Are you a Canadian lawyer? I did some research and your statement doesn’t hold up.
CBSA policy does state you are obligated to provide your password if they are conducting a lawful device examination, however they cannot do it arbitrarily, and they must have a legal basis for searching the device.
> CBSA policy states that examinations of personal devices should not be conducted as a matter of routine; such searches may be conducted only if there are grounds or indications that “evidence of contraventions may be found on the digital device or media.”
Furthermore, Canadian courts have not yet definitively ruled on whether compelling password disclosure is constitutionally permissible.
This is very different than the US, where CBP can conduct a basic search without any individualized suspicion.
So, Canada and the US are definitely not the same, which seems to be the implied meaning behind your comment, and your explicit statement that CBSA has legal authority to search your phone is, at best, misleading.
I’m not a lawyer or a legal expert so I could be wrong, so feel free to correct me if you have Canadian legal experience.
Also lots of "genuinely" and some air quoted phrases which are another tell.
I guess you folks are right and it's probably the llm filter. I looked at the GitHub and thought it had too many screenshots to not have had some human effort, but who knows these days.
Israel, I would think, would claim that Iran getting the bomb would be existential to them, so I don't think it's reasonable to think that Israel would agree to allowing enrichment.
I'm a little surprised that recognizing Israel as a nuclear power isn't in Iran's list of demands, considering how destabilizing it would be.
The CIA (lets for now ignore the alleged Director of the CIA) has for years been saying Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Iran has been saying for years it does not have a nuclear weapons program. Every country has the right to pursue a civilian nuclear energy program.
The IAEA said earlier this year that Iran had enriched uranium to 60%. Uranium is enriched to 3-5% for nuclear energy, and 90%+ for weapons.
Don't be silly. Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Were they actively racing to a bomb? No. (That's what the CIA was saying). Did they enrich uranium to near-weapons grade so they _could_ race to a bomb, in a matter of weeks, if they decided to do so? Absolutely.
They need one or at least the idea of one if they want to deter Israel who has 200/300 bombs. If they don't want to end up like Iraq or Syria they kind of need this.
This is when people like me comment "According to US media, Iran has been a matter of weeks away from developing a nuclear bomb for over 20 years now".
Their now dead leader wrote a fatwa against nuclear bombs (as well as chemical bombs). Probably because Saddam using US chemical bombs on more than 50000 civilians a few decades ago did radicalize him against WMD.
They definitely have a 'nuclear program'. They have a 'nuclear program' to generate energy. They are a country on this earth and have the right to do this.
Just because we play rhetorical tricks and try to equate "nuclear program" with "nuclear weapons program" does not make it true.
Building a nuclear weapon that can be carried by Iraq's missiles is relatively difficult, because miniaturizing nuclear weapons requires much more complex designs. It took the US and the USSR quite a few test explosions to achieve such a warhead.
Building a bulky nuclear weapon that fits in, say, a shipping container, is not hard if sufficient highly enriched uranium is available. That's Hiroshima level nuclear technology, the gun-type bomb.[1]
This is the difference between the "years away" and the "weeks away" estimates.
Depends on whether the the delivery method is an ICBM or a shipping container.
To be 100% fair to the GP: indeed, Iran does not currently have an active weapons program. But they do have a weapons program, but they used it so far more for leverage. The truth is nobody really knows what they would have done had they achieved the status of nuclear armed power. But given that even the mullahs understand that there is a bit of a difference between threatening to annihilate Israel and actually doing so with all of the consequences attached to that I think they would be more like Kim or Putin than say the UK or France. They would use it for even more leverage and as insurance against being attacked.
Either way: the US is quick to say who can and who can not have nuclear weapons, but at the same time the US is the only country that ever did use them and it is one of very few countries that has (implicitly) threatened their use in recent memory. The only other two countries to do so are Israel and Russia.
Or maybe they know how much more difficult it is to go from 60% to 90%+?
Iran will pursue the bomb now with triple the effort they put into it so far. As will every other crappy country that has the talent, the facilities and the money. That's a lot of countries. Because all of them see the difference between Ukraine, North Korea and Iran: if you have the bomb, they leave you alone. Kim obviously had sponsorship.
The only thing holding back an Iranian nuke tomorrow is the fact that Pakistan and Iran do not see eye to eye on a few things. But Pakistan has vowed that if Israel should ever use nuclear weapons on Iran that Pakistan would hit Israel in the same way.
Keep in mind that they are right next door to each other and have a long term relationship.
When Trump canceled the Nuclear agreement with Iran, Iran immediately started enriching uranium into ship's reactor grade, and apparently started working on a nuclear submarine.
At the same time Iran emitted a domestic law prohibiting anybody from working towards nuclear weapons. The law was in effect up to the moment Trump ordered and killed the Ayatollah, by the way.
The point was about redundancy / geo spread / HA. It’s significantly more difficult to operate two physical sites than one. You can only be in one place at a time.
If you want true reliability, you need redundant physical locations, power, networking. That’s extremely easy to achieve on cloud providers.
You can just rent the rack space in datacenter and have that covered. It's still much cheaper than running that in cloud.
It doesn't make sense if you only have few servers, but if you are renting equivalent of multiple racks of servers from cloud and run them for most of the day, on-prem is staggeringly cheaper.
We have few racks and we do "move to cloud" calculation every few years and without fail they come up at least 3x the cost.
And before the "but you need to do more work" whining I hear from people that never did that - it's not much more than navigating forest of cloud APIs and dealing with random blackbox issues in cloud that you can't really debug, just go around it.
On cloud it's out of your control when an AZ goes down. When it's your server you can do things to increase reliability. Most colos have redundant power feeds and internet. On prem that's a bit harder, but you can buy a UPS.
If your head office is hit by a meteor your business is over. Don't need to prepare for that.
Same, to the point where I was wondering if someone deliberately named it so. But I expect that whoever made this decision simply doesn't know or care.
I came here based to headline expecting some more cia & nsa shit, that word is tarnished for few decades in better part of IT community (that actually cares about this craft beyond paycheck)
Quality of life in places like San Francisco and New York is very high, and you get the insane salaries, and your healthcare is oftentimes mostly if not completely covered by your employer (I pay literally $0 out of pocket for high quality healthcare here in San Francisco).
> Quality of life in places like San Francisco and New York is very high
Quality of life is also a cultural thing. I know it's hard to understand for US people (I truly believe it is the case for cultural reasons), but many people really don't want the lifestyle of the US for all sorts of reasons. For some people, quality of life means easy access to healthy food, or to nature, seeing trees instead of giant concrete parking lots or 6-lanes highways, etc.
Have you ever been to San Francisco? How many 6 lane highways do you think exist in the city of San Francisco?
I can tell you (I live here) -- there are none. SF is one of the most beautiful cities on Earth, and I'm trying my hardest to visit as many cities on earth as possible.
Perhaps it would be preferable at least to not mix civilian health data or regular business data, with mass surveillance data, and with military industrial complex and kill chain data. It would make sense to have an interest in keeping different kinds of personal data in separate places and not have it thrown around companies with quite different interests or collected together within some company that's involved in quite different industries. So why does it not make sense to apologists of this company?
It doesn't matter whether they do or not, the desire to keep separate things separate could be there as is. It might as well not be any of that but just about the kinds of things some companies are involved in.
Again, kind of amusing how that immediately devolves into "are you making an accusation".
How capable it is do you think at this moment. I guess we need 30 more years for software to get better, so less than 20 thousand children dies in the Gaza genocide.
That's a "motherhood statement"[1] - you haven't answered the question.
Militaries make targeting decisions with data. That's entirely separate to whether they have been ordered by civilian government to target something, and Palantir do not control that part of decision making (you as a voter do! You did vote right?)
No it’s not. It’s totally conceivable that the (perceived) quality of targeting data would contribute to the decision of whether to run a mission at all, and if so how extensively.
The companies involved definitely want you to think that part of their noble goal is reducing civilian casualties. As far as I can see, though, that is pure propaganda.
i am not saying that is the case here, all i am saying is that your argument would apply to any technology that lets you better differentiate/target enemies vs. civilians, which suggests to me it is overbroad.
You are reading perhaps more generality than I intended. To be clear, I am talking about the present greater-Anglo-American military-industrial complex, driven by present ideologies, in which the distinction between “enemy” and “civilian” itself is extremely debatable.
And that the people who stand to benefit the most from another war might want to filter/target that data in a way to make that more probable?
I mean, I know it's a stretch. Especially with how benevolent our current class of billionaires are. But just imagine a guy who thinks money is more important than anything else. I know... another stretch. lol.
> > Palantir do not control that part of decision making (you as a voter do! You did vote right?)
You're not actually suggesting that the company providing the data isn't at all part of that process, are you?
Can you, for a second, imagine a company collecting/forwarding only data that's beneficial to it's core objective? Especially one whose led by a guy who has quite literally benefits off of a war????
I am 100% sure you have absolutely no idea what Palantir actually do, and I suggest you go actually read about it. There's plenty of resources out there which will explain in considerable detail what the product is, what the services are, how the services get provided, and the benefits (for example one of Palantir's premier operations is "forward deployed engineers" - which is super-handy for organizations which work in government because it means they come to you and do the installs and setup, but don't keep or even have access to any of the data - the relationship is between you and the specific employees - who in turn need to have Federal clearances - and not Palantir corporate).
This arrangement is extremely conventional, but most company's hate doing it and so don't unless they're operating with the expertise to manage those types of orgs (which is usually only profitable if you have a unique advantage or specialize in seeking a lot of contracts and then navigate the data handling rules to realize - hopefully - some synergies).
I don't like Thiel, but his detractors are also very obviously ignorant as to how any of the Federal government normally works.
