Secure Multiple Amplify-and-Forward Relaying with Co-Channel Interference

We investigate the impact of co-channel interference on the security performance of multiple amplify-and-forward (AF) relaying networks, where N intermediate AF relays assist the data transmission from the source to the destination. The relays are corrupted by multiple co-channel interferers, and the information transmitted from the relays to destination can be overheard by the eavesdropper. In order to deal with the interference and wiretap, the best out of N relays is selected for security enhancement. To this end, we derive a novel lower bound on the secrecy outage probability (SOP), which is then utilized to present two best relay selection criteria, based on the instantaneous and statistical channel information of the interfering links. For these criteria and the conventional maxmin criterion, we quantify the impact of co-channel interference and relay selection by deriving the lower bound on the SOP. Furthermore, we derive the asymptotic SOP for each criterion, to explicitly reveal the impact of transmit power allocation among interferers on the secrecy performance, which offers valuable insights into practical design. We demonstrate that all selection criteria achieve full secrecy diversity order N, while the proposed in this paper two criteria outperform the conventional max-min scheme. 

From brown envelopes to community benefits: the co-option of planning gain agreements under deepening neoliberalism

The provision of physical and social infrastructure in the form of roads, green spaces and community facilities has traditionally been provided for by the state through the general taxation system. However, as the state has been transformed along more neoliberal lines, the private sector is increasingly relied upon to deliver public goods and services. Planning gain agreements have flourished within this context by offering another vehicle through which local facilities are privately funded. Whilst these agreements reflect the broader dynamics of neoliberalism, they are commonly viewed as a tool which can be employed to challenge these very dynamics by empowering local communities to secure more just planning outcomes. This paper counters such claims. Based on evidence gathered from 80 interviews with planners, councillors, developers and community groups in Ireland, the paper demonstrates how planning gain agreements have been strategically redeployed by the holders of political and economic power to serve their own ends. In seeking to understand why and how this has occurred, specific consideration is given to the changing power dynamics between the state and private capital under neoliberalism. The paper highlights how institutional arrangements have enabled developers to infiltrate the political sphere in more subtle and implicit ways than ever before. We conclude by arguing that planning gain must be understood as a mechanism which has been manipulated in ways which essentially work to preserve and enhance, rather than redress, existing power imbalances in the planning system by facilitating large scale transfers of wealth upwards in society.