Define RTOS, Preemption, and Deadlock. 

Questions

Define RTOS, Preemptiоn, аnd Deаdlоck. 

Hunter Biden Lаptоp Cоntrоversy In October 2020, а controversy аrose involving data from a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. The owner of a Delaware computer shop, John Paul Mac Isaac, said the laptop had been left by a man who identified himself as Hunter Biden. Mac Isaac also stated that he is legally blind and could not be sure whether the man was Hunter Biden. Three weeks before the 2020 United States presidential election, the New York Post published a front-page story that presented emails from the laptop, alleging they showed corruption by Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee and Hunter Biden's father. According to the Post, the story was based on information provided to Rudy Giuliani, the personal attorney of incumbent president and candidate Donald Trump, by Mac Isaac. Forensic analysis later authenticated some of the emails from the laptop, including one of the two emails used by the Post in their initial reporting. Shortly after the Post story broke, social media companies blocked its links. At the same time, other news outlets declined to publish the story due to concerns about provenance and suspicions of Russian disinformation. By May 2023, no evidence had publicly surfaced to support suspicions that the laptop was part of a Russian disinformation scheme. The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involved allegations of unauthorized access to personal data and the subsequent public disclosure of potentially sensitive information. Examining whether this constitutes a false allegation of privacy violation requires addressing the elements of privacy violations and the case's specifics. Using the assumption that the previous information is entirely TRUE, why could this case not be considered a privacy violation? Justify your answer. Can it be considered a security case if it is not a violation? If yes, define in the MITRE ATT&CK which goal(s) the malicious agent seeks to achieve. Justify your answer.   Rubric Criteria Points Understanding of Privacy Violation (5 points) 5 points: Clearly explains why the case does not meet the legal or ethical criteria for a privacy violation, referencing definitions of privacy.3-4 points: Partially explain the criteria or reasoning behind why the case may or may not be a privacy violation. 0-2 points: Minimal or no explanation of privacy violation criteria or relevance to the case. Security Classification Justification (5 points) 5 points: Provides a clear argument for why the case could or could not be classified as security, with strong evidence and reasoning. 3-4 points: Offers some reasoning for classifying the case as a security case but lacks depth or clear justification. 0-2 points: Fails to address whether the case can be considered a security case or provides weak reasoning. Application of MITRE ATT&CK Goals (5 points) 5 points: Identifies specific MITRE ATT&CK goals (e.g., Credential Access, Collection, Exfiltration) and justifies with strong connections to the scenario. 3-4 points: Mentions applicable ATT&CK goals but with limited connection to the scenario details.               0-2 points: Fails to identify relevant ATT&CK goals or justify their relevance.        

Stаdiums Are Embrаcing Fаce Recоgnitiоn. Privacy Advоcates Say They Should Stick to Sports[1] Facial recognition technology is being increasingly adopted by major sports leagues like the MLB and NFL to streamline fan entry and enhance security. However, this trend has sparked concerns among privacy advocates who argue that the technology poses significant risks to individual privacy. Supporters of facial recognition argue that it offers several benefits, such as reducing wait times at stadium entrances and improving security measures. Facial recognition allows fans to opt for express entry lanes, often bypassing longer queues. Additionally, the technology can aid in identifying potential security threats and facilitating faster entry for authorized personnel. On the other hand, critics raise concerns about law enforcement agencies' potential misuse of facial recognition data. They argue that the technology could track individuals' movements, monitor their activities, and even identify protesters or dissidents. Furthermore, there are concerns about the accuracy of facial recognition systems, which can lead to false positives and wrongful identifications. While some teams and leagues have implemented strict privacy measures and obtained explicit consent from fans, others have been criticized for their lack of transparency and potential overreach. Facial recognition in sports raises broader questions about the balance between security, convenience, and individual privacy rights. As this technology continues to evolve, it is crucial to have open discussions and establish robust regulations to safeguard against potential abuses. [1] Based on the WIRED article: https://www.wired.com/story/face-recognition-stadiums-protest/   Given the discussion in the previous article, some groups defend that surveillance provides security to the audience and that loss of privacy is okay, given that its benefits compensate the malefic. Why is this discourse not supported by modern privacy practices? Which principle of Privacy by Design is violated? Justify your answer. Give one suggestion on how to help the increase of surveillance without losing privacy.   Rubric threat Points Explanation of Why the Discourse is Not Supported by Modern Privacy Practices (10 Points) 9-10 Points: Thorough explanation that clearly identifies key privacy principles (e.g., transparency, proportionality, consent) and describes why the trade-off between security and privacy is flawed. Incorporates specific examples or evidence from the article. 6-8 Points: Clear explanation of why the discourse is problematic but lacks depth or examples from the article. It covers general privacy concerns without linking them explicitly to the argument. 3-5 Points: Partial explanation with vague reasoning; limited or no connection to modern privacy principles or the article. 0-2 Points: No valid explanation provided or severely off-topic response.   Identification and Explanation of the Violated Privacy Design Principle (10 Points) 9-10 Points: Correctly identifies the most relevant design principle (e.g., Visibility and Transparency, Respect for User Privacy, or Positive-Sum Functionality) and provides a detailed, accurate explanation of why it is violated. Links the violation to the facial recognition system and its potential for misuse. 6-8 Points: Identifies a relevant design principle and provides a reasonable explanation but lacks specificity or clear connection to the article. 3-5 Points: Identifies a design principle but provides little or no explanation, or the explanation is incomplete or inaccurate. 0-2 Points: Fails to identify a relevant design principle or provides an incorrect or irrelevant explanation.   Suggestion for Supporting Surveillance Without Losing Privacy (10 Points)   9-10 Points: Provide a creative and feasible suggestion that aligns with privacy principles (e.g., anonymized biometrics, decentralized processing). It clearly explains how it balances surveillance with privacy and links to the scenario discussed in the article. 6-8 Points: The suggestion is reasonable and somewhat aligned with privacy principles, but it lacks depth or a clear connection to the problem. 3-5 Points: Suggestion is vague, impractical, or only partially addresses privacy concerns. 0-2 Points: No suggestion was provided or did not address privacy concerns.