Larry Page ignored Steve Jobs' advice, and Google is doing great - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/google/2013/01/12/larry-page-did-well-to-ignore-steve-jobs/ <comment><USER2> The premise of the article is jobs told page to focus Google, and Page ignored that but succeeded anyway

However IIRR Page shut down dozens of projects (wave being a big example). Just because a large company is doing a lot of things does not mean they are not focused - I expect Page has a list of 5 things and thinks its all focused quite well

<comment><USER3> > However IIRR Page shut down dozens of projects (wave being a big example).

Indeed: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products#Discont...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products#Discontinued_products_and_services)

And partially gutted some, forcefully shoving G+ in them (e.g. Reader)

<comment><USER4> On the contrary, Google Reader has barely any G+ in it. The major complaint of the redesign is that it stripped Reader of its social features without replacing it with anything. If G+ integration existed which provided the same use cases, people would be happy with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Whether or not the premise is true, can't we stop abusing the death of Steve Jobs to generate page views?

</comment><comment><USER6> What a lame article. If you compare Google now to Google a few years ago, the difference is _marked_. I know think of Google in ters of a handful of products today; that was not the case then. Google has definitely put its wood behind fewer arrows.

The bigger question is did Steve Jobs have anything to do with it? It would surprise me if Page wasn't going to go down this path either way. Maybe a nudge of encouragement rather than a massive course correction.

</comment><comment><USER7> But Page did focus Google. He focused it on Google+. Compare the current everything integrated around Google+ company and the company of two years ago. The difference is astounding.

I actually think Page's biggest test is to come over the next several years. With declining per ad revenue and potential competitors (in Amazon and Facebook) Google runs the risk of having its core revenue stream reduced significantly, while over in the OS space it has to deal with the death thrash of a Microsoft that knows its do or die time and several minnows (RIM, Ubuntu) that may slice off small chunks of market share and a whale in Samsung that may just walk off with the rest.

If Page can navigate all that then it will be worth writing articles about.

<comment><USER8> The mobile market is still growing, there's sufficient room for competitors to share the market with google. Also, samsung does not pose any threat, because samsung is bad at software development. The weakest part of samsung's products is the software. I don't think they're capable of developing a successful competing OS to android. As long as they're getting android from google, google is the one with the power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > continues to be wildly and purposefully unfocused

Unfocused? Last two years Google killed tens of products. They even killed Google Wave. Moreover, they unified UI across many products.

In my opinion Larry is doing exactly what Steve advised.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is a fluff piece. Weren't all of those products in production or development when Jobs passed away? And hasn't Page continued to cut and EOL products since then too?

</comment><comment><USER11> What is it with blogs getting more and more clickbait-y with titles at the moment, even The Verge has gone that way.

Page smoothly managed Google into a position where they have _many_ projects ongoing, and the _core_ business is incredibly focussed. Saying he ignored Jobs' advice to focus is incredibly stupid, as he did bring a level of focus back into the business and it's working incredibly well for Google.

You can have multiple projects, and multiple exploratory avenues and these are healthy things, but Google for a period was throwing everything at the wall to see what stuck.

</comment><comment><USER12> > Shortly after Larry Page re-took the reigns as CEO of Google

He re-took the what? You don't take the reigns, you don't give free reign, and you don't loosen the reigns. It's REINS.

</comment><comment><USER13> You could argue that Google is using a barbell strategy. Play it safe with the core business (search has hardly changed in all these years, just a few minute layout changes and algorithm tweaks. The biggest change, real-time results from Twitter, was rolled back. They have also been very aggressive about protecting search from threats/substitutes, hence vast sums spent on Android and Chrome to protect the visibility of their search ads), then have lots of small-scale dabbling in diverse, blue-sky projects.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm sure Steve Jobs though Apple should do hardware, Google should do web software, and as long as they both stuck to their sides of the line, they would both dominate.

</comment><comment><USER15> Google's Product Bloodbath: The Full Rundown [http://gizmodo.com/5837043/googles-product-bloodbath-the- ful...](http://gizmodo.com/5837043/googles-product-bloodbath-the-full-rundown) Ignored the advice they said.( _chuckles to himself_ )

</comment><comment><USER16> Steve jobs. Larry page Both mentioned in same title Who wouldn't click?

</comment><comment><USER17> This article is a little fanboyish. Google hasn't actually invented anything either. Google Now, Glasses, self driving cars, Google+ have all been done before many years ago.

What Google is doing is simply executing them in a far more polished and integrated way. Similar to what Apple does.

I personally believe that the real raw innovation in the industry is surprisingly coming from Microsoft.

<comment><USER18> When you say self-driving cars and Glasses had been done before many years ago, you must mean experimental prototypes that never made it to market, right? Making a self-driving car that "kindof, sort of" works along some desert route as part of a competition is so different from bringing one to market that successfully completes hundreds of thousands of miles in traffic, obeying road rules, and along a less predictable route.

Bringing something like Glasses or autonomous cars to market and making it work well enough to be a success counts for more than creation of prototypes that are never more than a cool experiment, in my opinion.

<comment><USER19> Did I miss the news that Google brought Gogole glaass/autonomous cars to market, and that those products were successful?

IMO, autonomous cars will be a success at some time. Who will be the first to sell them is anybody's guess, but Idonit think it is a given it will be Google. Car companies such as Volkswagen and Toyota have the advantage that they already can build cars.

Glasses? They might sell at some time, but IMO, the call is out whether these will be niche products or not. I think something must be done on the 'when not in use, they obstruct my view; when in use, they are so tiny' problem before such products can become mainstream.

<comment><USER20> Did you know that the team that won the DARPA Grand Challenge[1], was run by Sebastian Thrun [2] - who went on play a big part in the creation of Google Street View?

And did you know the Grand Challenge winning cars made use of LIDAR and machine vision to identify road features and obstacles, high precision GPS, and inertial navigation? And that very similar sensors can be seen on Google Street View?

If you wanted a test data set, to refine your self-driving car by simulating driving every road in the developed world, you could scarcely do better than Google's data. This could be valuable in advancing from a car that works well on wide, well maintained freeway to a car that can work well around towns and cities.

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoiJeIb0wBA#t=21m50s> [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Thrun>

<comment><USER19> Did you know that that Stanford team only came second in the Urban Grand Challenge, a likely more relevant measure, as far as succesfully bringing autonomous driving to market goes? Did you know that in both challenges, the relative time differences between the top 3/4 competitors were so low that they may not tell anything about the quality of their software? Do you know why, in both competitions all teams were US based (my guess would be that large external players such as Mercedes-Benz and Toyota do not want to give away too many secrets for little gain. US competitors who do well there stand a chance of getting orders from the US military, but non-US ones? Unlikely.) Do you know that Mercedes-Benz claims that this year's S-class model could ride autonomously, if laws permitted it ([http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/its-the-dawn- of-t...](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/its-the-dawn-of-the- robocars/story-fnb64oi6-1226540648529))?

Do you know none of that has anything to do with the issue at hand (the OP lauding Google for bringing successful products to market, while they didn't even bring them to market yet?)

<comment><USER20> I'd certainly agree that all the teams that completed the Grand Challenge did a good job, whether they finished first or fifth.

Although DARPA rules require that the team have an American representative, teams like Team Berlin [1] and CarOLO [2] were run by German universities. I certainly agree that universities produced a lot more entries than the vehicle industry did - but I don't know if that means Mercedes and Toyota had secrets they didn't want to give away in 2005, or if it means they didn't have anything worth showing off.

Of course, we'll know much more when companies actually start bringing these products to market, and we shouldn't count Google's chickens before they've hatched. But by my reckoning they got a pretty good head start - I certainly wouldn't bet against them.

[1] <http://archive.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/Teams/Teamberlin.asp> [2] <http://archive.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/Teams/CarOLO.asp>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Google has some really strong engineers, and has some incredible internal tools. Its build system (Blaze) is world class. As I get older, my admiration for its engineering culture (and emerging courage in product vision) only grows.

Its problem is its decrepit HR system. It needs to fire the people who came up with the "calibration scores", the 18-month lockout, and the whole closed allocation regime, yesterday.

If you make the error of thinking that technology is smart people stuff and HR is stupid people stuff, you end up with stupid people writing your HR policies, and disaster ensues.

If Google takes out the trash and reinvents itself as an open-allocation company, it'll be a real powerhouse.

<comment><USER22> Is there any place we can read more about their culture, or its something you have to pick from the tidbits that leak on blog posts and the way they act publicly?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> _"Larry Page ignored Steve Jobs's deathbed advice, and Google is doing great"_

First, they were competitors so take your competitor's advice with a grain of salt, Jobs or no Jobs.

Second, there is a lot more to it than just saying "focus on a few things."

Third, Google has a lot of goodwill from way back, any potential downfall will take years. That means that people could tolerate G+, the many ads etc for a while even if unhappy.

Fourth, Maps, Gmail, Now etc can all be folded under one: "Mobile Apps" so Google can say we're focusing.</comment>


How to stay private when using Android - <AUTHOR> https://protonmail.com/blog/android-privacy/ <comment><USER2> Honestly, Android is hopelessly so much worse than that. You need to disable/adb uninstall tens of apps because, you have no way to actually remove them. Some of them cannot be disabled (Google Play Services for instance).

Additionally, you cannot have a secured up-to-date WebView (rendering library for Android apps showing web pages) without signing in with a Google account and updating Google Chrome. I found out while trying to remove as much spyware as possible from my Xiaomi A3 Android One phone. As suggested in the blog post, I didn't sign in with a Google Account.

But the WebView [0] is updated via the Play Store which requires an account. So I said I'll just compile Chromium and provide my own WebView. But the system has a whitelist [1] of WebView implementations that excludes everyone but Google to render webviews.

So I'll root my phone and find my way into the whitelist? Well it seems (at that point I'm discouraged to look) that will break future OTA updates because the diffs they send assume the system partition is bit-for-bit unchanged.

So I'll compile Android (AOSP) and flash it? Well, I should have bought another phone, because although my Xiaomi Mi A3 has its kernel on Github, binaries such as the radio firmware aren't available [2].

So I'll just install a precompiled ROM from XDA forums? Well, I'm still reluctant honestly, I'm sure the devs are great but they're still anonymous people on the Internet.

Maybe I should have bought a Sony, AOSP support is better [3], maybe I should have bought something supported by Lineage but then I'd depend on the branch developers.

I should say, it looks like there is some progress (more granular permissions, Android One, Treble, Mainline...) but it's regressing at the same time (removal of the Internet permission, Google Assistant, Play Store distributed system updates in Android 10...).

I remember Larry Page ranting about MS Windows a few years after he started Google. Well, my phone spies on me, is full of uninstallable Google-made bloatware, is locking aftermarket alternatives out with some gotchas and is nowhere close to the freedom I get from a commodity computer (which is far from perfect still). I remember the early Android team promising you can replace every app but a decade later and there are these whitelisting shenanigans.

By the way, I'm open to suggestions if anyone can help.

[0]: Technically, for Android 9, the fallback WebView is updated over the air but Google Chrome is updated with the Play Store

[1]: [https://github.com/bromite/bromite/wiki/Installing- SystemWeb...](https://github.com/bromite/bromite/wiki/Installing- SystemWebView)

[2]: Technically, they're already on my phone but I wouldn't get updates anyway.

[3]: [https://developer.sony.com/develop/open-devices/#overview- co...](https://developer.sony.com/develop/open-devices/#overview-content)

<comment><USER3> I think the best practical solution these days is to buy a Pixel or some Sony Xperia, and install your own AOSP. Then run a F-Droid userland. If you have a Pixel, you also have access to things like [https://grapheneos.org/](https://grapheneos.org/), which is the successor to CopperheadOS, and perfect AOSP support. Sonys tend to loose some features.

A good alternative if you want a cheaper phone is to run LineageOS on a popular device in the Lineage community.

Something that is becoming a really good alternative is to run a device- independent ROM on an unlockable Treble device: [https://github.com/phhusson/treble_experimentations](https://github.com/phhusson/treble_experimentations)

As you said, stock Android is pretty hopeless in terms of privacy.

<comment><USER2> phh-treble looks pretty good, thanks for bringing it up! Any idea how one gets authentic updates to the radio after flashing a GSI though? Anyone here has tried it with a Xiaomi A3? Looks like most phones have partial support still.

Pixel phones are out of my budget so GrapheneOS isn't an option.

Stock Android has long been dead to me but I wasn't aware Android One is just as bad because most reviews focus on the UI.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Unfortunately all of these things are bandages on a sinking ship. They're technically better than nothing, but in reality they simply do not fix the problem. Even worse, it's possible (even probably) that some privacy controls simply do not do the think they say they do. You are essentially trusting a company with a rubbish track record in privacy violations to pinky swear they stop tracking you when you toggle a switch.

<comment><USER5> Exactly. Scottiestech's YouTube has some good info on how your smartphone is tracking you more than you think. Sometimes I think about building my own phone with a Raspberry Pi or use LineageOS.

<comment><USER6> AFAIK one of the best solutions for smartphone privacy is using a custom Android ROM without Google apps installed. Of course that means basically no 3rd party apps, but you can still get a surprising amount of functionality with just a web browser. You'll still get tracked by your mobile provider, but I think that would happen even with a dumbphone.

<comment><USER7> > Of course that means basically no 3rd party apps

I'm using LineageOS without Play Store/Services and would like to dispel this myth. Here are just some of the third party applications I can install directly from the developer using adb, without going through a third party store: Signal, Firefox, NetGuard, NewPipe, Orgzly, OsmAnd, Tor Browser. Those pretty much cover all of my smartphone needs and more.

<comment><USER8> Three kinds of apps that are very important to me, that I cannot get without play store:

The national 2fa app. The app people use to send money to their friends, sometimes street vendors. Rideshare app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Starting with Android Pie, backups are encrypted with a key not known to Google[1]. Doesn't cover all of sync, but that is encouraging.

[1] [https://security.googleblog.com/2018/10/google-and- android-h...](https://security.googleblog.com/2018/10/google-and-android-have- your-back-by.html)

<comment><USER10> This has been the case for chrome sync 10+ years now.

You need to enter a second password thought.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you want to stay private, give up the idea of a smartphone altogether. If you (quite understandably) do not want to do that, you're pretty much just kidding yourself.

<comment><USER12> It's not all or nothing privacy. If you give up Android/Google Play (and Facebook etc.) you have a much smaller exposure.

Buy an iPhone or a Jolla (or, maybe in future, PinePhone or Librem). Then use Firefox with uBO, DuckDuckGo and Fastmail. And you have a much better privacy in 2020.

<comment><USER13> > Buy...a Jolla

I would absolutely love to do this, but I live in the US. Recently I visited Jolla's website and was excited to see that they offer an officially supported installation for Sony Xperia 10 and XA2 phones. I found several listings for those devices on eBay, got really excited, and almost pulled the trigger on one. I went back and read the fine print on the Jolla site and discovered that they won't sell the OS to you or allow you to download the free version if you live outside the EU, Switzerland, and Norway.

It's so frustrating that there is a total lockout in the US when it comes to smartphone OSes; I have a Lumia 830 sitting in a drawer I'd be fine with using but since Microsoft officially dropped support it has developed issues that prevent it from being a daily driver. Besides, Microsoft's track record on privacy is hardly better than Google's.

For now I can either carry a dumbphone and a separate smart device like the Gemini PDA running Linux, or just continue using my increasingly slow and glitchy iPhone 7 (I don't want face recognition or a notched display, so I refuse to upgrade to the X and beyond, and the 8 is still too expensive to justify such a minor upgrade).

I am eagerly awaiting the opportunity to buy a PinePhone (fuck Librem and their constant deception around their products), and if it works out as a daily driver I'm all in.

<comment><USER12> Maybe ask on 'together.jolla.com' about buying from the States? IIRC I read about people buying Sailfish from not officially supported countries. Make sure that the provided bands match what you have available.

Edit: didn't find much about US: [https://together.jolla.com/questions/scope:all/sort:age- desc...](https://together.jolla.com/questions/scope:all/sort:age- desc/tags:usa/page:1/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This article is surprisingly and disappointingly simple-minded to appear on a place called Hacker News. It's a list of things aimed at my mom, not at a "hacker", whatever meaning you assign to this term.

The most telling may well be section "5\. Be wary of unknown sources" which recommends "You should never trust software from these sources". One of the key ways of making Android privacy focused is to install F-Droid and use the non-cloud alternatives it offers to all the standard Play Store crap.

Sorry, I would have expected more from something posted on Hacker News. I expect everybody here to roll their eyes when reading a heading such as "Use a PIN".

<comment><USER15> Install everything from Google Play, that's all good. Never install anything from F-Droid, that's all bad.

That's basically what this article is saying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > 7\. Review your cloud sync

I used an Android device for a short while a few years ago. I disabled all sync functionality and would back up to my own storage device.

After an OS update, all of the sync functionality was automatically enabled and everything on the device was uploaded to Google's services anyway. So I deleted everything that was uploaded, then deleted my google account, and bought an iPhone and swore to never use a google product again — and I haven't.

<comment><USER17> While it is undeniably true that Android, just as any other networked product by Google, is a nightmare with respect to privacy, I hardly believe that Apple doesn't collect any user data. They very likely want to remain the #1 solution for wealthy people who don't want their communications to be bugged, and they're surely much much better than Google in that context, still I don't trust them because their product is even more closed than Android, therefore impossible to audit just as Android.

<comment><USER18> Apple's incentives as a product business align much better with user privacy than Google's incentives as an ad business though.

<comment><USER19> And yet Apple's OS collects more information than Google's. You cannot even write an app for your device without handing over banking details like a credit card. You cannot get your location without also sending that location to Apple. If you're in China, everything in your iCloud is accessible by the Chinese government.

Edit: this is not whataboutism. People are seriously suggesting using Apple devices instead for privacy, when doing so is worse, as I have shown. If you believe anything I've said is false, go ahead and point it out. I've stated these claims multiple times on Hacker News and not once have they been refuted, so I'll be happy to get corrections before I state them again.

<comment><USER20> A lot of what you just claimed is completely false or misleading, given your rants throughout this thread though I doubt it's worth time to enumerate it. You seem very intent to distract the discussions for this post towards Apple and whataboutisms.

<comment><USER19> Now that I can respond, this is not whataboutism. People are seriously suggesting using Apple devices instead for privacy, when doing so is worse, as I have shown. If you believe anything I've said is false, go ahead and point it out. I've stated these claims multiple times on Hacker News and not once have they been refuted, so I'll be happy to get corrections before I state them again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you're looking for privacy advice for iOS, then check out iVerify from Trail of Bits. It includes automated detection for certain kinds of malware, configuration checks, and privacy guides for all the rest.

Blog: [https://blog.trailofbits.com/2019/11/14/introducing- iverify-...](https://blog.trailofbits.com/2019/11/14/introducing-iverify-the- security-toolkit-for-iphone-users/)

iOS App Store: [https://apps.apple.com/us/app/iverify/id1466120520](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/iverify/id1466120520)

Article in VICE: [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjw474/this-app-will- tell...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjw474/this-app-will-tell-you-if- your-iphone-gets-hacked-iverify)

<comment><USER22> Aren't apps pretty heavily sandboxed on iOS? I am curious how this app has permission to read the places it needs to read to look out for stuff like malware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> They should've added a point #0 advising people to get a flagship device or an Android One device from vendors who have a track record of selling a phone with the latest Android release and also getting updates to the devices quicker.

Every other point in the article pales in comparison if the new device you bought is running a release more than a year old and you're guaranteed never to get another update (or may get an update for a year). The point about keeping the software up to date is moot for most Android users.

</comment><comment><USER24> "Don't"

If anyone who has been a google fan/early adopter can attest to, the more things you learn to turn off, unistall, or otherwise disable, Google will find a way to add in even more shit to track you. They are, without absolute certainty, an advertising company. They will always find a way to sell more ads, its the only reason they exist.

</comment><comment><USER25> I hate iOS but good god android is awful! I bought a cheap one on new years to use as a balloon tracker (GPS boards are expensive so it seemed like a good idea.)

There are absolutely no diagnostics, every setting (including critical ones) seems to move around between OS updates. They're constantly breaking things you actually need (termux API is missing half of what's useful and silently fails on most things now) while still letting malware installed by manufacturers through. I think when I first connected the phone to a network it pulled down ~1Gb of shovelware including facebook. Thankfully it was on WiFi since I didn't want to use up the data until we launched the balloon.

This of course never worked. It was able to connect and use data for about 30 minutes, I'm not sure what we did to make it work but it randomly stopped after that.

Mobile OSes need to die, they don't help people they're just another tool for corporations to push users through confusing broken mazes in order to manipulate them.

<comment><USER26> > "android is awful!" ... "I bought a cheap one"

Nothing like condemning the entirety of a thing based on a single limited intentionally-bottom-of-the-barrel experience!

<comment><USER27> This is one thing I don't understand about the Android ecosystem... Android fans like to point out that you have a choice of phone price points from $100 up to $1000, where on Apple devices it's generally $600 to $1000. But if you actually buy one of those $100 phones and have a problem with it, the first response is always "well yeah that's what you get for buying a cheap phone".

Seems like an _illusion_ of choice if you're guaranteed a working phone only if you buy the latest $1000 Samsung flagship.

<comment> Open-Sourcery Smartphones are like many other technology products. Yes, you can get the cheapest one available but it will be total garbage or you could spend another $100 or so and get a pretty decent phone. Going beyond this point you get diminishing returns, is spending another $700-800 really worth it for a better camera, a faster CPU/GPU and a screen with a bit better colour when all you do is watch Youtube videos and browse facebook/instagram/whatever other social media?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> At this point you're probably better off buying an iPhone and disabling iCloud backup (or disabling iCloud entirely).

<comment><USER29> some of you wrote here, many months ago, something I will never forget: "how can you pretend privacy from a phone 'made' by an ads company"

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Any experience with ProtonVPN? I am looking to give it a try

<comment><USER31> I use their free tier and it's relatively snappy. Plus you can get the actual ovpn files and avoid having any proprietary software on your machines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I've been saying this for a long time, but there's no technical solution to staying private. It's not scalable and no one has time to janitor every product and service they use in their lives.

The only solution to it is regulation. Fortunately one rich guy in California is putting his personal money up to move the ball forward [1]:

>Mr. Mactaggart said his 2020 state ballot initiative, among other things, would create a state enforcement agency, limit targeted advertisements based on geolocation and add items covered by the "negligent data breach" section, which would allow consumers to pursue legal action in more instances of a hack.

>Most significantly, Mr. Mactaggart said, his new effort would make it harder to adjust the current law any further. The initiative includes a "purpose and intent" section that requires any amendment to the law to be in the service of protecting consumers' rights to privacy, a legally binding clause that Mr. Mactaggart said would prevent industry from chipping away at the measure.

CCPA is a mediocre version of GDPR, but it's certainly better than the status quo.

>The lobbying against Mr. Mactaggart's earlier initiative kept it from the ballot in 2018, and legislators instead passed the privacy law. "It was the right thing to do because there was no guarantee at the ballot box," Mr. Mactaggart said of his agreement to drop his measure. "Now, it's different because we have the law."

>Mr. Mactaggart said he would do whatever it takes to pass his initiative next year, including spending millions of his own money. He bankrolled his last campaign almost entirely himself, spending more than $3 million. Mr. Mactaggart will have to collect more than 623,000 signatures for his new initiative to qualify for the ballot. A survey in October by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research of 777 registered voters in California found that most supported Mr. Mactaggart's initiative.

If you care about privacy, help this guy get his ballot initiative over the finish line. California can serve as inspiration for other state privacy laws (and may just become the default, as it often does). Tech people love scale, and you know who has scale? Governments. You can't fix a systemic problem like lack of privacy with individual action.

[1] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/activist-behind-californias- new...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/activist-behind-californias-new-privacy- law-already-wants-to-improve-it-11577615401)

</comment><comment><USER33> A simple step toward thwarting a mischievous app that demands internet access privileges (even though its functionality has no apparent need for it) is to install a firewall like NetGuard[1]. It's a simple step because it doesn't require rooting your device.

1: [https://www.netguard.me/](https://www.netguard.me/)

<comment><USER34> NetGuard is great, but it uses battery about 20% faster with it on (mainly because the cpu cannot enter sleep states long enough iirc)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> So why do I need google play store to install and google play services to use the ProtonMail app on android? Please release a standalone version like whatsapp does.

</comment><comment><USER36> Look at the general tone of all this thread.

The Nokia n900 was an _excellent_ smart phone. Still would be without nearly 10 years of improved tech hardware updates.

<comment><USER37> I'm really hoping the Pinephone, and other Linux phones succeed in creating a niche yet affordable libre phone with secure software. I ordered a developer phone simply because I'm interested and want to see what it has to offer.

The only thing that will be hard is working without my current setup of apps. A browser can only get you so far. The transition will be a little tough but i'll manage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Android is a nightmare (both for privacy and for the artificial limitations imposed by Google)... the only solution appears to be a pure Linux phone like this: [https://store.pine64.org/?product=pinephone-braveheart- limit...](https://store.pine64.org/?product=pinephone-braveheart-limited- edition-linux-smartphone-for-early-adaptor)

I don't sign-in to my google account on my phone but I'm pretty sure that they do shadow profiles like Facebook does

<comment><USER10> Do you use a web browser?

Then 200+ companies already have shadow profiles on you.

<comment><USER38> I block most trackers...

but they don't have access to all those sensors on my phone anyways... including camera, microphone, gps, etc... unlike Google on your Android phone. You are comparing apple and oranges.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I cannot find many of the settings they talk about (android v.9), is it my o.s. old?

</comment><comment><USER39> ... don't use Android, period. Google did a great job with PR in the early years, but the reality has always been that your data is exploited to their ends.

<comment><USER40> What are the alternatives? The iphone is prohibitively expensive for most people, and it's unacceptable that privacy should only be available to the wealthy.

There's basically an Android/iOS "duopoly" out there, and it's only getting worse. There are now bank accounts that are unusable without a smart phone app, and guess which platforms are supported...Google Play and Apple App Store. And don't even think about sideloading onto a rooted device, it won't work "for security reasons". Such bank accounts, and services like Apple Pay, are effectively enabling vendor lock-in for very important services.

<comment><USER12> There a secondhand iPhones (it's also better for the environment). Otherwise no alternative than using a desktop computer and forego some smart conveniences.

<comment><USER40> There are literally banks out there that are _unusable_ without an Android/Apple smartphone. And while it's currently still possible to use a bank that isn't as insane, I expect this trend will only get worse. It'll no longer be a case of foregoing some smart conveniences, but about being able to access important parts of the economy.

<comment><USER27> Not only is it still possible to find a bank that works without a smartphone, at least in America you'd have to go dramatically out of your way to do business with a bank that only works if you have a smartphone.

The number and quality of banks that work without a phone is so much higher than the number of banks that require a phone, it's barely even worth mentioning.

<comment><USER40> The course has been set, that's the way all banks are headed.

Challenger banks like Revolut, N26, Bunq, ... are all very reliant on smart phone apps. Even if they have web interfaces, you can't log in without authenticating with the app

Tangent: American banks might not be the best example here, given their reliance on ancient tech like signatures, paper checks and magnet strips. But they, too, will move in this direction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Step 1: Never, under any circumstances, sign into Google Play Services. Better still would be to rid your Android of it altogether and install LineageOS.

</comment><comment><USER41> Google or privacy - choose the one.

</comment><comment><USER42> 99% of the population don't want to essentially make their phone useless and difficult to use. This is the problem.

Also that 99% doesn't care that the government knows they have downloaded Candy crush.

<comment><USER43> Also 99% "of the population" doesn't use Android.

<comment><USER44> What? I thought Android has market share in the billions. Where do you live? Mars?

<comment><USER43> Billions = 99% of the population. Oh I see. Okay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> These Android topics are always full of complete fabrications about how Android actually works (usually from Apple users, which don't know a lot about the OS).

Let's see if this time is any better or we'll see Apple marketing people come out of the woods again :)

<comment><USER46> Please don't take HN threads into brand-fan flamewar or insinuate shillage or astroturfing. These things break the HN guidelines and lead to much lower- quality discussion. Your comments include substantive points—please stick to those.

<comment><USER10> I think his point is (and yes, he could have put it more nicely) that this sort of articles often turn into Android bashing and praising Apple which unfortunately steals attention from an important discussion.

This is specially annoying when people who don't understand the subject immediately enter the discussions to promote a company/product pretty much regardless the context.

I'm sad that OP was heavily downvoted and later flagged.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Amazingly bad advice. They don't even mention to set a non-chrome, privacy- focused browser as default (brave, Cliqz, Firefox, etc).

<comment><USER47> Amazingly bad advice yourself, listing Brave and Cliqz as privacy-focused alternatives before Firefox.

<comment><USER48> I've been using brave and Firefox because of a perceived privacy benefit over chrome.

Would you mind expanding upon this statement on regards to Brave?

Thank you and happy new year!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> > smartphones per se are not evil.

No, just the people who write the code.

<comment><USER50> It's not the people who write the code, it's their management. If they were paid to write secure privacy centric code then that's what would happen

<comment><USER51> I suspect that a significant amount of developers do not care. A job is a job, if the problem to solve is interesting enough or it pays well enough, rest is irrelevant. This is supported by my experiences interviewing developers who apply for jobs in my department. Questions about the ethical implications of the things they have worked with more often than not are incomprehensible to them. Note that this is distinct from having made an informed and motivated choice, let's say, 'yes, I am aware of x, but due to a, b and c I work with it anyway' or similar. I do not judge the content of the motivation, but I strongly judge the presence or absence of it. This is why I strongly support having strong courses in both etics and diversity / inclusion in all CS / data engineering programs. The blind spots seen in the thinking of some people who work with software that has potentially far-reaching consequences for minorities, privacy etc is sometimes really unnerving.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Another tactic not mentioned: I disable automatic app updates, and never update most Google apps, at all. Eventually, they fall so out of date that they break or at least suffer from reduced functionality eg. Google exchange services.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h That sounds like disabling apps, but with more vulnerabilities along the way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> > How to stay private when using Android

1\. Stop using Android.

FTFY

> How to stay private in general

1\. Stop using the smartphone - some of its tracking features are near impossible to disable

2\. Use VPN or/and TOR

3\. Enable either DNS over TLS and DNS over HTTPS

4\. Never login anywhere

5\. Use the most common OS (Windows 10 at the moment) + the most common web browser (Chrome at the moment)

6\. Make sure your web browser locale is set to English

7\. Set your system timezone to US

8\. Make sure your desktop resolution is 1920x1080 and your Chrome and Windows are as default as possible

9\. Do not install any additional fonts

10\. Install a single extension which hides your WebGL vendor string e.g. WebGL Fingerprint Defender

11\. Do NOT visit websites from your country (it's quite easy to match your VPN traffic patterns with local websites visits and de-anonimize you)

12\. for each site that you visit: * Clean all web browser data before visiting it * Close the browser * Open the browser again * Open your website

I've probably missed something like canvas fingerprinting protection, JS timings detection, CPU concurrency detection, etc. etc. etc.

TLDR: It's near impossible to browse the web without being tracked if the company which wants to track you has the resources for that. Web browsers and the web were not designed this way.

<comment><USER54> > 5\. Use the most common OS (Windows 10 at the moment) + the most common web > browser (Chrome at the moment)

Use the OS with built-in telemetry and the web browser that constantly reports your activity to a data harvesting company and which keeps trying to prevent people from blocking ads or limiting data harvesting on the browser? Try again.

<comment><USER53> Wiping all data in Google Chrome is enough for Google to lose track of you.

Windows 10 leaking personal data hasn't been conclusively proven by anyone in the entire world. There's no evidence Microsoft has ever downloaded a single file off Windows 10 PCs (except for telemetry, e.g. application minidumps, which doesn't uniquely identify you, or contains any of your personal documents). Disabling telemetry in Windows 10 isn't too difficult either.

There's a lot of unwarranted mass hysteria in regard to the most innocuous things in this world which is perhaps an indication that people have no other real worries to attend to.

Even this post about "staying private in Android" is overblown out of proportions. Yes, there are individual apps which abuse your data but you can get rid of them.

Yes, Google assigns a unique identificator to your Android device but that doesn't mean this data is leaked/sold left and right.

And no one is even talking about the fact that US cell operators have been implicated in tracking their users 24/7 and it's not apparent they've stopped doing that.

Your cellphone company (which also serves for most as an Internet operator) is already a threat enough not to use any cell phone at all.

Then there are technologies to break into cellular networks by impersonating cell towers and monitor users against their will and I'm quite sure this feature is used and abused to no end by at least three-letter agencies in the US.

If you're an average American you're passing by dozens if not hundreds of CCTVs daily which are monitoring your whereabouts 24/7.

Privacy in this world only exists for those who don't use the perks of our modern society or who's quite rich and can afford their own island without dealing with the rest of the world.

<comment><USER55> >Disabling telemetry in Windows 10 isn't too difficult either.

Really? For future reference, how does one do this? Because I was under the impression that it was not possible to disable _all_ telemetry, and that even the lowest "level" of telemetry that Microsoft offers is only available to "enterprise" versions of Windows. At least, that is what the wording used in the Group Policy Editor implies:

[https://techcortex.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/disable- mi...](https://techcortex.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/disable-microsoft- compatibility-telemetry-using-group-policy-step-4.png)

[https://techcortex.com/disable-microsoft-compatibility- telem...](https://techcortex.com/disable-microsoft-compatibility-telemetry/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bitcoin Price Could Reach $98,500, Say Wall Street Analysts - <AUTHOR> http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-price-reach-98500-say-wall-street-analysts/ <comment><USER2> $98,600, on the other hand, is entirely out of the question. And don't even dream of $99,000 or $100,000.

</comment><comment><USER3> Surely, the moment to sell is when people believe there's no top?

</comment><comment><USER4> This is really sad.

</comment><comment><USER5> Sounds like it's time to sell bitcoin.

</comment><comment><USER6> Sounds like it's time for a new edition of this classic:

[http://www.amazon.com/Dow-100-000-Fact- Fiction/dp/0735201374](http://www.amazon.com/Dow-100-000-Fact- Fiction/dp/0735201374)

Make sure to read the 1999 reviews.</comment>


A Philosophy of Project Governance - <AUTHOR> https://drewdevault.com/2020/01/17/Effective-project-governance.html <comment><USER2> This essay is referring to:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22075076](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22075076)

And:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22073908](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22073908)

<comment><USER3> No, it's not. I had this mostly written a few weeks ago, I just polished and cleaned it up yesterday.

<comment><USER2> Apologies. Based on comments I'd seen of yours on Mastodon I'd presumed otherwise.</comment></comment></comment>


Texas Declares War on Drones - <AUTHOR> http://robots.net/article/3542.html <comment><USER2> Texas and its long tradition of "pride of independence" has, at best, only resulted in a parallel version of Federal Government policy. Undesirable Federal policy X will almost always still show up in Texas - it will just be presented and perceived as though it has been arrived-at independently as the will of Texans.

If sovereignty is your thing, other than a strong stand on gun rights there are states in the US with policy that correlates far less with D.C. and they don't make it their claim to fame either.

<comment><USER3> I've participated in the political process in Texas and I'm not sure that this is true. Take for example HB 80: [http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/HB00...](http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/HB00080I.pdf)

<comment><USER2> I remember hearing about this and the subsequent threats to cut off travel to Texas. Yes, it is nice to hear when Texas lawmakers stand up for their state's sovereignty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As both a libertarian and tech junkie, I have serious concerns about the use of drone surveillance and am excited to see the technology develop.

The best I can figure, what's needed is _parity_ in drone use. That is, whatever is good for the government should automatically be good for the citizens to do. If the government wants to use hi-res cameras to surveil a city all day long, then anybody else should be able to do so too. If the government wants to arm drones, then I should be able to arm my own drones.

I don't think that's an answer, but I think it will work for a decade or two -- hopefully long enough for us to develop workable policies.

<comment><USER5> > If the government wants to arm drones, then I should be able to arm my own > drones.

Surely you jest. Do you honestly think this is a valid line of reasoning?

<comment><USER6> I think this would fall under the right to bare arms, would it not. There's nothing about the second amendment that restricts arms to only those you can carry. At the end of the day, the 2nd amendment was put in place as the last line of defense against a tyrannical government. Given that motivation, would it not make sense that citizens should have at least some degree of parity with the US government. Basically enough parity on an individual level that the citizens of a country _in aggregate_ could challenge an unjust government. I emphasized _in aggregate_ since that is the language that ensures that one individual citizen off his rocker cannot challenge a government that he alone thinks is tyrannical. i.e. one individual can't have nuclear weaponry or advanced fighter or bomber jets or tanks, because those types of weaponry allows one citizen a disproportionate impact if they choose to bare and use their arms before drumming up consensus with fellow citizens that feel the same.

If the government can arm drones, I think citizens should have the right to arm drones up to some set quantity, like 2-4 drones. Citizens should also have the right to maintain anti-drone technology capable of shooting down any drones above their property.

You may think I'm a right-wing nut after reading that statement, but actually I spent enough time in China, especially the western part to get a feel for what happens where there is an extreme asymmetry in armaments between a government and its citizens. The Chinese province XinJiang feels like an occupied country. I imagine that Tibet felt the like an occupied country as well until the rail lines were built enabling ethnic cleansing by dilution, making the occupation less obvious than it still is in XinJiang.

<comment><USER7> In the Second Amendment, you are correct -- there is nothing limiting you to arms that you can carry. Since then, however, the Supreme Court has, on more than one occasion, defined "arms" to mean "man portable arms".

I believe this narrow definition (and FAA monitored airspace) that would prevent you from owning your own drone (even if you could build it), and is what keeps us from owning missiles, rocket launchers (even though many are in fact man-portable), etc., despite the fact that the Revolutionary War was won with cannons and ships that formed our militia and navy, all provided by the citizenry at the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sadly it's not a war on drone use by any level of government, only individuals.

I suspect government drones will get federal protection if people try to use them as skeet targets when they fly over their property.

Countdown to when the public starts to say "oh well, what can you do, we need to be safe" (ala TSA).

<comment><USER7> Their comfortable viewing distance is something like 12,000 feet, which is almost 3 miles up. You're not likely to have anybody shooting at them because they'll never see them.

That said, I agree that people will accept their new passengerless overlords, and it'll probably start in New York.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a knee-jerk reaction to a situation that the Texas legislature really can't stop. Cameras are becoming more and more ubiquitous with or without drones.

Even with the law there's nothing stopping someone from posting illegally captured photos anonymously. The hobbyists will be ones that feel the impact of the law and the more clandestine drone operators that they aim to prevent will continue unabated.

I'm sure that in the not so distant future when any police officer can launch a drone all of these privacy worries will go right out the window.

In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." The good news here is that thanks to technology, our future is definitely going to be a bright place for all of us whether we like it or not.

<comment><USER7> I pretty much agree with you, but having seen the demo of the drone, there's a pretty big difference between a camera on every street corner, and a camera flying 3 miles up in the sky that you can't possibly see, but that is able to watch, draw boxes around and track every moving object in a small city.

Again, I don't exactly know where the line is or should be drawn, but the 1.8Gigapixel camera on those drones are just super creepy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wow, how disappointing. Just another lesson demonstrating that if you hear about a law being passed and it sounds good (or bad), it's really just motivated by the interests of those with the most power.

</comment><comment><USER11> For anyone else who was curious about the drone photographing an environmental violation, here's the denouement and the company's side of the story. In short, the Ondruseks state that an unmaintained government-controlled sewer pipe was responsible for the leak.

Your reaction to this story will depend on whether you believe businessmen are mustache-twirlers who pollute rivers...or whether you believe that the kind of government that leaves potholes unfilled for years might jump into action to shift blame and point fingers rather than accept responsibility. From my POV, there doesn't seem to be much motive to intentionally dumping blood into a river rather than down a sewer line, so I kind of think the Ondruseks might be telling the truth.

[http://www.suasnews.com/2012/12/20401/columbia-packing-co- in...](http://www.suasnews.com/2012/12/20401/columbia-packing-co-indicted-for- pigs-blood-in-trinity-river/)

      A Dallas County grand jury returned several indictments on
      Wednesday against an Oak Cliff meat packing company
      accused of dumping animal blood in a creek that flows into
      the Trinity River.

      Columbia Packing Company and its owner, Joe Ondrusek,
      face twelve indictments for water pollution.

      If found guilty, the company could pay fines between
      $6,000 and $1.5 million. Ondrusek himself could get
      five years in prison and fined up to $100,000 for each
      count.

      The grand jury also found evidence that the company,
      Joe Ondrusek and family member Donny Ondrusek tampered
      with physical evidence and returned six counts against
      them. The company could face more fines, and the Ondruseks
      could face up to 10 years in prison and $10,000
      for each charge.

      Neighbors near the plant on 11th Street had long
      complained about noxious fumes and other problems from the
      meat packers. But investigators didn't get involved until
      a remote-controlled toy enthusiast happened to affix a
      video camera to an RC aircraft and videotape
      gallons of what appeared to be blood gushing down the
      river.

      Officials from the Dallas County Health Department, Texas
      Environmental Crimes Task Force, Texas Commission on
      Environmental Quality and Environmental Protection Agency
      took photos and tested emissions.

      Weeks of investigation found the plant discharged pigs'
      blood into Cedar Creek, a tributary of the Trinity River.
      In January 2012, the company issued a statement saying it
      would never knowingly pollute the environment.

      The plant shut down operations a few months later.

[http://keranews.org/post/oak-cliff-columbia-packing-tells- pi...](http://keranews.org/post/oak-cliff-columbia-packing-tells-pig-blood- story-youtube)

      WHAT HAPPENED

      On Thursday, January 19, 2012, approximately 50
      individuals from various governmental agencies executed
      a search warrant at our plant. The search warrant accused
      Columbia Packing of intentionally dumping waste into the
      creek located a couple of hundred yards behind our plant.

      Let me be very clear: Columbia Packing did not and has not
      intentionally or knowingly polluted or illegally dumped
      hazardous materials. Our sewer line ties into a City of
      Dallas sewer main. It does NOT dump into the creek as has
      been alleged.

      There was a clog in the sewer line near a cleanout valve.
      When water was used (i.e. washing down after production),
      the sewer line was backing up causing water to come out an
      overflow/vent pipe.  The city of Dallas apparently knew
      there was a problem on December 9th, but allowed it to
      continue and did not notify us until 41 days later when
      government agencies served search warrants.

      Two days before the warrants were served, a Columbia lawn
      mowing crew discovered the sewer overflow. We immediately
      called a plumber and took swift action to begin stopping
      the overflow. The clog was cleared and the line was open
      and running cleanly into the city's sewer main in less
      than 24 hours.

      If the city had contacted us on December 9th, the problem
      would have been fixed the same day. Instead, the city
      knowingly allowed this overflow to continue for 41 days.
      Government officials did something my family never would
      have done- they allowed products to contaminate the
      Trinity River for more than a month without taking
      corrective action. The City has full access to our
      property at all times to test the sewer line. At any time,
      officials could have entered our property to find the
      source of the overflow.

      There is no cross connection between our sewer line and
      storm water. The City has now dye-tested and camera
      inspected our sewer lines, and our sewer line is clear and
      goes to the city sewer main.  The city maintains a box on
      our sewer line that has for years monitored the amount of
      waste water going through the line and the substances
      contained in the waste water.  The city monitors this
      locked box on its own schedule.

      When the City searched our property they found 18 possible
      code violations. Within 30 days we addressed and repaired
      each issue the City brought to our attention. Keep in
      mind, our Oak Cliff facility has been in operation since
      the early 1930's, and the City of Dallas has never cited us
      for any violations in the past.

<comment><USER12>
      There was a clog in the sewer line near a cleanout valve.

This sounds like the cleanout is on the sewer customer's property.

      The City has full access to our property at all times to
      test the sewer line. At any time, officials could have
      entered our property to find the source of the overflow.

Not in Texas, they don't. The city water/sewer department or sewage treatment company (or district) does not have right of entry into a property unless invited by the subscriber. The subscriber has the duty to ensure that the equipment on his or her property is functioning as designed. That is why laws requiring water sprinkler backflow valves are enforced at the junction between the city's water pipe and the customer's water pipe. The city or supply company shut off the valve on their side of the pipe. Property demarcation is a huge thing in Texas.

      The city of Dallas apparently knew
      there was a problem on December 9th, but allowed it to
      continue and did not notify us until 41 days later when
      government agencies served search warrants.

This I can believe (I mean, lolcityofdallas amirite?) but it does not absolve the property owner of liability for failure to maintain the sanitary sewer connection on his property.

      The city maintains a box on our sewer line that has for
      years monitored the amount of waste water going through
      the line and the substances contained in the waste
      water.  The city monitors this locked box on its own
      schedule.

And when your sewer bill was half of what it should be, this didn't raise any eyebrows? If there's one thing Dallas Water Utilities does shockingly well, it's collect money from ratepayers.

I think that sending in the mod squad and filing charges was overkill. The Trinity has been used and abused for decades and people are just now trying to clean it up, so it doesn't shock me that TCEQ and Dallas dropped the hammer on this fellow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'd guess the aim is to make drones illegal, rather than actually prevent them from flying (ie. make the law, but don't enforce it). At zero cost to the state, this will mean any evidence gathered by a civilian drone will be illegally obtained and so inadmissible in court.

</comment><comment><USER14> What if I took a photo of someone on the ground on their own private property? That's not a crime right?

So whats the difference if I take a photo _not_ from the ground? It suddenly becomes illegal?

<comment><USER15> It's a crime if you photograph them where they _have a reasonable expectation of privacy_ [1]. That's generally easy to interpret for normal (ground) photography. But if I'm in my fenced backyard sunbathing nude and your drone photographs me, that could be up for debate/discussion.

It'll be interesting, that's for sure.

1\. [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-11-photography- rights_x.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> And I was hoping for a small surface to air missile system :)

I'm considering spending some time on an anti drone technology startup. I have some ideas.

</comment><comment><USER17> The right call for the wrong reasons

</comment><comment><USER18> This is a great and very necessary law.

Do you want fotage of your 3 year old playing in an inflated pool in your back yard to end up on pedo.net because you didn't put a cammo net over your back yard?

Parrot drones are super fun, but it isn't hard to play with them responsibly.

<comment><USER19> > _Do you want fotage of your 3 year old playing in an inflated pool in your > back yard to end up on pedo.net because you didn't put a cammo net over your > back yard?_

Where does one acquire such an extreme level of paranoia? I mean, seriously...

<comment><USER20> One word: paparazzi. They've rented helicopters to get pictures of weddings. Cheap and easy drones? They'll be hovering over every starlet's swimming pool attempting to get bikini pics. Private graveyard service? No worries, 10 drones hovering 10 feet above to capture the video of the grieving widow. What's to keep people from using drones to hover outside Donald Trump's windows 24/7 streaming views of his living room?

Sure, your average joe nobody is not likely to be targeted, but as the cost to acquire aerial video goes from $x,xxx an hour for a helicopter, to $x/hr for a drone, it will be used far more widely. In the past, it was prohibitively expensive and time consuming to do surveillance work. Now a smart phone with 4G tied to a balloon can stream HD feeds.

In the past, you had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage of your home. If drones can take high resolution photos (and video) from the air, this becomes null and void. I personally would prefer we have laws to protect privacy instead being forced to completely enclose all outdoor pools or risk showing up on poolperv.com's drone feeds. (Per my reading, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 would not ban bathing suit video)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Next up camera on a balloon!

<comment><USER22> Already there; they are called aerostats.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm fine with citizens having drones but not the government.

<comment><USER3> > Law enforcement officers could only use drones while executing a search > warrant or if they had probable cause to believe someone is committing a > felony, and firefighters can only use drones for fighting fire or to rescue > a person whose life is "in imminent danger." Texas' border-patrolling > Predator drones are exempt within 25 miles of the Mexican border. There are > additional penalties for possession, display or distribution of data > captured by an illegally flown drone. Gooden said the goal is to protect > Texans' privacy.

[http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-02/privacy- and...](http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-02/privacy-and-drones)

<comment><USER23> The "probable cause" exemption is bullshit. If you have probable cause, get a warrant.

No patrols, no police drone leaves the ground without a warrant targeting a specific person or group.

<comment><USER24> Depending on the details, the "probable cause that someone is committing a felony" exemption is common to law enforcement. Exigent circumstances. If a police officer hears signs of a struggle in your house, he doesn't have to get a judge to sign a warrant before he kicks the door down.

<comment><USER25> But the way that gets used seems to be the officer somehow smells pot on every damn person they want to violate.

<comment><USER7> It's interesting you bring that up, as whether or not a drug-sniffing dog's alert is considered grounds for determining probable cause was recently tested by the Supreme Court.

I won't bore you with the full explanation of who won or why, but what I found interesting is that the dog's past performance comes in to play, the results of their testing, time in the field, etc. Also, the k-9 (human) officers are supposed to keep a record of their results to be provided should this come into question (which raises all sorts of things about false positives, false negatives, etc., due to ignored reporting of incidents that didn't otherwise generate paperwork).

I'm wondering now if there shouldn't be some similar standard of proof for police officers. I've never had the "smells like pot in there" pulled on me for any reason, but I almost hope that it happens at some point so that I can poll the officer's record to see how many times he's used that line as probable cause and what the feasibility of that is.

<comment><USER25> [http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/31/this-dog-can-send- you-...](http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/31/this-dog-can-send-you-to-jail)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Seems as though the title is not specific enough. It should read "Texas Businesses Declare War on Drones".

Yet another case of moneyed interests exerting direct control over the proletariat's freedoms. Yay Fascism.

</comment><comment><USER27> I love my state...

<comment><USER27> I didn't even realize you could get down-voted on here ha. Well, sorry for my comment, I guess?</comment></comment>


71 Seconds - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/2013/05/24/71-seconds

<comment><USER2> Sigh.

What I wrote about the Google i/o fail applies just fine here. <http://www.michaelw.net/google-io-fail/>

This is a classic case of optimizing the wrong problem.

The notion of first-come first-served makes almost no sense in an oversubscribed internet queue. It's one thing to serve the first person standing in line outside a store, it's another thing to pretend that this is meaningful when the queue is 100,000 people around the world all of whom were all in line at 10:00:00am.

It would have been more fair, less annoying and generally less embarrassing to formally recognize that this is effectively a random lottery. As such, have everyone pre-register over a period of days or weeks and then on the magic day, randomly select winners.

My rant appeared to help. I received an invite a month later.

</comment><comment><USER3> If this is true, this lack of transparency with developers (note that is it not about an event for the public, it is about communication with developers), which hurts those who tried to get in fare and square and failed the most, is a start to another regression in Apple's history.</comment>


As Bitcoin nears $700, Coinbase out of coins to sell - <AUTHOR> From coinbase.com:
"Due to higher than normal buy volumes, we are unable to provide exact price quotes right now.
Instead of pausing buys entirely, we decided to give people the option to purchase bitcoin at the market price in a few days. Once your USD funds arrive, we will exchange them to bitcoin at the market price at approximately Friday Nov 22, 2013 at 07:56AM PST.
Note that you can cancel your order at any time up until your bitcoin arrive from the transfer history page.
The market price of bitcoin changes frequently. Below are some recent prices to give you an idea. These do not guarantee what the price will be in a few days." <comment><USER2> I'm pretty sure I have a wallet that I dumped a couple of bucks into when bitcoin was first starting out. Problem is, I have no clue where it might be, or even what computer it might be on. Laaaame.

<comment><USER3> I did the same at the time. I know in which computer mine is. But I know I trashed that computer not long after...

<comment><USER4> There should be a bitcoin recovery service, those coins could be worth serious amounts of money, now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's not that they've run out of coins to sell, it's that by the time the transaction completes they'll potentially be selling the Bitcoins for far less than they're worth - it's an artifact of Coinbase's business model. (Part of the problem IIRC is that people can back out of transactions after Coinbase have quoted them a price, meaning they can make a profit from a rising market at Coinbase's expense.) Same happened last time a bubble blew up in the Bitcoin price.

</comment><comment><USER6> The 30 day delay in effect at the time I bought at $125 to test my first use of the system is the only reason I have three Bitcoin instead of 20. By the time I was approved for quicker purchase the booster rocket had kicked in and I simply couldn't believe the price increase to $200 could last. Ah, well. Story of my life.

</comment><comment><USER7> Based on the huge discrepancy between the supply of bitcoin (which is algorithmically regulated) and the demand (China, institutional investors, etc), some have predicted that the price of Bitcoin will increase to between $500,000 and $5,000,000 per unit within a three-year time frame. Whether this will happen or not, only time will tell. But what its telling us now is that Bitcoin has already increased 50x over the last 12 month.

</comment><comment><USER8> I've splurged on tiny things and donations over the years with my old CPU- mined bitcoins. I'd completely forgotten about my wallet until things started getting crazy at $300 a week or so ago (was it that short?).

I was lucky enough to find 1.02BTC still sitting there, and now I can only hope that I can get Coinbase to verify my bank account before anything pops.

<comment><USER9> I too have the feeling that this is the peak but when I think about why, I don't have any reason other than this is the highest price to date. With a relatively small total valuation you're susceptible high volatility. Bitcoin has had lots of peaks and valleys but over its brief history. But, the peaks have always been higher than the valleys. Is there any reason to suspect this trend to stop? I think the underlying driving force for the overall increae in valuation is the adoption of bitcoin as currency. As far as I can tell, this is increasing pretty rapidly and will most likely continue increaseing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Where has it been nearing $700? [https://btc-e.com/](https://btc-e.com/) reports a high of $595

<comment><USER11> btcchina.com - high of $801 (¥4879)! See [http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/](http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/)

Also coinbase.com - high of $660 a few hours ago

<comment><USER12> This kinda suggests there is a huge arbitrage potential, no?

<comment><USER11> Yes. And there are people who make a living off arbitraging Bitcoin exchanges.

The usual arbitrage risks apply here: the Bitcoin exchange rate might vary during the time it takes to wire money in and out of various exchanges.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I just sold my pet Bitcoin that I bought for $80 a while back. This is getting crazy, I wonder who the buyers are?

<comment><USER14> Saw it at $600 today and sold mine too. Made enough to pay rent, not to mention the other odd things I've gotten with my BTC over the past 2 years... it was fun, but I think I'm done with it.

I'd also like to know who is buying IN at this point. Anyone on HN have some insight?

<comment><USER15> I bought about a week ago. Of course, it was at $315 then, not ~$600. I'd like to buy more, but I'm not made of money.

<comment><USER16> If I were you I would be very carefully looking at who is buying those things. If there is no large institutional holder or significant amount of new users - current bubble is another speculative bubble (who could have guessed?).

TL:DR bitcoin always went through successively larger bubbles. Without very hard evidence I would believe that current price is result of bubble as well. Also, is there a reliable way to short bitcoins?

<comment><USER9> What does "result of a bubble" mean?

<comment><USER16> Means people are buying bitcoins not for their inherent value, but rather in order to sell them later at a higher price. When this happens everyone is waiting until value top's off. Sooner or later moment comes when some portion of holders decides to sell. Other people see price dropping and try to sell their bitcoins as well causing bubble to burst and price to drop significantly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Perhaps it is time to roll out alternative crypto-currency. Bitcoin has way too much attention and speculation.

<comment><USER18> so.. you think much less liquidity and turnover in a currency will help solidify its value (and keep the bid/ask spread tight)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> You can cancel on Coinbase? Why was I never able to find this option?

</comment><comment><USER19> Is anyone operating a reliable bitcoin options market?

<comment><USER20> bitfinex

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Anyone want to sell me 1 BTC over PayPal? Its really hard for us Canadians to purchase bitcoin here :( The hoops are ridiculous.

<comment><USER22> Where exactly in Canada are you? Also, have you tried cavirtex.com?

<comment><USER21> So, I called Cavirtex, and they put you on hold saying there are 6 people in line then you just get a fixed voice mail anyway. Apparently there aren't any real phone reps at cavirtex. Disappointing.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why does Facebook require 2 admins to add a Company, even if sole prop.? - <AUTHOR>

I'm trying to setup Facebook Audience Network for my iOS apps, and Facebook wants me to register a new company entity.  After choosing a company type of "Individual (Sole Proprietor)", the 4th tab in their form asks for Admins, plural.
They won't let me make a company unless I have at least two admin users attached to it?!  I tried a few support cases to get past this, but they say it's for "data security purposes".  Um.  There's just me.  I don't want to make a fake user here...
Does anybody know why facebook would insist on this? <comment><USER2> If you absolutely cannot get around it, perhaps it would work if you made me an Admin.

I'm a sole proprietor too. I don't yet have a Facebook Company page, but I do plan to make one soon. Then I'll face the same problem, so we can be Admins for each other.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have a company page, and I did not run into that issue. Is this something new? I made a company page last year.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not a company page, a company entity as part of the facebook audience network, in order to get paid. It's on app details for the app you're trying to get into FAN.</comment></comment>


LastPass No Longer Listed on the Chrome Web Store - <AUTHOR> https://www.ghacks.net/2020/01/23/lastpass-no-longer-listed-on-the-chrome-web-store/ <comment><USER2> I think we are better off writing our own tool and host it on our own server(s), if no one knows about it, no one can hack it or "accidentally" remove the app/extension. I don't mind using an opensource/free toolkits to build our own password managers though.</comment>


Ask HN: How much would you pay for the domain test.com? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I would pay about 15$ and two bowls of ramen.

But this is not the price resellers are asking for...

[http://dnpric.es/stats/stats-by-length/?sl=4](http://dnpric.es/stats/stats- by-length/?sl=4)

<comment><USER3> I don't get why people pay $7mil for a domain and abandon the website later. Check beer.com, it doesn't work at all.

<comment><USER4> They'll sell it to someone else for more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not what I would pay, but from what I've observed 4 letter words usually go anywhere from 50k-1mil+.

</comment><comment><USER6> I would pay nothing. A nefarious advertiser would probably pay above $100k.

</comment><comment><USER7> 3.5$</comment>


Who Can Name the Bigger Number? - <AUTHOR> http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html# <comment><USER2> Previously (9x, most recently 100 days ago), <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5086437></comment>