Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States. Please be seated. I have a brief opening statement besides saying good evening. One week ago today in London, I joined the leaders of six major industrialized democracies for the annual economic summit, and we met to take the pulse of the world economy to measure the impact of the policies that we've been implementing during the past three years and to continue strengthening the freedom, prosperity and peace that we share. Change comes neither easily nor quickly in foreign affairs, but there was recognition in London that while we continue to face pressing challenges, we are on the right track. By working together, by sticking to our policies, we've made impressive progress since 1981. The Western democracies have been moving from weakness to strength, from disappointment and pessimism to confidence and hope for a better future. In 1981, our economies had an average growth of only 1.8% and 8.5% inflation. But led by the recovery and now the expansion in the United States, our average growth today is up to 4% while inflation has been cut in half. There was recognition that the incentives of America's recovery program, which sparked our economic takeoff and the creation of more than 6 million jobs in the last 18 months, have made a major contribution to the improvement in both the performance and the outlook for the world economy. I reaffirmed to our allies America's bedrock commitment to the NATO Alliance and to its mission to protect peace and freedom in the West. Europe and America have enjoyed nearly 40 years of peace. If NATO remains strong and unified, and I believe NATO is stronger and more unified today than ever before, then Europe and America will remain free and secure. We have re-established strength and confidence stretching beyond America's shores to Europe and the Pacific Basin, and we're trying as well to promote a better, more realistic long-term relationship with the Soviet Union. And that's why we and our allies have made so many initiatives to reduce nuclear arsenals, ban chemical weapons, break the impasse in the East-West conventional force negotiations, curb nuclear proliferation, and reach agreement on proposals for increasing confidence and reducing the risk of surprise attack in Europe. The West is doing its utmost, but to date we have met with continued Soviet unwillingness to return to the nuclear arms negotiating tables. America is standing taller in the world today, but if we're to continue on course toward a more prosperous, peaceful world, then we need the full cooperation of the Congress. The Congress must support our strategic modernization program to keep America strong and convince the Soviets it is in their best interest to choose the course of negotiation, not confrontation, so we can safely reduce arms while preserving peace and stability. The Congress must pass the recommendations of the bipartisan commission on Central America and the two supplemental requests now before it to promote democracy, economic development, and greater security in that vital region to our South. And the Congress must promptly pass our deficit reduction program to help ensure that our economic recovery remains strong. And now, Helen, you're number one. President, no matter what you say you've done so far, two Republican leaders don't think you've done enough, and they are urging you to hold regular summit meetings where fear will blow each other up with the Soviets without any conditions as to issues or outcome. Both you and the Soviets have said you will go to a summit if it's carefully prepared. My question is, where do we stand now? Are you willing to go for a summit to start the ball rolling? Well, Helen, the first place with regard to the two senators, and I did talk to them, they were talking about a goal that would be desirable that I think we all share. And we were agreed on that, and I told them some of the difficulties and problems that we've been having. But yes, I am willing to meet and talk any time so far. They have been the ones not responding, but we have kept in communication. There are a number of issues other than arms reductions that we have suggested talking to them about, and we're going to continue in the area of quiet diplomacy to bring that about. Are you going to make an affirmative move for a summit and to try to clear away some of these stumbling clocks that have really caused great east-west tensions? Well, this is what I meant with my remarks, that we are continuing to keep communication with the idea leading toward that very thing. Mr. President, do we understand you to say that you're willing now to drop your long-held view that a summit would have to be carefully prepared in advance and hold the prospect for reasonable success? Wouldn't really be necessary for me to drop that, since the Russians say that that's exactly what they feel must happen before there can be a meeting, that it must be carefully prepared. Let me explain maybe a little more fully what, when I say that, what I have in mind. There have been a couple of times in the past in which representatives from the free world and from our own country have gotten into things simply to get acquainted or say hello. And they have led to great expectations and they've led to great disappointment. And I don't think that we ought to go into something of that kind. But at the same time, I'm not talking about a pre-constructed meeting in which you've got a list of points. You can have an agenda in which it is the general area of the things that you think could lead to better understanding. And that's good enough for me. Right now, we're getting a response from them that they want a very carefully prepared agenda. Now, if they agree with me that there are things we can talk about that might clear the air and create a better understanding between us, that's fine. Sir, I could follow up. Are you willing to take steps now to begin the process of working out an agenda so that a summit could ultimately occur? Well, we are taking steps. This is what I mean by quiet diplomacy. And I have been in communication myself, written communication, the Soviet leadership. There is one thing that I think I've said this before but that I think many of you failed to recognize and that is there have been three Russian heads of state since I became president. One of them I knew personally. The second one was we now know in ill health because he was virtually in communicato to anyone during his period. And now this newest one is setting up an administration and so forth. So it isn't as if we've been sitting here for three and a half years arguing with someone or not arguing with someone. There have been a lot of changes over there. But we're ready, willing, and able. Mr. President, nearly a year ago you said that you wanted to get to the bottom of the matter of the so-called briefing papers that went from the Carter White House into your 1980 campaign. I wonder, sir, if in that year you have ever talked to Mr. Baker and to Mr. Casey and asked them precisely what their roles were in that matter? Yes, and I think they're easily understandable. One has no recollection and I can understand that from a campaign of something that might have come through his office and been passed on, that goes on. I think there is one thing that ought to be cleared up about this whole case. And I did give orders to the FBI to make this investigation thorough and I gave orders to all of our people to cooperate to the fullest extent, and they did. And the Justice Department and the FBI were satisfied that there was no criminal intent of any kind. But the thing that I want to make clear is we still keep calling it the briefing book. Now it was established quite a while ago that the so-called debate briefing book of the Carter team never has been in our possession. That all that was uncovered were some position papers, the type of things that were issues during the campaign and all of it had been out in the open and made public as the campaign went on before the debate. But the briefing book, if you will remember, the briefing book it was pointed out, finally someone located on the other side and there it was and no one on this side ever saw it nor was it ever in our hands. Can I follow up, sir? There still seems however to be some conflict in the matter because although the Justice Department said no crime had been committed, a Democratic controlled committee on the Hill suggests that they may have been a crime committed. In view of the fact that there is this conflict, the Democrats don't believe your Justice Department and the Republicans don't believe the Democratic Committee, wouldn't it be better to have a special prosecutor to resolve the matter once and for all? Well that matters in the court now and if that is decided by the court I will give the same orders with regard to cooperation. Frankly, based on that Democratic Committee report, it didn't make any sense at all. This has been investigated thoroughly. Sam? Sir, in recent speeches this year about the Soviets, you have held out an olive branch to them but at the same time you usually either denounce their system or their actions. Would it be better in an attempt to get this dialogue started again, whether at the summit or back in Geneva, where you simply held out the olive branch without also taking a shot at them? Well I don't think I've gone out of my way to just call them names or anything. I've usually pointed to something that is counter to their protestations of wanting peace and cooperation such as walking away from the arms talks. I don't think that I've said anything that was as fiery as them referring to the funeral service or the unknown soldier as a militaristic orgy. If we're going to talk about comparisons of rhetoric, they've topped me in spades. Leslie? Sorry, if I may. You shortened the number of questions we get in with all these follow-ups. All right. Thank you. I don't know if everyone else is left as unclear as I am on where we stand with the summit with the Soviets.  We have been in contact with them on a number of issues that we think bilateral issues that should be discussed between us. Of course, there is the matter of the arms talks also, although we've not been talking about that since they have simply walked away. All I can tell you is that in what I call quiet diplomacy, we are in contact with their people trying to establish a basis for talks. Is this an invitation? We haven't reached that point yet. I'd like to join Leslie in not being quite sure here. There seems to be a change or something that we have at least not known before. Your communication with the Soviet leadership, has that been with Mr. Chinenko and what has the subject been a summit and meeting between you and Mr. Chinenko? No. The communication has been simply on the broad relationship between our two countries and my communication by writing has been with Mr. Chinenko. If I could just follow up, would you be willing to meet with Mr. ... Sorry, Sam. He's a much more gentlemanly person. Would you be willing to meet with Mr. Chinenko even if he won't send his delegation back to the nuclear arms talks? Yes. Yes, I'm willing to meet with him. Chris. Mr. President, you have said recently that you think that U.S.-Soviet relations would improve in a second Reagan term, but several other people who have been in Moscow, quote officials there is saying that isn't true, that they're not going to ever deal with you. They feel you have been too harsh. What hard evidence do you have that relations would improve after the election? Well, I've been too harsh. Maybe if I apologize for shooting down the KAL 707 and some things like that, maybe they'll warm up and be willing to talk. No, I think it's very obvious that ... and I wouldn't expect them to do anything that might help me in the coming election. But I think when it's over and they know that four years lie out ahead, if I'm here for four years, I think they'll talk. Well, that brings up the question. Do you think that the Soviets could get a better deal from your Democratic opponent than they could from you? Oh, I'm not going to comment on that. President, as I recall one of your previous formulations about a summit was that you would have to have something concrete to show for it. Are you willing to have a summit that does not have a concrete agreement or a piece of paper like the New Solver Star Treaty or some new initiative toward a Solver Star Treaty? Well, Lars, I've never thought about it in a specific of that kind. As I've said, there should be an agenda, a subject that both sides want to talk about and have some desire to get a settlement. And that holds out the promise then that something might be accomplished. When you don't plan that well, if I could recall, and I don't mean this to be critical of my predecessors, but there was a get acquainted meeting with Lyndon Johnson and it was nothing more than that. Then there was a meeting with Kennedy and Khrushchev that they didn't ease tensions or make things any better. This was the meeting in Vienna. It led to even more strains. So it is a two-edged sword, such a meeting. Yes, you want to accomplish something, but you want to be sure that you aren't going to lead to more trouble. My point was you're willing to have a summit that does not end in the signing of a treaty on arms control. Yes, I've said that once already. What is your timeframe on this? If you are now willing to negotiate the possibility of a summit, do you think it could be held before the election? Whenever the conditions that lead to having one would be fine, but one thing let me say and make clear, I'm not going to play political games with this subject and go rushing out for some kind of political advantage to announce that I have asked for a summit meeting. That wouldn't do either one of us any good and certainly wouldn't be fair to them. But this is legitimate. The door is open and every once in a while we're standing in the doorway seeing if anyone's coming up with steps. What's your estimation, sir, on a timeframe? I couldn't give you one. Mr. President, some of you advise the same privately. The Soviet leadership now is actually so divided and uncertain that there's really not much hope of progress at this time. And you've seemed to hint that when you say that there have been three leaders since you've been in office. Is that your view and what are the implications of that? Well, we don't know. There has been the theory advance that they're kind of marking time and perhaps in some disagreement about what course they should follow. But there's no way to know that. So we just keep on trying. Mr. President, if I could get back to political games for a second. Former President Carter said earlier this month that despite your statements generally in favor of a debate with your opponent that he thinks you're going to duck your Democratic opponent and will never face him in a face-to-face debate. Now that former Vice President Walter Mondale is the apparent Democratic nominee can you now promise that you will participate in a presidential debate with him? President Carter said that I would hide. There he goes again. I would look forward to a debate. Mr. President, today the Chief Kremlin spokesman said we want to have negotiations with the United States on a whole complex of issues which is certainly something different than Mr. Chernyenko said the day before. Do you read this as a change in Soviet policy or tactics? Is there something going on there that is happening very quickly in relation to two countries? We'll take a chance in finding out on that because I say we are in communication and if they're ready to talk, we are too. Mr. President, do you interpret the Supreme Court decision this week in the Memphis firefighters case as the death knell of affirmative action as we have known it in hiring and promotion? No, I don't think that at all. I think the Supreme Court was interpreting, giving an interpretation of what the law actually says and as a matter of fact, I think in the discussion up came the point that back when that was being discussed, Hubert Humphrey in the debate in the Senate said that the law did not provide for quotas. The law is to prevent discrimination against individuals and this was what the Supreme Court said in that case. Mr. President, last year you said in action a commission on organized crime. Could you tell me why, as the first part of a two-part question, why this commission refuses to say whether it is investigating Lewis Farrakhan despite seven Hanafi Muslims and Malcolm X being shot by Mr. Farrakhan and his accomplices? I would have no way of knowing but a commission that is engaged in a study, I'm quite sure that they're not going to talk about things that they are currently doing. I think the very nature of that kind of investigation would indicate that they will report when they have everything wrapped up and tied up and all the evidence that they need for any conclusions they come to. The follow-up, sir. In your setting up this commission under George Kaufman of New York, you specified drugs. Are you at all concerned about Bob Woodward's reports of widespread cocaine use at the Washington Post or do you kind of shuffle it off and explaining that this illustrates a lot about why the Post publishes some of the things that it does? I only say in with regard to that question is that you are tempting me beyond my strength. You noted in your opening remarks the debate on the hill about the deficit reduction package. Given some problems we're having with the spending side but not on the tax side, would you be willing to sign a tax package without a spending package attached? Only if I had assurance that the spending package was coming along, there would be no point in the other. This triad that was worked out, this three-legged stool of domestic spending, defense cuts that we finally agreed to and some changes, some reforms in the tax structure that closed some certain loopholes and so forth. This has to go together. I made the mistake of going along with the tax increase in the guise of the same kind of treatment on the promise of cuts that I never then obtained and the deficit would be considerably smaller if I had gotten those cuts that I had asked for. This time I'm going to be pretty sure. Would that mean then you might want them to wait from sending a tax package up until they've actually completed the spending? If there is assurance that the appropriation bills are going to come up, that they're working on that also, I'm prepared to look them in the eye and say, all right, and wait, yes. Mr. President, you and your campaign organization have spent a lot of time trying to increase your support among Hispanic voters, yet you continue to support the controversial immigration bill on the Hill now. Will that not hurt you with its Hispanic voters in the fall? Well, I know that there are people, I can understand their concern and their fear. I think that if we take every precaution we can in that immigration bill to make sure that there is not discrimination simply based on the not wanting to bother as to whether an individual is legal or not, I think we can protect against that. But the simple truth is that we've lost control of our own borders and no nation can do that and survive. And I think the thing that they should be looking at that should be the greatest appeal to them is the very generous amnesty that all the way up to 1982 we are ready to give those people permanent residency. Mr. President, you've said tonight that you're ready and willing to talk to the Soviets, but Mr. Chenyanko has proposed negotiating a ban on anti-satellite weapons and other space weapons. Can you tell us why beyond the fact that you believe there can't be verification as you said last weekend, why can't verification be negotiated once you sit down with the Soviets to discuss those weapons? Well, there are a number of things and we are studying that. We don't have a flat no on that yet. We're studying that whole situation. The Soviets are way ahead of us in that field. They've been at this for about 10 years or more. And we are just in the field of beginning research. And I think we've got some definite reasons there for wanting to know our way before we talk. But we haven't slammed the door on that at all. Can you also confirm reports about the verification issue that there has been significant Soviet violations of all of the treaties going back to 1958? We turned over 200 page report to the Congress that was classified. We made public a summary of that, declassified in the summary. The other and lengthy report is still classified because of the risk of exposing sources. But it was a report on outright violations of many of the treaties in the past and also some ambiguities in which maybe based on language differences or not, they claim a different interpretation of the treaty and that therefore they're not violating it. They're doing what they think the treaty prescribes. But between those two things, yes, there have been those violations. Mr. President, before you came along in recent years, the talk had been between the two governments of parity and force between the United States and the Soviet Union. Your supporters who wrote the 1980 Republican platform called for military superiority over the Soviet Union. It's been a little bit fuzzy since, although you and a couple of speeches, I think starting with the Star Wars speech, have gone back to using the parlance of parity. How do you feel the Republican platform has handled that issue? Between those two key words, superiority and parity, where should that platform go and your administration go? My own view is that we should maintain the strength and deterrent that is necessary to assure as much as you can have such assurance that there won't be a confrontation because the price would be too high. But at the same time, emphasizing that we want more than anything else to join with them in reducing the number of weapons, we've had arms limitation dealings and treaties and so forth, even such as the SALT treaties. All of those simply legalized an arms race. They were limitations or rules and regulations as to how many more weapons you could have. As a matter of fact, the Soviet Union added almost 4,000 warheads after the two sides had signed the SALT to agreement. That's not my idea of what we really need if we're to reduce the tensions in the world. What we need is to reduce and hopefully to eliminate the strategic nuclear weapons. If you're on record, I think at least twice of saying that we do not seek anything more than parity in the long run, would not a platform that goes further than that and repeats the call for superiority give a wrong signal to the Soviet Union? I would prefer that we not ask for superiority now that we've entered into and started this whole area. We are negotiating with them with other countries in two negotiations that are going on that they did not leave or walk away from. Yes, I believe that could be counterproductive now to ask for that. Mr. President, if you win a second term, are you absolutely committed to serving all four years? I ask the question only because a Washington Magazine report, and I don't know how they knew, that you and the First Lady had discussed the possibility of if you win again and if the economy is in good shape when you're 75 or 76 years old, possibly turning over power. Have you ever thought about that? Have you considered it or discussed with the First Lady that in any case? What the devil would a young fellow like me do if I quit the job? Have you not discussed it with the First Lady? No, there's never been any such talk at all. Mr. President, there is a move of foot in the Congress that had the support of many of the Democratic presidential candidates to change the federal civil rights law to prohibit job discrimination against homosexuals. Is that something that you would favor? Now, I was so... You're going to have to start again here with the first few words I missed them. I was so confused about three of you. There's a measure before the Congress to change the federal civil rights law to specifically prohibit job discrimination against homosexuals. Is that something that you would favor? Well, I just have to say I am opposed to discrimination. Period. Would you support the measure, Mr. President? Would you support that measure? I want to see what else they have there. Mr. President, the current report says that the United States is moving towards two societies, one black and one white, separate and unequal. Now, with the outcast from blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, and women against your civil rights policies, aren't you moving this country towards two separate societies, one of white males and the other of blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and women separate and unequal? I don't believe there's been any violation of either the letter or the spirit of the civil rights laws, nor would I stand for such a thing. There has been no discrimination of any kind in this administration, nor would I stand for that on the part of anyone. And I think that what we have done if we will get our information from the horse's mouth, our administration, and not from the political rhetoric that has been so prevalent in the last year, I think we can establish that no administration has done more than we have done with regard to any of these people that you speak of, with regard to women, I think our appointments themselves, but I think more than that. No government, no administration has ever done what we have done in the government itself, but everything that we have done, we haven't done anything that in any way discriminated people, we have done things that we think are helpful. The Leadership Conference just which met this past week said that you are the greatest opponent to civil rights as a president in the last two decades. And they gave very specific showing that your policies are attempting to reverse the civil rights games. And now these grassroots people believe that you have been blaming the leaders and Brad Reynolds has been blaming the media. But aren't you underestimating the intelligence of the grassroots people that you think that they don't know what they are suffering from? And this is going to be, isn't this going to really cause a division in this country rather than a unified country unless you can convince these people who are the victims of these policies. You can't convince them that their conditions are better than you're working to disunit by a country. I think the reduction in inflation certainly has got to help people. I'm sure you're talking about people at the lower end of the earning scale. Our tax policies have been more beneficial to them than to anyone else. This idea that we hear on Capitol Hill all the time that our tax programs benefited the rich, the figures belie that. The people at the upper income brackets are paying a greater percentage of the overall income tax than they were paying before our tax program went into effect. The people at the bottom of the scale are paying less lower percentage. But now in the other point the inference that programs of welfare nature, social programs and benefits have been reduced to the place that people dependent on them are now suffering. That is not true. We are helping more people and paying more money than ever in the history of this country in all of those social programs. The government is providing 95 million meals a day. I could go on with the others. Some of the things that have led perhaps to confusion has taken something like the educational programs. We found out that people were eligible when we came here for college grants and loans for their children and their income level was too high for this to be warranted. So yes we changed the income level but this allowed us to increase further down to the people with real need and do more for them. For example we probably eliminated 850,000 people from food stamps but we increased the number of people who were getting food stamps because we transferred this from people who were to higher level. Our level now of income or most of these programs not all is 130% of the poverty level. If you are below that you are eligible and most families would find themselves eligible for 3 or 4 of the programs at the same time. This is a falsehood that is being pervade to people that their problems whether through unemployment or whatever look at what we have done by the increase in unemployment and granted that blacks in this country had a higher rate of unemployment than whites in the time of the recession their rate of recovery is faster than the rate of recovery for whites. Are you willing to separate these summer job programs from the Nicaragua aid, COVID aid? I want COVID programs I want jobs for the young young people summer jobs Do you drink your wine yet? Do you summit wine? Do you drink it? Nope. Okay.


Okay, welcome to my presentation. Janik already gave a very nice introduction on how important and useful 3-core block ciphers are. Let me nevertheless give you a brief introduction as well. However, I will do it a little bit quicker then. So a normal block cipher is just essentially a permutation. For every secret key it's a permutation which means that if you encrypt the same message you get the same cipher tags every time. And to add some flexibility people used tweaks and a tweak randomizes the scheme in some way. It's a public parameter associated with every tweak. It gives an independent looking permutation. And the relevance of it already became clear in this picture in this scheme of SCT. To give you an other example, let me discuss this. Well, I called it OCBX. I learned that I should have called it TataCB. So this is essentially the generic design of OCB1, OCB2 and OCB 3. And I think it's one of the pioneering designs in using tweak-core block ciphers for such applications. And I think it also shows how why tweak-core block ciphers are interesting and important for security analysis. So what we see here, so again authenticated encryption scheme. A is associated with data, M is the message, you get a cipher text and a tag. But we use a tweak-core block cipher everywhere where the tweak is a consist of a nonce and some position identifier. So the nonce is a unique value for every encryption. And the position identifier uniquely determines at which position the tweak-core block cipher appears. And because it is a tweak-core block cipher, every new evaluation of this tweak-core block cipher is done under a different tweak. You get independent looking tweak-core block ciphers everywhere and you can easily prove security of the scheme. Note that by changing the tweak, you're essentially changing the function. So there is a site condition here, namely that you want that changing the tweak should be very efficient. So it should be very efficient to go move from one tweak to another one. So the question is how to design tweak-core block ciphers. Janik showed already that there are various approaches to do it from scratch. And the most recent one is this tweak-key framework, which kind of blends the key and the tweak. In this work, I focus on generic design where we use an existing primitive like a block cipher and build a tweak-core block cipher on top of this. So in the first formalization of tweak-core block ciphers, where it is called at all, they also introduce two tweak-core block ciphers based on a normal block cipher. Those are these two actually. The most interesting one for us is now the right one. So what we see is that it has a normal block cipher, which is masked by some universal hash function on the left and on the right. And it's similar to what was proposed by Rockaway two years later. Rockaway improved this scheme specifically for the usage in OCB2. And the idea of the new scheme is that the masking is not based on a universal hash function, but you use the same block cipher. And the tweak consists of a nonce, of course, and alpha, beta, and gamma. And alpha, beta, and gamma are used to represent the position in the OCB scheme. So the mask is then computed in this case as 2 to the power alpha times 3 to the power beta times 7 to the power gamma times the encryption of the nonce. So it was introduced for OCB2, but there are many Caesar submissions that adopted this idea. So this is block cipher based approach, but it appears like there is a current trend towards permutation-based designs. This was already apparent in the SHA-3 competition with Keitschak, the permutation-based hash function. Also, in the Caesar competition, there are quite some permutation-based designs. And it is possible to transform this to a permutation-based setting. As a matter of fact, in 2014, the MIN offer team introduced the tweakable Evan-Monster reconstruction. And it is similar. It uses a public permutation. But it uses a public permutation, and the masking is done in the form of 2 to the power alpha times 3 to the power beta times 7 to the power gamma, times the key-exort with a permuted version of the key. And the tweakable Evan-Monster got generalized a lot by Koliati at all last year. And it is clear that there is a relation between this scheme and the XCX scheme of the previous slide, because if we take, for instance, XCX with non-zero, and we take the normal Evan-Monster construction, this one, and we plug it into XCX, we get a disconstruction that very much looks like XPX. So there is a relation between these two schemes. So I already mentioned that in the Caesar competition, there are quite some tweakable block cycle-based designs. And as a matter of fact, we can group these directions in three approaches. So we have this dedicated tweakable block cipher design. We have XCX-inspired designs, and tweakable Evan-Monster-inspired designs. And if you check the list of initial Caesar submissions, there are 57 submissions, 18 of them are based either explicitly or implicitly on tweakable block ciphers. Actually, I have the one that only participated in the first round. I put it in plain text. Both is the second round. I didn't manage to update it to the new results from this last night. But it turns out that six of these schemes went to the third round. So six of the third round candidates are tweakable block cipher-based. In this work, we consider permutation-based designs, so we effectively generalize this tweakable Evan-Monster approach. In more detail, we consider XPX. And XPX is a public permutation in the middle, masked by, on the left, T11 times k, X or T12 times pk, and on the right, T21 times k, X or T22 times pk. So the idea is that the tweak is also formed T11, T12, T21 and T21, which comes from a certain pre-described tweak set at T. And this tweak set depends on the use case of the tweakable block cipher. So for now, the tweak set can still be any set. However, it turns out that the security of XPX strongly depends on the choice of the tweak set. At a high level, we will essentially make a separation, so we synthetically analyze all possible tweak sets, and we'll make a separation between weak tweak sets for which XPX is completely insecure, normal tweak sets for which you get single key security, and normal tweak sets are essentially the ones that are not weak. And if you put slightly more conditions on the tweak set, it turns out that you can get related key security. And surprisingly, there is no much efficiency difference among these three cases. So it's very easy to get related key security for a scheme if you have normal single key security. I will come back to this later. So what now remains to do is to essentially formalize what we mean by weak, normal and strong. And let me start with weak tweak sets by giving an example. It's XPX again. Suppose now that the tweak 0000 is allowed. So the tweak set, the set of allowed tweaks, contains tweak 0000. I think it's trivial to see what happens if you use this tweak set, this tweak 0000. For any message M, the output of the XPX is just B of M. It's independent of the key, and you can break it trivially. So this tweak should not be allowed. There are different tweaks, like 1011. If this tweak is allowed, the attacker can use this tweak for message zero. Then we see that the input to the permutation equals K. The output equals P of K, which cancels out with P of K from the mask and the output is K. So if this tweak is allowed, you have a key recovery attack. There are more advanced cases like 1002. There are also cases where we have couples of tweaks that should not be allowed at the same time as the rest of the week. So there are some silly cases in a certain way, and it makes sense to limit the tweak set to exclude these cases. This brings me to the first definition, which is the definition of valid tweak sets. It's a technical definition. I will not go into detail, but it's a technical definition, but it's easy to verify whether or not a tweak set is valid or not. We actually proved that it's a minimal definition. We showed that if a tweak set is not valid, then a tweak set, then XPX is completely insecure. So it's really a minimal definition of validity. And these are effectively the weak tweak sets. We will show the opposite, too. In fact, we will show also that if the tweak set is valid, then you have security, then XPX is secure. And this is done in the normal, well, strong tweak opposite to random permutation security model. So the attacker is given access to either the construction query, either to the construction XPX or a random equivalent, tilde pi, and the attacker is also given access to the underlying primitive P, which is assumed to be an ideal permutation, and the complexity of the attacker is countered by the number of queries. So it can make Q construction queries and R primitive queries. And then we proved that if the tweak set is valid, then we get birthday bound security of this construction, where Q is the number of construction queries and R is the number of primitive queries. So this is just plain single key security, but we also consider related key security. And in related key security, the attacker has more power. What the attacker can do is it can query the construction, not only for the tweak and the message, but for every query to the construction, the attacker chooses a function phi, which is the construction evaluation for key phi of k. So it can choose for every query a function to transform the key. And this gives the attacker extra strength. It makes sense to restrict the set of key-deriving functions in some way, otherwise you can trivially break it. And there is a well-known function, it's a function that consists of the set of XOR differences. This was already considered a long time ago in the formalization of related key security of Balara and Kono. And so what we defined by phi XOR and consists of all functions that map k to k XOR delta. The attacker can choose delta for every new evaluation. And it has some relation to silly implementations where a key is, for instance, refreshed by adding a counter. In this case, you would facilitate attackers with such sets of key-deriving functions. And we also look at a slightly stronger set, which we call phi p XOR, which consists of the set of all functions that map k to k XOR delta. Or the set of functions that, abusing notation, map p of k to p of k XOR epsilon. So the attacker can always choose delta or epsilon. The second set looks a bit contrived, but let me recall that the masking in XBX is of the form t i 1 k XOR t i 2 p k. So in this respect, it makes sense to look at these two sets of key-deriving functions. And now for these sets, we define and we prove the following results. So first we show that, so first for normal PRP security where the attacker can only make forward queries, we show that if the tweak satisfies this condition, it doesn't contain silly tweaks. And t 1 2 is always non-zero. So in the use case, t 1 2 is never zero. Then we get XOR related key security. And if you also condition that t 2 2 is always non-zero and you have this tactical side condition, then you get even strong related key security for XOR differences where the attacker can make inverse queries. For the more involved set, we have similar results. So for instance, for the last one, we have that if the tweak set is valid and t 1 1, t 1 2, t 2 1 and t 2 2 are always non-zero, then you get strong related key security for this strong set of key-deriving functions. So I will not go into detail in the proof. Instead, I would like to give you some examples of how this result can be used, what it means and how it can be used for certain applications. And let me start with a very simple example, which is the normal FM monster scheme. So on the left, we see XPX. On the right, we see this normal, this well-known FM monster scheme. And FM monster is covered by XPX taking as tweak set just a singleton, just the tweak value 1 0 1 0. I mean, if the tweak set consists of one tuple, the user always has to take this as the tweak, which effectively means that it's just a normal block cipher. The tweak set is valid, which means that this result, which means that our result shows that FM monster is a secure block cipher. Well, this should not sound as a surprise to you because this has been proven many times already. But it's just to show that, well, what it means. And in general, XPX for any possible, so if you take any tweak set of size one, XPX is a normal block cipher. So as a side result, it essentially covers a wide range of even FM monster-ish block ciphers. XPX also covers this XEX with FM monster. So if you take XEX with FM monster installed into it, it's covered by XPX, so it's a more involved set, a more involved tweak set. So what we do essentially is we take alphabet and gamma, just any possible XEX tweak, and we define T11, T12, T21, and T22 on top of this. So the Tijs are functions of alphabet and gamma, and that's the way we can define XPX to cover XEX with FM monster. And this set is valid, and as a matter of fact, it also satisfies that the values are always non-zero, because in XEX, 2 to the alpha, 3 to the beta, 7 to the gamma is never one. It's never zero, of course. So this one is never zero, of course. XEX has the condition that this 2 to the alpha, 3 to the beta, 7 to the gamma is never one, so you always never have a zero here, so you have very strong related key security for this very strong set of key-deriving functions. And to show you how this can be used, let me go to the COPPA Authenticated Encryption Scheme. So COPPA is a design by Andreva et al. 2014. It has associated data, the message, using some magic, you get the ciphertext and the tag. For now, it's not important to look at how the scheme works, but what it does is that COPPA is implicitly based on XEX, in which internally AES is used. So COPPA is based on, is XEX based on AES, and there is a variant of this that's PROSCOPPA, and PROSCOPPA differs from COPPA in that it doesn't use AES, but instead it uses F and Montserr construction. So PROSCOPPA is COPPA based on AEX, XEX based on F and Montserr based on APRometation. And it makes sense to question to what extent can we use the existing security results of COPPA to guarantee security of PROSCOPPA. So to what extent do the results carry over from one scheme to another one. And for single key security, that's quite a straightforward question. It's a fact, almost a trivial question. And to see this, let me look at how the COPPA security proof works. So what's done for COPPA is essentially as follows. The first step is a reduction to XEX. So one reduces the security of COPPA to the security of XEX up to the birthday bound. That's the existing proof. Rockaway analyzed XEX and Rockaway proved that XEX based on the blocks of E is birthday bound and secure. So you reduce the security of XEX to the security of blocks of E. Then you plug in XEX and you hope that AES is secure. That's how the COPPA proof works. Now for PROSCOPPA you don't stop at the blocks of E, but we have an additional step. We have a monster construction based on A permutation. So we make one more step, namely that every monster is secure up to the birthday bound. And that's for a single key security. So this is nothing surprising. Now for related key security it turns out that for COPPA you can do the same trick. So if you dive into the proof of COPPA you see that you can do the same trick for related key security. So the related key security of COPPA reduces to the related key security of XEX up to the birthday bound reduces to the related key security of E up to the birthday bound. And then you assume that AES is related key secure. But what if we go for PROSCOPPA? For PROSCOPPA we need to make an additional step. And this step is the related key security of F and monster. And F and monster is not related key secure. You can break the related key security of F and monster in two queries. So this approach does not work for PROSCOPPA. It doesn't mean that PROSCOPPA is secure. It just means that this naive straightforward reduction doesn't work. And now we can use XPX. Because XPX is essentially covers XEX with F and monster. So we just skip the step through E. We make a direct step and we get related key security. Similar idea can for instance be used to MinAlpha which uses this tweakable F and monster. And so MinAlpha was defined to use tweakable F and monster. But you can also see it as based on XPX with quite a simple tweak set. And using similar techniques you get related key security. A final example which I think is interesting is the chess key design. So it's not an authenticated Christian scheme but it's a Mac function. And so we have of course a secret key. We have the message and then we do some magic with the key. And then you get the tag. So we have two pictures. The top one is for integral data. The bottom one is for fractional data. And the scheme is introduced by Mua at all in 2014. And the proof went as follows. So the proof essentially reduces the security of chess key to the security of three even monster construction. So it's not clear from the picture but somewhere in this picture there are three even monster constructions hidden. And the proof reduces the security of chess key to the security of these three constructions. But if you now look back at this proof, this is equivalent to XPX with a tweak set of three tuples. Namely 1-0, 1-0, 3-0, 2-0 and 5-0, 4-0. Because the attacker can choose every time which monster construction to query. Which is essentially equivalent to saying that the attacker can choose a tweak every time. This tweak set is valid. Which means that we get single key security of the XPX construction and we get birthday bound security. So we've redone the security proof of chess key. And the tweak set is valid but no more than that you cannot get related key security. And actually you can break related key security of chess key. If you have X or related key difference you can undo it with M1. You need to do some tricks here too but that doesn't harm the attack. But now if we adjust chess key, so I left some blank space here. I did this on purpose because now I'm going to plug in a permutation here. And this is, so what we do is we permute the state. We first X or the key, then we permute the state. And effectively this adjusted chess key is based on XPX with a tweak set, T prime, by consisting of these three tuples. And if you redo the exercise now, this tweak set is valid. It gives related key security and you get related key security of chess key. And you see the change is not expensive. You just have to pre-compute P of K once. And you get related key security. That's a simple fix of achieving stronger security. And similar techniques could be applied to key sponges and key duplexes because chess key can be seen as a member of these schemes. It can also be applied to various sponge-based C's or candidates. I said 10 candidates, these are the initial candidates. I think there are still three left in the third round which it could be applied. So to conclude, we introduced XPX. It can be seen as a generalization of tweakable ever monster and not a generalization the way Koliati had all did it with a number of rounds. But instead, looking at a single round and checking what level of security can we get. We achieved various levels of security ranging from insecurity to single key security to related key security. We showed that the result is various applications. Many C's or candidates, many initial C's or candidates could be covered by XPX and also various Mac functions. For further questions, it would be interesting to see what happens if we go for multiple rounds that you can get beyond birthday bound security, which could be of interest if you have small permutations. If you use the scheme with a big 1024-bit permutation, it makes no sense to look at beyond birthday bound security. But if you have small permutations, it makes sense. Another question would be to look at other settings where related key security is important and this would also give different sets of key deriving functions. That concludes my presentation. Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much.


to call the City of Columbia Planning Commission meeting for August 10th into session. Welcome Planning Commission members, staff and guests. Multiple staff members are here today to ensure that the meeting runs smoothly and all applicants and members of the public are able to participate in the meeting at the appropriate times. If you're here today and would like to speak about a case, please provide your name clearly into the microphone and please be sure to sign in either at the back of the room or at the podium for documentation purposes. If you're here to speak about a case, you must speak up when the chairperson calls for a public comment. And I'll go ahead and call the roll. Mr. Causey. Mr. Cook. Here. Ms. Davis. Here. Mr. Dinkins. Here. Mr. Harp. Here. And Mr. Frost. Here. We have a quorum. I'll give a brief meeting of the overview or overview of the meeting brief review of the meeting format. Applicants with requests before the Planning Commission are allowed a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include but is not limited to an overview of the project, the case history and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicants such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the Planning Commission or staff regarding the requests. During the public comment period, members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns and intervals of two minutes. After the public comment period, applicants have five minutes to respond. Once the Planning Commission begins deliberations, no additional comments will be permitted by the applicant or the public. The administrator has a timer and will make presenters aware of when their time has expired. The Planning Commission reserves the right to amend these procedures on a case-by-case basis. Are there any changes to the agenda? We have had one change since publication. Case number six, which is on the regular agenda, a zoning map amendment ZMA-2023-0014 for 2401 Gatston, 701 Chester, and the property next to 701 Chester has been deferred by the applicant. And other than that, the agenda stands. Thank you. The Planning Commission uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a single motion and vote. Examples of such items include approval of site plans, annexations, and street names. If a member of the Planning Commission or the general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, you must speak up after the consent agenda is read. Then that item is removed from the consent agenda and considered during the regular meeting. The Planning Commission then approves the remaining consent agenda items. Mr. Chairman, prior to voting on consent agenda, I need to recuse myself from case number three, annex 2023-0016. Okay. Mr. Colise's recusal is noted on agenda item number three. Okay. I'll go ahead and read the consent agenda. Item number one is to approve the July 13, 2023 minutes. Item two is a feature land use map amendment and a zoning map amendment for appending annexation. This is annex-2023-0015 at 110 Jacobs Mill Pond Road. Request recommendation on the assignment of land use classification of urban edge residential large lot and the assignment of zoning of residential single family large lot district for appending annexation. The property is currently classified as neighborhood medium density and zoned RSLD by Richland County. Is anyone here from the public to that would like to speak about the 110 Jacobs Mill Pond Road. So we will pull that one off the consent agenda and put it on the regular meeting agenda. Here are none. Case the next case is case number three annex-2023-00167716 Garner's Ferry Road. Request recommendation on the assignment of land use classification of community activity corridor AC2 and the assignment of zoning of general commercial district for appending annexation. The property is currently classified as neighborhood medium density and zoned GC by Richland County. Is there anyone here from the public that would like to pull this particular case from the consent agenda and place it on regular meeting agenda. No one here to speak about that one. Hearing none we're good to move. Case four is annex-2023-0017 5706 and 5710 Fairfield Road 602 Oakland Avenue 721 and 731 Prescott Road and the property next to 809 and next to 815 Woodside Avenue. Request recommendation on the assignment of land use classifications of community activity corridor AC2 and urban edge residential small lot and the assignment of zoning of general commercial district and mixed-use district MU1 for appending annexation. The property is currently classified as mixed residential high density and a community activity center and a priority investment area and zoned general commercial and residential single family medium density by Richland County. Thank you is there anyone here that would like to speak about the case at Fairfield Road Oakland Prescott and Woodside Avenue. Anyone's here to speak we will pull that one off the consent and move it to regular seeing none. Call for any removal of the items. Is there anyone from planning commission that would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular meeting agenda? Hearing none I will accept a motion for a vote. I'll make a motion. I move to approve the consent agenda including the July 13, 2023 minutes and items number two, three and four with any staff recommendations. All right got a motion to approve the consent agenda as read. Can I get a second? Second. Got a motion and a second all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. The ayes have it. The motion is approved by some other means in and out. Where does that go that emerges the exit? That comes back to Trinity Drive. Okay I think David does have two items that we'd like to discuss based off of the comments from staff as well. Okay sure. My name is David Brandes with Yale Robinson Engineering. Two things we wanted to discuss. We wanted to point out that in the agenda it mentioned 193. Jonathan correctly mentioned it was 210 and then the write-up is 210 so we didn't want to make sure we noted that difference. Two items in the comments we wanted to make sure we're clarified. First one, the fire rating of walls less than five feet. I'm on page one of two. We would like to make sure that it's recognized that the code requires a 10 foot separation between buildings. We have some zero lot lines on the sides but we don't have any buildings closer than 10 feet. So if if amenable to everyone we'd like to add to that fire rating of walls less than five to the proper lines shall have the required fire separation of 10 feet. The reason we would ask that we don't really want to move the property lines from what you're seeing today because we don't want to have to come back and if working with the building official if he does require us to move that property line which we have space to do we wouldn't want to have to come back to planning commission. Any questions on that comment? No I would just defer to staff on how it's the best way to handle that comment or I don't think that that would be you know that's regulated by the building code right and I believe that those lot lines shift due to the building code as long as the unit the units didn't increase then that would be done administratively. Okay so you want to ensure that there's you will ensure there's 10 feet between each building. Correct we wouldn't be able to get a building permit without it. That's correct yeah understood but but there's more than one way we could have a zero lot line and then spacing of 10 feet or we could have a five foot lot on either side of the exterior of the town home so there's more than one way to comply we don't want to get locked in to happening to have five feet of property line adjacent to the town home. Understood. Does that make sense? Mr. Dinkins I still see some perhaps. Can they do a zero lot line? Yes. In fact you know there there are five town homes in one unit each connected you know the middle town home has a zero lot line all the way through so the sides can have a zero lot line as well. I'm sorry just for clarification so if I have five town homes together in the next building over then we would be only five feet apart. It would be required by fire code to be 10 feet. Okay I think all exterior walls have to be from building to building at least 10 feet apart. In our case we're 20 feet apart but the code requires a minimum of 10. Okay thank you. The second question we'd like to talk about is under the street divisions there we have some parallel parking spaces in the lower portion of the project up against Trinity they're the interior interior roads that we'd like instead of removed parallel parking spaces are located in the road right away we'd like to add a sentence to that saying if required by street division during full plan production or excuse me full plan approval it's really difficult for us to take a parallel parking space and put it outside the right away our width of our road is 28 feet and then we have to the 25 foot right of way space and if we put the parallel space outside of that we're then going to have some dead asphalt between it and we're worried that people end up head in parking. We recognize the the issue if street division during construction says nope I still don't want the parallel spaces we'll remove them but we'd like the option to be able to have that when we go to full construction plan approval. Is that in our purview Lucinda and I mean in that encourage wouldn't that be David's department? That's their comment is that the space is not be there so if Mr if the developer is wanting to have those spaces there then I would believe that the their recommendation would be recommended not all of the plan because those parking spaces do not meet the requirements of their regulations. My argument is that you would never have parallel parking spaces anywhere in the city if you allowed if that was a requirement. There'd be no way you could take parallel spaces along a road and then put them outside of the public right away unless you put the public right away at the edge of the travel way and the inside of the parallel parking space. So I think in my mind as an engineer I don't think street division is thought all the way through this comment. However if it's required today and you say nope that's going to require denial then we'll remove that and we'll just remove the parallel parking spaces. Do you pick up or gain these places and what's your what's your loss or gain of parking spaces whether being parallel or not parallel I guess. We don't have room to make them non parallel so we would lose I'm not sure the exact number can you count those real quick somewhere around 10 12 12 yeah so it's not a big deal right you know if we if you say nope you got to have that condition or not have that condition today we'll say we'll press on but we would like the option to if in full plan approval street division changes their mind we'd like at least that option right now if you put this as a condition of approval we don't have that option to discuss it with them do you meet the required parking with all spots located on the property and not including any of the we meet all parking parking is two units of two spaces per unit we have a garage and a driveway that meets that but as you know in all these developments parking becomes a problem so we have quite a few additional parkings for visitors and that's why we added these you know and honestly I'll tell you straight people gonna park there anyway we put a sidewalk there people gonna park there anyway so we'd like to actually stripe it for parking so that it keeps people from parking on the sidewalks just as a comment as the developer that will be doing the project and this is if it's something that is the commission is not going to approve that spine it's but it is we think it's a value add to the project to be able to have additional parking that's something that's important to us for our buyers that we that we consider especially in town development so you're comfortable with a recommendation that all parking must be contained on the private property if that's what it if that's what it is that's you know we'll live that yes staff recommended approval based upon the comments that were provided based upon meeting the ordinance requirements and the plan didn't meet the ordinance requirements for the those parallel parking spaces so staff recommended that those not be there the the other thing is too is that you know if the applicant is wanting to have the extra parking which they do have some extra parking you know they don't have to be parallel spaces they may be able to reconfigure their plan in order to put in 90 degree parking but they may end up losing units but that is an option sure yeah i think at this point we we'd lose the spaces yeah i mean at this stage the spaces aren't required you know understand it's probably nice to have for selling units and that sort of thing but i think for my first purposes i would likely not go against what staff has recommended as comments on the plan that at the end of the day the staff needs to approve as well that's fine we appreciate it any other questions regarding site plan or are we good on the five foot are we why don't we talk about parking but the previous comment anybody else have any further questions for the applicant no thank you thank you all right is there anyone here that would like to speak for against the project i'll open it up to public comment period yes sir please state your full name and address for the record please you'll have two minutes to speak my name is Franklin Dubose i live on some of you drive which is a one neighborhood away from this proposed neighborhood project and we've been to a presentation by members of their development group and we had impression it was going to be primarily housing for the area but today i get the impression with the general commercial it could be used for something other than housing is that true or am i misinterpreting it um are you speaking of the the same case because what they're presenting is all housing it is yes sir no no general commercial it's all residential housing right yeah well the only thing i would like for the planning commission to consider is that we need additional turn lanes on the road that runs from leesburg to garner's ferry adjacent on the i guess that would be the northwest side of this property there's a road called greenview and also caroline and caroline runs right next to walmart that's on one side of this development and the other greenview is on the right hand side which is runs parallel well between leesburg road and garner's ferry that area has two two lane roads and they intersect with garner's ferry which is a heavy travel road the one on greenview does not have a right turn only lane it does have a left turn lane but with additional traffic coming out of this development with 300 homes in that area whatever the figure is going to be counts 300 cars per day two trips per day the road can't currently handle that load i don't think it needs to be improved upon to provide the turning lane on the garner's ferry to come towards columbia um the roadway itself is just not very good shape it'd be nice if that road were three lanes with a turning lane in the middle so residents and occupants of that area could get into their parking lot or their driveways without fear of someone running into the rear of them so please keep that in the mind of the planning department don't over bill if the roads can't handle it and don't wait until it's already completed to start doing the road improvement so it needs to be in the planning up front all right thank you sir thank you sir all right yes sir direct uh 1491 caroline road uh first off i'd like to support what he was saying with the extra traffic and the lanes that made a lot of sense uh my question is uh has anyone considered like the ecological effect this is going to have on the neighborhood because you're tearing down a lot of woods there's a lot of there's like family a deer there's foxes there's who knows what's living in there there's all types of animals insects if you clear that out where are they going to go except into people who are already living in neighborhood and their backyards in their homes has anyone considered that that would be something you'd have to we'd have to defer to the applicant but they're meeting standard guidelines for this type of development to have green space and those sorts of open spaces still available within the development so i'm not sure what that means like once they tear down the woods and i get more rats and things like that there's nothing i can do about that it's just it's just i don't have an answer for you on that one does it have any bearing on the planning of of this development sure i mean has it been considered like the effect that's going to happen in the neighborhood i i don't know i'm late i'm sorry can you speak to the development criteria yeah there are um there are requirements for open space so not all the land will be developed as as housing some of the area will be preserved like some of the trees um and there'll be some walking trails through there so some of the area will be preserved so the entire 25 acres won't be developed as housing about how much percentage i believe it's about from the applicant do y'all know yet your green space count this is 25 percent they're looking at about uh this is 6.3 acres of open space okay 6.3 well i don't know how much yeah so 25 percent is required and they're required and they're preserving about 40 percent looks like okay so they're meeting the minimum requirements for the land development all right thank you thank you so traffic surgery required there was and it was done there was there was there is a traffic impact study that was completed for this project and that should have recommended no off-site improvements okay i don't know that it went all the way to garner's ferry for the study area but it might not have been required to get up that meets the dot requirements in the cities then i don't know what else all right is there anyone else here from the general public that would like to speak for or against the project c and none will give the applicant a you're good applicants good okay we'll close the public comment period and mr chairman i'd like to just acknowledge for the record that you guys should have received an email yesterday we did have one email come through about this project so just to put that into the record um for e m c l heinie s c dot r dot com okay so you received received yes ma'am all right are there any other questions i have a question for staff regarding the 10 foot separation for the firewalls are we is it in our purview to require the 10 feet separation but not allow for in lieu of the five foot separation between property lines i believe that's uh you know it's going to be a building code requirement and handled by the um building code all right if there's no further questions no we'll accept a motion mr chairman i make a motion we approve uh s plat 2023 dash 0008 25.35 acres trinity drive 1458 1482 carolina road as written with staff comments got a motion we approve as written with staff comments going to get a second second got a motion in the second all in favor signify by saying aye aye any opposed no no yes have it the motion is approved and since case number six was deferred the last case on the agenda this evening is the zoning text amendment which is ta dash 2023 dash 0004 request to amend the unified development ordinance chapter 17 article 4 use regulations to add additional uses to the permitted use table for the employment campus zoning district and we don't have slides for this because it's you know just the use table in the ordinance but right i believe you have that in your packet does anybody from the city need to present anything i don't think so but only if you guys have questions are there any questions regarding this case for staff here's none i will entertain a motion i'll move to mr chairman sorry just to make sure in case there's anybody from the public okay yeah we'll open it up we'll open it up the public comment is there anybody um from the general public here that would like to speak for against case number seven see a none here and none we'll close public comment period and i'll entertain a motion i'll move to approve the zoning text amendment ta dash 2023 dash 0004 to amend the unified development ordinance chapter 17 article 4 use regulations to add additional use to the permitted use table for the ec zoning district got a motion that we approve can i get a second second got a second all in favor soon five by saying hi hi any opposed no the eyes have it the motion is approved all right is there any other business the only thing i just want to mention is if um i sent y'all an email about the richland county planning opportunity for next friday if anybody wants to go if you could just let me know um so that i could let them know who's coming um so i know that i cannot attend that particular day i can't anyone gonna go okay great you might try okay i'll just tell them that we plan on having to find commission members okay great it is yes thanks all right well there's no other business i'll accept the motion to adjourn motion to adjourn got a motion second all in favor soon by saying no any opposed no motion carries we are thank you


You guys, maps day one is in the books. Let's talk about it. So I am currently at my hotel at Maps right now and I do not have a tripod with me. So this is the angle that we're going with today. I just have it stacked against my Asbab book on the desk. My day actually went really, really well. So let's just start from the very beginning of the day and we will walk through it. So I woke up at about 7.30 this morning just to make sure I had all my stuff ready. So today is the actual day that I am leaving and here is backpack. It is so full, a lot fuller than I was expecting and wanted it to be. But I had my beats clipped off of here but they were really big. So I actually just switched for the air pods cause they were way too bulky and I don't really need them that bad. Then I have my Asbab study guide in here. That is the main reason that this is so full is because there wasn't much room for that. But I want to be able to study on the shuttle up there today. And then I had to go to my recruiter's office. MEPs day one, I am currently at my recruiter's office. It is 10 a.m. and we are just getting the day started. That way we could just make sure everything is ready to go before I take the shuttle up to MEPs. So I'm joining out of Huntsville, Alabama and my MEPs location is in Nashville, Tennessee. So I got to my recruiter's office about 10 o'clock and then we had plenty of time cause the shuttle was supposed to get there at about 11.30 to go over forms and make sure everything was good to go. There were some forms that I had to go through and sign talking about who your beneficiary is going to be and if anything were to happen who would be in charge of your funeral. So for me, my options were my spouse or one of my parents. And I just put my spouse for everything. And then if you guys have not watched my background check video, watch that video because it is just so much. And I had to add some stuff to that. Brief rundown, basically any reference you have to use on there, you have to have like a different person for each thing, whether it be a different place that you lived or a different job. You have to have references for all of that and it's really annoying. So I had to add three more references to that today because I guess I had had some duplicates on there. We finished up with everything and then I actually had a little bit of time. So I went and grabbed some McDonald's real quick. So the shuttle got there about 1150 and I was actually the only Air Force recruit going from our office today. And then there were two, either Navy or Army. I'm not sure which branch those guys were. And then there were three Marines. So then we had about two hour drive up to Nashville. I took my Asbab book and I just kind of studied and I think I fell asleep a few times along the way. Nobody really talked to anybody. The three Marine people were kind of talking to each other and then I said a few things to the other two guys but no one really talked. So it was a pretty quiet ride, which I didn't mind because I was trying to study anyway.  It's way too bulky. You don't need to bring a lot and it's just really inconvenient to have in my bag. As long as you study beforehand, give yourself hopefully multiple weeks to study.   At least that's what we did. I think it'd probably be about the same process everywhere.  Right now, it is January 14th, 2021. So it is still during COVID times right now. So we all of course have to wear masks.  You have to wear a mask when you're basically outside of your hotel room. You have to have a mask on the whole time and stay tuned for a story later. We go to a briefing room and we have to fill out COVID forms. They take your temperature. Day one is the day where people do testing. So if you are somebody who has been to meps before, you probably aren't gonna be watching this video. Those people will go to the briefing room as well. And then from there, if you've been to meps before and basically you're just here for the medical day on day two, I think you just hang out the rest of the day and then the other people go to testing. So that's what happened for us. So the three of us that had to go to testing got in line first and did our COVID forms at temperature. We got back on the shuttle and the driver took us over to the meps site. Now, do not feel bad if you did not realize that meps in the hotel were two different places because I actually used to think that meps was at a hotel. Because anytime I watched videos, everyone talks about meps and then they're like, we went to the hotel and then they talk about other stuff they did like they went to testing or they did their medical evaluations. But then it's like, and then I was in the hotel. So I always thought literally until just a few weeks ago. I think they're usually all at hotels. It's not at a hotel, they're just having you stay at a hotel. Oh. I did not realize this, I just thought it was at a hotel. I thought that meps was at a hotel. So I thought there was like an event area at the hotel and that they just use that area for recruits to go through all their evaluations and stuff.   But I did not know because no one has ever really explained that there is like a difference in the two. So meps is the military entrance processing station. That is a location all in itself. Just a specific building that they use to enlist new recruits, but that's its own place. But then when you go to meps, you also stay at a hotel but then you take a shuttle to and from whenever you have to go to meps.  The next morning, they shelter you over and you do your medical evaluations all day and then you leave. So that is another reason why you don't want to pack a ton of stuff in your bag, pack as minimal as possible. I even thought I was packing super minimally and I still think that I brought more than I need like my Asvab book, for example. And then I brought some PJs. That's not taken up a whole lot of room but like I have a room by myself so that part doesn't really matter. I could have just worn the tank top that I have on under this. Just really anything you can do to not bring up a bunch of stuff because you gotta carry that around with you for a little bit at least. In me, I wore a pair of shoes today and I brought a different pair for tomorrow. If you can get away with just wearing the same pair both days, just do that. Basically I wore skinny jeans today which are allowed. You definitely want to wear jeans. I always suggest that's what my recruiter told me to wear and everyone here basically is wearing jeans. You don't want to wear leggings or jeans with holes in them or rips or frayed at the bottom at all but my jeans do not, they're just skinny jeans so I just wore like a little booty today and then tomorrow I have flare jeans so I'm wearing tennis shoes but honestly wearing those flare jeans with my tennis shoes today and tomorrow would have been just fine. Another thing is make sure your jeans have a pocket in the front. Most people do but girls, sometimes we have real short pockets where nothing will fit in them. You wanna make sure you have a deep pocket on your jeans because you're gonna have to keep your social security card and your ID handy and you can't carry around anything else with you so you don't have a bag to put it in or a binder or anything like that so you really just need to keep it in your pocket cause we can't have anything else and you don't just wanna carry it in your hand cause it's easy to set it down and forget it. So jeans with pocket pack lightly, that's our tips so far. Moving on, after the briefing at the hotel they're gonna show you over to the MEP site if you are doing testing which of course I had to do today. So you go into the site and there is security right away and then you go through a metal detector if you have any bags or anything which most people will, I actually just got lucky in this instance so you'll put literally everything on the conveyor belt so that way they can scan it and then you'll go through the metal detector and then you'll get your stuff and they have a big, it's almost like, I don't know whether to say a room or a closet I would say more so a room but it has a bunch of cubbies in it and that is where you'll put all of your stuff because like I said, you're not gonna carry anything around with you besides the papers that you have to check in with your driver's license and social. So I got really lucky when we were at the briefing at the hotel cause I was the last person to walk out of the room that was going to testing and I had like my backpack and then I had a bag of snacks and I had, oh yeah, my Asbab Study Guide was out as well and cause it's just way too bulky and I couldn't fit it back into my backpack after taking it out so that was really annoying. So I was a mess like this and he's like, you can just set that stuff here if you want, that way you don't have to take it off through security later. And I was like, thank you. So I sat in that room cause he was gonna be in there the whole time. And then whenever we got off the shuttle at the MEP site, the other two guys who were going to testing they both had their duffel bags and they asked the driver like, hey, can we leave these on here?  So I was able to just walk in with my folder of my papers and I didn't have to carry anything in it. So that made it so nice. But tomorrow I'm going to have to do that but I'm going to have everything packed already. So once you're through security, you put your stuff in the closet room, you're going to take your papers to check in with the branch that you are joining. So I go to the Air Force room and this guy just looks over my paper. That was like the request for examination for the ASVAB and it also looks at my birth certificate and social and my COVID forms. And then after he looked at that I had to go back over to like the middle, like the lobby area where like a main desk is, I guess you would call it and check in there. And they're going to take a fingerprint. After that I went and sat in a specific area designated for people taking the ASVAB.  But I was so worried because years ago, whenever I was talking to a recruiter before this literally was like eight years ago. I was talking to a recruiter before and I had to drive over two hours. I drove this by myself too, over two hours to go to the area to take my ASVAB.   And he's like, our computers are down. Your recruiter didn't tell you that. And I'm like, no. He's like, I'm sorry, you have a terrible recruiter. I'm like, thank you. Yeah, so that was my experience with that, which sucked. So then today with the system being down and then I sat over there and was like waiting for them to call my name to take the ASVAB. And I heard him talking about the system being down and I'm like, do not do this to me again. Do not let this happen again. Thankfully it did not. And I was able to take the ASVAB.  So it is like linked to your account. Then he'll call you in. They have plexiglass barriers between every single computer. And then every time somebody's done, they spray down everything with disinfectant and they wipe the keyboard, the mouse, the computer, the chair, the desk, everything. And of course we're supposed to keep our masks on. I was feeling pretty confident about it. I wasn't thinking I was doing like amazing, but I thought I was doing pretty, pretty good. What even levels are those? I feel like I need to make another video later talking about studying for the ASVAB. I think I'll do that. There's 11 sections that you have to take your test for.  And then there are subset categories that kind of show you if you would be good in like a certain skill set maybe. After the ASVAB, if you have not taken your personality test yet, then you'll have to do the personality test. This was seriously the weirdest personality test I've ever taken. And I was trying to remember some of the stuff it said, but now I think I'm just drawing a blank, but I'll try to remember. You answer like 120 some questions, but there are only two options with every single one. And you have to select which one best represents you. And this, there's no right or wrong answer. It's just to figure out personality, I guess, and which jobs you would be better suited for. But it just made no sense at all. Because there would be times where neither of the things on there related to me at all and or didn't even make sense to each other. But regardless, you had to choose which one. Every now and then there would be like a new one thrown in there that I hadn't seen, but then a lot of times like the same things would be on there, but then they would just be with different, they would be paired with different things. What it most boils down to is how you relate to other people or maybe more so if you like like working alone or if you're more of a people person, which I'm more of a people person, talked about like anger issues and like being stressed out and learning about new cultures, things like that. But it was just such weird questions that they didn't even relate. Okay, one example that I can think of right now is one thing might say, my friends say I'm a hard worker. And then the other thing would say, I will not donate to charity unless I'm pressured into it because I don't know where that money's going. And then obviously in that instance, I'm gonna click on my friend say I'm a hard worker. Let's just go with the same one where it's like I'm not gonna donate to charity unless I'm pressured into it because I don't know where that money's going. But then it might be paired with something that's like I get really angry. And I'm like, I don't wanna click either of these because neither of these are me at all. So it was just the most random things, things that they were paired with made no sense. So you had to try to pick like the better of the two, but there were so many incidents where I'm like, I don't wanna click any at all, but you had to. Anyway, that's not graded and I have no clue if we find out the results of that or maybe when we talk to like a counselor or liaison at the end of MEPs where they kinda show us where our personality fell into, I have no clue. But after that, you are finished with your testing. Now, some people might be in there to take a full ASVAB, but some people might be in there to take their PyCat validation test if they had taken their PyCat previously. Then when you come to MEPs, you have to take your validation, which there's actually one of the Marine guys that was on my shuttle. He took the PyCat yesterday and then he had took his validation today and then he still had to retake the entire ASVAB, which that is why my recruiter didn't want me to take the PyCat is because you might have to just retake it again anyway. And Josh got a 90, like 92, on his ASVAB. So it's ridiculous that it made him retake it because surely if he scored that high, he would have gotten his validation answers right. But anyway, he had to retake it. So after you're done taking your ASVAB and personality test, you will go check in with the people that you initially checked in with from your branch. So I would go to the Air Force people, but it was after five o'clock when I was done with mine. So all the Air Force people were actually gone already. It took me about two and a half hours to take all of my tests. So I had to go pick up my phone because after we put the stuff in the closet, I had still brought my clipboard and a folder and my phone because they didn't tell us to leave that in there. I didn't know what I needed or not. So when I went to check in with the Air Force people, the guy's like, you can just leave that in here. I'm like, man, I have had such good luck with these people being nice and letting me leave stuff everywhere. But I finished the ASVAB. I couldn't talk to the Air Force people, but I went and got my phone and I was gonna text my recruiter because you can text your recruiter and they can see your score. And my recruiter literally just texted me right before I was getting ready to text him. And he's like, you crushed it and sent me my scores. So this is what the breakdown of my scores were. And I got an 84 as my overall score on the ASVAB. What? Oh my gosh. So crazy. And what is absolutely hilarious is that I scored so well on mechanical and electrical. What? But I am ecstatic that I got an 84. Oh my gosh. So I was so, so, so happy. My day already went pretty well as is. Everybody who has been so nice so far but I know tomorrow is gonna be like the main day where it's just like super hectic and people are gonna just want people to listen and follow the rules and get through with it. So I'm sure tomorrow will be more of a high stress day. But yeah, me getting an 84 on my ASVAB of course was just like the cherry on top. And it was the perfect way to end my night. And I was so glad I found out soon and that I just did so well. I was confident that I was gonna do well on the ASVAB but I wasn't like 84 confident. So yeah, that's super awesome. Kyle actually predicted what he thought that I was going to get. So I'll throw this clip in of his predictions. This is before I told him what my score was going to be. So here's what Kyle thought. My hair looks absolutely awful. I am ready to cut it. But McKenna is taking her ASVAB. I'm recording this. Not sure if it's going in the video but if so, hi guys. This is my guess for what McKenna's gonna get. Also don't mind the mustache missing. Forgot to put a guard on my trimmer. Shaved it off. So that's why it looks weird. But McKenna's overall ASVAB score. This is going to be my guess. I am predicting that McKenna's gonna get a 62 overall. And then the breakdown I am going to guess maintenance or mechanical, 43. Admin or administration, 89. General, 72. Electrical, 47. That's my guess. So we'll see how accurate I was with this.   This is just based off of McKenna's practice test that she took and then kind of just how I know her to be. Like what she's good with. So I'll be really curious. She's been studying for the ASVAB though. And so that might influence it a little bit. Yeah, I think she's gonna do overall pretty well. Get a 62 on that. And then crush the admin and the general portion and then she's not so much like electrical maintenance oriented. So I'll be curious to see if she scores decent on those. She doesn't want to maintenance job anyway. So it's like, if you don't score good on it, I mean, that's honestly a good thing in a way because then it disqualifies you from a lot of maintenance jobs. I look forward to hearing from her. She should be calling me soon. And then of course, after I get my scores back I texted him and let him know. He sent me a screenshot of what he guessed it was going to be. So he was really excited. And he actually got a 82 on his ASVAB. So ha ha, I beat him. No, we both did. We both did good.  So we got back to the hotel and we went back to the briefing room and the guy in there had some kind of paper. I don't know what it was. And then he asked us for our license and then he had to fill out something. And then we went across the hall to the other briefing room. And that's where we signed in to get our hotel key. So yes, even after all of this, like you unfortunately don't get your hotel key in the morning.  You have to keep all the stuff with you and you don't get your hotel key until the nighttime. It is 6 p.m. And I just walked into my hotel for the night. So I like, I'm already impressed by this entrance area. So I'm just gonna show you guys my hotel. Right, when you walk in, you have this sofa chair, ottoman seating area, TV, little desk. I just threw my stuff down cause I literally just walked in and then a mini fridge, a microwave, a sink, coffee maker. And then you walk into the bedroom area. So I have a room all to myself. Let's see if I can find some lights to turn on. All right, that helps out a little bit. So here is my bed and then TV right over here. Stand up mirror, another desk area. And closet, actually pretty spacious. This is so nice. And the bathroom. Oh, that's neat.  But the light underneath, the subtle light underneath the mirror. Okay, that's just one light. And then this is the bathroom. I'm impressed. And then they gave us a meal voucher because right now during COVID, you cannot eat at the restaurant downstairs. The restaurant is actually, like all the seating is closed down there. They do have seating in the middle of the lobby though. We got our meal voucher and it only had three meals to choose from. So there were chicken tenders and fries, burger and fries, and then a salad. I got chicken tenders and fries. And I am not really a fan of ketchup, but that's the only thing they gave me and the only thing that they had. So I ate my meal. It wasn't terrible because yeah, you can't go wrong with chicken tenders and fries. I talked to Kyle a little bit this evening and now I am so tired and also like excited for tomorrow, a little bit nervous for tomorrow, mostly excited though. Normally I am wearing contacts but I brought my glasses because I just didn't wanna deal with taking contacts in and out tomorrow during different tests that you have to do with your vision. So I just figured I'm just gonna take my glasses up so I don't have to worry about contacts and solution and all of that. So that is why I'm wearing my glasses today, but that is how my MEPs day one went. Literally I don't think it could have gone any better. I was very happy with it. And yeah, if you guys have any questions, leave them down in the comments and of course I will keep you updated with how tomorrow goes. I'm gonna get all of my clothes laid out right now and everything that I'm not gonna be using packed in my bag because when we leave our room in the morning, we are not coming back to the hotel and you go to MEPs and then you get on the shuttle to go back home after that. So you wanna make sure everything is packed. We have to be in the lobby, ready to leave at 4.30 in the morning.  Thanks for watching. I'll see you guys later.


Hi, I'm Betty White, and this is Panda, and this is Cricket. I worry about what could happen to them in an earthquake. That's why my Disaster Supplies Kit contains extra pet food, water, and any medication they might need. Remember, public health officials will not allow pets in shelters. So find a safe place where they can go if you have to leave your home. You'll be so glad you did. If you're going to shake, rattle, and roll, ain't no use denying quakes can shake. Reason I know I live in the quakes and I've been shaking. Stomps can rattle and floods can roll you right down the river. Get ready, baby, because it's going to come at a time when you least expect it. So you can help yourself. Get your plan together and make sure everybody at your place knows exactly what to do when trouble hits and when trouble comes. Face the music, baby. Get ready today.