Feed aggregator
MIT engineers develop a magnetic transistor for more energy-efficient electronics
Transistors, the building blocks of modern electronics, are typically made of silicon. Because it’s a semiconductor, this material can control the flow of electricity in a circuit. But silicon has fundamental physical limits that restrict how compact and energy-efficient a transistor can be.
MIT researchers have now replaced silicon with a magnetic semiconductor, creating a magnetic transistor that could enable smaller, faster, and more energy-efficient circuits. The material’s magnetism strongly influences its electronic behavior, leading to more efficient control of the flow of electricity.
The team used a novel magnetic material and an optimization process that reduces the material’s defects, which boosts the transistor’s performance.
The material’s unique magnetic properties also allow for transistors with built-in memory, which would simplify circuit design and unlock new applications for high-performance electronics.
“People have known about magnets for thousands of years, but there are very limited ways to incorporate magnetism into electronics. We have shown a new way to efficiently utilize magnetism that opens up a lot of possibilities for future applications and research,” says Chung-Tao Chou, an MIT graduate student in the departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and Physics, and co-lead author of a paper on this advance.
Chou is joined on the paper by co-lead author Eugene Park, a graduate student in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering (DMSE); Julian Klein, a DMSE research scientist; Josep Ingla-Aynes, a postdoc in the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center; Jagadeesh S. Moodera, a senior research scientist in the Department of Physics; and senior authors Frances Ross, TDK Professor in DMSE; and Luqiao Liu, an associate professor in EECS, and a member of the Research Laboratory of Electronics; as well as others at the University of Chemistry and Technology in Prague. The paper appears today in Physical Review Letters.
Overcoming the limits
In an electronic device, silicon semiconductor transistors act like tiny light switches that turn a circuit on and off, or amplify weak signals in a communication system. They do this using a small input voltage.
But a fundamental physical limit of silicon semiconductors prevents a transistor from operating below a certain voltage, which hinders its energy efficiency.
To make more efficient electronics, researchers have spent decades working toward magnetic transistors that utilize electron spin to control the flow of electricity. Electron spin is a fundamental property that enables electrons to behave like tiny magnets.
So far, scientists have mostly been limited to using certain magnetic materials. These lack the favorable electronic properties of semiconductors, constraining device performance.
“In this work, we combine magnetism and semiconductor physics to realize useful spintronic devices,” Liu says.
The researchers replace the silicon in the surface layer of a transistor with chromium sulfur bromide, a two-dimensional material that acts as a magnetic semiconductor.
Due to the material’s structure, researchers can switch between two magnetic states very cleanly. This makes it ideal for use in a transistor that smoothly switches between “on” and “off.”
“One of the biggest challenges we faced was finding the right material. We tried many other materials that didn’t work,” Chou says.
They discovered that changing these magnetic states modifies the material’s electronic properties, enabling low-energy operation. And unlike many other 2D materials, chromium sulfur bromide remains stable in air.
To make a transistor, the researchers pattern electrodes onto a silicon substrate, then carefully align and transfer the 2D material on top. They use tape to pick up a tiny piece of material, only a few tens of nanometers thick, and place it onto the substrate.
“A lot of researchers will use solvents or glue to do the transfer, but transistors require a very clean surface. We eliminate all those risks by simplifying this step,” Chou says.
Leveraging magnetism
This lack of contamination enables their device to outperform existing magnetic transistors. Most others can only create a weak magnetic effect, changing the flow of current by a few percent or less. Their new transistor can switch or amplify the electric current by a factor of 10.
They use an external magnetic field to change the magnetic state of the material, switching the transistor using significantly less energy than would usually be required.
The material also allows them to control the magnetic states with electric current. This is important because engineers cannot apply magnetic fields to individual transistors in an electronic device. They need to control each one electrically.
The material’s magnetic properties could also enable transistors with built-in memory, simplifying the design of logic or memory circuits.
A typical memory device has a magnetic cell to store information and a transistor to read it out. Their method can combine both into one magnetic transistor.
“Now, not only are transistors turning on and off, they are also remembering information. And because we can switch the transistor with greater magnitude, the signal is much stronger so we can read out the information faster, and in a much more reliable way,” Liu says.
Building on this demonstration, the researchers plan to further study the use of electrical current to control the device. They are also working to make their method scalable so they can fabricate arrays of transistors.
This research was supported, in part, by the Semiconductor Research Corporation, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Army Research Office, and the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports. The work was partially carried out at the MIT.nano facilities.
FEMA said it answered the phone during the Texas floods. Most callers didn’t get through.
Opening of world’s largest carbon removal plant delayed
US offshore wind projects advance, even as developers turn toward Europe
Hawaii’s bid to let insurers sue fossil industry fails
Most other states keep climate laws intact as New York weakens targets
Scorched scenes show how Florida’s wildfire seasons could look in the future
Hantavirus surges in Argentina, where stricken cruise ship began journey
Antarctica’s tourism boom raises concerns about contamination and disease
Milestone 1.0.0 Release of APK Downloader `apkeep` Powers Research on Android Apps
Last week, we released apkeep version 1.0.0, the latest edition of our command-line Android package downloading software. Rather than indicating major changes for the project, this milestone instead signifies arriving at a relatively stable and mature place after gradual iteration on the project over the course of over four years.
What’s New in 1.0.0
We do have a few fresh features we’ve packed into this latest release, though—all focused on the Google Play Store:
- You can now download a dex metadata file associated with an app containing a Cloud Profile, which provides information on app performance based on real usage.
- You can now provide a token generated by the Aurora Store’s dispenser to log in anonymously for app downloads.
- Users can specify their own device profiles when downloading apps from Google Play, which the store uses to deliver the app variant which works for your particular device specifications.
- We’ve also fixed an authentication bug introduced by the Play Store API.
In addition to the various Linux, Windows, and Android environments we support, we’re also happy to announce that since the last release in October we’ve been included in Homebrew for macOS users!
How Researchers Use apkeep to Understand the Android App Landscape
Researchers and users contributed most of the features of this release, including downloading dex metadata containing Google’s Cloud Profiles. This feature helps them use the tool in their own research of highlighting how these Android compilation profiles can be a vital source of information for evaluating dynamic testing. Numerous other projects have cited apkeep usage in their own workflows. For example, Exodus Privacy uses it to power the εxodus tool’s downloads when they monitor the privacy properties of apps. Various research teams have noted their own use of the tool in whitepapers, including one team who used the tool to download 21,154 apps in a widespread study of Android evasive malware. We are proud to provide a reliable tool in the toolbox they use to power their work.
What’s in Store for apkeep?
Our goals with apkeep have remained constant: provide a reliable, fast, and safe way to download apps from multiple app providers, not just the Google Play Store. While we’ve focused on it as the major Android app provider of choice across much of the world, we’ve expanded support to other stores as well, such as F-Droid for downloading open source apps. We’d like to continue broadening apkeep’s list of supported providers, to make it easy to do comparative analysis of apps provided in different contexts. For this, we’d love your contributions.
How You Can Help
If you’re using apkeep as part of your own toolbox (whether using it to do malware analysis, auditing apps, or simply using it as an app archiving tool), let us know! And if you like what we do, please consider donating to EFF to support our work.
MIT BrainTrust supports neighbors living with brain injuries
Since 1998, members of MIT’s BrainTrust club have helped Boston-area residents with brain injuries or other neurological disorders through their buddy program. The organization’s members also visit patients in nursing homes suffering from neurological issues.
BrainTrust is one of the founding chapters of Synapse National, an organization created by MIT alumna Alissa Totman ’13. Synapse’s goal is to provide social support for individuals living with brain injuries and to educate and inspire student leaders in the field of brain injury.
“Learning directly from individuals who had experienced brain injury during my time in BrainTrust gave me an appreciation of the gaps in resources and opportunities for improvement in brain injury care, which ultimately motivated me to pursue a career in brain injury medicine. My experience in BrainTrust continues to shape my approach to patient care and my professional goal of improving access to specialized care for individuals with brain injury by serving as a consulting provider in the acute care hospital, as well as by training the next generation of leaders in the field,” says Totman.
The club’s president, junior Karie Shen, who is pursuing a double major in biology (Course 7) and brain and cognitive science (Course 9), says, “BrainTrust is a student-run service organization that provides support for individuals with brain injury and other neurological disorders. I joined BrainTrust because it seemed like the perfect intersection of community service and neuroscience, and I care about these two things deeply.”
BrainTrust volunteers participate in training and then are paired with a local buddy who has experienced a brain injury. Members can also spend time on the weekends with patients in nursing homes who have dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, or who have had a stroke.
Shen, along with Elizabeth Zhang, president of the MIT Pre-Med Society, recently developed a program that allows BrainTrust members to visit patients in hospice. “It’s an experience that is deeply valuable for students. We work through a third-party organization called Compassus. Because the pairing process is HIPAA-protected, our role as BrainTrust executive members is to recruit students and connect them with the hospice volunteer coordinator for training. We also provide funding for transportation, generously supported by the UA Community Service Committee,” says Shen.
Shen, who plans to go to medical school and specialize in neurology, neuro-oncology, or geriatric medicine when she completes her degree, finds the experience rewarding, at times difficult, but also offers a glimpse into the reality of working with people with brain injuries.
“Visiting the people in hospice or a nursing home is hard. I’ve seen residents cry for no apparent reason that the nurses or I can understand. But I have also come to understand that caring for a patient’s quality of life and dignity is equally important. What I came to realize is that my presence itself mattered. That perspective has shaped how I think about the kind of physician I want to become,” says Shen.
First-year student Jordan Lacsamana heard about the club during Campus Preview Weekend and was immediately interested. Lacsamana, who will major in brain and cognitive sciences, is a volunteer in the Buddy Program and meets with her buddy at least once a month.
“I joined the club because it aligned with my interests academically, but I also wanted to support someone in the Boston community. I’m pre-med, and I’m interested in surgery, possibly neurosurgery or cardiovascular surgery. But I also think it’s nice to have someone outside of MIT to talk with. It’s great to learn more about them and have that one-on-one friendship, which really is the goal,” says Lacsamana.
Lacsamana says she enjoys spending time with Amanda, her buddy, and exploring Boston and Harvard Square, meeting for coffee or meals, and getting as much out of the relationship as Amanda does.
“I see her as a mentor because coming to Boston from Dallas was such a big change, so I’ve also been able to look to her for advice. But I think one of the great things about the program is that you get to learn more about them as an individual, instead of seeing them as just a person with an injury,” says Lacsamana.
“Many of our brain injury buddies simply enjoy being around students, staying connected to what we are learning and doing. Some have been with the club for years, even upwards of a decade, and still keep up with former student members long after they graduate. It is really wonderful to see how BrainTrust has created this web of friendships between people who would otherwise never have met,” says Shen.
“Amanda has stayed in touch with her former buddy since she graduated from MIT and is going to her wedding,” says Lacsamana. “I think it’s a testament to how amazing this program is at forming those connections.”
MIT students who seek real-world opportunities in fields such as cognitive science, health care, medicine, and cognitive/neurological prosthetics, or who want to help a local resident, can join BrainTrust. Email braintrust-exec@mit.edu for more information.
👎 California's Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Social Media Ban | EFFector 38.9
We'd all like the internet to be a better place—for kids and adults alike. But in the name of online safety, governments around the world are racing to impose a dangerous new system of control. Are age gates the silver bullet to the internet's problems they're being promoted as? Or are we being sold a bill of goods? We're answering this question and more in our latest EFFector newsletter.
For over 35 years, EFFector has been your guide to understanding the intersection of technology, civil liberties, and the law. This latest issue covers an attack on VPNs in Utah, a livestream on how to disenshittify the internet, and California's proposed social media ban that could set a dangerous new precedent for online censorship.
Prefer to listen in? EFFector is now available on all major podcast platforms. This time, we're having a conversation with EFF Legislative Analyst Molly Buckley on why social media bans can't sidestep the U.S. constitution. You can find the episode and subscribe on your podcast platform of choice:
%3Ciframe%20height%3D%22200px%22%20width%3D%22100%25%22%20frameborder%3D%22no%22%20scrolling%3D%22no%22%20seamless%3D%22%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fplayer.simplecast.com%2F07b61711-d8ff-4483-aee3-21daa5a3ea22%3Fdark%3Dfalse%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy info.
This embed will serve content from simplecast.com
Want to help push back on these misguided regulations? Sign up for EFF's EFFector newsletter for updates, ways to take action, and new merch drops. You can also fuel the fight for privacy and free speech online when you support EFF today!
The SECURE Data Act is Not a Serious Piece of Privacy Legislation
The federal SECURE Data Act is not a serious consumer privacy bill, and its provisions—if enacted—would be a retreat from already insufficient state protections.
Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a draft of the bill late last month without bipartisan support. The bill is weaker than congressional proposals in prior years, as well as most of the 21 state consumer privacy laws already on the books.
The bill could wipe out hundreds of state privacy protections.
Most troubling for EFF: the bill would preempt dozens, if not hundreds, of state laws that regulate related topics, and it would not allow consumers to sue to protect their own rights (commonly called a private right of action). And it comes nowhere close to banning online behavioral advertising—a practice that fuels technology companies’ always increasing hunt for personal data.
The bill also suffers from many other flaws including weak opt-out defaults, inadequate data minimization requirements, and large definitional loopholes for companies.
Key ProvisionsThe bill would give consumers some rights to take action to control their personal data— like access, correction, deletion, and limited portability. These rights have become standard in all data privacy proposals in recent years.
The bill would also require companies to obtain your consent before processing your sensitive data, or using any of your personal data for a previously undisclosed purpose. Absent your consent, a company couldn’t do these things.
Further, the bill would allow you to opt out of (1) targeted third-party advertising, (2) the sale of your personal data, and (3) profiling of you that has a legal, healthcare, housing, or employment effect. Unfortunately, a company could keep doing these invasive things to you, unless you opted out.
The bill would also require data brokers that make at least 50 percent of their profits from the sale of personal data to register in a public database maintained by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Preemption of Too Many State LawsFederal privacy laws should allow states to build ever stronger rights on top of the federal floor. Many federal privacy laws allow this, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Video Privacy Protection Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
The SECURE Data Act would not do that. Instead, it would wipe out dozens, if not hundreds, of existing state privacy protections. Section 15 of the bill would preempt any “law, rule, regulation, requirement, standard, or other provision [that] relates to the provisions of this Act.” This would kill the 21 state consumer privacy laws passed in the past few years. These state bills aren’t strong enough, but they are still better than this federal proposal. For example, California maintains a data broker deletion tool and requires companies to comply with automatic opt-out signals—including one that is built into EFF’s Privacy Badger.
Because the SECURE Data Act has provisions that relate to data privacy and security, it could preempt all 50 state data breach laws and many others. It could also preempt state laws related to specific pieces of sensitive data, like bans on the sale of biometric or location information. Some states like California have constitutional provisions that protect an individual’s right to privacy, which can be enforced against companies. That constitutional provision, as well as state privacy torts, could also be in danger if this bill passed.
No Private Enforcement, A New Cure Period, and Vague Security PowersStrong consumer privacy laws should allow consumers to take companies to court to defend their own rights. This is essential because regulators do not have the resources to catch every violation, and federal consumer enforcement agencies have been gutted during the current administration.
The SECURE Data Act does not have a private right of action. The FTC, along with state attorneys general, have primary enforcement authority. The law also gives companies 45 days to “cure” any violation with no penalty after they are caught.
Moreover, Section 8 of the bill creates a vaguely defined self-regulatory scheme in which companies can apply to be audited by an “independent organization” that will apply a “code of conduct.” Following this code of conduct would give companies a presumption that they are complying with the law. This provision is an implicit acknowledgement that the bill does not provide regulators with any new resources to enforce new protections.
Section 9 of the bill would give the Secretary of Commerce broad power to “take any action necessary and appropriate to support the international flow of personal data,” including assessing “security interests of the United States.” The scope of this amorphous provision is unclear, but it likely does not belong in a consumer protection bill.
Weak Privacy DefaultsYour online privacy should not depend on whether you have the time, patience, and knowledge to navigate a website and turn off invasive tracking. Good privacy laws build in data minimization requirements—meaning there should be a default standard that prevents companies from processing your data for purposes that are not needed to provide you with the service you asked for.
The SECURE Data Act puts the burden on you to opt out of invasive company practices, like targeted third-party advertising, the sale of your personal data, and profiling. The bill at least requires companies to obtain your consent before processing your sensitive data (like selling your precise location). These consent requirements, however, are often an invitation for companies to trick you into clicking a button to give away your rights in hard-to-read policies. Indeed, few people would knowingly agree to let a company sell their personal data to a broker who turns around and sells it to the government.
Section 3 of the bill uses the term “data minimization,” but it is done in name only. The provision does not limit a company’s processing of data to only what is necessary to provide the customer with the good or service they asked for. Instead, the provision limits processing of data to only what a company “disclosed to the customer”—meaning if it is in the confusing privacy policy that nobody reads, it is okay.
And the bill would not even allow you to restrict certain uses of your data. As companies seek more data for AI systems, many internet users do not want their private personal data to be used to train those models. However, the bill makes clear that “nothing in this Act may be construed to restrict” a company from collecting, using, or retaining your data to “develop” or “improve” a new technology.
Other Flawed Definitions and LoopholesThe bill has numerous loopholes that technology companies would exploit if the bill were to become law. Below is just a sampling:
- Government contractors: Under Section 13(b)(2), government contractors are exempt from the bill, which could be wrongly interpreted to exempt certain data brokers from sale restrictions when those sales are made to the government. This type of exemption could benefit surveillance companies like Clearview AI, which previously argued it was exempt from Illinois’ strict biometric law using a similar contractor exception. This is likely not the authors’ intention, since the definition of sale includes those made “to a government entity.”
Sale definition: The definition in Section 16(28) is defined too narrowly. A sale should mean any exchange for monetary “or other valuable” consideration, as in some other privacy laws. - Biometric information definition: The definition in Section 16(4) excludes data generated from a photo or video, and the definition excludes face scans not meant to “identify a specific individual.” This could be wrongly interpreted to allow biometric identification from security camera footage, or biometric use for sentiment or demographic analysis.
- Personal data definition: The definition in Section 16(21) exempts “de-identified data” from the definition of personal data, which could allow companies to do anything with de-identified data because that data is not protected by the law. The problem with de-identified data is that many times it is not.
- Deletion requests: With regard to data that a company obtained from a third-party, Section 2(d)(5) would treat a consumer’s deletion request merely as an opt-out request. And even if a customer requested deletion, a company might be able to retain the data for research purposes under section 11(a)(9)(A).
- Profiling definition: Under the definition in Section 16(25), companies could profile so long as the profiling is not “solely automated.” The flimsiest human review would exempt highly automated profiling.
Congress is long overdue to enact a strong comprehensive consumer data privacy law, and we have sketched what it should look like. But the SECURE Data Act is woefully inadequate. In fact, it would cause even more corporate surveillance of our personal information, by wiping out state laws that are more protective than this federal bill. Even worse, this bill would block state legislatures from protecting their residents from the privacy threats of tomorrow that are unforeseeable today.
Rowhammer Attack Against NVIDIA Chips
A new rowhammer attack gives complete control of NVIDIA CPUs.
On Thursday, two research teams, working independently of each other, demonstrated attacks against two cards from Nvidia’s Ampere generation that take GPU rowhammering into new—and potentially much more consequential—territory: GDDR bitflips that give adversaries full control of CPU memory, resulting in full system compromise of the host machine. For the attack to work, IOMMU memory management must be disabled, as is the default in BIOS settings.
“Our work shows that Rowhammer, which is well-studied on CPUs, is a serious threat on GPUs as well,” said Andrew Kwong, co-author of one of the papers. “...
