Yes, you are right. But I was not speaking from a "policy" perspective. I was saying essentially what you are trying to say: security is holistic. What I was trying to say, apparently not very well, is that secure code must be based on a secure design. If you hack something together, without explicitly analyzing your design patterns, you have no way to convince yourself that is secure. This is not about policy: it is about sound design. As Peter Neumann once said, "Good system and network architecture is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of any efforts to develop trustworthy systems, irrespective of the particular set of requirements whose satisfaction is necessary." Neumann is Principal Scientist at the Computer Science Laboratory of SRI International, Fellow of the AAAS, ACM, and IEEE, recipient of the ACM Outstanding Contribution Award in 1992, the Electronic Frontier Foundation Pioneer Award in 1996, and the ACM SIGSOFT Outstanding Contribution Award in 1997, an ACM National Lecturer for 16 months during 1969 and 1970, 1997 recipient of the Norbert Wiener Award for excellence in promoting socially responsible use of computing technology, SRI Fellow, and Honorary CISSP (Certified Information Systems Security Professional), awarded by the International Information Systems Security Certification Consortium -- (ISC)^2. I was therefore honored when he wrote the foreword for my book High-Assurance Design.

apparently already blocks this Teslacrypt variant. Finding niches in the world to exploit becomes a sport it seems, I wonder what the next niche will be. I will be busy asserting my Linux security in the meanwhile.

So the CRB 2 probably will have that as well.

As a Pixel 1 owner here, you can just crack open the Chromebook, screw tight the write-protect screw for the BIOS and flash a replacement ROM that removes the whole ChromeOS boot capability and delay.
It does have drawbacks, but you can work around them. Good for tweakers.

I am not saying that having an assurance argument makes code secure. I am saying that without one, it is very hard to reverse engineer the security model and thereby convince oneself that the code is secure.

Code cannot be claimed to be secure unless it has been designed with secure design patterns - patterns for which there is an "assurance argument". If the code was "coded" instead of designed, then there is no hope of creating assurance arguments after the fact. In that case, the audit will be very difficult and untrustworthy.

In a recent corruption case (to which you can disagree as to the seriousness, I think it is very serious but definitely not as serious as terrorism), the prosecutor engaged with the FBI and ultimately Apple (source) to get his iPad decrypted. Although the case requires a good research into the suspect, it is questionable whether there was any need to go to these great lenghts.
As a background, the Dutch (officials) have a standing as being the nation with some of the most telephone taps in the world - without good justifying. The judge understood this, and clearly prevents the prosecutor office from abusing this particular power in the future, although the parliament still has to decide on a new law-proposal that is being made, giving back these far reaching options (albeit with a bit of smoke-and-dagger 'judicial oversight').

If yes: give them the choice. Seeing the number of arguments, it seems the best thing to do: even if the SC refuses it, there are options to become a citizen later using lottery, H1B or simply employment by one of the multitude of global corporations (there are bound to be more later). Borders will become less important over time.
Ultimately, Europe is probably the best bet in this case. The US sounds nice, and is a nice country to travel around, but living there is harsh and not very welcoming (little assistance if you go unemployed e.g.). Go for the safest choice for now : let them make the choice later.

The question is confused. The AI processes that are thought to be most promising with respect to eventually leading to intelligent machines are not algorithmic. That is, they are based on neural networks. And while it is possible to simulate those using algorithms (e.g., the RBM cascade pattern, with each node simulated as an RBM node), these "algorithms" are non-deterministic - they are simulations - we cannot know the outcomes, just as one cannot know the outcome of a human's thought process. But with regard to religion, that seems to be a human predisposition with a genetic basis, and since religion is based on absolute unquestioning faith in things that are seemingly preposterous - a cognitive dissonance if there ever was one - I don't think that we can expect intelligent machines - which are free of our cognitive impairments - to be susceptible to conversion to religion. Still, I suspect that artificial intelligences will have the same wonder and confusion about existence as we do - they just will not look to iron age shaman texts for their answers.

Above all, take a profession that is what you love to do - no matter what income it produces (as long as you can get by). And stay focused - don't let time fritter away. Make a plan for your dream - a practical plan, for which you know all the steps, because all steps are simple and very doable - and stick to that plan no matter what.

You haven't been to Antarctica?
"The Simpsons are going to Antarctica!"

P.S. Of course it could be a different continent bu that is most likely.

When I read the title I was thinking of cameras and such - until I read all the cyberprivacy stuff.
It seems to apply to that too.
Since poor people need to go through public places to get to food stores, private, they need to go through 2 sets of cameras.
"You have no expection of privacy in public," and, "It's private so they can do whatever they want," statements are used.

A poor person can't hire someone else and must go themselves and hence be caught on camera.

The assumption that "we will probably find new things to do to satisfy limitless human demand" has no substantiation. In fact, the rate of job replacement is now higher than the rate of job creation. Unemployment will be rising inexorably and at an increasing rate.

Perhaps it could be like the real thing, if done right - but the real thing throws you around, and you can fall off and roll onto the ground. To duplicate that would be quite a simulation! But as you say, if it is raining out, it sounds like the next best thing.

What is driving the rush into these things is that the companies behind them want to mine the data that they generate. Imagine: all those devices phoning home, and companies able to collect data on when people are using things, where people are etc. - all that data can be input to data analysis and find patterns. Those patterns are worth a-lot of money.