Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
24 November 2023 | Story André Damons | Photo SUPPLIED
Ricus Krause, an honours student in the Department of Computer Science and Informatics at the University of the Free State (UFS)
Ricus Krause, an honours student in the Department of Computer Science and Informatics at the University of the Free State (UFS), receives his awards during the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns (The South African Academy for Science and Arts) Student Symposium in Natural Sciences.

An honours student in the Department of Computer Science and Informatics at the University of the Free State (UFS) project on using blockchain technology to protect whistleblowers secured him first place for the best project and presentation in his session at the annual Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns (The South African Academy for Science and Arts) Student Symposium in Natural Sciences.

Ricus Krause, who presented his project, titled “Blokskakel Fluitjieblaser-Stelsel” (Blockchain Whistleblower System), at the symposium, also received the Eureka DIY Solutions Prize for an Outstanding Contribution to Computer Sciences and Mathematical Sciences. The symposium was hosted by the University of Pretoria in October.  

His research aimed to address the shortcomings of current systems for protecting whistleblowers and to design a robust computer system that ensures the confidentiality and integrity of information by using blockchain technology. This system had to protect whistleblowers’ identities and securely preserve evidence of corruption. 

Interested in Cybersecurity

“I have been interested in Cybersecurity ever since I started studying. I approached Dr Wynand Nel (supervisor) at the start of my honours year to ask if he had any ideas for a security-focused project, and he introduced me to blockchain technology and the blockchain research group. Blockchain piqued my security interest and allowed me to explore the field further.”

“After meeting with the group, the idea of a blockchain-based system for whistleblowers was born, and I started researching South Africa’s biggest problems, where corruption is at the top. During my initial research, I also discovered that whistleblowers face extreme consequences much more frequently than we think,” says Krause. 

He identified the main problem with whistleblowing as the revelation of a whistleblower’s identity before it is safe. Thus, a system was needed to protect a whistleblower’s anonymity and facilitate safe communication to contact investigators.

On winning the awards, Krause said he knew he was competing against master’s and PhD students and did not expect to win. “This was the first time I’d presented my project at an event, so I was surprised when my name was called for the first prize in my session. I wanted to pinch myself to make sure I wasn’t dreaming.”

“I am genuinely grateful to have had the opportunity to present months of research to my peers and experts in their fields. I will always look back at the event with fond memories. I am proud of myself and my fellow students for presenting their research at the symposium when others did not dare to,” he says. 

Address shortcomings of current systems

Krause is supervised by Dr Nel and Dr Rouxan Fouché, lecturers in the Department of Computer Science and Informatics and this research project falls within the department’s research focus area of Blockchain Technologies, headed by Dr Nel. The digital transformation of industries, known as Industry 4.0 has already started, and blockchain forms part of the digital revolution. The research areas include blockchain algorithms and data structures, blockchain security, blockchain applications and crypto assets.

With the recent high-profile killings of two whistleblowers in South Africa and with many other whistleblowers becoming victims of intimidation and violence to silence them after their identities were exposed, the researchers believe it is necessary to conduct research and develop a computer system to address the glaring shortcomings of current systems.

“Our research identified blockchain technology as a potential solution that meets these needs. Blockchain provides an immutable structure, supports non-repudiation, and grants accessibility to all stakeholders. It has the potential to provide a security-focused system that preserves the confidentiality and integrity of evidence. The system involves the anonymous registration of whistleblowers, the processing and storage of evidence, and the use of cryptography to ensure the privacy of messages,” says Krause. 

According to him, implementing this system in the real world, including the composition of the blockchain structure, seems daunting, especially regarding scalability and legal issues. With this project, he explains, they built a working blockchain system on a single computer. The project can be improved by expanding the blockchain system to multiple nodes communicating over a network. This improvement will take the Blockchain Whistleblower project from a concept to a valuable contribution to society.

How it works

“In a nutshell, this research has highlighted the potential of a blockchain-based whistleblower system to overcome the challenges surrounding corruption. It is a step forward in the fight against crime and the protection of those with the courage to expose misconduct. However, it is essential to continue with research and implementation to make this system a reality and fulfil its promise,” Dr Nel says.  

Traditionally, Krause explains, a central system is used where a single organisation controls the system. The potential danger is that the system provider becomes a single point of failure for the system and, thus, a target for cyberattacks. Another concern of a centralised system is the organisation’s ability to manipulate data and uncover the identities of whistleblowers. The integrity of the evidence can also be questioned when it is stored in a centralised database where modifications from a single point of access can affect all data.

A centralised system, therefore, would not be reliable enough for the high-risk circumstances of whistleblowers. They have concluded that a distributed or decentralised system would be an appropriate solution to the problem. A distributed system will continue to function as a whole even if a part is compromised.

The Blockchain Whistleblower System aims to make a proof-of-concept contribution to the field of blockchain technology. The system is installed locally on the user’s computer, where whistleblowers and investigators use an anonymous profile to interact with the system, which interacts with the blockchain. After signing in, users can choose to report a new incident or view messages on the blockchain.

Reporting a crime 

If the user wants to blow the whistle on a crime, the process starts with a report to gather more information about the incident. The whistleblower then selects the evidence of the crime on their computer. A hash function algorithm processes the evidence to create a fixed-length evidence hash. Hashing is a one-way cryptographic process that uniquely represents the input data. It is important to note that only the evidence hash is stored on the blockchain, not the evidence itself. The selected evidence is stored in a password-protected encrypted folder on the whistleblower’s computer. Investigators can later use this evidence hash to verify the integrity of the evidence when they eventually receive it.

What is next for this project? 

Krause says he would like to implement his project with nodes communicating via a network in the future. A network opens a new box of security considerations to explore and discover and would also enable the programme to be used at any location, making it accessible to whistleblowers everywhere.

“This project started with the idea to protect whistleblowers’ identities and provide a platform for them to contact investigators safely. The end goal is for the project to provide a platform where whistleblowers can anonymously report misconduct, safely communicate with investigators, and verify the integrity of their evidence.

“My hope for the project is to build a better South Africa by fighting corruption, one of the biggest obstacles to our country’s growth. By solving the many challenges whistleblowers encounter, I hope to foster a culture where whistleblowers are not afraid to speak out against crime.”

News Archive

Institutional research culture a precondition for research capacity building and excellence
2004-11-16

A lecture presented by Dr. Andrew M. Kaniki at the University of the Free State Recognition Function for research excellence

16 November 2004
The Vice Chancellor, Prof. Frederick Fourie
Deputy Vice Chancellors, Deans
Awardees
Colleagues and ladies and gentlemen

It is a great pleasure to be here at the University of the Free State. I am particularly honoured to have been invited to present this lecture at the First Annual Recognition Function for Research Excellence to honour researchers who have excelled in their respective fields of expertise. I would like to sincerely thank the office of the Director of Research and Development (Professor Swanepol), and in particular Mr. Aldo Stroebel for facilitating the invitation to this celebration.

I would like to congratulate you (the UFS) for institutionalizing “celebration of research excellence”, which as I will argue in this lecture is one of the key characteristics of institutional research culture that supports research capacity building and sustains research excellence.

Allow me to also take this opportunity to congratulate the University of the Free State for clocking 100 years of existence.

Ahmed Bawa and Johan Mouton (2000) in their chapter entitled Research, in the book: Transformation in higher education: global pressures and local realities in South Africa (ed. N. Cloete et. al Pretoria: CHET. 296-333) have argued that “…the sources of productivity and competitiveness [in the knowledge society and global economy] are increasingly dependent on [quality] knowledge and information being applied to productivity”. The quality knowledge they refer to here is research output or research products and the research process, which (research) as defined by the [OECD] Frascati Manual (2002: 30) is:

“…creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications”

The South African Government has set itself the objective of transforming South Africa into a knowledge society that competes effectively in the global system. A knowledge society requires appropriate numbers of educated and skilled people to create quality new knowledge and to translate the knowledge in innovative ways. To this end a number of policies and strategies like the Human Resource Development [HRD] Strategy for South Africa, the National Plan for Higher Education (NPHE) and the South Africa’s Research and Development [R&D] Strategy, have highlighted human resource development and the concomitant scarce skills development as critical for wealth creation in the context of globalization. The key mission of the HRD Strategy for instance is:

To maximize the potential of the people of South Africa, through the acquisition of knowledge and skills, to work productively and competitively in order to achieve a rising quality of life for all, and to set in place an operational plan, together with the necessary institutional arrangements, to achieve this.

The R&D Strategy emphasizes that maximum effort must be exerted to train the necessary numbers of our people in all fields required for development, running and management of modern economies. Higher education institutions like the University of the Free State have a key role to play in this process, because whatever form or shape a university takes, it is expected to conduct research (quality research); teach (quality teaching – and good graduates); and contribute to the development of its community! Thus the NPHE states that the role of higher education in a knowledge-driven world is threefold:

Human resource development;

High-level skills training and

Production, acquisition and application of knowledge.

Quality research output or knowledge which as argued is critical in determining the degree of competitiveness of a country in the knowledge economy is dependent upon quality research (process). Both the process of producing quality research and its utilization cannot and does not happen in a vacuum. It requires an environment that facilitates the production of new knowledge, its utilization and renewal. It requires skilled persons that can produce new knowledge and facilitate the production of new skills for quality knowledge production. Such an environment or in essence a university must have the culture that supports research activity. Institution research culture (that is a conducive and enabling institutional research culture) is a precondition to research capacity building. Without an institutional research culture that facilitates the development and nurturing of new young researchers it is difficult, if not impossible for a university to effectively and efficiently generate new and more quality researchers. Institutional research culture is also necessary to sustain quality research and quality research output or research excellence. It facilitates the development and sustenance of the institutional and people capacities required to do research produce quality research and generally attain research excellence!

We do recognize that the patterns of information and knowledge seeking, and knowledge generation vary among field or disciplines. For example, we know that in the humanities knowledge workers often work individually, and not as collaboratively as do those of the sciences, they all however, require supportive environments – institutional research culture to achieve and sustain research excellence. An institution does not simply attain a supportive research culture, but as Patricia Clements (English Department, University of Alberta, Edmonton) in her presentation Growing a research culture argues, research culture has to be grown [and maintained]. It unifies all natural and engineering scientists; medical researchers, humanists, and social scientists.

I therefore am of the view that Institutional Research Culture is critical to research capacity building and research excellence. I therefore want to spend a few minutes looking at the characteristics of research culture. To be effective, institutional research culture has grown and sustained not only at the institutional level, but also at the faculty, school and departmental levels of any university.

What is Research Culture?

In the process of researching on institutional research culture I identified several characteristics. Many of these overlap in some way. I want to deal with some of these characteristics; some in a little more detail while others simply cursorily. In the process what we should be asking ourselves is the extent to which an institution, like the University of the Free State, and its faculties, individually and severally, is growing and or sustaining this culture.

Institutional Research Strategy: As a plan of action or guide for a course of action, the institutional research strategy must spell out research goals that a university wants to achieve. It must be a prescription of what the university needs to be done with respect to research. As a strategy it is neither an independent activity nor an end in itself, but a component part and operationalization of the university policy or mission. ( Related to this is the Establishment of Institutional research policies)

Includes and makes public the targets, e.g. achieve so many rated scientists and make sure that every year we have so many SAPSE publications. That way people keep an eye on research agendas of the university and nation.

The UFS is obviously on its way, having launched its own Research strategy (A Strategic framework for the development of research at the University of the Free Sate. August 2003). Note that this strategy refers specifically to the “Culture of research” Fig 1

A set of administrative practices to support and encourage research. Patricia Clements (English Department, University of Alberta, Edmonton) in her presentation Growing a research culture argues that that research activity and output within the her Faculty (Arts) were very low and, in spite of the numbers of staff, with no Associate Dean for Research in the Faculty as though they had accepted that research belonged to Medicine and Science and Engineering, and teaching, separated from inquiry, belonged to the Arts. With the change in the thinking about research and development of research culture, it became clear that there was a major role for research support in a faculty her size (now about 360 full time continuing academic staff). The faculty developed a support system for research and began to address the SSHRC issues.

Reduce the bureaucracy system and micromanagement of research! This however, also implies that there is capacity and policies and procedure to manage and guide research processes

Establishment of Intellectual Property regulations and assistance

Research ethics policy and safeguarding by research administration

Focused, applied and suitable nature of the delivery mode (an institution open to new methodologies for conducting research

Programmes suited both full and part-time study particularly at graduate level (Mainly at Faculty/school and department level, and depending on what’s manageable)

Hiring senior academics to engage in, teach on and supervise postgraduate students to facilitate exchange of and transfer ideas and most importantly mentorship especially in view of declining numbers of researchers in particular fields

Quality instruction and facilitation in learning about research processes

A high retention rate of students maintained by the supportive and challenging learning environment and the use of online facilities to support collaboration and in-class learning

Availability of research grants: and awareness of sourcing funds from external sources like the National Research Foundation; Water Research Commission; Medical Research Council, private philanthropies and others outside the country. For example an institution should be able to assess how much of the slice the available funds (NRF etc) its able acquire and possibly top slice from institutional budget.

Adequacy of the financial reward system to encourage university staff members to do research (General Celebration of achievement for research excellence and achievement. This ranges form Annual reports mention; celebratory dinner. At Alberta researchers were given lapels. I don’t know of any academic who do not feel a sense of achievement to get into print or recognised. Access to research facilities within and outside the institution

Provision of infrastructure to support university-based research (e.g. equipment, admin support, etc.) – but also awareness of publicly funded and available research facilities and equipment!

Internet connectivity and changes in the bandwidth of the internet to download articles

Subscription to related bodies by the library so that researcher can download articles

Facilities and resources to attend international conferences to keep one updated

Number of visiting professors/speakers targeting senior scholars and invite them to lunch to ask them to participate and to encourage their best graduate students to do so within the institution and across institutions

Research training seminars for research students including young academics

Participation of staff/students in delivering research papers to national and international conferences

Establishment of research groups to provide interaction frameworks to achieve critical mass of research-active staff

Facilitation for more research time: Targeting new scholars and giving them reduced teaching loads in their first year or two for the purpose of developing their research programs. For the purpose of helping new colleagues to see the shape of South African research support, personalizing it, and creating research community

Take research to the community and argue its necessity, and utility

And, finally celebrating excellence. We must recognize achievement - parties and public recognition for colleagues who achieve splendid things in their research.

In conclusion, I want to reemphasize that research culture has to be grown it does not simply exist in an institution. If it is grown it needs to be nourished, nurtured and sustained. An institution cannot simply leave on borrowed reputation and expect to remain research excellent. It is on this basis that instruments like the National Research Foundation rating system recognizes excellence within a given period of time and not necessarily for a life time! This it is believed encourages continued research excellence.

THANK YOU and best wishes

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept