The Rise of the Rich Renter - <AUTHOR> https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/10/the-rise-of-the-rich-renter/542007/ <comment><USER2> Don't kid, most people aren't renting because they prefer it. We shouldn't glorify unaffordability. My "rich" coworkers would largely love to own but they can't afford the mammoth down payments, and the sky high rents plus sky high taxes make it difficult to save.

"One of Aesop's best-known fables is "The Fox and the Grapes." On its surface, or its literal level of meaning, the story tells of a fox who wants a bunch of grapes hanging above his head. The fox tries desperately to reach the grapes but cannot. He finally gives up, saying that the grapes are probably sour anyway."

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes)

<comment><USER3> > Don't kid, most people aren't renting because they prefer it.

I can't speak for the USA but in Germany - specifically where we live, home ownership is not/barely worth it financially speaking. The taxes alone for "owning property" i.e. renting it from the government until you die are extremely high. You pay 6.5% (varies by state) of the property value in "Grunderwerbsteuer" when you initially buy and then for a home valued at around 250k (fairly normal prices) you're looking at a 2-4k per year in taxes. Throw on top of that all your upkeep costs in time and money and it really doesn't look like such a nice deal.

That's why we haven't bought and I don't want to. Nowadays, "home ownership" is just another name for renting where the costs are slightly less and the upkeep to you in time and effort is more.

<comment><USER4> Property taxes as a brake on house prices make sense, and since we all need to pay taxes, they can be revenue neutral should the government structure them that way.

The way it seems to work in the Anglosphere is that house prices are mainly limited by the cost of money. When interest rates are low, long mortgages for enormous sums are affordable so people bid up the cost of desireable places to live. But it's a zero-sum game - increased property prices don't create more land in the desireable area, and due to planning laws and nimbyism they usually don't increase density much either. Everybody works harder and pays more for approximately the same distribution of physical assets - except for the windfall for people who got in early, who turn into a political support base for parties that then need to keep house prices propped up. And the cycle needs to continue, otherwise those mortgages would have negative equity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It may also be that smart rich people have gotten over the cult of homeownership: [https://www.ft.com/content/00bf5968-f518-11e2-b4f8-00144feab...](https://www.ft.com/content/00bf5968-f518-11e2-b4f8-00144feabdc0) or [http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/29/political_eco...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/29/political_economy_of_homeownership_a_disaster_area.html). Or search for the term "The cult of homeownership" for more.

There are well-known possible positives to owning but the negatives are vast too, especially compared to investing in an ultra-low-fee index fund in lieu of a house.

Owning a house also made more sense in an era in which a single worker expected to work for a single company at a single site for decades. In an era when two workers may work for a myriad of companies for ranges of six months to ten years, it makes a lot less sense.

<comment><USER6> realy so why are non residents buying housing as an investment in London Sf NY and Vancouver?

And if your rich diversifying from just a me to index fund makes a lot of sense hint if the Rothschild's and other mega rich families run actively managed funds its probably a good idea for you to - I have done very nicely out of RCP on the LSE

<comment><USER7> Rich people invest in property because they have enough money to view a million dollar condo as a diversification strategy. Property can be a good investment, but shouldn't be your only investment.

<comment><USER8> I'd take 10 houses for $200k in the Midwest over one $2m house in the Bay Area. Appreciation is lower, but rents (as a percentage of cost) are much, much better. The shortfall in appreciation can easily be made up for in better rent yield.

<comment><USER9> Less desirable areas always have higher cap rates. Most investors are NOT looking to make money on the cap rate though. If you're seriously investing in real estate you're looking into development projects, re-zoning, etc. You're buying because you know the local government has a 10 year plan to revitalize that part of the city or some other strategic bet.

<comment><USER8> True, but I think the context here is people buying one (or a very small number) of single family homes as an "investment."

My point is that to "invest" that way in a high cost area is not the smartest move. It's better to buy conservative dividend paying stocks. But if one must "invest" in property it's better to buy 10 for $200k than 1 for $1M. I also didn't mention risk mitigation: the risk of loss on the former is lower.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I make a decent living, way above median household income, but my wife and I rent in a dense urban center for the simple reason that even with our income we couldn't afford to own in this area. Even if we weren't paying student loans it would take several years to build up a down payment that would result in cheaper mortgage payments than our rent burden, which would be crucial since homeownership adds property taxes and significant upkeep costs above the mortgage payment. Sure, we could afford a house in the 'burbs, but we don't want to live in the 'burbs. The rent is too damn high, but so are the housing prices.

<comment><USER11> 7 years of saving I believe is the average for a down payment. It doesn't sound like your story is too outside the range of normal.

<comment><USER12> Seems to make sense, buy a house 3x your annual income, with 20% down you could get that in 7 years if you save away 8.5% per year. And you have a house at 29

<comment><USER13> Lol, houses for 3x your income? I take it you don't live in the Bay Area ;-)

<comment><USER12> That's a general rule of thumb for safe mortgages...which is why so many rent in bay area

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _Here's the upshot: rich households—those earning more than 120 percent of the metro median income—saw their renter share rise by 1.2 percent between 2012 and 2015. Since 2006, that growth was a striking 6.2 percent. The renter share among households making less than 50 percent of the median income, on the other hand, remained roughly the same since 2012. Since 2006, it grew by a modest 2.9 percent. More educated subsets of metro residents also gained renters in this period._

This does not make much sense how the author derives the 6.2% figure and then says its 1.2%, nor does a 1.2% gain over a 3-year period seem like much.

<comment><USER15> That does seem super weak sauce. Also, the "striking" 6.2% included 2008, who's to say that the even among the 1.2 X median people, that the economic hurt wasn't enough to explain the delta there?

<comment><USER6> 120% of the median income is not "rich" in this day and age

<comment><USER15> Hmm, it's above the median, it is well off. But yes, it isn't well off enough to be sheltered from the effects of the great recession, I agree.

<comment><USER6> well that's about 48k given the median salary in the US that's not relay well off puts you just about out of JAM (just about managing ) territory given health care costs

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is dual to "the rise of wealthy foreign landlords that buy homes site- unseen as investment properties."

My wife and I, despite being able to afford a home, have chosen not to buy one. Why? Because home prices in our area run at $2.7M for a 3BR [1], while we're paying $2600/month to rent a 2BR townhome. People we know who have bought are now paying $6-7K/month on housing, for something not much better than what we have (they have a yard and an extra bedroom, but we have a pool). Even with the mortgage interest tax deduction, you're still paying more on _interest_ alone (let alone principal, property taxes, or maintenance) than we're paying in rent.

[1] This is perhaps an overestimate - it was a news story about a couple that were outbid 4 times and wanted a fairly nice property. But even so, minimum prices on a 2BR condo in the area now range around $1M+, so the math still doesn't work out.

<comment><USER17> The difference is that with average appreciation rates in California, when they sell they get all of their money back (minus fees, of course). You? Well, you had a place to stay.

As long as appreciation + inflation over the period you stay in a house you buy is greater than your interest rate, buying a house is effectively free (minus the downpayment). People bring up maintenance, however this is already taken into account with rental price increases, vs. a fixed 30 year mortgage. Maintenance is an overplayed expense, honestly.

EDIT:

I can't reply to the children comments, but I just want to say that the situation mention is absurd.

1\. 2.7M worth of 1985 S.F. property would be entire neighborhoods and give you more than 6%. Forget houses, 2.7M in 1985 would buy you acres of prime real estate.

2\. Even if it did not, it's not necessary to put down 20% on a house.

3\. Investing and purchasing a house are not mutually exclusive strategies.

4\. Overall, over 40 years buying will always be better.

<comment><USER18> The correct analysis should take into account that you now have a downpayment and extra money to invest every month if you rent compared to buy.

Buy scenario, free maintenance and no property taxes: Living in a $2.7M house means a downpayment of $540,000 plus $6.6k/month of mortgage (assuming 2% interest rate on ~$2.2M mortgage paid over 40 years). Your housing prices increase 6%/year on average (1985 - 2015 average, [http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/california-housing- histor...](http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/california-housing-history-real- estate-market-trends-30-years-of-data/)). You sell 40 years later your house for $22,628,579.

Rent scenario: You put your $540,000 plus $4400 per month into your average stock market. 1985 to 2015 the performance was more than 10% per year ([http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm](http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm)). Let's say you're conservative and you go for 6%/year in growth. In 40 years your net worth is $77,737,237.02.

Renting is definitely better than buying in the scenari outlined in grandparent's comment.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, that's the math that was running through my head. Again, this all hinges upon housing prices being so overinflated: usually, rent vs. buy is a wash when you do out the math, and you spend about as much on rent as you would on a typical mortgage payment. The Bay Area is just in a very weird place as far as housing prices go right now, because of foreign buyers, massively- appreciated stock options, development restrictions, and lack of land.

Also, I was considering a number of tail risks in our decision. For example, I'd bet that the house in the Bay Area will be worth roughly $0 in 40 years, because:

1.) Tech will have run its course, leading to a Detroit-like situation where everybody moves out and you can't sell what you've got.

2.) The housing stock here is objectively terrible by the standards of anywhere else in the country - many were cheaply built in the 1950s to 1970s, and they need major repairs and upgrades _now_ , let alone in 40 years. Friend of mine was recently buying and was like "I offered $279K over asking on a house that needs _at least_ $100K of repairs", and he didn't get it anyway.

3.) Termites are endemic here. Every house has termites and few of them have concrete basements. There's a good bet that the house you just spend $2.7M on doesn't actually have a foundation.

4.) Earthquakes and wildfires. The big tech companies assume that there is a 100% chance that the Bay Area will be hit by a major earthquake in the next 30 years; I don't see why I should assume any differently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Many of those who have high incomes would prefer to build equity rather than hand it to landowners. However incomes only rose only modestly above inflation while real estate prices have doubled and even tripled in many places.

We're really in trouble as a society if essentials like education, healthcare and housing continue to eat an increasingly large portion of consumer income.

</comment><comment><USER20> My wife and I are in this percentage. Both educated, making ok money but with a new family and undergrad loans still looming it feels like homeownership is still years away. I will probably be 35 by the time I can buy my first "starter home".

We are moving all around the country to find better and more affordable places to live. In fact now that my wife has her master's we're chasing clinics that provide loan repayment just so we can get our debt out from under us.

Another reason we keep renting - I've worked other industries that do poorly during a recession and tech feels no different. I'm highly predisposed to not being stuck with a huge mortgage when things get tough which means in a lot of cities I'd never feel comfortable buying a home (insinuating that we couldn't survive on one income).

</comment><comment><USER21> Is anyone surprised? The fall of the private car has us contending for less and less land (near work, near transit stations, etc). Of course everyone's housing situation moves down a few notches when we throw away the vast tracts of housing supply enabled by freeways and parking.

High rises and elevators could compensate, but so far no city is contemplating adding downtown luxury condos at anywhere near the rate it's divesting from sprawl.

</comment><comment><USER22> Mid 30's guy - make over six figures, no wife, kids, or other expenses. I could easily buy my own modest home with cash, but instead I pay about $2K for a tiny studio in the middle of an expensive city.

I actually have been looking to buy a home in my high COL East Coast city this year, and here is why I'm holding off on it:

1\. An actual 'home' like I grew up in with a few bedrooms, garage, yard, etc. within a one hour commute to most jobs would be $750K. Maybe I could get that down to $400K with a 2 hour each way commute. That's simply way too much money (taxes, insurance, upkeep) for a single guy, and the commute isn't worth it anyway.

2\. I could buy the same type of tiny studio / one bedroom where I live for about $500K - way more than I'm paying for renting, all things remaining equal. In other words, renting is lower cost than owning at the moment.

3\. I could buy the same tiny condo with an hour commute for $250K, but then I'm stuck there. The equity I gain is minimal since half the costs (about $1k / month) are HOAs, taxes, insurance, etc which will only go up over time.

When it's all said and done, there is almost no reason for someone like me to own. If I had a wife and kids, maybe. But as a single guy no way.

The low interest rates of the fed and lack of new construction ( NIMBY) have again pushed up prices to 5x-6x the median family income in my area - about as high as 2006. Mortgage interest deduction is worth almost nothing because rates are so low (contrary to the Realtor and mortgage industry), and it may be going away anyway.

Jobs aren't stable enough where I'm comfortable being tied to one area. In our industry, even if your company doesn't lay you off or go under or whatever every 3 years, it's a bad idea to get to comfortable with one way of doing things - one framework, language, stack, etc. You need to keep jumping jobs if you ever want a raise.

Nor do I feel like being tied to one locality or another when it's apparent many of them are woefully underfunded with their pensions / health insurance for retirees. Gouging home owners for higher property tax bills will be the main way they balance their books.

<comment><USER23> This plus rent control is very similar to my situation in San Francisco.

The only thing which would change this is if I had kids.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> If you are in an apartment with rent control it really changes the rent/buy equation.

I've lived in a two bedroom rent controlled apartment in San Francisco for the last 7 years. I pay significantly below market rate for rent. I also have enough to afford a down payment on a house here.

Their is no incentive for me to purchase a house unless I lose my rent controlled apartment and even then I probably wouldn't buy. I know many of my peers who are in similar situations. I'd say the same is true of NYC.

<comment><USER24> Rent control unbundles the bundle of rights that is property ownership. The result from the renter's perspective is a hybrid between tenancy and ownership.

It's not the only way to unbundle it either. Consider the more traditional life estate, for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Personally, I ask my friends who complain about rent why they just don't change what they want, e.g. roommates, worse quality, further away, worse amenities, etc. and generally they say they want it all.

Well, unfortunately to have it all you have to pay. Paradoxically, those who want to live in the city will want to enjoy the amenities, which cost money. Money that will take them that much further from buying a house. Clearly, from the behavior they must not want a house that much.

</comment><comment><USER25> We currently live 3 blocks from the beach and have no intention of buying here. The older buildings are prone to flooding, some are sinking, and the foundations are cracking. The newer buildings are incredibly expensive.

We'll stay here until it no longer makes financial sense. Until then I continue to rent while stashing money away for property not near the slowly rising oceans.

</comment><comment><USER26> I rent simply because I cannot afford to buy in the area I desire and I refuse to commute an hour.</comment>


Stockfish+NNUE, Strongest Chess Engine Ever, to Compete in CCCC - <AUTHOR> https://www.chess.com/news/view/stockfishnnue-strongest-chess-engine-ever-to-compete-in-cccc <comment><AUTHOR> [https://github.com/joergoster/Stockfish- NNUE](https://github.com/joergoster/Stockfish-NNUE)</comment>


Tech conferences: what's the big idea? - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/11/tech-conferences

<comment><AUTHOR> The best bit is in the comments:

"Most marketing in the technology world is in the form of lies, to be impolite, even when the data is accurate. A device is revolutionary and will transform the world, and your old way of working will be replaced, and so forth. That is rarely, if ever, true, even with truly revolutionary hardware."</comment>


Lise Meitner – the forgotten woman of nuclear physics (2019) - <AUTHOR> http://theconversation.com/lise-meitner-the-forgotten-woman-of-nuclear-physics-who-deserved-a-nobel-prize-106220 <comment><USER2> Putting it in a larger context, _everyone_ is forgotten, and quite quickly. This is lamented in Ecclesiastes, for example.

Along these lines, there's an excellent little documentary on Netflix right now about one of the 20th centuries worst disasters, the failure of the St. Francis Dam. You've never heard about it, because it's already been forgotten.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yet somehow I've heard of her. (Not a physicist, not especially a reader about physics.)

<comment><USER4> I've heard of her, so long ago I think I've forgotten almost everything I knew. I do associate her with fission and Otto Hahn.

I've come to find it unbearable to read most journalism about science or technology that I would otherwise find interesting, because it's more and more uniformly aimed at people who are _completely_ ignorant. And that's perfectly logical, because most of the people who are interested in any given piece of knowledge don't know anything about it. Online advertising pressure has exposed a lot of deep truths about what most people like - other people knowing stuff makes people feel stupid, so why should anything ever be written that presumes knowledge? And if not, why should writers know anything?</comment></comment>


Show HN: Send anonymous complaints to your neighbor's mailbox - <AUTHOR> http://lowkeypost.com

<comment><AUTHOR> I've made it a habit to release at-least one side project a month. This is my first.

Simple problem. You have annoying neighbors (or anyone for that matter). You have complaints, anger and hate you wish to vent to them without disrupting the peace. You tell us the complaint and we hand write it in a letter and ship it out. I thought of going a step further and doing the whole harry potter send mass letter thing to really get the point across but to keep it simple i left it out (it's available upon request).

I want to deliver more value with it to better help people deal with annoying neighbors so if you have ideas - share!

Tech Stack: Typeform to collect input data and payments Squarespace for web hosting Polarb.com to create engaging polls Mailchimp to collect all those emails

<comment><USER2> So it's kind of [http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/](http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/) as a service?

Could there be a ninja delivery service where you send someone in to sneak in and put it on their fridge instead? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Awesome interface, great execution.

I do have issue with your pricing. $9.99 is very high considering your overhead cost. I'd bring it down to $2.99 within the continental USA. Use the cheapest quality printing material. After all, the customer never actually sees it and it will most likely go in the garbage immediately.

I haven't seen your business plan but if this were me the goal would be VOLUME sales.</comment>


Ask HN: Please review my startup project - <AUTHOR>

Hi Everyone,
Here's the theory: take match.com (instant results) + eharmony (hundreds of matching criteria) + craigslist (completely free and beyond dating), and bundle it in a way that lets you find people for just about any reason. Whether for dating, friendship, housing, etc.
I've written an engine to do it at http://www.buddybuilder.com and I would really appreciate HN's feedback on the entire experience (UI, usability, enjoyment, flow, improvements, ideas on how to bootstrap a user base, etc).
There is no user base yet, so if you want to see a match result, make sure to enable the 'Friendship' goal, and center your search in Cary, NC for a male. You should see me (beaglehoster)!
Many thanks HN!,
Justin
* Canceling your account after signup is easy (look under Account/Help) and, I assure you, is a complete deletion of all information your have submitted. <comment><USER2> I think when it comes to sites like this you should really make some sort of late registration available, that is, let us see what your thing does without having to sign up. You don't need an account to use craigslist, why do I need one to use yours?

Also, I may be wrong but this sounds like the kind of idea someone comes up when trying to come up with a good idea. Do you know someone that has this problem you're trying to solve? Are you "scratching an itch"?

About the UI, it reminds me of Web 2.0, no offense. How about using some Twitter Bootstrap? Have a look at Dribbble, Colour Lovers, etc to have a better sense of what's hot on web design. Check out this list on Kippt: <https://kippt.com/michaelchen/inspiration>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the input!

I've certainly considered the anonymous user approach to help users see the power of the interface before having to commit. I worried about anonymous users being turned off by an initially small user base and leaving the site without registering. I guess that could happen even if they register, so I'll definitely prioritize working on this. Thank you.

The site definitely developed with a problem statement from my wife: wanting to meet not just friends, but ones with which we could truly connect. This takes more than just a craigslist posting or random encounters. When it comes right down to it, great friends match on many axes. We figured -- why not make the axes truly rich. So we ended up with hundreds. Certainly might be just the type of people we are, so not sure whether it scratches an itch for a large population.

Also appreciate the UI links. I'm more of a backend guy -- so the UI has been a struggle.

<comment><USER2> You're certainly right about users being turned off by a small user base, but as an entrepreneur you should "break the rules" now and then! Or be a little "naughty" as pg says.

I've had the same problem as you once so I created some fake users and some fake content just so it wouldn't look like an abandoned web site or something. I didn't read this in article or anything, but I'm pretty sure this helps to "break the ice" for new users!</comment></comment></comment>


Tim Schafer to crowd-fund Double Fine's next game - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/66710809/double-fine-adventure <comment><USER2> $155k and counting. Not bad for a few hours! They did quite a successful PR push, I saw it mentioned on Gamasutra, NeoGAF and Wired.

</comment><comment><USER3> Already reached the goal! IM SO EXCITED!</comment>


Ask HN: What happened to all the Lyrics sites? - <AUTHOR>

Just today I noticed that a couple of high ranking lyrics sites are no longer showing lyrics! Does anyone have the inside scoop?
For example:
http://www.lyricsdownload.com/phoenix-if-it-s-not-with-you-lyrics.html
"SORRY. OUR MUSIC DISCUSSION AND DISCOVERY COMMUNITY FORUM SECTIONS ARE BY FEDERAL COURT ORDER NOT ACCESSIBLE TO GENERAL PUBLIC CURRENTLY
PLEASE CHECK BACK SOON AND WE HOPE TO BE ABLE TO OPEN ACCESS TO SITE IN NEAR FUTURE. THANKS AND HAVE GREAT DAY"
http://www.lyricsdir.com/phoenix-if-it-s-not-with-you-lyrics.html
" We are currently unable to show you the lyrics for If It's Not With You by Phoenix. " <comment><USER2> The irony is that when I look up lyrics it's because I want to know the name of the song and the artist, not to steal copyrighted lyrics. If you hear a song you like, remember a few of the lyrics, but don't know the name, how are you supposed to buy it? Well, you could have searched on the lyrics, but apparently not any more. These people are clueless.

</comment><comment><USER3> The musical licensing environment is a nightmare, and these sites I suspect weren't licensing the lyrics.

Metrolyrics.com has licensing rights to a huge volume of lyrics, give them a try.

</comment><comment><USER4> Lyrics are Copyrighted. They've probably all been DCMAed away.

<comment><USER5> Seems quite silly. Singing along with music is a gas. Do digitally purchased albums come with lyrics? I remember paging through the cassette and CD liner notes, singing like a tonedeaf banshee.

<comment><USER6> A lot of iTunes albums lately come with PDF liner notes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow, no wonder nobody likes the music industry.</comment>


Things to do while you're waiting for an ubuntu iso download to finish - <AUTHOR>

...? <comment><USER2> install wireshark, cygwin

0)Get a large packet of lays chips

1)do traceroute to ubutu site, 2) write script to extract IP addresses, number of hops 3) For each IP address(do this recursively) 4) if (sum of IP adresses %2==0) a) Eat one chip else b) Eat two chips 5) C=number of hops from traceroute * 2 6) Do C push ups :-)</comment>


Ask HN: Books to read for noob to advance level in Javascript? - <AUTHOR>

Please give me a list of books to read to reach a pro level from beginner in JS.. thank you <comment><USER2> Javascript: the good parts <[http://www.amazon.com/JavaScript-Good-Parts- Douglas-Crockfor...](http://www.amazon.com/JavaScript-Good-Parts-Douglas- Crockford/dp/0596517742/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383371017&sr=8-1&keywords=javascript+the+good+parts>).

Eloquent Javascript <[http://eloquentjavascript.net>](http://eloquentjavascript.net>).

These two are a great start.

<comment><USER3> And when you're done those, JavaScript Patterns is something you'll refer to often.

[http://www.amazon.com/JavaScript-Patterns-Stoyan- Stefanov/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/JavaScript-Patterns-Stoyan- Stefanov/dp/0596806752/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Secrets of Javascript Ninja - John Resig</comment>


Show HN: Real-time mobility and energy aggregator - <AUTHOR> http://www.electrafeed.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> This developed out of sunboxlabs & gridlesskits – and is the "version 3.0" update with a major new direction based on user feedback (retention rate was low previously...). I'm already addicted myself. Heavily inspired by coinspectator.com.</comment>


If Police Come to Your Door Without a Warrant, Shut Them Down Like This Guy - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZh9xumD1cQ

<comment><USER2> What is the "3 forms of ID" Supreme Court ruling the person in the video referred to? I wasn't familiar with that one....

<comment><USER3> The nearest reference I know for sure it's the season 3, episode 26 "Sunset" of Breaking Bad.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpDSn6odVzs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpDSn6odVzs)

*The emphasis at the end is not necessary.</comment></comment>


Murder weapon discovered in Imperial War Museum display - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32919223

<comment><USER2> > I am absolutely shocked that a gun connected with so many deaths was there > on display for anyone to come and see at the Imperial War Museum in London

... I'd expect anything on display in a War Museum to be connected with many deaths.

<comment><USER3> That's a totally out of context. You omitted the rest of what was said which was "It should be here in a secure place so that it can be used for ballistics."

The whole context of what was said was the weapon was in police custody as part of evidence for unsolved crime. The evidence was moved from police custody to a museum and the evidence wasn't there anymore when the crimes were reopened. The family of the victims believe the police aren't interested in solving the murders and disposed of the evidence of the murders.

>The rifle has also been linked to the _unsolved murders_ of two other men in 1988.

>The weapon was originally recovered by the police in 1992, but officers from the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) were unable to locate the gun when they _reopened the unsolved murder cases._

>The museum is now working with the police ombudsman to try to work out _whether there are any other weapons from unsolved murders in its collection._

> What does that say about their treatment of the case? They just don't care."</comment></comment>


Mozilla Fights On For Net Neutrality - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2018/11/16/mozilla-fights-on-for-net-neutrality/ <comment><USER2> Hooray for Mozilla for joining this cause. They're definitely one of the better companies around protecting the original ideals of the internet.

</comment><comment><USER3> The claim that getting rid of net neutrality rules is unlawful is an interesting one. I can find the repeal being called illegal in multiple places, but what law specifically are they breaking in particular?

<comment><USER4> Administrative law has all kinds of requirements regarding process and motivation. For the most part, the arguments in the legal brief ([https://blog.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/as- filed...](https://blog.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/as-filed- Mozilla-v-FCC-Joint-Reply-Brief-16Nov2018.pdf)) are about decisions being "arbitrary" e.g. not properly justified by public interest.

This is part of why the Obama era's regulatory changes in e.g. telecoms and finance reform took so long to get through the system - they dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. This is a much more durable way of changing things than an executive order, since it can't be overturned on the whim of the next president.

<comment><USER5> It is also worth pointing out that Tom Wheeler's decision making _was_ impacted by public comment -- his proposal went from weakening net neutrality rules to a fundamental shift in how ISPs are regulated after a public outcry. Ajit Pai was never going to be affected by public comment and completely dismissed the comments people submitted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Fighting for net neutrality is like fighting the wind with your fists.

Mozilla does great work in raising awareness of these issues however until every Joe Bloggs and Susan Someone takes their own stand against companies, governments and other centralised organisations, then it's going to be a very hard battle.

How do we do that? Maybe start by not making it an issue that only geeks or tech savvy types are outraged about.

<comment><USER7> Working together is the only way to take back tech from the corporate overlords. We need to support Mozilla's efforts to liberate critical technologies like Voice to text via Mozilla DeepSpeech.

Building the Common Voice corpus is critical to generating highly accurate transcriptions, check it out at [https://voice.mozilla.org](https://voice.mozilla.org)

If we do nothing, there will be no large organization standing up to build foundational technology outside of corporate siloes.

<comment><USER8> I think a big problem in general with big corporates is that we are moving more in to the era where huge companies crush their competition just by having more data. The more data you have, the better user experience you can provide, killing competition, through which they start getting less and less data of their own, eventually dying out.

I guess in a way it's similar to having capital. If you don't have any money, it's hard to start a business. Similarly, if you have no data, maybe in the future it will be hard to start a business as well.

There's still a long way to go to reach that point, but I think we are seeing the start of it. For example, it's pretty hard to build an alternative to GMaps/Apple Maps. Even if you have a novel take on how mapping data could be used, you'd still first need the data to build the technology around it.

How do you fight that? Should it be fought? Or should we just accept it as a new requirement of building a business? In addition to starting with a good team (i.e. industry experts) and having money, you now need to immediately start building as wide of a dataset as you can.

<comment><USER9> > The more data you have, the better user experience you can provide, killing > competition, through which they start getting less and less data of their > own, eventually dying out.

The more data they have, the better-targeted advertising they can provide, because that data is more or less volunteered by their users even if conpanies don't know to ask for it.

For most of the big companies, I'd say their UX is stuck in local maxima and can't really become orders of magnitude better due to risk aversion — you'll never collect the data that there's a bigger maximum somewhere else that way. A smaller company willing to take risks can find those bigger maxima much more easily.

<comment><USER10> Honestly, UX is probably the easiest thing to do better than the big companies. Their UX is usually terrible.

Just look at how much worse Google recently made the GMail UI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My biggest beef is with the idea of trying to control something that doesn't need to be controlled for it to work, just because it'll increase profit margins. The web does not need to be regulated or controlled by ISPs for it to work. We've known this for decades. It's unfortunate that it's necessary to have a law in place in the form of net neutrality to keep ISPs from finding and using this as an avenue of revenue generation, but capitalism isn't perfect.

</comment><comment><USER12> Private organizations are of course able to take and support political opinions, especially since there are competitors in the browser space.

</comment><comment><USER13> Interesting that they would fight for this, but yet they push malware, HTML5 EME, CloudFlare DNS, ADs with Pocket and to be the gate keeper of the truth [1]. Mozilla. The Mozilla Project and Foundation have become quite toxic and this two-faced stance that it cares about its useds is quite appalling.

[1]The Mozilla Information Trust Initiative : [http://archive.is/jcJWg](http://archive.is/jcJWg)

Edit: censored

<comment><USER14> You know Pocket is owned by Mozilla right? They were planning to include a similar feature and decided it was easier to use an exciting product. And they only included EME after losing a years-long fight against it.

<comment><USER13> > You know Pocket is owned by Mozilla right?

That does not make it any better. So what if they did finally release the sources for the plugin (only took them a year or two to do). They have not released the server component. They are also using it to push ADs that I don't want. I should not have to toggle 50 different things and remove a bunch of stuff before I can use Firefox and then the next update undoes all of that.

<comment><USER14> That is annoying but not what I would call toxic. And yes I trust Mozilla not to hand my data over because they've worked to earn that trust. Anyway who would they hand it to?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Mozilla seems to have integrity. It's great to see.

They should take the momentum of these values and launch an alternative to gmail.</comment>


The Right to Repair could help address a critical shortage in school computers - <AUTHOR> https://uspirg.org/blogs/blog/usp/right-repair-could-help-address-critical-shortage-school-computers#new_tab <comment><USER5> I feel sad that we need to educate and demand 'The Right to Repair'.

Yesterday, I accidentally noticed that my iPad Air 2 which I 've been using as a external display for ~ a year has its battery bulged and even pushed out the display[1]. If I hadn't noticed this, It could have ended really bad.

But now I have to wait for the heat gun to arrive to remove the battery for safely discarding it, as Apple has made it really hard to change batteries. I don't intend to replace the battery, as I think any device with battery and without charging pass-through feature is a potential fire hazard when using for any application which involves charging constantly. I have removed other such devices (incl. iPhone) preemptively.

More over I'm tired of spending money on expensive hardware which I don't own completely. There's absolutely no reason for not making user-replaceable batteries other than planned obsolescence, which are bad for the consumers as well as for the planet.

I will vote with my wallet for Fairphone, Pine64 like brands here after.

[1][https://twitter.com/heavyinfo/status/1302310594423345152](https://twitter.com/heavyinfo/status/1302310594423345152)

<comment><USER6> Right to repair and user-replaceable batteries have _nothing to do with each other whatsoever_.

This misconception comes up every week on HN. I don't know where it came from, but I wish it would go back there.

Right to repair is important! Farmers have been suing John Deere to make it legal to replace the controllers in their tractors with an open-source board, because the company sells tractors with a license that requires farmers to use their 'authorized' repair networks.

Car companies get into this same game, and pushback is important: the playing field for repair should be level, when you buy a physical object, you should own it, and so on; all of this is good. Apple has lobbied against this sort of legislation, and shame on them.

But from where on Earth do you derive the right _to repair your tablet easily and without any specialized tools_ from this?

How does that follow? What right do you have to demand that things be manufactured in a particular way?

I don't want my tablet's battery to be user replaceable! not as much as I want it to be thin, and solid, and resistant to splashes.

It's great that you want to buy those things. I don't. We should both fight for the right to be legally allowed to repair our gizmos, for the right of third parties to do that work, and even demand that companies which sell a manufactured good also sell the consumable components of that good, for some reasonable period after commencing manufacture.

And we should stay out of each other's way on matters of personal preference, such as whether batteries are glued in place or kept in a bay behind a door.

<comment><USER7> > "But from where on Earth do you derive the right to repair your tablet > easily and without any specialized tools from this?"

Suppose you have passed your right to repair. I can design a device so that it takes unreasonable effort and eqipment to repair it. Makes it more expensive to repair than to buy a new one. You would have achieved nothing.

This has already happened - have a Samsung A50 with a broken screen, and you can buy a new screen for £40. However the phone is basically a glue sandwitch, and it costs the same to repair and to buy a new one.

On another note, Microsoft Surface laptop is unrepairable - [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/6/17/15824670/microsoft- surface-teardown-ifixit-impossible-repair)

If you pass right to repair without any provisions for ease of repair, it will be a toothless, useless tragedy of a law.

<comment> ben-schaaf > Suppose you have passed your right to repair. I can design a device so that > it takes unreasonable effort and eqipment to repair it. Makes it more > expensive to repair than to buy a new one. You would have achieved nothing.

No-one is going to buy a car or tractor that can't be repaired at all. And it'll hit pretty hard if people realise even apple can't replace their screen and they'll need to buy a new thousand-dollar device every time the screen breaks. Apple and John Deere have a huge incentive to make devices repairable, they just want to monopolize that repair business. That's the problem here.

<comment><USER7> Oh boy, do you know that device manufacturers are actually refusing to repair plenty of devices - I am not talking about warranty shenanigans, but refusing to repair for any money at all: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-NU7yOSElE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-NU7yOSElE)

I have taken my A50 to Samsung, and they are not fixing it no matter how much I pay them. On my Withings smartwatch the glass cracked, and was considered under warranty. They explicitly told me it is unrepairable, and replaced the watch with a new one! How the F __k are they unable to replace glass on a watch?

Just about everything has already became either unrepairable, or uneconomic to repair, from fridges to TVs to phones to smartwatches. The are a few exception like vehicles or large equipment, but the events so far indicate that people will buy unrepairable equipment because they have already done so in many industries. Consumers generally have no way to know how repairable something is, especially for a new product.

Lastly, a device does not have to be completely unrepairable - it could require absurdly specialised and expensive equipment, that only the OEM will ever afford, so you will be back at the monopoly problem.

<comment><USER8> I had a slightly different issue. I had a Samsung Smart Watch (Samsung Gear Live) the charger was a cheap custom POGO pin cradle. After a month of use the cradle assembly cracked. I contacted Samsung for a warranty repair and they were going to charge over $50 to replace. I decided not to get it replaced and sold the device on eBay.

Couldn't they just use a standard USB micro interface or Qi standard charger?

I have not purchased a Samsung device since.

<comment><USER9> I guess usb might have compromised water proofing but certainly a qi charger interface makes a lot of sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is just a group that is using "right to repair" to get attention for themselves. Nice and topical, complete with a clickbait headline and "think of the children" plea.

The right to repair won't help the school computer shortage. There aren't enough broken computers, nor enough people able to repair them, to make a difference.

I'm in favor of the right to repair. I've been repairing broken computers and electronics almost my entire life. I have a couple of Apple machines on my bench right now that I'm bringing back to life. But this is just opportunistic attention-seeking.

And even if the most extreme ideals of "right to repair" were in place a decade ago, the situation would be the same as today because the need to manufacture new machines would have been lower, so we'd still have fewer available computers to sell or repair now.

<comment><USER11> > The right to repair won't help the school computer shortage. There aren't > enough broken computers, nor enough people able to repair them, to make a > difference.

I don't know what you're basing your prediction on, but we've managed to provide computers to over half the students that didn't have one here in Slovenia since the pandemic started, by taking broken or outdated computers from companies and individuals that were going to throw them away, repairing them and putting a lightweight Linux on them.

The only reason that was possible is that desktop PC parts are very well understood and available to everyone.

On the other hand, we also have several shelves stacked with various brands of laptops and tablets that we get from people in hopes we can repair and donate them, but even with access to an electronics lab with serious equipment, we have not been able to repair a single one as the process for that is currently:

1\. Inspect the board for obviously broken parts 2\. Find the board number and search a bunch of fishy Russian and Polish sites for a schematic 3\. Buy the schematic (illegal, btw) 4\. Read through it to find the correct replacement components 5\. If they aren't passive or something ubiquitous like a 555, you basically can't get them - cry 6\. If there are non-obvious defects, spend a week studying the schematics to be able to start probing the board 7\. If you find a bad part, goto 5., else cry

The vast majority of laptop defects are small things that require very little effort to fix with decent equipment, but access to the knowledge and parts required is intentionally made difficult by the manufacturers. With access to both, more than half of the laptops on those shelves would be in the hands of students already.

<comment><USER12> > spend a week studying the schematics to be able to start probing the board

Sounds like you lack people with particular skills, no amount of documentation is going to solve that for you. I emailed you a present, feel free to ask for more detailed help if you need it.

<comment><USER13> If right to repair takes off, it will make room for a Stack Exchange-like site dedicated to debugging and fixing hardware. That in turn will accelerate repair just like SO and github accelerate SW development.

<comment><USER14> This is also true if we convince more people to start open source hardware companies. I do strongly support right to repair to make illegal some of the most egregious things companies do, but I think that should exist alongside more open source hardware for the things we use in our daily lives.

<comment><USER11> Any open hardware like that would be extremely to "EEE" (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish). Just look at how Android (AOSP) went from a nice, open ecosystem, to a "technically still open source" pile of mandatory proprietary garbage (Gapps, Play Services, SafetyNet and whatever key attestation-based lock-in is coming next...).

There's no way a small open hardware company can compete with industry giants that are backed by armies of patent lawyers and overseas child labor. This is simply not something capitalism is designed to sustain and therefore requires (admittedly tasteless) things like mandatory standardisation and certain user freedoms (to modify, repair, resell...). Sadly, this issue is not technical, but entirely political.

<comment><USER15> That's true. Unless the user assembles the device himself there is no way for a small company dedicated to opensource to survive. Unfortunately I absolutely dislike assembling manufacturer provided kits. You can't really review a kit because any potential problems could be caused by incorrect assembly. Scummy manufacturers have an easier time to get away because they don't have to promise a final product.

If you get stuck halfway because of bad instructions that's on you to figure out.

<comment><USER14> I'm replying to everyone individually so I apologize for repeating myself, but wouldn't Prusa 3D printers prove your point wrong? The company has grown quite a lot year over year. They acquired a company that designed SLA printers and open sourced it. They directly compete with clones. And then there's all the open source software projects which survive despite zero sales revenue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The 1 million laptop shortage in California was reported by the Sacramento Bee after polling school districts. I worked with school boards and school districts in California for 3 years selling education software, and I have to say that the people in administration are the _most_ unaware of what the district's technology needs really are. For every heartwarming story of a school setting up a maker lab for its students, there is another school which was allocated funding for a hackerspace, bought all the necessary equipment, and then stuck it in a closet until the right person came along to set it up. I have seen brand new 3D printers grow obsolete sitting in a public school's storage room and shelves stocked with brand new Chromebooks as a "strategic reserve".

The other thing about public school administration in California is the attitude that parents and rich benefactors will make up for any budget/equipment shortfall that a school faces. Administrators have an incentive to underreport their school's technology assets, since their requests are filled one way or another.

<comment><USER17> This mirrors my direct experience as well.

Teaching and computers don't mix. Certainly not before eighth grade.

Maybe give every student an iPad every year. Tell Apple to just gift them for the tax write-off and goodwill.

Maybe have computer labs, whatever curriculum units are called. Starting with logo turtles. Along side chemistry and other science units. Then maybe grant access to desktops and printers starting in ninth grade.

Never provide internet access.

I'd be okay with a computer skills class starting in middle school if there's a motivated teacher to staff it. So kids can play with Scratch, other proto programming stuff, some art stuff. Whatever's cool. Treat this like music, art, woodshop, and other electives.

I'm VERY on board with a school sponsored, hosted "hackers" club. Like math, debate, young entrepreneurs, cheerleading, etc. clubs.

<comment><USER18> Programming is fairly difficult (beyond some very basic exercises) without internet access at this point, even just for reference material.

<comment><USER19> There's these things called books, think of them like a paper backup of a webpage. So anyways these books can have all sorts of information in them.

I have heard about, but not seen, books about computers and programming. Apparently some were entire reference manuals for various programming languages! Can you imagine? These books don't even need to be charged to use them!

I know it sounds crazy but they're real things. I once met an old guy, you know over 25, and he told me that before YouTube and StackExchange that people learned to program entirely by using books and typing at their computers.

<comment><USER20> > There's these things called books, think of them like a paper backup of a > webpage. So anyways these books can have all sorts of information in them.

Read: Only children who can afford a computer + internet outside of school can use the (obviously superior for beginners) tools available online, everyone else relegated to books.

<comment><USER19> It's not a given (or obvious) that online tools are superior to books for learning to program. Even _if_ that was objectively true it's trivial for a school to make online resources available to students without external Internet access.

The point the GP was making is schools can provide technology to students but don't have to let them goof off on the Internet. Students definitely don't _need_ Internet access to learn to program. Generations of programmers learned to program quite well without YouTube tutorials.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> But the story is totally vague. All he says is that there's a shortage, and that ability to repair _could_ help.

How exactly? Would it help in a comprehensive view of things?

Certain aspects of making hardware affordable (for a given design) is being integrated and somewhat harder to repair.

If manufacturers were required to make their stuff repairable, would that increase the costs of production and the price of laptops? Would fewer people be able to afford them? Would the specs of computers have to change in order to fit/enable removable parts?

Are people likely to buy refurbed old computers at $200 versus $300 for a new one? Would the price of new computers go from $300 to $400 if this were required?

None of these things are answered.

The article/author is otherwise just advocating for something he desires (and I could go so far as to say using Covid as an cover, given the lack of detail) without being responsible for its implementation or feasibility.

If the details were addressed, I could get on board with requiring companies to do so.

<comment><USER22> > If manufacturers were required to make their stuff repairable, would that > increase the costs of production and the price of laptops?

No. The difference in the manufacturing cost would be trivial, because the primary costs are in the high value components, e.g. CPU and display.

> Would fewer people be able to afford them?

No, because the costs would not materially increase. Moreover, the people for whom cost is a primary concern buy from the second hand market anyway, and increasing availability there would reduce prices by supply and demand.

> Would the specs of computers have to change in order to fit/enable removable > parts?

We have some good evidence of this already, because repairable devices do exist even though they don't represent the majority of the market, and the specs are... basically identical.

> Are people likely to buy refurbed old computers at $200 versus $300 for a > new one?

Yes, that's kind of the point.

> Would the price of new computers go from $300 to $400 if this were required?

Does increased competition usually result in _higher_ prices? If anything they would need to take thinner margins in order to compete with the refurbished market. Which is why they don't want to do it.

<comment><USER21> I don't know that most of your blanket assertions are true.

Just taking one example, the cost of manufacturing electronics is not just the raw cost of the component. And you seem just fine to have increased costs passed along to manufacturers and not believe it would have an effect on them, but then state that such small $ differences would have a big effect on people buying the stuff.

But anyway, why should companies be required _by law_ to build a product a certain way, for a feature that's not safety/public health/deceptive advertising related?

If your statements are true, go out there and offer such a great product, and let it take the market.

Otherwise, I don't agree with the logic of having laws intrude into the _design_ choices of products that are voluntarily manufactured and purchased.

<comment><USER23> Repairability is public health related, unless you can live in 40°C winters and breath under water. /s

You know the resources of the planet aren't limitless.

<comment><USER18> What _isn't_ public health related by that measure? Should everything be subject to government mandate?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> There's no supply shortage of Chromebooks, you can buy them on Amazon and have them delivered Thursday. Maybe schools don't have money allocated for this, but refurbishing old PCs isn't really going to solve that problem. A chromebook is pretty cheap compared to the overall cost of education in the US, so a school that claims it has a computer shortage is probably just not prioritizing the acquisition of additional computers, rather than being totally unable to acquire them.

<comment><USER25> I have computers that are over 15 years old and still work today because they were designed to be upgraded and to last.

There are many Chromebook lines that are similar to phones in that you can't just install Linux or a new version of Windows once Google stops supporting your hardware.

<comment><USER26> I have used many different computers in past 20 years, and all of them becomes unusable after 4-5 years at max. And this happens to all the people that I know of. You are likely lucky that your hardware is in working condition for 15 years.

<comment><USER27> Counterpoint: I have used many different computers over the past 30 years, and none of them has become unusable within only 5 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> There's a notable lack of refurbishment/recycling businesses in western Europe. The UK is leading here, the Netherlands is also decent, but Germany, France, Belgium are surprisingly behind. Sure, there's quite a few small outfits that do it, but very few companies doing it at scale.

I'm looking at possibly opening such a factory somewhere between FR/DE/BE, though it would ideally need some investment to get it up and running fast.

We need to get rid of this stigma of buying used/refurbished. Nothing wrong with an older appliance that has been fixed, tested and cleaned properly. And the environment benefits.

<comment><USER29> Nothing wrong with an older appliance, except that you get what you pay. It might be too power hungry or hot, it might be unsupported/obsolete [1][2] or too slow, e.g. Core 2 Duo can barely play FullHD YouTube videos; AV1 and H265 are also too slow on the first generations of Core CPUs (i5-520M, i3-2120).

For these reasons I've recently avoided buying anything before Haswell - <USER2> first generation with AVX-2 instructions. I would have preferred Broadwell or Skylake because of the new Intel graphics Linux driver [3], but they were too expensive.

[1]: "Intel drops plans to develop Spectre microcode for ancient chips", [https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/04/intel-drops-plans- to...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/04/intel-drops-plans-to-develop- spectre-microcode-for-ancient-chips/)

[2]: "Support timeframes for Unix legacy GPU releases", [https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3142/~/s...](https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3142/~/support- timeframes-for-unix-legacy-gpu-releases)

[3]: [https://github.com/intel/media-driver](https://github.com/intel/media- driver)

<comment><USER28> Core 2 Duo is ancient. But people are tossing 2-4 year old machines, and they've got everything one needs. Not to mention smartphones and tablets, which get old in 6 months. That's ridiculous.

It's even worse with home appliances, which do not have any significant improvements yoy, or indeed, any improvements at all. Nothing but the design changes. They can be easily fixed and will last just as long as a new appliance.

<comment><USER30> > But people are tossing 2-4 year old machines

This! Think of companies that replace their laptops every 3-5 years. A five years old laptop is still fully functional (believe me, I run a 2014-2015 ThinkPad T440 as a personal machine and it works fine). A three years old laptop... Even better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about right to repair... or maybe it just means different things to different people.

It's one thing to make a machine that is difficult to repair - like removing the screen to get to the battery. The real problem is when a company won't provide replacement parts and have patented the parts to eliminate third party manufacturers. The laws around the auto industry got it pretty much right - <USER3> the manufacturer mandates that you use a specific part, then they must make it available, and I believe they have to stock replacement parts for 20 years or something reasonable like that. It doesn't mean it's necessarily easy to make the repair (ever do transmission work?).

</comment><comment><USER32> The only actual issue listed in this article is a screenshot of a tweet, that says there's 5 million activation locked iPads sitting in lockers.

I'm a HUGE fan of RTR, but I don't really see how it helps anybody in this situation. You're legally allowed to unlock/root iOS devices. Nothing legally stopping you. Now there are strong technical barriers indeed, though I bet most of these iPads are vulnerable to rooting.

<comment><USER33> If you have proof of ownership, Apple will unlock the devices for you.

<comment><USER34> No, you need the original proof of _purchase_ for Apple to unlock a device for you, and it has to be in your name. I run repair shops and we have had this conversation hundreds of times from customers. People buy iCloud locked devices from Craigslist, FB Marketplace, and eBay constantly. Apple will not help in these cases, and if they paid cash or used an app without purchase protection, they got screwed.

We have even had people who have presented death certificates to Apple to get devices unlocked from someone who died, and that is hit or miss. It's incredibly frustrating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I can buy used Chromebooks that clearly came from schools for $69 at retail and substantially less in container load quantities. At the same time, schools say they can't buy Chromebooks. There's a disconnect here - these devices are supported by Google longer than the schools are keeping them.

Schools need to stop trashing perfectly functional devices as e-waste and should make them available to other schools and cities.

I use my HP G4 11" Chromebooks every day for software development. They are certainly good enough for school work.

I support right to repair, of course, but this article can cause harm to that cause. It mentions overriding activation locks. That's bypassing security measures on functional products, which is not truly repair.

Should the manufacturer have a process to factory reset low value equipment? Of course. Still, I wouldn't want to conflate that with right of repair

</comment><comment><USER36> People who read this would probably be interested in one laptop per child, which was a nonprofit effort to provide $100 laptops to students throughout the third world. There is no need to buy cheaper used laptops when the laptops can just be manufactured more cheaply to begin with. A lot of what people are spending their money on is the software like that of the operating system which is not strictly necessary for young students. The actual components of a barebones computer are dirt cheap.

<comment><USER37> I don't think OLPC has much if any advantage over Chromebooks today. IIRC the OLPC laptop (not tablet) never reached $100; it was more like $200 with specs (e.g. VIA processor and 7.5" screen) that were weaker than even the cheapest $200 Chromebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> "The irony is that I'd like to do the responsible thing and wipe user data from these machines, but Apple won't let me. Literally the only option is to destroy these beautiful $3000 MacBooks and recover the $12/ea they are worth as scrap."

[https://twitter.com/DebraMoxon/status/1251537062278332416](https://twitter.com/DebraMoxon/status/1251537062278332416)

</comment><comment><USER39> Not sure that refurbing pc's had a problem with a right to repair.

Some bandwagon jumping going on

</comment><comment><USER7> I feel we need the manufacturers to provide a design lifespan for each device, and that should mean that at least half the devices sold must reach or exceed that age without significant degradation -> like a half-life.

Nobody wants to buy a laptop that will only last 2 years, so the manufacturers would either have answer some tough questions, or design things to last, and to be repairable (because that's one way of making them last).

Obviously careful through is needed towards the fine print - one should allow some parts to be replaced, like batteries, but not accept that a device lasts 10 years if you spend more on repairs than the device has cost in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER40> I don't see much about "right to repair" in the article. As @samatman says: "Right to repair and user-replaceable batteries have nothing to do with each other whatsoever."

Some commenters mention how specialised tools are needed, and how a lot of things are glued together making repair difficult. This is a consequence of the engineering choices made between, say, a thin notebook and something like a Dell Latitude, and the purchasing preferences consumers have that drive those design choices.

</comment><comment><USER41> Is there really a shortage of school computers? Unrequested: my kids got sent a chrome book and MSFT surface for school this year, when they already had better home computers.

The US has never spent a higher percent of GDP on education,

[https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending](https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending)

so why is this a problem and what does it have to do with Right to Repair?

<comment><USER37> "Lenovo, HP, and Dell have told school districts they have a shortage of nearly 5 million laptops"

[https://nypost.com/2020/08/23/us-faces-back-to-school- laptop...](https://nypost.com/2020/08/23/us-faces-back-to-school-laptop- shortage-amid-covid-19/)

<comment><USER41> Again, does every kid need a school procured laptop or pc? Mine didn't, they had their own. My guess is most kids do so if schools just focused on the kids who didn't already have computers the backlog would likely disappear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> Const-me I maintain and repair my electronic devices when needed. Some hardware vendors are better than other. Some of them publish service manuals for open access, and even have youtube channels with videos like this: [https://www.youtube.com/c/hpsupportadvanced/search?query=Pro...](https://www.youtube.com/c/hpsupportadvanced/search?query=ProBook+445+G7)

</comment><comment><USER42> The trouble with using recycled computers is that they're all different. That, in a school setting, is hell.

 _" Every child a sysadmin"_

</comment><comment><USER43> I wonder why there is a "shortage in school computers" still. Computers haven't significantly improved in the past decade, and most of the ones manufactured would still work fine at a local school. All you need to do is put in a $100 SSD into them and they're good to go. I have 3 older machines collecting dust around the house and I don't know what to do with them.

</comment><comment><USER44> I'm all for a sensible "Right to Repair" but I'm not sure there's a "critical shortage of school computers"

</comment><comment><USER45> Low end computers cost peanuts compared to what we spend on education in the USA.

Any perceived computer shortage is due to lack of will, not lack of funds.

<comment><USER46> Agreed, there are plenty of retired machines out there. Hell, if they organized properly I am sure office companies would happily give them computers when they do their cycling every few years. I imagine their local firms probably refresh at least every 5 years.

How many Windows/Linux laptops are as locked down as the iPad anyway? It seems that right-to-repair is specifically a war with Apple at the moment as they make vendor specific components and glue the thing together. Most off the shelf laptops use off the shelf user replaceable parts? To be honest I don't think we should encourage children into the Apple ecosystem until they sort their shit out.

With so many credit-card sized computing devices, I don't know why we're not yet building laptops where you can just drop in some semi-standard computing device into the middle and simply plug in a HDMI screen, 5V USB power connector from a battery and USB peripherals. Kids don't need the slimmest, fastest computing device ever created, they need something robust and reliable. Maintaining these machines is often as simple as just having the ability to swap parts to build working machines - make it so that somebody not trained in tech can do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> How does unlocking an iPad turn it into a laptop?

Second question: how are they planning to turn the million desktop PCs trapped in offices into laptops?

</comment><comment><USER48> How about school districts don't buy non-repairable devices? Enterprise focused laptops are easy to service.

</comment><comment><USER49> A repair mindset can also help with wastefulness and standardization. If you expect that you'll need to repair an item, having a certification or expectation that it can even _be_ repaired will force the use of more standardized components. And less junk thrown into landfills.

</comment><comment><USER50> It's surprising there even has to be a "right to repair" to actually repair things.

<comment><USER51> Yes and no. Yes, I think owners of devices should have much more access to the parts and tools needed to repair their own equipment. But, there's an argument in this article that I don't completely agree with, although I can sympathize with the need.

Those activation locked iPads would be very helpful to address the device shortage at schools and it would be great if we could find a way to do that. But, it's not simple either. Activation lock is the problem in this scenario, but it's also a solution in another scenario.

Activation lock has dramatically decreased theft of Apple phones and tablets. Right now, there's not much point in stealing one of these devices since it cannot be used by someone other than the owner. But I can remember a time when device theft was a daily occurance in public. The problem expressed in this article is that the legitimate owner has changed, but the lock has remained, and that is a valid problem.

If a recycler can suddenly unlock them, that solves one problem but creates two more. Now you've resurrected the black market for stolen apple devices and created a new black market for the unlocking of these devices. Sure, there is probably a technical solution to solve that too, but my point is that a solution needs careful thought and not just free-for-all legislation.

<comment><USER50> I'd say schools should stay away from the likes of Apple and use devices and systems that don't have such problem in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Fascinating. This looks like the kind of problem the OLPC was created to avoid - it was inexpensive, durable, open, standardized, and trivially easy to repair. It'd also be given to each and every student.

</comment><comment><USER53> Perhaps there should also be a Right to Virtualize? In this way there is less dependence on hardware and app ecosystems, as everything can co-exist and run everywhere; in the cloud or on refurbished hardware.

</comment><comment><USER54> Public purchasing of refurbished computers by low-income school districts implemented on an accelerated time scale?

There is no way that doesn't just turn into a feeding frenzy of people scamming school districts.

</comment><comment><USER55> Wasn't aware of a shortage of school computers, imo growing up in Florida it was more of a shortage of competent IT staff.

In middle school I was able to use Net Send, granted this was pre SP2 for WinXP but that was a great way to have fun, meanwhile in highschool it was veritas backup software, open network directories and simple permissions that, should've been locked down vs any semi competent kid could do, nefarious stuff.

Of course, I never did. Ever. But the computers were never that used, I don't think we even had AD for unique user names, and we did not have email addresses. Computers were on a domain and there were some user names, but simple simple stuff like logging in as admin was possible (by default no password on Pre SP2.)

For the article, they cover refurb, and IMO that's the best answer - <USER4> gives away O365/M365/W10 for school basically free (if not free) and there's entitlements via techsoup for _any_ non-profit, that basically mean if you file a non-profit llc, you get it if you provide a resale license and state leter of incorporation. (Resale license is pretty common for most non-profits, and allows you to waive sales tax on most purchases, because, its' for sale and ultimately will increase tax revenue for the state/county)

And an 5-7yr, maybe 10yr old i3, i5, i7 is all a student needs - a majority of students just need a basic laptop that should have good parts bin because it's probbaly to get damaged, vs having something new and not having that secondary resale/used/chinese market propping up parts.

Old Dell Latitudes, XPS's, For email, office apps, browing, and general computing, I don't see an issue. Especially w/ an SSD.

Now, macbooks, the resale market is strong on these, 2013 macbook airs are still selling for 400$+. Yeah. Right?

2013 Dell's and Lenovos, $100'ish. And they're great computers.

Most of the time the users don't even know the differences, just have Windows 10 and have it O365 ready and look in "good" shape.

</comment><comment><USER56> This is one problem that the self proclaimed philanthropists of Silicon Valley could easily solv.

Jeg buy 6 million computers. Easy.

A lot might even come from gear they are replacing a anyways.

Hopefully they will step up

</comment><comment><USER42> It's going to be interesting if batteries good for far more charge cycles become available and the phone makers resist using them because they will extend device lifespan.

<comment><USER57> At least in the Android market, there is enough competition that this doesn't bother me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> My oldest notebook was sold in 2006-2008. I repaired it multiple times. I use it everyday, a Sony Vaio SZ1m

</comment><comment><USER59> Not sure why this blog spam has so many upvotes?

If you think IT repair and refurbishment in education is an amazing solution you're either naive or so brilliant no one else in the industry can see it.

Random thought, physical destruction of hard disks is often required, as it should.

If you could find a way to do it electronically and be auditable, it might be step one. The erasing is easy, the auditing is hard.

</comment><comment><USER60> I've said it before and I'll say it again.

The right to repair requires the right to root!

</comment><comment><USER61> Maybe for the next pandemic ...

</comment><comment><USER62> A great part of the problem is planned obsolescence - through one of many avenues.

A lot of modern Capitalist economy is based on massive continuous consumption. So much so that if a company sell a viable, well-manufactured, robust product - it might be digging its own grave, because people won't need to buy the same or slightly-better product next year or in a couple of years. So, what does the economic incentive make manufacturers do?

* Make parts that are sensitive to the elements or to pressure, so they are likely to sustain damage faster.

* Make mechanical parts that are flimsy, thin, or just naturally wear out quickly.

* Use electric components with short lifespans: Batteries that can charge less and less (while consumption is kept high), capacitors that pop and leak, solder spots that heat up and detach etc.

* Write software or promote software that uses ever more computing resources even for the same functionality.

* Invest in advertising, "news" and cultural products which encourage repeated consumption, fashions, disdain for what's older etc.

* In extreme cases like that spoiled-princess company, Apple - they actively sabotage their own hardware with lock-ins, slow-downs on upgrades and other such goodies.

and there's more, I suppose.

<comment><USER63> I always see Apple cited as some malevolent king of planned obsolescence, but I have a 2013 MacBook Pro and an iPhone 6, both under constant use, both of which I have never had any significant issues with and do not plan to upgrade any time soon. I know they oppose Right-To-Repair, but so far their hardware has been fairly robust for me.

<comment><USER64> They've intentionally made battery replacement more difficult on their laptops by using strong adhesive on in their batteries (they used to screw them in).

What's more damning IMO is their propensity to solder RAM, and now SSDs, to the motherboard. If permanently affixing the most commonly upgraded parts for laptops isn't planned obsolescence, I'm not sure what is.

<comment><USER65> Please don't be obtuse and intentionally ignore all the of the legitimate reasons why they are doing all these things. You're clearly and obviously smart enough to know what those reasons are. Hint: they're not "planned obsolescence" or any such bullshit. It would be better if we could discuss those issues honestly.

<comment><USER7> If you are going to accuse the other person of being obtuse, you should at least answer the question:

"what would apple have to do for you to admit that they are definately going for planned obsolescence?"

<comment><USER65> For starters, instead of providing software updates for THREE TIMES AS LONG as their main competitor in their main product space (iPhone), they'd need to start providing updates for, say, less long. :)

Then, after that, they would need to start making products which, instead of holding their resale value for much longer than competing products (which they clearly and obviously do), hold their value for less long.

I could go on, but really, for anyone paying attention? To the facts which really matter? This stuff is pretty obvious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> For once I'm on board with a

"PLEASE SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN"

excuse for getting a law passed.</comment>


Hungarian government briefly proposes to criminalize encrypted services - <AUTHOR> https://mappingmediafreedom.org/#/2058 <comment><USER2> This appears to be a rather sensationalist headline for a move that is admittedly boneheaded on Orbán's part. To ensure the state's ability to surveil, the government had a plan to enforce the inclusion of backdoors.

However, it appears that after some consultation with people that had a clue - of which Hungary actually has a large number - the government has decided that would be a Bad Idea and has tabled the plans.

Source: Hungarian Civil Liberties Union ([http://tasz.hu/en/news/hungarian- government-plans-enforce-en...](http://tasz.hu/en/news/hungarian-government- plans-enforce-encryption-backdoors)).

This is actually very typical of Fidesz (Orbán Viktor's ruling party). They _love_ making abrupt and sweeping changes to the law, then leaving everybody else to pick up the pieces. Occasionally, cooler heads prevail before the law is actually broken, but normally there's just a mess.

<comment><USER3> For international readers, in US English 'table' means 'postpone', whereas in British English it means 'to present for discussion' which has almost the opposite meaning!

<comment><USER4> I've never seen 'table' being used as 'postpone' by any American, either in literature or on the intertubes; is it some sort of professional / niche usage?

<comment><USER5> Winston Churchill wrote about a misunderstanding during World War 2 which was caused by the different meanings for this expression:

 _The enjoyment of a common language was of course a supreme advantage in all British and American discussions. The delays and often partial misunderstandings which occur when interpreters are used were avoided. There were however differences of expression, which in the early days led to an amusing incident. The British Staff prepared a paper which they wished to raise as a matter of urgency, and informed their American colleagues that they wished to "table it." To the American Staff "tabling" a paper meant putting it away in a drawer and forgetting it. A long and even acrimonious argument ensued before both parties realized that they were agreed on the merits and wanted the same thing._

You'll see that in the 3rd paragraph on this page: [https://books.google.com/books?id=zVdux2KfenoC&lpg=PP1&dq=wi...](https://books.google.com/books?id=zVdux2KfenoC&lpg=PP1&dq=winston%20churchill%20table%20second%20world%20war%20grand%20alliance&pg=PA609#v=onepage&q&f=false)

<comment><USER6> Interesting bit of history. The usage I've heard is that 'tabling' means to postpone, putting something on the table means to present something. Generally just 'table' means, well a table. Then again, Canadian here.

<comment><USER7> I'm a Canadian too, but my understanding matched the British usage. Newspapers are full of stuff like this quote from The Globe and Mail: "Mr. McCallum told reporters Tuesday that the government will table its annual immigration report before March 9."

<comment><USER6> Hmm, guess I need to read more newspapers. I do find though that as time goes on our language tends to use both American and British spellings/meanings seemingly at random, due to the various influences (plus a few Canadianisms).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm Hungarian. This bullshit is actively being reverted.

Originally there was a plan to put encryption app users in jail for up to two years.

But not all communication apps would be treated equal: mainstream applications already using encryption, such as Skype or Viber, would be perfectly okay. Only using those applications specifically written to encrypt communication, primarily CryptTalk, would have been punishable.

Edit: Our speculation is that this is the same strategy seen with the internet tax. Spreading FUD and stealing state wealth while everybody runs in circles.

Edit 2: They did ban using CryptTalk and similar products (all communication services with encryption as their main selling point). No information on how they plan to enforce this decision: their only tool is to ask mobile app stores nicely to hide these apps from plain sight.

<comment><USER9> This should give everyone pause when choosing to use Skype.

<comment><USER10> Pretty sure Microsoft never advertised Skype as something they couldn't intercept, so you probably shouldn't have been using it for anything you wouldn't say over the phone line in the first place.

<comment><USER11> I don't think it did, but when Microsoft bought it, Skype was still considered "hard to eavesdrop" due to its P2P architecture.

Microsoft left everyone to believe that it's still secure even after it centralized its nodes and would constantly refuse to respond to questions about whether Skype can be intercepted. I remember at one point about 50 civil liberties groups sent an open letter to Microsoft about it, and it refused to answer it then, too.

I also remember that some people were noticing that their https links would get blocked on Skype, which also meant Microsoft can MITM the Skype chats between users and it was no longer P2P (if I remember correctly Microsoft also tried to hide the fact that Skype was no longer P2P for quite a while, again leaving people to believe their chats could not be intercepted).

Microsoft also killed TOM-Skype in China, which was _specifically_ designed to allow interception and censorship that bypassed Skype's P2P architecture. At the time, everyone who was paying attention _knew_ that this meant Skype could now be intercepted _everywhere_ , otherwise Microsoft wouldn't have deprecated TOM-Skype for China.

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/24/skype_urg...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/24/skype_urged_to_come_clean_on_eavesdropping_capabilities_and_policies_in.html)

[https://en.greatfire.org/blog/2013/nov/tom-skype-dead- long-l...](https://en.greatfire.org/blog/2013/nov/tom-skype-dead-long-live- microsoft-surveillance)

<comment><USER10> My point is more without explicitly saying so and explaining how, you shouldn't have been assuming it was any more secure.

Even when it was P2P, it was assumed it was hard to eavesdrop, it was never proven to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Ironically, parliament awarded CryptTalk an innovation award last week.

[http://budapestbeacon.com/economics/crypttalk-given- innovati...](http://budapestbeacon.com/economics/crypttalk-given-innovation- award-parliament-now-govt-plans-ban-app/33507)

</comment><comment><USER13> There is a now a growing awareness of the unhealthy level of obsession governments have about citizens communications.

This is in effect the same as the Burr-Feinstein encryption bill, one penalizes users, the other service providers. The bottom line is there is a lot of posturing about privacy but little commitment. All governments without exception are obsessed with your communications and data. It is unsettling and creepy.

I really think some users will have to take 'secure communications' into their own hands depending on the level of need and address metadata exposures. If its remotely life threatening or impacting it would be foolish to depend on any service provider or technology.

You can't win an encryption 'arms race' against state level actors with near endless resources, capabilities and the will. And the law and willingness to arm twist service providers and projects with secret courts, orders, intimidation, harassment.

One can't help feeling current technologies however committed fall way short and are only lulling us into a false sense of privacy and complacency. A solution that does not acknowledge a state actors sheer range of capabilities and clearly articulate how it is addressed is not a solution. Perhaps something that completely randomizes metadata and makes it too expensive to break per user.

</comment><comment><USER14> This is what happens when someone that do not know anything about internet architecture tries to make something illegal. Good luck in enforcing this law.

<comment><USER15> I fear that they have jailing opponents in mind.

<comment><USER16> They intend to jail anyone who uses GMail, WhatsApp, or any other encrypted service? Such a effort will fail, if only because there isn't enough space in the jails...

<comment><USER17> No, they will jail anyone who they think have done something, but have no proof. This law will make them able to jail anyone without a reason.

<comment><USER18> It's more common than you might think, even in the US. A common example I see is major cities where the freeway speed limit is 45 or 55, but everyone is doing 70 or 80mph, even the police officers. Most of the time that cop will drive right past you even if you're doing 20mph or 30mph over the speed limit, but if they want to pull you over, now they have a free reason to arrest you and impound your car. But if you're driving the speed limit while everyone else flies by you, you could be pulled over because driving too slow is suspicious.

It seems that, given enough time, governments will find ways to implement enough contradictory laws that everyone is a criminal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So, does this make (for example) visiting a website over HTTPS illegal? Or does it compel Hungarian ISPs to MITM their customers? It seems to imply one in one sentence, then the other in the next.

</comment><comment><USER20> If you want to get technical, ASCII is a single-alphabet substitution cipher.

Remember, lawyers have tried asserting that copying to RAM is copyright infringement.

[http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2008/08/20/ram-copying- an-i...](http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2008/08/20/ram-copying-an-issue-of- more-than-transitory-duration/)

<comment><USER21> UTF8 is encryption for writing systems

The International Phonetic Alphabet is encryption for human voices

Language is encryption for ideas

I suppose the irony here is that Hungarian, as a language, is intricately encrypted

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I can't access the article right now. But I'm fairly certain that a couple of stupid deputies who don't understand anything about technology/cryptology want to introduce a law against it and everyone is going ape shit "Hungary want to criminalize the use of encrypted services".

The same thing happens in France from time to time.

<comment><USER23> That's not _stupid_. That's _chaotic evil_ , almost by definition: "let's just float this thing again and again, see if we can get away with it. If not, just pretend we didn't see it coming and retry sometime later. Repeat until law passes."

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I cannot open the page. Can some Hungarian provide context and explanation. A lot could be lost in translation. Or bias.

The title suggest that it will run afoul of a thousand EU regulations.

But it is hard to be alive in Europe and not run afoul of any EU regulation - but that is another topic.

<comment><USER25> I'm Hungarian. This is just another populist act of the Fidesz government. They recently went full retard with anti-terrorism and this is part of their action plan.

I doubt they are serious, but it would be potentially used against the enemies of the state or it's perfect to distract the media so they could carry on stealing.

<comment><USER26> Indeed. These nonsense plans makes the journalists busy, so they don't have remaining resources to investigate and make as loud the things happening in the shadows.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I would say encryption is somewhat of a red herring. It is the introduction of similar surveillance policy that is quickly becoming widespread, I don't even think Hungary is an early adopter here. The sources even citing roughly 'granting powers other governments already have' and establishing an agency TIBEK with similar access to data (without warrant IIRC) as common 3 letter agencies. They even use the same terrorism/ISIS/Brussels/France reasoning. I guess in the end everyone can pick their surveillance point on the safety - freedom graph.

<comment><USER23> "The sources even citing roughly 'granting powers other governments already have'" \- do you think that government bullshits not? I do remember a similar way of reasoning "but Iraq has WMDs aplenty", coming from a Prime Minister or somesuch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> > _anyone caught using encrypted software can be punished by 2 years of > prison_

> _The providers would be obliged to ensure access to the content of the > encrypted messages_

I am not sure if users can be punished. I could only confirm that providers have obligation to provide data under penalty.

European countries are pretty benevolent to end users, for example in some it is legal to download copyright protected music and videos for personal use. And providers already have obligation (by EU law) to provide information and archive it for some time.

</comment><comment><USER29> So.. no HTTPS for them?

But the general question is this: would companies rather exit from such country and protect some values, or provide a non-encrypted version of their services to secure their userbase?

</comment><comment><USER30> Ok, so people in the government realised, that there exist encryption methods, which can not be "decrypted", and technology makes encryption accessible to everyone.

When will they realise, that there is no way to detect, whether a message is encrypted or not-encrypted, and there may be multiple levels of "tunneling". It is not possible to find out the original form or the source (app) of information.

Monitoring online communication is in not any simpler, than monitoring verbal communication between every 2 people.

<comment><USER23> In other words, now you can imprison anyone, while pretending to uphold the rule of the law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Stasi called and want their infamy back.

</comment><comment><USER32> Meanwhile, the Burr-Feinstein draft dropped today and it's absolutely horrifying.

</comment><comment><USER33> Are these governments really spending all day spying on us?

<comment><USER34> This case points out an interesting difference between Hungary and the US: In the US, surveillance is real, and when policy-makers get briefed about what the surveillance state wants, that's based on things they have, or plan on implementing.

This law in Hungary appears to be based on a wish list. Otherwise they would have known what is practical and what isn't. So, DO governments spend all day spying on us? Only the ones that have the budget and technical means to make it real. The rest are just authoritarian wankers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Urban really seems to be on tyrant mode for the pasty ear. Especially when he restricted the media laws and tried to censor opinions about government

<comment><USER36> Orban has no idea about any technology, let alone encryption. He probably can't even use email. Seriously, the guy only got a mobile phone in the last few years. He has no computers in his office.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Does anyone know if the proposed Hungarian law considers a web browser to be an "application intended for encrypted communication"?

<comment><USER8> No. The browser's main intention isn't to encrypt communication, so this law doesn't apply.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> John von Neumman is turning over in his grave!

</comment><comment><USER39> Pig Latin will be outlawed!</comment>


Facebook is blocking users from posting stories about its security breach - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/28/facebook-blocks-guardian-story/ <comment><USER2> I like the irony that this post is being flagged from HN because its a duplicate.</comment>