&w=3840&q=100)
Columbia student data stolen by politically motivated hacker, says univ
AP New York
A politically motivated hacker breached Columbia University's data systems last week, stealing troves of student documents while briefly shutting down the school's computer systems, a university official said.
The June 24 cyberattack prompted widespread network outages on campus, locking students and staff out of their email accounts, coursework and video conference software for several hours. On the same day, images of President Donald Trump's smiling face appeared on several public monitors across the Manhattan campus.
A spokesperson for Columbia declined to elaborate on the political motivations behind the attack. But they described a highly sophisticated hacktivist who had gained access to private student records in an attempt to further a political agenda.
The spokesperson said it was unclear if the Trump photo display was connected to the data breach.
We are investigating the scope of the apparent theft and will share our findings with the University community as well as anyone whose personal information was compromised, the school said.
The cyberattack comes as Columbia remains in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, which has threatened to pull $400 million in federal funds over what it claims is the school's failure to protect Jewish students.
Negotiations over a possible settlement are ongoing. The university has already agreed to a host of changes demanded by Trump, including placing its Middle East studies department under new supervision and overhauling its rules for protests and student discipline.
In March, a cyberattack against New York University resulted in student admission records briefly appearing on the school's website.
An online hacker who took credit for that action on social media said the intent was to prove the university was not in compliance with the Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action in college admissions.
An NYU spokesperson said at the time that the data displayed on its webpage was inaccurate and misleading," adding that the university scrupulously complies with the law.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
5 minutes ago
- Economic Times
The boom in American-born employees isn't real. Here's why
Agencies Something remarkable has been going on lately with the population estimates maintained by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. They show a decline of 1.9 million in the foreign-born working-age population in the US (defined here as ages 16 through 64) since March and an increase of 3.3 million in the native-born working-age population since December. The foreign-born working-age population may well be shrinking. The flow of illegal immigration across the Mexican border slowed sharply last year and has ground almost to a halt this year, and since January the Trump administration has been narrowing legal immigration channels, canceling temporary legal immigration programs and increasing the pace of deportations for those here illegally. It's extremely unlikely that 1.9 million people ages 16 through 64 have left the country since March, but the direction at least could be correct. Such an increase in the native-born working-age population, on the other hand, is impossible. Changes in that population are quite easy to predict, given that we know how many people were born in the US 16 to 64 years ago and how many have died since — and, while there admittedly aren't great recent statistics on this, the number of native-born Americans who leave the country permanently is most likely small. Just going by births, the 16-to-64 US population is due for six consecutive years of declines from this year through 2030. All this is context for understanding the 2.5 million job increase in native-born employment since December that the BLS is also reporting. Given that it came after a year of foreign-born workers seemingly driving all US employment gains, it is understandably being greeted by Trump administration officials (and would-be Trump BLS chief E.J. Antoni) as evidence of a remarkable turnaround wrought by Trump's economic policies. As you can probably already tell from the population data I've cited, it's not that. But what is it, exactly? The big changes in population and employment are artifacts of how the BLS estimates population for the purposes of calculating the labor-force statistics it derives from the Census Bureau's monthly Current Population Survey, the so-called household survey. The priority is generating accurate percentage indicators such as the unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate and employment-population ratio, not reliable time series of the levels of employment or establishment survey — aka Current Employment Statistics — that is the other contributor to the monthly BLS employment report is aimed at generating accurate estimates of the level of nonfarm payroll employment and is revised repeatedly as late responses come in and then a backup set of statistics based on state unemployment insurance records is released. A big downward revision in past months' payroll jobs totals in the employment report released early this month led Trump to fire the director of the BLS and nominate Antoni, a Heritage Foundation economist with a reputation for sloppy, partisan work, as the agency's new employment indicators from the household survey aren't subsequently revised, but every January the BLS does adjust its population numbers to align them with the latest population estimates from the Census Bureau. This December, the Census Bureau revised its national population estimates upward to better reflect the big wave in immigration from mid-2021 to mid-2024, estimating net immigration of 2.8 million people from mid-2023 to mid-2024, and increasing its estimate of 2021-2023 net immigration from 2.1 million to 4 million. This and other changes in the 2024 population estimates led the BLS to report a 3 million increase from December to January in the 16-and-older civilian, noninstitutional US population, with the gains split roughly evenly between native-born and foreign-born. Again, this wasn't because anybody at BLS thought the US 16-and-older population actually grew that much from December to January, just that the new population estimates were higher than the previous ones, and it doesn't revise earlier estimates. (For a more detailed explanation, I recommend this piece by Jed Kolko, who as undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs in the Biden administration oversaw the Census Bureau.) The Census Bureau also makes forward-looking monthly population estimates once a year based on anticipated deaths, 16th birthdays and immigration trends, which the BLS uses to produce its monthly population totals until the next annual update. The monthly BLS estimates of changes in the native-born and foreign-born population and workforce, though, are based on what people say in the monthly household surveys. Since Donald Trump became president, foreign-born residents of the US appear to have become much less likely to respond to the surveys or tell survey takers they weren't born in the US. Because the overall monthly population numbers are on autopilot, this has resulted in declining foreign-born population and employment numbers and increasing native-born native-born workers were in fact making big employment gains now, these would show up in their ratio of employment to population, which is best measured for so-called prime-age workers 25 to 54 so as not to be skewed by the aging of the population. Prime-age employment-to-population numbers for native- and foreign-born workers are not available in seasonally adjusted form and thus jump around a lot from month to month, so I've taken annual averages, which indicate that both native-born and foreign-born employment rates are flat and possibly beginning to trend downward. President Trump's immigration crackdown is to some extent based on the theory that it will improve job prospects for native-born workers by removing foreign-born competitors. Because immigration is the only possible source of growth in the US working-age population for the rest of this decade, though, stopping or reversing its flow will also make it hard to achieve much of any economic growth. So far, in any case, the net result for native-born workers appears to be no improvement at all. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Swiggy, Tencent backer Prosus gets Rajinikanth fan to script India AI play India's F&O boom puts spotlight on retail protection through education Can new shipping laws bury the ghost of British legacy? As big fat Indian wedding slims to budget, Manyavar loses lustre Stock Radar: Bajaj Auto showing signs of reversal after falling over 30% from highs; medium term should 'buy the dip' F&O Radar | Deploy Bull Call Ladder in JSW Steel stock to benefit from bullish outlook Time for risk-takers to come out of hibernation? 5 mid-cap stocks from different sectors with an upside potential of up to 27% Buy, Sell or Hold: Motilal Oswal initiates coverage on JSW Cement; Emkay Global sees over 30% upside in Gravita India
Deccan Herald
8 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
Unjustified, says Russia on US pressure on India for buying Russian crude oil
His remarks came against the backdrop of strain in India's ties with the US following President Donald Trump doubling tariffs on Indian goods to 50 per cent that included an additional penalty of 25 per cent for purchasing Russian crude oil.
Hindustan Times
8 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Putin's desire to destroy Western unity rages on
On august 16th, a day after his summit with Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin summoned Russia's grandees to the Kremlin's Hall of the Order of St Catherine. Built in tsarist times to show off the glory of the Russian empire, the hall was the setting for Mr Putin's account of his achievements during the visit to Alaska, a former imperial possession. He praised Mr Trump's 'sincerity' and efforts to end the war. 'It moves us closer to making necessary decisions,' he said. It was in the same hall, three and half years ago, that Mr Putin had gathered his terrified courtiers and ordered them, one after another, to make the case for the recognition of the separatist-held territories in eastern Ukraine. That bizarre televised spectacle turned out to be the signal for starting the invasion of Ukraine. His post-Alaska gathering was an indication that the war might now end—on Russia's terms, of course. The message simultaneously reflects both exhaustion from war, and Mr Putin's confidence of winning either through fighting or a favourable negotiation. His peace initiatives and military actions are aligned to the same goal: more power. Read more of our recent coverage of the Ukraine war Mr Putin's tone was emollient: 'We respect the US administration's position which wants the hostilities to stop as soon as possible. So do we.' One person who seems to take Mr Putin's words at face value is Mr Trump, who, over the months, has displayed an almost clinical dependence on the Kremlin's strongman, and has recoiled every time Ukraine and its European allies have urged him to apply pressure on him. During the follow-up summit in Washington with Volodymyr Zelensky and seven European leaders, a hot mic caught Mr Trump whispering to Emmanuel Macron, the French president: 'I think he [Mr Putin] wants to make a deal for me, you understand that? As crazy as it sounds.' Mr Trump, despite earlier promises, has not imposed sanctions and no longer demands a ceasefire as a precondition for peace talks. Mr Putin is unlikely to be bothered by the smiles, shoulder-slapping and assurances of support for Ukraine at the White House. As far as Moscow is concerned, the meeting produced little more than general talk of security guarantees—and these will only apply if Mr Putin agrees to peace. Mr Trump's call to Mr Putin, made in the middle of his meeting with European leaders, offered him reassurance: Mr Trump will do nothing about Ukraine without consulting Russia. Mr Putin's own summit with Mr Trump, on the other hand, was much more of a success. Branded as a murderous criminal by Mr Trump's predecessor, he received a red-carpet reception and applause from Mr Trump, who ended his diplomatic isolation and restored Mr Putin to the position of power-player in Europe. 'I congratulate all of us on a perfect summit. It was grand. To win everything and lose nothing—only Alexander III could do that,' Alexander Dugin, an ultra-imperialist philosopher and proponent of war, enthused, slipping in a mention of one of Mr Putin's favourite tsars. It is still unclear what the two summiteers agreed, but Mr Putin did not really go to Alaska to negotiate, but to preen. The audience for this show, hastily arranged at Mr Putin's request, was not just Mr Trump, but Mr Putin's own elite and citizens. Recent polls have shown that 70% of Russians think that their country has been successful on the battlefield. At the same time 60% now favour peace talks. Fear of defeat is long gone; but there is not much appetite for more fighting. One well-informed businessman sums up the attitude of the elite: 'Nobody gives a fuck how it is going to end, as long as it does. Putin can sell anything as a victory.' At a minimum, though, Mr Putin wants this to include the recognition, by America at least, of Russia's occupation of Crimea and the war-seized land corridor that connects it to Russia; the permanent exclusion of Ukraine from nato; and presidential elections in Ukraine. 'No deal is likely while Zelensky is in power,' one Russian insider says. Mr Putin's new enthusiasm for diplomacy reflects his constraints. The Russian economy is heading into recession; in the first seven months of this year its budget deficit has overshot the target for the whole of 2025—unsurprising, considering a 20% increase in government spending in those seven months. At least 5% of all government spending now goes on maintaining a contract army that is mostly fighting in Ukraine, according to Re:Russia, a Vienna-based think-tank. Labour shortages mean that civilian industry is struggling. This does not mean that Mr Putin's position is critical—he can always impose yet more pain on the economy—but as Kirill Rogov, the head of Re:Russia, says, 'this will increase risks and internal tension, which will radically change Russians' perceptions of the costs of war.' There is also a question of military gains. For the third summer in a row, Russia has failed to break the Ukrainian front line. Despite advancing at a somewhat faster pace than before, it still controls only about a percentage point of Ukrainian territory beyond what it held at the start of 2023. Mr Putin does not want to risk mass mobilisation, or to carry on the war for another year. The vast human and economic cost would only highlight the failure of his army to overpower Ukrainian forces. 'Everybody understands that [carrying on] the war is senseless and it is time to end it,' one member of the Russian business elite says. This does not mean, however, that Mr Putin is about to stop. As Mr Rogov says, the Russian leader is still hoping that the next two months could produce a break-through in Ukraine, which is suffering from a shortage of manpower and high rate of desertion. 'He is opening the diplomatic door as a contingency, in case his offensive does not yield the desired effect,' he explains. For Mr Putin endless negotiations are simply another part of his war plans. They keep Mr Trump on his side and help him in his broader objective of sowing dissent within the West and inside Ukraine. As one Russian blogger puts it, 'the main thing to understand is that the war has not stopped. Our president will consider the [diplomatic] options, and in the meantime, the military continues its work to liberate our territories.' Mr Putin's demand that Ukraine hand over territory in the western Donbas that he has not won on the battlefield is designed to trigger an internal political crisis in Ukraine. He knows that Mr Zelensky has pledged not to give up an inch of land, but that he may lose Mr Trump's support if he does not acquiesce. To achieve his strategic goal of dismantling the post-cold war security order, Mr Putin wants to unravel Ukraine politically, drive America out of Europe and undermine Europe's support for Ukraine. He is yet to achieve any of this. But even if the active phase of the war were to come to a halt, that struggle to destroy Western unity will continue. To stay on top of the biggest European stories, sign up to Café Europa, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.
