First of all you don't need it. Secondly, the regulation even states that the right is granted automatically anyway. Technically, the rule had been in place for the past 45+ years anyway - even when there was mandatory military service! - so it doesn't make any practical difference.
> Apparently it is bureaucracy without purpose after all?
No it's not without purpose at all. The purpose is to know who could be drafted in a timely manner should the need arise. There's currently 2 major wars - sorry "special military operations" - happening, one of which in Europe.
A certain government involved in one of these simultaneously calls for allies to assist while at the same time openly questioning half a century of military alliances. So maybe this helps to understand why regulations like this make sense - even for people who never lived through a time when there was mandatory military service and take their own security for granted.
At the moment, the law has no teeth since they cannot stop anyone from just leaving without return ticket, and nothing happens when you return. Of course it would be very easy to change that, and that's the reason why it exists.
I went through SOC2 Type I and II. I’d say that most of that stuff is necessary, like splitting environments and so on. That doesn’t mean it’s anything close to sufficient to avoid being hacked.
It’s a framework to give you the direction, then if employees are careless (or even malicious), no security standard is complete enough to protect a company.
Not to be pedantic about the topic but SOC 2 is an auditing standard, not a security framework. It defines what you’ll be assessed against but it doesn’t tell you how to build your security program. You’ll find the prescriptive controls in real frameworks like ISO 27001, NIST CSF, or CIS Controls which do give you a structure for implementing security.
The thing is very simple: when watching TV I need to adjust my schedule to the shows I'd like to watch. With youtube (or any streaming platform), I can see them whenever I want, the platform adapts to my schedule.
Of course there are some exceptions, for example when I want to watch my national football team, I'd like to watch it live. Luckily, that won't be a problem anymore this year (Italy).
You used to be able to set your VCR to record the show at a certain time (and skip the ads by fast-forwarding). DVRs exist too. We have lost a lot of freedom.
I don’t think the schedule argument is a strong one these days. DVRs have been around for decades now, and built into satellite and cable services too. In fact, some TVs even have DVR functionality built in.
What annoys me is when streaming services release shows on a weekly basis. Which makes them just as inconvenient to watch as traditional broadcasting.
Even if, in this case, I really think that Apple has left something important behind, for example the STT of Siri is way behind Whisper and that was released in 2022!
This isn’t accurate, Palantir business model includes mass surveillance for military/security purposes; if a company is concerned with privacy should think twice before handling it to Palantir, even if with all the assurances they might give in terms of data governance.
> This isn’t accurate, Palantir business model includes mass surveillance for military/security purposes;
You realize that this is not mutually exclusive with what I just wrote?
Palantir builds software for military and security purposes. But the customers don't give this data to Palantir, custody of this data remains with the customer.
> Palantir builds software for military and security purposes. But the customers don't give this data to Palantir, custody of this data remains with the customer.
How is that possible if Palantir software runs on machines Palantir controls?
People seem to struggle with the concept of private datacenters these days. Palantir customers tend to be the sorts of orgs that are pretty paranoid about their data, and they wouldn't be handing it over to some schmucks without being confident that those concerns were addressed. Militaries and governments generally aren't fuckin around with things like intelligence data, so I think it's reasonable that Palantir is able to make a convincing case to the world's most paranoid orgs that their data isn't being sent anywhere (and it'd likely be air gapped anyway).
Just because everything you touch is in the cloud doesn't mean other orgs aren't still building their own datacenters and then buying software to run inside.
The on prem solution is probably 2X TCO of the hosted solution. I'm sure many orgs that should be strictly "on prem" are running hosted solutions due to budgetary concerns.
Heh, the fact that they aren’t mutually exclusive is the problem. Why give someone with mass surveillance ops in other domains access to yet another domain?
This is like saying a Swiss bank would share your secrets because shady people use Swiss banks. No. Confidentiality is literally built into their business model. Getting caught sharing customer data is one of the fastest ways for their business to crumble.
How does it not make sense? Companies all over the world trust their proprietary data with Palantir platforms. There’s no way they would do this if they thought Palantir was actually sharing data without their approval. If they were found out to have done this, companies would cease to trust Palantir and stop working with them
reply