So it seems this is a system where the server only does encrypted storage and minimal processing on plaintext that it is allowed to decrypt. I was hoping it was a FHE implementation where the server does computation on the encrypted data. Still waiting for that.
I don't understand the hype around FHE. FHE sounds like a fancy way to say my data is only partially encrypted and we can still gain all the insights we want without technically unencrypting it.
I don't want my encrypted payloads to betray me in any of the ways FHE wants it too.
Consider 2 researchers, Alice and Bob. Lets say that Alice has developed a cool way to analyze gene data, and she uses it on her gene data and gets cool information, so naturally Bob would like to do the same analysis. How does Bob securely get his data analyzed with Alice's intellectual property (which she wants to keep secret as well), enter homomorphic encryption! Bob can encrypt his data in such a way that Alice can run her analysis on it, without Alice ever knowing the content of Bob's data. Alice can get neither Bob's data nor the analysis of it.
> FHE sounds like a fancy way to say my data is only partially encrypted and we can still gain all the insights we want without technically unencrypting it.
Does it just sound like it or is it? Cause it sure as hell didn't "sound like that" to me last I checked, so that's 1:1 so far.
They'll pay the price if it means their data centers are immune to the anger of the commoners who are being surveilled, analyzed, and manipulated by systems running on these data centers.
“We just launch it and we know everything will be dead – everything that will be found there in this particular area will be dead,” says Kokhanovskyy. “There is no connection to the drone at all, you cannot see the video, nothing… Everything it sees will be killed.”
Because there are never any civilians caught in the middle of two warring armies, right? I think the ICC will be getting real busy soon.
That alone doesn't cut war crime definition to get attention to ICC and isn't really different from the usual aerial bombing. You drop the bomb from a plane or 100 of them somewhere around the densely populated area and don't know who they kill, as there is no connection to the drone.
Civilians dying in an armed conflict doesn't cut the definition of warcrime by itself. Deliberate targeting and intentional destruction of civil infrastructure that supports life or something like it is.
Then of course there is stuff that ICC isn't getting busy about which is clearly above the threshold -- the regular drone safaris in and around Kherson (city with pre-war population circa quarter million people) happening for the last few years.
A war crime's a war crime. Doesn't matter if the Ukrainians did it, or the Russians, or Palestinians or Israelis. Or The UN or USA or NATO or Canadians. The only time a war crime's not a war crime is if it's a terrorist group doing it, because then it's terrorism instead of a war crime.
"Terrorism” and "war crimes” are overlapping categories, and being done by something independently defined as a “terrorist group” isn’t what defines something as “terrorism”, rather doing terrorism is what makes a group a terrorist group.
Yeah, it would be nice to have a folder like /etc/systemd-jobs/ where I could put them and where there are no files unrelated to job scheduling. There is /etc/systemd/user, but it does get a bit of pollution depending on the system.
Not sure if you're talking about cron or systemd, but cron definitely has that in /etc/cron.d where you can have arbitrary crontabs, or /etc/cron.{hourly|daily|weekly|monthly} where you can just place arbitrary scripts if you don't care exactly when they run, just the frequency.
So reasonable that I think any reasonable judge should have subjected lazy lawyers to sanction or other remedial action even before this policy was created.
1) Oman and Iran both have territorial waters that extend into the center of the strait. See #3
2) What is "non-US backed oil?
3) Every country has the right to control their territorial waters.
4) Governments have worked hard to erode people's privacy rights such that crypto is not as untraceable as people still think.
5) ?
5) ?
6) Let it happen.
These objections seem confused. The person you are replying to is not attacking Iran, but you seem to be defending Iran. They're saying that attacking Iran was a stupid idea, because it caused Iran to strangle the Strait of Hormuz, a thing they hadn't done and that there was no indication that they were considering doing before the attack.
It's even stupider than the OP said. Aside from the strait, when you destroy Iran's oil facilities, you raise the price of oil for the foreseeable future. When Iran retaliates by destroying the oil facilities of local allies, it raises the price of oil for the foreseeable future. The only beneficiaries are oilmen in the US, Russia and South America, and the US is also supposed to be attacking Russia and South America.
reply