Think Tech Hawaii, Civil Engagement Lives Here. My name is Mark Shklav and I am the host of Think Tech Hawaii's Law Across the Sea program. Today my guest is Victor Gemignani. Victor is a lawyer who is planting the seeds of equal justice in Hawaii and we'll explain a little bit more as we go along what that means. Victor spent most of his professional life advocating for economically and socially disadvantaged persons. After graduating from law school, Victor worked for Vista and then in various legal aid society offices on the mainland. He eventually crossed the sea to Hawaii in 1994 to become the head of our local legal aid society. Victor is now the executive director of Lawyers for Equal Justice and is transitioning somewhat out of the position of co-executive director of Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice. Welcome Victor. Thank you Mark. First of all, I'd like you to tell us what each is, what is Hawaii Appleseed and Lawyers for Equal Justice and explain the dynamics and where they came from. Sure. I'm going to go back in history a little bit because if you understand your history, you'll understand a little bit better about who we are. I love history. Lyndon Johnson created a thing called the War and Poverty in the 60s and he put a lot of money and a lot of effort into designing and implementing an effort to really do something important in terms of raising people out of poverty. He created the legal aid system we have in this country at this point that really funded legal aid systems. So we all started getting funding from the federal government in 66 and one of our mandates was to represent the low and moderate income population when they were confronted with challenges, structural challenges to access services and rights that they had. Well in 1968, 69, 70, 72, we had a Supreme Court headed by Earl Warren that was incredibly sympathetic to the rights and responsibilities of poor people. This is the first time it's ever had happened in our country where we had a legal approach to protecting the rights of low income people, but the bottom line is they came out of the Supreme Court and came out with four, five, seven different opinions that were radical in terms of providing low and moderate income people standing and rights to enforce any system in the state under our state and national constitution. So legal aid programs started doing that. Well in 1980, Ronald Reagan became president and didn't like the idea of legal aid lawyers suing the government on major cases. In fact, we were deeply involved in the Kuala Lumpur issue back in the 70s and Peach Access came from legal aid society in the state. Well that all stopped in the 80s for all intents and purposes and a few programs continued to do that work with separate funding, but in 1996 the Gingrich Congress totally banned us from doing any of that work. So I was director of legal aid society at that point. Yes, in Hawaii and legal aid society of Hawaii had always done the systemic class action advocacy, which is normally done against the government interest and obviously the governments don't necessarily like to be litigated against. On behalf of those who couldn't afford to do it again. Exactly and we win all of our cases and they lose all of our cases and they didn't particularly like that. So the bottom line is. That would be discouraging. Exactly. So Congress eliminated from doing any more of this work. Legal Aid Society of Hawaii I'm extremely proud to say was the first program to challenge that regulation as being against the Constitution First Amendment rights of the people of the state. And we had a faithful judge here, Judge Kay in Honolulu declared unconstitutional. That allowed us to create an affiliate that would be separately funded and separately incorporated and separately staffed that we could do our work from Legal Aid Society of Hawaii now as the father of grandmother and the Lawyers for Equal Justice was created to be the vehicle through which we were able to continue to do plastic. So Congress stopped Legal Aid but the Judge Kay allowed something to run alongside. He allowed an affiliate to be created which was prohibited by the Legal Services Corporation and those affiliates could be created in any Legal Aid program in the country. So it didn't only apply to Hawaii we brought the case but it was precedent for every other program to be able to do what we did. So we created Lawyers for Equal Justice and we ran both organizations Lawyers for Equal Justice and the Legal Aid Society. The Lawyers for Equal Justice was to do those things that Congress said you can't do at Legal Aid. Exactly. And we have a list of cases we can talk about at some point and anybody out there can try to figure out why we shouldn't be able to do these cases. They resonate with everybody in terms of things that shouldn't be brought but for a variety of reasons Congress wanted us out completely of systemic advocacy. So we created LEJ, had some great cases that came along. It got to be around 2003-2004 by the way it was our first case under LEJ class action litigation against the state. Housing authority had been overcharging tenants for about ten years. We were able to, for rent, we were able to recover about 2.3 million dollars only because the statute of limitation only went back six years. So there were rebates given to the tenants in public housing of about 2.4, 2.5 million dollars including their rents being reduced for the next year by about a million dollars because the rents were being calculated in the wrong way. That was our first case. So nobody was helping these tenants? Oh, they were being overcharged then. And they didn't even know. They didn't even know that they were being overcharged. The public housing authority had totally messed up the calculation for rent and had left. Hard to believe the government would have messed up. It's kind of hard but I will tell you more tales as we continue on our other cases that we took. Bottom line is we get to be 208, 209, 210. We've been around now about eight or ten years to be frank with you. It's really hard supporting this kind of litigation. So there are not foundations that support class actions and sometimes you get attorney's fees but a lot of times you don't. For example, one case, the Micronesian Health Care case, we went all the way to the United States Supreme Court for five years. There were no attorney's fees provided even though we were prevailing party for over five years keeping Micronesians with health care during the 209. They were somehow denied because of the England administration. Exactly, the England administration during 208, 209, the recession made a decision to eliminate health care for Micronesians. I was picking on them because they were from Micronesia. It's ethnic associations and you can't do that under our constitution. So that's a classic case that was very long. The state fought, fought, fought and at the end of that rainbow we succeeded for our clients but no money to support ourselves. So I made a decision that we're really going to start to change how we do our advocacy because a great number of issues do not as you know as a lawyer have a legal solution. They have a political solution. So we started to shift a lot of our energy towards things that had political solutions in this state. Our tax system for example is incredibly regressive. It's the second worst in the United States because of how it's framed. It's half of its income from GET and it's highly regressive for low and moderate income people. Our affordable housing is the worst in the United States and we have no plans to ultimately get us out of it. Our food insecurity for our children is close to the bottom. For example, we're 47th worst in the United States and we're using food stamps in the old days and now it's down to 32% because of the case we brought by the way. We were almost the last in the nation during their recession forgetting our people who were eligible to food stamps they were entitled to because the department's practices, departmental services practices were broken. So that is the beginning of me starting to take a look at other funding streams and try to find money that would support our non-litigation advocacy system. So the legal lawyers for equal justice changed their name. Was litigation. Exactly. Class actions. Exactly. Mostly. All class actions. And then you saw a light bulb went off or something and you said... I can't support this system long-term. And there's other avenues maybe and so you wanted to change and find a different entity and that's how the... Exactly. So we've rebranded with a national network. So we rebranded ourselves in Hawaii as not only a litigation program but more importantly, merging into a non-litigation advocacy program and we had the key issues, child nutrition, affordable housing and tax policy that we had running in our favor to be able to indicate how badly our systems are operating in terms of the impact on poor people. Are those issues supported? There are key issues. More than the litigation type issues? Much more. Much more. Because foundations now would be interested in non-litig... Partners, individuals. We just had an artist for Apple Seat event. We raised about $95,000 and most of that money didn't come from people that would support our litigation. It came from people that enjoy our affordable housing agenda, our tax policy economic justice agenda and our child nutrition agenda. So it's a different philosophy entirely and you get people probably from all different walks of life that would support it. Exactly. Is that correct? Exactly. So we basically put most of our energy for a number of years into... into Hawaii Apple Seat because it was growing so vociferously and so many people main landed here wanted to contribute to non-litigation advocacy. In the meantime, we continued to do litigation. So all of the last 10, 12 years, we've done some major, major cases but they have not dominated our publicity and they have not dominated our funding streams. So that's kind of a political choice too. Exactly. In a way, I see. If you fund by government, I've been doing this for 50 years. I've been in the legal services system now since the war on poverty in 1969. I will tell you over and over and over again and I can tell you the woes not only in mainland but here in Hawaii where we get kicked back from the... particularly the finance chair of the house. Big time kickback in terms of some of the cases we've brought. So we have made a decision ultimately to now go back and try to segregate these organizations in a way that made sense. It's a strategic... Exactly, strategic plan and can continue to litigate the cases we've already litigated with hopefully less political kickback here in the state than we've had in the past. Okay, so two different roads I see here. Absolutely. What is each doing and are they splitting apart? Is that what's happening here? I hope not. I've lived through these kinds of permutations a number of times in my life. And the more they're separated, the more there is a isolation of the few people that do our type of work so that you have less communication, you have less coordination, you have more expenses because you have to replicate all of the ingredients you need for staffing, for administrating, but communications to technology, etc. And the collaboration is valuable. Totally valuable. So it's really helpful for us to stay together and this is still under discussion by our board of directors. We likely will continue in the same space. We will likely have staff designated just for lawyers for equal justice for the litigation component of our program and we will work very hard on separate funding streams that will support all of our staff work that has to be done so there will not be any feeling of either potential for retribution from the state if we litigate against them or government in general or private individuals that may be well connected in the state. And we will be able at the same time to attack the organizations by communicating and having potentially the same board of directors so we will have a unifying factor. We'll just have separate funding streams and separate staff. Okay. Going back, what is each doing? What is each doing now? Right now, what are they doing? I am extremely proud of both but let me tell you, with Hawaiiapolis, briefly, we started on an agenda about three or four or five years ago and has to do with food insecurity. We've gotten a significant amount of funding from the Hawaii Community Foundation to create a hunger coalition in our state and that's now ongoing to try to create ways that we could reduce hunger security in a bad way. We're one of the worst in the United States for our kids but for our adults. The second is economic and social justice. We are deeply involved in tax policy modification because if you take a look at what's happening in our state with cost of living and the affordability of housing, the vast number of people that really are desperate for housing, those below 60 or 80% of AMI, technical but basically think low or moderate income people, have the less money to afford a necessitly increase of housing. Especially here, I mean, yeah. Exactly. We're the poster child for affordability. Oh, gotta be the worst. Exactly. We are. And we also pay the lowest salaries in the United States when you factor in cost of living. So your low and moderate income people, that's why you have the homeless problem you have on the street, are so challenged to maintain a viable shelter option for themselves that if their life ever gets disrupted, a handicapped occurs, abuse a problem occurs, and the family is split up, someone loses their job, you are basically on the streets. So affordability of housing became our central plank and we've done a lot of work in that area as well as economic justice. Our economic justice work is primarily through the tax policy advocacy and things like minimum wage and affordable housing. There's a lot of different vehicles, a lot of different ways we're working in affordable housing, both from introducing new models but also advocating in the state, in the county to make sure that the enough money is available for a building of affordable housing and the structural problems like permitting are overcome. So we do a lot of advocacy in those three areas and we're quite visible. We've just created a new budget center for the state and we've gotten a fair amount of funding from foundations in the state to be able to support that for at least three years and that will be a research component to take a hard look at some of the issues that are impacting on low and moderate income people from a budgetary perspective and suggest other ways that other states in the mainland have more successfully used revenues to make improvements in low and moderate income people's lives by accessing programs that really do make sense. Things like school breakfast. And that's the Hawaii Apple Seed? Yeah, that's why Apple Seed will be a separate project. It's called the Hawaii Budget and Policy Center funded by foundations in Bethke Giesting who was Abercrombie's, Neil Abercrombie's transformational director for healthcare is running the center for us. And it sounds like you have support for this. Yes, the foundations and some private individuals have been very liberally generous in making sure we have three years of funding to start this effort. This is an effort that is tied up into 43 other budget centers around the United States is headed up by a group in Washington which is the best think tank for low and moderate income people called the Center for Budget Program Priorities, CBPP. They have organized these centers about 25 years ago. They started. They're now 43. We're the 44th center. So we're joining a massive network of budget centers that really know this work well and will help train us and get us up to speed so we can make a big impact on why our budgets are having problems in terms of meeting the low and moderate income people's needs in this community. Okay, so we've talked a little bit about, well, a lot, but a little bit about the policy roads that Hawaii Appleseed is going down. We're going to take a break for a minute. We'll be back and talk about Lawyers for Equal Justice and where they are going now. Thank you so much for your patience. It's complicated. I appreciate it. It's complicated, but I can understand it which is a good thing. Thank you, Mark. Thank you. Okay, we'll take a break and be right back. Hello, I'm Yukari Kunisue. I'm your host of New Japanese Language Show on Think Tech, Hawaii called Konnichiwa, Hawaii. Broadcasting live every other Monday at 2 p.m. Please join us where we discuss important and useful information for the Japanese language community in Hawaii. The show will be all in Japanese. Hope you can join us every other Monday at 2 p.m. Aloha. Welcome back. I'm Mark Shklov, host of Law Across the Sea with Victor Gemignani. Today, we're talking about planting some seeds of equal justice. And Victor, we were talking when we left about Hawaii Apple Seed and the Japanese Language Show on Think Tech, Hawaii. Welcome back. I'm Mark Shklov, host of Law Across the Sea with Victor Gemignani. We're talking about Hawaii Apple Seed and the policies it's advocating and that it appears to have some support. And why? I mean, who cares?  What is the result of all this mean? It goes to the fundamental... We talk a lot about values now and the values we're representing to the rest of the world under this current administration. It has to do with our core values. I believe, as a young boy growing up in this country, that this country believed deeply in equal and fair opportunity to succeed for everybody, that the system of justice would be the balancer of equities. And if someone was being mistreated by anybody, including the government, the system of justice, the courts would step in and make sure that they were treated equally. I believe that to my core, that this country is so special and so remarkable and so exceptional when it remembers what its true values are, that we are beacon for everybody because we do provide somewhat an understanding that access to success is possible here. Unfortunately, that access, as you well know, to success requires access to institutions that are normally run by the government, your educational system, your tax system in terms of how much money you have coming in, your employment situation, your justice system, your political system. Those are all systems that ultimately, educational, if I didn't mention, all have to have access so that you can get the benefits and the opportunities that everyone else that has money and has good education can obtain. And that's where poor people come in because most of our systems in this country, for all intents and purposes, we may not want to admit it, but in the hearts, when we go to bed at night, we know it's true. Do not provide equal access to our institutions that are critical. One look at DOE, we'll underline that in our state. One look at our tax policy in our state. We'll underline how much money we take out of low-income, moderate-income people as opposed to those that are wealthy and half of the low- and moderate-income people are paying. So those systems need to be changed. If they're not changed, what happens? Well, you see it all over the world when you have evolution that's not allowed to exercise its needs. It explodes. So if we want this country to really feel its citizenship, its reliefs, and owns our own system and the values that I think we were created under and I hope we still believe and you've got to give the low- and moderate-income people an opportunity to exercise those rights and have advocates like Hawaii, Sweden, and Lawyers for Equal Justice when they have been mistreated by the system illegally and sometimes on Appleseed it's not illegal, it's just bad policy. You have to have advocates to step in and do this. Otherwise, people have no ownership in their government and we see that happening more and more obviously with lots of indicators like voting rolls and dissatisfaction in the country in the direction. And that's where lawyers come in too. I mean, that's the other side of this, isn't it? Lawyers have a purpose here. Perhaps that they didn't know at some point or maybe they know in their core. Now, Lawyers for Equal Justice. Okay. What's it doing? We've heard a little bit about Hawaii Appleseed. Okay. Lawyers for Equal Justice. Where is that now? Well, over the last, we created about 2004, we actually got our first case underway and since then it's been 14 years. We've done about 12 to 15 cases. Most of them, if people, so our case list, they'd all resonate with people. Let me run off a few. The most recent case was a case against the state because the state had ever failed over 25 years since 1991 to make any adjustments illegally, by the way, ignored in the board and care rates that foster parents are being paid. Our foster board parents, our foster board care parents are people who take care of our foster kids. Exactly. They've been abused and traumatized and are going through all sorts of emotional issues at a very young stage in their life. These parents have not been given a raise by the way. They've not been given a raise to support their children since 1991. We brought a case after the foster parents went to the legislature five years in a row, could never get any relief. We finally said enough is enough, we went back in and we litigated. It took us three years to litigate that case. So the parents went for five years to the politicians nothing. And it had been stuck at the same rate, the lowest in the United States, $524 since 1991. The legislature knew, the governor knew this was a problem. They said, oh, we're going to spend our money on something else. In the meantime, our foster care kids will get less and less in terms of the benefits that they're able to continue to achieve. I'm sorry, it makes you think, what did they think? What did they think? Okay, I'm sorry, go on. So the tale gets sadder to be frankly. After three years, the Department of Human Services and the attorney general's office comes to us and say we want to settle this case finally one day before the case was going to settle. We said, of course, we agree with you. We went into negotiations over two weeks and we negotiated a settlement that could have been negotiated day one when the case was filed. And it ended up resulting in about $120, $140 increase in the payment. So they went from $524 to about $640 or $700 depending upon the age of the tile. We go to the legislature, the governor agreed to this, of course also. We go to the legislature with the settlement of $1,000 that they did not fund, that the state already agreed they should have paid just for the future. Forget about the 21 years, 25 years they haven't made any raises, just for the future payment. Forget about the damages. Exactly. Forget about anything. So ultimately they held it up strictly in one committee, the finance committee of the house because they didn't like the attorney's fees that were being charged. And you ask me who pays for this. Sometimes we're able to get attorney's fees. We cut our attorney's fees by 65%. We asked for 65% of what we were entitled to. They refused. I'm sorry, 33% of what we were entitled to. We gave back 66%. I'm not going to charge you for 66%. We had a figure of about 33% of the total amount that we should have gotten for attorney's fees. They wanted it reduced by another $250,000. So the next legislative session that came up this last one, we reduced it by another $250,000 and our family are finally getting taken for one year. They were not allowed to get their benefits for their kids of that $8.3 million, which everyone had agreed was appropriate. That's the kind of kickback we get sometimes from the state. The case before that went on for many, many years. It was the Micronesian Health Care case that the Micronesians were being all healthcare, including chemotherapy and dialysis.  So we litigated against that. And by the way, people were given a two-week notice with a notice that didn't go out in Chuckies or Marshallese. And half of our people had no idea what, in fact, it said. So it took us two weeks to bring that case. We ended up, we got a temporary restraining order in federal court for five years. Luckily, at the end of the five-year odyssey of Barack Obama had created the Affordable Care Act and the Micronesians were able to be folded into the Affordable Care Act. So that was the case we brought before. We've also done K-P-T, Cui Park Terrace, Mayor Wright to the largest and second-largest housing projects that were broken in terms of conditions, admittedly so, front page of the advertiser every year in terms of the disgrace, the $150 million of tax policy, of tax credits going in to restore it, and Mayor Wright on the RP list right now for a new pump after parent story development. We've talked a little bit about those things and you mentioned a lot of times attorney's fees. How do you pay for all of this? In a few minutes we have left, explain how you pay for it, where do you get the money? Do lawyers from the private sector help? How does it work? It's complicated. There was a good part of the time when I ran LEJ and Hawaii Apple Seat I would take deferred compensation for up to a year. I paid about $55,000 a year though after being practicing law for 50 years just to give the economics on the plate. We really ran out of money. I had a volunteer and myself that were managing this project but I would continue to work day after day, month after month waiting for some kind of benefit to be able to support it. When you win a case against the federal government not in all situations or the state government not in all cases but most cases when you're prevailing party and you've reversed some wrong that's been done constitutionally protected you have a right to get a reasonable attorney's fees. So you keep a note of how much you're spending on the time how many hours you did on this how many hours you did in that you submit that to the judge at the end he will then or she will then award a certain amount of attorney's fees. Do they come in? We could not exist without pro bono lawyers. I've mentioned litigation we have done cases that are as I said I can go on and on about the cases we've done highly complex they take a long time to resolve you're looking at lawyers for equal justice and I work half time and I work in a Hawaii opposite also so the only way we can do this work is to find pro bono lawyers in town that will take the lead in this way one firm in particular Austin Hunt Floyd and one lawyer in particular Paul Austin has done the great majority of the litigation we've done on the 10-12 cases we've done we do it with him we often bring in mainland partners for example the foster care case I had a mainland partner one of the largest law firms in the world Morrison and Foster that came in I have a case against the front street departments right now in Maui because they're being deregulated wrongfully so that case is in federal court and I have a major law firm Hogan-Levels I think it's the largest in the United States pro bono counseling on that so I put together teams of people ultimately that can litigate these cases okay now in the 30 seconds we have left for our program you've been doing this for 50 years this is my 50th year what have you learned from all this what can you tell us I can go on for books but things I've learned basically is poor people have rights that most situations are not enforced there's no political benefit to enforcing most of the rights that are violated against low income people and most people influence positions of political power in this country or wanting agencies governmental agencies that are very large sometimes have forgotten that low and moderate income people are the majority of our citizens and they're suffering really badly in this country because their systems are broken and if you I could go on and on about each of the systems and their citizens their citizens in this country and doing born and raised in our islands forget about the ones that came from the mainland or Micronesians born and raised in our islands the people that we represent you have something like a ninth worst poverty rate in the United States when you take a look at the supplemental figures in Hawaii a lot of people that are born and raised here that are just really having a tough time Victor if lawyers want to help you they can contact you at lawyers for equal justice I'll give you a phone number what's your phone number 587-7605 587-7605 and you can also look at the Hawaii Apple seat or lawyers for equal justice either one of the two will get you to one and what we could really use to be frank with you is any financial support they may be able to contribute or any research capability they may be interested in contributing to our program to help us continue to maintain our viability Victor thank you very much real pleasure thank you so much appreciate your time today Aloha everybody we'll be back in two weeks Aloha across the seat program Aloha


Our bodies are made up of trillions of cells. All of these cells are further subdivided into specialized compartments. One such compartment is the nucleus, which houses our genes. Genes are responsible for providing all of the instructions for making our cells function. Thus, they are the building blocks of who we are and essentially give us our ability to see, walk, talk, digest food, etc. Our genes miraculously give our cells the correct instructions most of the time. But they can sometimes give the wrong instructions when there is a mistake or mutation in the genetic sequence. This can lead to significant health problems. One type of genetic mutation results in a metabolic disorder known as congenital disorders of glycosylation, or CDGs, so named because they impact glycosylation, the process of adding sugar modifications to proteins. Proteins are the molecules responsible for carrying out the instructions that genes provide, and adding sugar molecules to certain proteins is critical to allow the proteins to do their jobs properly. While all CDGs are relatively uncommon, GPI anchor CDGs are among the rarest. GPI anchor CDGs impact genes in the GPI anchor pathway, which is a specific type of sugar modification that allows proteins to sit on the cell surface. There are about 30 genes involved in the GPI anchor pathway, and almost all of them have been associated with a CDG. Pig A is one of those genes, and the one that we will take a closer look at here. Pig A mutations are rare with only about 30 people ever having been identified as having the mutation. This subset is further restricted because the Pig A mutation is X-linked, meaning that the disease is primarily observed in males. The most common symptoms associated with Pig A CDG are seizures, significant developmental delays in motor and verbal skill, respiratory complications, visual impairment, muscle tone abnormalities, and gastrointestinal problems. Pig A mutations also cause a lower life expectancy, with many affected babies passing away early in life due to respiratory complications. In addition to severely debilitating physical symptoms associated with Pig A CDG, there are also no widely available treatments. Available treatments are primarily limited to those used to manage symptoms. There are, however, a couple of treatment approaches worth exploring, but to understand them, we have to first understand what the Pig A gene does. Pig A is part of a group of proteins involved in the very first step in the GPI anchor pathway. These proteins add a fat to the sugar N-acetylglycosamine to produce N-acetylglycosamine phosphatidylenosatol. Let's call it Gliknak PI. Gliknak PI itself is ultimately transformed into a compound called GPI that plays a critical role in normal organ development throughout the body and in the development and maturation of the nervous system. One potential treatment option is to bypass the need for a functional Pig A enzyme and directly give the patient Gliknak PI. Other potential treatments include enzyme replacement therapy to replace the Pig A enzyme and gene therapy to replace the Pig A gene. There are several important considerations with this type of treatment to ensure that the therapy is targeted to the correct locations. One, it has to pass through the blood-brain barrier to be able to get to affected cells in the brain. And two, it has to be able to go through the cell membrane to enter the cell and perform its function. While Pig A mutations are currently rare and not well understood, the increased usage of DNA sequencing technologies increases the likelihood that we will see more and more people diagnosed every year. Therefore, new therapeutic options will become increasingly important. Much more research needs to be done to understand the Pig A mutation and how it leads to the complex medical issues we see. Awareness and increased funding are critical for progressing towards a Pig A CDG cure. For more information, visit www.piga-cdg.com


Agile Manifesto talks about individuals and interactions over processes and tools. And I think that's a great inclusion. Agile is a social experiment. And over the period of time, what I have felt is that these interactions have been addressed quite a lot. However, the eye in the individual is still remaining to be addressed properly. So that's where we're kind of today filling in the gap. And I would like to talk about the transformation in the light of an individual today. So that is the setting, the context here. So I'd like to begin by, quote, to know is good, to live is better, and to be, that is perfect. So that's the opening punch. And we really want to be, and as Diana mentioned today in her keynote, fluency is something that you do without thinking. So it's kind of getting into the bones, not at the surface level. And going further from here, so just to expound upon what really can get into the bones. First of all, we have values, principles, and practices. Just kind of gloss over the kind of dictionary meaning. Values are something that is very important to an individual. And to be able to, when an individual acts or behaves, they really come out from the core heart or the inner part. So those are the values which kind of come ahead in the express in terms of behavior. Secondly, what are principles? Principles are kind of the glue which helps you translate the values into action. And finally, you have the practice which is the actual application of your values in your day-to-day action. So just to talk about examples. So if you take a quick example, a lot of us practice unit testing as a practice. We use unit testing as a practice. Now if we ask ourselves what is the value that we are actually after, it's really feedback. What we're trying to gain there is feedback, different kinds of feedback. That's one of the values that we want from unit testing. And the principle that we are trying to hear meet is basically fail fast. We want to get faster feedback so we can fail. So if you try to take unit testing as a practice, what is the real value and the principle behind it is something like this. Let's take another example. Why do we write self-documenting code? We write self-documenting code so that we have declarative expression. Why do we care about declarative expression? We care about declarative expression because we want our code to be communicative. And that's the reason we use a higher order language. Else we would be writing code in zeros and ones. It's about declarative expression. It's about communication, but you get it through.


Okay, so we continue with this proof, so you know, so let me point some, let me write down something here that I had probably said but I did not write down. So you are looking at the open cover of X centered at the points X1, X2 and so on of X, so which open cover is it, it is the open cover consisting of open balls of radius delta okay that is something I did not write down, so let me write it down here. So look at the open cover of open balls of radius delta, so you look at the open cover of this space X of the metric space X which we have assumed compact okay and you are looking at the open cover which consists of open balls of radius delta that is this delta that we have chosen that we have gotten above corresponding to the epsilon or rather epsilon by 3 okay because of continuity okay. So and your for the open cover you are only looking at balls of radius delta and the centers are not of course you could have taken centers to be all points of X but then you take the centers only among the points X1, X2 and so on that is you know that is the countable dense subset of the metric space that we have cooked up okay and so this is actually in principle this is a delta net for X and you know X is compact so it is totally bounded so it every I mean so what I am saying is it is not a delta net it will give rise to a delta net because it is an open cover of open balls of radius delta okay and because of compactness this open cover will give rise to a finite sub cover. So those finite sub cover will be centered at finitely many points which are among these XIs and we label those points by XI1, XI2 etc XIM and you take the balls open balls of radius delta centered at each of these finitely many M points and you take the union you get X that is so this collection of points finite collection of points among the countable dense subset okay this is a delta net for X okay and well we will have to work with this so what we need to show is that we need to show that you know we have to show that this the whole idea is to show compactness of a family of functions. So we started with an arbitrary sequence and then we try to verify sequential compactness and we have gotten hold of this subsequence this g n okay by the diagonal argument and we have to show that this subsequence converges on all points of X at all points of X okay and uniformly and mind you the subsequence is already been cooked up in such a way that it converges on the countable dense subset okay. Now so I will have to show this for every small x in capital X I will have to show that for my given epsilon you can choose n and m sufficiently large namely greater than or equal to a certain capital N such that mod I mean the distance between g n and g m at X is can be made less than epsilon okay that is a you are just verifying that the sequence is the sequence of g n is uniformly Cauchy okay and uniformly Cauchy is means Cauchy with respect to the supremum norm the metric induced by the supremum norm okay so the point is that how do you get to an arbitrary point of X whereas the g n's are converging only on these points which are points among countable some the countable dense subset okay you have to you have to you have to interpolate with the X's with the X I's alright that is what you have to do and it is done very easily by the triangle inequality so what will happen is that see now you take any for any X in X okay there exists a j such that the distance between X and X ij is less than delta this is true that is because this X ij is X i1 through X im that is a delta net alright so there is such a j so pick that j take the corresponding X ij and you interpolate with respect to that X ij so now you can write out the triangle inequality what you will get is well well you are going to get distance between g n of X and well so I want to I want to look at g n of X minus g m of X so that is what I am going to write out oops the distance between g n of X and g m of X is that now you introduce that X ij which is to within a delta of X so you write this as this is less than or equal to g n of X minus g n of X ij plus g n of X ij minus g m of X ij plus mod g m of X ij minus g m of X so this is how you split the triangle inequality okay you extrapolate I mean you interpolate the X back to itself by this X ij and then you introduced you introduce this minus g n of X ij plus g n of X ij minus g m X ij plus g m X ij okay and now the point is that this now you see what you will have to understand is that the see because of you see in the first term it is the same function g n alright and by equicontinuity of the family okay the distance between function values for any function in the family is going to be less than epsilon by 3 if the distance between the arguments the variables is less than delta so you see this is already less than epsilon by 3 okay and so is this so the first and third term are already less than epsilon by 3 that is because of this is just because of equicontinuity due to equicontinuity mind you equicontinuity is has already been assumed for all functions so these are certain functions that family so it holds for them as well and then the so the first term and the last term are fine they are going to give me an epsilon they are going to be less than epsilon by 3 each the problem I have to worry about the middle term and but the middle term is not a big problem because actually you know the g n the sequence of g n it converges on the countable dense subset of the X i's which is labeled by the point x therefore this g n's are going to converge at X ij certainly okay so you see so how do you deal with this you see g n's converges on the countable dense subset consisting of X 1, X 2 and so on so in particular it will converge on you know this finite subset okay so in particular on the finite subset which is given by X i1 etc up to X i m and of course you know the X ij that I have chosen is inside this finite set okay but then the point is that you know by definition of convergence of a sequence I can certainly find an n a capital N such that small n and small m greater than capital M will make sure that this quantity is always less than epsilon by 3 irrespective of the X ij that I choose that is because there are only finitely many you may get you will get one bound one subscript for each i each j and then you take probably the maximum amongst all those okay so there exists n such that n, m greater than n implies that the distance between g n of X i l and g m of X i l can be made less than epsilon by 3 if yeah for all for all for all l varying from 1 to m okay so this can be done because it can be done for each X i it can be done for X i1 it can be done for X i2 and so on and for each you get a you get an integer and then you take the maximum amongst all those okay there only finitely may this can be managed so that is it then you are done so what this will tell you is that if m and n are greater than n okay then what you will get is that the left hand side which is g n X minus g m X is less than epsilon okay and mind you this is independent of X okay this has got nothing to do with X X did not matter right so this is independent of X so this sequence g n is uniformly Cauchy and that is the proof of theorem that ends the proof of theorem okay so we have demonstrated sequential compactness so if you to just to complete the proof accurately what we have shown is that we have shown that g n is uniformly Cauchy okay but the g ns come from this subset which is already a close subset okay so but it is a close subset of a complete metric space therefore it is also complete and therefore showing that is the g ns is Cauchy is the same as showing that the g ns are convergent the sequence of g ns is convergent and that is what you wanted we started with an arbitrary family arbitrary sequence of functions from the subset and we have produced a subsequence which converges okay so that is the Arzela Ascoli theorem right now what we need to do is that we need to now go back to complex analysis and look at our the kind of functions that we are interested in we are interested in you know analytic functions and then we are interested in of course Meromorphic functions that is our final aim so what does it mean for Meromorphic functions so the beautiful thing is that you know I mean for to begin with at least let us say analytic functions the beautiful thing is that you know see the main point is the following what does Arzela Ascoli theorem say it says that if you are for example looking at continuous bounded real valued functions on a compact metric space then if you want the compact if you want a compactness of a subspace that is a collection of functions okay then that is equivalent of course that subspace has to be closed and bounded because compactness always implies closed and bounded okay but what you need to extra put extra is equicontinuity okay so basically you need boundedness you need a closed subs for a closed subset to be compact you need it to be bounded and it has to be equicontinuous that is what you want okay and mind you this is a nice thing because it is easy to equicontinuity is more friendlier to check rather than checking something like count total boundedness which is very very difficult to check okay for a family of functions it is not so easy okay so now when you go to the context of complex analysis and if you are looking at analytic functions what happens is something very beautiful happens see the what you get is you know analytic functions for analytic functions you have the Cauchy integral formula you have the integral formulas see these integral formulas if you if you apply the so called integral inequality the ML inequality which says that the modulus of an integral is bounded by M times L where M is the maximum modulus of the integrand on the contour of integration and L is the length of the contour of integration okay this is the ML inequality if you apply this ML inequalities to the Cauchy integral formula what you get is what you get are called the Cauchy estimates okay so the beautiful thing is that for analytic functions you have Cauchy estimates okay and what these Cauchy estimates will tell you that is that if you are working on a compact set okay it will tell you that the derivatives are bounded okay because mind you the derivatives of an analytic function are given by the Cauchy integral formulas the general Cauchy integral formula will give you the nth derivative okay so if you therefore you know the bound the bounds for the derivatives are given by applying the ML inequalities to the Cauchy integral formula so what happens is that if you have an analytic function on a compact set for example on a closed disc if you want then all the derivatives are all bounded okay all the derivatives are bounded so what happens is that in some sense you get boundedness of derivatives but the beautiful thing is once you have boundedness of derivatives that always implies something stronger for the original functions it implies equicontinuity so what happens is if you are working with analytic functions equicontinuity is automatic okay equicontinuity is just automatic so you know therefore what happens is that you know just uniform boundedness will give you sequential compactness that is the big deal the big deal is equicontinuity comes for free if you are going to work not just with continuous functions but if you are working with analytic functions okay that is the philosophy okay that is the direction in which I am going to explain how these things work so let me make this so in that generality the theorem the version of the as a last called theorem is a very important theorem it is called Montel's theorem okay so we go on to Montel's theorem which is the key ingredient for proofs of many important theorems in complex analysis including of course Ray the including of course the Rayman mapping theorem and you know the Picard theorems and so on so let me put this Montel's theorem so here is Montel's theorem so let D in the complex plane be a domain of course I am always assuming it is an open connected set and it is non-empty of course okay let so let script F so let script F be a family you can call it as family or collection whatever you want be a family of analytic functions on D which is normally uniformly bounded on D okay so what is this normally uniformly bounded whenever you say for a certain property if you say normally that property it means that that property is to be verified not for all sets but it is to be verified only for compact subsets okay so when I say normally uniformly bounded on D it means that it is uniformly bounded on compact subsets of D okay so let me write that that is uniformly bounded on compact subsets so I am using abbreviations UFLY for uniformly BDD for bounded CPT for compact okay so suppose it is normally uniformly bounded okay then you have sequential compactness okay then you have compactness basically okay but the only thing is that you should see compactness as sequential compactness okay and the sequential compactness normally what does it mean it means that given any sequence you have a convergence of sequence but the only thing is here it is not just convergent on the whole it will be you will get a convergence okay which first of all it is a convergence of sequence of functions so it will be normal it will be a uniform convergence okay mind you whenever you are talking about convergence for functions it is always a kind of uniform convergence alright for example that is how it is if you are looking at the continuous complex valued or real valued functions on a compact metric space okay so it is uniform convergence but it is not again just uniform convergence but it is uniform convergence restricted only to compact subsets so it is uniform convergence in the you know normal sense okay so that is the kind of sequential compactness that you will get so that is the that is the result okay then every sequence in F has a subsequence that converges uniformly on compact subsets okay there are several little subtleties in this in the statement of this theorem which I will try to explain okay now so let me give you let us go to the proof of this okay so what I want to tell you is that you see in how do you contrast this with respect to the usual Arzela-Ascoli theorem so the usual Arzela-Ascoli theorem is for functions defined on a compact metric space okay that is the first thing then the second thing is in the usual Arzela-Ascoli theorem whenever you are talking about convergence it is uniform convergence okay it is just uniform convergence it means uniform convergence on the whole space right and the third thing is that the Arzela-Ascoli theorem there is that if you want compactness which is the same as sequential compactness okay that is every sequence has a convergence of sequence that for that you will have to give boundedness which is actually uniform boundedness okay plus you have to give you continuity okay now the big deal is when you come to complex analysis when you come to analytic functions I have already told you that the problem with analytic functions is that the convergence always is never uniform on a on a on a domain it is only uniform when you restrict it to compact sets so you have to change the convergence to normal convergence so you must not require always convergence you should require convergence only on compact subsets okay that is the first change you have to make the second change is that you can get rid of you do not need unique equicontinuity okay and so you just get uniform in a sense you are you are saying that uniform boundedness implies sequential compactness that is what you are saying okay but the beautiful thing is that the sequential compactness is with respect to normal convergence okay that is one important thing the other thing is the functions are not defined on a compact set they are defined on a domain okay that is another difference in the usual Arzela Ascoli theorem you are looking at functions they are defined on a compact metric space whereas here you are looking at analytic functions which are certainly continuous but they are defined on not a compact set they are defined on an open set open connected set okay that is the difference these are the differences you so now you but you can see that the point is that you are able to you when you come from the real top from the topological side to the complex analysis side okay you replace convergence uniform convergence by normal convergence you replace you forget equicontinuity because it comes for free okay so how does one prove this? So the proof is very very simple the first thing I want to tell you is that if you are see if you are looking at a compact subset of the domain then there is nothing great because you can directly apply Arzela Ascoli theorem okay and you have to use the bounded the Cauchy estimates okay so for example let me tell you so suppose suppose Z0 is a point of D okay let rho be greater than 0 so that the disc mod Z minus Z0 less than or equal to rho is in D okay you choose a sufficiently small radius so that the close disc is inside D alright of course I can always find an since Z0 is a point of D of D which is an open set I can always it is an interior point so there is always a disc open disc surrounding Z0 is also in D now you take disc of slightly shorter smaller radius okay and that close disc will also be in D you can take that as your rho okay so you the reason for taking the boundary also is you know pretty well because then I get a compact set because a close and bounded set so it is compact and once it is compact I can apply all the hypothesis I have so now what happens is watch that you know if I take this if you take the family if you look at a family of analytic functions on D and you restrict it to this close disc okay what you are getting is a family of continuous functions complex valued functions mind you analytic functions are continuous of course okay they are complex valued continuous functions and you are restricting them to a closed disc which is a compact subset it is also compact metric space so actually you know Arzela as you are in the situation of Arzela Ascoli theorem the Arzela Ascoli theorem actually needs only continuous real or complex valued functions defined on a compact metric space okay so you are in that situation alright so since you are in that situation you are already given that this family is normally uniformly bounded it means that it is uniformly bounded on compact subsets therefore this family is bounded on this close disc because it is a compact subset so you already have boundedness you have boundedness of the family which is actually uniform boundedness okay you have that already. Now what more do you require for extracting a convergence subsequence from a given sequence what you require is that you require equicontinuity okay but the point is that because of analyticity and the Cauchy estimates equicontinuity is automatic so let us see why that is true you see that so let me say the following thing well if Z prime is in the set of all Z such that mod Z minus Z0 is less than or equal to rho okay you take a point here and then you see what will happen is so you know if you want let us take something that that is right so yeah fine so what you do so let me draw a diagram so that it is easier to visualize so here is so here is my Z0 and here is my close disc centre at Z0 radius rho and here is my Z prime okay now what you do is that well so notice so you can see you know you can choose a delta such that the close disc centre at Z prime radius delta lies inside this close disc okay so I can choose a delta like this okay choose delta greater than 0 so that mod Z minus Z prime less than or equal to delta lies in mod Z minus Z0 less than or equal to rho you can do this okay and then now you do the following thing you look at what is look at the Cauchy integral formula see by the Cauchy integral formula well this is the well this is the second Cauchy integral formula which is for the derivative the first derivative f dash of Z prime okay is what it is 1 by 2 pi i integral over integral in the positive sense over this circle mod Z minus Z prime is equal to rho delta okay of f Z t Z by Z minus Z prime alright and I am going to get the whole square okay this is the first Cauchy integral formula right or rather second Cauchy integral formula okay the first Cauchy integral formula is for the function itself which is a 0 think of it as 0 derivative okay so this is a Cauchy integral formula this is true for all functions f in f this is fine this is because after all f is a family of analytic functions so this is true now you now apply this I am just trying to write out the Cauchy estimate so mod f of mod f prime of Z prime is what this is going to be modulus of this integral but that is less than or equal to the maximum value of the integrand multiplied by the length of the contour which in this case is the circle of radius delta okay centered at Z prime so what I am going to get is I am going to get so this is less than or equal to I am going to get 1 by 2 pi is what I am going to get if I put a mod here and the length of the contour is well it is no if you put a square then it is an f prime if you if you put so what is the Cauchy what is see f not is if you put this is the first formula so if you want the nth derivative you have to put n plus 1 okay so what is this so I will get see if I calculate the modulus of this I will get mod f Z okay so you know let me put let me put m here so I am so for the modulus of f Z I am going to get an m okay and then for the mod Z minus Z prime the whole square see that is mod Z minus Z prime is delta because the variable of integration is Z and the variable of integration lies on the region of integration which in this case is this contour which is positively oriented this is the orientation the usual positive orientation so this is m by delta squared okay and I am going to get and I am going to get the the length of the contour and that is going to be 2 pi delta okay so basically I am going to get m by delta and what is this m see this m is the common bound for all the functions in your family on this closed disc on this big closed disc that is because that is given you see you are given that look at go back go above and look at this see you are given you are given that this family f is a family of analytic functions it is normally bounded normally uniformly bounded on D so it means that it is uniformly bounded on every compact set on every compact subset of D so on this closed disc of center at Z not and radius rho which is of course a compact subset of D it is bounded okay all the functions are bounded and I am taking that bound to be m so let me write this where m is uniform is the uniform bound for all f in the functions f in this family script f on this disc center at Z not radius close disc with radius rho okay you can put this bound independent of delta also okay so you can you can so this delta that I chose seem to depend on the Z prime all right but then you can get rid of this delta so that I can get a you know uniform a uniform bound for the derivative f dash is as follows see the first thing that you can notice is that you know I can change this this contour integration which is the this smaller circle center at Z prime radius delta to the larger circle which is mod Z minus Z not is equal to rho and I can do this that because of the fact that f is analytic in the bigger closed disc and also the point Z prime is also enclosed by the by the bigger circle okay so you know the the therefore this formula for f dash of Z prime is valid okay so so in this way I have gotten rid of the delta in the integrating contour okay then the other thing is I will have to get of the delta here appearing the bound here and so for that what I will do is that I will just have to restrict Z prime to be with inside a you know a circle of radius rho by 2 okay from from I mean centered at Z not so restrict you know is at prime to mod Z minus Z not is not equal to rho by 2 okay if you do this then you see this effectively makes this delta which is supposed to be the you know the distance between the point Z which is on the contour of integration and the point Z prime which is inside the contour this distance from Z to Z prime what will it be you see the Z is now going to lie on the outer contour the other circle and the Z prime inside okay and you see the minimum distance between Z and Z prime is rho by 2 and therefore you know so this delta here will essentially be you know this delta is supposed to be the distance between should be modulus of Z minus Z prime okay and that that distance is at least rho by 2 alright and of course therefore you know 1 by delta squared will become less than or equal to 4 by rho squared so basically instead of this delta squared and you will get a rho squared and I get a 4 here okay the inequality will get reversed if you take reciprocals and of course this this 2 pi delta will become 2 pi rho because that is the length of the the contour the which is the length of the outer circle so in effect this bound will become 4 m by rho okay and that will become a bound that has got nothing to do with delta alright now you see of course m is the uniform bound for all the functions in the family on the on the bigger closed disc centered at Z dot and radius rho but what does this give you you see now you calculate what is f of z1 minus f of z2 okay what will this will what will this be if you take z1 and z2 inside this to be two specific instances of Z prime so so here so here is z1 if you want and here is z2 okay and of course you know this integral is going to be independent of the path so long as the path is you know inside this closed disc that is because f dash is analytic there and what will happen is that you know you are going to get this is by the m l inequality this is less than or equal to integral from z1 to z2 mod f dash of z dz mod dz and now you know this now you can apply this bound this mod f dash of z is is less than or equal to 4 m by rho times this mod dz is going to give you mod z1 minus z2 and that is for example if you take the straight line segment from z1 to z2 okay and this is valid for all z1 and z2 in this closed disc mod z minus z0 less than or equal to rho by 2 okay so you see what does this tell you this tells you that the you know the I can make the distance between fz1 and fz2 you know small the moment small enough the moment I can make the distance between z1 and z2 small enough okay and this is and in a way that is independent of the particular choice of z1 and z2 okay and also in a way that has got nothing to do with the function f because this m is a uniform bound for all the functions okay and that is exactly saying that f all the functions f the whole family functions script f okay that is equicontinuous on on this disc centered at z0 radius rho by 2 okay and that is how you get equicontinuity for free okay. See the last inequality tells you mod fz1 minus fz2 is less than or equal to some constant times z1 minus z2 okay so what that gives equicontinuity that is like a Lipschitz condition you see given an epsilon you choose carefully the delta and the way you choose delta is independent of z1 and z2 so independent of z1 and z2 you are saying the distance between f of z1 and f of z2 can be made lesser than epsilon whenever z1 and z2 are within a delta and independent of z1 and z2 that is equicontinuity you see it is actually it is beautiful it is uniform it is a kind of uniform continuity because you are it does not you do not worry about whether it is z1 or which z1 or z2 it is and you it also works for all functions f so it is a kind of uniform equicontinuity that is what you get I mean that is the power of this of the Cauchy integral formula that you are using okay and this is what you get if you assume analyticity you get this you get equicontinuity just like that okay so the only thing that is left is uniform boundedness okay but that is already assumed so you get sequential compactness but in the normal sense that is the that is the point that is modulus 0 okay all right


COVID-19 has challenged us in ways we never imagined. But there are new opportunities ahead for secure, good-paying jobs in BC. The British Columbia Labor Market Outlook 2021 edition is here, and what it tells us is BC's future is looking bright. By 2031, the total number of people employed is set to increase from 2.6 million to 3 million. That's a growth rate of 1.5% a year during the first five years. There will be over 1 million job openings in the next 10 years, and nearly 80% of these openings will require post-secondary education, health care and social assistance, professional, scientific and technical services. Retail trade and construction industries will have the largest number of job openings in BC. There will also be significant job openings in some key occupational groups, like apprenticeship trades, science, technology, engineering and mathematics, also known as STEM, and the care economy. The Labor Market Outlook gives you all of this information and more, so you can make informed decisions about your career, skills training, education and hiring in any region or industry across BC. There are always new opportunities to discover. Check out the BC Labor Market Outlook 2021 edition at workbc.ca.


Hi, everybody. This talk is about wing-based identity-based encryption, asymptotically short-run MPK, and tighter security. The others are Parahata Pla, Phonghao Liu, Han Wang, and Jedong Wang. I'm Parahata Pla. The identity-based encryption is generalization of the public key encryption that the encrypted message under the receiver's name or identity. The concept is first introduced by Shamir. And the first construction is given by Bonnet and Franckley. The security is similar to the public encryption scheme, that in the IBE, the adversary allowed to query polynomially many identities. And they get the secret case for the identities and the challenge for two messages under the challenge identity, which is not created before. And receiving the challenge expertise, and they guess which message is encrypted under the challenge identity. This is a adaptive security notion. The construction under the standard model. In the classic assumptions, there are many constructions. Among them, the water's construction is very simple and efficient. They use the dual system encryption, but we don't know the system from LWE, or post-condom IBE, as compact as the selective IBEs. But there's many tries to construct the led-dispaced encryption, led-dispaced IBE schemes, that's as compact as the selective secure one. The IBE, that was the first construction, is given by IBE-V10, which is adaptive security. And their master public key needs lambda matrices. The current is the best construction is given by Yamada. And the construction needs omega log lambda matrices in the public became it. The Yamada's construction is the brand is your, and that's the design is implicit. The natural question is, can we construct a better led-dispaced IBE if it's more compact and picky, and without using the brand question. And of course, that's explicitly designed them. For the security for adaptive IBE schemes, there's two techniques to prove the adaptive security of IBEs. The first is the artificial labor technique. In this technique, the reduction will increase running time by one over epsilon squared. With all the artificial technique, the reduction can be removed running time blow up. But the advantage is we lose another epsilon. So another natural question is, can we do better? For these two questions, in this paper, we give a better ring-based identity base. IBE is more compact and better security analysis for both with and without artificial labor. That's your first IBE design. Let's recap the IBE's construction. And their construction, the master public key is consist of L plus 1 matrixes, A and B1 to BL. The key structure algorithm on inputs ID and a master. Secret key, first compute the FID, like this. And using the sample left, using the TA, the trapezoid of A, to sample a Gaussian distribution vector, and let it SKID. To simulate the K-gen algorithm, the master secret key, the simulator first replaces BI's with A times RI plus HI times G, a GSW type encoding, and compute FID like this. From this, we can see that if we let the second term by a function of ID indexed by L numbers HI, then the computation of FID is a homomorphic evaluation of this function. Given the GSW encoding of this one, encoding of the hash function, the index of the hash function, and compute this hash function. And another require from this hash function is that we want this hash function partitioned identity space. That means each ID star for the challenge identity is equals to 0. And for other identities, the hash function, the hash of that ID is not 0. To satisfy these two requirements, Yamada designed the hash function like this, A times ID plus B mod A row. A, B rows are omega log lambda bits. And this shows that this hash function is a partition function. Besides, but the homomorphic evaluation of this function needs very much easier. So now we show that improve this hash function. We design a hash function, a new hash function. That's only need omega log 1 ring vectors because the Yamada scheme needs omega log lambda bits and encode H bits. So the public gains in the Yamada scheme needs omega log lambda ring vectors or matrix. So improve them. Let's see our design. First of all, let's see a result from AFL. They say that if a hash function satisfies two probability properties, the first is hash of x is equals to 0. This probability is 1 over A. And the condition probability for two x1, different x1, x2, the conditional probability is smaller than 1 over B. Where A is larger than B and B is larger than Q. Then there is a partitioning. This hash function will partition the x. And the x is in the Q with noticeable probability. That is a different definition of partitioning. So our goal is to construct a hash function with above properties. That means A, B is large enough to larger than any polynomial Q. Let's see a basic design. For the basic design, it's a hash of A z, the input z, which might be an identity based encryption. It's a ECC of z, which is a vector. And we randomly choose an alpha as place. And minus a beta I random element in zp. So it's easy to see that for any z, the probability of hz equals to 0 is equals to 1 over p. And the condition probability for any different z1, z2 is smaller than 1 minus epsilon, where epsilon is the relative distance of the ECC, the error correcting code. It's obvious that this hash function is not satisfies the requirements of lemma 1 because p is very small. It's not larger than any polynomial. So in 2, 2 construction is that partly repeating the basic hash for t times. So repeating the t times, we have a hash function, repetition of hash function, which is the edge of the repetition of hash function of z is equal to 0, the probability is equals to 1 over p to t. And the condition of probability also as smaller than 1 minus epsilon to the t. Because if we set the t to a large enough, so we can, these two probabilities is x y for the lemma 1. But the vector we designed for the hash function, output of hash function is not compatible with the rings or the design of IP. So we embed this repetition function into a ring vector like this. We embed the vector into the exponent of x. So we just say 1 to 1. And we have the probabilities are straight. So this embedding is we embed a vector into a 1 ring element with small coefficients, which is invertible by the design. And this kind of design satisfies the requirements for a lemma 1. This is p times 2 is large enough to larger than any polynomial q. If we set the p is almost equals to n squared, and t equals to omega 1. So our second goal is to homomorphically evaluate this hash function. To evaluate this hash function, we will write the final hash function like this. We write the second term to here. And we write the first term like this. If j is equals to alpha i, then this j becomes alpha i. And this is equals to this one. If j is not equals to alpha i, then this term is equals to 0. And the whole term is equal. And the sum is not relevant to the previous one. So now we want to homomorphically evaluate this hash function. If you are given the encoding of the index of the hash function, alpha and beta, we want to homomorphically evaluate this one. And the z is insecure. So first of all, if we're given the encoding of beta i like this, then we can homomorphically evaluate the first term by the addition property of the GSW type encoding. And then we show that if we're given the encoding of this equality test, j equals to alpha i, because i and j is insecure, so this term is unclear. So we only need to homomorphically evaluate this term. If we're given the homomorphic evaluation of this term, then we can homomorphically evaluate whole hash function. So our goal is to give us the encoding of alpha i, which is the indexing the hash function. And j, which is insecure. And we want to homomorphically evaluate whether it's a j equals to alpha i. We call this the homomorphically evaluated case. And for this goal, the previous approach used a bitwise comparison. They decompose alpha as a bitwise alpha 1 to alpha t. And bitwise compare with j like this. So this approach needs omega log alpha for encoding of each bit of the alpha, for each bit of alpha i, encoding this one. And homomorphically evaluate this one. And homomorphically compute the multiplication of jsw typing code. So this approach needs log n-ring vectors to encode alpha. So we think, can we do better? So we have an observation for the ring r, because it's x to the n plus 1. If f is equal to this polynomial, I want to v to the m to 1, m minus 1. If v equals to 1, then this m terms, so it's equals to m. If v not equals to 1, then the numerator is equals to 0. And you know that it's not 0, so the whole term is equals to 0. If we evaluate the function at x to the i, then if x equals to 0, which means x to the i equals to 1, so the function variable is equals to m. And if i not equals to i, then v not equals to 1, and the function variable is not equals to 0. So observing this one, if you are given the encoding of x to the alpha minus j, the encoding of jsw encoding of this one. So we can homomorphically evaluate this polynomial. And we got the encoding of this one. So multiplying a homomorphically multiplying m in reverse, so we get the homomorphic testing of j and alpha i. This testing only needs one encoding, only encoding of this one. We don't need a bitwise encoding of alpha. So our testing is like this. Given the encoding of alpha, which is in Zn, and j is clear. So we first compute x to the alpha minus 1, encoding of this one by encoding of x to the alpha times x to the minus j, because j is insecure. And then homomorphically evaluate the f function, and we got the encoding of this one. And then we compute m in reverse. Oh, that might be m in reverse. And we got this one. If j is equals to alpha, then this term equals to 0. And the x to the 0 is equals to 1. And the f function at the evaluation of f this one equals to m. And then computing by m to the inverse, which equals to the encoding of 1. Otherwise, it was encoding of 0. So we perfectly done the homomorphic evaluation. So now we've finished the homomorphic evaluation of our hash function and the design of our hash function. So by the way, we see the application of this type of equality testing. Given the encoding of x to the alpha, we went to unpack. That must be unpack for alpha. And we got every encoding of alpha by homomorphic evaluating b and j, where j is the i speed of j is 1. So in this type, if the i speed of alpha is 1, then there's 1 j is equals to alpha. And we got this homomorphic evaluation equals to 1. And the whole addition will get the encoding of 1. If the encoding is with 0, then each evaluation of this one all gets a encoding of 0. And the sum will get the encoding of 0.  Given the encoding of every alpha i, we can pack them to get the encoding of alpha like this. A straight application of this encoding is that we can improve the MPK size of the IPK in Yamada for by a factor of log lambda, straightly. So this is another application. So let's see our construction. The construction is very similar to the previous constructions. Trapgen constructions, the a and the ta, the trapezoid of a. And then generate the bi, the t and the d, where say eta is some kind of stand. And the t vectors like this and msk is the ta, the k generation. And the homomorphically evaluate the hash function. This is a circuit of hash function, circuitly. And then using sample left, ta is the trapezoid. And it get a r, which is a lattice, as I call a centrifugal vector on the lattice. And the r is the secret k. The encryption is the dual-regular encryption. That is bi, that computes the FID, impression. And then computes the bi, bid, using a public evaluation of FID. Which is similar to the previous k generation algorithm. And then I use the dual encryption to kind of encrypt the message mu. A decryption is similar to the dual-regular encryption. So that is our design. Next we see our, so our, our, there's a t is, we got the t is equals to omega one. So our design only needs omega one ring vectors. So let's next see our better security analysis. Here we recall a big security framework of mk sensor and the water. Where, where we allow the adversary all it would say a boat. You can abort the mess, the whole game, which is different from the previous, previous security analysis. And if that alpha is a non-aborting probability and beta is a conditional success probability, then the advantage of the adversary is epsilon equals to alpha times two, beta minus one square. There is a, a, as you're given, that if, which is very intuitively correct in the statistical distance, that if we replace a distribution p with a q, then the output, the non-abort probability is not affected by p. And the success probability are also very close to the previous beta under the distribution p. This is very important in our security analysis. And let's see the security analysis. First thing, game one is original game and the probability is alpha zero and alpha one. The game one, in the game one, the challenger choose a random partition function h by a random indexing. With the challenger may use as artificial technique or without artificial abort technique. With the lambda file is the estimation of gamma. The gamma is a partitioning probability. Let's just, let's keep this analysis for a moment. For game one to game, game one to game three, game two, we use a left or a hash lemma because we replace the BIJ with the JSW encoding and which is statistically close. Game two to game three, we use a sample left to sample right because we can compute RID by a trap eval because we have RIGs and the hash function and R5 eta. The challenger knows all these steps so you can trap eval this one and get RID and compute the SKD using sample left using the RID which is the, this is a secret idea for the matrix. A trap eval matrix. And we know that then the simulator can simulate the kj without the MSK. Game four is using the real random algorithm by the hash function because the hash function, hash variable of HID star is equals to zero and the randomized properties of the real range we can get that to game three and the game two is statistically close. And again, because we replace the C1 with the random element by the randomness of real library, this game four and game three is close. So we got game one to game four is close. So let's come back to game zero to game one. That gamma is equals to the partitioning probability. We have a lemma. We say that alpha one, which is not a broad probability at game one is larger than gamma mean, which is a lower bond of the estimation of gamma times a alpha zero and the beta one is larger than the rate of gamma mean over a gamma max, upper bond of estimation of gamma times the beta one. So if that the gamma mean over gamma max is equals to one over one minus delta zero over four, then epsilon one is equal to two, is larger than epsilon zero times gamma mean over four. Where gamma zero is equals to two times beta zero minus one. So we get this one. And if the challenger uses artificial technique and it said gamma mean, the lower bond of the estimation of gamma equals to one over two q and gamma max is one over q. So the rate is one over two. If we want to increase this rate to this one, we need one over delta square delta zero square samples by kernel of bond and which is smaller than one over the epsilon zero. And the previous reductions need one over epsilon zero square. So over reduction, if we're using this artificial approach technique, over reduction is better than previous reductions. If the challenger uses result artificial technique and said the gamma mean over gamma max is the delta zero over four q, then the rate is exactly what we wanted. But the reduction will lose delta zero. Because the previous epsilon one is larger than the gamma mean times epsilon zero. But the previous, competing with the previous reductions, the factor is epsilon zero and over factor is epsilon zero squared. So over reduction is better. So in this paper, we gave a better IBS scheme with better mass public case and explicitly design and a better reduction. So thank you. Thank you for time.


And the reason why our church has a huge emphasis on testimonies is there's a couple of a few reasons. One is to glorify God, okay? Because a lot of times in this world and day and age, we see God as religious.  But I want to let you know that God is alive and you're going to about to hear that he is alive and moving in people's situations, okay? And God is going to get the glory in just a few seconds. And two, it is to defeat Satan. Because you know what happens is that you even believe at times, I even believe at times, is that you know what, Satan is bigger than God, he's stronger, more powerful, more darkness than light. But I want to let you know that God already defeated him. And that was on the cross. And because of the cross, these girls that are about to share testimony took that into their possession and now they're walking with freedom, amen. And third, it is to encourage your faith. You know, we are humans, each one of us. And the one thing that happens is that we speculate. We doubt, we question things, we're like, I don't think this is true. And you have every right. But when you hear testimony, a story, your friend, a neighbor, someone that's actually present, it does something to you, hasn't it? And the fourth reason is because you're next. Testimonies happen is because the next testimony is going to happen. I want to let you know, my personally, I receive testimonies, I mean, excuse me, my own personal testimonies because I heard that somebody in my situation, as bad as it was, I got a chance to believe. I got a chance to believe in, you know what, it's not over for me. Even though my situation is hopeless, I feel like it's the end. It always seems like I have nothing, I have no favor. It seems like everything is negative in my life. But when I hear testimony, I'm like, you know what? If God can do it for them, God can do it for me. Come on. And so today you're going to be highly encouraged by these wonderful testimonies. And before I call one of them in, I just want you guys to give them a round of applause. It takes a huge, huge bold step to share their personal heart. Amen. So if I can have the first testimony come on up and give her another hand of applause. Before she shares, you guys, I want to tell you that she was so bold to do this. I mean, this is huge. She was so, she's shaking. But you know what? She was led to do this because she wanted to touch people. She said that if God could do it for me, God can do it for anybody. Come on. So let's just begin with starting with your name and where you're from. I'm Rachelle and I'm from Tri-Cities. Born and raised. Okay. Now, can you tell us what the problem you were having and facing and the testimony that you have for us? I have dealt with depression for the last year and severe neck pain probably for the last 11 years. And the pain led to the depression and just got deeper and deeper. And through doctor appointments, they started prescribing pain medication. And it took the pain away, but it also made me numb. And I really liked that. So I continue taking them and then upping them and then just taking way too many. And I was on actually in June. And this is something I didn't share with anybody, not even my own husband. I mean, I took them in secret and just got worse and worse. And in June, I was in the Taco Bell parking lot and took a bunch and my friends didn't know. And we had had a couple beers at the bar. And I wasn't trying to die. That wasn't my intention. I was just chasing that numb feeling. And I stopped breathing, passed out, and a police officer happened to be just driving by. And my friends that I was being silly, they didn't know what I was doing, playing there in the parking lot of Taco Bell. And so the cop came and I wasn't breathing. They tubed me in the parking lot and took me into ER. And I stayed there on a ventilator for a few days. And when I came out of it, I was so humiliated. And because I didn't share it with anybody, I was kind of alone and didn't want to tell them what I did. And the feelings of guilt and shame led to more pain pills. You think it would have been a wake-up call, but it just wasn't. I really started getting into really heavy medications. And then I saw a... On Facebook, yeah. Someone had liked a video that Vladimir did. And so I watched it and I was just like blown away. And started kind of like obsessively watching YouTube. And I was like, okay, I'm gonna go, I'm gonna go. And so I went and just fell in love. And this place is powerful. And Pastor was praying, or having us pray for perspective. And I was still taking the pills, by the way. I was here, took them in the parking lot and came in. So weird. And so I'm praying for perspective. And I'm like, yeah, okay. So repeating after the pastor, right? And over the course of time, I had been warned by the doctors. They could see I was taking a lot.  You need to slow down. You're doing too much. I'm like, yeah, whatever dude. So that Thursday after I prayed for perspective, that Thursday they kicked me off the program. And I was just, I was mad. I was shocked. And I sat in my car in the target parking lot. And it was just like, okay, this is your perspective. You need to turn this around. And I got the perspective I prayed for. Yeah. And now once you got the perspective, you had a choice you were mentioning that either to go towards getting more drugs and prescription. What did you choose? Oh man, I chose to stop. I stopped everything. I watched, I had my earplugs in and just pressed in to God.  And just kept plugging it. In manual TV, I downloaded the app because you guys talk about it. I'm like, who's TV Joshua? I never heard of him. So I started listening to it constantly and just found so much peace there. And you know, I just, it was being attacked and the home groups. It's funny. Gosh, God is like so good.  Sometimes I was sitting in the pew and Anna actually came up to me and introduced herself and invited me to home group. And in my head, I'm going, oh yeah, no, that's not going to happen because I'm like super awkward. I don't do this, you know, thing with people. So I planned on not coming and then she got my number and I'm like, okay, well, I can text her some excuse. Like I really planned on not going. And then Vladimir walked up the aisle and was like, hey, Rochelle, right? And I'm like, yeah, and I really, really respect him. So it was kind of like, okay, he remembered my name. That's cool. And then I go, oh geez, because he said, you're going to be at home group tonight, right? You're going to make it to home group. And I go, yeah, yeah. And then I was like, oh man, if I don't go, he's going to remember my name but that I didn't go. And so like, I was like, okay, well, now I'll go. And I mean, I was cussing all the way up the stairs and I even told them, I'm like, I don't know what I'm doing here. I don't do this. But God knew that I needed these girls. And Rochelle, now that people listened and heard your powerful testimony, those that are here tonight or those that are watching, what would you advise them that are maybe in your situation or in a really dark place right now? What would you advise them? Just cling on to God for dear life. He'll find a way. I didn't know the answer, but he did.  You know, I was like, it's like, I didn't stand a chance or the enemy didn't stand a chance. But, yeah. That's awesome. Give her a round of applause, you guys. And then thank you, Rochelle. People like that, where you hear that, it just uplifts your faith and encouragement and just believing that, you know what, God can do something for me, that God still lives and he breathes. Amen. And before I go with the next testimony, I just want to share about a testimony that I heard in Skowen, Synagogue Church of All Nations. And maybe some of you guys can relate or know someone that can relate. This lady went to this church in Nigeria and it's a very, very powerful church. God is literally there. And those that don't know about it, please watch it at manual.tv. It is amazing. It will be introduced to a new level of faith. And anyways, this lady came to this church and she began to share her testimony is that she had this life of limitation, poverty. She was just poor to the point of tears stating that she couldn't even afford school for her children. She couldn't even afford a car payment. And she had to borrow money coming to the Synagogue Church of All Nations because word got out saying that God is there. And so she's like, I need to go. I'm desperate. I'm literally poverty-stricken. I can't afford my children to go to school. What's going to happen next? It was just getting worse and worse and worse. So she goes and, prophet to be Joshua, which is this pastor of this church, gives her this anointing water. And you're going to hear a live testimony just a second about the anointing water here and gives it to her. It's anointed. Yes, it is just tap water, but God can use any medium to express himself. Because you know what? He's God. Okay, because he's God. And he says, you know what? I want this anointing to spread out across the world. And so he did that and so gave her the anointing water. And guess what happened? She began to just spray the anointing water into her household and the financial breakthrough came. That year she got a chance to have two 2011 cars where they're like brand new. And that house that she was trying to sell, she was in a situation with the house. And it was just really bad. She couldn't sell the house before she went to the church, a synagogue church of all nations. And she couldn't sell it. So the bank told her she needs to reduce the price. And what happened was when she came back, she started to pray for that house and spray the anointing water. Guess what? It got sold with the original price. Not the reduced price, but the original price. And then she got the two cars and now she can, you know, fund her kids to school, literally breakthrough and a new level. Amen? God can do anything. And any way he wants to express himself, he will. Come on.  Guys, go ahead and give her a round of applause. And can you just please begin with telling us your name and where you're from? My name is Elena Tenecliffe and I'm from the Tri-Cities. And Elena, can you tell us what the problem you were having and the testimony that you have for us? Well, before I came to good news, I felt a heavy emptiness and a void in my heart. And before I came here, I was actually not going to church at all and not praying at all. So that was one of the biggest changes for me. And as I started going to the home groups and we started reading the book from curses to blessings, I got, it was revealed to me that a lot of people in my family have drinking problems and it's been from lots of generations back. And so I had, that was the biggest reason I decided to come to the prayer line. And for those that don't know what prayer line is, we hold that once a month and people come all around America to receive prayer due to whatever circumstances and the anointing water gets ministered to them. And can you please tell us when you were here at the prayer line receiving the anointing water was ministered to, what happened? Well, when I first got the water sprayed on me, nothing was happening at first. I didn't feel anything. Did you expect anything to happen? Not really. I expected to get that curse taken away from me and I expected that I'd walk out curse free, but that was it. But it was far from. So when it first got sprayed on me, it didn't really feel like anything but more and more times it was sprayed on me. It felt like all the nerves in my body were being electrocuted. So I don't really even know how to explain that. So after that feeling came over, you don't remember what happened next? I do not. I remember it getting stronger and stronger and stronger and then after that I don't remember. And from what you heard or what you saw happen because it was recorded, what happened? I got delivered from the demon pain and suffering. Amen. Amen. Praise God. Amen. That's amazing. And so can you tell us, how that she was delivered from the pain and suffering, how did that affect your life, that pain and suffering and how are you now? Well the pain and suffering that had the biggest effect on me was emotional pain. In my recorded testimony I talked a little bit about how my parents were really never around, specifically my mom. And so that pain, I mean I still forgave her and many other people that had hurt me, but the pain had never left. And so that right there was the pain that left as well not just that pain but physical pain as well. Wow. So you're saying that for that pain that you held on for so many years after you received prayer here it left you? Yes. Wow. Amen. You guys give her a round of applause. And so those that are watching here and even those that are experiencing emotional pain they're thinking you know it's just a thing I have to deal with. What would you advise them, now that you experience freedom from that what would you tell them? Pain isn't something we should have to deal with. Pain, sickness, those things, they're from the devil. You shouldn't have to go through pain and suffering and constantly worry about, oh am I going to commit suicide today? Am I going to hurt myself today again? You shouldn't have to worry about that because that is from the devil. And you can receive healing from that. Amen. Praise God. Thank you so much, Lena. I hope all of you that have been here and those that are watching have been encouraged and uplifted to believe for yourself. So whatever you're here tonight and experiencing that struggle, that battle and maybe you have a doubt in your mind I believe that seed was sown tonight for you because you know what? You are next to receive an amazing testimony. Amen.