Career.

1910s and 1920s.

Arnold started his career with Republic Pictures in New York City (not to be confused with Republic Pictures) in 1910. Arnold's first film was 1914's "Springtime", directed by Will S. Davis and starring Florence Nash, Adele Ray, and William H. Tooker. Filming took place on location in New Orleans, Louisiana and in St. Augustine, Florida. In July 1916, he began working for Metro Pictures, his first picture being "The Quitter", starring Lionel Barrymore, Marguerite Skirvin, and Paul Everton, and was directed by Charles Horan. While at Metro, he became the personal cameraman for Viola Dana, shooting every film she appeared in for the studio. In November 1919, Arnold began a new fad among cameramen, when he began to wear moleskin pants. He felt that they had the dual purpose of keeping him warm in the winter and cool in the summer. Arnold was one of the charter members of the American Society of Cinematographers in 1919.  He continued at Metro throughout the 1910s and into the 1920s. In April 1922, he went over to Fox Films to shoot "Very Truly Yours", directed by Harry Beaumont, before returning to Metro in May to film Viola Dana's next picture, "Seeing's Believing". By 1922, he had filmed every single one of Viola Dana's pictures for Metro, and had helmed the camera for 47 films for Metro. Arnold, accompanied by his wife, went on location in February 1923 to shoot the film "The Fog".  In 1921, Arnold was elected to the board of governors of the American Society of Cinematographers. With the advent of sound pictures in the late 1920s, Arnold was chosen to sit on a panel of industry experts in the fields of film engineering, projection, and cinematography to discuss and establish screen proportions and other issues which arose with sound pictures. The experts were chosen from four organizations: the Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences technicians, the Society of Motion Picture Engineers, the American Projection Society, and the American Society of Cinematographers. Through 1925 Arnold shot every film Viola Dana was in at Metro. This ended with Dana's departure from Metro in 1925 in order to go freelance. After her departure, Arnold was given a long-term contract by MGM, where he had been since they opened their west coast studios in 1916. That year Arnold filmed "The Big Parade", which won the Photoplay Magazine Medal for best film of the year. The medal is considered the first significant annual movie award, prior to the establishment of the Oscars. 1927 saw the development of the "Arnold light", an incandescent light which replaced the arc lights which was used prior. In 1929 Arnold invented a new type of "sound-proof" camera, to reduce the noise in filming sound productions. Its first use was in Lionel Barrymore's "The Unholy Night", although Arnold was not the cinematographer on that film. In 1929 Arnold invented the "bungalow", a mobile camera covering which freed cameramen from the restrictive camera booths which were necessitated by sound film photography. 1929 would be Arnold's last year behind the camera. In 1930 he joined MGM's administration as head of their sound camera department, later to be called simply the camera department.

1930s.

Arnold was elected to his first term as president of the American Society of Cinematographers in 1931, a position he would hold through 1937. He had previously been the treasurer of the organization. During the year he became a major force in campaigning for Cinematographers to receive on-screen credit. In 1932, "American Cinematographer", the official magazine of the American Society of Cinematographers, decided to run a contest for the best amateur film, offering a $1000 prize. Arnold was selected to be one of the judges. Late in 1932 Arnold was elected to the Technical Committee of the Motion Picture Academy (MPA). Also in 1932, Arnold oversaw the creation of a standard testing practice by the ASC, whereby they would test all technical moving and still equipment. Equipment which passed the test were eligible to use the "Approved by A.S.C." tag in their advertising. In the early 1930s, Arnold developed an attachment for the Mitchell Camera, which reduced the noise created during filming. It was a 48 cycle synchronous motor used to drive the camera, and it greatly reduced the vibration, and completely eradicated the noise of the motor. Along with a new version of the camera which was introduced in 1933, it was hailed as "...the greatest forward step in recent years." The combination of the new camera with the Arnold motor allowed the camera, without a hood (or blimp), to be used as close as a yard from the microphone. Another invention of Arnold's in the early 30s was a rolling tripod, which would be further refined by Mole-Richardson company, which gave it the name, the "Mole-Richardson rolling tripod". Arnold also invented the MGM camera crane, which was a substantial improvement over prior versions. it was abbut half the size of earlier versions, and 1/17 as heavy, as well as cutting costs by 90%. It elevated to 26 feet, weighed 3300 pounds, and cost $3,500. The crane could swing through a complete horizontal circle, while the arm could rotate 90 degrees. During this same period Arnold also designed the "rotambulator", a radically new design of camera dolly, which allowed a stable platform to move from about 18 inches off the floor to a height of eight feet. The operator could also rotate the entire assembly through a complete 360 degree circle. Arnold was also an avid 16mm camera fan, and would share his expertise with anyone who showed an interest. One of those he taught was Clark Gable. With the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, the National Recovery Administration was created, and part of its responsibilities included the creation of a motion picture code. At the hearing held in Washington D.C., Arnold was included as one of a long list of speakers who had requested to be heard. His attendance at the hearings in Washington caused him to miss the wedding of his good friend, Lee Garmes, for whom he was supposed to be the best man. By the end of 1933, Arnold's rotambulator was in use at several studios, replacing the tripods, dollies, and light cranes.  In 1935 Arnold invented a new type of camera blimp, decreasing the weight of the old model from 240 to 100 pounds, and including an automatic finder. Also in 1935 Arnold invented a mechanism which allowed film crews to drop "free heads" on large cameras. This lessened the uneven movement which existed on the cameras. In 1935, not only was he re-elected to the MPA's technical committee, but he was also elected to their Board of Governors, representing technicians.  By 1936 Arnold's title at MGM had become "executive director of photography." In 1936 Arnold developed two pieces of camera equipment which made it possible to better film operation on boats. Developed them for the film, "Captains Courageous", they were called the "iron egg" and "the self-wiping windshield". The former was a weighted pendulum which hung from the bottom of the camera, acting as a counterweight and giving stability to the camera on a moving deck. The latter was a piece of plate glass which rotated very quickly, and with pressure plates to keep the glass free from water and spray. In 1937, Arnold decided not to run, due to potential conflicts of interest with his position at MGM, and was replaced by Victor Milner, who was elected in October 1937. After stepping down from the presidency, Arnold was awarded a "gold life card" by the ASC.  In 1938 Arnold contributed to the book, "How We Make the Movies". The tome was an account of how movies were made, with each aspect of filmmaking covered by an authority in that field. It was "... designed for the general reader and for class room study in schools and colleges. Told in simple, informative and graphic style, the book covers the entire field, from the selection of the story, to the editing of the film." Arnold was asked to write the chapter on cinematography. At the Tenth Academy Awards in 1938 Arnold was awarded an Oscar for technical development for his work on the semi-automatic follow focus device used on motion picture cameras. Following his break in 1938, Arnold was elected once again to the presidency of the ASC in 1939, a post he would hold through 1941. Arnold developed the Ro Crane in 1939, which became the standard crane used at MGM in the 1940s and 1950s.

1940s and 1950s.

Arnold won his second Oscar in 1940 for his development of the mobile camera crane. Also in 1940, he was re-elected as president of the American Society of Cinematographers. By the end of 1940 Arnold had been selected to serve on the MPAA's Production Defense Co-ordination Committee. That same year he was selected to sit on the board of the MPAA's Oscar committee for technical awards. 1940 also saw Arnold invent a new camera boom and dolly, considered a radical improvement at the time. The boom allowed the camera to film from ground level all the way to 16 feet. In 1941, while he remained on their Board of Governors, he was replaced as president by Fred Jackman. Arnold stepped down due to his increasing duties at MGM.  In 1941 he was appointed to a committee to discuss and standardize the use of 16mm equipment in the film industry. The committee was set up by the Research Council of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS). In 1942 Arnold was again a member of an AMPAS committee, this one recommended changing the film speed from 24 to 18 frames per second. This would result in saving 35,000,000 feet of film each year. That same year, Arnold was selected to be the sole cinematography representative on the industry's War Activities Committee. In 1942 Arnold was one of a handful of cinematographers selected to train servicemen in the Signal Corps on how to take combat footage. By the end of 1943 he had trained over 350 men in the service.  In 1946, to help out fellow out cameraman (now working for him at MGM) Paul Vogel, who was working on the film "Lady in the Lake", Arnold developed a special camera dolly which had four independent wheels. The film was shot from the POV of the protagonist, and the independent wheels allowed the camera to "walk" through doorways and upstairs, simulating natural movement. Arnold invented the Ro Boom, used by MGM in the 1940s. In 1948 he invented a new controller and motor for the boom. The new device allowed a single operator to move the boom at greater speeds. It had graduated speeds forwards and backwards, as well as dynamic braking through the motor. For the 1949 film "Neptune's Daughter", Arnold oversaw the development of a combination camera elevator and crane, which allowed vertical travel shots, mid-air shots, and use of the camera anywhere from floor to ceiling without the need for extra equipment.  Arnold made another improvement to his Ro Crane in 1952, which allowed technicolor cameras to utilize the crane. He replaced the stationary base with a rotating one, which allowed the camera to be have film installed on either side, which was necessary for the 3 negative rolls to occur. Arnold's contributions were not limited to camera equipment as back in the 1920s he had created the "Arnold light", an incandescent light to replace the older arc lights. In 1952 Arnold perfected a new lighting technique which utilized a new reflected type set, first utilized in the production, "Scaramouche". For the 1952 film "The Wild North", Arnold developed a camera heater which allowed cameras to film in very low temperatures. The heater could be adapted for any type of movie camera. Also in 1952, Arnold developed the jeep-mounted crane. He came up with the design to fill the need of his studio for rugged mobile transport to move cranes quickly from one location to the next. In October 1952 he was given an "Award of Fellow" from the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. For the 1952 film, "Julius Caesar", Arnold invented "skylight", an overhead lighting platform which used reflected light to produce shadowless lighting for indoor scenes. In 1953 Arnold invented a horizontal film travel camera, which was ahead of its time. It wasn't used by the studio until 1955, with the advent of 65mm. For the 1955 film "Lust for Life", Arnold developed a process which allowed Van Gogh's paintings to be shot with better clarity than simply filming with a camera. Arnold served on the board of governors for the ASC from its inception in 1919 until 1955. In 1956, he was elected an alternate board member.  Arnold retired in 1956, after a career of 32 years with MGM, the last 26 of which were spent as head of MGM's camera department. Over the course of his career he invented hundreds of pieces of camera equipment. He was the only ASC member to serve 7 years as the organization's president. While head of the MGM camera department, Arnold was known for being a company man, requiring the cinematographers he supervised to use the glamorous cinematographic style MGM was known for, and coming down quite hard on those photographers who didn't want to conform to the MGM style.

Personal life.

In February 1920, Arnold moved to Hollywood, where he purchased a new home. In 1923 his police dog, named Pal Baron Von Matinhoff, won the gold medal at the Los Angeles Kennel Club's annual dog show. On May 12, 1935 he became the father of a son.

John Arnold (1889–1964) was an American cinematographer. He began in 1914, and in his 25 years behind the camera, he shot 86 films. He also worked in film administration, directing the cinematography department at MGM, and was president of the American Society of Cinematographers from 1931 through 1937, and again from 1939 to 1941. By 1938, he was regarded as one of the most authoritative experts on cinematography. He invented several pieces of camera equipment and was awarded two Oscars, both Technical Achievement Awards. The first was in 1938 for improvements on the semi-automatic follow focus device used on motion picture cameras, while the second was in 1940 for the development of the MGM mobile camera crane.

John Arnold (* 16. November 1889 in New York, New York, USA; † 11. Januar 1964 in Palm Springs, Kalifornien, USA) war ein US-amerikanischer Kameramann.


Biography.

Born in the Town of Union, in Rock County, Wisconsin Territory. His father and mother had migrated to the Wisconsin Territory from Western Pennsylvania and Western New York, respectively. His father, William Jones, died in 1855, and his mother then married Levi Leonard, a pioneer of Rock County.  Jones was raised on a farm and attended the Evansville Seminary, in Evansville, Wisconsin. He then taught at the school for three years to pay for his university education. He graduated from the literary department of the University of Wisconsin in 1870, and then from the law department in 1871. After leaving the university, he studied law in the office of William Freeman Vilas and was admitted to the State Bar of Wisconsin that year. Near the end of 1871, he began practicing law in Portage, Wisconsin, but within a year moved to Madison. While in Madison, he went through a series of partnerships, with Alden Sprague Sanborn, A. C. Parkinson, F. J. Lamb, and E. Ray Stevens.  In November 1872, Jones was elected district attorney for Dane County, Wisconsin. He was then re-elected in 1874. In 1882, he was elected to the 48th Congress (March 4, 1883 – March 3, 1885) on the Democratic Party ticket in Wisconsin's 3rd congressional district. He was defeated seeking re-election in 1884. In Congress, he served on the House Committee on War Claims, and served as acting Chairman when the chairman was unavailable with a long illness.  Jones returned to Madison and became a professor of law at the University of Wisconsin for the next thirty years of his life. He remained involved in local affairs and government, serving as City Attorney in 1891, and as chairman of the first Wisconsin Tax Commission in 1897 and 1898.  He also remained active with the Wisconsin Democratic Party. He was chairman of the Democratic State convention in 1892, and represented Wisconsin as a delegate to the 1896 Democratic National Convention at Indianapolis, where he was chosen to nominate Edward S. Bragg for President.  In 1920, he was appointed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court by Governor Emanuel L. Philipp, to fill the vacancy created by the death of justice John B. Winslow. In April 1922, Jones was elected to fill the remainder of Winslow's term, which expired in 1926. He did not seek re-election in 1925, and in January 1926 he was replaced by his former law partner E. Ray Stevens.  Jones returned to the practice of law.

Personal life and family.

Jones married Olive L. Hoyt in December 1873. They had one daughter together. After the death of his first wife in 1906, he married Katharine McDonald, who survived him.  After thirty years as a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School, he was conferred a LL.D. in 1916. He was chairman of the Dane County Bar Association and, in 1908, was President of the State Bar Association. In 1896, he published a treatise on the law of evidence in civil cases, followed by two subsequent volumes.  Jones died in a hospital in Madison, on January 7, 1935. He was interred at Madison's Forest Hill Cemetery.

Legacy.

One of the Kronshage dormitories at the University of Wisconsin–Madison is named after him, as well as a Madison city park on the Yahara River.

Burr W. Jones (March 9, 1846January 7, 1935) was an American lawyer, politician, jurist, and law professor. He was a member of the United States House of Representatives in the 48th Congress, and a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Burr W. Jones (* 9. März 1846 bei Evansville, Wisconsin; † 7. Januar 1935 in Madison, Wisconsin) war ein US-amerikanischer Jurist und Politiker. Zwischen 1883 und 1885 vertrat er den Bundesstaat Wisconsin im US-Repräsentantenhaus.


Plot.

Rosario (Andrea Palma) was the average Mexican girl that grew up in a humble household with her dad. Her boyfriend had promised to marry her and that they would be better off once he landed a decent job. The Father falls sick and isn’t able to work, leaving his daughter helpless because she was not wedded yet. In the process of trying to find some money and trying to get help she turns to her boyfriend and finds him sleeping with another village girl. She is distraught and leaves town. She decides to leave Cordoba City to settle in Veracruz City. In a port that is facing the Gulf of Mexico, she establishes herself above a sordid cabaret, and starts “selling love” to the sailors that come from afar. She made this her life profession and enjoyed being heartless and reckless with men’s feelings. One night, a drunken sailor gets out of hand and Alberto (Domingo Soler) rescues her from getting beat. She is grateful and takes Alberto to her room to compensate him. After the love making they begin to talk about their backgrounds and discover that they are siblings. Rosario, distraught, leaves the cabaret and makes her way to the port's dock. Alberto searches for her, only to find her shawl floating in the water near the dock, implying that she jumped.

The Director.

Arcady Boytler's film La Mujer del puerto had some strong themes of incest and prostitution. Around this time prostitution was not a theme that most were surprised by, but it was the incest notion that gave the film controversy. It would be tempting to attribute the films credentials with Boytler's Birth nation, but the reality of things is that it is an untouched topic. Earlier in 1930's Sergei Eisenstein's visit to Mexico influenced a dozen of directors. Boytler set out to make a film that could transcend its culture and make it an international treasure. Mexico was being torn apart with modernity and post-revolution trying to rebuild and keep the heritage intact. Through cinematic art and the influence of Eisenstein’s visit to the America’s, Mexico flourished with talent and pushed its boundaries. Boytler said “To be sure, great films will made in Mexico. In this country, there is a great artistic spirit, many elements of magnificent value to be discovered. I think that not all films should be to vernacular so that they are accepted and understood in other Spanish-speaking countries.” Countries that don’t understand the tendencies, or culture if you will, from a certain part of Mexico would have a hard time understanding the message or dialect pushed through the film. On one side we have the country debating concern in identity and the other we have a post-revolutionary period. Boytler tried incorporating the loving side of the entity engendered by the revolution into the nation space. On the other, we have the drive of modernization and desire to measure up to international standards of progress. In other words, you have two opposing sides: on one hand you have the highbrow, Europeanized elite dream of inserting the nation’s creative talent into global stream, and on the other you have ancient and borrow elements, is produced by and from the masses. Boyltercaptured the heart of the masses even through the modernizing form of cinema adding sound and incorporating the music of the people being rancheras. The high production value made it an instant landmark within its national cinematic context. This movie truly deserves a qualification of excellence, said Luz Alba. Many critics acclaim that Boytler has a definite influence of German Expressionism but it is not the only influence.

The Woman of the Port () is a 1934 Mexican romantic drama film directed by Arcady Boytler and starring Andrea Palma. The film is based on the novel "Le Port" by French author Guy de Maupassant.

La mujer del puerto ist ein mexikanischer Film aus dem Jahr 1933, bei dem Arcady Boytler Regie führte. Das Melodram erzählt die Geschichte von Rosario, die zur Prostituierten wird und, nachdem sie mit ihrem Bruder Sex hatte, Selbstmord begeht. Der Film wird als einer der wichtigsten des Mexikanischen Films angesehen, der eine eigene mexikanische Bildsprache entwickelte. Von dem Film wurden 1949 und 1991 Neuverfilmungen gedreht.


Plot.

Grosvenor (Alan Mowbray), the Kilbournes' butler, discovers at breakfast that the family silver has been stolen by the latest tramp, Ambrose, whom Emily Kilbourne (Billie Burke) had taken under her wing as the chauffeur, in her latest attempt to reform fallen and destitute men, much to the exasperation of the rest of the family. A distressed Emily swears off taking in any more tramps, to the delight of the rest of the family. However, later in the morning, Wade Rawlins (Brian Aherne) appears at the doorstep. His car had broken down; when he got out, it rolled off a cliff. He wants to use the telephone, but is instead immediately adopted by Emily Kilbourne, despite the rude efforts of Grosvenor and Emily's daughters Geraldine "Jerry" (Constance Bennett) and Marion (Bonita Granville). Further attempts to convince Mrs. Kilbourne to get rid of this latest tramp are blissfully ignored.  Rawlins, appointed as the new replacement chauffeur is set up in the servant's quarters. He is overheard talking to himself while cleaning up by Grosvenor and suspected to be crazy. Jerry and Marion see the spruced up tramp looking the perfect gentleman and Jerry likes it when he later brushes off Jerry's arrogant wannabee boyfriend, Herbert Wheeler (Phillip Reed). They now have second thoughts when their father, Henry Kilbourne (Clarence Kolb), who has returned from work tells Emily that he is putting his foot down and orders that they get rid of the new tramp the next day.  A comedy of errors, nighttime interludes with drunken family behavior, the arrogant boyfriend making a move at Jerry, follows with the rescue of the damsel in distress who has also somehow misplaced her keys where some delightful flirting ensues, resulting in Jerry falling in love with Wade. Marion also expresses a crush on Wade. The next day, Emily Kilbourne, despite orders to get rid of Wade, trains him to be a footman at the important dinner party that evening for Senator Harlan (Paul Everton). That evening, through a contrived prank by Marion, Rawlins is accidentally invited to the important dinner party for Senator Harlan, who takes quite a liking to him, as does his daughter Minerva (Ann Dvorak).  The next morning, the family finds Rawlins occupying the guest room. It is impossible to throw him out, as it is discovered that he is now a confidant of Senator Harlan and his daughter's target of affection. Jerry is consumed with jealousy, as she sees Minerva flirting with Rawlins at golf later that morning. After a fudge-making spat with Jerry, Rawlins takes the rest of the day off on an errand. The car he wrecked turns out to be a loan. He goes to pay for it, but the car has been found and the police inform the car's owner that Rawlins is assumed to be dead. The man leaves to identify his car. Thus, when Rawlins arrives, the owner's assistant George (Willie Best) thinks he is a ghost. The Kilbournes believe Rawlins has left for good, much to Jerry's dismay after waiting up to reconcile with him.  The next morning at breakfast, the newspaper reports the death of E. Wade Rawlins, the "noted novelist", from a car crash, much to the shock and dismay of the family, the cook and the maid. When Rawlins reappears, very much alive, Jerry is immensely relieved.

Production.

"Merrily We Live" was in production from October 27, 1937 to January 10, 1938. Some location filming took place at Arrowhead Hot Spring and Big Bear Lake in the San Bernardino Mountains of southern California.  Titles that were considered for the film included "Take It Easy," "Love Without Reason" and "Dark Chapter", which is the title of the E.J. Rath book the film is in part based on – although neither Rath's novel nor Courtenay Savage's play are credited.  Noted Broadway columnist Ed Sullivan provided additional dialogue for the film, his first assignment for Hal Roach Studios.

Awards and honors.

"Merrily We Live" received five Academy Award nominations in total: Supporting Actress, Sound (Elmer A. Raguse), Song, Art Direction and Cinematography (Norbert Brodine). Billie Burke's Best Supporting Actress nomination was the only Oscar nomination of her career.

Merrily We Live is a 1938 comedy film directed by Norman Z. McLeod, starring Constance Bennett and Brian Aherne and featuring Ann Dvorak, Bonita Granville, Billie Burke, Tom Brown, Alan Mowbray, Clarence Kolb and Patsy Kelly. The film was produced by Hal Roach for Hal Roach Studios, and was released by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The screenplay is by Eddie Moran and Jack Jevne.

Wie leben wir doch glücklich! (Originaltitel: "Merrily We Live", TV-Titel: "Uns geht’s ja prächtig") ist eine US-amerikanische Filmkomödie aus dem Jahr 1938 nach dem Roman "The Dark Chapter; a Comedy of Class Distinctions" von E. J. Rath und dem Theaterstück "They All Want Something" von Courtenay Savage.


Mission profile.

Rescheduling of launch.

Soyuz TMA-22's launch was rescheduled from late September 2011 to 14 November, due to the failed launch of the uncrewed Progress M-12M cargo spacecraft on 24 August 2011. The incident was caused by a blocked fuel line leading to the gas generator of the third-stage RD-0110 engine of the spacecraft's Soyuz-U booster. After the loss of Progress M-12M, all Russian crewed spaceflights were temporarily suspended, due to the similarities between the failed engine and the third-stage engine in use on the crewed Soyuz-FG booster. A Russian commission blamed the Progress M-12M failure on a single human error, and put additional procedures in place to prevent the problem from recurring. On 30 October 2011, Russia successfully launched the uncrewed Progress M-13M cargo spacecraft atop a Soyuz-U booster, clearing the way for the Soyuz TMA-22 launch.

Launch.

Soyuz TMA-22 was launched on schedule from the Gagarin's Start launchpad at Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan, at 04:14:03 UTC on 14 November 2011. Soyuz Commander Shkaplerov sat in the Soyuz's center seat, with flight engineer Ivanishin strapped in to his left and NASA astronaut Burbank sitting to his right. The Soyuz-FG rocket carrying Soyuz TMA-22 was launched in blizzard-like conditions, with high winds and temperatures as low as. Nonetheless, conditions were deemed to be within acceptable parameters for launch.  The rocket followed a nominal ascent trajectory, and successfully inserted Soyuz TMA-22 into orbit approximately nine minutes after the launch. Once in orbit, the spacecraft deployed its two solar panels and communications antennas as planned.

Docking.

Soyuz TMA-22 docked with the ISS at 05:24 GMT on 16 November 2011, about nine minutes earlier than planned. The spacecraft docked at the MRM-2 "Poisk" module, while Soyuz TMA-22 and the ISS were flying above the southern Pacific Ocean. The Soyuz crew entered the ISS at around 6:39 GMT, and were greeted by Expedition 29 crewmembers Mike Fossum, Sergei Volkov and Satoshi Furukawa. Burbank, Shkaplerov and Ivanishin received congratulatory satellite calls from Russian dignitaries and family members before participating in a safety briefing led by Expedition 29 commander Fossum.

Deorbit.

Soyuz TMA-22 undocked from the ISS on 27 April 2012 at 8:15 AM (GMT), carrying Burbank, Shkaplerov and Ivanishin, and landed safely near Arkalyk, Kazakhstan, at 11:45 AM the same day. The spacecraft's departure ended Expedition 30, and left astronauts Oleg Kononenko, André Kuipers and Don Pettit aboard the station to begin Expedition 31.

Soyuz TMA-22 was a crewed spaceflight to the International Space Station (ISS). TMA-22 was the 111th flight of a Soyuz spacecraft, and transported three members of the Expedition 29 crew to the ISS. The spacecraft docked to the ISS on 16 November 2011, and remained docked to serve as an emergency escape vehicle until its undocking on 27 April 2012. Soyuz TMA-22 successfully landed in Kazakhstan on 27 April 2012 11:45 GMT.

Sojus TMA-22 ist eine Missionsbezeichnung für den Flug des russischen Raumschiffs Sojus zur Internationalen Raumstation (ISS). Im Rahmen des ISS-Programms trägt der Flug die Bezeichnung ISS AF-28S. Es war der 28. Besuch eines Sojus-Raumschiffs an der ISS und der 134. Flug im Sojusprogramm. Die Mission war der letzte Flug des Sojus-TMA-Raumschiffs nach älterem Design mit analogen Computern. Mit dem Qualifizierungsflug Sojus TMA-03M ging der umgestaltete Nachfolger mit digitaler Technik nach zwei Testflügen in den normalen Betriebsmodus.


Background and release.

Gus Seyffert, Nicole Morier and Monica Birkenes wrote "Taken by a Stranger", while Stefan Raab and Reinhard Schaub handled its production. The song was originally penned by Seyffert in 2010 for Birkenes to record for a new studio album, but her label rejected it and eventually gave it to Lena. In an interview, Seyffert spoke of the song's development: "[Morier and I] squatted together and came up with a tempo and some chords to sing along to. We programmed a beat and I recorded a fast bass and guitar track. Then we took turns singing our melody ideas. When we finally had a tune, we began writing the lyrics." We Love Music released "Taken by a Stranger" as a CD single on 22 February 2011 in Germany. UMG made it available for digital download in various countries later in 2011. With a length of three minutes and twenty-five seconds on its initial release, the song was shortened to three minutes and two seconds to comply with Eurovision's contest rules and to enable Lena's participation.

Composition and lyrical interpretation.

"Taken by a Stranger" has been described as a "sombre", "mystical" and "mysterious" 1980s and grufti-influenced electropop song characterized by synthesizer sounds. It is composed in a metre, with its instrumentation consisting of "weird, spooky and confusing" sounds. An editor of German website Eurovision.de likened "Taken by a Stranger" to the material released by English band The Cure. Christina Rietz, writing for "Die Zeit", noted the lyrics' complexity and called the song a "sado-hymn". "The Guardian" Andrew Khan considered the recording a "wild-eyed piece of psychosexual drama".  Lyrically, "Taken by a Stranger" revolves around a male and a female who have come close to each other. The man wants to pursue a relationship but the woman leaves. Seyffert spoke of the song's lyrical message: "We decided on a story of a stranger, who seems a little threatening, or to whom the singer might become threatening. I think it is about expressing a fantasy to be together with a stranger." "The Guardian" speculated that "Taken by a Stranger" dealt with kidnapping. During the track's "mysterious" refrain, Lena sings several clipped sentences that cross rhyme: "Taken by a stranger/Stranger things are starting to begin/Lured into the danger/Trip me up and spin me round again." Lena sings selected words in the chorus in a way that matches the accentuation of two beats in the song's metre. Masen Abou-Dakn, then-lecturer at the University of Popular Music and Music Business in Mannheim, praised the song's hook as "[one] on which the listener gets stuck". He felt the mention of chairs and blindfolding in the song supports his view that it discusses sexual fantasy.

Reception and accolades.

"Taken by a Stranger" received mixed reviews from music critics. Tilmann Aretz of n-tv praised the song's power and picked it as one of his highlights on "Unser Song für Deutschland". Sebastian Leber, writing for "Der Tagesspiegel", praised the track for being "unusually modern" and predicted it would stand out among several uptempo songs at Eurovision. German actress Barbara Schöneberger and singer Adel Tawil, along with several publications, noted that "Taken by a Stranger" contradicted Lena's previous good girl public image. In a mixed review, "Bild" called "Taken by a Stranger" a great "electropop-hymn" but criticized its lack of a catchy melody. Vebooboo Nadella from Wiwibloggs criticized the song's long build-up to the refrain and questioned whether it would impress voters at Eurovision. At the 2011 1Live Krone Awards, "Taken by a Stranger" was nominated in the Best Single category.  Commercially, the track fared moderately on record charts. It debuted and peaked at number two in Germany in March 2011, lasting for 16 consecutive weeks on the chart. In Austria, "Taken by a Stranger" opened the Ö3 Austria Top 40 chart at number 32, eventually reaching its peak position at number 18 in May 2011; it spent eight weeks in the ranking. The song also peaked within the top 30 in Switzerland, the top 50 in Ireland and the top 100 in the Netherlands. In Belgium, "Taken by a Stranger" failed to enter the Ultratop chart in the Flanders and Wallonia regions, instead reaching the top 40 on the Ultratip extension in both territories.

Promotion and other usage.

An accompanying music video for "Taken by a Stranger" premiered on ARD on 24 February 2011, and was later uploaded to MySpassde's YouTube channel on 2 March 2011. Wolf Gresnz filmed it in Berlin, Germany. The video begins with a mirror breaking; Lena picks up the keys for a hotel room from its shards. Entering the room, the singer dances and looks around "grumpily". Following this, she gets ready in front of the bathroom mirror and "wrestles" with her reflection. The music video ends with Lena jumping into a mirror that breaks, with her disappearing. Scenes are interspersed throughout the clip's main plot, showing female background dancers wearing silver bodysuits, as well as the singer lying on a bed with a pug in her hands. At the 2012 Echo Awards, the video was nominated in the Best Video National category. "Taken by a Stranger" was promoted through several live performances. German group The BossHoss covered the song in a rock version during the fourth season of the German reality television series "Sing meinen Song – Das Tauschkonzert" (2017).

At Eurovision.

National selection.

After Lena won the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 with her song "Satellite", the Norddeutscher Rundfunk (NDR) confirmed that she would represent Germany a second time and opened a submission period for composers to submit their entries. Lena's song for Eurovision was selected by public televoting during "Unser Song für Deutschland", which consisted of two semi-finals, one final and the super final. "Taken by a Stranger" qualified from the first semi-final on 31 January 2011 with three other songs. It advanced to the super final from the final on 18 February 2011 alongside "Push Forward". "Taken by a Stranger" was ultimately selected as Germany's entry for the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 after receiving 79% of the televotes in the super final.

In Düsseldorf.

The Eurovision Song Contest 2011 took place at the Esprit Arena in Düsseldorf, Germany, and consisted of two semi-finals on 10 and 12 May, and the final on 14 May 2011. According to Eurovision rules all participating countries, except the host country and the "Big Five" (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom), were required to qualify from one semi-final to compete in the final; the top ten countries from their respective semi-final progressed to the final. There, Lena performed 16th, preceded by Moldova and followed by Romania.  During her show, Lena sang "Taken by a Stranger" on a dark stage in a "temple of white rays of light", sporting a black outfit and "skyscraper-high" high heels. She wore heavy make-up and had smoky eyes. Two female backing vocalists and three female background dancers accompanied the singer, each sporting silver elastic body suits. "TV Today" praised Lena's performance, noting her "most erotic hip swings" and "her lascivious look". An editor at Eurovision.de lauded the singer's facial expressions, feeling they enhanced the song's impact. "Oberösterreichische Nachrichten" noted Lena's sex appeal, while "The Guardian" compared her stage show to ones conducted by English singers Kate Nash and Cheryl. The newspaper likened the background dancers' outfits to those worn by Norwegian band Hole in the Wall. In her book "Performing the 'New' Europe", Karen Fricker wrote that Lena portrayed a femme fatale, comparing her sexualized appearance to German playwright Frank Wedekind 1895 "Lulu" play series.  Below is a breakdown of points awarded to Germany in the Grand Final of the contest. The country finished in tenth place with a total of 107 points, including ten awarded by Austria, and eight from Belarus, Denmark, Latvia and Switzerland. Overall, Germany came ninth by the public televote with 113 points and tenth by the juries with 104 points.

"Taken by a Stranger" is a song recorded by German singer Lena for her second studio album "Good News" (2011), released as a CD single on 22 February 2011 by We Love Music. Gus Seyffert, Nicole Morier and Monica Birkenes wrote the song, while production was handled by Stefan Raab and Reinhard Schaub. Seyffert had originally penned the track for Birkenes to record, but her label rejected it and it was eventually given to Lena. Musically, "Taken by a Stranger" is a 1980s and grufti-influenced electropop song characterized by synthesizer sounds. Lyrically, it revolves around the connection between two strangers. While compared to the works of English band The Cure by one reviewer, other speculated lyrical themes were sadomasochism, psychosexual development, kidnapping and sexual fantasy.

Taken by a Stranger (Englisch für „Fasziniert von einem Fremden“) ist ein englischsprachiger Popsong, mit dem die Interpretin Lena beim Eurovision Song Contest am 14. Mai 2011 in Düsseldorf den zehnten Platz erreichte. Er wurde von Gus Seyffert, Nicole Morier und Monica Birkenes geschrieben und von Stefan Raab und Reinhard Schaub für Lenas zweites Studioalbum "Good News" produziert.


Origins.

He was the only son of Edward Hawke, a barrister of Lincoln's Inn, by his wife Elizabeth Bladen, a daughter of Nathaniel Bladen of Hemsworth in Yorkshire, and widow of Col. Ruthven. Hawke benefited from the patronage of his maternal uncle Colonel Martin Bladen, a Member of Parliament.

Early life.

Hawke joined the navy as a volunteer in the sixth-rate on the North American Station in February 1720. Promoted to lieutenant on 2 June 1725, he transferred to the fifth-rate on the West Coast of Africa later that month, to the fourth-rate in the Channel Squadron in April 1729 and to the fourth-rate in November 1729. After that he moved to the fourth-rate HMS "Edinburgh" in the Mediterranean Fleet in May 1731, to the sixth-rate in January 1732 and to the fourth-rate, flagship of Commodore Sir Chaloner Ogle, Commander-in-Chief of the Jamaica Station, in December 1732.  After this, Hawke's career accelerated: promoted to commander on 13 April 1733, he became commanding officer of the sloop later that month and promoted to captain on 20 March 1734, he became commanding officer of the sixth-rate later that month. The following year he went on half-pay and did not go to sea again until July 1739 when he was recalled to become commanding officer of HMS "Portland" on the North American Station and was sent to cruise in the Caribbean with orders to escort British merchant ships. He did this successfully, although it meant his ship did not take part in the British attack on Porto Bello in November 1739 during the War of Jenkins' Ear.

Battle of Toulon.

Hawke became commanding officer of the third-rate in June 1743: he did not see action until the Battle of Toulon in February 1744 during the War of the Austrian Succession. The fight at Toulon was extremely confused, although Hawke had emerged from it with a degree of credit. While not a defeat for the British, they had failed to take an opportunity to comprehensively defeat the Franco-Spanish fleet when a number of British ships had not engaged the enemy, leading to a mass court martial. Hawke's ship managed to capture the only prize of the battle, the Spanish ship "Poder", although it was subsequently destroyed by the French. He was then given command of the second-rate in August 1745.

Battle of Cape Finisterre.

Despite having distinguished himself at Toulon, Hawke had few opportunities over the next three years. However, he was promoted to rear admiral on 15 July 1747 and appointed Second-in-Command of the Western Squadron, with his flag in the fourth-rate in August 1747. He went on to replace Admiral Peter Warren as the Commander-in-Chief, English Channel in charge of the Western Squadron, with his flag in the third-rate, in October 1747. Hawke then put a great deal of effort into improving the performance of his crews and instilling in them a sense of pride and patriotism. The Western Squadron had been established to keep a watch on the French Channel ports. Under a previous commander, Lord Anson, it had successfully contained the French coast and in May 1747 won the First Battle of Cape Finisterre when it attacked a large convoy leaving harbour. The British had received word that there was now an incoming convoy arriving from the West Indies. Hawke took his fleet and lay in wait for the arrival of the French. In October 1747, Hawke captured six ships of a French squadron in the Bay of Biscay in the Second Battle of Cape Finisterre. The consequence of this, along with Anson's earlier victory, was to give the British almost total control in the English Channel during the final months of the war. It proved ruinous to the French economy, helping the British to secure an acceptable peace at the negotiations for the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.

Peace.

For Hawke, however, the arrival of peace brought a sudden end to his opportunities for active service. In December 1747, he was elected as a Member of Parliament for the naval town of Portsmouth, which he was to represent for the next thirty years. He was not on good terms with the new First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Anson, although they shared similar views on how any future naval war against France should be waged. In spite of their personal disagreements, Anson had a deep respect for Hawke as an admiral, and pushed unsuccessfully for him to be given a place on the Admiralty board. Promoted to vice admiral on 26 May 1748, he became Port Admiral at Portsmouth serving in that post for three years. He was installed as a Knight Companion of the Order of the Bath (KB) on 26 June 1749 and was recalled as Port Admiral at Portsmouth in 1755.

Seven Years' War.

As it began to seem more likely that war would break out with France, Hawke was ordered to hoist his flag in the first-rate HMS "St George" and to reactivate the Western Squadron in Spring 1755. This was followed by a command to cruise off the coast of France intercepting ships bound for French harbours. He did this very successfully, and British ships captured more than 300 merchants ships during the period. This in turn further worsened relations between Britain and France, bringing them to the brink of declaring war. France would continue to demand the return of the captured merchant ships throughout the coming war. By early 1756, after repeated clashes in North America, and deteriorating relations in Europe, the two sides were formally at war.

Fall of Menorca.

Hawke was sent to replace Admiral John Byng as commander in the Mediterranean, with orders to hoist his flag in the second-rate HMS "Ramillies", in June 1756. Byng had been unable to relieve Menorca (historically called "Minorca" by the British) following the Battle of Minorca and he was sent back to Britain where he was tried and executed. Almost as soon as Menorca had fallen in June 1756, the French fleet had withdrawn to Toulon in case they were attacked by Hawke. Once he arrived off Menorca, Hawke found that the island had surrendered and there was little he could do to reverse this. He decided not to land the troops he had brought with him from Gibraltar. Hawke then spent three months cruising off Menorca and Marseille before returning home where he gave evidence against Byng. Hawke was subsequently criticised by some supporters of Byng, for not having blockaded either Menorca or Toulon. He was promoted to full admiral on 24 February 1757.

Descent on Rochefort.

Hawke blockaded Rochefort in 1757 and later in the year he was selected to command a naval escort that would land a large force on the coast of France. The expedition arrived off the coast of Rochefort in September. After storming the offshore island of Île-d'Aix, the army commander Sir John Mordaunt hesitated before proceeding with the landing on the mainland. Despite a report by Colonel James Wolfe that they would be able to capture Rochefort, Mordaunt was reluctant to attack. Hawke then offered an ultimatum – either the Generals attacked immediately or he would sail for home. His fleet was needed to protect an inbound convoy from the West Indies, and could not afford to sit indefinitely off Rochefort. Mourdaunt hastily agreed, and the expedition returned to Britain without having made any serious attempt on the town. The failure of the expedition led to an inquiry which recommended the court-martial of Mordaunt, which commenced on 14 December 1757 and at which he was acquitted.  In 1758 Hawke directed the blockade of Brest for six months. In 1758 he was involved in a major altercation with his superiors at the Admiralty which saw him strike his flag and return to port over a misunderstanding at which he took offence. Although he later apologised, he was severely reprimanded. In Hawke's absence the Channel Fleet was placed under the direct command of Lord Anson.

Battle of Quiberon Bay.

In May 1759 Hawke was restored to the command of the Western Squadron. Meanwhile, the Duc de Choiseul was planning a French invasion of Britain. A French army was assembled in Brittany, with plans to combine the separate French fleets so they could seize control of the English Channel and allow the invasion force to cross and capture London. When Hawke's force was driven off station by a storm, the French fleet under Hubert de Brienne, Comte de Conflans, took advantage and left port. During a gale on 20 November 1759 Hawke took the risky decision to follow French warships in to an area of shoals and rocky islands. The British unlike the French had no maps or knowledge of the area and the French admiral fully expected the British ships to wreck themselves in the dangerous waters. Hawke ordered the Master of his ship to follow the French admiral in to these waters. The Master of the Royal George, Hawke's flagship, is said to have remonstrated as to the danger of doing so, further compounded by a lee-shore. To this Hawke gave his famous reply "You have done your duty Sir, now lay me alongside the Soleil Royal". He won a sufficient victory in the Battle of Quiberon Bay, that when combined with admiral Edward Boscawen's victory at the Battle of Lagos, the French invasion threat was removed. Although he had effectively put the French channel fleet out of action for the remainder of the war, Hawke was disappointed he had not secured a more comprehensive victory asserting that had he had two more hours of daylight the whole enemy fleet would have been taken.

Blockade of France.

Although Hawke's victory at Quiberon Bay ended any immediate hope of a major invasion of Great Britain, the French continued to entertain hopes of a future invasion for the remainder of the war, which drove the British to keep a tight blockade on the French coast. This continued to starve French ports of commerce, further weakening France's economy. After a spell in England, Hawke returned to take command of the blockading fleet off Brest. The British were now effectively mounting a blockade of the French coast from Dunkirk to Marseille. Hawke attempted to destroy some of the remaining French warships, which he had trapped in the Vilaine Estuary. He sent in fire ships but these failed to accomplish the task. Hawke developed a plan for landing on the coast, seizing a peninsula, and attacking the ships from land. However he was forced to abandon this when orders reached him from Pitt for a much larger expedition.

Capture of Belle Île.

In an effort to further undermine the French, Pitt had conceived the idea of seizing the island of Belle Île, off the coast of Brittany and asked the navy to prepare for an expedition to take it. Hawke made his opposition clear in a letter to Anson, which was subsequently widely circulated. Pitt was extremely annoyed by this, considering that Hawke had overstepped his authority. Nonetheless Pitt pressed ahead with the expedition against Belle Île. An initial assault in April 1761 was repulsed with heavy loss but, reinforced, the British successfully captured the island in June. Although the capture of the island provided another victory for Pitt, and lowered the morale of the French public by showing that the British could now occupy parts of Metropolitan France – Hawke's criticisms of its strategic usefulness were borne out. It was not a useful staging point for further raids on the coast and the French were not especially concerned about its loss, telling Britain during subsequent peace negotiations that they would offer nothing in exchange for it and Britain could keep it if they wished.

First Lord of the Admiralty.

Hawke then retired from active duty, and became Rear-Admiral of Great Britain on 4 January 1763 and Vice-Admiral of Great Britain on 5 November 1765. He was made First Lord of the Admiralty in the Chatham Ministry in December 1766 and promoted to Admiral of the Fleet on 15 January 1768. His appointment drew on his expertise on naval matters, as he did little to enhance the government politically. During his time as First Lord, Hawke was successful in bringing the navy's spending under control. He also oversaw the mobilisation of the navy during the Falklands Crisis in 1770 and was then succeeded as First Lord by Lord Sandwich in January 1771.  Hawke was influential in the decision to give Captain James Cook command of his first expedition that left in 1768. When at a meeting in the Royal Geographical Society it was suggested that a civilian should lead the expedition Hawke is supposed to have remarked that, he would sooner have his right hand cut off than allow this to happen. Cook named a series of prominent places that he came across in the 'New World' after Hawke as a sign of his gratitude.  Hawke was created Baron Hawke "of Towton" (in which Yorkshire parish was situated his residence of Scarthingwell Hall, inherited by his wife) on 20 May 1776. Towards the end of his life he had his country house built in Sunbury-on-Thames and lived alternately there and at a rented home in North Stoneham, Hampshire. He died at his house in Sunbury-on-Thames on 17 October 1781 and was buried at St. Nicolas' Church, North Stoneham.

Cultural references.

His memorial, carved by John Francis Moore and depicting the Battle of Quiberon Bay, is in St. Nicolas' Church, North Stoneham  In the iconic 1883 novel Treasure Island, Robert Louis Stevenson has Long John Silver claim that he "Served in the Royal Navy and lost his leg under "the immortal Hawke"."  Places named after Hawke include:

Marriage and issue.

In 1737 he married Catherine Brooke, the only the daughter and sole heiress of Walter Brooke (1695-1722) of Burton Hall, Gateforth near Hull and of Gateforth Hall in Yorkshire, by his wife Catherine Hammond (d.1721) daughter and heiress of William Hammond of Scarthingwell Hall, in the parish of Towton, Yorkshire. Hawke made his home at Scarthingwell Hall and took for his barony the territorial designation "of Towton" from the parish in which it was situated. By his wife he had three sons and one daughter, who survived, and three children who died in infancy.

Admiral of the Fleet Edward Hawke, 1st Baron Hawke, KB, PC (21 February 1705 – 17 October 1781), of Scarthingwell Hall in the parish of Towton, near Tadcaster, Yorkshire, was a Royal Navy officer. As captain of the third-rate he took part in the Battle of Toulon in February 1744 during the War of the Austrian Succession. He also captured six ships of a French squadron in the Bay of Biscay in the Second Battle of Cape Finisterre in October 1747.

Edward Hawke, 1. Baron Hawke KB PC (* 21. Februar 1705 in London; † 17. Oktober 1781 in Sunbury, Middlesex) war ein englischer Admiral. Er siegte unter anderem in der Seeschlacht am Kap Finisterre und in der Seeschlacht in der Bucht von Quiberon. Zuletzt war er Erster Lord der Admiralität.


Biography.

Zuckermann was born in Tel Aviv in 1971 and raised in Eilat. He studied at the United World College (UWC) of the Adriatic in 1987–1989. In 1997 he received an M.A. in Linguistics from the Adi Lautman Interdisciplinary Programme for Outstanding Students of Tel Aviv University. In 1997–2000 he was Scatcherd European Scholar of the University of Oxford and Denise Skinner Graduate Scholar at St Hugh's College, receiving a D.Phil. (Oxon.) in 2000. As Gulbenkian Research Fellow at Churchill College, Cambridge (2000–2004), he was affiliated with the Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Modern and Medieval Studies, University of Cambridge. He received a titular Ph.D. (Cantab.) in 2003.  He taught at the University of Cambridge (Faculty of Oriental Studies, now known as Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies), University of Queensland, National University of Singapore, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, East China Normal University, University of Miami, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, University of Pavol Jozef Šafárik and Middlebury College. In 2010-2015 he was China's Ivy League Project 211 "Distinguished Visiting Professor", and "Shanghai Oriental Scholar" professorial fellow, at Shanghai International Studies University.  He was Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Fellow in 2007-2011 and was awarded research fellowships at the Rockefeller Foundation's Bellagio Study and Conference CenterVilla Serbelloni, Bellagio, Lake Como, Italy); Braginsky Center, Weizmann Institute of Science; Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center (University of Texas at Austin); Israel Institute for Advanced Studies (Hebrew University of Jerusalem); Tel Aviv University; Research Centre for Linguistic Typology (Institute for Advanced Study, La Trobe University, Melbourne); National Institute for Japanese Language (Tokyo); and Mahidol University. He was awarded a British Academy Research Grant, Memorial Foundation of Jewish Culture Postdoctoral Fellowship, Harold Hyam Wingate Scholarship and Chevening Scholarship.  Currently, Zuckermann is Professor of Linguistics and Chair of Endangered Languages at the University of Adelaide. He is elected member of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and the Foundation for Endangered Languages. He serves as Editorial Board member of the Journal of Language Contact (Brill), consultant for the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), and expert witness in (corpus) lexicography and (forensic) linguistics.  Since 2017 he has been the President of the Australian Association for Jewish Studies (AAJS). In 2013-2015 he was President of the Australasian Association of Lexicography (AustraLex).  In 2017 Zuckermann was awarded a five-year research project grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) "to explore the effects of Indigenous language reclamation on social and emotional wellbeing".  Zuckermann is a hyperpolyglot.

Public impact.

Zuckermann applies insights from the Hebrew revival to the revitalization of Aboriginal languages in Australia. According to Yuval Rotem, the Israeli Ambassador to Australia, Zuckermann's "passion for the reclamation, maintenance and empowerment of Aboriginal languages and culture inspired [him] and was indeed the driving motivator of" the establishment of the Allira Aboriginal Knowledge IT Centre in Dubbo, New South Wales, Australia, on 2 September 2010.  He proposes "Native Tongue Title", compensation for language loss, because "linguicide" results in "loss of cultural autonomy, loss of spiritual and intellectual sovereignty, loss of soul". He uses the term sleeping beauty to refer to a no-longer spoken language and urges Australia "to define the 330 Aboriginal languages, most of them sleeping beauties, as the official languages of their region", and to introduce bilingual signs and thus change the linguistic landscape of the country. "So, for example, Port Lincoln should also be referred to as Galinyala, which is its original Barngarla name." His edX MOOC "Language Revival: Securing the Future of Endangered Languages" has had 20,000 learners from 190 countries.  Zuckermann proposes a controversial hybrid theory of the emergence of Israeli Hebrew according to which Hebrew and Yiddish "acted equally" as the "primary contributors" to Modern Hebrew. Scholars including Yiddish linguist Dovid Katz (who refers to Zuckermann as a "fresh-thinking Israeli scholar"), adopt Zuckermann's term "Israeli" and accept his notion of hybridity. Others, for example author and translator Hillel Halkin, oppose Zuckermann's model. In an article published on 24 December 2004 in The Jewish Daily Forward, pseudonymous column "Philologos", Halkin accused Zuckermann of political agenda. Zuckermann's response was published on 28 December 2004 in "The Mendele Review: Yiddish Literature and Language".  As described by Reuters in a 2006 article, "Zuckermann's lectures are packed, with the cream of Israeli academia invariably looking uncertain on whether to endorse his innovative streak or rise to the defense of the mother tongue." According to Omri Herzog ("Haaretz"), Zuckermann "is considered by his Israeli colleagues either a genius or a provocateur".

Reclamation of the Barngarla language.

"In 2011 [...] Zuckermann contacted the Barngarla community about helping to revive and reclaim the Barngarla language. This request was eagerly accepted by the Barngarla people and language reclamation workshops began in Port Lincoln, Whyalla and Port Augusta in 2012" (Barngarla man Stephen Atkinson, 2013). The reclamation is based on 170-year-old documents.

Adelaide Language Festival.

Zuckermann is the founder and convener of the Adelaide Language Festival.

Contributions to linguistics.

Zuckermann's research focuses on contact linguistics, lexicology, revivalistics, Jewish languages, and the study of language, culture and identity.  Zuckermann argues that Israeli Hebrew, which he calls "Israeli", is a hybrid language that is genetically both Indo-European (Germanic, Slavic and Romance) and Afro-Asiatic (Semitic). He suggests that "Israeli" is the continuation not only of literary Hebrew(s) but also of Yiddish, as well as Polish, Russian, German, English, Ladino, Arabic and other languages spoken by Hebrew revivalists.  Zuckermann's hybridic synthesis is in contrast to both the traditional revival thesis (i.e. that "Israeli" is Hebrew revived) and the relexification antithesis (i.e. that "Israeli" is Yiddish with Hebrew words). While his synthesis is multi-parental, both the thesis and the antithesis are mono-parental.  Zuckermann introduces revivalistics as a new transdisciplinary field of enquiry surrounding language reclamation (e.g. Barngarla), revitalization (e.g. Adnyamathanha) and reinvigoration (e.g. Irish). Complementing documentary linguistics, revivalistics aims to provide a systematic analysis especially of attempts to resurrect no-longer spoken languages (reclamation) but also of initiatives to reverse language shift (revitalization and reinvigoration).  His analysis of multisourced neologization (the coinage of words deriving from two or more sources at the same time) challenges Einar Haugen's classic typology of lexical borrowing. Whereas Haugen categorizes borrowing into either substitution or importation, Zuckermann explores cases of "simultaneous substitution and importation" in the form of camouflaged borrowing. He proposes a new classification of multisourced neologisms such as phono-semantic matching.  Zuckermann's exploration of phono-semantic matching in Standard Mandarin and Meiji period Japanese concludes that the Chinese writing system is multifunctional: pleremic ("full" of meaning, e.g. logographic), cenemic ("empty" of meaning, e.g. phonographic – like a syllabary) and simultaneously cenemic and pleremic (phono-logographic). He argues that Leonard Bloomfield's assertion that "a language is the same no matter what system of writing may be used" is inaccurate. "If Chinese had been written using roman letters, thousands of Chinese words would not have been coined, or would have been coined with completely different forms".

Selected publications.

Zuckermann has published in English, Hebrew, Italian, Yiddish, Spanish, German, Russian, Arabic and Chinese.

Ghil'ad Zuckermann (, ; ) is an Israeli-born language revivalist and linguist who works in contact linguistics, lexicology and the study of language, culture and identity. Zuckermann is Professor of Linguistics and Chair of Endangered Languages at the University of Adelaide, Australia.

Ghil’ad Zuckermann ( 1. Juni 1971 in Tel Aviv) ist ein israelo-australischer Sprachwissenschaftler. Er ist Professor für Linguistik an der Universität Adelaide in Australien und ein Vertreter der Sprachwiederbelebung. Er spricht 13 Sprachen.


Purpose and origins.

Attack ads that criticize an opponent's political platform quickly rose to popularity in United States since the 1960s. In more recent times these ads became increasingly ad hominem attacks, some of them appearing to be anonymous, that discouraged voters. Proponents of the Stand By Your Ad provision, such as Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) who sponsored the provision in the BCRA, advocate that by forcing candidates to associate themselves with their attacks in the ads, voters would be more inclined to punish them for using such a strategy, thus discouraging candidates from campaigning in such a manner.  The earliest roots of the provision can be traced to the 1996 Senate election in Minnesota, where a grassroots movement known as "Minnesota Compact" attempted to combat negative campaigning that was rampant in the state, though what was proposed remained voluntary.  In 1999, the "Stand By Your Ad" provision was brought up again, this time in the 1999 North Carolina General Assembly. The "Campaign Reform Act" S.881 was ratified and signed into state law on July 21, 1999. This required candidates or its campaign committee (in this example, for television ads) to:  Following the perceived success of the "Stand By Your Ad" provision in North Carolina state law in reducing negative campaigning, similar measures were introduced into other state legislatures. Two years later, a bill was introduced in Congress to extend this provision to Federal law. It was eventually absorbed into the BCRA, which addressed the issue of financing of political campaigns, that was signed into law by George W. Bush on March 27, 2002.

Implementation.

Under Section 311 of the BCRA, Section 318 the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441d) was amended to include the "Stand By Your Ad" provision. Representative David Price of North Carolina proposed the amendment, modeling after the North Carolina law. Price stated that "The American people are sick of the relentlessly negative tone of campaigns, particularly in presidential races. "Stand by your ad" isn't just about restoring civility to campaigns. It's also about restoring people's faith in our political process."  The most prominent effect was on television ads, which now required candidates to provide:  The phrase can be said at any point during the ad, but is typically inserted at the beginning or the end. The provision also covers radio advertising, in which the voice of the candidate approving the communication is required.  If the advertisement is not in English, the phrase is given in the same language; in the 2004 presidential election for example, George W. Bush's Spanish-language advertisements ended with the message ""Soy George W. Bush y aprobé este mensaje"".  Failure to comply may result in penalties from the Federal Election Commission, but more importantly, loss of the "lowest rate" status for political ads, for the entire duration of the campaign. However, this rule is enforced at the discretion of the station manager, and often only through legal action by the opposing candidate. For example, in the 2008 Minnesota senate election, challenger Al Franken accused Senator Norm Coleman of omitting 1.1 seconds of the required visual of the candidate, a mistake that could potentially double the advertising rates and costs millions to Coleman's campaign. Including Coleman at the same duration of campaigning, Republicans in four Senate state races were subject to investigation by the Federal Election Commission and Federal Communications Commission for allegedly short-changing on "Stand By Your Ad" disclaimer.

Online advertising.

The "Stand By Your Ad" requirements do not cover any form of advertising over the Internet. Campaigns now regard the Internet a medium that is as important as television, radio and print advertising, or perhaps even more important due to its cost-effectiveness and rate of propagation. The more creative the advertisement, the higher the required budget.  Candidates have been known to take the mudslinging online, hoping that it would create sufficient controversy that media outlets would afford the coverage it needed without associating themselves to the attack. During the 2004 presidential election for instance, George W. Bush's campaign produced a web video with the conclusion ""Kerry (D-MA)Brought to you by the special interests"" and sent it out to six million supporters via email. Another known tactic is for any campaign or person to upload an exclusive online attack ad, known or anonymously, on a video-sharing website such as YouTube without taking any credit for it. This was highlighted by the media after an anonymous editor uploaded a parody 1984 ad depicting Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) as "Big Brother" during the 2008 Democratic primaries, which garnered over five million views online.  Wyden has since proposed to extend the requirement to political advertising on the Internet. The sequel "Stand By Your Internet Ad Act" was introduced into the United States Congress on April 12, 2005, but has received little momentum since.

Reception.

Howard Dean, who ran for the 2004 Democratic nomination, took some unwarranted attacks from people who were not aware of the act, who thought he was being self-important or obvious in the phrasing. While opponents of the provision at its time of introduction lodged challenges in court that it would violate the First Amendment, others believed that the law merely stiffened disclaimer guidelines and had no effect on limiting free speech.  Campaigns have lamented that the seconds used for the candidates to approve the communication results in less time for them to communicate their message, increasing their costs of campaigning. One media adviser mentioned that the requirement reduced the number of positive spots that the producer can have. Other candidates, however, regard it as an opportunity to affirm or encapsulate the theme of their message: "I'm Tom Kean, Jr. Together, we can break the back of corruption. That's why I approved this message."  A study by Brigham Young University, however, revealed that advertisements where the candidate has approved the communication had a more positive impact in comparison to those that did not, regardless of whether they knew the candidates well. It also concluded that the provision made viewers have more confidence that the political campaigns were run in a truthful and fair manner.

Use outside campaign advertising.

Although rarely noted by pundits during the course of congressional debate, the provision became one of the most recognized—and joked about—changes in the content of television ads.  Several politicians have made references to the phrase in aspects of their campaign outside radio or television advertising. In the 2006 elections, Senator Joseph Lieberman declared "I approve this election" in his acceptance speech, following his victory as a third-party candidate (Connecticut for Lieberman). Just before the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton made news by announcing that "she did not approve this message" in reference to the John McCain campaign using clips of her attacking Barack Obama during the Democratic primaries.

The "Stand By Your Ad" provision (SBYA) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, also known as McCain–Feingold Act), enacted in 2002, requires candidates in the United States for federal political office, as well as interest groups and political parties supporting or opposing a candidate, to include in political advertisements on television and radio "a statement by the candidate that identifies the candidate and states that the candidate has approved the communication". The provision was intended to force political candidates running any campaign for office in the United States to associate themselves with their television and radio advertising, thereby discouraging them from making controversial claims or attack ads.

„I approve this message“ (englisch für „Ich billige diese Botschaft“, manchmal auch in der Past Tense oder mit "„authorize“" statt "„approve“" oder "„ad“" statt "„message“") ist eine Phrase in der US-Politik, die von Kandidaten für bundesweite Ämter, etwa für das Präsidentenamt, in Fernseh- und Radiowerbeeinschaltungen gesagt werden muss.


Background.

Biometric security strengthens user authentication but, until recently, also implied important risks to personal privacy. Indeed, while compromised passwords can be easily replaced and are not personally identifiable information(PII), biometric data is considered highly sensitive due to its personal nature, unique association with users, and the fact that compromised biometrics (biometric templates) cannot be revoked or replaced. Private biometrics have been developed to address this challenge. Private Biometrics provide the necessary biometric authentication while simultaneously minimizing user's privacy exposure through the use of one-way, fully homomorphic encryption.  The Biometric Open Protocol Standard, IEEE 2410-2018, was updated in 2018 to include private biometrics and stated that the one-way fully homomorphic encrypted feature vectors, “...bring a new level of consumer privacy assurance by keeping biometric data encrypted both at rest and in transit.” The "Biometric Open Protocol Standard (BOPS III)" also noted a key benefit of private biometrics was the new standard allowed for simplification of the API since the biometric payload was always one-way encrypted and therefore had no need for key management.

Fully homomorphic cryptosystems for biometrics.

Historically, biometric matching techniques have been unable to operate in the encrypted space and have required the biometric to be visible (unencrypted) at specific points during search and match operations. This decrypt requirement made large-scale search across encrypted biometrics (“1:many identify”) infeasible due to both significant overhead issues (e.g. complex key management and significant data storage and processing requirements) and the substantial risk that the biometrics were vulnerable to loss when processed in plaintext within the application or operating system (see FIDO Alliance, for example).  Biometric security vendors complying with data privacy laws and regulations (including Apple FaceID, Samsung, Google) therefore focused their efforts on the simpler 1:1 verify problem and were unable to overcome the large computational demands required for linear scan to solve the 1:many identify problem.  Today, private biometric cryptosystems overcome these limitations and risks through the use of one-way, fully homomorphic encryption. This form of encryption allows computations to be carried out on ciphertext, allows the match to be conducted on an encrypted dataset without decrypting the reference biometric, and returns an encrypted match result. Matching in the encrypted space offers the highest levels of accuracy, speed and privacy and eliminates the risks associated with decrypting biometrics.

Accuracy: same as plaintext (99%).

The private biometric feature vector is much smaller (0.05% the size of the original biometric template) but yet maintains the same accuracy as the original plaintext reference biometric. In testing using Google's unified embedding for face recognition and clustering CNN (“Facenet”), Labeled Faces in the Wild (LFW) (source), and other open source faces, private biometric feature vectors returned the same accuracy as plaintext facial recognition. Using an 8MB facial biometric, one vendor reported an accuracy rate of 98.7%. The same vendor reported accuracy increased to 99.99% when using three 8MB facial biometrics and a vote algorithm (best two out of 3) to predict.  As the quality of the facial biometric image declined, accuracy degraded very slowly. For 256kB facial images (3% the quality of an 8MB picture), the same vendor reported 96.3% accuracy and that the neural network was able to maintain similar accuracy through boundary conditions including extreme cases of light or background.

Speed: polynomial search (same as plaintext).

The private biometric feature vector is 4kB and contains 128 floating point numbers. In contrast, plaintext biometric security instances (including Apple Face ID) currently use 7MB to 8MB reference facial biometrics (templates). By using the much smaller feature vector, the resulting search performance is less than one second per prediction using a datastore of 100 million open source faces (“polynomial search”). The private biometric test model used for these results was Google's unified embedding for face recognition and clustering CNN (“Facenet”), Labeled Faces in the Wild (LFW) (source), and other open source faces.

Privacy: full compliance with privacy regulations worldwide.

As with all ideal one-way cryptographic hash functions, decrypt keys do not exist for private biometrics so it is infeasible to generate the original biometric message from the private biometric feature vector (its hash value) except by trying all possible messages. Unlike passwords, however, no two instances of a biometric are exactly the same or, stated in another way, there is no constant biometric value, so a brute force attack using all possible faces would only produce an approximate (fuzzy) match. Privacy and fundamental human rights are therefore guaranteed.  Specifically, the private biometric feature vector is produced by a one-way cryptographic hash algorithm that maps plaintext biometric data of arbitrary size to a small feature vector of a fixed size (4kB) that is mathematically impossible to invert. The one-way encryption algorithm is typically achieved using a pre-trained convolutional neural network (CNN), which takes a vector of arbitrary real-valued scores and squashes it to a 4kB vector of values between zero and one that sum to one. It is mathematically impossible to reconstruct the original plaintext image from a private biometric feature vector of 128 floating point numbers.

One-way encryption, history and modern use.

One-way encryptions offer unlimited privacy by containing no mechanism to reverse the encryption and disclose the original data. Once a value is processed through a one-way hash, it is not possible to discover to the original value (hence the name “one-way”).

History.

The first one-way encryptions were likely developed by James H. Ellis, Clifford Cocks, and Malcolm Williamson at the UK intelligence agency GCHQ during the 1960s and 1970s and were published independently by Diffie and Hellman in 1976 (History of cryptography). Common modern one-way encryption algorithms, including MD5 (message digest) and SHA-512 (secure hash algorithm) are similar to the first such algorithms in that they also contain no mechanism to disclose the original data. The output of these modern one-way encryptions offer high privacy but are not homomorphic, meaning that the results of the one-way encryptions do not allow high order math operations (such as match). For example, we cannot use two SHA-512 sums to compare the closeness of two encrypted documents. This limitation makes it impossible for these one-way encryptions to be used to support classifying models in machine learning—or nearly anything else.

Modern use.

The first one-way, homomorphically encrypted, Euclidean-measurable feature vector for biometric processing was proposed in a paper by Streit, Streit and Suffian in 2017. In this paper, the authors theorized and also demonstrated using a small sample size (n=256 faces) that (1) it was possible to use neural networks to build a cryptosystem for biometrics that produced one-way, fully homomorphic feature vectors composed of normalized floating-point values; (2) the same neural network would also be useful for 1:1 verification (matching); and (3) the same neural network would not be useful in 1:many identification tasks since search would occur in linear time (i.e. non polynomial). The paper's first point was (in theory) later shown to be true, and the papers first, second and third points were later shown to be true only for small samples but not for larger samples.  A later tutorial (blog posting) by Mandel in 2018 demonstrated a similar approach to Streit, Streit and Suffian and confirmed using a Frobenius 2 distance function to determine the closeness of two feature vectors. In this posting, Mandel used a Frobenius 2 distance function to determine the closeness of two feature vectors and also demonstrated successful 1:1 verification. Mandel did not offer a scheme for 1:many identification as this method would have required a non polynomial full linear scan of the entire database. The Streit, Streit and Suffian paper attempted a novel “banding” approach for 1:many identification in order to mitigate the full linear scan requirement, but it is now understood that this approach produced too much overlap to help in identification.

First production implementation.

The first claimed commercial implementation of private biometrics, Private.id, was published by Private Identity, LLC in May 2018 by using the same method to provide 1:many identification in polynomial time across a large biometrics database (100 million faces).  On the client device, Private.id transforms each reference biometric (template) into a one-way, fully homomorphic, Euclidean-measurable feature vector using matrix multiplication from the neural network that may then be stored locally or transmitted. The original biometric is deleted immediately after the feature vector is computed or, if the solution is embedded in firmware, the biometric is transient and never stored. Once the biometric is deleted, it is no longer possible to lose or compromise the biometric. The Private.id feature vector can be used in one of two ways. If the feature vector is stored locally, it may be used to compute 1:1 verification with high accuracy (99% or greater) using linear mathematics. If the feature vector is also stored in a Cloud, the feature vector may also be used as input for a neural network to perform 1:many identification with the same accuracy, speed and privacy as the original plaintext reference biometric (template).

Compliance.

Private biometrics use the following two properties in deriving compliance with biometric data privacy laws and regulations worldwide. First, the private biometrics encryption is a one-way encryption, so loss of privacy by decryption is mathematically impossible and privacy is therefore guaranteed. Second, since no two instances of a biometric are exactly the same or, stated in another way, there is no constant biometric value, the private biometrics one-way encrypted feature vector is Euclidean Measureable in order to provide a mechanism to determine a fuzzy match in which two instances of the same identity are “closer” than two instances of a different identity.

IEEE Biometric Open Protocol Standard (BOPS III).

The IEEE 2410-2018 Biometric Open Protocol Standard was updated in 2018 to include private biometrics. The specification stated that one-way fully homomorphic encrypted feature vectors, “bring a new level of consumer privacy assurance by keeping biometric data encrypted both at rest and in transit.” "IEEE 2410-2018" also noted a key benefit of private biometrics is that the new standard allows for simplification of the API since the biometric payload is always one-way encrypted and there is no need for key management.

Discussion: passive encryption and data security compliance.

Private biometrics enables passive encryption (encryption at rest), the most difficult requirement of the US Department of Defense Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC). No other cryptosystem or method provides operations on rested encrypted data, so passive encryption—an unfulfilled requirement of the TCSEC since 1983, is no longer an issue.  Private biometrics technology is an enabling technology for applications and operating systems—but itself does not directly address—the auditing and constant protection concepts introduced in the TCSEC.

US DoD Standard Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC).

Private biometrics, as implemented in a system that conforms to IEEE 2410-2018 BOPS III, satisfies the privacy requirements of the US Department of Defense Standard Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC). The TCSEC sets the basic requirements for assessing the effectiveness of computer security controls built into a computer system (“Orange Book, section B1”). Today, the applications and operating systems contain features that comply with TCSEC levels C2 and B1 except they lack homomorphic encryption and so do not process data encrypted at rest. We typically, if not always, obtained waivers, because there was not a known work around. Adding private biometrics to these operating systems and applications resolves this issue.  For example, consider the case of a typical MySQL database. To query MySQL in a reasonable period of time, we need data that maps to indexes that maps to queries that maps to end user data. To do this, we work with plaintext. The only way to encrypt this is to encrypt the entire data store, and to decrypt the entire data store, prior to use. Since data use is constant, the data is never encrypted. Thus, in the past we would apply for waivers because there was no known work around. Now using private biometrics, we can match and do operations on data that is always encrypted.

Private biometrics, as implemented in a system that conforms to IEEE 2410-2018 BOPS III, comply with the standards of the Multiple Independent Levels of Security/Safety (MILS) architecture. MILS builds on the Bell and La Padula theories on secure systems that represent the foundational theories of the US DoD Standard Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC), or the DoD “Orange Book.” (See paragraphs above.)  Private biometrics’ high-assurance security architecture is based on the concepts of separation and controlled information flow and implemented using only mechanisms that support trustworthy components, thus the security solution is non-bypassable, evaluable, always invoked and tamper proof. This is achieved using the one-way encrypted feature vector, which elegantly allows only encrypted data (and never stores or processes plaintext) between security domains and through trustworthy security monitors.  Specifically, private biometrics systems are:

History.

Implicit authentication and private equality testing.

Unsecure biometric data are sensitive due to their nature and how they can be used. Implicit authentication is a common practice when using passwords, as a user may prove knowledge of a password without actually revealing it. However, two biometric measurements of the same person may differ, and this fuzziness of biometric measurements renders implicit authentication protocols useless in the biometrics domain.  Similarly, private equality testing, where two devices or entities want to check whether the values that they hold are the same without presenting them to each other or to any other device or entity, is well practiced and detailed solutions have been published. However, since two biometrics of the same person may not be equal, these protocols are also ineffective in the biometrics domain. For instance, if the two values differ in τ bits, then one of the parties may need to present 2τ candidate values for checking.

Homomorphic encryption.

Prior to the introduction of private biometrics, biometric techniques required the use of plaintext search for matching so each biometric was required to be visible (unencrypted) at some point in the search process. It was recognized that it would be beneficial to instead conduct matching on an encrypted dataset.  Encrypt match is typically accomplished using one-way encryption algorithms, meaning that given the encrypted data, there is no mechanism to get to the original data. Common one-way encryption algorithms are MD5 and SHA-512. However, these algorithms are not homomorphic, meaning that there is no way to compare the closeness of two samples of encrypted data, and thus no means to compare. The inability to compare renders any form of classifying model in machine learning untenable.  Homomorphic encryption is a form of encryption that allows computations to be carried out on ciphertext, thus generating an encrypted match result. Matching in the encrypted space using a one-way encryption offers the highest level of privacy. With a payload of feature vectors one-way encrypted, there is no need to decrypt and no need for key management.  A promising method of homomorphic encryption on biometric data is the use of machine learning models to generate feature vectors. For black-box models, such as neural networks, these vectors can not by themselves be used to recreate the initial input data and are therefore a form of one-way encryption. However, the vectors are euclidean measurable, so similarity between vectors can be calculated. This process allows for biometric data to be homomorphically encrypted.  For instance if we consider facial recognition performed with the Euclidean Distance, when we match two face images using a neural network, first each face is converted to a float vector, which in the case of Google's FaceNet, is of size 128. The representation of this float vector is arbitrary and cannot be reverse-engineered back to the original face. Indeed, the matrix multiplication from the neural network then becomes the vector of the face, is Euclidean measurable but unrecognizable, and cannot map back to any image.

Prior approaches used to solve private biometrics.

Prior to the availability of private biometrics, research focused on ensuring the prover's biometric would be protected against misuse by a dishonest verifier through the use of partially homomorphic data or decrypted(plaintext) data coupled with a private verification function intended to shield private data from the verifier. This method introduced a computational and communication overhead which was computationally inexpensive for 1:1 verification but proved infeasible for large 1:many identification requirements.  From 1998 to 2018 cryptographic researchers pursued four independent approaches to solve the problem: cancelable biometrics, BioHashing, Biometric Cryptosystems, and two-way partially homomorphic encryption.

Feature transformation approach.

The feature transformation approach “transformed” biometric feature data to random data through the use of a client-specific key or password. Examples of this approach included "biohashing" and cancelable biometrics. The approach offered reasonable performance but was found to be insecure if the client-specific key was compromised.  Cancelable Biometrics The first use of indirect biometric templates (later called cancelable biometrics) was proposed in 1998 by Davida, Frankel and Matt. Three years later, Ruud Bolle, Nilini Ratha and Jonathan Connell, working in IBM's Exploratory Computer Vision Group, proposed the first concrete idea of cancelable biometrics.  Cancelable biometrics were defined in these communications as biometric templates that were unique for every application and that, if lost, could be easily cancelled and replaced. The solution was (at the time) thought to provide higher privacy levels by allowing multiple templates to be associated with the same biometric data by storing only the transformed (hashed) version of the biometric template. The solution was also promoted for its ability to prevent linkage of the user's biometric data across various databases since only a transformed version of the biometric template (and not the unencrypted (plaintext) biometric template) was stored for later use.  Cancelable biometrics were deemed useful because of their diversity, reusability and one-way encryption (which, at the time, was referred to as a one-way transformation). Specifically, no cancellable template could be used in two different applications (diversity); it was straightforward to revoke and reissuance a cancellable template in the event of compromise (reusability); and the one-way hash of the template prevented recovery of sensitive biometric data. Finally, it was postulated that the transformation would not deteriorate accuracy.  Research into cancelable biometrics moved into BioHashing by 2004. The BioHashing feature transformation technique was first published by Jin, Ling and Goh and combined biometric features and a tokenized (pseudo-) random number (TRN). Specifically, BioHash combined the biometric template with a user-specific TRN to produce a set of non-invertible binary bit strings that were thought to be irreproducible if both the biometric and the TRN were not presented simultaneously. Indeed, it was first claimed that the BioHashing technique had achieved perfect accuracy (equal error rates) for faces, fingerprints and palm prints, and the method gained further traction when its extremely low error rates were combined with the claim that its biometric data was secure against loss because factoring the inner products of biometrics feature and TRN was an intractable problem.  By 2005, however, researchers Cheung and Kong (Hong Kong Polytechnic and University of Waterloo) asserted in two journal articles that BioHashing performance was actually based on the sole use of TRN and conjectured that the introduction of any form of biometric become meaningless since the system could be used only with the tokens. These researchers also reported that the non-invertibility of the random hash would deteriorate the biometric recognition accuracy when the genuine token was stolen and used by an impostor (“the stolen-token scenario”).

Biometric cryptosystem approach.

Biometric cryptosystems were originally developed to either secure cryptographic keys using biometric features (“key-biometrics binding”) or to directly generate cryptographic keys from biometric features. Biometric cryptosystems used cryptography to provide the system with cryptographic keys protection and biometrics to provide the system with dynamically generate keys to secure the template and biometric system. The acceptance and deployment of biometric cryptosystem solutions was constrained, however, by the fuzziness related with biometric data. Hence, error correction codes (ECCs), including includes fuzzy vault and fuzzy commitment, were adopted to alleviate the fuzziness of the biometric data. This overall approach proved impractical, however, due to the need for accurate authentication and suffered from security issues due to its need for strong restriction to support authentication accuracy. Future research on biometric cryptosystems is likely to focus on a number of remaining implementation challenges and security issues involving both the fuzzy representations of biometric identifiers and the imperfect nature of biometric feature extraction and matching algorithms. And, unfortunately, since biometric cryptosystems can, at the current time, be defeated using relatively simple strategies leveraging both weaknesses of the current systems (the fuzzy representations of biometric identifiers and the imperfect nature of biometric feature extraction and matching algorithms), it is unlikely that these systems will be able to deliver acceptable end-to-end system performance until suitable advances are achieved.

Two-way partially homomorphic encryption approach.

The two-way partially homomorphic encryption method for private biometrics was similar to the today's private biometrics in that it offered protection of biometric feature data through the use of homomorphic encryption and measured the similarity of encrypted feature data by metrics such as the Hamming and the Euclidean distances. However, the method was vulnerable to data loss due to the existence of secret keys that were to be managed by trusted parties. Widespread adoption of the approach also suffered from the encryption schemes’ complex key management and large computational and data storage requirements.

Private biometrics is a form of encrypted biometrics, also called privacy-preserving biometric authentication methods, in which the biometric payload is a one-way, homomorphically encrypted feature vector that is 0.05% the size of the original biometric template and can be searched with full accuracy, speed and privacy. The feature vector's homomorphic encryption allows search and match to be conducted in polynomial time on an encrypted dataset and the search result is returned as an encrypted match. One or more computing devices may use an encrypted feature vector to verify an individual person (1:1 verify) or identify an individual in a datastore (1:many identify) without storing, sending or receiving plaintext biometric data within or between computing devices or any other entity. The purpose of private biometrics is to allow a person to be identified or authenticated while guaranteeing individual privacy and fundamental human rights by only operating on biometric data in the encrypted space.

Biometric Template Protection bezeichnet eine Klasse von Verfahren zum Schutz der Merkmalsdaten bei der biometrischen Personenerkennung. Anders als bei herkömmlichen biometrischen Erkennungsverfahren werden bei Biometric Template Protection die in der Einlernphase ("Enrolment") ermittelten biometrischen Merkmalsdaten ("Templates") nicht als Referenzdaten gespeichert. Stattdessen werden aus den Merkmalen geschützte Referenzdaten ("Protected Templates") generiert und gespeichert. Diese lassen keine Rekonstruktion der Merkmale zu, ermöglichen aber trotzdem die Überprüfung, ob ein zur Authentifizierung erfasstes biometrisches Merkmal ("Vergleichsmerkmal") ähnlich genug zum eingelernten Merkmal ist.