition to being drafted, and to obstruct the mobilization for total war, by opting out of draft registration.

Most importantly, the current "debate" ignores both the profound and quite possibly insolvable practical problems with trying to compile a registry of potential draftees from other existing Federal databases, and the more fundamental issue with any contingency planning or preparation for a draft: the way that, even when a draft is not active, the perceived availability of a draft as a fallback emboldens warmakers to embark on wars that people wouldn't volunteer to fight.

Location: Electronic Resource- 

On Saturday 2nd April some of the region’s top authorities on voting reform will gather in Kings Heath, Birmingham, to present their perspectives

Panelistas plantearon el efecto que tiene no tener una auditoría en los comicios del 29 de mayo; lamentaron la ausencia de Rodolfo Hernández en los debates.

Panelistas creen que los debates presidenciales son fundamentales en una democracia, pero se distancian de la decisión judicial al quererlos imponer.

La Luciérnaga se enciende para hablar del informe presentado por el ministerio de Minas y Energías sobre las reservas de gas y petróleo. Además, le contamos sobre qué está pasando con la reforma a la salud. Tambien ¿Qué proyectos se debatirán en el congreso?La Luciérnaga, un espacio de humor, análisis y opinión de Caracol Radio que acompaña desde hace 30 años a sus oyentes en el regreso a casa.

La Luciérnaga se enciende para hablar sobre la muerte del Coronel Dávila, muchas preguntas aún sin respuesta. Sigue la búsqueda de Wilson, el perro rescatista que ayudó a encontrar a los cuatro niños desaparecidos en la selva del Guaviare. Además, el Presidente Gustavo Petro invitó a consumir menos gasolina para mejorar la economía. El mandatario anunció que reducirá el uso de su caravana presidencial para contribuir a la reducción del déficit del Fondo de Estabilización de Precios de los Combustibles. Y por último, la reforma pensional de Petro encuentró un primer salvavidas en el Congreso. 
La Luciérnaga, un espacio de humor y opinión de Caracol Radio que acompaña desde hace más de 30 años a sus oyentes en el regreso a casa.

"Although I love him like a cousin, he can be a bit creepy, like he makes sexual comments out of the blue for no reason."

Chances of the bill being passed this year are not high.

Stressing public accountability, Mr. Naidu urged legislators to address the people’s issues in a responsible manner

‘Yaavarum Kaelir’ stands out for its erudite host and an impressive line-up of speakers

Superhit drama serial 'Meray Paas Tum Ho' has instigated arguments, both online and offline, for its representation of women

Watch A Week With Warnie, part of a week-long pop-up channel on Foxtel and Foxtel Now, from Monday 8pm (EST)!

This edition of Migration Policy Debates presents updated information on international migration in the Americas up to 2014 as well as on labour market outcomes of emigrants originating from the hemisphere. It also summarises available evidence on the emigration of doctors and nurses from the region.

This edition presents an overview of some “alternative pathways” that could help take the pressure off the main traditional pathways for refugees in general and assesses their potential application for Syrians in particular. Overall, these alternatives can help provide safe channels and good integration prospects to refugees who might otherwise be tempted to risk their fate with smugglers and illegal border crossing.

Who bears the cost of integrating refugees? New edition of the Migration Policy Debates

For decades, there have been concerns that India's universities were being bogged down by the number of institutes they had to manage. Recently, the University Grants Commission accepted in principle that autonomy must be green-lighted. But debates on the freedom of institutions remain inconclusive, reports Deepa A.

The role of guns in U.S. society is a subject of intense policy debate and disagreement.

For the first time in two decades, a U.S. presidential debate season has passed without any candidate or moderator mentioning climate change.

On Saturday 2nd April some of the region’s top authorities on voting reform will gather in Kings Heath, Birmingham, to present their perspectives

President Donald Trump wants the Catholic vote. Recently, Trump was on a conference call with several hundred Catholic educators — and many prominent bishops. Trump reportedly described himself as the “best [president] in the history of the Catholic Church.”  In reality, though, there’s a growing rift within the church on support for the president. A number of prominent Catholics are criticizing Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic — and many have been vocal on Twitter. Related:  Coronavirus postponed Russia’s Victory Day. That could be a problem for Putin. Rev. Robert Ballecer, an American priest stationed in the Vatican, has been particularly outspoken. Before he moved to Rome, Ballecer had been living at St. Ignatius College Prep , a Jesuit high school in San Francisco. The Jesuits allowed Ballecer to pursue his Catholic ministry as a host at “ TWiT ,” a podcast network focused on technology . It seemed like a good fit, as Ballecer is a self-described mechanic, engineer and

Bradley and Karen discuss two debates going on in the free and open source software community. One recent and seemingly inflated, and one long and confusing.

Show Notes:

Segment 1 (03:12)

• Bradley wrote a blog post about the Bionic issues that were raised. (03:44)
• On the old oggcast, Karen and Bradley discussed the Android/Linux system and Bionic specifically. (04:09)
• Karen mentioned an old oggcast where permissive vs. copyleft licensing was discussed. (06:19)
• Jake Edge wrote an LWN article that discussed Bionic (07:58)
• Bradley mentioned Raymond Nimmer's blog that started the debate (10:52)
• Bradley also mentioned Edward Naughton's blog post and paper on Bionic. (11:38)
• Raymond Nimmer is not David Nimmer, who is known for writings on copyright (18:10)
• There is now an disturbing group on identica, which is more disturbing than a tag about disturbing. (19:15)
• Joe Brockmeier did some research on Edward Naughton's ties to Microsoft. (20:05)
• Karen mentioned a paper on deep legal analysis of header files and on originality requirements in copyright (24:40)

Segment 2 (26:07)

• Karen wanted to clear up some confusion about the discussion last episode about the “Open Source” and “Free Software” terminology.

Send feedback and comments on the cast to <oggcast@faif.us>. You can keep in touch with Free as in Freedom on our IRC channel, #faif on irc.freenode.net, and by following Conservancy on on Twitter and and FaiF on Twitter.

Free as in Freedom is produced by Dan Lynch of danlynch.org. Theme music written and performed by Mike Tarantino with Charlie Paxson on drums.

The content of this audcast, and the accompanying show notes and music are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike 4.0 license (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Invitation Only Research Event

Event participants

Duncan Robinson, Charlemagne Columnist; Brussels Bureau Chief, the Economist
Chair: Pepijn Bergsen, Research Fellow, Europe Programme, Chatham House

7 May 2020 , Volume 96, Number 3

Invitation Only Research Event

Event participants

Duncan Robinson, Charlemagne Columnist; Brussels Bureau Chief, the Economist
Chair: Pepijn Bergsen, Research Fellow, Europe Programme, Chatham House

7 May 2020 , Volume 96, Number 3

7 May 2020 , Volume 96, Number 3

7 May 2020 , Volume 96, Number 3

Invitation Only Research Event

Event participants

Duncan Robinson, Charlemagne Columnist; Brussels Bureau Chief, the Economist
Chair: Pepijn Bergsen, Research Fellow, Europe Programme, Chatham House

Gov. Jeb Bush has warned that Florida won't meet class-size limits without taking such steps as expanding private school vouchers, lifting restrictions on the number of charter schools, and moving to year-round schedules.

Regardless of the outcome of high profile public debate--viz Waterkeeper Bobby Kennedy Jr v. Dirty Coal Don Blankenship smackdown tomorrow night at the University of Charleston--or vehement protest from the likes of youth

Mike Bloomberg is outspending his rivals in the race to become the 2020 Democratic Presidential Nominee. His campaign spent $188 million during the fourth quarter of 2019. That's more money than any of his democratic competitors have raised over the entirety of this election cycle. But there's another big difference between those candidates and Bloomberg. Bloomberg didn't compete in the Iowa caucuses. Here's why and how he may still qualify for upcoming debates.