All right, what's up, everyone? Today is August 28th at 9.05 a.m. This is gonna be a free live trading session. So for those that don't know, we do a free, well, I do a live trading every single day for MIC subscribers that want to get this add-on, right? So we went back to the drawing boards and we decided that we want to kind of give more help and more mentorship to our members. So we said, you know what? The best thing we could do is kind of have people trade alongside me, right? Be right next to me as I execute my trades. So what I'm gonna start doing is I wanna do a free live trading session like this one once a month so that people could see what we are all about and if this live trading will help you. So there was about, if I'm not mistaken, over 900 people that registered to this live trading. So it's pretty kind of crazy. Actually it's 954, that's crazy. Our Zoom limitation is about 1,000 people. So we're pretty much at our Zoom limitation. So what I'm gonna do is at the end of this live trading, I'm gonna share a special discount for anyone that's kind of on the fence about live trading. So stay tuned till the end. So just so you guys understand, the way that I do these live trainings is I start off by building the watch list. So I build the watch list every single day and then from there, I make the plan, execute the plan and answer questions. So let's start off by building the watch list. So let me pull up the watch list right now. So I build the watch list live so that if anyone is curious on how to build a watch list, they could learn from me. So first things first is the way that I build my watch list is I always go to the previous days watch list first. So the previous days watch list is right. So I actually was on vacation last week. I went to the Kennedy Space Center with my girlfriend. So I personally did not build a watch list, but MIC is not just about me. We have plenty of moderators and mentors that are successful traders that also build the watch list. So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna go to Tom's watch list from Friday and I'm gonna look at the watch list that he built and try to see if I'm able to find some plays off that. So TSHA, TSHA, let me see. Always look at the daily chart first. So TSHA looks like to me the volume is dying off, right? It had 18 million shares and the next day it had two million shares. So this because the volume is dying off is disqualified. I'm very selective with the stocks that I trade because I wanna make sure that I'm trading the highest probability setups only. And if something doesn't have volume, I am not interested in it. So for me personally, due to the low volume on TSHA, I am disqualifying it. Next, ELIQ. ELIQ, similar situation to TSHA. The first initial day around it had massive volume. The second day the volume kind of shrunk and it's even more shrinking right now. So this to me is disqualified again because of the low volume on the stock. Does that make sense? Next, EOS, EOS. So I'm always looking at the daily chart. So this to me guys, it's a really weird daily chart. It kind of collapsed on probably some sort of news and then they just kind of rebounded it back, rebounded it back, rebounded it back. So because they collapsed it and rebounded it pretty much everyone that shorted since this level is now underwater. And because everyone is underwater that tells me that there is way too much competition on this stock. So again, it is disqualified. So notice how I am being extra selective on every single stock that I trade. I am looking for reasons to disqualify stocks because I want to be trading the best setups only. Does that make sense? I only want to be trading the best setups only so I am disqualifying stocks that do not make sense to me. BRSH. Again, BRSH. Another very key thing guys is look the BRSH move started at $1.80 and it went all the way up to $4, right? $1.80 to $4.00. Now it's down to $2.13. So logically, if I draw my support here in the 170s best case scenario I'll make $0.30. But this may bounce $1.00. So because this has more potential upside than more potential downside, it's an ignore. It's already come back down to support where it's already back where the move started, right? So there's not enough meat on the bone on this stock. So once again, it's disqualified. So all of the stocks that we're moving on Friday they're either low volume or they're disqualified because they don't have enough meat on the bone still, okay? So now that that is done, now that that is done I am looking at what stocks are moving today to determine a plan to trade them, right? So let's start with the highest percentage gainer of the day, which is GDC. GDC, you can see that this is a former runner. This is a former runner. It's ran from two to 44. It's ran from five to 10, right? It's a previous runner. So because it's a previous runner it has a lot of attention. Currently it's trading almost eight million shares pre-market, right? So this is definitely the hot stock of the day. And as you guys know in MIC we try to avoid the hot stock of the day until there is a trend change or a signal change on this stock. So for me, I see key support here, right? Let me draw my key support. I see support here at 440s, right? 440s, which kind of ties up to VWAP right here. So in a perfect world I see two potential trades on this stock, right? I see either a morning push towards five and a death candle to short or if this thing starts to break this 440 line I could look to short bouts. So this is the first stock that fits what I'm looking for. It's extended gap. It's a former runner. So I'm gonna start to make a plan. So GDC, GDC. Hot stock of the day so far. Very risky until we see a death candle. Two potential trades on this stock today. Either a morning push and fail off $5 to short, 30% max size. Why 30% max size? Cause it's still front side of the move. So if it's on front side of the move I don't wanna get too aggressive. Morning push by the short, 30% max size. Nail and bail only. So that means that if it pushes ports five and fails I'll take a small short with the plans and nail and bail means get in and out quickly or what I'm looking for is a break under 440 and it failed down to short. So that's GDC so far. Does that make sense? Next is GNS. It's kind of looking like a daily chart breakout here around above 175. I'm actually pretty surprised at how well the stock has held up. To me it's pretty amazing that they were able to kind of hold this stock the way it has. You know it's gapping up today but I'm pretty much gonna be patiently waiting on this one. I'd rather wait for some more confirmation. So GNS ideally this stock extends at the open and I will wait for a death candle signal to take a short. What I like about GNS is that it pretty much gapped up pretty nicely, it gapped up pretty nicely. So that gives me the opportunity that once it fails it may kind of come back down red. So I'd rather wait for it to confirm first. So all I'm trying to do is wait for these things to confirm first. I would rather let it extend, let it extend, let it extend and then confirm first. You will know when you see a death candle, right? It's pretty much clear as day. So I'm waiting for that death candle signal and then I'm gonna attack CRKN. This one I don't like the daily chart. It's kind of back down. You see how previous support is 122. So it's already at 130. So I mean, best case scenario make eight cents. So I'm not really interested in that one. YS, do again, I'm seeing, yeah, and I don't think there's too much meat on the bone on this one. So I'm probably just gonna ignore it for now. What's next, GNS I did. VFS is another one. So VFS, this is like a pretty insane chart from $10 to $90 in one, two, three, four, five days. These are the stocks that oftentimes track people. These are the stocks that oftentimes get people to short and it's already up like from here. Oh, eight to 40, short, 29 to 40, short, 37 to 50, short, 55 to 70, short, 70 to 90, short. So people see that this stock is up, right? People see that this stock is up and their automatic first instinct is, I got a short, I got a short, but these stocks are super, super risky. I am petrified of these stocks because you can see, look at the range, the range 92 to 72 almost, right? $20 worth of range. So even if you're using a thousand shares, you could be plus or minus $20,000 on this stock in the blink of an eye. So these are so risky to me, right? These are the stocks that I am petrified of. And every time I say that, you know, they end up crashing, they end up tanking, they end up losing everything. So for me personally, I am just waiting. I am just waiting for these to be so obvious. I would rather let it tank to 60 and then short it, right?  It's because at that point, there is no sense of this thing coming back. So pretty much on VFS, it's setting up for a potential, a potential first red day set, right? So I'm pretty much ignoring this until a first red day set up next. So I'm not really good at these penny stocks. I find myself, you know, trading them pretty poorly, but MULN is like a very highly dilutive stock. So it's kind of already pulled back a little bit. I mean, maybe I can make an argument if it's going towards this resistance area at 80 cents, right? So you can see it pushed, fail, push, fail, push, fail, push, fail. So I mean, maybe if we get up to 80 cents, I could look for short. So on this one, MULN, I would scale in 0.80, 0.90, and $1 to scale in short. Again, this is not something that I'm too in love with, but you can see here by drawing my resistance lines, 70s, you know, 80s, 90s, and usually $1 is resistance for this stock. So pretty much just waiting to see if it bounces up there. Let me see if there's anything else. Give me a second. AMC, I mean, honorable mention, pretty crazy. The stock has not been adjusted on the chart yet for the reverse split, but it was at 419. It's not really been adjusted yet. So I mean, it's just kind of crazy here. It's crazy. I think the split adjusted price I need to see real quick. I think it was like 40, right? So I think it was a 10 for one split. So it was $40. So right now it's trading at $12 divided by $40. AMC is down 70%. 70%, right? 70%. This is a dilutive stock. They're just gonna run an ATM on this stock.  All the meme guys, all the people are losing their shirt on the stock.  One of these days is gonna have a pretty aggressive debt cap bounce. I don't know when it's gonna have a debt cap bounce. Maybe today, maybe tomorrow, maybe, I don't know. So just kind of waiting for it to have a debt cap bounce and shorting that debt cap bounce. Oftentimes if it does have a debt cap bounce, it'll be like a red to green move. So it'll open up red, go green and then run. So I'm gonna just kind of make know of that. AMC waiting for this to have a debt cap bounce rebound. So it's gonna be a red day. Oftentimes the rebound day is when it starts red and reclaims green and goes. So we'll be watching it on the rebound day for either a long or an extended move to short. Need more information first. So that's pretty much the watches for today. I don't have any questions on that before I move forward. So every single day, that's how I start. Every single day I start off by building the watch list live. I build the watch list live so that you guys can understand how I make my list. GNS has a forward-looking event. Thank you, David. So let's see. GNS forward-looking events. What is the date on this, David? 831. Thank you, David. Now GNS may be in play until 831. See, this is the power of the community, guys. This is why we do what we do. Sometimes I miss certain things. I miss certain things and that's why having the community allows us to be able to get every single look and cranny out there, right? So we got about 10 minutes until the market opens here. So keep in mind, guys, we're gonna be using the MIC webinar chat for Q&A and if someone is not in MIC, they could shoot me a tweet and I will try to answer that question. Did I locate anything yet? I located some GDC very early because it was cheap but I have not located anything else. The only reason why I located GDC is because I felt like the borrow was gonna be in high demand so I wanted to just make sure I got it. I got it for very, very, very cheap. I got it for 0.0025 a share. Now it's around seven cents a share. So yeah. So I got two potential trades here today set up. Either push and fail at five for nail and bail or wash out and fail. Pretty much all my trading is based on looking for death candles and looking for signals. Something that I've noted in this market cycle is that pre-market is relatively risky these days. I've been trying to avoid pre-market trading as much as possible. And yeah. So with about, I don't know, nine minutes until the market opens, I'm gonna run to the bathroom and when I come back, we will do a quick Q&A. Be right back. I'm back. Oh, GDC. The no pre-market rule is working very well. Three minutes till market opens. So if I'm trading GDC today, it's gonna be a nail and bail until we get a very clear signal lower. Currently we see VFS moving up as well. As soon as I start trading, you will see the triangles on my screen. So keep in mind guys that I am not a financial advisor. This is not meant to be financial advice. Everything I say or do is for entertainment and educational purposes only. Trading is very risky and you have to be prepared to lose all of your money trading. You know, this is not meant for you guys to copy or replicate any of my trades. This is pretty much your way of sitting right beside me as I trade every single day. So please do not copy, please do not follow and understand that I'm not a financial advisor and none of this is financial advice. All of these are just my opinions. VFS reminds me of HKD. I don't know if you guys remember that stock. So again guys, I'm gonna be trading live right now. Anyone has any commentary, feel free to post it in the webinar's channel. If you are not an MIC member, feel free to tweet at me. But aside from that, we'll be getting started here in one minute when the market opens. Gonna stay small, gonna stay nimble until I see a signal. So what I'm usually looking for is I'm usually looking for some sort of death candle. I'm looking for some sort of confirmation candle. GDC tried to break over five and it's kind of failing. So I'd like to see that. But yeah, let's see. Got about 30 seconds until the market opens. If there's anything that's hitting the watch list and I miss it, please be sure to let me know. But aside from that, let's see what's gonna happen. I think my guys is all real time. So there's no delay, there's no like that. Okay, mark's open. All right, so let's see. 30s, took a starter short, GDC, into that push and fail. Started into that morning pop and fail. Nothing of size yet. Looking at 465 and support, 490 cents a seller. Remember, $5 was the resistance. So far, $5 is resisting. Just wanna give it a second before I add a little bit more. VFS ramped up to 89 and failed. Pretty big fail on VFS wanting to see, okay, 490 a seller showed up on GDC. So I just added some more shorts. So I saw the 490 stack seller. So I just hit the bid at 487. VFS halting down, VFS halting down. That might be a potential death candle on VFS. I'm gonna pull up VFS here, VFS, GNS. So VFS, okay, too much happening right now. I've got to focus GDC. GDC is looking if I can get an add on the bounce a little bit. This is a death candle right at the open, GNS money flow. So it looks like money is flowing into GNS. So that makes me a little bit more confident on GDC. Watching to see GDC bounce fail. 490 has a seller, GDC. 490 has a seller, looks like VWAP is over there. Try to look for an ad spot on GDC. Add a little bit more GDC here on the Biff 481 based on that VWAP rejection. If we look to be reclaiming that VWAP level, I'll just stop out on the ads. But right now I'm seeing a death candle at the open. I'm seeing a $5 rejection. I'm seeing a VWAP rejection. GNS is taking the money flow, so I'm ignoring GNS. Because GNS is ramping up, taking all the attention, all the money, I do not want to short it right now. I would rather let the money exit GDC by going into GNS. That is a concept we talk about in MIC, money flow. When we see money flowing into a new stock, we do not want to short it. So as of right now, I see 465 as support on GDC. I will take my final ad if 465 breaks. So watching to see 465 level break to take another ad on this stuff. So just as a recap, I shorted the morning pop when it failed. I added it on the $5 free market rejection and I added it again when VWAP failed. Now if low of the day fails at 465, I will add some more. Ideally, I want to see GNS keep ramping to take the money flowing attention away. 465 getting prepared to add, not add yet, just wait. You can see my trades very clearly on the chart over there.  VFS big rebound, big rebound. Added GDC short, now I'm in about 50% ish size. VFS big replay, 465 low of the day. 465 low of the day.  So what I did is very quick recap. $5 was pre-market resistance. It pushed over $5 and failed, but at the open, it hit everyone stops, the stops got hit, it failed. So I took a starter when that pre-market high of the day failed, when $5 pre-market resistance failed, I added. When VWAP failed, I added. When low of the day failed, I added. So I'm in about 50% size now because all the signals are in my favor, 62, 62, let's see. Let's see. Okay, so I just tried to break low of the day there and reclaimed. So now I'm trying to see if this is going to be a trap or not. If it's going to be a trap, I have to mitigate my risk and cover out. The moment it broke 465, a bitter showed up at 470. So 470s are going to be very key right now. So watching the scene, we're back at VWAP. Is this going to fail or is it going to test? Based on what it does, I'm going to mitigate my risk or add. 70 is a fail, this is a big fail. Let's see, if 470 breaks, it should confirm. Looking to add if 470 breaks. 460 low of the day, that's a death candle again. That's a death candle again. Okay, where's the next support? Next support is 455. Drawing my lines, 455. So I'm chilling right now. I still got my 50% size on. I was too slow to add. I was too slow to add, so I'm just waiting for a proper entry. Again, death candle short, second death candle, looking for higher. Would you stop out of 540 or earlier? I would have stopped out if $5 reclaimed. I would have stopped out of $5 reclaimed. But right now, remember what I said, guys, this 440-ish level, 440s, key support, right? Key support. So that's going to be very essential. Right now I'm chilling. I got about a 490 average. I'm allowed to be a little bit more patient with this stock. GNS looks like it's getting money flow again. AMC, AMC is starting to bounce. Remember, the red to green move may trigger a very large bounce on it. So I'm going to be having this on a side radar. Maybe, maybe, maybe it might be a potential along with red to green reclaims, but I'm not doing anything yet. I'm just waiting. I got a great trade on this GDC. I'm going to babysit it right now. Is this making sense to everyone currently? Does everyone understand what I'm doing so far? Death candle, death candle. Death candle, death candle, key support. In a perfect world, we will see another death candle under this key support and then the fun starts. I'm waiting, waiting. I'm trying to see where is the money flowing? Where is the money flowing? Is it flowing to GNS? Is it flowing to AMC? Where is the money flowing? Is it AMC? It looks like it. Probably AMC is such a dog that I don't really want to go long unless it's obvious, right? It's starting to look a little bit obvious now. And this VFS, I'm just petrified of it, guys. I'm just very, very scared of it. It may tank, it may not tank. There's no one to risk it. Try to be very risk averse. Although VFS is up a lot, guys. It's just, I'm just so scared of it. As you saw right here, trying to halt down in a rebound at $10 a share. 465 was prior support, so we need that to break. 456, come on down. Come on down. Come on down. 460s, 450s, 455. The second VWAP on my chart, one is for pre-market and open calculated and one is just for the open. So GDC, fantastic. 450 tests, 450, 450. Remember, this is the key level, 440s.  I want to make sure I lock in profits on this stock to be able to short it higher, right? The $5 is the whole dollar mark. That is a key mental area. Same thing with 450, it is a key mental area. So I lock in some profits to be able to make sure that I am able to reshort a bounce, right? So I locked in about a third of my position, right? A third of my position on this dip to be able to add back in case this chip bounces, okay? This is making sense, guys. Even a very linear 440s, key support. I covered a little bit more at the key support. I am trimming my position. I am mitigating my risk. I am giving myself an insurance policy in case something goes wrong on this stock, okay? I still have half of my position. I have half of my position so that I can make sure that if this stupid thing bounces, that I have some locked in profits to be able to risk, right? So look at this very clear chart here, guys. Look at this, okay, VFS is failing. So I have a very clear chart here. Notice the $5 pre-market resistance is failing, right? Fail, pushes up and fails. At the market open, it tries to push again. It stops everyone out and then fails. I take my first initial starter and then when $5 fails again, I add. I'm in about 20% size, okay? Then I see a death candle and a VWAP rejection. So I add, it breaks the law of the day. I add, over here, this death candle. I should have been adding here, but I want to get a little bit higher of an entry. That was my mistake. I wanted to get a little bit too much of a perfect entry so I missed the add, but it's okay because I have 50% size on. Now as it breaks VWAP and goes back down to support, notice this key support area.  So now if this thing bounces, which it looks like it's about to do right now, I'm going to reshort it, okay? So I'm at 451, I just got to reshort.  It looks pretty broken to me, dude. So all the bounces technically, technically should fail. Is this starting to make sense guys? Is this starting to make sense? Do you guys see how linear and simple trading can be? Oh, motherfucker, don't tell me it's going to fail.  All right, 29, covered a little bit more.   All good, all good, all good. Stay in calm, sticking to the plan. It's never a problem when you're making money. It's never a problem when you're making money. I do a lot of self-talk when I'm trading guys. I covered a little bit at 429. So pretty much what I reshoried at 451, I covered at 429. 451 minus 429 has 22 cents a share in one minute. 22 cents a share in one minute. What's the next support? Next support is like the 20s, right? The 20s. Even without seeing the next support, I didn't really get covered there. And that's gonna be four bucks. VFS is looking a little bit exciting now for me. I mean, I really want to trade it, but I'm just trying to control my FOMO here guys. I have a little bit of confidence now because of the GDC trade. So I want to kind of control my FOMO here. 29, 28, 29, looks like 28 and 29 are kind of refreshing bids on GDC. 28, 29, 26, 27, 25, whoa, hello. Covered a little bit more of 424. I'm getting out of all of it at 426. I'll call it a day here. Got 300 shares left at 426. 426 got it all out. So I traded today guys for about 930 for about 15 minutes and I made about $8,000 in 15 minutes. And that is my trade and welcome to MIC.  And that's it. That's 15 minutes of trading guys. That's 15 minutes of trading. So now for those of you that are not part of the live trading, are you seeing why so many members are loving live trading? I mean, it's a no-brainer guys. It's a no-brainer. It is 15 minutes of trading. And if you just do the math, if you just do the math, let me show you something. Let me show you something. And these are not pump and dumps guys. These are not in liquid stocks. So I made $8,000 today in 15 minutes. If I make $8,000 a day in 15 minutes, that means I'm gonna make $2 million a year. $2 million a year trading for 15 minutes. Everything is based on the opportunity in front of you guys. Every single thing is based on opportunity. So the market has been slow lately. So I've been kind of risk averse, right? I've been risk averse because the market has been slow. But now when there's opportunities and I'm seeing some action in there, it kind of gets me excited, right? So guys, just so you know, this was a free live trading stream. So I do this pretty much every single day. I do this every single day, right? So I wanna start to do more of these free once a month.  Reshorting the bounce. You guys have the opportunity to learn how to trade from a real professional trader every single morning, right? Every single morning, you have the opportunity to learn how to trade at the professional level, right? So for me, I mean, it's almost a no-brainer for people to sign up for this stuff, especially because it's so inexpensive, right? I actually had a really good cover and really good reshort. In total guys, I used 15,000 shares, 15,000, 15,000 shares, that's about 50% of my size, right? So I wanted to get ideally 30,000 shares on, but I didn't really have the opportunity to do so. So I mean, I really can't complain when I'm getting 50% size and just nailing it. So I'm really, really happy about that. But just to be very clear guys, I'm gonna be doing this once a month, but if you only want to join the live stream once a month, I mean, you are at a disadvantage, right? You are at a disadvantage because by the time you join for the free monthly, everyone else is killing it and coming there learning curve down. So what I'm doing guys, is for everyone that's attending here today, we have nearly 1,000 people registered. We hit our Zoom webinar limit, okay? We had 1,000 people registered, okay? So what I'm gonna be doing for you guys today is if you are an MIC member or non-MIC member, I'm gonna be giving you guys your first month to live training for only $99. So if you use this link above that I just posted here, you will get your first month of live trading for only $99, right? Only $99. I mean, it's a no-brainer guys. I just made another 500 bucks right here. So let me just cover that out real quick. I'm at 31 trying to cover out. So if any of you guys are on the fence about joining live trading, I would highly, highly suggest that you join using this promotion that we're doing right now to get $99 for your first month. A lot of people have trouble with the docuSign. So I've also included the docuSign link support here.  It's really a no-brainer to try it. $99 a month is $4 a day and I just made $8,000 trading. And for people that are not in MIC, right? You can use this link, this tiny URL link, tinyurl.com slash alex-live-trading and you'll be also able to qualify for the first month of getting $99. So let me kind of walk you through how to sign up. One second, I'm just covering this out. Give me a sec, guys. Let's see, one second guys, just trying to cover out here. 25 covered out. Made another, I don't know, someone do the math. It was like another $500, so now I'm at $8,700 on the deck. Guys, this is a real account, there's not a demo account. You can see my account numbers here. So let me kind of walk you through how to sign up for the live trading if you are interested. So this is what the page looks like, guys. This is what the page looks like.  And then you're gonna be going to this legal disclaimer. So this is basically a legal disclaimer that we have set up that reminds you guys, I'm not a financial advisor, you know, all that mumbo jumbo that posted in the beginning.  Let me actually do this the right way. Give me a second. Am I really emailing there? So once you type in your email, you're gonna get this. It's gonna ask you to send in a code. So I'm gonna type in the code that I got to my email. I'm gonna validate it. After I validate the code, guys, what you're gonna do is you're just gonna sign the agreement, right? And this basically says informational and educational purposes only, yada, yada, yada. After you sign the link, all you're gonna do is hit finish. And once you hit finish, close. Once you hit finish, you're gonna hit continue. And it's gonna take you to the purchase details or it's gonna be $99 on your first month. And to spice it up even more, guys, to spice it up even more, I'm gonna add a bonus. So the bonus is as follows. Pay attention closely. If I do not generate $20,000 in profits for myself on the month, you do not pay. So let me say that again. If on the month, I do not generate $20,000 in profits, you will not pay. So essentially it's risk-free. So I already passed a $20,000 mark in August. Very clearly, I'm at $8,700 today. So it's pretty much no risk for you guys. I mean, it's a no-brainer. So yeah, I mean, maybe I should not have covered all of it. I mean, I can't really complain here, guys. I really just can't complain here. I'm very happy with my trading. The MIC process works again. And I'm done in 15 minutes, guys. And this should go lower without me.  So oftentimes, guys, I'm not even a perfect trader. I minimize these things all the goddamn time. Poof! Now I'm pissed. Now I am pissed. But hey, I'm not a perfect trader. I am not a perfect trader, but I'm able to do this.  All right, guys. So that's pretty much it. So for those of you that were on the fence about live trading, for those of you that were skeptical about live trading, what do you think now? What do you think now? And that's it, guys. I don't need to be trading all day long, right? I don't need to trade all day long. I just need to take the meat of the move and walk away. Today in 15 minutes, I was done. That's it. I'm done. Made my money. Made a pretty decent amount of money too, bro. So guys, thank you everyone for attending. I'm going to post the replay up and I'll see you again for back at this again tomorrow, right? Back at this again tomorrow. So today was a great day. Really happy with my trades. 15 minutes of trading and that's it. Have a great rest of the day, everyone.


So, as you all know, Brett Bayer hosted a town hall with Bernie Sanders, but a couple of days later, he hosted, I guess you can call it a mini town hall, if you will, with Tulsi Gabbard, although it's not technically a town hall if nobody is there from the audience asking questions. But for the most part, he spent 12 minutes talking to Tulsi Gabbard. And I think that this demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that Tulsi Gabbard is a phenomenal interviewer because her and Bernie Sanders do the exact same thing that I want progressives to do. They stay so married to the policy substance that you can't really get them to pivot away from that.  And Tulsi Gabbard did that. And I think that, you know, as I see her on all of these mainstream news programs, be it Colbert or The View, she keeps staying glued to the policy. I want to extract out this one portion from this interview where it's very clear that Brett Bayer is trying to goad her into attacking Bernie Sanders, but she doesn't take the bait. And she does what progressives do best. She pivoted to the policy substance. Take a look. All right. I want to turn to politics. You're in a race where there could be more than 20 other candidates. In 2016, you endorsed wholeheartedly Bernie Sanders. Why are you running against him now? I'm not running against him or anyone else. I'm running to serve the American people, to serve them as president and commander in chief, bringing the experience that I have serving for 16 years now in the Army National Guard as a soldier, deploying twice to the Middle East, serving in Congress for over six years on the armed services and foreign affairs committees, bringing this experience to this most important job that the president has as commander in chief and change the priorities in our country to bring about an end to these regime change wars, this new cold war that we are in with ever escalating tensions between the United States and other nuclear armed countries like Russia and China and this nuclear arms race and bring the trillions of dollars that we're spending on these wars and these weapons and bring it back into the pockets of the American people, bring it back to invest in serving the very real needs that we have in this country. You know in the 2016 DNC convention you said that Bernie was the voice for millions and that you were truly honored to endorse him. So what happened between then and now? Once again, I announced my candidacy long before Bernie Sanders announced his run. I am not running against him or any other candidate in this country. I am running for the American people. Sure, but you say that you're better than him. I'm running to serve the American people, serving the American people as president and commander-in-chief and the unique experiences that I just outlined are what I bring to the forefront and make me best qualified to serve as commander-in-chief. So two times he basically tried to get her to, if not attack Bernie, just say something critical of him as to why she's better because there's this underlying implication that if you're running against someone then obviously you think that you're better than them. But I actually reject that notion because just because you're running against someone that doesn't necessarily imply that you think you're better than them. So I think that this competition between progressives running in 2016, it actually is healthy. I am worried to a degree about progressives splitting the vote. But at the end of the day, if you ask me, do I think Tulsi Gabbard should step aside for Bernie Sanders since she endorsed him in 2016, hell no. I don't like this idea and I unequivocally reject this idea that people who were Bernie's allies should step aside for him because we be doing the same thing that we accused Hillary Clinton allies of doing. Nobody wanted to challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016. Nobody was brave enough in the establishment, people who clearly wanted to run for president, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, but they didn't. So the difference with progressives is that we actually encourage competition. We encourage democracy and I absolutely don't think Tulsi Gabbard should step aside. And again, I don't want to straw man Brett Bayer because I don't necessarily think that that's what he was trying to overtly communicate to people. But certainly there is this underlying thing that maybe he's trying to draw out of you. And even if it's subconscious, I think it's harmful. I think that Tulsi Gabbard running for president, even if overall I support Bernie Sanders more, it really is important because I really do see both of these individuals, Bernie and Tulsi on the same ticket. I really do see that being a very high probability. And this is why I'm glad that Tulsi, Bernie and Warren among themselves, they're keeping it civilized because there is a very real prospect of these individuals collaborating. Now, what's great is that Bernie and Tulsi, even if they are not perfect, they both have weaknesses that are kind of fixed by the other person's strengths. So for example, they're both great on Medicare for All. Bernie Sanders is better because he does say we should get rid of private health insurance, but Tulsi Gabbard is still good. And she's one of two people that have not backtracked and said, well, you know, I support a path to Medicare for All such as a public option. But with that being said on Venezuela, Bernie Sanders just has not been as strong on this as Tulsi Gabbard. You've got to give her credit where it's due. Julian Assange, Tulsi Gabbard has been stronger here. But then again, when it comes to universal programs in America and redistributive policies, Bernie talks about it more. Tulsi does not. So you kind of see what I'm getting at where one is weak, the other kind of fills in that gap and they make almost this perfect duo. And what I do like about Tulsi Gabbard, which really makes me feel as if she'd be a phenomenal VP choice, is that she has so much political courage. She does not care about the political ramifications.  She's trying to do things that she thinks will help the country. So if she wins the nomination or Bernie wins the nomination or Elizabeth Warren wins the nomination, I think there's a very real likelihood that we're going to see a collaboration between two of these three progressives. And this is why I don't think that they should attack each other. And really, I don't think you should be overly aggressive in general. But if Bernie is going to get attacked, if Tulsi is going to get attacked, then I think it's reasonable to assume that they should counterpunch. Now, with that being said, I want to go to one more clip here where Brett Bayer asks her, I think, a pretty reasonable question about the DNC and seeing that she resigned in 2016. I think she has a very valuable take on this. Last thing, are you satisfied with the new leadership of the DNC? Last time you quit the race, because you said the DNC was putting the finger on the scale against Bernie Sanders specifically.  Well, two things to be clear. I stepped down as vice chair of the DNC at that time in 2016, because I saw some very stark differences between the two major candidates in that race at that time. Secretary Clinton, who had a very hawkish interventionist foreign policy and Bernie Sanders, who was largely the opposite of that, a more non-interventionist foreign policy. And as a veteran and someone who has seen the cost of war, I felt it was important to be able to step down and make that endorsement, to be able to bring these issues to the forefront. Obviously, now there's been a lot that we have learned about what went on in the DNC at that time. I think there's a lot more transparency and some important changes that have been made. But there are many of us who are going to continue to keep watching to make sure that this process is fair and transparent and that the wishes of the voters are what are carried through and will decide this election. So once again, she immediately pivoted to the policy substance. Her and Bernie, they're just cut from the same cloth and they make a fantastic team. Now, the question is, where does Elizabeth Warren stand? Because to me, I feel like the two people that stand out the most in my mind are Bernie and Tulsi. However, I honestly feel like Elizabeth Warren has been doing phenomenal at proposing very important policies that really would reshape America's economy, make it more equitable. The problem is Medicare for all. She's so strong on pretty much everything with the exception of Medicare for all. Everyone notices that she's walking away from Medicare for all. And, you know, for me, I've been very clear, Medicare for all. If you don't support it, that's a deal breaker for me. So I like what Elizabeth Warren is doing. She's proposing a lot of very bold, ambitious policies. But the Medicare for all thing is so frustrating. And she really is at the opposite end of the spectrum when you compare her to Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi Gabbard has 100 percent, you know, political courage. That attribute is maxed out. She went to Standing Rock. She endorsed Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren did not go to Standing Rock. She did not endorse Bernie Sanders. So she has great ideas. But I don't know that she has the political courage necessary to get anything accomplished. Whereas Tulsi Gabbard, I feel like she would get in there and calmly crack skulls if she needs to. She would be a phenomenal attack dog for Bernie and vice versa. So more and more as we see these candidates, I'm leaning more towards a Tulsi Bernie ticket with Bernie at the top of that ticket and Tulsi as VP. But at the same time, I would be OK with Warren, you know, replacing one of those two individuals. But I do think that Bernie is still my number one bet. But I think that really to bring it back to this clip here and the interview, Tulsi has the right idea. And I think that Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are on the same page since they all met before the primary and they agreed really. It seems like to keep it civil, which is intelligent. Because if you choose to work with someone in the future, if one of you win, you don't want to bring them down. Now, I think that as political commentators, we do have a duty to critique these candidates and draw out their weaknesses. And I think that this is especially important because constructive criticism can improve candidates. And with people like Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders, they do listen. So I've never bit my tongue if I see something Bernie Sanders said or Tulsi Gabbard or Elizabeth Warren said that I disagreed with because these individuals actually listen to constructive criticism and feedback. So I'll leave that there. Great job by Tulsi Gabbard. She is really a charismatic speaker. And I'm loving everything that she's saying lately. She's doing a phenomenal job.


Oh, this thing on? Hello, ladies and gentlemen, it's my great pleasure to present for you today possibly the first 3D-printed pocket clarinet done here at undergrad's library. They have a fine facility here. What is 3D printing? 3D printing is a method of creating three-dimensional objects through an additive rather than reductive process, sort of like the opposite of sculpting. Instead of carving material away from a solid block, 3D printing creates objects by bonding the print material one layer at a time. It does this by heating plastic to its melting point and extruding the material onto the build surface. 3D printers work by making use of a 3D design file. These files are processed by specialized software that slices the data into cross sections. Then the printer uses this data to build the object from the bottom up one layer at a time. We have two different types of 3D printers at Pendergrass, the U-Print SE Plus and the Lullspot Taz. The U-Print SE Plus is a professional grade machine that produces durable, functional, precisely detailed models such as anatomical models or models with articulating parts. The Lullspot Taz is a consumer hobbyist grade machine. It's less expensive to use and is great for printing simpler objects such as cell phone cases or architectural icons. We see a huge array of 3D prints at Pendergrass, from skeletal system models to pulp culture figurines to replacement parts for everyday objects. So why 3D printing? 3D printing is useful for designing custom objects that can be utilized in the field or during research. It enables the divisor to quickly turn their ideas into models that can be observed. It's more productive to hand someone a model of a project to get your idea across rather than an explanation. Want to know how you can print something? First, you need to obtain an STL file. You can do this by creating your own model through online programs such as TinkerCat, SketchUp or Autodesk Inventor. You can find Autodesk Inventor in the library's computer labs. Not much of a designer? No worries! You can find ready-made 3D models from several online repositories such as Thingiverse. When you're ready to get your design printed, simply fill out the request form on the Pendergrass website. Then choose from one of the methods listed here to send in your STL file. The more information you provide, the better. 3D printing is open to all UT affiliates, faculty, staff and students. For more information on 3D printing or to schedule your training session, contact Richard Sexton at jsexton3 at utk.edu. Or just go through the Pendergrass website. Curious about the soil triangle featured in this video? Follow the link in the description to the article in our library development review. Happy printing!


Fox News regular and boogaloo boy booster Dimmy Jor has made a really sharp pivot over the course of the last couple of months and If you look at his channel these days, I mean, it's really clear He's sending his viewers a message don't get the vaccine because maybe there are some things that the establishment isn't telling you He's cherry-picking and misrepresenting data when it comes to the efficacy of these vaccines And if you look at the info wars page on rumble, it's almost indistinguishable from Jimmy door But yet this is someone who still larbs as a leftist while he pushes the far-rights misinformation about vaccines interesting Right, so in this video clip that we're about to watch He is going to take a shot at gnome Chomsky and gnome Chomsky doesn't really say anything That's controversial yet Jimmy door takes issue with a particular thing that Chomsky says and he tries to Debunk Chomsky, but yet it's interesting that Jimmy door is Irrationally outraged at what Chomsky says considering Jimmy door said basically the same thing six months ago before He began his anti-vax arc So this is all just bizarre to me, but take a look and then we'll discuss it when we come back So so watch how he gets this wrong We're talking about the global self not wanting the vaccines and watch what he has to say on the left I've been concerned that vaccines are not getting too many third-world countries However, I believe that there also is a great deal of skepticism Among those populations where they're saying that they they don't want especially in Africa I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on there. Why do you think that there is so much vaccine hesitancy in the global south? Global South there is overwhelming demand for vaccines Overwhelming they're pleading for the West to stop hoarding the vaccines and to let them have them so that they can overcome the terrible effect of Non-vaccination that is the overwhelming majority Okay, so that's his response, which is I'm gonna say wrong and why do I say it well Here's a headline says what is driving the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Sub-Saharan Africa, which goes against what he just said. He said there isn't hesitancy But there is we know there is Here's also who wants COVID-19 vaccination in five West African countries hesitancy is high and trust is low They're not making it available in Tomsky, why do you think they're not making it available for free to everybody if it's what you say? Why wouldn't Bill Gates and all the big Vaccine people make this vaccine available. I mean right now Moderna and Pfizer they're making the bill tens of billions of dollars They can provide this vaccine to everybody. Why aren't they doing it? No, what is going on? Why did why did Bill Gates tell Oxford to not give away their patent for their vet?  It's it's strange Okay, lots of issues with that First is that it's incoherent in particular that last rant that he went on But he misquotes Chomsky He says that Chomsky said there isn't hesitancy when Chomsky didn't deny that there is vaccine Hesitancy in the global south, of course That's the case Chomsky just said that in the global south There's overwhelming demand for the vaccine that we're all hoarding in developed countries That's what he said but yet Jimmy door took issue with what Chomsky said there and he cited an article from the World Bank Which he very clearly didn't read because if he read just one paragraph He would see that it doesn't debunk what Chomsky is saying in fact The vaccine hesitancy that we see in sub-saharan Africa, which is according to that article that Jimmy door shared It's comparable to the vaccine hesitancy that we see in the United States And we're gonna read just a couple of paragraphs to show you why this doesn't prove what Jimmy door thinks it proves as African countries accelerate the deployment of COVID-19 coronavirus vaccines the issue of vaccine hesitancy looms globally there has been a rise in general vaccine hesitancy but especially towards COVID-19 vaccines in Africa The hesitancy must be viewed in the context of significant vaccine shortage hesitancy does not explain fully the low vaccination rates in Africa the slow vaccine rollout on the continent is due to supply constraints Structural issues and logistical barriers the critical question is how to increase both supply and demand a 2020 Africa Center for Disease Control Survey in 15 countries found that while 79% of respondents would take a COVID-19 vaccine Vaccine hesitancy ranged from 4 to 38% in a recent five-country afro barometer survey 6 out of 10 citizens in Benin, Liberia, Niger, Senegal and Togo were hesitant to get vaccinated now without even Reading those two paragraphs from this article. I mean, I think it's obvious that anyone who's talking about the global south Knows that sub-saharan Africa doesn't represent the totality of the global south furthermore African countries are not monolithic as this graph points out because in Africa there are varying degrees of vaccine hesitancy But as the article makes very clear even if there's vaccine hesitancy that is a thing it is a problem there's still a high demand for these vaccines and The context is important because in Africa they don't have access to these vaccines as we do So even though vaccine hesitancy is an issue in the United States It's decreasing because people can see that their friends and family members are getting the vaccine and They're fine. They can see the way in which you know if you look at hospitals the people who are there are overwhelmingly Unvaccinated the people who are dying are unvaccinated so they don't have What we have currently they don't have that first-hand experience and furthermore They describe why some people in these countries are vaccine hesitant and largely it You know, it comes down to a trust or mistrust in their government It comes down to whether or not they have access to social media It comes down to real religiosity where some individuals think that prayer is a better a solution to COVID-19 than the vaccine is and Many people who have access to social media in Africa while they're seeing the same conspiracy theories that drives vaccine hesitancy here in the States, but there's a bigger question here that I've got to ask So let's assume that vaccine hesitancy is higher than this article states Let's say that 80% of everyone all throughout Africa the entire continent is vaccine hesitant Does that mean that we deny them this life-saving vaccine the people who wanted shouldn't get it I just don't understand what the implication of Stating that there is vaccine hesitancy is in Africa for Jimmy door. What does this mean furthermore? He tries to do a bit of a gotcha to Chomsky, but the point that he's making I mean, I don't even know if Jimmy door knows the point that he's trying to make buddy He asks Chomsky a rhetorical question that he eventually answers but still makes it seem as if Chomsky is somehow wrong I'm gonna read you this I transcribe this because I want to try to make heads or tails of this Let's see if you can so we just watched it, but this is what he said. They're not making it available Chomsky Why do you think they're not making it available for free to everybody if it's what you say? I mean Profit Chomsky is saying we should make it available Jimmy door says why wouldn't Bill Gates and all the big vaccine people make this vaccine available? I mean right now Moderna and Pfizer they're making tens of billions of dollars. They can provide this vaccine to everybody Why aren't they doing it? Why did Bill Gates tell Oxford to not give away their patent form?   It's like it's an anti-capitalist critique So what are you getting at and again? I don't think jimmy door knows the overall point that he's trying to make I don't believe this is the gotcha that he thinks it is and we know this because back in april Jimmy door essentially made the same point about needing to give the vaccine to the global south That chomsky made but only now he's taking issue with that I mean, I'm not making this up. Take a look at what jimmy door said on april 30th Turns out bill gate says no to sharing vaccine formulas with global poor to end the pandemic health advocates blast microsoft billionaire for saying patent protections on lifesaving vaccines Must remain. I thought this guy was a good guy I thought he was one of the good billionaires. What are you? He's just a guy who wants to help people A person hoarding an obscene amount of money is in favor of hoarding other lifesaving resources as well Huh shocker. I'm noticing a trend That is amazing. It's almost like getting that amount of money requires screwing over a lot of people He doesn't care that 300,000 people are getting corona a day in india. He cares about the safety of the vaccine Yeah, he's got his talking points down They pledged to donate rights to their covid vaccine then sold them to pharma So oxford signed an exclusive vaccine deal with astrazeneca that gave the pharmaceutical giant soul rights And no guarantee of low prices with the less publicized potential for oxford To eventually make millions from the deal other companies working on coronavirus vaccines have followed the same line collecting billions in government grants hoarding patents Revealing as little as possible about their deals and planning to charge up to 37 dollars a dose for potentially hundreds of millions of shots Wow, and it was funded by government grants, which means all of us Which means it should be public property. Wait. I'm confused So are the vaccines life saving and it's a moral for billionaires to withhold them from the global south So that way they can extract more of a profit from them or are these vaccines bad and scary and dangerous And we should withhold them from the global south because there's vaccine hesitancy in sub-saharan africa What's the takeaway? I mean this was before jimmy door went full anti-vax So you can see that When he read the article He actually made sense It was a good video and the video was titled bill gates denies vaccine to poor countries implying That that's bad and that the vaccine should be widely available To people in the global south as it is to people in the developed world But now all of a sudden going back to his channel. Well, I mean it's clear He doesn't think that your kid should get vaccinated He doesn't think that you should get vaccinated or maybe there's things about the vaccine that the media and the establishment isn't telling you I mean, it doesn't matter that most people who are dying from covid-19 currently are unvaccinated But you know jimmy door who's vaccinated himself thinks that others shouldn't do what he did And what makes this all more bizarre is that he's mad at chomsky for just making the point that Yeah, we shouldn't be denying these vaccines to people in the global south. There's a high demand for it I mean when we all Had our vaccines people in india were begging us for it as the delta variant ravaged their country So to say that oh, there's no demand for it. It's so strange. Of course, there's demand for it Of course vaccine hesitancy exists But that doesn't mean that we deny the vaccines to everyone in those countries I mean vaccine hesitancy is the thing in the united states. I'm not vaccine hesitant Should I not get the vaccine as well? It's just it's such a weird argument But this is what happens when you try to create this narrative He's twisting himself into a pretzel in order to make sure that his new anti-vax viewers get exactly what they want But it's uh, it's it's gross. It's it's it's misleading.  Does that make me a big hospital shill? Does it make jimmy door a big tech shill for posting on youtube and having a twitter account? I mean this is nonsensical. It's intellectually sloppy.  And maybe he doesn't have that critique of me But I mean it's just it's what I've seen and what I'm trying to get at is that jimmy door's points about the vaccines Is incoherent and it's also inconsistent because to attack Rather smear noam chomsky over something you yourself said before you went on your anti-vax arc It's a little bit um sleazy But this isn't the first time that jimmy door has contradicted himself Because he actually has a history of saying one thing that's bad and then doing that very same thing that he said was bad Himself case in point. That's what happens when you have access journal. I don't have access journalism I don't do that. I don't have I do not even know how to do it It's talsy gabbert. Hi talsy. How are you jimmy? I'm great. It's great to see you This is what it looks like when you're paid to do access journalism and run interference for politicians abandoning their own platforms and supporters But people are saying oh talsy flip flopped on medicare for all now You seem to be not wanting to outlaw private insurance more like say what works in australia everybody when I was everybody Really happy with their health care that certainly is still medicare for all But you still are a firm supporter of medicare for all I can't wait to see how ryan grimm defends this the beauty of it is is that it takes away the right wing talking point It takes the talking point away of uh, hey Um, they're gonna take away your health care. They're gonna take away your health care They're gonna make it illegal for you to get private health insurance and then the government's gonna run in And so that takes away all that because they're not outlawing private health insurance And they have this sweetheart deal of access journalism where they do softball interviews and run interview interference for aoc I'm uh, uh surrogate for the talsy campaign And I guess that's what this is and I don't ever want to be part of their club There's a lot of people at the young turks who do talk tucker has the biggest show on The biggest conservative news show in america So I would like I appreciate the opportunity to talk to half the country My mission in this show is to be the antidote Of the establishment media not to be accepted by the establishment media I do not want to be accepted by them because if I am I know i'm doing something wrong Jimmy door. Thank you. I'm just I'm I bet you any money He's gonna get a job at the new york times. He does this a few more times He'll be their progressive to cover bernie and shit on him But she will mobilize her followers her 11 million followers, which is a lot of people to be snitches And that my friends is dimmy jor So look jimmy, uh, we used to be pals and you know, I'm sure that if you saw what I had to say You know, you would uh, you would be angry, but I'm more than willing to have a conversation I promise I won't sneak on sam cedar. Oh no sam cedar if you wanted to have a conversation But I mean if you're chasing clicks and views exclusively then you're you're not trying to get to the bottom of this You're just cherry picking what you want to manufacture a particular narrative and it's paying off I mean you've seen an explosion in channel growth after everyone You know indy media has kind of been stagnating. This is a post election year So things are going to be slower as people tune out But I mean kudos to you, you know, uh, I'm glad that your channel is doing well But the question is at what cost and are you actually able to sleep at night knowing that your Misinformation and hysteria and fear mongering over the vaccines might lead someone to not get vaccinated and end up dying It's just It's uh, it's really gross and I thought that jimmy door was better than this but apparently I misjudged him Now, did you hear me say that iver mekton has been proven to treat covet? Hey, can we talk about it? Yeah, iver mekton. Yeah, sure So, uh, it's if I covered it what they did in mexico city And iver mekton seems to be a drug that not only treats it, but it will prevent you from getting it I never said that did I I didn't say anything like that They said they they misquote they uh, they make up a straw man They say I said things I didn't say and i'm going to show you that and it's about iver mekton Door commented on iver mekton's effectiveness against covet 19. No, I didn't No, I didn't widespread distribution of iver mekton proves effective In mexico against covet 19. This has been suppressed Didn't say any of this. This is completely made up You saw what I said about covet 19 finding out that iver mekton treats this covet They're making it up this this fact check should be censored So now you know why I have a popular show now. You know why I have to go to rumble Which I will be doing because journalists and democrats embrace censorship and cheer it on


Hi everyone. This is a talk for PKC 2020. I'll be talking about a new paradigm for public key functional encryptions for degree 2 polynomials. First, let me give you some context with an example, filtering encrypted emails. So here, suppose Alice wants to send some confidential email to Bob. Bob will generate a public key that Alice will use to encrypt the email and an associated secret key that will allow Bob to decrypt and recover the content of the email. But Alice doesn't send the encrypted email directly to Bob, but rather to a server. And Bob would like the server to do more than just storing the encrypted email without compromising his privacy. So Bob would downgrade his secret key to produce restricted secret keys that allow the server essentially to get some bit of information on the encrypted emails but doesn't completely recover the entire email. For example, a key that will tell whether an encrypted email is spam or is urgent. Functional encryption allows to do that. Bob's key is called a master secret key and every restricted key is associated with a function and it's called functional secret key. And a functional secret key associated with a function F will allow the server to recover from an encryption of M the value F evaluated on the message M and nothing else. And it's possible to generate functional secret keys for different functions in a specified class of function. And each of these key will be different and will yield different partial information. And intuitively the security guarantee, the security notion guarantees intuitively that an adversary that can corrupt arbitrary many secret keys, functional secret keys will not learn anything more than what each of these key individually allows the users to learn. In particular, it's not possible to combine these keys to obtain extra information. That comes up is can we build practical FE from sound assumptions even if it is for a restricted class of function? And answering first was the work of Abdullah Adol, which build a functional encryption for inner products. So in that, in their case, the message being encrypted is a vector of some dimension called D. And every functional secret key is associated with a function described by a vector y, which is also of dimension D. And the encryption recovers the inner product of X and Y. So that means you can actually compute weighted sum on the encrypted data. So compute basic statistics. So this is the first non-trivial FE from standard assumption that has practical efficiency from non-trivial functions. And so this gives a fine-grained access to the encrypted data as opposed to all or nothing. And it captures already, for instance, and C0 circuit. Later on, Baltico Adol gave the first public key a FE where functional secret keys are associated with D2 polynomials and where the ciphertext remain succinct. That is their size grows proportionally to the dimension of the vector being encrypted and not quadratically. That means you can compute more advanced statistics on encrypted data. It's useful in its own rights. It has some implication, for instance, to predicate encryption, trade or tracing. And in a work with Teorifel and all, we build actually a concrete implementation of D2 FE, and we use it for private inference on encrypted data. So this thing is practical and it runs. And there's also a theoretical reason why we care about D2 FE. And the reason is that it's not far from IO, in fact, by a surprising result from Lean and Tesaro. They show that D3 FE, succinct, implies IO. So the gap is actually smaller than we may have thought at the beginning. Although we still don't know how to build D3 FE. And even later on, Jane, Lin, Matt, Sahai show that it suffices to have a degree two and a half. I won't go into details, this is beyond the scope of this talk about what it means. But it basically a degree two computation on private input and there's some public input and you can compute also the public input. So this is sufficient for IO together with non-standard assumption on PRG. So basically what I'm trying to say is function and encryption for low degree polynomials is actually really advanced to FE for richer classes of function. There's a lot of bootstrapping. So a better understanding of degree two FE will most likely shed light on richer classes of function. So in our work, we also build a degree FE for degree two polynomials that has the advantage of being simulation secure and their standard assumption. Prior works being either indistinguishability based selectively secure or rely on generic group model. So let me tell you briefly what indistinguishability based security is. It's a game where the adversary gets a public key then can query key generation oracle to get functional secret keys for function of her choice. And then at some point sends a pair of message to a left-right oracle and gets back the encryption of one of the two messages chosen at random and the adversary has to guess which message was encrypted. Of course you need to take into account the information that's being leaked by the functional secret keys. The adversary is supposed to learn f of m v for all f query to the key generation oracle. So to avoid trivial win, it needs to be the case that for all query function f, f of m zero is equal to f of m one. This is a natural variant of in CPA securities as we know for public encryption to the setting of functional encryption. People usually settle down for indistinguishability based security because the stronger notion of simulation security is known to be impossible for some function, for some classes of function. But it's not the case for quadratic function or in the products. And in fact, in some cases, simulation security is more meaningful. It's closer to the intuition that a functional secret key for the function f reveals nothing else than f of m. Let me explain what simulation security is in a simplified setting.   In particular, it doesn't see the message m. And this is computationally indistinguishable for the adversary. So that means basically the ciphertext doesn't convey any information on m beyond f of m. This is stronger than indistinguishability based security. And in some setting it's more meaningful. Or rather, the indistinguishability based security is meaningless.  Then simulation security tells you that you reveal nothing beyond the evaluation of the PRG, which is sort of random. However, indistinguishability based security gives you pretty much nothing, not security at all. Also, so simulation security is harder to achieve, but also easier to use, especially when using FE as a building block for larger classes of function. I haven't mentioned it so far. There is an adaptive and selective variants of this security notions where in the selective variant, the adversary is artificially restricted to choose the message and the function beforehand, before receiving anything a public key or a secret key. Adaptive means it doesn't have such restriction. It can choose the messages based on the keys he has previously seen. Of course, adaptively secure is more desirable. It's a natural notion. Selectively secure is still meaningful and it's usually stepping stone towards adaptive security. Also, you can get adaptive security from selective security generically with a guessing argument at the price of an exponential security loss. The gap between these two security notions is quantitative, whereas between these two it is more qualitative, and these two are actually incomparable. Of course, we would like to have a simulation-adaptively secure scheme, which is an interesting open problem. Let's go one step forward here by providing the first simulation-secure from standard assumptions. Both of these are using standard assumptions on pairings. Another advantage that we have is that we essentially get CCA security for free. CCA stands for chosen ciphertext attack security. It is a de facto security notion for public key encryption. When you consider a general purpose FE, you don't really care because CCA comes for free. But for restricted class of function, then it makes a difference. Also, importantly, for FE, the typical transformation such as fujizaku or okamoto doesn't work because it requires a decryption algorithm to recover entirely the message, which is not the case in FE. So it is not useful here. And the CHK transform also doesn't help. It helps for ABE, so you get actually CCA security for free, but not for a restricted class FE. You can always use now a young transform, but it requires the extra assumption of NIZK. You can do NIZK from pairing, but still it's relatively heavy because you need to do NIZK for potentially complicated NP language. What we do instead is use very efficient quasi-adaptive NIZK for a specific language, a linear language from Kilswi, and that's just two group elements. So that's really a little computational overhead. So to be honest, this is not technically challenging to get that, but that's not the point. The point is to show the advantage of having a simpler scheme. It's more efficient and you get features for free, essentially. But the most important technical novelty and contribution here is the proof and the new techniques that we'll see. Okay, so I'll first give an overview of the scheme, then give a simpler scheme that's only private key and finally show how to upgrade it to the public key setting. The general overview is that to encrypt vector x of dimension D, you'll be using what's called a Billion Maps or pairing, that's the same thing, which maps group elements from a group G1 and with elements from G2 into a target group. So these groups are cyclic, generated respectively by little g1, little g2. And for any exponent a and b, pairing this guy with this guy gives that guy. That means you can compute one multiplication in the exponent. And this is going to be particularly useful for us because we want to compute degree two polynomials in the exponent. So equipped with this Billion Maps, we'll be giving an encryption of x in G1, so a bunch of group elements and another encryption in G2. And with this map we can pair together these group elements depending on a particular function f to get another encryption in the target group of the methods we care about, x times f times x, which is the evaluation of the degree two functions on x. Under some particular public key that will depend on f. So there is some key homomorphism going on here. And the functional secret key will be the secret key that's associated with that particular public key. And this secret key will be tied to f so that it only is useful for an encryption in the pk sub f. And it will reveal x times f times x. It will not be useful otherwise. That is what we want to build. And in fact prior works use that blueprint, Baltico et al. The difference with our work is that we are going to use different encryption in G1, G2, and G2. In our work they use fairly structured encryption in G1 and G2. For those who know, they use implicitly function hiding in a productivity. You can think of it this way. And as a result there is encryption in Gt that is fairly simple. You can think of it as al-gamal actually in Gt. In our work this is kind of the opposite. We take very simple in G1 and G2 and consequently give a simpler scheme and shorter ciphertext. And to compensate for that, we'll have to use a slightly more complicated, more structured encryption in Gt. But that is okay. I mean the point is here to have shorter ciphertext. The ciphertext only contains G1 and G2. It doesn't contain Gt, which is only computed during the encryption. As a drawback we'll have a more complicated functional secret key. But this is really not the thing we're trying to optimize. We're trying to optimize a ciphertext size because actually functional secret keys can be reused many times. All right, so now what do I mean by simple? I mean almost as simple as al-gamal, which is like the natural options that come to mind when talking about cyclic groups. Slightly more structured than al-gamal but not much more. And just to confuse you a little bit, I'll switch and use additive notations. All right. Okay, so let's go now into more detail. So first I'm going to give you a private key FE. This is not really what we aim for, but that's a good stepping stone. So how does it look like? As I said, like the first thing that comes to mind is using al-gamal, so we'll do that. So you want al-gamal encrypt X. So what is the public key? It's just a vector of group elements and the secret key is the exponents. All right, so sample a random R and this is your encryption. And do the same thing in G2. All right, for a different public key B and different randomness S. Now if you just pair this vector with this vector, brutally what do you get? You get X times F times X. This is a message you care about. Plus some extra terms. I could have written it out, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is that this extra terms happens to be computable from an inner product of a vector of dimension that is proportional to D. And not D square, which only depends on the input X and the randomness R and S. All of this is known by the person that encrypts. So in fact, that person can compute this vector. And the fact that the vector short means the scheme has a chance to succeed. So now we need to find a mechanism to essentially recover this extra term to decrypt. This inner product is between this vector and another vector of same dimension, which only depends on the secret key and the function F. So this can be computed by the key generation, the algorithm that generates functional secret keys. All right, so what is the idea to recover this extra term and decrypt this value? We will be giving an encryption of this guy under inner product FE. So functional encryption that handles, that can allow computation of inner products. And so this will be part of the ciphertext. And that will be the functional secret key associated with the function F. So by the correctness of the inner product FE scheme, this key, this ciphertext will recover the extra terms, which exactly gives out X times F times X. That's great, but there's an issue here. So okay, inner product FE will hide this vector. That's great. We want to hide the randomness in order to argue security of the algorithm encryption. And we also want to hide X for that matter. So this is hidden, but this is actually not hidden. Functional encryption doesn't hide the function, unless you use a function hiding that exists. In fact, that's known for inner product from pairing. So that's great. And then we'll hide the secret key. And of course, it's important to hide the secret key. Otherwise, you would basically break the algorithm. You would completely destroy the security. So yeah, it seems to work. But there's an issue with that. The issue is essentially, there's no such thing as a public key function hiding in a product. Y, it has to be private key. It's an inherent restriction. Y, so suppose you have a function hiding in a product FE. So what does that mean? I told you briefly, but it means if you encrypt a vector X and you generate a key for a vector Y, you will hide X and Y up to revealing this value X times Y in a product of X and Y. And nothing else is revealed, right, essentially. But if it's a public key encryption scheme, then everybody can compute ciphertexts for any X. So you will recover X times Y for any X of your choice. And that means you can recover entirely Y. There is no function hiding here. Right, so the scheme has to be private key for if we want to achieve any meaningful function hiding. And in fact, this is the reason prior works, such as the word by Rachel Lim and Anand and Tahai. This is the reason their scheme is private key because they use function hiding in a product FE. So the main technical challenge we solve is how do we get around this? How do we make the scheme public key? So the idea is we'll use some function hiding, but not completely. Our scheme will actually be partially hiding the functions. And this is possible because we only care about generating ciphertexts for vectors that lie in a span of a particular matrix M. That means a public key will automatically reveal M times Y. This isn't necessary, but nothing else beyond that information. And the part of Y that is hidden will be sufficient to hide these extra terms and to hide the message. That will be sufficient for us to prove security in the overall scheme. And the reason we can afford to only generate in a product FE encryption for vectors that lie in some specific span is because we use slightly more structures than in Agamal. We use actually down guard Agamal, tiny bit more structure, but still much less complicated than what was used before. And that implies that the vector has a special structure that we can exploit to bypass the impossibility result of a public key function hiding. So we have seen a scheme that is simulation secure under standard assumption for a degree 2 polynomial and it's even CCA secure almost for free. Natural question that comes up is can we get actually adaptive security? More generally, it would be interesting to study in the class of function that can be built from standard assumption and thereby narrowing this gap and understanding exactly what separates us from a full-fledged FE. For example, it would be interesting to build FE for degree 2 polynomial for large messages. I didn't mention that, but the prior scheme and our scheme all share this feature that the message is recovered in the exponent of a group element, so you need to brute-force the discrete logarithm and that restricts the scheme to small message. It would be interesting to get loud message. It would be interesting in its own right and it's likely to have implications for larger classes of functions. For example, lattice-based scheme would be a good candidate. Although there is some partial negative result on that, I can now show that function hiding in a productivity from lattices can be subject to generic attacks like a large class of schemes. But still there's a lot of things to explore in this area. That concludes my talk. Thank you very much for your attention.