sabarn01

They buried the lead. This is all really about Chevron doctrine which gives a large amount of deference to administrative agencies. The current court has indicated they might be willing to overturn Chevron which would mean rule making would be more constrained by the governing legislation. There is a lot of regulation that would come under scrutiny under a different standard. The real question everyone is missing is how much quasi legislative authority should be granted to the administrate state.

You are free to file suite.

The 14th amendment.

Sure but often these are levied by insiders to shut down outsiders. The long term problem with regulatory bodies is capture. Which is another reason that the core of this issue the Chevron doctrine is bad law. Regulator should be required to hue closely to their legislative mandate.

This is framed in a very specific way. The real question is how much latitude administrative agencies should be given. Chevron says a lot and it says that they don't have to be consistent, nor do they have to even meet the plain meaning of the legislation. The issue this causes is it allows congress to not legislate, but pass the buck to the administrate agency. Congress has been dysfunctional for so long we have come to expect it, but it doesn't mean it’s good for our system.

If congress wants something regulated, they should pass a law and give guidance and the agency should have to meet the clear meaning of the law until its changed by congress. In general, a new president shouldn't affect how agencies implement the will of congress but chevron kinda implicitly allows this. There are lots of regulations that may be swept away if we do away with Chevron but I think it will make the system more accountable and force congress to do its job.

Unless you run it yourself you don't know. They could run a modified version ect. You can't know and at some level you have to trust that they do what they say.

How do you know they really run end to end encryption and are not lying.

but its true for all organizations and people.

I should have been more specific. We have lots a data classifications we maintain and we have different rules for different classifications. Customer content we can't access without customer consent. We are paid to store customer content. Customer content is like your work doc stored in one drive. Some classification are only accessed in aggregate. Some are easier to access but cleared after a short period ect. We all have to go though a large training every year about the different classifications and that's not easy to communicate in a short comment.

We store data everywhere to meet european GDPR standards regardless of where you live. We have logs but they can only contain sanitized information.

Any document which attempts to describe how a large origination handles data is going to large and complex. As sometimes different standards conflict. For example we have to keep records of anyone who changes the system for some period of but we also have to delete data that has end user identifiers. When stuff like that happens we have to go to lawyers and have language that describes how we handle thoes conflicts. That doesn't lead to a small doc.

I don't know if I can say what we have to turn over to the auditors that isn't in the public document. As to verifying the hardware we buy our hardware from other companies who have their own controls. If you dig far enough down everything ultimately comes to trust as no one can verify everything.

What exactly can an org do. We hire outside verifiers and then meet their standards.

We collect telemetry about user actions and the successes of our service. All the data we collect is about how the service runs and we only look at it via aggregation. Internally we have training every year about what you can and can't collect and under which scenarios. It gets stricter every year.

The document I linked explains how why and when. It also explains how we verify that and who does the verification. Also O365 customers have access to audit logs and the rest. At some level everything is about trust there is no way you can verify any large organizations activities.

If you write a document and store it in sharepoint online we have to keep that data as does any online offering.

Like telemetry? We have to collect customer data that's what we get paid for. As for pinky promises we are SOC compliant and externlly audited. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/compliance/regulatory/offe...

You can get access with customer permission for a limited time window which is audited. In the normal course of business no.

We have to certify every O365 service for all of these. We also have to certify all of our dependencies.

We don't have access to that data internally. We can't access customer data outside performance metrics about the service. At least for the normal dev there is no real way to get access to what the customer does.

Maybe not but the US has more resources more Spec Ops ect.

No. There were multiple attempts to destroy Israel by force and the outcome is this. There are Israeli arabs with equal rights as Jews so this isn't the ethnic struggle it was in the US or sa. This is what do you do with a defeated enemy.

That's a very different claim the US and south Africa integrated. The us over a period of 100 years. There are some land reforms in sa but there are none in the US. Also Israel has a native Arab population that is already integrated.

They may have more bombs than they have manpower. It's about which resources you choose to expend. Also the is has far more precision weapons than anyone else.

I think this is true to an extent. I certainly think the US given the same task would have been more surgical, but the US has a lot more money power and resources. Israel has to maintain a military so it can fend off attacks from its neighbor which limits the amount of resources it can expend. Soldiers are a finite resource.

Also all countries military's inherently value its own soldiers over an advisory civilians. If I was a IDF general it would be my goal to minimize the casualties taken in securing what ever goal the political leadership sets forth within the laws of war.

So your first step is destruction of the Jewish state. Why would Israel do that. If that's your opening gabit it seems like war is the only option.

So what should Israel do as a concrete step. If your only answers is right of return you have an unworkable first step.

What would you suggest Israel do if fighting hamas is not an option. Also the Nazis killed civilians as a goal not by happenstance.

Right of return is a non starter for the winning power. Which is why this conflict is intractable.

I think I agree with that. Which is the PA should be boosted and rewarded with increased freedom and autonomy as a counter example to Gaza. As it stands right now Israel is almost rewarding being more intransigent.

Gaza has been pseudo self governed since 2005, and is ruled by an authoritarian theocratic regime. The situation was intolerable on 10/6 but understood. What exactly should israel do after the 10/7 attacks. To me attempting to degrade Hamas is what any other state would do. War in one of the most densely populated places on earth is going to kill a lot of people. The only other option it would seem to me would be to ignore the attacks which I'm sure wouldn't be acceptable to the citizens of Israel.

Jews were a majority of Jerusalem even in 1850. Some communities have existed since roman times. Its a complicated story that doesn't start within anyone's living memory.