Sigh

Please show me your masters in computer science and your decade of working with the devices. No? Then let me help you out.

It could be fine IF they configured everything correctly and are enforcing things on the work profile. Or, it could be terrible IF they just said “install this app, that’s it”.

That is true of ANY solution. If they violate this, then they are federally liable. Nothing about who owns the device changes this so it is a non-starter.

Having a company provided device with poor guardrails would at least mean it’s not a device that the staff would do their personal stuff on, installing random apps.

First, applications concerning healthcare data are going to operate in both encryption at rest and encryption in flight. They will isolate all data flow to just that app and its external managed connections. So what other things you have on the device from an App Store are irrelevant.

Having a company provided device with strong guardrails and fully locked down for this purpose would avoid most of the risk of an undiscovered vulnerability being abused.

I don’t think you understand ANYTHING about how security profiles are loaded onto a device. I will keep this to an explain like I am 5 level. None of what you just said is true. It does not matter who owns the device. If they are using it , for work, and work manages conditional access policies on the device, with security policies loaded, it will enforce ALL of the same things for monitoring data flows inside apps relevant to the workplace. It will enforce OS versions or kick your ability to authenticate. There is NOTHING that device ownership will change. Repeating this makes it very clear you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

However well the work profile stuff is now separated in mobile OSs today, there can always be day 0s, and people will install any random apps on their phones or fall for plain social engineering. Maybe technically right now they’re comparable for security, but their risk profile is different I think.

You think. Yes, you think, because you don’t do this for a living nor have the slightest clue what you are discussing. Again. Zero day exploits are going to be the same no matter who owns the device. They impact software under the same managed rules that exist regardless. It doesn’t change if it is a company device. Holy shit.

Imagine just targeting this place for phishing and creating a similar looking app with the same name, then sending fake communication to staff to say there is a new version and install it. They can just install it on their personal profile even if the work one doesn’t allow it and start putting data in it. In the case of a locked down work device they could just not install it. Also, there’s no reason for these devices to leave the grounds whereas personal devices will need to go out into the wild.

The reverberation speaking this much out of your ass must be immense. The whole point with a security profile is it limits these actions, and the security profile on the device is THE FUCKING SAME whether it is a device owned by you or the company. Once the employee has it configured correctly, the same in tune, same defender policies, the same OS management, the same everything could be used.

Maybe if you consider it a personal device if the staff has to relinquish all control of their entire personal device to the work provided security controls they can achieve a similar risk profile, but at that point it’s just a work device the staff had to pay for, not their personal device.

Jesus wept. You don’t relinquish control of he whole device. Unless you are working in a SCIF, your physical device is not going to have the type of controls on it that need to prevent any access to Bluetooth or WiFi. It will be only managed insofar as the profile for security requires it to be. That means you selectively block actions and abilities related only to the data within the app context and surrounding risk vectors. I’m typing this on a phone with a security profile on it for work. It serves as my Authenticator, has work application data, and doesn’t have to interfere with other personal use. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how ANY of this works.

If you walked into Palo Alto today and sat down at the table with their engineering team, would you be telling them their firewall solution is flawed without knowing anything about it? I hope not. So why do that here?

Work in IT, alongside info security. Nah.

A secured app environment on a phone is plenty well secure for medical data. It is preferred strongly over a web based solution. Having a personal device running a company profile of security compliance monitoring and conditional access is as good as a company device provided by the hospital. They would do literally the same thing.

It can pass phase 2 easier but not phase 3 trails.

Phenotype vs biological normative.

Deaf people will decry “fixing” a person hearing impaired in the womb. Yet, it’s a correction to biological normative.

Adjusting a gender to a different one in the womb would not be.

Adjusting physical traits for looks wouldn’t be.

Adjusting a physical trait like spinal deformity would be.

Adjusting for general height would not be.

If there is something diagnosable in the ICD-10 codes we have, and it’s preventable in a population, it would not be eugenetics. Remove gene editing as the tool, but just say “magic” a cure. Cures apply to diseases, not traits.

You don’t cure being black. You CAN cure sickle cell.

I think the line is pretty clear.

You simply use existing diagnostic criteria of deviation from biological normative function.

It’s an F-18 super hornet.

Fucking degenerate.

Who is we and deep into what?

I simply responded to your statement that you couldn’t think of a way to express the position without sounding as if you were against another people.

It feels very very simple.

The actions of those who cause harm to innocent people are deplorable. Those who order such actions or commit them, should be held accountable. I don’t have to say any proper nouns or even make it specific to this conflict to express that.

“I don’t want the response to horrific things to be more horrific things inflicted on those who have no control of these events.”

That seems pretty cut and dry…

deleted by creator

What does the total sum of all funds spent for the last 20 years on GWOT have to do with foreign aid budgeted spending in 2023 to Israel?

These aren’t in the same budget category. The tax dollars spent on GWOT had significant effect in the United States ability to borrow as a government due to national debt increases, but that impact is seen directly in the increasing yearly amounts of tax revenue spent to repay that debt, not directly to inflation. Show me correlation in the first ten years of GWOT to CPI?

So let me get this right. You believe spending, as allocated in the budget for a fiscal year, in a category you do not even understand the limits of, for amounts you need to calculate in fractions of a percent of the budget, is a worthy mention of impact on inflationary pressure?

One where you improperly equate it with printing more money as a federal reserve economic control device, and assume aid = printed dollars instead of the majority of which is already existing assets in storage where packages are given dollar values for their worth?

Lol.

Continue to make loud noises out of thy ass while making false equivalence.

/u/Squizzy

I would love if you could explain the connection between these two things.

I have my macroeconomics books from college at hand, so so please take your time to be detailed as I won’t dislike reviewing my notes.

Narrator: there is nothing about spending 0.001% of GDP on foreign aid that is of significant impact to inflationary pressures, and OP is speaking out of their ass. To the point where when they fart it sounds like a god damn jazz band.

That seems to be you declining to provide an example of a reasonable response then.

That doesn’t answer my question. Nor is it 100% historically accurate.

If the only proper response is discontinued existence, then you have left no possible response.

this leaves only two outcomes.

Either be killed by terrorists, or dissolve your entire society and nation state.

Israel would of course not see either of these solutions as options.

I am not being disingenuous, I acknowledged history. I am not blind to the motivations of either party. These latest events were started by choice, when any other action could have been chosen but to behead children in diapers.

According to your answer, the only right act appears to be dissolving their entire country and giving it to the people who kidnapped their people in this latest round of violence. I can’t think this makes sense in any other situation, so it’s can’t here.

Something between doing nothing and what they are doing as middle ground in response has to exist as an option that is acceptable.

If the only option is complete dissolution of a nation state to avoid bloodshed, it is effectively not an option. Propose a solution that isn’t the continued deaths and is not the total dissolution of a nation state, which no nation in earth would agree to.

What exists as an option in response besides these two extremes?

Negotiating with them would give them reason to take hostages again.

Terrorism definition: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

So if you reward violence with success to political wins, this would give violence a reason to happen more as a tool. This obviously isn’t an answer if you are Israel wanting to prevent your citizen and other nations being killed / violently victimized to force capitulation of your government.

So from their perspective, or any other government of the world, this is a non starter.

Let me try again.

What is the action that you would deem correct and just in response to the attack by Hamas that started this latest series of events?

I do not discount the past, Israel’s culpability in escalation, human rights violations by its military members, and politics that favor them over Palestinians. I do not discount the international error of the two-state solution imposed by external countries.

I am asking, in response to 1400 dead civilians IN THE PRESENT, what any nation’s correct action is as a response. It is easy to decry the current decision, but I have heard little proposals to the contrary of what perfect looks like for an Israeli response.

So, IGNORING WHAT CAME BEFORE THE EVENTS THE ARE CURRENTLY UNFOLDING, what would you have deemed the correct response?

This didn’t answer my question.

Humor me. As a third party with no side in the fight, what is the correct response from Israel to the massacre of citizens?

Obviously this isn’t it.

So what is the answer, ignoring anything before the inciting attack from Hamas, from either side, what is the cause effect reaction that you would deem appropriate by Israel?

If the program is paying you significantly less than what it should, you can’t rely on it for retirement calculations.

It isn’t enough to retire on on its own today. The program paying significantly less of its distributions as a result of being not possible to fully fund, results in many of us believing it is a program that served the elderly of today ( boomers) and not those who come later as a result of the funding to withdrawal ratio that the baby boomer generation will create.