I’m not defending the occupation and whole “nation building” (which I doubt they though would take 20 years). Just pointing out that there was a difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, and that difference was reflected by the support (or lack of) from other countries.
So, tl;dr: After being hammered by strikes they made an offer to hand him over to a 3rd party?
Even if you remove the veto power, what exactly would you expect to happen?
Bush wasn’t going to be arrested and put under an international court for the same reason Putin isn’t going to be arrested for invading Ukraine. You can tell them “hand him over”, they say “make me”, and the only way to enforce the decision involves war, which no one wants to have.
The veto power is a problem, but it’s not the main problem here.
I wouldn’t put Afghanistan and Iraq on the same level.
Bin Laden (and Al-Qaeda) was in Afghanistan and they refused to hand him over. That invasion had the support of NATO and even Russia and China. Why? Because Al-Qaeda existing doesn’t benefit anyone and they were behind the attacks.
Iraq was different. It was mostly a US and British invasion, under false pretences. Iraq used to have chemical weapons and even used them against civilians back in the 80s, started a war with Iran and invaded Kuwait, but those were not the reasons given for the invasion…
Now, why wasn’t Bush charged with any crimes? For the same reason nothing will happen to Putin in Russia. What are you going to do, invade the country to arrest the president?
Is it fair? No. But it’s how the world works.
People will forget - like we eventually forget about everything - but the information doesn’t have to disappear from the internet.
Have a website, blog, etc? Write about your experience, what you saw other people doing, the reactions, what politicians did, what you felt, etc. Archive the pages on the usual archival sites, so something lives on even after you die.
Just like some people went back to read what the newspapers wrote about the “Spanish” flu 100 years ago, someone is likely to get back to what we wrote/filmed/saved during this pandemic.
And I say, “Thanks dude! Bavarian cream is my favorite!”.
Okay, nothing wrong with this, unless you knew the person wasn’t a “dude”.
And the office temp shouts, “I’m not a dude!” and pushes the coffee and donuts onto the floor. Big mess.
Obviously wrong, but a “I call everyone dudes, no offence meant” from you would show everyone in the room that you didn’t mean to offend them.
And I reply, “Nobody cares about your stupid gender.”
And now you’re an asshole. And a dumb one at that as not only you expressed your opinion about someone else’s “stupid gender”, but also turned others against you.
Assuming this even happened and you’re not leaving anything out, you lack “people skills”.
If you (user 1) are talking with your friend (user 2) through me (telegram) and I have the encryption keys, then for me (telegram) communications are essentially in plain text. I can even encrypt them 100 times… I have the keys and can read your (user 1 + user 2) messages.
You’re again talking about storing messages (not sure why). Telegram might encrypt their storage (I never claimed they didn’t), but they have the keys and therefore can read what’s stored. They also have the keys for the messages, so there’s no hypotheticals or claims here: they have the keys for everything, so they can read everything.
E2EE is opt-in and currently only available for direct chats. Unless you manually start a “secret chat”, there’s no E2EE MTProto 2.0 to help you. They can read everything.
The audit done in 2020 goes over how Telegram encrypts their cloud chats and those encryption keys are not stored on the same servers. While E2EE is preferable, the reason why Telegram works the way it does is because how messages are handled by default.
So… Telegram has the keys to decrypt your messages?
I mean, it’s not hard to understand. The party that holds the keys can read the messages.
I didn’t say anything about them “storing messages in plain text”. I said that they don’t do E2EE by default and since they have the keys for the TLS that encrypts data in transit, they can read the content of your messages. Encrypting their drives - something that any decent service does - only protects you if someone “steals” a drive: Telegram has the keys and can obviously read the contents of their drives.
I found this Kaspersky blog post which provides a nice tl;dr. They even make the same point as me:
Let’s go straight to the root of the problem: Telegram is a unique messenger with two types of chats: regular and secret. Regular chats are not end-to-end encrypted. Only secret ones are.
No other messenger does this: even the notorious WhatsApp, part of Mark Zuckerberg’s data-hungry empire, uses end-to-end encryption by default. The user doesn’t need to do anything at all, there are no special checkboxes or anything: messages are protected from all outsiders (including the service owners) right out of the box.
[…]
This is not new. Back in 2015, Edward Snowden had this to say about Telegram’s defaults:
I respect @durov, but Ptacek is right: @telegram’s defaults are dangerous. Without a major update, it’s unsafe. [source]
To be clear, what matters is that the plaintext of messages is accessible to the server (or service provider), not whether it’s “stored.” [source]
In practice, they’re no different from Messenger, Slack, Discord or a direct message on Reddit. Most messages on Telegram can be read by them, just like Google can read all messages in your Gmail.
Why is Signal or WhatsApp better? Because they do E2EE for all messages. It doesn’t matter if they forget to encrypt their servers, all they see and store is encrypted messages. You hold the keys, not them.
WhatsApp uses the Signal Protocol. Is it as private as Signal? No, it “leaks” way more metadata. Have I personally checked if they’re encrypting messages? Also no, although others have. Is it possible that they’re doing something “funny” and no longer encrypt? Yes, but is there any suggestion or proof of that being the case?
Should you use WhatsApp? No, but the suggestion above was to use Telegram, a service that doesn’t do end-to-end encryption by default and leaks the same type of data as WhatsApp. Going from Messenger to Telegram is a sideways move. From Messenger to WhatsApp would be at least a small upgrade (with the benefit of having more contacts there than Telegram, at least in some countries).
I understand the point about it also being a Meta app. I guess the question is what do you trust more? Telegram and the people behind it with your plain text messages or a Meta app with end-to-end encryption? I don’t trust either, so I pick encryption.
I’m not anti Telegram or anything like that. It’s a nice app, lots of features, smooth, etc, and I use it, but privacy was never their main priority.
I use Telegram every day, but without end-to-end encryption (by default and on groups), it’s as private as Facebook Messenger. They can read everything. The only difference is that currently people trust them more than they trust Facebook, but everything turns to shit eventually.
If Signal is too “boring” or no one uses it in your circles, try WhatsApp. Yes, it’s also from Meta, but at least comms are encrypted (same protocol as Signal) and a lot of people use it.
How long of a delay (too long and people complain) and how to cut if off without having to add another line to the pilot’s checklists during troubleshooting?
Some planes and carriers have this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slzAcWff7nU
It costs money though, so you usually only see them on more premium carriers and larger planes.
I’m working from memory here, but I think there was an instance where there was a crash or some incident where people could see it happening on the cameras though… and it’s not ideal having everyone in the plane panicking because they’re going to die.
Hmm, I’m not experiencing that. Could Android (well, the flavour used by your phone) be killing background apps too aggressively or something like that?
Edit: could also be a RAM thing. I have 12GB.
Yes, but that already used to happen before if the thieve had an iPhone.
Not for dropping bombs or ordering drone strikes in a different country.