Amulets have been used for centuries as a means of protection and attracting good fortune. One specific type of amulet that has gained popularity is those designed to repel envy. Envy is an emotion that can bring harm to individuals and create negative energy in their lives. By wearing or carrying an amulet that can repel envy, individuals believe they can shield themselves from its negative effects. The concept of envy repelling amulets is found in various cultures around the world. For example, in ancient Egypt, the Eye of Horus was worn as a symbol of protection against jealousy and envy.
Neuenschwander explained that the redesign was customer driven as most customers wanted their data protected even after their phones got stolen, otherwise even common criminals could had the phone's data extracted to exploit, blackmail or steal their owner's identity. Rolling back would leave them vulnerable again.
In particular it focused on the mass shooting at San Bernardino where the shooter s mobile phone was retrieved but the phone s manufacturer, Apple, denied unlocking it even though unlocking phones provides major evidence in major crime scenes. Alternatively, ask anyone called Thierry Mairot, who likely faced a difficult time after an entirely false rumour claiming he was a sexual predator trying to seduce children on Facebook spread like wildfire, when thousands of Facebook users circulated the rumour without verification.
For example, in ancient Egypt, the Eye of Horus was worn as a symbol of protection against jealousy and envy. The Eye of Horus, an ancient Egyptian symbol of protection, was believed to ward off evil spirits and negative thoughts. Similarly, in ancient Rome, the evil eye amulet was used to ward off envy and ill wishes.
Facebook witch hunt scanner
A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was convened on December 10, 2019 to confront the ongoing conflict between government and law enforcement agencies and the tech industry regarding encryption. Experts from Apple and Facebook gave testimony but it was clear from the outset that the verdict had been reached before the hearing even began: encryption is an evil that must be sacrificed in the interests of law enforcement.
I've followed the press and read many articles about it, but unfortunately none of the coverage went into the level of detail I wanted. So I set about doing it myself. This is my in-depth commentary from a technologist's perspective, of Encryption and Lawful Access: Evaluating Benefits and Risks to Public Safety and Privacy. Follow this link if you want to view the orignal video recording.
It is important to analyze what took place during the 2 hour 21 minute hearing in order to understand the way governments are approaching this issue. It revals a general lack of understanding of how encryption technology works and a hostile attitude towards the tech industry, represented in this case by Apple and Facebook.
Although the hearing was concerned with every kind of encryption, in the main it was concerned with full device encryption. In particular it focused on the mass shooting at San Bernardino where the shooter's mobile phone was retrieved but the phone's manufacturer, Apple, "denied" unlocking it even though unlocking phones provides major evidence in major crime scenes.
This misinterpretation of "denial" in unlocking the phone, was at the core of the attempts to persecute encryption. It became more complicated when distinguished New York District Attorney (DA) Mr. Cyrus R. Vance, maintained that formerly, before 2014, Apple routinely provided his office with data on its users, and that it was the upgrade to iOS 8 in fall 2014 that made the contents of Apple phones inaccessible. But how was Apple able to give access to encrypted data pre-2014? According to Vance, by using a key that only Apple knew, implying that a backdoor had already existed!
Apple's Mr. Erik Neuenschwander tried in vain to explain that Apple never denied a request for cooperation and that even Apple hasn't got access to the encrypted data of its users so they simply can't comply; it's the way encryption works.
Continuing, he dispelled the myth that there was ever such a key which would give them access to the encrypted data and what changed in 2014 was the switch to full device encryption in contrast to the state before when the data at rest was stored on the device's storage media, unecrypted.
His attempt as vindication was in vain. The committee wouldn't listen to any of it because as the hearing progressed its members were coming back to bad Apple (pun intended) for having revoked the key.
Two examples where device encryption hindered investigations were given. One was of child exploitation by a baby sitter. The DA's department seized her phone and broke into it by hiring a third party service which used hacking tools and zero day exploits. The issue with this outsourcing is that the New York DA's office is one of the few law enforcement units that possesses the resources to hire such an expensive third party expertise; for most other units such a cost is prohibitive.
In another case, of sex trafficking, the law enforcement agencies couldn't break into the phone so the investigation came to a halt. All-in-all out of 1600 confiscated phones only half could be unlocked. This wasn't the case pre-2014 prompting the DA to ask for Apple to return its devices back to that state.
Neuenschwander explained that the redesign was customer driven as most customers wanted their data protected even after their phones got stolen, otherwise even common criminals could had the phone's data extracted to exploit, blackmail or steal their owner's identity. Rolling back would leave them vulnerable again.
But despite Neuenschwander's attemptes to dispel the myth of a backdoor or key, the impression that before 2014 Apple was complying with court orders in retrieving data from phones and that afterwards it somehow stopped complying, persisted The truth is that Apple hasn't stopped complying; after 2014 it couldn't help because it couldn't access its own devices.
The DA's reasoning was that product designs are man-made, which means that tech companies can do as they please in designing their products and that by extension they could design to support government access.
Neuenschwander replied that weakening encryption for the government, would weaken it for everyone else, even for the most vulnerable whom law enforcement was looking to protect; weakening everybody's privacy and security as a consequence. He also reiterated the merits of encryption in keeping us safe from perpetrators, keeping e-commerce and transactions over the internet rolling, in safely controlling our home and vehicles, and even protecting the country's infrastructure in healthcare and electricity grids.
Professor Matt Tait, Cyber Security Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin, outlined another dimension to the issue of encryption; that it is important to distinguish between the types of encryption and the challenges that each pose to law enforcement:
- device encryption, which the DA was most concerned with
- end to end encrypted messaging apps, which prevent wire tapping
- cyber-tips, that is detecting illegal material such as child exploitation images over a communication platform
The current countermeasures for type 1,device encryption, is to use hacking tools to exploit vulnerabilities in the phone's Operating System. As for types 2 and 3, since the communication can't be intercepted, other countermeasures can be employed, like scanning for malicious material on the end device itself.
In summing up, Professor Tait explained that there are, or can be solutions, that do not require circumventing encryption.
At this point both Apple's and Facebook's representatives told the panel that they closely cooperate with authorities, replying to requests, training law enforcement officials, scanning their networks with AI, doing behavioral analysis and using the unencrypted meta-data to prevent illegal activities. Facebook has 35K employees working on this particular field taking down videos, imagery and fake accounts, detecting and preventing harm. These initiatives I think clearly answer one panelist's question of "Do you care about the victims?".
Again, a senator called out Apple for only filing 43 child abuse reports compared to Facebook's millions, so by definition Apple doesn't care as much or doesn't do as much as Facebook. Of course, Apple's representative, whose anguish one could clearly read, tried to reply that these cases are different and can't be compared; devices versus messaging apps that serve billions of messages.
But the discussion was veering towards one and only direction: find a way to let us in or we will impose our will on you! I had thought that a hearing on evaluating the "Benefits and Risks to Public Safety and Privacy" meant that all stakeholders would come together and discuss possible solutions by trying to find middle ground; this defied the purpose. You could however sense that the parties are so far apart that only legislation could settle it. The problem is what kind of legislation and how applicable is it going to be?
This week, a new subreddit popped up: “FindBostonBombers.” Scouring the Internet for photos and clues, redditors decided to play detective. Things soon spiraled out of control.
Different cultures have their own unique symbols and amulets for repelling envy. In Turkey, the "nazar boncugu" or the "evil eye" is a popular amulet used to protect against envy and negative energy. This amulet features a blue glass bead with a white circle in the center, representing an eye. It is believed that the evil eye amulet absorbs the negative energy caused by envy, protecting individuals from harm. In addition to traditional amulets, individuals have also started to use modern symbols and amulets to repel envy. Some people wear jewelry with the symbol of a closed fist, representing strength and resistance against negativity. Others use gemstones such as black tourmaline or smoky quartz, believed to have protective properties against envy and negative energy. While the effectiveness of amulets for repelling envy is largely based on personal belief, many individuals find comfort and reassurance in wearing them. Amulets serve as a constant reminder to focus on positivity and shield oneself from the negative thoughts of others. They can bring a sense of peace and protection, allowing individuals to confidently go about their lives without being affected by envy. In conclusion, amulets designed to repel envy have been used by various cultures throughout history. Whether in the form of ancient symbols or modern jewelry, these amulets are believed to protect individuals from the harm caused by envy and negative energy. While their effectiveness may vary from person to person, their symbolic value and ability to provide a sense of protection make them a popular choice for many..
Reviews for "Amulets for Success: How Repelling Envy Can Help You Achieve Your Goals"
1. Sarah - 2/5 - I was really disappointed with the effectiveness of these amulets. I bought them hoping they would help with the negative energy and envy that I often feel from others. However, after wearing them for a few weeks, I noticed no difference in how I felt or in the interactions I had with people. It was a complete waste of money for me, and I wouldn't recommend them to anyone looking for real protection against envy.
2. John - 1/5 - These amulets did absolutely nothing for me. I was excited to receive them and believed they would help me ward off envy and negative energy. However, after wearing them for over a month, I didn't notice any change in my life or how I felt. I think these are just a gimmick and a way for the company to make money off desperate people like myself. Save your money and look for alternative ways to deal with envy.
3. Emily - 2/5 - I wanted to believe in these amulets, but sadly, they did not live up to their claims. I purchased them hoping to protect myself from envy and negative vibes, but I experienced no discernible difference in my daily life. While the amulets themselves are beautifully crafted and the packaging is nice, I feel like they are more of a placebo than an actual solution. I would not recommend them to anyone seeking a genuine solution to repel envy.