l experience and academic experience and he argued in conclusion that reintegration has six key facets that have to be addressed people need material reintegration that's about basics of systems housing access to public assistance if they need it until they can get work assistance with personal development and developing the skills and capacities to live well in the community legal reintegration in terms of restoration of a person's legal status and that relates to the question of how we deal with criminal records in this country which I think is often problematic in terms of allowing people access to the labour market civic and political participation including in the political life of our country which we're I think not necessarily good at supporting in disadvantaged communities generally but in particular people that are process through our criminal justice system are generally very much politically disenfranchised there's moral reintegration which relates to the restoration of relationships with communities and with victims or at least mediation of those relationships and then finally there's social reintegration which is about acceptance and belonging in a community and about dealing with the stigmatisation that people face as they try to move on from imprisonment from involvement with criminal justice from problematic substance use in all of those interlinked contexts people are hamstrung in their efforts to change themselves and transform their lives by the reactions of people around them so to support that transition for people in through and out of prison and to support that for people who are bailed instead of being remanded is no small thing so there are huge resource implications I think everybody's made that clear one thing I'll say though to finish the money exists the money's locked up with people in prison and if we want money to make these systems work effectively then we need political courage to get the money out of jail along with the people unless as politicians you believe that there is a magic money tree to shake in which case shake it and spend it on reintegration as a criminologist actually setting aside normative questions I have no hesitation in arguing that on the available evidence imprisonment is a shockingly bad public investment when it comes to reoffending and reintegration and therefore the longer term pursuit of public safety so I think thinking hard about how we get our money is our money out of jails and into communities should be at the heart of the reform efforts that we're discussing today not just the technical legal reforms on the face of this bill but the kind of wider project of developing a more evidence based progressive and coherent penal policy in Scotland that complies with international standards thank you very much Leslie if it's remotely feasible to give me a succinct answer to that question but I'll bring you in yeah so I mean I agree with things that fergus have said that would could be a succinct answer I think that they I really welcome the there is a very robust research evidence base to support the better reintegration and a focus on reintegration for long-term prisoners that's the bill is trying to enable that the robust evidence base would support efforts to make that process smoother and more supportive because that would actually lead to greater enhanced public safety I think that at the moment the the getting rid of through care support offices within prisons I think was is being unfortunate and I think the kind of pre-release preparation within prisons could be very much more enhanced particularly as it relates to the integration with the community-based dimensions of supervision and support so the sort of the suggestions for this new license to be created I think is a very good one I think the issues about people being reintegrated into the community it's hugely challenging for people results of our research from the Edinburgh study of youth transitions and crime which have been tracking this cohort for a 4,300 people who are now in their mid 30s will be tracking them that the research evidence from that shows the complex needs of people it reinforces other research that's been done around drugs and a need for relationship building along the need into to support resistance from offending to support relationship building to support mental health issues people have the complex needs that they have needs a kind of complex set of resources within the community that are not always there at the moment particularly things around sort of mental community mental health support for example about adequate housing a whole range of things that they need therefore it has to be very careful planning there has to be good essential decision making and leadership around that decision making how you can can actually support and mobilise services and particularly for justice social work a need to recognise that actually the things that really make a difference to people who are on licence are the relationships with the key worker we know this from our research about the continuity about good relationships advocacy and support and empowerment for people those are the things that really make a difference and that needs time it needs well trained staff it needs nurtured staff it needs well paid staff so actually putting resource transferring resource from jailing people into community justice and the mobilised services that they need to support people is actually would in fact be a tough way of dealing with crime in scotland it would enhance public safety and so I really support the intentions of the bill in terms of that integrative approach thank you very much indeed and on that note I'd like to thank all our panel members today we could probably speak for another couple of hours on this and so thank you very much indeed I'll just have a very short suspension to allow our panel members to leave thank you thank you very much members the next agenda item is consideration of legislative consent issues for the UK government's public order bill and I refer members to paper three now you'll see that the relevant provision in the bill is to extend powers similar to those currently held by police scotland to British transport police in scotland for the policing of protests on railway land and the Scottish government is recommending legislative consent to be given to this provision so I'm happy now to open up the discussion to members and then we will consider what recommendation we want to make to parliament on legislative consent so do any members have any queries or questions nope okay thank you very much the question is does the committee agree with the Scottish Government that the Scottish Parliament should consent to the relevant provisions in this bill as set out in the Scottish Government's draft motion and are members content to delegate to me the publication of a short report that summarises the outcome of our deliberations on the LCM thank you so the issue will now move to the chamber for all members to decide based on our report okay thank you very much so our next agenda item is to consider an update to our action plan this item was delayed from our previous meeting in the spirit of time I would ask members if they are happy for us to rather than consider page by page the action plan today if you have specific additions queries or amendments that you would like to be made to the action plan if you would let the clerks team know and we can come back to the action plan at a future meeting are members in agreement to that what would the timescale for that be would you think one of the clerks need to know if there's anything clerks don't really have a don't really have a specific time table you can send it over the next few days but at your leisure because I'm not sure when we'll be able to reschedule the action plan given amount of evidence you've got coming up over the next week or two so we've got a reasonable timeframe for that many responses okay thank you you happy with that thank you yep genie yeah it's just briefly to add that I I think essentially what we're doing is ditching it from today's agenda because we're out of time but I don't think that means it should completely go offline I think it's it's the sort of thing because it's one of the few documents that we do share quite widely with the public and stakeholders on progress that we're making as a committee it's something that we should revisit probably in quite deep great detail but we need to afford it proper time I would rather do that than simply just become a paper trail of correspondence between members and the clerks for a purpose of update we should have an open public session on it so that people can follow what we're saying so yeah I agree and just for clarification I would intend that where we can bring it back onto the agenda we absolutely will I agree you don't want it just to be a bit of email correspondence from now on in okay thank you very much so our next agenda item is to consider correspondence from the cabinet secretary for justice and veterans on the issues of virtual trials and on the current practice of charging for court transcripts and I refer members to paper five and I'd like to thank the cabinet secretary for his letter so firstly in relation to the use of virtual trials I should just point out and remind members that the committee recognises that the use of virtual trials is already provided for in the coronavirus recovery and reform Scotland act of 2022 however despite this and the practice note that was issued by the law justice general very few fully virtual trials have been held and the committee has been keen to see more take place particularly in relation to cases of rape and serious sexual offences so the question remains how can we see more of these types of trials in order to build up an evidence base to inform whether they could become an option for prosecution of appropriate sexual offences cases and secondly on the issue of the charging of the current practice of charging for court transcripts I also welcome the cabinet secretary's comments and I note to support in principle however he does refer in his correspondence to the possibility that further consultation could be required now members will recall that we have written to the cabinet secretary previously on this issue as we're keen that it is considered prior to the introduction of the forthcoming criminal justice reform bill to enable us to consider such a provision as part of the scrutiny of the forthcoming bill which could provide a suitable legislative opportunity to resolve this issue so there's a bit in there so do members firstly have any comments that they wish to make on the matter of the virtual trials first of all so Russell then collect so about halfway through the letter the last paragraph in the first page we learned that these virtual summary domestic abuse trials have been taking place for about three years and the cabinet secretary tells us that this has been at the direction of the law justice clerk which all makes perfect sense but I'm somewhat surprised when you read further that he goes on to say if we want to know how many have actually taken place and he doesn't appear to have this information Scottish Government don't appear to have that information and I find that quite surprising and I think we've already had about two and four already and it shouldn't be this difficult I don't think to get such basic data because I think there's been some anecdotal suggestion that the numbers are very very small and he goes on to say in the following paragraph that these powers run for the next 10 months and then they expire but they can be extended until 2025 so in the one breath we're talking about we don't have basic data in the next breath we're talking about extending it without that basic data it's just really poor in respect of the transcripts I feel like again we've been kind of batter about a little bit we've not had a very clear explanation from anyone as to how much this costs I'm understanding as a private company provides this service one thing that struck me about parliament is how quickly transcribed debates are online it's incredibly efficient and I'm not saying that the courts could do it easily or without cost but we've not really had an explanation as to why it can't be done probably. I would just be keen to see the consultation response that's coming out it's just it says in in these responses that it's going to be published in due course in order to make in a more informed choice. I'd be really keen to see that response and I know as well that the research that's been carried out by University of Glasgow and Ipsley Moray as well so I think that that will give us more information in terms of virtual trials as well and what the public considers and the questions that have been put forward as well on that. I actually welcome the opening position of the cabinet secretary where he says that a greater evidence base should be developed before there are made a permanent feature of Scotland's justice system and by they I mean fully virtual trials he says I continue to agree with that approach I actually agree with his agreement of that approach but I do also share the concern made by a colleague that we are being passed back to the SCTS for data on what something that has been taking place for three years it seems unusual for the government not to have kept a watching brief on it or to have the data that we asked of them nonetheless if the SCTS have that data let's ask them for and for a report back to is on use of the use of virtuality within trials or fully virtual trials themselves because again we are living off the back of other legislation of which this was part of not full legislation which deals with fully virtual trials I think there'd be a lot of interest in it both from from what many stakeholders not just those victims organizations who are clear proponents of the use further use of it in certain types of trials but those who have reservations about it as well and I feel like it I don't really know what the end goal is here every every is there a plan within government to move to some form of permanence either in law or otherwise or simply just say these are matters for the courts and not for us to intervene on so I feel that we're a little bit limbo with that and whilst I look forward to the consultation response has been published I don't think that I'll necessarily answer that question so the government's plans are and I think on the issue of transcripts it's a perennial issue where we seem to be going round in circles on asking for resolution but the government's pushing back that they just keep saying there are several matters that we need to consider well we know there are several matters we've been talking about it for a year now so I'd like to hope that 2023 is the year of resolution and one resolution might be we get to the bottom of this court transcript this year because it's also friendly rightly said we managed to transcribe 22 hours of quite robust chamber debate in a matter of 40 hours if it can be done here I'm sure it can be done in courts okay thank you very much I mean I broadly agree with what Jamie Greene has been saying I think it's really important that we know what the situation is with virtual trials and we have that that data actually can I ask when was the last time we asked the Scottish Courts and Tribunal service for that information because I can't remember yes yes so we during the coronavirus recovery bill consideration that would have been earlier this year earlier last year oh yes last year 2022 yes so it would have been then yeah I mean I would suggest that we we contact them again and stress that it's really important that we know I mean they obviously know and we need to know that too I think and on the court transcripts thing you know again I don't know when the last time we asked for that was and um clearly we've been referred back to the the scts but um yeah we need to we need to press them on on that as well it's not that they're not doing it presumably is you know it is being done it's just that we don't have access to it so yeah okay Katie do you want to come in yeah I mean on transcripts I suspect one of the issues is cost but I really think we should be provided with that information and it's a huge amount of the committee's time that we're spending talking and asking about this and and there doesn't seem to be a willingness to share information I mean on the virtual trials we I think we'll all remember that we discussed at length during the bill and we asked repeatedly for the kind of information that Ronas talking about and it wasn't really forthcoming it took us an awful lot of time to get any information and I think our conclusion was actually that far less was happening than was being presented and I suspect that's still the case but I think as a committee what we'd be concerned about is that you know we're going to be sort of bounced into making permanent decisions when the evidence base isn't there so I think we should actually be quite robust in terms of our correspondence with the cabinet secretary outlining that history and saying that it's not that in principle we would have an objection but that we it does need to be evidenced and it needs to be subject to democratic scrutiny given the the serious and considerable implications for the justice system so whether we do that now or whether we do that later stage I do think we we want to put that in writing really going back as to why it is that we're asking for this information. Do you want to come back in Jamie? It's appropriate to interview and someone making comment but I felt that it was very relevant and it's not just about the volume or quantity or scale of trials that seem to be fully virtual it's actually about the outcomes of them because that's the other side of the data that was far more useful in some ways and I think that's the piece of data that we were missing during the passing of the previous legislation because the volume in itself is is superfluous if you don't know what effect that's having on outcomes which may address some of the issues that people have around it so I think it's that sort of level of data that we need to see. The evidence we did get from the pilot was that a very small number of cases had gone ahead but actually there was a very high number of acquittals that there was far more people found not guilty than we would normally have expected now it was a very small sample so I don't think that you could really take much of that but actually the evidence that we've had particularly in domestic abuse cases was that it was actually leading to more people being found innocent rather than more people being found guilty which is perhaps what the concern had been that was that actually the accused wouldn't get a fair trial so if anything the evidence that we've had is surprising and wouldn't mean that we'd need even more information I think before making any decisions so I think it just you know what Jamie is saying reinforces the fact that you know I think we need to lay down a marker that we wouldn't agree to permanent changes unless the evidence base is there and that we would want that over a period of time because these are permanent changes which potentially I'm could have major implications in cases okay did you want to come back I will go quickly response to very quickly let's say about the two ongoing bits of research one of them specifies there's a date which is spring this year for the episode more than one the other one just says in due course which is perhaps worth seeking some clarity that's in relation to the issue at hand the summary trials just a bit of a steer from them could be useful okay that's fine okay thank you okay thanks very much I concur with the kind of views that have been expressed I do think it would be helpful for us to go back and seek up-to-date data from scts on the numbers of fully virtual trials since we had the last figures which is probably coming up for a year ago when we were looking at the coronavirus legislation so happy to take that away on behalf of members I think in relation to some of the concerns that were raised around the role of defence agents in opposing virtual trials and despite the practice note that has been issued by the law justice clerk I think there's perhaps an opportunity for us to maybe ask the law justice clerk why despite the practice note that was issued the practical reality is that there seems to be very few trials taking place and finally in relation to the comments made around the cabinet secretary I wonder if members would be in agreement that we perhaps ask the cabinet secretary if he would refer to the justice board in the governance group that's overseeing lady Dorian's report to get a bit more clarity on why there are still very few virtual trials despite the fact that there is a provision for them so would members be in agreement to take these tasks away rona I'm just wondering about the chronological order of that so if we're going to ask the scts how many trials they've done should we not wait till we get that information and then contact the cabinet secretary absolutely yeah I agree and on the matter of court transcripts again I agree with what members have have raised and I'm happy to propose that we perhaps clarify with the cabinet secretary if indeed there is a plan to undertake a consultation on the proposals in advance of the introduction of the criminal justice law reform bill or what he has outlined in his letter referring to the fact that it might be done sometime in the future but there's a bit of lack of clarity about timescales I'm quite keen that we maybe get some more detail on that too members happy with that yep okay thank you very much indeed okay and on that note I think that completes our final business in public and we now move into private session thank you


Yawichi, the floor is yours and I should of course in the acronym have mentioned the quad, but fortunately Jean-Pierre mentioned the quad. And the quad was a Japanese initiative, so the floor now is yours. Well, thank you very much indeed for having me in this session, and also thank you very much for maintaining attention to the inter-psychological region, the most dynamic region as well as the largest region in the world. So that's why we have the largest numbers of speakers in this session. Of course, thank you very much for mentioning about quad. It's a Japanese invention as well as a concept in the Pacific, which is generally regarded as the invention of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for some reasons. Many things have happened in the last one year in the inter-psychological region while we are seeing two walls, one in Ukraine of course and the other one in the Middle East. We are now asking further another war would happen soon in Asia Pacific or in the Pacific region of course around Taiwan. So I'd like to focus on four points in my initial talk. First, the possibility of contingency around Taiwan has been repeatedly discussed in the last one year. Last month, the Chinese government sent a fighter jet to monitor and warn a US Navy aircraft that flew through the Taiwan Strait. Many observers naturally sensed the possibility of the outbreak of a military conflict between the two parts. In Japan, we have been generally saying that the possibility of war is quite small because China is not Russia. China would be more rational and more restrained. That's why the possibility is limited but still we can see some elements of the outbreak of war so we have to be careful about how we should stop the happening of the war in the region. This is one thing. The other thing is that secondly, on the other hand, both China and the United States have been searching opportunities to talk at the highest level. It is now reported that the president Xi Jinping would soon visit San Francisco to attend this year's epic meeting. This would be undoubtedly a variable opportunity to ease the tension between the two greatest parts. So this is good news. Thirdly, Japan, the number three largest economy in the world. Japan decided to double its defense budget to enhance Japanese deterrence in the region. This is largely because of the fact that the US government has been repeatedly asked Japan to do so. There are so many uncertainties and the regional powers must take more responsibilities than before. The United States is becoming much more inward-looking and next year we do not know who would be chosen as an expression. That's why Japan must play a larger role in stabilizing the region. Fourthly, another good important thing is that Japan and South Korea have been improving their relationship. This is good news during the time of great concerns and wars. I think that this is essentially important trend for some reason. One of them is that the United States government has been trying to persuade the two governments to improve their relations because US forces in Japan and US forces in Korea cannot work effectively without the cooperation between the two governments. Finally, the missing puzzle can be found. The United States can effectively increase deterrence in the region with much more enhanced ROK-Japan relations. This is good news. The US government has been trying to create a cooperation among the like-minded partners and the Quad is one of them. So at the time when the multilateral cooperation is really difficult, we need to rely more upon the cooperation among the like-minded partner as well as mini-dattelah cooperation, which means of course AUKUS and Quad as well as G7. These are the cooperation among the like-minded partners by enlarging the cooperation that we can remedy so many problems that we are now facing. In the sense that Japan can provide many things to bring stability in the region by enhancing deterrence on one hand. But on the other hand, Japan is providing inclusive regional concepts such as in the Pacific. This is a huge inclusive regional concept based upon the free and open in the Pacific strategy which has been driven by Japanese government and also CPTPP as well, the largest free-trade area in the region. So with these inclusive visions, I think that Japan can do something to bring stability in the region. Thank you very much. Interesting that in a sense America's policy in the region overhangs everything and one does wonder if Donald Trump were to be the next president, how policy might or might not change. I mean in a sense Biden has continued much of Trump's policy towards China. But it's interesting you brought up the question of the need for more, for Asian powers to take more responsibility for input.


from New York City. It's theCUBE, covering Automation Anywhere, Imagine. Brought to you by Automation Anywhere. Hey, welcome back everybody. Jeff Frick here with theCUBE. We're in Midtown Manhattan at the Automation Anywhere, Imagine 2019 conference. Our second time back, there's a lot of buzz in the air. You could probably see it over my shoulder. We're excited to have a partner on who's just starting their adventure with Automation Anywhere. She's Kay Glebe, the Senior Vice President of Marketing and Product Management for OneSource Virtual. Kay, great to see you. Thanks, Jeff. I'm very happy to be here talking to you. Thank you so much. So before we jump in, give us a background on OneSource Virtual for people that aren't familiar with the company. Sure, OneSource Virtual is really designed to help those customers who have purchased Workday for either their HR or finance needs to get services. So if they need the platform implemented or they want to outsource their payroll or their AP automation, OneSource Virtual is their company. Okay, so a lot of conversations about Workday, it's an important partnership I know for the Automation Anywhere folks, but you said you're kind of just getting started on this RPA journey. So I wonder if you can tell a little bit about how did you kind of happenstance on the category and why you think it's important and then how did you get connected with Automation Anywhere? Right, yeah, so we had been looking all of last year really at how do we augment the automation that our company is really based on. So we have a premise, we have some very core patented technology called Atmosphere that allows us to serve the Workday customer. And we know there are new solutions out there, robotics being one of them. We felt it was the next natural place for us to look. And so we started looking and then we said, let's go. And we really think about this in three different ways. One, we're a company, first and foremost, like everybody else out there. So we want to be able to bring robotic process automation to our own corporate functions. Then we're a business, we have a product. Our product happens to be delivering services. And it's right for doing more digital automation. And third, we had a new idea regarding robotic process as a service. And we want to be able to offer this digital worker in a fully hosted and maintained model where the customer can just subscribe to it rather than having to do all the investment themselves. Right. So you said you signed the paper January one, we're now at April 16th and you've just been a house of fire going bananas. We have been going crazy. We have engaged customers and partners and advisors. We've been talking to the analysts. We've been working internally. So it's been a very fast and furious four months getting going. So I'm curious on the internal side before we kind of talk about the customer and the offering side, how's the implementation going internally? What are some of the things you're targeting to get started, get some early wins? I wonder if you could share some advice to other people that might be in your shoes, thinking about bringing that in internally. Sure. We're looking at our services category first. So most important to us is to be able to deliver consistent high quality services to our customers just like any other company. And because we know that these are the same services that customers might buy, it makes sense to look at, for example, payroll. When you think about payroll services for a company, you're processing their payroll, you're auditing the data, you're doing a variety of things. Well, what about a payroll auditor who can be your assistant in our own company to help you deliver the services to your customer? We estimate this can probably save us about five FTEs based on our current usage. Five FTEs. Not that we will get rid of those employees. Again, this is about providing assistant to the people that we have. And for us, it's all about being able to grow without having to invest in as many people as we might have had to do in the past. The second thing is, everybody wants margin. That's how you stay in business. And can you improve the margins on the services that you're delivering? Right. So I'm just curious. I think the whole RPA conversations was reframed a little bit this morning in the keynote, not so much as a substitution for a person, but really an augment for a person just like a mobile phone is, just like a laptop is, just like all the other software tools are that we use. I wonder if that's what you're seeing and are people basically saddling up with their personal digital assistant as kind of a one-to-one or is it kind of a departmental? How is this thing kind of operating in the environment? We absolutely see it as a digital and assistant to you. It is not, ideally it's not a one-to-one replacement or a one-to-one assignment within the organization. The more we can make the digital worker cover multiple functions, then the more valuable it is. And because of our services side, that absolutely is the case. We have over 600 workday customers now that we provide service to. And so we can take what maybe 30 people are doing and we can provide them all the same access to that worker for their customers that they're assigned to. So have you already started to deliver these to your customers or are you still in the early days? Well, we have the first four developed and we are going to beta with five different customers next week. Do they have funny names or just regular names? You know, we don't have names for them at all. We've been very pragmatic at this point. So I do have to go back to the team and see if maybe we liven it up or get some ideas from our customers. Yeah, you have to have funny names or they won't put them on the wall, right? Exactly. I'm curious, the third leg of the stool that you talked about was really offering RPA as a service.  You know, people are used to buying software and services now in that way. Is that hard to implement? Are you, is it a repackage of what the automation anyway people have or is this kind of a new flavor that you're co-developing with them or is it just simply kind of a go-to-market strategy? So I would say a couple of things. One, everything that we do internally for a customer in our services side, we potentially could sell to another workday customer that does it internally for themselves. So instead of having to think about recreating and developing the same worker twice, we really can leverage it internally and then we can look at those customers who maybe they don't want to outsource their payroll department. They want to do it internally for whatever reason. They have the same challenges we have and it makes sense for them to be able to get access to the worker. So I don't know that I can say is it hard or easy yet? We're such early stages. But we've created a portal, we have a way, we've worked through how we're going to set this up. And at this point, you know, we're waiting for the results from the beta to come through. I can tell you that I have about 17 customers on our advisory board that all want it right now. Like when we showed them the demo, they're like, can I buy it right now? Right, well I was going to say, so what are some of the lessons, surprises as you've gone through this very, very short journey that you didn't expect or easier than you thought, harder than you thought? What are some of the unintended consequences if you will of moving forward? Yeah, it's not about just doing one task, okay? It's very easy to create the one task and the robot that will do the one task. What's not so easy is to create a lot of tasks. So then you need experts who understand the process, who can document the process, then people to develop it, then you want to test it, then you have to make sure your delivery mechanism can be accessed by the people that you intend to have use it. And I think those are things that we thought through we're working on, where are the problems? Things that we know are actually going to be a bigger issue is for customers who buy in the R-Pass model, how do they feel about the security? There's this big fear of this digital worker and the reality is they don't hold data. All they do is perform a task that a person was going to do. They are less likely to ever know the data than a person will. A person could potentially remember what they saw. The digital worker will never remember what they saw. Probably never get disgruntled. Not get disgruntled, they don't get married, they don't get divorced, all those things that get in our way of focusing on our work. So do you see this potentially as an adjunct offering for basically everyone who's using your core services? I absolutely everyone use in our services and any customer who is using Workday. I've talked to a customer, for example, who is based out of Europe. They absolutely are interested in how we can apply this for their HR function on a global basis. So there are a number of scenarios to consider. Did you go into the store? Were there any bots in the store that were ready made that you guys used or are you developing them all yourself? We're, right now we're developing ourselves but we're talking to about automation anywhere, of course, about how do we partner together? Workday is a partner of both of us and we want to make sure that we're bringing the right solutions based on that mutual interest. Right, because you could potentially sell your bots in the store as well too. Correct, correct. So Kay, last question. Just to get your impressions of the show here, you've been here for a little while. It's quite a buzz going on, I don't know what other, I'm sure you go to Workday, the big Workday event, kind of give people a general feel of what's happening here in Midtown this week. You know, this is the most exciting show and it's mostly exciting. People are loving, you can come build a bot, you can see what other people are creating, you can learn from many customers who are going down this path and journey and might be at the same stage you're at or they could be further down the path and help you really understand what you should be looking at. So the connection and the networking and the way that the whole Automation Anywhere team brings everyone together is fantastic. It's a great event. Well, love your enthusiasm. I think you're going to be very successful with this opportunity. All right Kay, well thanks for taking a few minutes of your day and best of you and the team in moving forward. Okay, thank you Jeff. All right, she's Kay, I'm Jeff, you're watching theCUBE. We're at Automation Anywhere Imagine 2019. Thanks for watching, we'll see you next time.


Hello it's Missy! Thank you for watching! Today's video is gym slash sporty type hairstyles. It's been a minute since I've posted a tutorial like this one. Let me know in the comments section what you think about these hairstyles. Make sure to like and subscribe if you're new to my channel. Click that bell as always and let's get started! For the first hairstyle I'm going to begin by sectioning off the top portion of hair for the first ponytail section. Using a clear elastic band I'm going to tie off this top section to create the first ponytail. Then I'm going to clip it up and out of the way.  I'm dividing off a one inch section of hair directly underneath the first one. And I'm going to tie this off into a second ponytail using another clear elastic band right under the first. I'm going to take the top section and divide it into two equal pieces. Then I'm going to take the second ponytail and bring it up in between the top two sections of the first ponytail. And now I'm going to divide off a new section of hair and combine the hair together with the ends from the first split ponytail. And this will become my new bottom ponytail. So now I'm going to let down the top ponytail. I'm dividing the top section into two equal halves. And then I'm going to bring the bottom section up through the middle and clip it out of the way at the top of my head. Then I'm going to create a new ponytail section. So I'm dividing off a new section of hair underneath the previous section. And I'm going to combine this new hair with the ends from the previously split ponytail. And create a new ponytail section. Since I've got two sections of the braid, I'm going to go back over each section and gently pull on small pieces of hair to make each of them puffier. So they look bigger and will show up a little bit better. Now I'm going to continue more of the braid. So I'm taking the top section and dividing this into two sections again. I'm bringing the bottom ponytail up through the middle and clipping it out of the way. And then I'm going to combine the two split sections back together with the remaining hair at the nape of my neck. I'm going to use another clear elastic band and tie all of this hair together. And I'm going to repeat this pattern four more times in order to create four more sections of the braid. So I'm splitting the top ponytail into two sections, wrapping the two sections around the bottom ponytail, then combining them back together underneath the hair. Then using a clear elastic band, I'm going to tie the two sections back together underneath. And with each section, I'm also going to go back over each one and carefully pull on small sections of hair. So each loop looks bigger and this will make the whole braid easier to see and the whole braid will look fuller altogether. You can create as many or as little sections of the braid as you would like. You can also do really small sections or larger sections. I worked my way basically down to the bottom and left out only a little bit of hair at the bottom just so there was a small tail instead of creating sections all the way down to the ends. For the second hairstyle, I'm going to begin by dividing my hair into two halves, a top half and a bottom half.  Now I'm going to pull this section out of the way and clip it off so I can use it later on. Then I'm going to combine the remaining bottom hair together into another ponytail section. Using an elastic band, I'm going to tie off this bottom section of hair. On the last wrap of the elastic though, I'm going to pull the hair part way through and create a loop. Now I'm going to let down the top section of hair and what I'm going to do is place the top ponytail on the left side of this bottom loop and then I'm going to place my right thumb and my pointer finger through the loop and I'm going to pull the top ponytail through the loop completely and you can see that the bottom loop kind of wraps around the top ponytail. So then just to make sure everything is nice and secure, I'm going to take another elastic band and wrap this over all of the hair to combine it all together into one ponytail. For the third hairstyle, I'm combining all of my hair together at the center of the back of my head and I'm going to use a hair band to tie it off and once it's all tied off, I'm going to take a clear elastic band and wrap this over the ponytail about two inches down from the first hair band. Then I'm going to go back over the hair in between the two hair bands and gently pinch and pull on small pieces of hair to kind of pull them out of the bottom elastic so the section becomes wider and looks fuller creating kind of a puffy effect. Now I'm going to tie a third elastic over the ponytail again about two inches down from the second elastic and once it's tied off I'm going to go back over the hair in between the two elastics again and I'm going to carefully pull the hair up and out of the elastic so the section of hair looks puffier and more full and then I'm going to repeat those same steps twice more and create two more sections of the braid so I'm pulling my ponytail over my head just so it's a little bit easier to reach and I'm going to tie another elastic band a couple inches down from the previous one and then I'm going to pinch and pull on the hair in between the elastics to make the section more full and I still had a little extra space at the bottom of my ponytail so I decided to create one more section of the braid so I just tied another elastic over the ponytail again below the first one and then pulled on the hair in between to create the final section of the braid. Thank you so much for watching I hope you enjoyed today's video I think any of these hairstyles would be so great for doing anything active comment down below if you had a favorite I love knowing which one you like the most if you're new to my channel make sure to like and subscribe if you're already subscribed thank you so much be sure to click that notification bell if you haven't already then you'll never miss any future videos and I will see you next time


Great, thank you all for that introduction. So I'm David, and I'll be telling you about some of our work on constructing functional encryption for randomized functionalities. This is a joint work with Shashank Agrawal at Visa Research. So in the last 10 years or so, functional encryption has really emerged as a general paradigm for unifying different kinds of encryption schemes. So as you probably have heard throughout the day, in a functional encryption scheme, keys are associated with a deterministic function F, and ciphertexts are associated with messages. The guarantee in a functional encryption scheme is that if you take a message, a ciphertext in cryptium message M, and a key for a particular function F, if you then run a decryption algorithm, what you learn is a function evaluated on the underlying message M. So more formally, a functional encryption scheme in a public key setting consists of the following four algorithms, which I will briefly enumerate for you. So there's a setup algorithm that on input, the security parameter outputs a secret key and public key for the underlying encryption scheme. There's a key generation algorithm that takes in the secret key and a description of a function F and produces a function key for that function. There's an encryption algorithm that takes in a message M in the public key and produces a ciphertext. And finally, and most interestingly, there's a decryption function that takes in a description or a secret key for a function F and a message and outputs F of M. So in all of the most of the existing works on functional encryption, we have considered deterministic functionalities, namely the inputs of the key generation algorithm is a description of a function that is deterministic. However, not all functions in this world are deterministic. In fact, there are many natural examples of randomized functions, and we may actually want to introduce or define a functional encryption scheme where we can actually give out keys for randomized functionalities. And let me motivate this by giving you two concrete examples where this might be useful. In the first example, so consider the case of proxy re-encryption. So suppose Alice runs a mail server and now Alice goes on vacation. So Alice now wants to get her take her incoming mail which is encrypted under some public key encryption scheme. Let's say a public key functional encryption scheme and she wants to delegate some subset of her emails to her secretary, provided that they're tagged with something work related. So in particular, what the proxy should do is if it sees a personal email, it should do nothing. But if it sees a work email, what the proxy should do is re-encrypt the contents of her email under her secretary's key so her secretary can process the email while she's on vacation. So if we want to solve this with a functional encryption scheme, what we could do is Alice would provision her email server with a function key for doing this re-encryption process. But as we know, for public key encryption schemes to be semantically secure, typically the encryption algorithm needs to be randomized. So if we want to solve this naturally using a functional encryption scheme, we need functional encryption schemes that support randomized functionalities. Let me give you another example where an application that's more naturally expressed or captured by a randomized functional encryption scheme. So this is the case where we have a bank as opposed to bank is encrypting a bunch of records. And what we want to do is we want to audit the records in the bank. So we have a third party auditor and the auditor is basically going to sample some subset of these records and check for their integrity. Now of course, in order for the audit to be meaningful, it better be the case that the auditor actually gets a random sample rather than something that could be fixed or maliciously influenced by the bank. So hopefully this has motivated you to think about functional encryption schemes for randomized functionalities. So the natural next question is to ask is whether these schemes exist at all. So in a work by Goyal, Jiang, Coppola and Sahai in 2015, they not only define formally the notion of functional encryption scheme for randomized functionalities, which I will often refer to as RFE for short, so randomized functional encryption. And in the same work, they also showed that starting from the general purpose indistinguishability authorization, you can actually build general purpose functional encryption schemes for all randomized functionalities, which is a really nice result because this basically shows that functional encryption schemes for randomized functions certainly exist, assuming IO exists. Now, if we look at what we know about functional encryption schemes, though for deterministic functionalities, it actually turns out that we know a lot more. We know that we have many different classes of constructions, and in particular, a very nice line of work has shown that starting just from public key encryption or from standard assumptions, such as the learning with errors assumption, we can actually build functional encryption schemes in a bounded collusion setting. So in particular, we can support functional encryption for all circuits as long as the adversary only gets to see an arbitrary bounded number of keys. And of course, from multi-linear maps or obfuscation, we can actually build functional encryption schemes secure in the standard model. So it turns out that if you look at the landscape or the existing constructions of functional encryption, there seems to be a large gap between what we know in the deterministic setting and what we know in the randomized setting. In the deterministic setting, we have many different kinds of results, many different kinds of constructions, satisfying different security properties, different compactness properties, and so on. In the randomized setting, we really just have one defining work, which is the original work constructing randomized functional encryption schemes from IO. So a natural question to ask then when you look at this picture is whether it is necessarily harder to build functional encryption scheme to support the more general class of randomized functionalities. Do we necessarily need stronger tools or stronger cryptographic assumptions in order to go from deterministic functions to randomized functions? So in this work, we actually show that this is not the case. So our main result in the work that I will show is that starting from any general purpose functional encryption scheme for deterministic functionalities coupled with some very standard, very well-studied number of theoretic assumptions, namely the decisional Diffie-Hellman assumption, the DDH problem, and the RSA problem, we can actually boost any functional encryption scheme for deterministic functionalities into an equivalent functional encryption scheme that supports all randomized functionalities. Another way to view this implication is it's basically saying that randomized functional encryption is not that much harder to construct than deterministic functional encryption. So in particular, if you have a particular application that needs or is more naturally captured by using randomized functional encryption, what you can do is you can actually start with a deterministic functional encryption scheme and actually generically transform that into a randomized one. So now let me define for you more precisely what a randomized functional encryption scheme is, and then I will tell you how our generic transformation works. So let's begin with the basic correctness definition. This is what I enumerated at the beginning of the talk, but let me just review. So in a deterministic functional encryption scheme, we have a ciphertext encrypting message, we have a key for a particular deterministic function F, a decryption operation with output F of M. When we extend to randomized functionalities, things become a little bit more difficult, but let's start simple. So again, if I have a ciphertext encrypting message M and a key now for a randomized function F, the decryption function is a deterministic function that should output a random draw from the output distribution of F of M. So in particular, the distribution is taken over the randomness used to encrypt and the randomness used in the key generation, the decryption operation itself, however, is deterministic. And things get a little bit more complicated because we can also consider the case where we have two different ciphertexts. So suppose we have two independent encryptions and yet we apply the same function key to decrypt. What we should get in a randomized setting is actually two independent draws from the output distribution. So even though in this case, we use the same key to decrypt two ciphertexts, as long as those ciphertexts are independently generated, even if they may encrypt the same value, which is what we should obtain upon applying the decryption operation, it actually independent draws from the output distribution. And this is very, and similarly, if we have the same ciphertext but apply two different function keys, again, if the two function keys are independently generated, even if they're for the same underlying function, we again should see two independent draws from the output distribution. But that's the correctness definition, hopefully it's clear. And then for the security, I will just briefly summarize the simulation-based notions of security that we work with in our paper. So the way that we usually capture security, at least in a simulation setting, is we say that the only information that's revealed by a ciphertext and a key is basically the function evaluation on the underlying message. And the way we capture that is we define two distributions, a real distribution, where we have an honest encryptor generating a key for a function F and a ciphertext for a message M and outputting the secret key and the ciphertext. And we have an ideal distribution where we have a simulator, so some efficient algorithm. And the simulator here is only given a description of the function F, so we're not hiding the function F here, and the function output on M. So nothing more about the underlying message is revealed other than the actual function evaluation. So the simulator is able to simulate the ciphertext and the key given only the function evaluation. And we can also generalize this and extend this to the randomized setting accordingly, so I won't get into the details there. But another caveat that often comes up when we deal with randomized functionalities is it's actually very concerning if the encryptor is no longer behaving honestly. So let's consider our previous example where we have an auditor that's trying to audit a bank. So the bank is encrypting records and the auditor is actually going to sample records from the encryptor database. What happens if the bank here is being adversarial? What if the bank is malicious? Well, what it could potentially try to do is choose bad randomness or construct these ciphertexts in such a way such that when you apply the decryption function, you no longer see an independent draw from the underlying distribution. Because in randomized functionalities, the decryption operation should output some distribution. If this distribution can be biased or skewed, then that completely compromises the integrity of the audit. So more concretely, let me give you an example. What a malicious encryptor can potentially do is construct two different ciphertexts encrypting messages m and m prime, such that when you apply the decryption function using some honestly generated key, what you end up with is not two independent draws from the output distribution of f of m and f of m prime that could be completely correlated or even use identical randomness. Both of these would subvert the integrity of the underlying audit in process. So the way that we capture this more formally is we give the, in the security reduction, we give the adversary access to a decryption oracle just like we capture malicious encryptors in a CCA setting. So we believe just that CCA security is sort of the natural or the most correct notion for practical deployments of public key encryption. This sort of robustness against malicious encryptors is the correct notion of security when we look at functional encryption in a randomized setting. So now having defined the security notions, let me now show you how our generic transformation works. So just to briefly review, our generic transformation starts from a functional encryption scheme for the class of deterministic functionalities and boost straps that into a functional encryption scheme that supports all randomized functionalities. So somehow we're going to make use of the underlying deterministic encryption scheme. So not surprisingly, the fundamental tool we're going to rely on is de-randomization. So we're going to first construct a de-randomized function where instead of evaluating the function f, the randomized function f, using uniformly sampled randomness, we're instead going to derive that randomness using a pseudo-random function. So what that entails is basically we're going to construct a de-randomized function and the de-randomized functionality is going to have hard-coded inside it a PRF key and the PRF key will be used to derive the randomness for the actual function evaluation. Just to make it more concrete, the key generation algorithm in the randomized functional encryption scheme will begin by sampling a key k and then issuing a key for the underlying deterministic functional encryption scheme for the de-randomized functionality. This will produce a key k and it seems that we will be done. Now I wouldn't be up here telling you about this transformation if this is all we needed to do and the problem really boils down to the fact that in the public key setting, keys do not hide the function. Function hiding is very difficult to achieve. There are many lower bounds saying what kind of function hiding is possible in the public key setting. So what this means is that an evaluator who holds a decryption key can actually look at the decryption key and read off the bits of the PRF. And once the key for the PRF is public, then no, you can no longer appeal to PRF security and argue that the randomness you're using is actually hidden or it looks uniform. So we need to do something more and what we're going to do is we're going to rely on the fact that functional encryption schemes do provide us some hiding properties. In particular, we can hide things in a message. So what we're going to do instead of putting the key entirely in the key, in the function key, we're going to split it into two pieces. One of them we're going to embed in the ciphertext and one of them we're going to embed in the actual function key, okay? So let me just make sure this is clear. So on the encryption operation, what we will do is the encryptor will sample a key share and when it encrypts, instead of encrypting the message by itself, it's going to encrypt the message with the key share and the key generation function will also sample a key share and it will output AD randomized function where the PRF key is actually combined from both the secret, from both the key share in the function key as well as the key share in the message, okay? So there will be some operation that will do the recombination. So here we actually need a stronger property on the underlying pseudo random function because if you look at this picture here, the encryptor actually gets to influence the key that's used to de-randomize the functionality and so we actually require pseudo random functions secure against related key attacks. But using RKA secure PRFs, we can actually make this part of the transformation go through. Now unfortunately, this construction is still not quite enough and for the precise reason that it actually does not provide robustness against malicious encryptors. So the way to understand this or the way to view this is we can still see that the encryptor has a lot of flexibility in constructing the ciphertext. So let's see where the encryptor can sort of influence the ciphertext that is produced. Certainly an encryptor can choose the key share that's going to be used in the ciphertext but this is actually not too bad because we can just appeal to RKA security of the underlying pseudo random function to say that this is not problematic. What does turn out to be problematic for a fairly subtle reason is that the encryptor can actually choose the randomness used to encrypt using the underlying functional encryption scheme and this turns out to be surprisingly quite problematic and let me give you an example for why this is the case. So consider an encryptor who simply chooses the same key share and encrypts twice. So he uses two different random values and constructs two different ciphertexts both encrypting the same underlying plain text pair. What happens is we now have two distinct FE ciphertexts because they were independently generated and yet they encrypt the same underlying message and so what happens is no matter which key the encryptor uses is always going to produce the same output. We're never going to see two independent draws from the output distribution even though we have two ciphertexts that look distinct, that look different and in the ideal distribution sort of if we want to really capture security against dishonest encryptors what we really desire is that if we have two different ciphertexts they should produce two independent looking outputs and the problem really boils down to the fact that here the encryptor has too much freedom in constructing the ciphertext. So when building functional encryption scheme for randomized functionalities there's a fine line that we have to tread where we try to balance between the need for encryption and the need for security and the need to constrain the malicious encryptor from producing bad ciphertexts. So the way that we're going to address this final problem is we're actually going to take ideas inspired by deterministic encryption and the key observation I think is that honestly generated ciphertexts actually have a lot of entropy in them. So if you look at what the honestly generated ciphertext looks like it contains the message and it contains a key share for a PRF and because this is a key share for a PRF it's going to be generated from a distribution with a lot of entropy. So the key idea here is instead of having the encryptor choose the randomness used for the underlying FE encryption arbitrarily it's instead going to derive that randomness from the message itself. So in particular the encryptor is going to derive randomness using the key K1. This might seem problematic because now the randomness used for encryption is correlated with the message but with a careful choice of how we actually construct the scheme we can actually make the security proof go through. So let me show you what the final construction looks like. So the encryption algorithm will on input a message M it will first sample a key share and when it encrypts it's going to encrypt the pair containing the message and the key share and then the randomness used for the encryption is going to be derived from the key share itself. And then moreover we also need to attach a proof. So this is resembling a lot of the how you go from CPA security to CCA security by attaching a NISIC argument or a NISIC proof of knowledge. In this case we're going to attach we're going to have the encryptor provide a proof that it actually generated the ciphertext in a prescribed manner. And so the NISIC will explain that the ciphertext was properly generated. And the intuition for why this works is boils down to the following. The ciphertext now can be viewed as a deterministic function of the message. So once the encryptor has chosen a message in the key there is only one ciphertext that can be produced. So if the encryptor ever produces two distinct ciphertext then it must be the case that either the message differs or the key share differs. And if either of these two components differ by security of the underlying PRF in particular by related key security of the underlying PRF we can argue that the function evaluation actually is evaluated using a random string. Okay, so to summarize our transformation we begin with a simulation secure functional encryption scheme for deterministic functionalities and combined with several ingredients that can all be instantiated using a DDH and RSA assumptions we can actually obtain a simulation secure functional encryption scheme for all randomized functionalities. And let me note here that our transformation preserves a lot of the underlying security properties as well as compactness properties of the underlying scheme. So prior to this work the state of public key functional encryption scheme could really be divided into two parts. We have a lot of different kinds of constructions different flavors of security different flavors of compactness and so forth for the deterministic functionalities. For randomized functionalities we really had only one construction based on IO. So using the generic transformation of this work we can actually take all of the existing knowledge we have for functional encryption scheme for deterministic functionalities and bootstrap them and transform them in the corresponding schemes for the class of all randomized functionalities and as an added bonus we get adaptive security even against malicious encryptors. So let me conclude with a few open questions. So one natural question to ask is whether a more direct or more efficient construction is possible and we want to look at weaker functionalities, right? So here I have described a generic transformation that starts with functional encryption scheme that supports all circuits and we have transformed it to all functions that support randomized circuits. Maybe if all you care about is sampling elements from a database or sampling as few random entries maybe there's a more efficient construction that's possible there. Another open question is whether we can do this construct this transformation from deterministic FE to randomized FE without making additional assumptions such as the DDH and RSA assumptions. I should note here that this is possible in a secret key setting. So in a work by Komagarsky, Segev and Yolev they showed a starting from functional encryption schemes for deterministic functionalities in a secret key setting you can boost that to functional encryption scheme for all randomized functionalities without needing to make additional complexity assumptions. And finally, another technical detail is whether it's possible to have a similar transformation operate in a case where we start with a functional encryption scheme that's secure under an indistinguishability-based notion of security rather than the simulation-based notion of security that we require in this work. And thank you very much. I'll take questions now. We have time for a question. Hi. So the previous construction of randomized FE was used IO, right? That's right. So I'm wondering why doesn't the following work start from a deterministic FE go do the FE to IO transformation or do IO and then apply the construction? Right, so yes. So that's one way that you can do this transformation. So that makes no other assumptions, right? Yes, but if you start with a bounded collusion secure functional encryption scheme, so something from PKE or LWE, then you can't boost drop that to IO. So this gives a new class of randomized functional encryption schemes that's secure in a bounded collusion setting from standard public key encryption-based assumptions. So your open question is how to start from a bounded collusion FE deterministic for deterministic functions? Sure, so you can also reformulate it that way. Yes, so another way to formulate it is the FE to IO construction incurs a sub-exponential loss in the security reduction. So maybe can you do everything only a polynomial loss in the security direction? I think that's also still open.


Security experts under the Office of Association of Licensed Private Security Practitioners of Nigeria have appealed to governments at all levels, leaders, residents and Nigerians in general to always call the attention of security agencies whenever they notice any inappropriate behavior from anyone around them. The latest call while speaking with journalists after our general meeting preceded the election of nearly the ship of the Association Health in Lagos. The call has come in on the use of reported report of alleged infiltration of the sector by runaway members of the dreaded Boko Rumset. The maintain that the trend poses great security threat for citizens if not net in the board. If they do not present the license empowering them to practice, do not engage them. It is a security risk and to those who are practicing without license, I want to warn you it is no more business as usual. We are all out to arrest you and once you are arrested you must be prosecuted because you are causing economic leakage in Nigeria and that is not allowed. If you look here within the country there's no home, there's no where you enter and there's no guard, meaning that for us to even do anything and remain safe as a country we should pay heed to those guards but most times in the country people look down on them forgetting that they are alive, their properties, all that concerns them is generally controlled by these guards. Now if the government will pay heed to what they are doing and give them that attention or that cognizance towards pay cognizance to whatever they are doing, at least it will encourage them to do more and also encourage owners of this private company to give their all to make things go better. We have this association of registered license security companies which is helping the government in the grassroots security of the state. Unfortunately we are confronted every time with this problem and that is we have much of this quack on license operating freely and we are appealing to the government, the agency, Empower to do that to let us go after these people because if anything happened they say security, who knows if most of these people are even Nigerians that can be used to counter our efforts in security of the state.