American Mercenaries Were Hired to Assassinate Politicians in the Middle East - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/aramroston/mercenaries-assassination-us-yemen-uae-spear-golan-dahlan?fbclid=IwAR08TqB-uGvRrRsnylMTMTiHmvuPEdQ0hj0xFSBSH3tT4SN9S3VBNqf4nbA <comment><USER2> This is one of the reasons I refused to become a merc after the Corps. I knew guys that were getting payed 160k tax free for this type of stuff, but there was always something deep inside that told me it would not be worth it and that it conflicted with my dedication to the principles of the constitution. I'm glad I stayed away. Eventually the merc business was saturated and the pay dropped dramatically anyway.

<comment><USER3> Hmm. SDE at Facebook for $250K, or life-risking merc in Yemen for $160K albeit tax free. Tough call.

<comment><USER2> Many of the guys getting that 160 would never be the type to be able to make 250 in SV. Being good at killing doesn't exactly translate well to the civilian world job market... though it is a specialized skillet that not just anybody can do. I'm lucky I had computers as a backup. Many combat vets aren't so lucky and it can make the transition to civilian life very hard.

<comment><USER4> Many of the top security staff at FB are ex SS and vets. They hire a lot of military.

<comment><USER5> Ex Schutzstaffel?

<comment><USER6> Secret Service, presumably

<comment><USER4> Clearly. However, given the amount of time since WWII and the fact that the secret service is the only "SS" to be hiring out of in this time period, it's a waste of time being a stickler and pseudo-offended thinking one might be calling people literal Nazis...

Regardless of how unscrupulous FB may or may not be.

<comment><USER7> That is a very US-centric view though. The poster that mentioned it has an eu domain and given that this is a global site it isn't out of the realm of possibilities that they honestly did not know of the Secret Service.

<comment><USER8> I agree. I'm from Europe, I've heard about the Secret Service, but I didn't think about them when seeing SS.

<comment><USER4> Im american, talking about american politics and american companies on an american website based in my home area of silicon valley... i dont think i should be required to think "i wonder how non americans will take this comment" especially given that my expectation of those on HN as being a bit more sophisticated than pedestrian, so im not going to prefilter in that regard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Spear Operations Group, according to three sources, arranged for the UAE to give military rank to the Americans involved in the mission, which might provide them legal cover."

"Aside from moral objections, for-profit targeted assassinations add new dilemmas to modern warfare. Private mercenaries operate outside the US military's chain of command, so if they make mistakes or commit war crimes, there is no clear system for holding them accountable. If the mercenaries had killed a civilian in the street, who would have even investigated?"

In this case the questions have easy answers. Some country recognized the individuals as having a rank in their military, and they were on a mission sanctioned by that country. Thus it is the same as if any other soldier from that country had committed such actions (accident, target, otherwise).

However that does highlight other questions.

        What is a country?
        What is the distinction between warriors:
        * for a country in an official capacity?
        * Is an external entity fulfilling an official contract acting in such a capacity? (Historically, yes)
        * for a country in a resistance capacity?
        * for an entity not recognized as a country in any possible capacities?
        * fighting for their own sense of honor/justice?

In the easy cases it might be possible to judge the relative morally correct side by the actions of those involved. In an absolute sense if all were to suddenly act in ways perceived as good and respectful that would be good overall. In another the minimum required force to remove the unjust from the power to inflict that upon others would also be justice. Yet it is also important to ask why they have this power and are tolerated; solving those issues is surely the longer term justice.

<comment><USER10> > In the easy cases it might be possible to judge the relative morally correct > side by the actions of those involved.

In fact this is extremely easy. Any person who murdered another person has done an immoral action, no matter how many layers of bureaucracy it's been dressed up in.

<comment><USER11> Are you advocating for the military to not exist?

<comment><USER12> If the military didn't exist there would be no need for the military to exist, except possibly as a specialised civil emergency service.

This would free up more than $1.5tn annually.

If we got rid of nation states at the same time, we might actually start to get something interesting done as a species.

<comment><USER13> And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon.

'No military anywhere' seems to be a trivially unstable equilibrium. If nobody has any military and some group of people decide to create one and use force to dominate their neighbors, how exactly does anyone stop them?

Even if 99.99% of the world would prefer to not have any military and keep it that way, all it takes is a tiny minority of defectors from the norm.

> If we got rid of nation states at the same time

Right, so how do you resolve disagreements when people want different things? Should we have a world democracy, where China and India get about half the total vote? Would you be comfortable ceding some political control to people who may have _sharply_ divergent values from you, including on this very topic?

<comment><USER10> > If nobody has any military and some group of people decide to create one and > use force to dominate their neighbors, how exactly does anyone stop them?

Just because some people might do it doesn't mean you need to do it as well. If killing people is wrong, it's still wrong even when you're the one doing it.

> Would you be comfortable ceding some political control to people who may > have sharply divergent values from you, including on this very topic?

This is literally how democracy already works.

<comment><USER11> > This is literally how democracy already works.

Wrong. We are able to elect our leaders through our democratic process specifically because we are able to protect ourselves from autocratic regimes coming in and taking over. "Get rid of the military" is an idealistic view that does not take into account the reality that countries will always have different views, ideas, and opinions, and will fight for what they believe in. Before the military, there were militias.

<comment><USER10> > > This is literally how democracy already works.

> Wrong.

What I meant by that is that _most_ people have sharply divergent values from me. I'm used to ceding political control to people I fundamentally disagree with.

<comment><USER14> > I'm used to ceding political control to people I fundamentally disagree > with.

Have any instances of "ceding political control" involved violations of your bodily autonomy or food security? If not, then the "sharply divergent values" are relatively minor compared to historical conflicts among peoples.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Given all the talk of tech companies (like Buzzfeed) taking Saudi money, and the actual public assassination of a reporter by the Saudis in the last week, I find it really coincidental and convenient that an article is released right now talking about US assassinations in the Mid East.

<comment><USER16> The Saudis probably. A not so subtle demonstration of their ability to air our dirty laundry if we get too upset about them offing that journalist.

<comment><USER17> You know, it's possible for there to be two simultaneous wrongs. We can be outraged by both of them at the same time.

<comment><USER16> > _We can be outraged by both of them at the same time..._

They don't care if we, the people of the US, are outraged.

Their goal is to get the _government_ of the US to back off.

And they are probably trying to do that by firing this shot across the bow of the government of the US. They likely have proof that ties the government of the US to many such actions across the MidEast region.

<comment><USER18> This story involves the UAE, who are Saudi allies, so don't think so.

<comment><USER19> I'd say they're reluctant allies. The article also mentions that the guy they were supposed to be assassinating found refuge in Saudi Arabia after the botched attempt, so clearly he was not the type of guy the Saudis wanted dead.

> The reason, a spokesperson for Al-Islah said in a phone interview, is that > Mayo is alive — he had left the building 10 minutes before the attack and as > of July was living in Saudi Arabia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> >>> If the [American] mercenaries had killed a civilian in the street, who would have even investigated?

Like what?... is the U.S. government the ultimate arbiter of actions of Americans overseas? Like is there no "local" rule of law? Clearly the jurisdiction is the country where assassinations and collateral damage occur. The country may have inadequate resources to investigate and prosecute, or may not have the "moral standing" to do so adequately, but quit the American myopia already. What a stupid question.

<comment><USER21> Actually, the USA claims "extraterritorial jurisdiction" on some laws concerning citizens.

It's a crime for a US citizen to commit murder out of the country. The situations this comes up seem rare, but it happens. The mercenaries in this article got UAE military ranks explicitly to avoid this.

Another instance that sadly comes up more often is sexual offenses involving children. If you engage in child prostitution in a foreign country even where it's "legal"/illegal-but-not-enforced you can be prosecuted and jailed on your return to the US.

Collecting evidence for these extraterritorial offenses must be harder though. Would be interesting if these offenses can even be used for extradition.

Some links:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/us/us-is-now-pursuing- ame...](https://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/us/us-is-now-pursuing-americans- who-commit-sex-crimes-overseas.html)

[https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us- fede...](https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law- extraterritorial-sexual-exploitation-children)

18 U.S.C. §956 - "Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons or damage property in a foreign country" - [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956)

<comment><USER22> Also bribery.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Having spent several years deployed to the Middle East stories like this always seem to be somewhat difficult to navigate. I seriously considered going back overseas as a contractor (IT) after my deployments, but in the end it just wasn't a good fit for me.

In this case, it looks like the problem here is that the UAE wants to pay someone to kill "terrorists" for them, and the US is either ignoring, or somewhat supporting, the conflict in Yemen. There isn't an easy solution to that problem, but a good start IMO would be to get the US out of the ME political games, because no one is innocent in those.

<comment><USER24> Who define terrorists? you? if you ever seen what happen in Yemen is definitely UAE and Saudi are the terrorists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I have no idea what the laws are around this. If the US military offers me, a civilian, $10,000 to murder some guy in Syria, and I do it, and it comes to light, should I expect to get sued? Prosecuted? Am I protected by any treaties?

<comment><USER21> Assuming you're not actually in the military...if there was sufficient evidence I believe you could get prosecuted on your return to the US. The mercenaries in the article got UAE military ranks to avoid this.

18 U.S.C. §956 - "Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons or damage property in a foreign country" - [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956)

Conversely, if you're a foreign citizen but you murder a US citizen while abroad, that's a crime in the US and you'd be jailed if they could ever get you here.

18 U.S.C. §1119 - "Foreign murder of United States nationals" - [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1119](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1119)

<comment><USER26> He can also expect prosecution in the target country.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Why do we tolerate mercenaries at all? Obvious moral issues aside they also shrink our much cheaper pool of soldiers. Shouldn't any government strongly deter its citizens from doing mercenary work? As a civilian I don't want to encounter people like this on my daily life. If want them locked up like any other murderer.

<comment><USER28> How are mercenaries different than regular soldiers? One is directly employed by the government, one is contracted by the government. Other commenters here have shown the contractors are nearly entirely defensive anyways.

<comment><USER27> Economically: we pay soldiers comparatively little. Not sure if that's good or bad but it's certainly different for mercenaries.

Morally: it's different to kill because you volunteered to defend your country than because you need some money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> only tangentially related but I have always thought that Executive Outcomes is such an ominous and great name..

</comment><comment><USER30> Snake wasn't lying when he said "War has changed". Mercenaries are as old as war itself but this type of operation seems like its on a completely different level.

Post WW2 it seems like most conflicts are being fought via guerrilla warfare. When you have a theatre of war that essentially a couple of rural provinces having some skilled American soldiers with a decade of experience of war seems highly valuable.

</comment><comment><USER31> Wow, what a cluster-F of an operation, I often think these guys are overrated. Also, Green Berets don't have much in the way of experience or training on these specific kinds of things, in fact very, very few American forces will. I hope these guys are sanctioned back in the US.

<comment><USER29> Seals do a lot of direct action. Someone more qualified should explain how much direct action they do.

I think a lot.

<comment><USER31> Not only are there very, very few Seals, an even smaller fraction of them have ever actually done anything like this. Also Green Berets are way more towards 'Army' than anything like this.

The US forces do not run around knocking off people like this very often.

Now I don't have hyper specific insight, but I'll bet $1000 that not even Seals do 'explosive based drive-by assassinations' either. Because it's just not in the playbook.

Regular forces, Green Berets, Rangers etc. have nothing to do with this kind of stuff.

I have military experience, though not American, and I don't keep up with it.

<comment><USER32> Isn't this what SAD/SOG would be doing?

<comment><USER31> I really don't think Western powers are in the assassination business at all, at least not anymore. Unless they are 'wanted' type bad guys, like hardcore terrorists. There are so many ways for it to fallout. That explosion for example, what a bunch of idiots, they almost killed themselves ... and can you imagine if there were children? Most US journalists and pretty much _all_ foreign journalists would want that scoop of a story, and they're smart. I mean - this video got out ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> _The team began to develop what Gilmore called "esprit de corps." They flew a makeshift flag featuring a skull and crossed swords — a kind of Jolly Roger on a black background — and painted that emblem onto their military vehicles and their living quarters._

Sounds like something a bunch of teenagers would do after reading _Soldier of Fortune_ magazine, but these are grown, highly trained professional soldiers without any real oversight, or, it seems, moral compass.

If you have 30 minutes, read "The Crimes of SEAL Team 6" (1). It goes very much against the "good guys" media narrative that emerged after the OBL raid and Captain Phillips rescue. Many members have joined such elite units for noble reasons and served with honor, but there is also an undercurrent of savage brutality in some units that was not only tolerated, but even encouraged:

 _Some of those photographs, especially those taken of casualties from 2005 through 2008, show deceased enemy combatants with their skulls split open by a rifle or pistol round at the upper forehead, exposing their brain matter. The foreign fighters who suffered these V-shaped wounds were either killed in battle and later shot at close range or finished off with a security round while dying. Among members of SEAL Team 6, this practice of desecrating enemy casualties was called "canoeing."

The canoeing photos are dramatic documentary evidence of the extreme and unnecessary violence that began to occur during multiple high-risk, exhausting, and traumatizing tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. "There is and was no military reason whatsoever to split someone's skull open with a single round," said a former SEAL Team 6 leader. "It's sport."

The former SEAL Team 6 leader said that he first noticed canoeing in 2004, and that it does occur accidentally on the battlefield, but rarely. He said canoeing became "big" in 2007. "I'd look through the post-op photos and see multiple canoes on one objective, several times a deployment," the retired SEAL said. When SEAL Team 6 operators were occasionally confronted about the desecration, the SEAL leader said, they'd often joke that they were just "great shots."

... During the first deployments in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it was common practice to take fingers, scalp, or skin from slain enemy combatants for identification purposes. One former SEAL Team 6 leader told me that he feared the practice would lead to members of the unit using the DNA samples as an excuse to mutilate and desecrate the dead. By 2007, when Howard and Red Squadron showed up with their hatchets in Iraq, internal reports of operators using the weapons to hack dead and dying militants were provided to both the commanding officer of SEAL Team 6 at that time, Capt. Scott Moore, and his deputy, Capt. Tim Szymanski.

Howard, who declined to answer questions from The Intercept, rallied his SEALs and others before missions and deployments by telling them to "bloody the hatchet." One SEAL I spoke with said that Howard's words were meant to be inspirational, like those of a coach, and were not an order to use the hatchets to commit war crimes. Others were much more critical. Howard was often heard asking his operators whether they'd gotten "blood on your hatchet" when they returned from a deployment. Howard's distribution of the hatchets worried several senior SEAL Team 6 members and some CIA paramilitary officers who worked with his squadron._

[https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal- team-...](https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-6/)

<comment><USER34> To be honest, I find this kind of article deeply hypocritical. People die in wars, brutally, horribly, and special forces are normally comprised of psychopaths. The fact remains that they cause less civilian casualties than any other kind of politics by other means. If you are going to fight wars, it would be far better to train more people to be the kind of psychopaths that like to disfigure corpses and carry around strings of ears, than to do 'impersonal' drone strikes, or worse still, sanctions - which sound very soft, but ultimately kill far more, and with a far more brutal selectivity, than war itself.

<comment><USER35> I found the article very interesting (and depressing) but agree with the direction of your sentiment. The article even starts with the Seals being upset about an airstike being called on the wedding party convoy as they thought it was going to cause a larger loss of life than a targeted operation (it did).

I'm sure some psychopaths manage to get into the special forces but I think the majority of these people are just trying to cope with the job they're doing. I read this as a lot of myth making on the part of the Seals to justify what could very easily be seen as straight up murder. By disassociating with reality and instead living a borrowed Native American persona, they're in a way protecting their mental health from the horrible acts they're committing and witnessing.

In the end though I think you're right. Hearing about the details of this stuff on a human level is horrifying but it's more humane to do targeted actions like this then wipe out whole city blocks with bombs or cut off food supplies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Excerpt from the end of the article:

> For his part, Gilmore said he "would have preferred that this stay off the > radar." But he decided to speak to BuzzFeed News because "once this comes > out there's no way that I'm going to stay out of it, so I'd prefer to own > it. And I'm not going to try to hide from what I did."

> "It's still," he said, "some variety of the future of warfare."

> Gilmore is out of the mercenary business. He has since found himself in > another gray-zone line of work, albeit one that's far less dangerous. He > said he's with a California company that plans to make cannabis oil for > vaporizers.

</comment><comment><USER37> It sounds like the main source of this story is the owner of the private mercenary company. It seems like he thinks publicizing his teams actions will some how drum up business.

</comment><comment><USER38> No. This is bullshit. I am telling you, from personal experience, that there are claims in this article that are completely bullshit, and stand out as being completely bullshit. Whoever this "journalist" is writing about has sold Buzzfeed quite a cool story, bro. I'm not doubting that assassinations are carried out by mercenaries, which is not even a little bit unusual historically. I only skimmed the last third of the article because it's such outlandishly bad and wholly unbelievable storytelling. And as someone that spent more than a couple of years looking at the universe through black hot thermal, something about that footage is not quite right. I could spend hours unraveling the tall tale Buzzfeed has spun here for you all today. Just a few of the claims that are outright false or smack heavily of exaggerated bullshit:

"... the US doesn't ban mercenaries. And with some exceptions, it is perfectly legal to serve in foreign militaries, whether one is motivated by idealism or money. With no legal consequences ..." False. Totally false. You jeopardize your American citizenship by serving in a foreign military ranked as an NCO or above. It is the _exception_ to do this without huge problems and _not_ the norm. For example serving in the IDF as part of your Return. I know because I personally had an offer to join an allied European military in order to take a teaching position at their infantry school. And the US government is putting people in jail that went to fight in Syria and Iraq with e.g. PKK.

"If the [reserve special forces] soldiers are not on active duty, he added, they are not obligated to report what they're doing." 100% false. You need a waiver signed by your chain of command (up through battalion commander) to do anything remotely like this, which would absolutely need to be approved, taking security contractor work like this, overseas. You _absolutely_ are obligated not just to report to your chain of command but to get a waiver. I know because I personally have friends that did contracting work while in the guard, and I know the hoops they had to jump through.

"During a live-fire training mission he led, back in his Navy days, he says he accidentally shot another SEAL." You couldn't "choose to leave the Navy" after that. This would be a _huge_ fucking problem. Probably a discharge. Possibly jail time.

"the number of special operations forces has more than doubled since 9/11, from 33,000 to 70,000. That's a vast pool of crack soldiers selected, trained, and combat-tested by the most elite units of the US military" Seventy thousand _maybe_ if you include all of the REMF POGs doing paperwork, but nobody could reasonably call these people "crack soldiers" and compare them to an 18B.

It looks like Buzzfeed as been Buzzfed. Somebody sold them a story that is almost certainly equal parts unbelievable exaggeration and complete and total bullshit. And even if the footage is real -- and I do not believe it is 100% genuine -- they're deliberately zooming in on the area where the "mercenary" is firing his weapon in order to obscure what appear to be rounds landing at his feet. It looks like he's provoked into firing. Do not believe anything these people are telling you. It is almost certainly invented for clicks or some other reason.

<comment><USER39> It's actually quite difficult to lose your US citizenship these days. Per U.S. Code § 1481, it's not sufficient to merely serve in a foreign military, you need to do it " _with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality_ ".

What's more, per (b) there's an explicit presumption of what amounts to innocent until proven guilty: the onus is on whoever is claiming you've lost your citizenship to prove that you voluntarily intended to lose it, which is really quite hard to do unless you renounced in front of a US consular officer.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481)

<comment><USER38> Actually, swearing fealty to another nation's military by swearing in, in fact, counts as intending to relinquish your US nationality. I have had this discussion with people working in multiple different American consulates, because as I mentioned, I was offered a position teaching at a European infantry school which would have required me to join their military.

<comment><USER39> Nope.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relinquishment_of_United_State...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relinquishment_of_United_States_nationality#Serving_in_a_foreign_military)

Or if you want an authoritative source:

[https://fam.state.gov/FAM/07FAM/07FAM1270.html](https://fam.state.gov/FAM/07FAM/07FAM1270.html)

<comment><USER38> You're not a citizenship lawyer, I'm assuming, and you're just grabbing these links from (bad) cursory google searching, because this must be some kind of joke? Are you actually reading the links you are posting? I think you haven't actually read them. Both of these links support my assertions. Also, you obviously have _zero_ experience with immigration and citizenship law, and how it works at the consular level. From your very own links:

"... provides for relinquishment through 'entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state' if either the person serves 'as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer' ... "

I suppose then you have no real-world experience with any of this (or anything like this) and so cannot otherwise provide anything to support your position. So let me help define some terms for you. A "commissioned or non-commissioned officer" \-- what I called "an NCO or above" \-- is essentially anyone higher ranking than a common soldier. If you serve in this position, the consular officer you report this to gets to make the call on whether or not this constitutes relinquishing citizenship _and every consulate I talked to said it would mean relinquishing citizenship_. This is the power of the consulate: They make decisions with _recommendations_ from the government. Since you don't have any experience with this first-hand, and you don't understand the implication, that means you won't be afforded the opportunity to challenge or appeal the decision, since you won't have ready access to the American court system.

<comment><USER39> Not a lawyer (are you?), but I do maintain a keen interest in nationality law. Italics mine:

"...the Department of State adopted the administrative presumption found in 22 CFR 50.40 that a U.S. citizen/noncitizen national _intends to retain U.S. nationality when he or she commits certain expatriating acts_. That administrative presumption is in the process of being revised in 22 CFR Part 50, and _includes when a U.S. citizen serves as a commissioned or noncommissioned officer of a foreign state_ , not engaged in hostilities against the United States (INA 349(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3))."

In other words, even if you serve as a officer or NCO of a foreign country, the Department of State will _not_ consider this an expatriating act causing loss of citizenship, unless that country is at war with the US.

See also 7 FAM 1222 for more details of the "administrative presumption" in question:

"...in 1990 the Department adopted the administrative presumption found in 22 CFR 50.40 that a U.S. citizen/noncitizen national intends to retain U.S. nationality when he or she commits certain expatriating acts. That administrative presumption is in the process of being revised in 22 CFR Part 50, and includes when a U.S. citizen:

(3) Serves in the armed services of a foreign state as a commissioned or noncommissioned officer of a foreign state, not engaged in hostilities against the United States (INA 349(a)(3))"

[https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1220.html#M1222](https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1220.html#M1222)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I found funny to see that link right in the middle of the article:

[https://bzfd.it/mercenaries](https://bzfd.it/mercenaries)

</comment><comment><USER40> American private military companies like this one and Blackwater need to be abolished.

<comment><USER41> We've had mercenaries since the Pharaohs of Egypt. Its as likely to work as abolishing prostitution, politics, or drinking.

<comment><USER40> Mercenaries may always exist, but American ones don't have to. Participation in them should be made illegal, and all these private military companies should forbidden to operate until they find another line of business or liquidate themselves. If some former soldier or former general wants to become a mercenary, let him renounce his citizenship and go find a new home.

The only military forces in the US should be explicit parts of official US military.

<comment><USER42> Its a curious job - murder for hire? I don't think it actually is legal in the US.

<comment><USER43> Given that the US is not, in fact, at war with Yemen, it doesn't seem to be legal _outside_ the US for US citizens or people within US jurisdiction when doing any planning, etc., related to it; see, U.S. Code tit. 18, ch. 45, particularly §§ 956, 958, and 960.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-45](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-45)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Of course, why would we outsource something that sensitive?

</comment><comment><USER45> Seems to me like the only terrorists in this story are the American mercenaries and UAE government that hired them.

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm not sure what is particularly surprising in this article. Surely if somebody is working as a warrior for hire, than people would hire them to do warrior stuff. Is the point here that the particular mercs are ex-US Army soldiers? In this case, I wonder if one has acquired a particular set of skills (yeah, I know, the movie reference) in the Army, and wants to monetize them in civilian market, what would be the better option? I mean, assassinations of course is not a good way of earning money, and certainly immoral in most cases, but as you can, regrettably, expect a certain number of trained software security professionals to become criminals, so you can expect from warfare specialists? Is there any way around it?

<comment><USER47> That is some laid back attitude to murder. Are you also cool with the "warriors" "monetizing" their skills in the US " civilian market" ?

<comment><USER46> > That is some laid back attitude to murder. No, I specifically pointed out it > being immoral, and criminal. Though being engaged in war or warlike > scenarios, one can expect that certain situations would require > confrontation that ultimately can get people killed. This is what happens in > war. This is why armies exist. And if it's legitimate for US Army, why isn't > it legitimate for UAE Army? And if certain person can kill other people > under the star-spangled banner, why the same person can't do it under other > flags? Of course there are unjust wars, but I don't see how anything changes > whether it's under US flag or UAE flag.

> Are you also cool with the "warriors" "monetizing" their skills in the US > "civilian market" ?

Depends on how they monetize them. If it's a justified self-defense (e.g. somebody tries to assassinate a prominent political figure, her security detail reacts and kills the assassin) - sure, if it's aggression (somebody hires ex-military to assassinate a prominent political figure) - not so much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> how is this news?

</comment><comment><USER49> I know that the novelty of Buzzfeed delivering hard-hitting journalism has been known for the last three or so years already, but this is one hell of a heavy subject for them to be reporting on.

<comment><USER50> This is not the Buzzfeed of old. This story is something you'd expect from the NY Times or the Washington Post.

<comment><USER51> I believe the difference is this is BuzzFeed News, not BuzzFeed. BuzzFeed News, from what I understand, is fairly solid. BuzzFeed itself keeps the lights on, because hard hitting news doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> What the hell?! Isn't this what we pay the CIA for? I mean seriously, what are my black-ops tax dollars funding these days?

<comment><USER53> > what are my black-ops tax dollars funding these days?

Domestic propaganda

<comment><USER54> Well done, cwkoss. Well done. That is all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I wonder what would have Senator John McCain thought about this program? Miss him.

<comment><USER56> does his track record indicate he was particularly anti this?

<comment><USER57> it does, yes. he was very against the privatization of the military and intelligence services

<comment><USER43> He was against the privatization of certain US military and intelligence functions, but I'm not aware of him being against foreign states hiring US military or intelligence contractors for similar functions.

<comment><USER58> Privatization of military functions was a _key_ reason for the downfall of the Roman Republic. Troops became loyal to generals, not to the Republic herself, as the general became the paymaster/generator of funds. The echos are getting louder.

<comment><USER59> > _The echos are getting louder_

These mercenaries are closer to Crassus hiring legions to fight a foreign war moreso than Caesar or Sulla marching on Rome. American firepower is predominantly state owned and loyal to its civilian leadership. These mercenaries are a liability because they make America look bad, _not_ because they pose even an intermediate threat to American military power.

<comment><USER58> True!

A good look into this further is Mike Duncan's _The Storm before the Storm_ that leads into the Sulla era: [https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Before-Beginning- Roman-Republic...](https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Before-Beginning-Roman- Republic/dp/1610397215)

Duncan's _The History of Rome_ podcast is very good overall and very much worth a listen.

<comment><USER59> Thank you! I have always had a strange fascination with Sulla–as a man, a politician and a general. Appreciate the book and podcast references.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I'm guessing this is in the news because of the Khashoggi murder. An important point here is that this was orchestrated by the UAE government, and the Americans involved were private individuals who were not operating with any kind of sanction or approval from the US government.

<comment><USER61> > not operating with any kind of sanction or approval from the US government.

Not officially, no, but if US intelligence isn't keeping track of them they're not doing their job properly, and I doubt they would be allowed to attack US- allied targets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Can't say how good or bad those mercenaries were but I can definitely say that the info coming from the UAE intelligence services was dog-s.it. For instance, they were not even able to correctly spell the name of the Toyota Hilux, they mis-spelled it as "Haloux" (?!?). ([https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed- static/static/2018-10/15/1...](https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed- static/static/2018-10/15/15/asset/buzzfeed-prod-web-01/sub- buzz-10774-1539633470-14.jpg?downsize=800:*&output-format=auto&output- quality=auto))

I'm pretty sure that an intelligence-gathering organization that cannot spell/remember the name of one of the most used Toyota models in the Middle East is not good at providing correct geo-coordinates or the target's meeting times.

<comment><USER62> It's a transliteration from Arabic.

<comment><USER19> Apparently they also transliterated the meeting hour of their target's wrong.</comment></comment></comment>


Drawing isometric boxes in the correct order - <AUTHOR> http://shaunlebron.github.io/IsometricBlocks/ <comment><USER2> Great explanation for a generally messy problem!

Just one thought because I spent some time thinking about this type of problem before deciding to do it a different way in my own work:

If you use an orthographic projection and just actually draw 3-D boxes, this problem becomes trivial, including the intertwined boxes problem, because the GPU will take care of it at a per-pixel level with the Z-buffer.

Of course this also means you're suddenly working in 3-D, which complicates other things. But you can still use 2-D textures by picking the right texture coordinates for the vertices on the box.

These days it usually makes a lot of sense to be doing 2-D stuff using a 3-D engine/library anyway, if only for access to hardware accelerated post- processing and hardware accelerated layering/compositing, in which case using actual boxes on a tilted camera and using "no projection" for your HUD/UI works pretty well.

<comment><USER3> A z-buffer solution will not help as soon as you involve transparency. Which I'd assume is the case in 99℅ of applications. Unless your application/game is all boxes :)

<comment><USER4> No, transparency is actually quite rare in games, for pretty much this exact reason, and outside of games is rare to have more than one or two layers of transparency.

The typical method is to draw all opaque objects first with zbuffering enabled. Then sort all the remaining trasnparent objects by depth and draw them from back to front

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was very glad to find this page earlier this week, after scratching my head while implementing an isometric renderer for a client. I had assumed it would be a simple back-to-front order, but this page and a few others pointed out that the partial ordering required to 1) use an intersection test to build disjoint sets of confused objects, 2) use a pairwise order test to determine inter-object dependencies, 3 ) use a topological sort to resolve the ultimate drawing order.

This method was implemented in some fantastic 1980s computer games, and the developer had named their technique "Filmation". Here's a discussion of that system, plus a demo of the rendering bug caused by not bothering to break dependency cycles as discussed in the main article:

[http://bannalia.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/filmation- math.html](http://bannalia.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/filmation-math.html)

(also I just found another with a load more details on the Filmation games: [http://retrospec.sgn.net/users/nwalker/filmation/](http://retrospec.sgn.net/users/nwalker/filmation/))

<comment><USER6> I'm still reading through the article, but can you give an example of why rendering all the blocks ordered[0] by (min x, min y, min z) lexicographically doesn't work[1]? I thought the sophistications is necessary for performance only, i.e. not drawing anything that doesn't appear in the final result.

[0] Assuming (0, 0, 0) it's in the middle at the top of the screen.

[1] Assuming this is what you meant by "simple back-to-front".

<comment><USER7> Elongated boxes may not be sorted correctly no matter which point you use (min, max, center).

<comment><USER6> What do you mean by elongated box?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you're interested in this topic, Andrew Russell recently wrote a blog post and made a video about how they sort sprites in River City Ransom Underground. It's even more complicated because the sprites aren't necessarily simple boxes.

[http://andrewrussell.net/2016/06/how-2-5d-sorting-works- in-r...](http://andrewrussell.net/2016/06/how-2-5d-sorting-works-in-river- city-ransom-underground/)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssrkq6_6JYU&t=8m48s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssrkq6_6JYU&t=8m48s)

<comment><USER9> Thanks, this is very interesting! I added it to the article.

The only difference is that bounding boxes are still used for sprites, but he adds a sort of voxel heightmap inside of it to represent occupied volume.

> heightmap: > [https://youtu.be/Ssrkq6_6JYU?t=15m21s](https://youtu.be/Ssrkq6_6JYU?t=15m21s)

If you imagine this heightmap as a building with multiple floors (e.g. 1st floor, 2nd floor) the algorithm takes the lowest common floor of each of these buildings and performs an intersection test between them and nothing else. This allows the sprites to interact more fluidly inside the bounding boxes! Neat.

> heightmap floors: > [https://youtu.be/Ssrkq6_6JYU?t=16m12s](https://youtu.be/Ssrkq6_6JYU?t=16m12s)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The way I have seen this commonly solved is to draw each item from back to front (highest Y value, assuming 0 at bottom of screen and >0 at top). But every item is the size of one square, or is in fact multiple items the size of 1 square which make up the larger object. It just seems like a simpler and more efficient solution and you don't need to worry about cycles.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is pretty much what we did in the Commandos games back in '97\. As explained in other posts, you can't use some simple depth metric for the entire box and z-sort them because elongated boxes will cause problems.

One of the reasons to do this instead of Z-buffering is that Zbuffer will not help with transparency, and most games with these kind of needs will use it, for antialiasing sprite edges if nothing else.

</comment><comment><USER11> What's wrong with naively drawing every box ordered by depth? This seems like a bunch of extra work for the same result?

<comment><USER12> The boxes are not necessarily cubes, so ordering them by depth of say, a central point, would not yield correct results for some edge cases (e.g. elongated boxes)

<comment><USER13> From the examples in the article, the boxes can all be broken into fairly few pieces, which are square when seen from above. Small 'cube towers'.

If you break them up like that, naive painting in order of depth should be fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Note, it's only worth going through this trouble if you are drawing boxes with a CPU only API.

If you have a GPU available, you might as well be using an orthographic projection and the depth buffer.

<comment><USER14> Even on CPU, how much overhead would a depth buffer cost?

<comment><USER4> It would basically double the memory bandwidth and cache requirements for drawing if you used a full 32bit depth buffer.

But it would probably be worth it. A 16 bit buffer would probably be good enough for isometric drawing and would be faster.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I implemented drawing of polygons orthographically quite some time ago. The output was for PDF, so I couldn't raster + zbuffer. Instead I drew all polygons back to front.

I ended up creating a BSP tree (1) for the polygons and drawing them in order according to the tree.

The problem in general with sorted back to front drawing is exactly the "Conundrum" example. However, a BSP tree will take of that, and divide at least one of the cubes in that example.

It may feel like overkill, but I would probably have done something similar in this case. Implementing BSP trees for cubes is very simple, because all planes are xy, xz, or yz.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_space_partitioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_space_partitioning)

</comment><comment><USER16> I worked on an Isometric framework for a flash project in 2009. I remember coming to an acceptable solution using axis sort and volume data. I would have killed to have a GPU available then.

</comment><comment><USER17> If you're doing isometric, then use a tile system like 90s videogames. It makes far more sense.

<comment><USER18> I was just thinking that.

If you really want an isometric look but need more complicated rendering than layered tiles, it seems like it would be much easier to do 3d rendering but lock the 'camera' into an orthographic projection mode.

Unity and Unreal Engine both have this as a built-in feature that basically just takes a checkbox, for examples off the top of my head.

<comment><USER19> Much better approach. Also because it makes rendering particles - or whatever things that won't align w/ the grid - correctly a non-issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> white-flame I'm curious as to the first implementation of this. I sat down and solved this nuisance of a problem in 2008-2009, for as3isolib. I later found a thesis by Ernir Erlingsson from around the same time period, but with a bit of a different data structure holding the objects to sort. I'm not aware of any "classic" games that do a true sort of isometric objects.

The vast majority of actual 2d isometric games use a very naive grid walking, with uniform tile sized elements. If everything moving is limited to 1 plane, then varying square footprint tiles can be used with a simple sort. However, the linked page is the "true" solution to isometric sorting, allowing any size axis-aligned rectangular solid to exist in any non-interpenetrating location in 3-space and sort correctly.

</comment><comment><USER20> I don't understand why it has to be so complicated. If you position pivot of your objects on the bottom,lowest corner of its image. Then you can start drawing them by the order of this position.

Start drawing from highest Z position to the lowest. When you have objects staying on top of each other, use order of the parent object as the drawing order for child objects.

1 rule : All buildings are only allowed occupy their own air space only. They are not allowed to have balconies over reaching to airspace of other X/Y area.

</comment><comment> chad-autry Seems just break all boxes into cubes, then draw in z index order is the best.

Also as some say, just throwing it into 3D and locking the perspective is waaaay easier on the math. For example, 2 of my own projects.

[http://chad-autry.github.io/hex-grid-map/#/demo](http://chad- autry.github.io/hex-grid-map/#/demo) vs [http://chad-autry.github.io/hex-grid- map-3D/#/demo](http://chad-autry.github.io/hex-grid-map-3D/#/demo)

</comment><comment><USER21> I may be naive but I do have some experience with isometric games and my solution was to set the index origin of each box as the top back corner (the top of the hexagon if flattened), and then order bottom-to-top, back-to-front. Then draw in order.

[http://blog.efnx.com/wp- content/uploads/2007/10/fpsExample.s...](http://blog.efnx.com/wp- content/uploads/2007/10/fpsExample.swf)

</comment><comment><USER22> Wouldn't a 'painter's algorithm'-style solution of:

      break all the shapes into boxes that can occupy only 1 space

      for height = 0 .. n:

        for <however many boxes can be displayed in a column>

          for <however many boxes can be displayed in a row>

            draw box, step to next box (x+1, y+1)

solve these problems? I'm not sure how fast it would be in practice.

<comment><USER2> The way you would do this in practice would be:

1\. Start with the abstraction that every shape is actually a group of one or more sub-shapes. (Well-understood and pretty much universally applied abstraction.)

2\. Pre-process all of your geometry so that you won't get cycles of occlusion, which is the corner case the author mentioned. If you do have a cycle, then subdivide and group as mentioned in #1.

3\. Use some fast but crude algorithm to preemptively reject non-visible shapes.

4\. Apply painter's algorithm. to "probably visible" shapes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Unless you take the voxel draw every cube approach, I can't see how you can account for every possible shape and position. Taking the last example further what if the red box continued below the purple box. The next best thing I could think of, without going 3D, was to split each box into layers.

<comment><USER24> This only works on rectangular prisms (which is the definition given for 'box' in the article.) If the red box continued below the purple one, it wouldn't be such a box anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> why not draw the individual polygons as a single batch?</comment>


Netflix Leaving Battle for Net Neutrality Shows Why We Need It - <AUTHOR> https://www.inverse.com/article/32361-netflix-reed-hastings-net-neutrality <comment><USER2> For an article that seems to be in such favor of net neutrality, the author is not making any attempt to be neutral in presenting the material.

I read the _Recode_ article this article is citing and watched the conference discussion. Here is what Hastings actually said:

 _"It's not narrowly important to us because we're big enough to get the deals we want," Hastings said._

 _This_ article presents that subtly differently, by omitting the first sentence and shifting around the context (and thereby altering the tone). It also conveniently fails to include the broader discussion in which Hastings made this statement. If you look at the actual conference dialogue, Hastings didn't outright dismiss net neutrality categorically. Rather, he was forthright in admitting that it's not a priority within the context of Netflix's current goals due to a resignation that it's not a fight worth the resources, which is far less cavalier and hypocritical than portrayed. The _Recode_ article continues with more nuanced coverage:

 _Perhaps another reason Netflix is being a little quieter about fighting to keep current net neutrality rules is that Hastings knows it's already a lost cause. His best guess at what will happen is exactly what FCC chair Ajit Pai has been hinting at: "It might be that ISPs just accept the principles [of net neutrality] and it's not enshrined formally," he said. "I think the FCC is going to unwind Title II," he added later. And he believes that it's in the ISPs' "long term interest" to respect net neutrality principles, so maybe they'll just do it on their own._

While we're at it, Hastings was also quoted saying, _"The Trump FCC is going to unwind the rules no matter what anybody says. "_

I'm not taking a side on Netflix's course of action here, but I personally feel this article presented the facts in a particularly disingenuous way. There are legitimate arguments that blindly throwing resources at fighting the FCC is an unproductive use of time and money, even if you are pro-net neutrality. You can disagree with those arguments, but it's really unfair to mischaracterize them as sympathy and hypocrisy. For those of you readying hashtags and boycotts, consider that there can be valid opposition to the FCC that looks more nuanced than, for example, Tim Cook's letter to the US government.

<comment><USER3> > he was forthright in admitting that it's not a priority within the context > of Netflix's current goals due to a resignation that it's not a fight worth > the resources

I think that's dangerously short-termist. The end of network neutrality will consume far more resources in the long term than the disarray of a resignation that will be forgotten bynext year.

Sure, they can afford the deals with carriers this year, and next. But once they're locked-in the fees will just keep rising. Why _wouldn 't_ Comcast, for example, keep raising the preferred-bits delivery fee? They'd be negligent not to do so.

I was hoping that the big Internet content-giants would ignore the pay-for- priority-delivery model that is emerging; if no-one paid for first-class delivery then the pricing model would collapse. However it seems that they'll just fall in line and accept it as a cost of business, increasing the 'cost' to their customers to compensate.

<comment><USER4> while I like some of the promises that NN supporters claim we will have I remember back to the highly regulated days of where ISDN was all that was offered outside of pricey T1 lines and only because of lack of regulation did competition arise to give me the day when I now have 1G internet.

Even getting ISDN installed was an absolute bear and I gave up while another stuck with it. Modems were fortunately getting faster but DSL didn't come to us till after cable did.

We are just as likely to get a regulated nightmare guaranteeing mediocre speeds and service at set costs the prevents anyone from wanting to jump in. Besides I really want to know why we should favor content providers over service providers? If you are going to regulate one then why not the other?

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure how we'd go about treating content providers as dumb pipes. What are you proposing there?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I dropped Netflix back when they decided to blacklist VPN IP addresses. Using a VPN address for my own country was pretty much the only way I would be able to access content without it being throttled or manipulated by my ISP.

Then they went ahead and worked with T-Mobile on Binge-On where they would throttle speeds and cap the resolution to 480p on their network which was also a troubling sign.

Unfortunately the outrage and backlash wasn't enough then as the CEO brushed it off as only a very small minority that would actually cancel over net neutrality concerns like these so it didn't make much difference.

And unfortunately, here we are today, where I'm worried it still won't make a difference.

<comment><USER7> If you were ok with Netflix DRM at some point, getting rid of VPNs is only better enforcing what they're trying to do with DRM, preventing unauthorized content access. Probably not Netflix's choice.

Binge-on is horrible, but you can opt-out completely in your T-Mobile account settings page.

Amazon had unbox for a while.. you couldn't watch Netflix on linux at all forever until Chrome on linux added DRM support. I think this was their original wrong, and they've been doubling down since.

<comment><USER8> > Probably not Netflix's choice.

Oh come on, this apologising needs to stop. Netflix joined the major DRM pushers as soon as they started producing their own content. They were the major proponents of HTML DRM. They happily apply that DRM and geoblocking to the series they produce and even more happily geoblock them as well. They've joined the other major publishers in behaviour.

This net neutrality backpedal is just another in the line of their anti- consumer move - now that preventing others from joining the market makes them profit, they'll happily throw neutrality under the bus. It was just popular as long as they were the ones screwed by the cable operators.

<comment><USER9> As far as DRM, isn't the usual spiel that when you have DRM you don't own the content you're buying? In the case of Netflix, you're explicitly not paying for content ownership, you are paying for access while you're subscribing.

I have no issues with DRM for subscription based services. For instance, I have no problem with Apple using DRM for Apple Music (subscription) and then selling music on iTunes as DRM free.

I will pay for DRMd movie rentals from Apple/Amazon but I would never pay to "own" a movie from either service.

<comment><USER8> Except of the tiny detail that you're not allowed to watch rented movies on devices that aren't completely locked down. The issue of DRM isn't just owning, it's forcing you to use a certain software stack and then disabling your paid access if the kernel/drivers/whatever differ from the few software stacks they tested.

For example Netflix video is limited to low resolutions on Linux in free browsers. You're not allowed to watch rented content on Android you modified. And more.

The added problem is that they threw a lot of money into standardization of DRM services. This now means that more and more services - even those with free and ad supported content - now stop working on systems that aren't whitelisted by Widewine or whatever DRM stack they use. With the speed of DRM adoption on the web, soon, you won't be able to watch most of streaming content on anything but fully locked down devices running a few whitelisted un-modified OSes.

And that's a problem. Losing access to most modern video content (more and more modern western culture isn't available on anything but streaming services) just because I want night mode on my phone is excessive don't you think? Why would you let your stupid show provider dictate if you can add a driver to make the devices display more pleasant for your eyes?

(And yes, I'm aware that not all restrictions are in place on all platforms yet, but take a look at BluRay AACS 2.0 DRM standard and new Android OS limitations for the directions they want to take you.)

<comment><USER9> _Except of the tiny detail that you 're not allowed to watch rented movies on devices that aren't completely locked down. The issue of DRM isn't just owning, it's forcing you to use a certain software stack and then disabling your paid access if the kernel/drivers/whatever differ from the few software stacks they tested._

And before, you weren't allowed to watch Netflix _at all_ on any PC based stack that wasn't supported for MS Silverlight. Web based DRM actually gave you more choices, not fewer.

 _For example Netflix video is limited to low resolutions on Linux in free browsers. You 're not allowed to watch rented content on Android you modified._

And that has nothing to do with web based DRM. Netflix has always run on custom clients on non-PC platforms. If they didn't have Web based DRM, what do you think is more likely? That they would make a custom app for the most popular platforms (like Sling TV) or that they would release DRM free video?

And more. _The added problem is that they threw a lot of money into standardization of DRM services. This now means that more and more services - even those with free and ad supported content - now stop working on systems that aren 't whitelisted by Widewine or whatever DRM stack they use. With the speed of DRM adoption on the web, soon, you won't be able to watch most of streaming content on anything but fully locked down devices running a few whitelisted un-modified OSes._

Video on the "open web" is not a priority for most video producers. If they wanted to DRM their content, the lack of a standard was never the issue -- they would just release apps for all of the platforms they cared about. There are plenty of DRM solutions for video on the web.

 _And that 's a problem. Losing access to most modern video content (more and more modern western culture isn't available on anything but streaming services) just because I want night mode on my phone is excessive don't you think? Why would you let your stupid show provider dictate if you can add a driver to make the devices display more pleasant for your eyes? (And yes, I'm aware that not all restrictions are in place on all platforms yet, but take a look at BluRay AACS 2.0 DRM standard and new Android OS limitations for the directions they want to take you.)_

Every company decides what consumers they want to serve. It is a free market -- they decide which consumers are worth serving and consumers decide which content they are willing to pay for and what tradeoffs they are willing to make.

<comment><USER7> Your argument is self-defeating. If you're wondering why there are no, not even one (unless you want to count gog.com/movies), drm-free video buying sites, well, you have your answer. If people are ok with DRM while-renting, well, they will be ok when buying too.

The opposite is true for games on GOG/Humble Bundle/Steam and music almost everywhere, the less DRM, the more cultural and economic value is unlocked. There is a reason why movies aren't as good as they used to be, why make better content when you can resell the same content on Netflix and Netflix 4K (let's not forget the different 4K plan).

Region locking via VPN banning, is basically another form of DRM, regardless of them doing it for their content or others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I unsubscribed from Netflix due to their backtracking on Net Neutrality. If you are an engineer at any company I would suggest organizing a walk out if your company is abandoning a free and open internet.

<comment><USER11> I will rather pay Netflix for unfree internet than have "free" internet where everything is paid by and poisoned by ads.

<comment><USER12> What you will probably end up with (and not just from Netflix) in the end is paying for unfree internet that is also encumbered by ads.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I never understood when corporations buying influence with politicians (for admittedly their own self interest) is good or bad. Is it just based on the cause? If a corporation speaks out and lobbies for policies that I agree with its fine? But if its something I don't agree with, its corporatism and corruption?

I get that net neutrality is popular among many in the tech crowd, but perhaps large corporations aren't shining nights and we shouldn't be applauding increased lobbying because their interests align with ours.

<comment><USER14> That implies that whether policies are good or bad is just a matter of opinion. Net neutrality - like combatting global warming - is to my knowledge widely regarded as having far more benefits for society than the opposite policy. So yes, it's the cause.

That being said, of course relying on corporations doing the lobbying _is_ bad. A better way would be to rely on groups like the EFF or (gasp!) MPs themselves caring for the topic.

However, we already have the EFF caring for the topic. Apparently this is not enough, otherwise no "industry alliance" wound have been needed.

<comment><USER13> I just thought that many that are concerned with corporate speech do so more on a moral ground than just disagreement on the message. I just don't see a situation in which corporate speech should be both encouraged and discouraged depending on the issue and the side of the issue the industry is on. Too easy to be manipulated

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Cancelling my subscription. Hope others do the same, this is the only way we can show businesses that they didn't get there without us.

</comment><comment><USER16> They realize that they don't have a chance with this current congress to get them to change the laws to benefit their business model.

I guess they will just have to suck it up and build some peering infrastructure.

</comment><comment><USER17> I guess it's inevitable for dominant companies to become toxic.

</comment><comment><USER18> I have unsubscribed from Netflix 1.5-2 years ago because I have watched all interesting content they had and it made no sense for me to pay them monthly anymore as I reached the point when I rarely ever opened Netflix app to watch anything.

I'd probably do the same with other similar services like HBO or Amazon Prime. Subscribe for 6 months to 1 year, watch all the content I am interested in and then cancel my subscription.

<comment><USER19> Between the Marvel shows, House of Cards, Longmire, Orange is the New Black, Bloodline, Sense8, Narcos, The Get Down, Stranger Things, A Series of Unfortunate Events, 13 Reasons Why, Master of None, Grace & Frankie, Love, Dear White People, et al, the viewing landscape of Netflix is indeed _very_ different than what it was 2 years ago.

I remember rarely launching the Netflix app for a long, long time, and constantly debating whether or not to maintain my subscription, and then they started releasing "original(ish)" content that, frankly, was pretty damn compelling.

I still go through spurts where I find difficulty finding something I want to watch right now, but recently, I'm finding that's less and less Netflix's fault relative to the other cable-cutting services.

<comment><USER20> It's well documented that the overall catalog is shrinking ([http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-catalog-size- shrinks-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-catalog-size- shrinks-2016-9)) and has been for some time.

You can't replace quality content with mediocre netflix originals. At best, 4 or 5 of those you listed are watchable, while the rest are just space fillers, trying to distracted from the loss of a huge number of popular shows.

Hulu, Amazon, HBO, etc all provide more quality content per dollar than Netflix at this point.

<comment><USER18> This is true, there are movies that used to be available on Netflix last time I was subscribed (mostly some old classics which I enjoyed rewatching from time to time) which have since been removed from the catalogue.

Another issue is outside of US the catalogue is very small. I was living in UK at the time I subscribed to Netflix and the catalogue was much smaller than US one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Sad. All I can do is #unsubscribenetflix

</comment><comment><USER22> I think it's worth keeping in mind that this is the company that poisoned HTML with DRM.

That pretty much sets the bar for what I expect from them.

<comment><USER9> Would you rather Netflix to continue using a DRMd solution controlled by one company (Microsoft) or try to work with a standards committee?

<comment><USER23> That's a false dichotomy. They don't have to do either.

<comment><USER9> Video has never been DRM free. Even in the days of VHS they had Macrovision. Video right holders have _never_ allowed their content to be delivered without copy protections.

But the larger question is, why do you care? You are not paying for ownership of the video. You are paying for access. Why shouldn't your right to access the video be limited to the time you are paying for the subscription?

<comment><USER24> It's not about the time to access the video. It's about restrictions built into software and hardware. I don't care about video access. I care about beeing in control of my software and hardware.

<comment><USER9> You are in control of your software and hardware. They never forced you to choose incompatible software and hardware.

They are also in control of their content distribution. Seems fair to me.

<comment><USER23> How am I in control of my software, if I can't use it in they way that I want? That is the opposite of being in control

<comment><USER9> Are you not in control of your PS4 software just because it can't run on an Xbox One? In either case the software you bought was not designed to run on your chosen hardware.

<comment><USER23> No, as long as they aren't purposefully trying to block. Incompatibility is an entirely different issue than DRM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This shows that corporations can't be trusted to have any principle other that "FU, I got mine."

</comment><comment><USER26> _The road to power is paved with hypocrisy and casualties

source - Their own original series _

</comment><comment><USER27> Such a shame. A blemish the otherwise stellar company will never shed.

</comment><comment><USER28> "I got mine..."

</comment><comment><USER29> Is Net Neutrality a 100% known quantity? I'm pretty sure it isn't. There are a lot of subjective considerations surrounding it and how it's perceived by both technical and non-technical people.

<comment><USER7> The current Title II framework allows the FCC to look at cases on a case by case basis exactly for this reason. If you are making all VoIP traffic faster, it's ok. If your ISP does consumer unfriendly behavior (low data caps, zero- rating some services, paid/unpaid prioritization) and enough people complain, Title II gives FCC the authority to fix it. Without it, it won't be up to FCC at all or FTC.

<comment><USER29> Consumer unfriendly behavior, your words, strongly suggests that it isn't a communications issue; rather it is likely a consumer affairs issue.

[https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau- consume...](https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consumer- protection)

Specifically:

[https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1212043/mcsweeny_- _net_neutrality_statement_4-26-17.pdf)

"A simpler consumer protection solution exists. Congress should fully repeal the common carrier exemption in the FTC Act, and enable both the FTC and FCC to protect consumers and the openness and innovation of the internet."

[https://www.insideprivacy.com/united-states/federal-trade- co...](https://www.insideprivacy.com/united-states/federal-trade- commission/ftc-says-common-carrier-exemption-to-section-5-jurisdiction-is- activity-based-not-status-based/)

"The FTC argued that if Congress really intended to divide jurisdiction along industry lines, it could have exempted from the FTC's authority everything subject to the Communications Act or the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC's) jurisdiction."

<comment><USER7> Consumer unfriendliness can be at multiple levels, not just in a falsely advertised plan. The FTC sued AT&T over wrongful advertising and changes of a data plan, a consumer affair issue.

Figuring out whether your ISP is correctly being the common carrier it needs to be (correct or incorrect prioritization, 0-rating, caps, etc..) is definitely a Title 2-related communications & FCC issue. The FTC can continue enforcing what are consumer affairs issues related to ISPs being broadband providers. The FTC's legal reasoning is correct, getting rid of the exemption as I understand it would give them more authority if their current argument is rejected in court.</comment></comment></comment></comment>