Uhh yes, sorry. I had it the other way around. Perhaps a native american then raped/had child with a caucasian, who kept the child?
Lifter
joined 2 years ago
The third paragraph contradicts your other point. You define E2EE in two wildly different ways.
The chat messages are most likely stored on an intermediary server, which would qualify for the same loophole you pointed out in the cloud storage example.
No, the other ancestors are all native American. Obviously the child stayed in the native to community.
They turn into special mushrooms.
Tbf all cemeteries are for living people. The dead don't care.
Just like Netflix who purposefully scrambles the start screen to get you to watch something else rather than your favourites. They want you to not realize you have already seen all the good stuff already and unsubscribe.
Yes! Who can even name five people they trust!?
Pin the bat?
You could probably configure your system monitor to show available memory - that is memory available given that cache can be dropped - rather than free memory that should always be as close to zero as possible.
Sounds like Natural Selection.
They nailed the smile way better than the other one.
You probably didn't understand me. I'm saying that a company can just arbitrarily decide (like you did) that the server is the "end" recipient (which I disagree with). That can be done for chat messages too.
You send the message "E2EE" to the server, to be stored there (like a file, unencrypted), so that the recipient(s) can - sometime in the future - fetch the message, which would be encrypted again, only during transport. This fully fits your definition for the cloud storage example.
By changing the recipient "end", we can arbitrarily decode the message then.
I would argue that the cloud provider is not the recipient of files uploaded there. In the same way a chat message meant for someone else is not meant for the server to read, even if it happens to be stored there.