What Companies Are For - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/08/22/what-companies-are-for <comment><USER2> As I've noted elsewhere:

 _Private corporations acting in quasi-government ways is risky at best and terrifying at worst. While some of the checks & balances in civil+legal society have been broken, many are still there and there are repercussions when they're broken.

A corporation doesn't have the same mechanisms - public rules (aka laws), processes, appeals, accountability, etc, etc - built in and there's limited recourse when their definition of "right" and others' conflicts._

Based on this new assumed role, it's begging for more government regulation. And unfortunately, it makes sense for governments to say "as you take a more active role in society, you need more public oversight."

<comment><USER3> And once a corporation takes on the roles of government, it naturally needs to be protected from competition lest the essential government functions it provides get threatened.

We shouldn't be demanding more from our corporations, we should be demanding less. Companies should produce goods and services at the highest quality for the lowest price, and let free citizens choose between them - and if the goods for sale are subpar - let the same free citizens start their own competitor.

History is a never ending see-saw, and we are now sawing back towards protectionism, big government, and less freedoms for the individual. At the very least it will once more teach painful lessons to a new generation that doesn't remember the past.

<comment><USER4> >let the same free citizens start their own competitor.

Except that starting a competitor often requires far more capital than the incumbents needed to reach their position. I don't support protectionism, but "true free market" economics are an illusion used to prevent and tear down regulations.

<comment><USER5> Would you have examples? Starting SpaceX required far more capital than NASA?

<comment><USER6> SpaceX is mainly alive because NASA/government poured tons of money in it, so not exactly the best example:

"As a company, their total contracts are worth $12 billion including commercial satellite launches as well as NASA and U.S. government missions. Of that total, $5.5 billion is from government contracts from NASA and the Air Force."

Basically what could have been done (and was done, and reached the moon and built the space bus etc) on government money, is now paid to a private constructor to do (plus profits, minus the patents going to the state).

<comment><USER7> Indeed, SpaceX nearly went bankrupt in the early days because they couldn't get a contract until they successfully launched a rocket. That first contract after their first successful launch was from NASA.

<comment><USER8> NASA didn't do that out of the goodness of their hearts though. Pound-for- pound (which, to orbit is pretty pricey), SpaceX was cheaper.

Blue Origin, a different space corporation, was not even in consideration, but if they had something competitive, NASA would have considered their bid as well. (Tbc, Blue Origin isn't shooting for that market at all, so this is in no way a dig at them.)

<comment><USER6> > _NASA didn 't do that out of the goodness of their hearts though. Pound-for- > pound (which, to orbit is pretty pricey), SpaceX was cheaper_

Well, that's how you do it: you mismanage a state organization to make development costlier, and then you give the project + profits to private industry pals...

That's how many-a-privitizations have started...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Oddly enough, I was just in the process of writing the following in an adjoining window for a blog post:

"The modern business corporation is not just an investment vehicle, but is also an integral part of civilization. We spend as much has half our waking hours working within these organizations, tend to find purpose in them and make many of our social relationships through them, so it is not incorrect to consider them social institutions, not unlike school or marriage. As such, corporations are best structured and operated with the wellbeing of all involved stakeholders.

One can think of a corporation as being built on three pillars: the investors, the employees and the customers, with employees as the conduit that connect investors and customers. Contrary to the theory of shareholder value maximization, sole focus on the investor does not, on the long run, lead to good outcomes for the investor."

<comment><USER10> I don't necessarily disagree with you, but for sake of argument I think one difference between corporations and social institutions is that no one owns social institutions.

<comment><USER11> That would be one of the pillars. The investors. The link of obligation being the contract of ownership.

The links to the other pillars being the contract of purchase (customers) and the contract of employment (employees).

I guess social institutions have just one pillar (the customers).

<comment><USER10> This is a very interesting idea that I hadn't really considered before.

Under this system would it still be possible to fire people without cause? Would there be some mechanism to share profits with the employees? Without those I think it would still be a situation where some of the stakeholders are more "first class" than others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm not sure if I'm about to get laughed out of here, but what do folks think of something like the Uniform Code of Military Justice being required for executives of publicly traded corporations - not literally the UCMJ, but I mean a separate legal system that is designed to ensure more accountability for executives of these large businesses?

<comment><USER13> It's not going to go over well. Many people believe there's different enforcement of the law for rich and poor. I expect it will promptly backfire when you actually introduce something like that unless executives suddenly get a reputation for being poor people. You would need to build a ton of trust and everyone will watch it closely for clickbait fuel.

Even if this somehow cracks down harder on execs than the current system, it could also be seen as a separate track to justice for rich people.

<comment><USER14> I'm not sure I buy into the idea, but maybe you could deal with this particular objection by stipulating that this is purely an _extension_ of the regular rule of law?

Executives would still be subject to all the normal laws everyone else is but also had to comply with another system set up specifically to deal with those who wield disproportionate levels of power in society through their control of capital.

It's an interesting thought experiment if nothing else.

<comment><USER13> I just don't see why there needs to be a UCMJ arrangement or extensions. Just make and maintain regular civilian laws and enforce them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interesting that liberty is irrelevant. It's only shopping whatever system produces the most prosperity for certain voting blocks. Just the framing of the discussion signals dark times ahead.

<comment><USER16> How do you define liberty? there seem to be a lot of competing definitions of liberty.

<comment><USER17> The adjective liber in Latin is what the slaves are not, that is, "unrestricted [people]". The root 'lewdh-, from which it comes, is also in Leute and ljudi (people). Liberty today seems to be often used to mean unrestrictedness of capital/property/contracts, so the connection I see with its semantic history is the idea that some people can be more people than others, and that the government should be strong enough to deter anyone from threatening this state of liberty (e.g. back then by fleeing from slavery, now by ... well the list is too long). Remember the words of Laozi, long and short give rise to each other.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> But how much of the economy can be truly competitive? I mean, from autos to laundry detergent there seems to be very mature products and little room for innovation. The result is either compete on price (that has limits) or assume a sense of parity and coast (in a way where you don't muck it up).

I'm not claiming all is discovered. We've reached the end of history. That's foolish. But for a fair amount of the economy competition/innovation is simply not possible.

<comment><USER19> I would disagree. Conditions keep changing. keeping to the sectors you mentioned. Tesla and electric cars are clearly examples of innovation that was favoured by external elements (e.g growing concerns for climate / environment, increase of pollution in urban areas). In laundry detergents (and also personal care) , the big companies are racing to acquire small brands that were faster than them to go to market with more natural cleaning products (less chemicals, no parabens, traceable / sustainable ingredients...). Large Consumer Goods (P&G, Nestle...) companies are facing a backlash by consumers that are shifting to more local / smaller companies. This is more difficult in the automotive industry (there are some massive investment in assets that are simply impossible for companies that are not well funded). EDIT: I can not think of one segment where there are less products today than there were 30 years ago. Even when companies become fewer, they don't stop expanding and innovating the portfolio. The penalty for doing so would be either some competitor selling the same for less or selling something better.

<comment><USER18> But. Remove electric and its the same car.

And yes. Tesla. But again, what % of the economy is that? I'm not saying there isn't change and innovation here and there. There is. But on the whole what percentage of the economy can be fully and truly competitive?

<comment><USER19> It depends on what you consider innovation. There are the big leaps, certainly (combustion engine, electric engine), but also the small increments: seat belts, automatic gears, runflat tyres, ABS, traction control, speed control... And these smaller innovations contribute to people picking one model or brand instead of another. Innovation also means producing the same thing at a lower cost (different process, better equipment, automation...). All this is competition. The Toyota quality management process was a revolution that led to japanese car companies becoming world leaders, with the same cars that everybody else were selling. Autonomous driving may be doing the same for some brands now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Matt Levine's take (sorry Matt for the long excerpt):

[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-19/we- loo...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-19/we-looks-out- for-our-selves)

The managers and the board, in this version of the corporation, are the only ones representing all of the constituencies, so they are the only ones qualified to evaluate their own performance. If an activist shareholder comes in and says "we should replace the board because performance is bad," the board and the CEO can respond "no you are just saying that as a greedy shareholder and we shouldn't listen to you."

Another way to put it is that the corporation really does have to serve many different stakeholders, but in practice most disputes over corporate governance are not between shareholders and employees or shareholders and polluted watersheds, but between shareholders and managers. And these disputes tend to follow a stereotyped pattern in which disgruntled shareholders say "the stock price is low" and the managers say "ah but in the long term it will be high." Because—on the agency-cost view—it is just harder to measure the long term (since it hasn't happened yet), so you can't hold the managers to it. Similarly, if managers can respond "ah but the stock price is low because we are serving other constituencies," that gives them another argument against the shareholders.

... So when an association of big public-company CEOs gets together and declares that corporations should serve the community, take care of the environment, and be responsible to employees and customers, not just shareholders, that might be because the CEOs have thought it over and decided that employees and the environment are getting a raw deal, but it is also possible that the CEOs have thought it over and decided that shareholders are annoying.

</comment><comment><USER21> The part about dynamism echoes a thought that I had earlier today. As far as I can tell, socialism as an economic system largely failed [1] because of a lack of dynamism. Because everything is state-owned, everything is "too big to fail" and all management structures petrify. It doesn't have the same regenerative properties that exist in all living and evolving systems, the controlled killing of old parts of the system without killing the entire system that in capitalism is provided by competition on the free market.

The question is: Is there any socialist theory that provides a solution to this lack of dynamism? I'm asking not necessarily because I want socialism, but because pure free-market capitalism has some obvious flaws when it comes to natural monopolies and the pricing of externalities, so I'd like to know if there is a better system that doesn't devolve into the real-world socialism we've already seen.

[1] I'm not disputing that socialist regimes did horrendous things to their subjects, but I'm focusing on the economic perspective here.

<comment><USER22> Markets and free competition don't have to be synonymous with capitalism (private ownership of economic resources). I think that's a historical accident. The recent book "radical markets" has examples, such as common ownership self-assessed tax (cost) where nobody owns any private property, each person rents everything they use from society, rates are set by competitive market mechanisms, and rent is redistributed. Just one extreme example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> As I understand the companies have one superpower. If they do wrong thigs they can die without killing their employees and destroing their equipment.

This one thing is their secret strength and that's where the strength of capitalist economy comes from.

Any mechanism that prevents companies from dying or makes their deaths more destructive than it needs to be makes the whole system weaker and less valuable to humanity.

<comment><USER24> I would say the superpower is even greater. If you're a mom and pop business, you can die — we will protect you so that like, your children's children's children aren't still paying your debts. And if you're a small or mid cap company you can also die but the timelines are a little different. Large cap companies I think house a unique placement because they shouldn't regularly be going to 0, and some level of backstopping may be strategically necessary. I think the reason for making that "design tradeoff" if you will, is that in return you gain a wider spectrum on investment risk tolerances that makes the market stronger. And there's also great utility in the real-world consequences, I think the auto bailout proved you could make a good investment for the taxpayer, for workers, and for the shareholders. The real world is a different place from the textbook so anything dogmatic sets off alarm bells for me that we are maybe leaving money on the table out of a sense of a form of religiosity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> [http://archive.is/E0yrs](http://archive.is/E0yrs)

</comment><comment><USER16> That's not a bad article. A lot of people seem to confuse capitalism with competitive markets. Competitive markets gave us most progress and innovation whereas pure capitalism gives monopolies and stagnation.

<comment><USER26> Many "pure capitalists" would argue that you only achieve competitive capitalism through "pure capitalism." The idea applies a cynical view to human nature but is interesting none the less. The idea can be boiled down to one simple point; everything can be bought for the right price. If there is a governing body that has the power to regulate any and every business then it only follows that the biggest of those businesses have every resource and incentive to guide regulation to enforce their monopolies.

We may think about these as backroom deals between senators and lobbyists but I'd argue that you actively participate in such deals by just sitting in front of your TV or surfing the web. In America the biggest governing body is voters.

<comment><USER27> Pure capitalism would have no institutions in place to stop society from switching to another government type in the aftermath of a successful campaign.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> They are needed for feudalism to function without raising awareness of the serfs. Corporations are government arms, throwaway proxies.

They extract the power from the serfs and transfer it to the ruling class.

Government: Please kindly pay taxes with these papers that we print. Serf: Where do I get those papers? Government: Participate in involuntary servi... in economy. Maybe trade something to a... corporation. Let us know if they don't treat you fairly. <gently kisses in the forehead></comment>


Kernel quality control, or the lack thereof - <AUTHOR> https://lwn.net/Articles/774114/ <comment><USER3> This is nothing new. I followed kernel development pretty closely about a decade ago and I was honestly very disappointed in what I saw. It's all about features, features, features, and there's almost no testing beyond "well, it works on _my_ machine". It's kind of ironic that Linux has become the C++ of kernels, given Linus's feelings about C++: a giant pile of features, many of which nobody really understands, that can have some really weird corner case interactions.

I switched to FreeBSD as a result of my time reading LKML. The BSDs seem, at least to me, to be more designed rather than thrown together; but maybe I just haven't spent enough time watching their sausage get made.

Hopefully now that a senior kernel developer (Chinner) is saying some of these things publicly, things can get better. But a culture change of the magnitude needed will not come quickly.

<comment><USER4> I don't think it is surprise that Linux is about adding more features in an organic way, instead of being well thought like *BSDs.

However saying that no testing happens in Linux kernel is dishonest, to say at least: there is automated tests maintained by big corporations like LTP [1] or autotest [2], thousands of people run different versions of unstable/mainline kernels with different configurations, security researches does multiple tests like running fuzzers and reporting issues, multiple opensource projects run tests in current versions of Linux kernel (that in the end also serves as a test of kernel itself), etc etc.

Linux is basically the kind of project that is big enough and impactful enough that naturally gets testing for free from the community.

[1]: [https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp](https://github.com/linux- test-project/ltp)

[2]: [https://github.com/autotest/autotest](https://github.com/autotest/autotest)

<comment><USER5> > Linux is basically the kind of project that is big enough and impactful > enough that naturally gets testing for free from the community.

That makes intuitive sense, but is it really true? Is Linux being _throughly_ tested by the community?

<comment><USER6> What's crazy for me, after reading all this, is how wonderfully stable my Linux (kernel-level)[0] experience has been. I've never used any non-ext2/3/4 filesystems, granted, so I haven't used this code, but I find it hard to believe that these findings are indicative of the code I have used on a relatively run-of-the-mill amd64 machine. So maybe if you're like me, using a fairly standard distro with the official kernel on somewhat normal hardware, you would have the benefit of millions others testing the same code.

[0]: I have had more than my fair share of user land problems, but I have come to expect that on any platform.

<comment><USER7> Yeah I've also had good experiences with Linux reliability.

But that's because I intentionally stay on the "happy path" that's been tested by millions of others. I avoid changing any kernel settings and purposely choose bog-standard hardware (Dell).

When you're on the other side, you're not just maintaining the happy path. You're maintaining every path! And I'm sure it is unbelievably complex and frustrating to work with.

\-----

Personally I would like software to move beyond "the happy path works" but that seems beyond the state of the art.

I also think there is a big component of this:

 _Operant Conditioning by Software Bugs_

[https://blog.regehr.org/archives/861](https://blog.regehr.org/archives/861)

Over time you get trained not to do anything "weird" on your computer, because you know that say opening too many programs at once can cause a lockup. Or you don't want to aggressively move your mouse too much when doing other expensive operations. (This may be in user space or the kernel, but either way you're trained not to do it.)

There is another post that I can't find that is about "changing defaults". I used to be one of those people who tried to configure my system, but I've given up on that. The minute you have a custom configuration, you run into bugs, with both open source and commercial software.

The kernel has _thousands_ of runtime and compile-time options, so I have no doubt that there are _thousands upon thousands_ of bugs available for you to experience if you change them in a way that nobody else does. :)

<comment><USER8> > _Or you don 't want to aggressively move your mouse too much when doing > other expensive operations. (This may be in user space or the kernel, but > either way you're trained not to do it.)_

Operant conditioning by software bugs is totally a thing, but for this particular example I was trained into exactly opposite behaviour. I _do_ move my mouse a lot during very resource-intensive computations, because that lets me gauge the load on my system (is there UI animation lag? is there cursor movement lag?), and in extreme cases, it can tell me when there's time to do a hard reboot. I've also learned through experience that screensavers, auto- locking, and even auto-poweroff of the screen can all turn what was a long computation into forced reboot, so avoiding long inactivity periods is important.

This conditioning comes from me growing up with Windows, but I hear people brought up on Linux have their own reason - apparently it used to be the case (maybe it still is?) that some computations relying on PRNG would constantly deplete OS's entropy pool, and so just moving your mouse around would make those computations go faster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Does anyone know what kernel developers do if someone sends them a patch adding support for hardware they don't have - a new wireless dongle, say?

Does the maintainer merge the code after just reading over the code and checking it compiles, never having executed it?

My assumption has always been there's little testing in such a situation - <USER2> I can't square that with the fact the kernel seems to work so well :)

<comment><USER10> Having sent the kernel maintainers a patch adding support for hardware they don't have (in my case, it was a network card): they merge the code after just reading over the code and checking it compiles. Keep in mind, however, that they usually have decades of experience in their particular area of the kernel, so they often can tell at a glance when you're doing something wrong or unusual.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> From my experience dealing with upstreaming, it has become more of some sort of priesthood that is required to go thru the proper mantras and speak the proper language. And most of the priest no longer have any real idea of what's the real world is doing with the kernel.

I've spent a few months upstreaming a subsystem earlier last year, something that had been tested in the field, at customers, and I had to literally _gut_ it to fit the priesthood's way of doing things. Ultimately the result that went into the kernel was technically /inferior/ to the original source, and any rant about /that/ was pointedly ignored.

I'm not even going to mention the device tree binding, which has become as bad as the high days of XML where the format took a life of it's own and requires it's own maintainers. It's completely bonkers.

I think since a lot of maintainers became 'professionals' they no longer use linux. They just juggle patches all day and talk between themselves and their clique. And as long as it fits the big tech company that pay them, it doesn't matter if it's actually /useful/ to anyone else.

</comment><comment><USER12> "We trusted people" is a classic denial of responsibility. The people shoving in the new-feature changes helped create the problem. It's great that at least one of them seems to have had a change of heart, but starting by blaming (unspecified) others suggests that the change might not last long. Expect reversion to form in a few months.

</comment><comment><USER13> There was one bug for a while where IPSec would not handle TCP packets[0]. This was a big one since sending TCP packets over an IPSec tunnel is a somewhat common scenario.

I had to keep an old kernel for quite a while before that one was fixed.

It seems that a lot of the quality control happens with the distributions, not with the upstream software itself. I doubt that SLES would have seen this bug, but because I was running Tumbleweed I have to expect breakage like that.

[0] [http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1704.3/02043.html](http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1704.3/02043.html)

</comment><comment><USER14> Not surprised to read this about XFS.

I did some fuzzing on filesystem tools a few years ago. xfsprogs was... "interesting". Interesting in that it was seemingly impossible to find anyone to report bugs to. They had a bug tracker, but it didn't work, submitting bugs resulted in an error. I think there was also a mail address that bounced. I think in the end my bug reports reached noone who could care about them.

<comment><USER15> There is xfs.org and the XFS mailing list. You can just send an email there. Maybe you were sending HTML emails or something that made the message bounce?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've filed bugs for some of the mentioned copy_file_range() issues more than two years ago:

\- [https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135461](https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135461)

\- [https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135451](https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135451)

No response...

<comment><USER17> I'm sure they would have welcomed patches.

<comment><USER18> What does that have to do with anything?

<comment><USER17> Uh, that OP could attempt to fix something they complained about, rather than beat the proverbial dead horse about it?

<comment><USER18> I.e. if you can't sing, then you can't point out that the singer is out of tune, therefore they aren't out of tune, and everything's fine?

Submitting a request which says "can you clarify if this filesystem behaviour is expected?" then bringing it up two years later saying "this has been unstable for a while" does not seem like "complaining" or "beating a dead horse".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Syzkaller finds bugs in linux kernel all day every day. The fact that some ioctls don't work right should surprise nobody.</comment>


React Fiber: A Closer Look at the New Engine of React - <AUTHOR> https://www.infoq.com/news/2017/05/react-fiber-closer-look <comment><USER2> In contrast to some very poorly written and researched articles from the last couple months, this article actually correctly summarizes the ideas and and status of the React Fiber implementation.</comment>


Peter Thiel 2019 Wriston Lecture: The End of the Computer Age - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-IaSS0bbGU <comment><USER2> I thought his answer to the second to last question was interesting. Basically that the automation storyline is vastly overdone. That automation taking away jobs has been happening for 200 years, and the rate of job loss is probably slowing if anything because the jobs that could be taken away from automation were automated away long ago.

I never thought to question the assumption of automation being the huge story it's been predicted to be.

<comment><USER3> He does not have skin in the game, he won't be impacted by job or monetary loss himself. Even if a lot of people do lose their jobs and there is a revolution he has insured himself by building an end of the world survival location for himself in NZ (one that is known).

<comment><USER2> The idea is irrelevant to his personal situation.

Doesn't make it any less true or more true.

It's just interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 10+ minutes of introduction, then the owner of Palantir talks about the eye of sauron and libertarianism, then changes topic to how things scale. Transition into saying the Obamas were bigger liars than Trump by 18ish minutes. Does it get better later? His other talks and his book are so much better than this (so far, halfway in).

The YT comments also note that he never mentions the end of the computer age in the talk.

</comment><comment><USER5> Kinda all over the place. But still interesting to see what people like him choose to talk about when given an audience</comment>


AOL-Yahoo Merger Details Emerge; Deal Could Happen This Month - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/10/06/aol-yahoo-merger-details-emerge-deal-could-happen-this-month/ <comment><USER2> AOL's the great garbage collector of Internet companies.</comment>


ACTA will force border searches of laptops, smartphones for pirated content - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement#Border_searches <comment><USER2> How does one determine whether something is pirated in these cases? All the music I've bought in the past few months has been distributed to me DRM-free so there exists no difference between it and a pirated copy other than a receipt. To make a long story short, having to proved that I have licenses for everything on my computer is utter crap.

<comment><USER3> If you run a company that's the rules. If you can't prove that you are licensed to use every single piece of software that you have on your computer then you can have your whole computer (or just the hard drive) confiscated and held for indefinite amount of time by the police probably long enough to technology become obsolete and your withheld data to become meaningless. At least that's how it looks in Poland.

Using any non opensource software is so scary that I wonder why would anyone pay and take the risk.

There was even one case when polish company purchased software directly from the US but polish distributor of this software insisted that it was pirated because they didn't sell it. Police went in. Confiscated computers and media for investigation. Software was essential for operation of this company so the company died.

<comment><USER4> > Using any non opensource software is so scary that I wonder why would anyone > pay and take the risk.

In Romania, businesses must fill each month online statements, but such fillings can only be done with Microsoft Internet Explorer, and there's no option to fill them in person. So you're forced to use non opensource software.

<comment><USER5> I know you may be aware of this already and could have tried it, but in case not: <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ie-view-lite/> It's a firefox plugin that can run iexplorer through wine under linux.

<comment><USER6> iexplorer is not open source.

<comment><USER5> Just in case I was misleading people, from here: <http://www.von- thadden.de/Joachim/WineTools/>

E. g. the EULA for IE6 states:

"NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID EULA FOR ANY "OS PRODUCT" (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, MICROSOFT WINDOWS 98, MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT 4.0, MICROSOFT WINDOWS 2000, MICROSOFT MILLENNIUM EDITION, MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP, OR ANY OTHER MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM THAT IS A SUCCESSOR TO ANY OF THE FOREGOING OPERATING SYSTEMS) YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY, OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What strikes me most strongly about all this is how utterly weird it is.

 _Border guards give 'enhanced pat downs' to a middle class suburban family and find no weapons or contraband, but then open the family computer to find an unlicensed Finding Nemo avi, and haul them all off to jail._

It's just such a bizarre mix of nanny-state and fascism. I know it's a pointless rhetorical question, but... how on earth has it come to this??

<comment><USER8> > how on earth has it come to this??

        First they came for the communists,
        and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

        Then they came for the trade unionists,
        and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

        Then they came for the Jews,
        and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

        Then they came for the Catholics,
        and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.

        Then they came for me
        and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Martin Niemöller (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6>)

It has come to this one small step at a time. That is how politicians work. They know that the "whole" is to scary for voters to accept all at once. So they find just what they can get away with this year, then grab a tiny bit more next year, and so on. Eventually, everyone looks back and thinks "how on earth has it come to this??"

<comment><USER9> Do you realize how many people will find it offensive that you are using this quote to compare a treaty to the holocaust? There is a big difference between a treaty which _may_ infringe on civil liberties and killing people based on their beliefs or ethnicity.

It's okay to make slippery slope arguments, but let's not get into Godwin territory.

<comment><USER10> I realise this is always a sensitive area, but please consider that there _are_ in fact laws on the books and government policies in many Western countries today that are _every bit_ as evil as the kind of thing that was going on in Germany at that time.

We have detention without trial for extended periods, or indefinitely if you mutter the magic word "terrorism".

We have outright torture of detainees, and people dying in prisons.

If a suspect does get to trial, it might be in a secretive court where they have no opportunity to confront their accuser or see and challenge all of the evidence against them.

We have laws that allow government agents to infringe on almost every fundamental civil liberty by one kind of executive order or another, some of which are strikingly similar to the Enabling Act in their effect even if the intent was not necessarily the same.

We have _routine_ invasion of privacy and monitoring of the general populace without any reasonable grounds for suspicion/probable cause/whatever you like to call it. There are well-documented cases of routine national surveillance being set up by police or security services without any oversight or consent from elected governments.

We have seen far too many cases of obvious abuse of peaceful protesters (or simply those caught in the wrong place at the wrong time) and in some cases we have seen courts accept a defence of the indefensible.

We have seen deaths at the hands of police actions that were later shown to be completely unjustified and an operational screw-up from start to finish, for which no-one has ever been held accountable.

The biggest difference between the situation today and the situation in Germany around the Second World War is a matter of scale, nothing more. And I think that is exactly the lesson that Pastor Niemoeller was trying to teach. While matters of intellectual property are hardly the stuff of revolutions, when you get into things like routine searches of private matters without justification, which in turn build on other obvious abuses that have been going in in the interests of "security" at transport hubs in recent years, I think you're way over the line into "why haven't we stopped this madness yet".

<comment><USER11> pwg's point is that the road to any sort of catastrophic illiberal state- sponsored action is paved slowly and incrementally. Not that we are living in mini 1930s Germany. The situations in their substance or scale are not comparable.

Saying that "government policies in many Western countries today that are every bit as evil as the kind of thing that was going on in Germany at that time" is very ignorant. _Who_ are our Jews and Gypsies? Where is our Kristallnacht? Where is our Triumph of the Will? Where is our 'Der Ewige Jew'? Where are our massive crowds doing what is our sieg heil?

In fact a fundamental difference between America 2012 and Germany 1938 (among many) is that we have massive amounts of people _vocally_ and _publicly_ against the laws our politicians are pushing and the state of the country. In 1938 Germany you had the exact opposite.

<comment><USER10> Please don't turn this into a US-centric discussion. We are talking about ACTA, which is a global deal, and my post was about the current situation in the West in general. I don't really want to go off on an extended off-topic debate anyway, since as I noted before ACTA itself is hardly on the same level as what we're talking about in this side-track.

> Who are our Jews and Gypsies?

Islamophobia is widespread since 9/11. In England and Wales, black people are _thirty times_ as likely to be subject to a stop-and-search by the police as white people. Don't kid yourself that we don't have rampant discrimination just because you aren't in a group that gets discriminated against.

Obviously no-one credible is equating the seriousness of police abuse of stop- and-search powers with gas chamber mass executions. But there really _are_ extreme cases with consequences not so far from the concentration camps even today. There's a little US military base in Cuba you've probably heard of, for example, and if you don't know why they chose to use that particular base for what they now use it for, you should really look up the history. Once again, the scale is very different, but what is the difference in principle?

One can draw similar parallels with some of the other things you mentioned.

We might not have _Kristallnacht_ , but we are increasingly living in surveillance states, and we have increasingly paramilitary police weapons and tactics, and we have military units being deployed on home soil. We are eroding the fundamental concept of due process and basic legal principles like _habeas corpus_. I don't really believe we're about to see the violent subjugation of an entire section of our society or that our current political leaders have any ambition to act in that way, but that's not the point. The mechanisms for such abuse should never even be created in a free country.

We might not have _Triumph of the Will_ , but modern political machines are propagandists unrivalled in the history of humanity. For example, for several years in the early 2000s, as the most recent Iraq War was building momentum, about half of the US population thought the Hussein regime was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. That support was used to justify a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and taken a staggering amount of time and money out of Western governments that could have been spent on far more constructive purposes.

> In fact a fundamental difference between America 2012 and Germany 1938 > (among many) is that we have massive amounts of people vocally and publicly > against the laws our politicians are pushing and the state of the country.

And the really scary thing in all of this is that you have massive amounts more who are openly complying and think it's all being done for their safety and well-being. As I said, modern political machines are propagandists without equal. They're just more subtle about it than they were 75 years ago.

<comment><USER11> Kristalnacht, 'Der Ewige Jew', Triumph of the Will, the death camps and concentration camps, these were all concerted campaigns against the 'undesirables' of Germany in order to promote racial purity.

You have given examples of parallels to these things but there is no commonality of purpose behind them.

'Der Ewige Jude' was not a campaign to create a 'common enemy' or hoodwink the German people as I assume you believe Islamophobia is (I can only assume you believe Islamophobia can be explained by media promotion rather than an emergent feeling among the populace in response to 9/11). It was done with the express purpose of dehumanizing Jews so the populace would be complacent with the gas chambers.

So please, show me a commonality of purpose behind all these parallels you have shown. All you have are disparate events to which you have identified a certain aspect which is similar to what Nazi Germany did.

<comment><USER10> I don't think there _is_ much commonality of purpose with many of the legal/governmental trends today, other than acting out of fear of some perceived bogeyman (though not necessarily the same one in each case) or in the interests of a powerful minority at the expense of the majority (ditto).

Still, it doesn't matter to a black kid in London whether he's being excessively hassled because a senior officer made an active decision to employ racial profiling or because of institutional racism within the Met. The consequence is still the same.

Moreover, in most of the worst cases today, there really is someone actively making those decisions. Guantanamo Bay did not become what it is by accident. The West did not invade Iraq by accident, and the Blair administration did not fail to notice the two million citizens marching in protest to demonstrate that the war did not have popular support. More recently, the police did not detain peaceful protestors in London in a restricted area for hours without food, water or toilet facilities by accident, and the courts that condoned such behaviour did not reach their decision without looking at the evidence to establish the facts of what really happened and why.

These actions all had different victims, and obviously some had much more serious consequences than others. The one thing they all have in common is authorities that are granted powers in law that most of us don't get using those powers in ways that conflict with what we used to consider basic human rights and getting away with it. However well-intentioned they might have been in their actions, however they rationalised those decisions in their own minds, some rights and freedoms should be above interference by the administration of the day, whoever the victims are and however small their number, and any decent human being ought to stand up for those rights and freedoms wherever they are threatened. As I said, I think that is exactly the warning Pastor Niemoeller was trying to give us.

<comment><USER11> So the only difference between Western governments and the Nazis is a matter of scale and your evidence for this is that Western governments are abusing their power.

All governments past and present abuse their power. Sometimes in large ways. Sometimes in small ways. That alone is not sufficient to warrant a comparison to Nazi Germany which carries more historical baggage than it's clear you realize.

You are cheapening your position by resorting to hyperbole.

<comment><USER10> You are reading things into my posts that are not there. I am commenting only on objective things like laws that are being passed and practical policies being adopted today. Those laws and policies have very serious consequences for a relatively small number of people today, but for now only much less serious consequences for the wider population. However, they could be exploited by an undesirable administration at some future point to have serious consequences much more widely.

Please notice that at no point in this discussion have I suggested that any current Western administration is behaving like the Nazi party of 1930s Germany, equated any current leader with Hitler, suggested that the motivation for these laws was genocide, or anything similar. I have criticised only specific measures already taken that pose a much wider threat to basic human rights and freedoms than has yet been realised, and I have been careful to acknowledge that I am considering only the end results and that the motivations for such measures are probably very different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Regardless of ACTA, I have already established a personal policy to:

1) encrypt my partitions (other than root, to make upgrades and reinstalls easier; I use LUKS)

2) copy the essential first megabytes of each LUKS partition to my server or shell account somewhere, encrypted with GPG

3) fill that space with random data

4) travel and go through customs

5) access the GPG encrypted LUKS blocks over internet, decrypt and copy them over

6) boot back into my system

If at 4) "they" require me to decrypt the partitions, I can honestly say I can't: for security reasons I don't have the decryption keys with me. If my equipment gets confiscated when they hear I won't and can't decrypt the partitions, I will have to clean the physical laptop to remove any keyloggers, or just replace it before proceeding to restore my encrypted setup. If "they" find out about my encrypted LUKS blocks, I can also ask my friend to provide half of the GPG passphrase, so that I can honestly claim I don't have the passphrase to unlock the blocks.

<comment><USER13> Not a lawyer here, but I've heard some BS laws about encryption. In some cases if you refuse to decrypt or are unable, you can be at fault and still be detained. Needs citation though.

<comment><USER14> TrueCrypt hidden volumes are one solution: <http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=hidden-volume>

<comment><USER15> No they're not for any kind of border or government interaction... everyone really must stop perpetuating this.

It's a federal crime to lie to a border agent or government agent, and the EFF specifically says not to do this - see comment above.

Hidden volumes are fine for other uses and perhaps in other jurisdictions but will land you in hot water in the US/US Border.

<comment><USER16> I think you are overstating the problems with hidden volumes.

The EFF advice is as follows:

 _Although TrueCrypt hidden volumes may have some practical applications, we think they are unlikely to be useful in the border search context because they are most helpful when lying to someone about whether there is additional hidden data on a disk. Lying to border agents is not advisable, because it can be a serious crime._

Lying to border agents clearly is a serious offence, but as far as I can see that is the "only" major problem with hidden volumes. Given many of the suggestions so far involve lying to border agents along with weird schemes that are less technically secure than hidden volumes it would appear hidden volumes have two things going for them:

1) No worse than other options (assuming you have to carry data with you somehow)

2) Give you a higher possibility that you won't need to lie to border agents (failing to tell them about your additional layer of security will get you in trouble, but is more defensible in court than outright lying)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Force? Hardly. Read it for yourself: [http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/21november2011/tr...](http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/21november2011/treaties/anti_counterfeiting_text.pdf)

In particular, Article 14.

 _ARTICLE 14: SMALL CONSIGNMENTS AND PERSONAL LUGGAGE

1\. Each Party shall include in the application of this Section goods of a commercial nature sent in small consignments.

2\. A Party may exclude from the application of this Section small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature contained in travellers' personal luggage._

Note it is _may exclude_ and as such it's up to the individual countries on how they implement this. I've contacted my government representatives (Australia) to find out their position on this section.

Edit: More information in this fact sheet

<http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/acta/factsheet.html>

</comment><comment><USER18> EFF on countermeasures: 'Defending Privacy at the U.S. Border: A Guide for Travelers Carrying Digital Devices' (December 2011)

[https://www.eff.org/document/defending-privacy-us-border- gui...](https://www.eff.org/document/defending-privacy-us-border-guide- travelers-carrying-digital-devices)

<comment><USER18> Oh, what a coincidence ;)

<http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=3496475>

<comment><USER19> Haha! That is a strange coincidence indeed but not altogether surprising given the subject matter. It's possible someone read your post and submitted it.

Just to clarify, raphman did post his link before it was submitted as a story should anyone be wondering once this moves out of the resolution of a day.

      raphman 7 hours ago
      [link]

      Defending Privacy at the U.S. Border...
      144 points by llambda 5 hours ago

<comment><USER20> Probably not coincidence: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3497285>

<comment><USER18> Thanks for the link. I have added my view over there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If true, this has to be one of the more bizarre ways to counteract piracy I have ever seen. I don't know what percentage of piracy is enabled by people carrying hard drives full of pirated movies across borders, but I'm sure it is vanishingly small - that is, after all, what pirates use the _internet_ for.

<comment><USER3> It is not to stop piracy. It is to detect and punish people who have pirated content in their possession.

You can't invade people's homes but you can search them thoroughly while crossing the border. People are used to having their privacy invaded while crossing the border.

<comment><USER21> An interesting question is that if someone were to travel (non-commercially) across borders with a fake gucci bag, could that person could be held liable under ACTA for the case that a) they were aware of the product was counterfeit and/or b) the case in which they were unaware?

<comment><USER22> Yes. Near the French / Italian border there are targeted controls for counterfeited products. Common sense should tell you you can't get a Gucci bag for 200$, or anywhere outside of a luxury shop ;) And yes, you are also liable if you were unaware - but most people are actually aware.

<comment><USER23> _Common sense should tell you you can't get a Gucci bag for 200$, or anywhere outside of a luxury shop_

Where would a person learn this? I've heard the brand name _Gucci_ before, but I had no idea it was so expensive. Naturally, I'm not the sort of person who would buy such things because of the name of the company who made them, but it also wouldn't seem strange to me to see a given brand on sale outside of a luxury store.

I guess we each have our own set of assumptions about what the "average person" should consider common knowledge.

<comment><USER24> I agree- I had no idea. $200 sounds expensive to me, so if someone offered one for that and I wanted to buy it for my wife I probably would. I've bought "Coach" brand for about that at the mall, so an approximately equivalent price wouldn't set off any alarms in my head.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> There is a lot of FUD about ACTA (such as this submission). There was a very good post on Reddit a few hours ago that goes into great detail about what it ACTUALLY does:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/or8ag/ive_read_the...](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/or8ag/ive_read_the_final_version_of_acta_heres_what_you/)

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra That's why nobody wants to come to USA any more.

You might have to, but the experience is questionable due to American customs having no respect whatsoever for privacy or personal belongings. All your luggage are belongs to them, in other words.

Compare with Europe/Schengen where that simply is not a problem.

And that clumsiness and ignorance gets copied into international treaties.

<comment><USER26> _That's why nobody wants to come to USA any more._ I have to respectfully disagree. The amount of people (mainly Europeans) I meet who tell me they want to move to the US is still very substantial. In my experience, the perception of the American dream is still very real in a large portion of the world's eyes.

As long as America continues to present it's theater politics through it's media outlets, people won't know what actually happens.

<comment><USER27> You're American, I presume? I will also assume that, being on Hacker News, you're in the computer field? If that's the case, of course most Europeans you talk to want to move to the US. California (possibly New York) is kind of appealing like that. But as a non-American, I can tell you that very few people _I meet_ believe America is where it's at, mainly because of social policies like this one.

<comment><USER28> As a counterpoint I'll offer that I'm from Europe, lived in the States, came back home, and have no wish to return stateside (not really even for a visit). I can work remotely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> To me, the following passage from the link demonstrates the dire situation in the US:

      In July 2008, the United States Department of Homeland
      Security disclosed that its border search policies allow
      U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents to conduct
      random searches of electronic devices for "information
      concerning terrorism, narcotics smuggling, and other
      national security matters; alien admissibility;
      contraband including child pornography, monetary
      instruments, and information in violation of copyright
      or trademark laws; and evidence of embargo violations
      or other import or export control laws."[61][62] US
      Senator Russell Feingold called the policies "truly
      alarming" and proposed to introduce legislation to
      require reasonable suspicion of illegality and to
      prohibit racial profiling.[61] The Ninth Circuit
      Court of Appeals has previously upheld the
      constitutionality of laptop searches without reasonable
      suspicion at border crossings.[61]

Sure, Feingold could introduce new legislation already covered by the 4th amendment. But if the government isn't going to pay attention to a founding document of the US, what makes him think they're going to pay attention to his piddly law?

<comment><USER9> Two things:

1) Feingold can't introduce anything anymore, since he is no longer a Senator. (This tells you how long it has been since this section of the wikipedia article has been edited).

2) Even for US citizens, there is no right for people to bring whatever they want into the country. Once you leave the country, you lose 4th amendment protections. So, if you don't want to be searched, don't bring anything with you. It has nothing to do with the Constitution since the Constitution stops at the border.

<comment><USER29> On #2, no it doesn't. Not for US citizens. Well, it DOES in practice, but not in terms of our constitutional rights, imho.

<comment><USER9> You're right that US citizens still have rights when dealing with the government wherever we might be. However, the 4th amendment protects US citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. But crossing the border gives the gov't a reason to search...

<comment><USER29> We could argue that either way, but it just illustrates my original point again: it illustrates the sad reality of our government and its interference into our lives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Lets take this seriously for a second. Say we're actually trying to catch cyber criminals and child pornographers and we're discussing enacting this law. Someone speaks up and says, "For all the discomfort and trouble we're putting innocent people through, the real criminals will just store their data online and travel with cleaned computers." How do you continue enacting this legislation? I'm trying to be as serious as possible.

How does any legislator look at the people they represent and come to the conclusion that this is a good idea?

<comment><USER31> In my opinion this is exactly like SOPA, a corporation-sponsored bill. Why would any government care if you "pirate" a movie? There is no tax on cinemas, but you pay an tax + extra fees if you're buying blank CD/DVDs -- because they presume you're going to write ("burn") illegal content.

<comment><USER30> Put copyright aside for a sec and lets try to actually frame it in the case of child porn or drug trafficking. How can any legislator conclude that disrupting the public like this is acceptable after having a reasonable discussion about how easy it would be for criminals to circumvent?

The hugely ironic part of all of this is that laws like this don't make moving data harder for criminals. It just forces them to use better data-securing practices in their day to day lives which make it harder for local law enforcement to get their job done.

The only impact I can see this legislation having is making law abiding citizens upset with their democracy.

<comment><USER32> _Put copyright aside for a sec and lets try to actually frame it in the case of child porn or drug trafficking. How can any legislator conclude that disrupting the public like this is acceptable after having a reasonable discussion about how easy it would be for criminals to circumvent?_

Did you see the excerpts from the SOPA hearings? The legislators can conclude that this degree of disruption is acceptable because _they are morons_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I KNOW! If we can't attack these PIRATES online, in their magical pirate cloud, we'll hit them where it already hurts...AIRPORTS!

what better way to stop piracy than to harass travelers? i can think of none.

</comment><comment><USER34> Have a second laptop you use for travelling and treat it as unsecure. Any time a laptop is out of your control, especially when it's held by (any)government, you might as well assume it has had spyware installed on it. Plus you're at a much higher risk of theft while travelling abroad so you definitely should avoid having confidential business documents, etc. on it.

I use a netbook for travelling which gets a blanket format & reinstall before and after it goes travelling. Even then there's a risk that it might have had a hardware keylogger installed on it (this has happened to business people travelling to China in the past).

<comment><USER35> You use the netbook (or cheap laptop) because it's cheap to replace/lose if confiscated.

Your business or other legal data is encrypted in the cloud. If your business or other operation would not be harmed by customs having the data, have it also on the netbook for you convenience. Your encrypted data in the cloud isn't there to keep it sekrit from the government, it's there so you can get it at the other end.

If your netbook is not confiscated, or out of your sight for a suspicious period, then great.

If it's gone for a suspicious time, don't use it on the plane and get rid of it on the other end after wiping it.

If the netbook is confiscated or otherwise compromised, get a cheap netbook on the other end, download your clouded data, and biz on.

Repeat as necessary.

This doesn't protect your illegal (or impossible to prove legal) data, it just allows you to continue to operate after traveling through a bad neighborhood (the airport).

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> If detained at the border, and all your storage is encrypted, many countries have laws that require you to reveal your passphrase.

OK.

But, what about key escrow? What if I gave the keys to my attorney? Can I be compelled to lie to my attorney about whether I'm under arrest?

Or Jacob Appelbaum, who carries USB drives with the Bill of Rights encoded on them. If the remaining blocks were noise, would he have to somehow prove they weren't encrypted data?

This all seems very unsustainable.

<comment><USER27> Encryption or no encryption, or any of these other little games won't do anything.

Look, if border patrol is in the wrong mood and you try to pull a _"well, I'd let you see it but it's encrypted and I don't have the key!"_ they're going to detain you until they have the information they want. So what's the point? That's the real issue here: we've given more authority to uneducated, power- hungry citizens to mistreat others at will.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Really? Are politicians and the entertainment industry this dependent on each other? It seems like the battle cry of both parties is "we're too lazy to come up with our own safe guards, so let's just do the most unnecessary thing that comes to mind. Wait, why are we doing this? Oh right, money." It's downright pathetic to see those in control having panic attacks in the form of legislation. Next google search: the finer points of being an expatriate.

</comment><comment><USER38> This particular wikipedia article focuses more on the development of ACTA, and public comment and rumour during its development, than it does on the actual text of ACTA, a public document.

I haven't read the actual text, and I imagine that the issue of whether or not ACTA will force border searches is definitively answered by the treaty itself. The Wikipedia passage in question appears to have been written in response to rumours and leaks dating back to 2009.

<comment><USER38> I've done some more reading since, and my arm-chair legal review seems to indicate that most, if not all, search and seizure happening in this area is due to U.S. policy and legislation and not ACTA. i.e. DHS, etc. have their own policies rooted in US law that seems to permit this type of search and seizure.

I didn't do a thorough analysis, nor am I am lawyer, nor am I an ACTA supporter, and I think that the wikipedia article referenced is poorly written and not thoroughly representative of the current status of ACTA, its powers and effect.

(edit: it looks like some of the other commenters have picked up on this as well - definitely worth a thorough read of all the comments for a more current view of what we're actually getting with ACTA, I found this post especially helpful [1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3496277>)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Can the US Custom force someone to unlock an encrypted drive or deny entry if you dont comply ?

Im fine with the search but they have no right to scan my notebook etc.

<comment><USER40> They can't really deny you entry if you have a US passport.

Yes they can charge you/confiscate if you don't cooperate/unlock your data. You might be better off hiding it in plain view, it's not like they're going to do much more than a cursory glance.

<comment><USER41> The tone of this entire thread is very paranoid and it's not helped by slightly rash comments like this.

The EFF says that you can't be required to unlock encrypted files without a court order. [https://www.eff.org/document/defending-privacy-us-border- gui...](https://www.eff.org/document/defending-privacy-us-border-guide- travelers-carrying-digital-devices)

Whether or not that's a good idea is up to you and certainly (as a non-US citizen) I'd be very reluctant to start making a fuss - if I had anything sufficiently sensitive that a long flight home seemed the less-bad option, I would have just sent it in parallel.

FWIW I'm a Canadian citizen and when returning to that country I refuse, politely, to answer any questions whatsoever (which have become really quite intrusive) on the grounds that there is no legal requirement to answer. It often leads to a customs screen (which is a ten minute delay/irritation) but there, and I assume in the US, there is no right to deny entry to someone holding valid travel documents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is no news, I heard about this years ago from friends going to the US as exchange students. There were random laptop harddisk searches, luckily they were spared.

</comment><comment><USER43> Fear wins out over laziness: finally downloading TrueCrypt.

<comment><USER17> I haven't read the whole thing yet, but a quick glance through shows Article 11:

 _ARTICLE 11: INFORMATION RELATED TO INFRINGEMENT

Without prejudice to its law governing privilege, the protection of confidentiality of information sources, or the processing of personal data, each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority, upon a justified request of the right holder, to order the infringer or, in the alternative, the alleged infringer, to provide to the right holder or to the judicial authorities, at least for the purpose of collecting evidence, relevant information as provided for in its applicable laws and regulations that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls. Such information may include information regarding any person involved in any aspect of the infringement or alleged infringement and regarding the means of production or the channels of distribution of the infringing or allegedly infringing goods or services, including the identification of third persons alleged to be involved in the production and distribution of such goods or services and of their channels of distribution._

It seems like this might cover a court ordering you to provide the password to determine infringement. However the first sentence might get you off the hook if you're a doctor or lawyer or other similarly privileged professional who has information about your clients on your laptop. I'll update this when I finish reading it tomorrow if I find anything more specific.

<comment><USER44> How about an IT worker? You'd _hope_ a sysadmin has some kind of privilege. I expect not, though.

<comment><USER17> I don't think they do unless their work covers one of the traditionally privileged cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This is, of course, ridiculous. But I think SOPA has some missing the broader point. It looks to me like the target of this is drug smugglers and other "organized criminals", not some family on vacation in Canada or your linux laptop. It gives law enforcement an easy excuse to dig into the laptops of suspected smugglers and thugs.

And that kind of thinking is very, very dangerous. Much worse than SOPA - which, to be frank, was going to be used much like patents are - as a corporate bludgeon in a war for profits (in my opinon- obviously this is speculation). This idea is a direct violation individual freedoms with _no greater goal than to exert control over the populace_.

It's also a signal that the concept of trade restriction is deeply and dangerously flawed.

</comment><comment><USER46> The reality is, pretty much every time I land in the US by laptop is out of battery :)

</comment><comment><USER47> Wow, this won't slow things down at the border.

On another note. How long before tools come out that "fidget" with media files on your computer so you can defeat CRC match scans of media on your computer? "Well the file is Finding Nemo.avi, but it doesn't match any of the known pirated copies of that movie."

Finally, how is this not a gross violation of the right to privacy? This has about as much chance of standing up in SCOTUS as a new law reinstating slavery IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER48> In other words. This means cloud storage services will be one of the businesses who will se a huge increase in sales next coming years.

Anyone want to partner up :)

<comment><USER49> I tend to think otherwise with the recent Megauploads situation; plenty of people lost their personal data with no warning and through no fault of their own.

The "no fault of their own" part is obviously being challenged by those who claim that the data should have been saved in multiple places. Though I think this just avoids the real issue of the bust having negatively affected users that had legitimate use cases for the service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Surely you'd be better off having an empty netbook and using RDP to connect to a home server? At least then nothing is encrypted, they are free to look at the hard drive and could happily confiscate it without you having any issues. Worst comes to the worst, if you use dynDNS, you could just change the URL you use to connect.

</comment><comment><USER51> I really do wonder what they would do if they saw a linux laptop, especially if you are using a simple window manager, and only had a terminal available. Would they flag you for being 'suspicious'? Dual booting handles most of it though, changing it to boot instantly while going through the airport.

</comment><comment><USER52> What's the general consensus on services like iTunes Match, and Google Music where you're essentially exposing your audio collection to a 3rd party? Couldn't this library be subjected to the same type of review?

</comment><comment><USER53> Never store anything important on a laptop hard drive, ever. Erase all hard discs with dban before going through customs. Upload to a safe place before you leave, download when you get back.

<comment><USER54> And your mobile. And... And...

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Hasn't this been in effect since 2008? I have probably entered the US 100 times since then and have never had anyone show any interest in searching any of my devices, nor have I noticed them looking at anybody else's devices. Or did I miss something that is going to make them start doing this actively now? It is still scary as hell that this is possible at all, of course.

</comment><comment><USER56> Not sure how thorough their searches are, but could you leave a fairly boring drive in your laptop, and carry the real one externally, perhaps partly disguised (phone maybe)? "Oh, this old thing? Stopped working the other week. Seeing if my friend can fix it for me - I think the battery has failed."

<comment><USER57> Not working is no good. The only kind of inspection of electronics I've had so far is firing them up to see whether they actually are what they look like (of course it would be easy to circumvent that, but hey).

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I'm travelling to the states next week. I have a lot of pirated content (books and music) on my hidden encrypted partition on my laptop and external HD. Should I be worried, and what are my options if I do get stopped? (I'm actually a regular user - this is a throwaway account for obvious reasons).

<comment><USER59> I'm not an expert on this, but judging from the discussion above based on the EFF guide, it sounds like hidden partitions aren't recommended. The consensus seems to be that they may have ways of detecting hidden partitions and may ask you if you have any, placing you in a situation where you have to decide whether or not to lie to them. If you do, you could get busted for lying. If you don't lie, then it's the same as having full-disk encryption except it's slightly more suspicious and you'll be in the situation where you're not obliged to tell them the password, but they will take it into consideration in deciding whether or not to let you into the US.

I don't know how long you're planning to stay in the States, but it might be wise to bring an empty laptop and certainly not an external HD if it's for a short visit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> While I appreciate the concern over ACTA, this is _a wikipedia article_.

The particular section cites: a) a Vancouver Sun article from 2008; b) a blog post from 2009; c) a Globe and Mail article from 2008; and d) a Washington Post article from 2008. All of these are somewhat speculative. It also cites a Customs and Border Patrol policy paper which affirms that customs has the right to search people as they enter the country.

Also part of the wikipedia entry is a quote from a European Commission fact sheet that directly counters the notion that ACTA will lead to the wide-spread searching of iPods of consumers.

If you want to argue that something is draconian and will _force_ (not merely allow) searches, then at least come up with something more substantial than wikipedia.

</comment><comment><USER60> All my drives are already TrueCrypted. I have nothing to hide, but I do not want to be treated like a criminal for doing something as simple as crossing the US border.

<comment><USER61> Please stop saying "I have nothing to hide" after talking about crypto. You imply that most people who use crypto have somthing to hide, witch is not the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Buy small "travel" HDD, replace before traveling.

</comment><comment><USER63> Stop buying BigContent. If they don't find Finding Nemo on your disk, there is nothing they can do.

</comment><comment><USER64> Just upload your pirated content to Megaupload before travelling and download on arriving. This is what they want, isn't ? :)

</comment><comment><USER65> Issn't this what they do in North Korea ?

</comment><comment><USER66> I find it amusing about how this comment thread turned all about technical solutions (from hidden partitions, to encryption, to steganography, to dual booting, etc).

Now, I understand that as "hackers" we are likely to go on about technical measures to avert this kind of search. But, that's not the point. The point is they should not violate your privacy in the first place. And that is a political problem.

It would be nice if most of the comments were about how to avert ACTA in the first place. You, know, like SOPA, but even better.

<comment><USER67> > I find it amusing about how this comment thread turned all about technical > solutions

And people using 'fascism' as a general-purpose pejorative with no understanding of the history of the world.

<http://www.anesi.com/Fascism-TheUltimateDefinition.htm>

<comment><USER66> If you're talking about me regarding other comments in this thread, I'm not from parts of the world that need to be pointed to some online article for the history of fascism. On top of this, I have read extensively on the subject, from Adorno to Isaiah Berlin, including fringe cases like dr. Wilhelm Reich and his "Mass Psychology of Fascism".

I'm not using it as a "general-purpose pejorative" (as in: "oh, the cop hit me in the demonstration, fascism!", or "TSA cupped my privates, oh, the fascism!"). I'm making an exact analogy to the actual historical form fascism, which you may agree or disagree with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> This is annoying, especially since I might very well want to rip the DVDs I own to my laptop so I can watch them on the plane without fumbling with shitty disks.

Also, are TSA agents now capable of understanding what is fair use now since they have trouble with the volume of liquid I am able to bring?

What if someone has a bunch of legally licensed AVIs ? You get side-lined for a 3-4 hours. They should open a little MPAA lawyer's office in the airport. He'll help you negotiate a settlement before you get on the next leg of your flight to Houston.

</comment><comment><USER69> Supposedly, if your hard drive is encrypted, customs agents can hold your computer indefinitely if you refuse to provide the password. The irony is that gigabytes of encrypted data cross national borders every second -- over the internet. So dump your important data in an encrypted file and put it on a file sharing web site, or a VPS, or whatever, and download it again when you get across the border. Nobody with "interesting" data (and half a brain) will be physically bringing it across a border. The searches are useless.

</comment><comment><USER70> How can they tell it is pirated? I mean, the audio files may have been ripped from a legit CD. They can't tell for sure.

Similarly, I may have ripped an AVI from a legit DVD. For my own convenience while traveling. I sometimes do.

<comment><USER71> "I may have ripped an AVI from a legit DVD"

Ripping a DVD is, I believe, a criminal act in the US and a number of other countries (including the UK).

<http://www.audiostream.com/content/ripping-crime>

<comment><USER70> Is it? I thought it was fair use.

Like cassette recording an album in ye olden analogue days. To stop vinyl wear-and-tear. That was certainly perfectly legal as long as it wasn't distributed.

Sigh. I'm a criminal and don't even know it.

I'm fucking sick of paying taxes and yet still being labelled a criminal by people who don't even know me. I'm sure I'm not alone.

<comment><USER71> I believe it's because DVDs do have a trivial copyright protection scheme on them - ripping the DVD involves breaking this and it's this part that causes the real trouble:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping#Circumvention_of_DVD_co...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping#Circumvention_of_DVD_copy_protection)

<comment><USER72> From the article you linked: "This case made clear that manufacturing and distribution of circumvention tools was illegal, but use of those tools for non-infringing purposes, including fair use purposes, was not." So it is legal to rip a DVD, it is illegal to make or distribute a tool that allows DVD ripping. Yes, the law is insane like that.

<comment><USER71> It does say this though:

 _"personal use" copying is not explicitly mentioned as a type of fair use, and case law has not yet established otherwise._</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


I, Backpack - <AUTHOR> https://kortina.nyc/essays/i-backpack/ <comment><USER2> _> It was funded, however, by companies like Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch, PepsiCo, and Coca-Cola, and it's goal was to "confuse the public narrative regarding waste, and distract from the corporations and manufacturers creating the litter and waste" (wikipedia)._

I looked for this part on the linked wikipage and didn't find it. I looked at the edit history and it turns out that this wikipage is subject to a PR fight and the account DoBeautifulThings keeps removing parts that may be too critical and adding things that put it in a positive light. The source for the quote was this recording: [https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/757539617/the- litter-myth](https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/757539617/the-litter-myth)

Here is an edit from them that removes this part (2019-10-03): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keep_America_Beau...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keep_America_Beautiful&diff=919471408&oldid=919457645)

A revert of the change (2019-10-03): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keep_America_Beau...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keep_America_Beautiful&diff=919473497&oldid=919471765)

The change is back in (2019-10-04): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keep_America_Beau...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keep_America_Beautiful&diff=919612502&oldid=919473497)

Another change that reverts some lobbying edits (2019-09-12): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keep_America_Beau...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keep_America_Beautiful&diff=915371004&oldid=914154035)

If you want to see the wikipage version which contained the quote, here it is: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keep_America_Beau...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keep_America_Beautiful&oldid=919473497)

Lobbying on Wikipedia is real.

<comment><USER3> Wow, good find! I'll add this set of links to the post. Quote was def there when I was first writing the post.

<comment><USER3> These wikipedia edits kind of underscore the point in a sad/funny way.

Updated the post with some of this research y'all did: [https://s3.amazonaws.com/4rk/screen- shot-2020-03-22-10.25.27...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/4rk/screen- shot-2020-03-22-10.25.27-8v86b44a.png) . Thanks again for sharing the edit history you found!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I spent $400+ on an arcteryx backpack 20+ years ago. Last summer, I hiked the Cape Wrath "Trail" in the Scottish Highlands. It continues to be flawless.

I wrote to the company afterwards to thank them for a product that still works better than I could imagine, and in fact is better than any product they make today (at least for the purposes of a 17 day backcountry trip with almost no resupply).

Sadly, one of the reasons I bought the Arcteryx at the time was that they were still manufactured in north American (BC). This is no longer the case, and from my inspection of their current products, while they are still superb in comparison to the competition, they don't really do well in comparison to the late 90's versions.

<comment><USER5> I had a similar issue with Kelty. My old one from the late 90s lasted 20 years and had amazing craftsmanship. I use my backpack every day for commuting on bike in all sorts of weather. The old one was amazing, with thick nylon and robust zippers and straps.

The same model from 2016 only lasted me a few years before it failed. It was super thin with these weenie zippers, and obnoxious doodads.

[https://imgur.com/a/wmIggaz](https://imgur.com/a/wmIggaz)

I bought a new Vertx backpack a few months ago, and the craftsmanship looks great and is working well so far.

[https://vertx.com/gamut-2-0-backpack](https://vertx.com/gamut-2-0-backpack)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Another alternative is to buy quality in the first place. I spent around $100 on a Patagonia backpack, and it's been in everyday use for over 6 years and is still fine. If it does fail, Patagonia has an excellent repair program.

<comment><USER7> Yep! A few points about this...

I have noticed that many "quality" brands tend to introduce lower quality lines as they grow in size. Perhaps as they hire more business folks and the founders becomes further and further removed from the operation of the company. At first glance the lower quality line can be hard to tell apart from the higher quality products.

Also, price does not necessarily determine quality so it pays to be learn some of the telltale signs of higher quality products such as the stitching and materials used.

<comment><USER8> This. I used to carry Fjällräven backpacks. That brand is/was basically Sweden's Patagonia. If you bought a Kånken model backpack in the eighties, it would last forever. Then sometime in the 00s they moved production to Asia. Guess what happened to the quality …

<comment><USER9> Predictably, the price stayed the same though

<comment><USER8> Indeed…

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I scrolled all the way down to see the goddamned fixed backpack, but the image is not there...

<comment><USER11> The backpack isn't important it's about changing human behavior.

<comment><USER12> I'm with GP, some closure about the opening would have been nice.

<comment><USER3> y'all are right it's not the point, but here is the hn exclusive closure: [https://s3.amazonaws.com/4rk/screen- shot-2020-03-21-20.12.13...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/4rk/screen- shot-2020-03-21-20.12.13-ealipg7q.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It would have taken less time and money to just sew it by hand. You can use scrap material, or order fabric from ripstopbytheroll.com (a popular supplier for anything MYOG).

I buy most of my long distance hiking gear from US cottage shops which have great service but sometimes you have to mend your pack or tarp yourself on the field. It's quite easy once you get into the habit of doing it early rather than letting it disintegrate into nothingness.

<comment><USER14> Yep. For folks that are interested in getting in to this type of thing, check out /r/myog and /r/ultralight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I know it's not the point of the story, but if you need gear repaired, try Rainy Pass Repair. They fixed a beloved but irreplaceable (discontinued, manufacturer went bankrupt) pack for me. Similarly, I sent a pair of boots to Dave Page, Cobbler for resoling and am thrilled by the repair.

Not affiliated with either, but I am a happy customer.

</comment><comment><USER16> _> The manufacturer of my backpack, for example, offers a sort of warranty, to communicate to me the alignment of their values with my own (for a durable product).

If you're thinking about sustainability policy, one idea might be to require warranties like this one for all material objects. This would force companies to internalize the cost of goods that wear out quickly and incentivize them to create more durable products._

It may sound radical, but I'm convinced that's the general direction we need. If you sell a non consumable/perishable object, you should be required at the very least to accept the good back from the customer at no cost to them, and recycle/reuse/dispose of it properly. Requiring 5-10 year warranties or more is also something we should consider. I'm not sure what the exact answer would look like, but those directions seem like the right way to get ourselves out of the huge landfill/electronic waste hills we've buried ourselves under.

<comment><USER17> In Norway Stormberg has a deposit scheme (panteordning). If you have one of their jackets you can return it to them and get NOK 50 in return just like returning a bottle or can to the supermarket.

See [https://www.stormberg.com/no/om- stormberg/baerekraft/panteor...](https://www.stormberg.com/no/om- stormberg/baerekraft/panteordning/)

or via Google Translate for those who can't read Norwegian [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https%3...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.stormberg.com%2Fno%2Fom- stormberg%2Fbaerekraft%2Fpanteordning%2F)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> San Francisco has a a few backpack makers, some of which off a lifetime warranty, Mission Workshops for example.

As an hobbyists backpack maker, who has made backpacks with padding on vintage domestic sewing machines it could have been repaired with the know how.

</comment><comment><USER19> I tried this once, and failed. By the time a major seam of a well-made backpack fails, they are all, about to fail. My backpack was 5Y old and was in the "wearout" phase of life, where everything fails at once. Replacing an important zipper completely (seams had failed, not zipper itself) only gave my pack another 6 months of life. Yes, a shoe repair shop is the right place to go, but $90/yr is an expensive backpack indeed!

I currently have a Yellow Columbia half-track and the quality is unreal, I've used it every day for 6Y, with laptop+clothes+gear, no damage yet!

</comment><comment><USER20> Patagonia did try harnessing advertising to push a cultural shift in consumption: [https://www.patagonia.com/stories/dont-buy-this-jacket- black...](https://www.patagonia.com/stories/dont-buy-this-jacket-black-friday- and-the-new-york-times/story-18615.html)

It helped establish Patagonia's brand, but doesn't seem to have done anything to the broader clothing industry.

</comment><comment><USER21> After a lot of back ache and destroyed backpacks, I found a backpack from Crumpler, model Sheep Scarer. I carried it everywhere for over 10 years, hiking, working, travelling. It was very practical, comfortable, surprisingly weather and theft proof, and basically indestructible. Unbelievable bang for the buck.

The overall design was great but one of the key element is the shoulder straps that were tied at the front of the bag, not back-side. This was what made it theft-proof and extremely comfortable as it would push it towards your back, and more so with added weight, because physics.

Unfortunately I lost it (luckily it was mostly empty), and they don't make it anymore. I've been unable to find a decent backpack til then.

<comment><USER22> > The overall design was great but one of the key element is the shoulder > straps that were tied at the front of the bag, not back-side. This was what > made it theft-proof and extremely comfortable as it would push it towards > your back, and more so with added weight, because physics.

Could you elaborate on this? I don't see anything special from photos.

And also why don't you buy a second hand one?

<comment><USER21> > Could you elaborate on this? I don't see anything special from photos.

Here:

\- [https://balotot.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Crumpler- Shee...](https://balotot.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Crumpler-Sheep-Scarer- Backpack1.jpg)

\- [http://unhunter13.free.fr/forum/crumpler/sac_ouvert.jpg](http://unhunter13.free.fr/forum/crumpler/sac_ouvert.jpg)

\- [http://forum.tt- hardware.com/fichiers/uploads/upload_6_3/fer...](http://forum.tt- hardware.com/fichiers/uploads/upload_6_3/fermeture.1110729553.jpg)

\- [https://s3.bukalapak.com/img/8108548365/w-1000/IMG2019011313...](https://s3.bukalapak.com/img/8108548365/w-1000/IMG20190113130048_scaled.jpg)

Notice how the zipper is _behind_ the shoulder straps. When worn, the bag can only be opened ajar, and the zipper operated only with much difficulty, which makes any attempt at stealing blatantly obvious.

Also this makes the tension from shoulder straps apply to the outermost fabric structure of the backpack, whose weight will therefore make it press against your back instead of pulling backwards on shoulder straps due to the overhang of the typical backpack design. The bag naturally rests on your shoulder and stays close to your back all the way instead of pulling you back on shoulders and pressing against your lower back only.

[https://encrypted- tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGpH_7...](https://encrypted- tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGpH_77RbNF9-gahRyCzSw9Aa46XvALFc-1O4VP4SqEwgsNDQrsA&s)

> And also why don't you buy a second hand one?

Ultimately I may, but they've been out of production for years and hard to source around here, so I tried a number of other backpacks first.

<comment><USER22> Got it, I have never seen that before and it is certainly interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's an unfortunate situation that we find ourselves in. Perhaps not surprising, however, since it's driven by economics.

For those who care, however, it's not too hard to learn to fix things ourselves with a little practice. Especially for non-tech products.

</comment><comment><USER23> I've had a Peak Design backpack for about a year now. Best money I've spent on a backpack yet.

</comment><comment><USER24> Light grey text on a white background. Come on. Give us a break from this horrible tech fashion.

</comment><comment><USER25> Um.. Maybe take a look at warranties from columbia jansport eastpak tumi chrome industries??

</comment><comment><USER26> It's actually not economics. What if I set up on a sidewalk in SF (you pick which one) with a heavy-duty sewing machine and offer to fix people's backpacks for a dollar or two? That question should get you closer to what is actually going on.

<comment><USER27> A) you get moved off the sidewalk

B) you make much less than minimum wage?

<comment><USER17> Perhaps this is a good argument for UBI. Someone with such a skill could then offer it without having to worry that they would starve.</comment></comment></comment>