Google and Facebook should be regulated for news content, UK government report - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/google-facebook-apple-news-should-be-regulated-uk-government-report.html <comment><USER2> Just today I noticed " _The Most Popular Health Articles of 2018, a Scientific Credibility Review_ ":

[http://healthfeedback.org/the-most-popular-health- articles-o...](http://healthfeedback.org/the-most-popular-health-articles- of-2018-a-scientific-credibility-review/)

Many articles from otherwise reputable sources are not credible, or accurate or are simply false. Journalists no longer do any fact checking. Sensationalism is more important than reputation.

So on to the idea that Google and Facebook should be regulated, I think it's an absolutely horrible idea. We are talking of censorship conducted by the government, the worst kind there is. And thinking of our own government, I can't think of people that are more corrupt or incompetent.

Just fucking educate people on fact checking and elementary logic. Push for some lessons in high-school or whatever.

<comment><USER3> > We are talking of censorship conducted by the government, the worst kind > there is.

Why the censorship is done by a corporation is so much better than the one done by an elected government? I think that censorship is the wrong thing not who does it.

> So on to the idea that Google and Facebook should be regulated, I think it's > an absolutely horrible idea.

For what it seems the USA election was deeply impacted by a foreign hostile government using Facebook ads. There are countries where sectarian violence is on the rise thanks to how Facebook prioritises stories for engagement.

Facebook or Google need to be regulated because they are radicalizing people in search of more engagement to sell more ads. That is not a good situation, and there is no incentive for them to stop doing it. As it is the best way to get more money.

Should these companies be allowed to run what accounts as psychological experiments on big portions of the population without any supervision? For me, the answer is no. It is unethical and it will impact negatively the people affected.

> Just fucking educate people on fact checking and elementary logic.

This supposes that the fault is in the individuals not in the system. And that it is easier to change all the population than to regulate a handful of companies. I am all for better education, but to solve the problem with the big tech companies regulation is needed.

<comment><USER4> > Why the censorship is done by a corporation is so much better than the one > done by an elected government? I think that censorship is the wrong thing > not who does it.

Because a company can censor whatever they want, and you don't have to use Facebook if you don't want to. With the government, there is an inherent threat of violence if you don't comply. Very simple.

<comment><USER5> > and you don't have to use Facebook if you don't want to.

That must be a nice fantasy land you're living in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The fake news is coming from inside the media.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia- bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website) / [http://www.adnews.com.au/news/microsoft-flags-daily-mail- uk-...](http://www.adnews.com.au/news/microsoft-flags-daily-mail-uk-content- as-untrustworthy-in-fake-news-filter)

There was a big push to regulate the UK media's endemic lack of ethics after the phone hacking scandal, but apart from collapsing "News of the World" no real change was achieved.

(On the other hand, the Hutton Inquiry censured the BBC for reporting that turned out to be accurate, so ...)

<comment><USER7> Anyone who thought Daily Mail was a reputable outlet for journalism instead of a tabloid rag hasn't got their "fake news" barometer screwed on straight anyway.

Might as well point out that the newscasters from the Marvel cinematic universe are also fake news.

<comment><USER8> Now also applies to the BBC, whose reputation for journalistic distance has been absolutely trashed over the last few years.

So - much as I have limited respect for Facebook etc, the idea that the Internet should be regulated while the sewer press is allowed to run riot is just a little bit of a reach.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Of course the problem is how are Google and Facebook supposed to determine what 'trustworthy, reliable news' is. If you read the Government report behind this article you'll find that the Government's only suggestion seems to be literally 'you know it when you see it.' Seems very open to abuse and 'knowing' that news you don't like is untrustworthy 'when you see it'.

I think society in general is nearly at the point of basically declaring bankruptcy on trustworthiness of journalism and are treating everything as having an agenda. But then how can you fund news with an agenda from public funds?

<comment><USER10> Do make ad publishing more difficult- eg. Maybe large scale targeted individual ads to manipulate people (with targeted precision) should be illegal? Or ads that combine more then 1 selection criteria or whatever- the status quo is not defendable.

<comment><USER11> All ads are designed to manipulate people. It's literally the purpose of advertising.

<comment><USER10> Correct, but not all ads can be customized for individuals at scale - that's the difference and that's the problem.

<comment><USER11> There's been customized mass mailings for a long time. Google and FB weren't the first to collect lots of information about consumers and sell it to advertisers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This made me chuckle, just a few years ago we were up in arms against Chinas great firewall, I know this is not on the same scale but its still a restriction on what people can report on and now who is to say whether there will be political bias in shutting down certain posts?

<comment><USER13> There's a pretty alarming trend of mass surveillance and censorship in the UK.

<comment><USER6> Not so much a trend as something that has always been there, for those of us old enough to remember when an MP was legally barred from having his voice heard on television. The security state has a heavy hand, and was only really restrained by ECHR in the late 90s.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Increasingly I think the answer is to regulate the public relations & advertising industry. I'm not sure what exactly that looks like in a free society, but it's the root cause of seemingly all of our problems and I can't seem to come up with any benefits it really has on society.

What we need to do is eliminate the incentive to build these influence networks - and the primary incentive is that politicians, companies etc... want to pay to push some kind of agenda.

<comment><USER15> Warning,

When Medical got regulated in the U.S. the prices skyrocketed, and customer care stagnated. The regulators were incentivized to create a monopoly by the entrenched medical professionals.

Now people are asking for more regulations. Is that the solution?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Regarding what is and isn't fake news, could they not lean on existing organisations.

For example: Legitimate news are members of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, or have a licence to broadcast from Ofcom, or something similar. Media on social platforms will be subject to the same standards as those broadcast on television, or written in print. If videos online are 'fake news' then ofcom deal with that the same as they would on television, or ISPO the same as they would in print.

For foreign news, they could rely on similar organisations in host countries, or an affiliation with a member.

In that regulation, Facebook & Google would agree to revoke the account of the outlet in line with the regulatory organisations guidelines.

Any news outlet that is not a member of the independent organisation, or a licencee of Ofcom is considered fake news.

In my internal "how reliable is this source", that's pretty much the first check I do in my head.

<comment><USER6> The trouble with IPSO is that it's toothless; you can take a look down [https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution- statements/](https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/) and see how often the Mail, Express and Sun get ruled against on accuracy.

<comment><USER16> But if Fake News institutions like Infowars-types were required to be members, the IPSO would have to revoke their membership or face ridicule and undermine the trustworthiness of the rest of the members. And if Infowars wanted to be published on Facebook and Google, they'd have to abide by the IPSO rules.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> And yet no comment on the reliability or trustworthiness of existing UK news content?

Seems like this is a half-baked, populist attempt to looking like they're doing _something_, when in reality the UK has demonstrated that it has insufficient political spine to stand up to big media.

I guess it's just easier to lash-out at tech companies than it is to address the elephant in the room.

</comment><comment><USER18> By now, who would expect the UK government to ever not say something should be regulated?

</comment><comment><USER19> Like the Sun and the other newspapers then :-)

</comment><comment><USER20> Read the actual report.

CNBC's version is an example of what some people call "Fake News"

[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/778021/021119_THE_CAIRNCROSS_REVIEW_A_sustainable_future_for_journalism.pdf)

<comment><USER21> If people call this article "fake news" they are using a grossly distorted meaning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> to think that we are one of the last generation to live under a somehow "free" WWW is something that we will all feel nostalgic about soon enough. we just wouldn't be able to express our regret later on as we will all be tracked and sued for expressing opinions that medias and governments deem as conspiracy or fake news.

</comment><comment><USER23> A government that has laws that require ID and a minimum age to purchase plastic knives? Same government?</comment>


Welcome to the Block Party: The internet after ad blocking - <AUTHOR> http://www.theawl.com/2015/09/welcome-to-the-block-party <comment><USER2> About a year or so ago, my dad called me out of the blue and told me that my mom was crying because "internet ads were following her and making her anxious".

Earlier that day, she came from a doctor and ended up searching for a medical condition on a famous search website. After that, she started seeing ads for various bullshit remedies all across the internet. Almost every website she visited, showed her same types of ads. Even when she wanted to forget and take her mind of it, she couldn't because these ads were constantly reminding her of it.

She got so disgusted that she quit using the web for the rest of the day and cried.

I guided them on how to install ad blocking addons and how to change default search engines (she now uses Startpage) But we couldn't easily block it on iPad so the solution was to switch the search engine and clear cookies.

All these companies that make money off tracking people and are selling search results really need to rethink their business models.

PS: She also wrote an email to Tim Cook complaining about this and got a reply from someone that they will "look into it". I'm glad Apple will now a provide solution to block these kinds of things on an iPad.

<comment><USER3> I'm sorry but how do you know it was the search website that sold information? It could as well be the first web site that she opened that happened to be on the same ad network as other related web sites she visited. Just guessing.

<comment><USER4> Said search website was probably google. If that's the case they don't have to sell it, they just use it to target ads from their own network. If you search something on Google it will follow you like the plague.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't want ad companies tracking me.

Ad companies have roundly demonstrated that I can no longer trust them to show me ads without tracking.

Sorry, but I'm not switching off that blocker. Maybe if the history of the internet had taken a different course. But now it's too late -- the well's been poisoned, and advertisers and publishers have only themselves to blame. Pointing the finger at the users doesn't do anything to repair this lost trust.

        Ad-blocking, insofar as it contributes to the decimation of
        advertising revenues, will hasten this exodus to the
        platforms. And there is no way to block the ads shown to you
        by Facebook or Google or Twitter in their own apps,
        especially not on mobile.

Aside: There absolutely are ways to block ads within apps. There are already Android apps that accomplish this to various extents, and I'm sure they'll only get more sophisticated to match any migration of users to mobile.

<comment><USER6> Tracking is one thing that bothers me. The other are video ads that hijack my speakers and sap my bandwidth, pop over ads that hijack my screen focus, etc. Those are where I draw the line.

I don't use explicit ad blockers, but I do run with NoScript and Cookie Controller. Simple, well-behaved banner and sidebar ads are fine. Overly aggressive ads get killed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Damn, that article took a strange leap with discussing what better ads would be. Somehow it entirely skipped the possibility that more ads might resemble the ads of the most successful advertisers of the web (like google, facebook, twitter) and instead leaped on a dystopian slope where all ads are served by the content platforms of those companies.

Saying that twitter, google or facebook ads cannot be blocked is just bogus. People use them on normal web browsers that quite easily could block them. The reason they're not blocked is that it's not worth the hassle, because the ads are clean, small and polite. You know, better ads.

Such better ads are not patented, and switching to pleasant text ads like the industry leaders leaders did would make ad blockers a marginal phenomenon.

<comment><USER8> _Such better ads are not patented, and switching to pleasant text ads like the industry leaders leaders did would make ad blockers a marginal phenomenon._

The risk is that _advertising_ would also become a marginal phenomenon.

<comment><USER9> It's _amazing_ to me that so many smart minds in content outlets can't figure out a way to make money other than ads, particular privacy invading ads.

It's been said often enough and long enough to sound tired, but we really are products, not customers. The entity that a content outlet cares about is the ad networks. _NOT_ you. The content is just a bug zapper meant to attract you in.

<comment><USER10> "It's amazing to me that so many smart minds in content outlets can't figure out a way to make money other than ads"

There are many ways, but nothing that is as profitable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I was always a defender of a site's right to use advertising in lieu of any better way to pay for its content. As someone who'd had stabs in the past at making content sites with useful content, I understood that it was a case of etiquette. If you want to read my content, do me the courtesy of allowing an unobtrusive text ad to exist off to the side. On that basis, I never blocked ads. Sometimes the ads were even interesting.

I use an ad blocker now. Too many abuses of my willingness to let the publishers show me ads and I eventually just got sick of it. Where the line was crossed for me included:

\- Videos (or audio) autoplaying over the top of my own music; especially when they're in some other tab, halfway down the page, forcing me to go hunting to figure out where the sound was coming from

\- Links commandeered by popup launchers; especially when they cancel the original click, or load my link in a new tab and override the _current_ tab with the ad popup, which often resulted in me accidentally leaving the ad tab open while I closed the tab I actually wanted.

\- Hover ads that activate because I was careless enough to not pay precise attention to the location of my mouse pointer

\- Page content scroll positions jerking up and down as ads appear or disappear (usually just the former)

\- Overlay ads appearing on top of content I'm trying to read, and in particular those which make the close button either hard to see, unresponsive when clicked, or which respond as though I've clicked the ad itself

\- Content that just won't display because it's blocked by ad resources that have stalled while loading

And so forth. I'll stand up for publisher's rights, but only to a point. Eventually the noise and bad behaviour just becomes too much.

</comment><comment><USER12> I love the mantra of "the web is supported by advertising" that every one of these sorts of articles at least quotes. It's not. Shitty business models are supported by advertising. There are plenty of us who provide non-advertising driven services that are profitable and can afford transit costs.

As for blocking, the technology allows it so I will use it. If it doesn't allow it, I have no ethical qualms about breaking it until it does. If I'm paying for the portal device be it tablet, desktop, smartphone, TV, I will be in control of it. If it's subsidy-driven, their funeral.

<comment><USER13> The mantra? This is how the majority of the web is monetized. It's not a mantra, it's a fact. People contribute content to the web and you pay with viewing ads. I don't know how you can rationalize that as being a "shitty" business model just because you purchase a device that is capable of connecting to the internet.

If what you really mean to say is that it's a bad business model because people like yourself can install ad-blocking software and consume content without paying for it, then I see what you're saying although you come off as entitled and naive.

<comment><USER12> Thats really not how it works. Content providers like that ideal but it's incorrect. It never has operated that way.

I pay for a connection and a device. I don't pay for an advertising subsidy. If you choose to use advertising as a capital model for your business in a market so easily destroyed by technology then that by definition is a shitty business model due to the massive risk of a technological shift destroying your only income. Not only that, the consumers merely tolerate your model, not engage it. It is a plague upon them most of the time.

The only way this model works is if you provide a device which consumes advertising. That in itself is being eroded as well due to the number of services which offer utility without advertising even on the advertiser's territory.

Content isn't worth much on its own which is the problem. Authors rarely get paid anything significant from publishing; same with content driven advertising. I don't see how you're going to milk it in a decaying market.

The web will shrink, content will have to stand alone and be free of advertising ties and you'll have to put some cash down for services. Back to 1995 again.

I fully expect these dying markets to throw a few turds yet however. That will merely bury them deeper.

<comment><USER10> So what you're suggesting is one of two things.

1\. Support model. I.e. I donate to your site and then consume your content. 2\. Netflix (walled garden) model: I pay a central place, think AOL, or Facebook and they track my views and pay those producing content.

<comment><USER12> I'm not really suggesting, just acknowledging the inevitability of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is why I encourage all the people I know, who aren't great with computers, to use adblockers:

[http://i.imgur.com/dzwaKhI.png](http://i.imgur.com/dzwaKhI.png)

Saw that ad for what is borderline malware on a fresh install of windows 10 while trying out Microsoft Edge to see what it's worth as a browser. It's a google ad (you can always spot them through the X button), on a popular website.

As long as google doesn't do any real policing on what is permissible in their adnetworks, it will always be a user's right to protect himself. Television and newspapers have higher standards for ads, at least in my country.

This was also a reminder that Edge will not be a real browser until Microsoft adds the possibility of using an adblocker. No extensions, no deal.

<comment><AUTHOR> Microsoft announced earlier this year an IE feature called "SmartScreen Filter" that is supposed to detect and block misleading or malicious ads. I assume Edge has this feature, too, but from the blog post (and your experience) it sounds like it is disabled by default.

[http://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/archive/2015/04/28/cleaning-...](http://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/archive/2015/04/28/cleaning- up-misleading-advertisements.aspx)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The author gets one thing massively wrong. So do the reddit commentors they quote.

The quote:

" _Ad blockers could end up saving the ad industry from its worst excesses. If blocking becomes widespread, the ad industry will be pushed to produce ads that are simpler, less invasive and far more transparent about the way they're handling our data_ "

Oh? And how are you so sure they won't go the other direction? Because that's where I'd place my money in a heart beat.

Adblockers rely on blocking requests to known ad networks and affiliates. If the ads are instead served up locally, from the site the person is visiting itself, it can't block the ads. Ad blockers are 100% ineffective in those instances. A company like google or any other major ad network just needs to create some sort of back-end, plugin or server side program that serves up ads from the domain you're visiting. The ad blocker wouldn't know if it's a picture of a cat or an ad for Netflix since it's all coming from randomsite.com

Several smaller companies have already started doing this and it could very well signal the end of ad blockers if it becomes widespread and adopted by the big players (specifically adsense).

The one thing I _don 't_ see is ad companies becoming more transparent & open. That's silly to even think about since it's less profitable alternative. The companies that don't do this will cannibalize the ones that do since they'll be shooting themselves in the foot. No, I see ad companies becoming more clever.

As far as content creators go, I don't even know how this is a debate. Just how entitled are people nowadays? Is this why they call millennials the entitled generation? If someone creates content, and wants people to see an ad for Pepsi before you can consume that content, that is the creators prerogative, not yours. End of story. There's no further argument here. I don't know why people think everything should be free. Nothing is free, everything is subsidized by something.

<comment><USER5>
        If the ads are instead served up locally,
        from the site the person is visiting itself,
        it can't block the ads.

Why not? I don't see why an ad blocker couldn't identify and block certain URL schemes/patterns, common scripts, or element structures.

Also -- doesn't cross-site tracking rely on third-party cookies from a shared (separate) domain?

<comment><USER15> > Why not?

I think you missed the point, the plugin or program wouldn't have a distinct pattern or scheme since it would be coming from the website you're visiting.

Say, for example, I want to show an ad for denture cream. Nothing fancy, just a gif. Well, the URL would look like [http://www.randomsite.com/img/filename.gif](http://www.randomsite.com/img/filename.gif)

How do you block that without blocking every image on the website?

Granted, what you propose would be easier to do for more advanced systems, but the key here, is that 95% of adblockers almost exclusively look for calls to ad networks. If you eliminate that, you open up that 95%.

<comment><USER16> >How do you block that without blocking every image on the website?

By blocking that specific asset? Blocklists will be much larger and slower reactively, but still far better than nothing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> My personal reason for using an ad blocker is the infrastructure.

There is nothing wrong with ads. But there is something deeply wrong with ad networks and automated ad placement.

Giving up a square of your website to some company to place whatever the hell they deem relevant is the reason I dislike web ads. I go to a website to read _their_ content, not what Doubleclick thinks I should see based on my creepy user profile.

So if content creators curate and produce ads in partnership with advertisers (whose products they must actually, you know, like enough to want to promote to their readers) then maybe people will find ads less offensive. Instead of seeing ads for malware, or a private medical condition, or the towels they were just browsing on Amazon in a separate tab.

Great content creators don't use an algorithm and analytics-generated user profiles to determine what content to serve individual users, they just publish what they think their readers will like. Why not do the same for ads?

</comment><comment><USER3> As a possibility, a model whereby advertisers pay both content providers and readers for viewing ads.

I can imagine a system where before viewing expensive content (your next ultradeep NYT analysis I really want to read) I'm given a choice to view an ad (video, audio or picture) on one of the topics I'm interested in and be paid say $0.001. There are ad processors, let's say 2 or 3 major ones A, B and C, with whom I have an account. NYT hires one or two of them to give readers reasonable choices of what kind of ads to view and pay both ways. I'm registered with A and C with interests in cars, musical instruments and hiking equipment (in fact they may be priced differently), NYT supports A and B, which is fine, I'll be paid by A this time. I may of course change my preferences over time.

This will make ads even more expensive for the advertisers, but will at the same time improve relevance. In fact advertisers may compete for keywords/interests just like they do with Google Ads.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ad networks use real-time bidding to auction banner ad space as the page loads. (I imagine that's part of the reason it can take so damn long for some news sites to load.) Why can't the _user_ (or their user agent) take part in this same auction? If I'm will to pay $0.02 per page view on nytimes.com, but advertisers are only willing to pay $0.01 then I should be able to win the auction.

<comment><USER18> So, exactly this:

[https://contributor.google.com/u/0/](https://contributor.google.com/u/0/)

You even have control over who gets your money:

[http://i.imgur.com/4Vuuefm.png](http://i.imgur.com/4Vuuefm.png)

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting! I thought Google Contributor was more of a direct micropayment system for content, but from that link it looks like real-time bidding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > _In other words, even the most important and widely respected newspaper in > the world is nowhere close to being healthily monetized, especially not by > the small number of people who pay for it._

It's not true that people won't pay for "content". People subscribe to Netflix, and still go to the theaters in droves (despite "piracy"). People buy games. And it's not even true that there's a problem with written content: people still buy books.

People won't pay for _news_ , which isn't the same thing as "content" in general.

The reason people won't pay for news is because news have _no inherent value_.

Reading the news is a way of passing time; it's more like glazing at trees and leaves in the wind (but much less enjoyable).

<comment><USER20> There are good arguments for the view that news is actively bad for you: [http://dobelli.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Par...](http://dobelli.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Part1_TEXT.pdf) (pdf).

<comment><USER19> Great read, thanks! I agree with everything in this paper (but that may be confirmation bias at work...)

So adblocking is actually going to save the world by starving all the evil news-producing entities.

However, the fact that most people won't pay for news, signals that news is less addictive than one could think (since people do pay for drugs - they're willing to pay any price for a fix).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What bothers me the most about all these fertile sources for spam and ads to thrive (junk snail mail, telephone marketers, email spam, internet ads) is not just the malicious intent of most of it, but also the _inefficiency_ of it all. A majority of Internet traffic is bots[1] costing electricity and time sorting through spam. Most of my snail mail by weight and size is trash every single day, waisting effort of an already underfunded and non-profitable USPS. Internet ads clutter up web interfaces and take up cycles in our browsers wasting time and making the delivery of information much less efficient. I feel as though in time, with all the physical and digital public services we have, 60% of infrastructure resources will go toward wasteful and nefarious services, 30% will go toward blocking and mitigating said services, and the remaining 10% will be human activity wondering why everything is so damn slow and expensive.

[1][http://theweek.com/articles/454320/62-percent-all-web- traffi...](http://theweek.com/articles/454320/62-percent-all-web-traffic- comes-from-bots)

</comment><comment><USER22> Maybe the ad-heavy Internet was just a phase. Business models come and go. Craigslist killed newspaper classifieds as a business. Ad blockers may kill web ads as a business.

<comment><USER23> And we slide into closed and centralized places ... that is scary.

<comment><USER22> Every business will still have a web site for their own products and services. Amazon won't have a problem. Wikipedia will go on. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The Economist are already pay sites, and they're almost the only news sites with actual reporters. Pay TV will continue to fund news networks, which will have sites with additional content to get people to watch their TV.

All we'll lose are the millions of bottom-feeder sites which take content in, hang ads on it, and hope to get paid. No big loss.

<comment><USER24> > and The Economist are already pay sites, and they're almost the only news > sites with actual reporters.

The Economist doesn't actually have on-staff reporters, they rely on correspondents around the World who sell their articles either ad hoc or on a commission basis.

They do have staff who write editorials, but not the news articles.

The Economist is also happy to ( try to ) utterly bombard me with ads on their website despite being a subscriber. They even had a crawl-up SUBSCRIBE NOW! ad at one point _when I was logged-in_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Would've been nice if the article had pointed out that ad-networks have become a popular way to distribute trojans and malware using Flash exploits (though I'm sure when Flash is gone, ppl will keep finding other browser exploits ad's can exploit).

</comment><comment><USER26> Another possibility is that people will learn to care about what they read, and learn that it costs something. We don't _have_ to tip, either.

Also, I'm sorry, but I'm never going to login to Facebook to read the Economist, and I stopped using Twitter's mobile app when they introduced sponsored content.

<comment><USER27> > We don't have to tip, either.

And in Australia, we don't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Content providers (from ad networks to movie studios) need to realise that you can only go so far. Ads have become more than ads. They track you wherever you go, not just online but offline too and people are starting to realise how intrusive this is. Most people are reasonable. A lot of articles have been publish about how terrible ads are but if you show them in a tasteful and a non-intrusive way (meaning that they don't track the user), they can be very successful.

Podcasts have been getting more and more popular everyday and I listen to a lot of them. I almost never skip any podcast ads even though I've heard most of them before because they feel more authentic (mostly because it's read by someone whose opinion I trust) and they're not intrusive at all. It seems like a good trade of to listen to them while getting great entertaining/informative content for free _and_ I might get a good deal on something I might be interested in (since they mostly offer promo codes). If I'm listening to a podcast on technology, I get to hear Hover's ad spot, for example. That's interesting to me because as someone who's interested in listening to a podcast about technology, it's possible that I already manage a couple of domains and I might not be happy with my registrar (then again, who is). They're generically targeted ads. While on the websites, cookies follow me wherever I go, sometimes even when I delete them and my information is sold by companies I trust as a user because they're greedy and some other party want my information just so they can put ads in front of my face. When I try to block these, I'm called unethical because I'm taking food off the table of the writers.

There's a middle way here but I don't think ad networks ever going to realise this the same way movie studios haven't realised you can't solve piracy problem by adding more and more DRM. Don't be intrusive. Don't fuck up the UX. Don't bother me. I don't mind removing my ad blocker and see ads if that means I'll support the websites I visit. But ad networks are greedy and I fear this is only going to make them become more intrusive because of how easy (and now probably widely reached) ad blockers are going to become. And even if they do realise their mistake and make ads less intrusive both for privacy and UX reasons, no one will be there to realise that because everybody will be using ad blockers.

</comment><comment><USER29> The advertising market have been inflating for ten years now. Ten years ago one user would earn you an average of one usd per month, while you only get around 1 cent per user now. The same goes for advertisers, if your ad gets shown for ten thousand people, you can expect one lead. While ten years ago that would have been a hundred leads.

</comment><comment><USER30> Given the date and the description of blocking ad banners specifically, my guess is that they were talking about an ad-blocking proxy like Internet Junkbuster.

These proxies weren't as easy to install as browser extensions, but they did a good job of blocking ads, and I remember similar conversations about The Future of Ad Blocking at the time.

</comment><comment><USER31> There are so many premises wrong here - it hurts:

1\. The majority of people in fact doesn't care about being tracked - "hackers" (and also myself) do care though - but that's a minority.

2\. Most people like _good_ advertisement.

3\. It's wrong to just naturally assume that ads have to be annoying. A discreet, not-moving, not-animated ad is not bothering anybody.

4\. Just as most people aren't willing to pay for content they aren't willing to pay for the maintenance of ad blockers - which is why the devs of those ABs will (and as a matter of fact) already offer whitelisting for money. [[http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/over-300-businesses-...](http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/over-300-businesses- now-whitelisted-on-adblock-plus-10-pay-to-play/)]

5\. More and more web-sites will simply deny access to their content if ad blocking is detected.

6\. The HN people's perspective on ads is in each and every way not that of the majority of people potentially clicking ads. _We_ are _not_ the driving force.

\---

The equilibrium will be Ad Blockers that white list benevolent and discreet ads - advertisement as an income source will become less attractive but it won't go away.

Also Ad Blocking depends on detectable code or ad servers. If the ad dissemination technology shifts accordingly then Ad Blockers simply won't be able to detect ads any longer.

</comment><comment><USER32> It's possible that some advertising will merge in with regular content and become covertly invasive over the long term. Publishers become credibility farms, where credibility is built using real articles and sold via "propaganda" pieces. One possible example is the Wired tennis physics link posted recently [0].

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10210808](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10210808)

</comment><comment><USER33> For all the people cheering on ad blockers: do you not realize that the _only_ result of wide-spread ad blocking is to drive smaller ad networks out of business and make Google into a monopoly?

This is _not_ a win for privacy or security on the Internet. Google is an order of magnitude worse offender compared to the small-time ad networks.

And no, you cannot ad block Google. Good luck trying to block google.com cookies and access to *.google.com.

<comment><USER19> > _you cannot ad block Google_

Why not? It may be difficult to stop google from tracking you, but if you don't ever see the consequences (as you're blocking their ads), it doesn't much matter does it?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the OP means that many websites rely on Google services and will stop working if you block google.com content or cookies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Are there any studies that show whether cross-site user tracking actually increases ad click-through rates? An advertiser can already intuit a lot about a reader from the current web site or search terms without tracking their activity on other sites. The most relevant ads I've seen were from Feedly and Twitter, who have their own profiles based on RSS feeds or Twitter accounts I follow.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm mainly talking about news outlets, and mainly the premiers like NYT and major regionals.

Those outlets claim, probably rightly so, that they can't survive on subscriptions alone, they need ads. But on the web, what that means is "we can't survive unless we degrade your web experience and violate your privacy by selling you to ad networks."

We're all focused on the ad side, and "how can we make money selling exactly what we've always sold without ads."

Maybe selling news is not a viable business on the web. Ad blockers are not just evidence that we don't like ads as they are now, but also evidence that "we don't want to pay for what you're selling us. What you're selling us isn't worth it."

Maybe a premier outlet like the NYT should be more than a news outlet. Maybe also an education outlet. NYT especially (and other premiers) already have people who do excellent research, writing, presentation, web development and data analysis. They have all the tools for education, they just aren't deploying them that way.

In classrooms, teachers sometimes try to incorporate current events into lessons. Turn that on its head.

But don't fall into the trap of replicating "the classroom," or courses, online. This would need some pretty serious innovation.

Would I subscribe to something like that? Hell yeah. I'd even accept ads, but not active privacy gouging ads, just static text and images served from the first party domain. Don't do something new, only to fuck it up with old.

Premier news outlets could be so much more that just another trap for ad viewing. They have really smart people, trapped in their employers' outdated business models.

</comment><comment><USER34> Anecdotal evidence: I was shocked how quickly web degenerates when you disable adblocking.

Start with a reputable major news site, click on one business clickbait article -> a bit sleazy but still somewhat readable site opens -> click on different clickbait article -> sleazier site opens with a lousy article -> click again on ad -> full blown video popup ad extravaganza for rather unsavory business opportunities.

I shudder to think what would have happened if I had chosen to read about medicine or sex.

So in some ways online advertising has the same problem that fashion industry does. The immediate suppliers might be decent but a few steps down you get into OSHA nightmares exported overseas.

The problem is that incentives encourage this sleaziness no matter what high moral standards A,G,F,M, et al profess publicly.

</comment><comment><USER9> Is there a way that I, as a consumer, could sell ads to ad networks that would be "viewed" (i.e. consume resources) by content outlets? Maybe they could be so resource intensive that admins would feel compelled to review logs, and the log content would somehow have enough information that an admin would buy a shoe.

Maybe http headers sent to content outlets could have ads.

Maybe something magic and really creative, I don't know.

You could even customize part of the message. One part from the advertiser, and one part from me, "Please do me a solid and stop blocking my ads to you. I need the ad revenue to help pay for my broadband fees."

<comment><USER9> Maybe just make it a habit to send email to every human address I can find at a site, and load the message up with ads. Although the ads might not be seen, if people at the content site themselves are using adblockers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Why don't more publishers try to detect the ad blockers with stuff like this? [https://github.com/sitexw/FuckAdBlock](https://github.com/sitexw/FuckAdBlock)

And then they could throw up a page that says "Sorry, AdBlock must be disabled to view this content"

<comment><USER36> Because you can block adblock killers with adblock. So what's the point?

<comment><USER37> Additionally, anything more aggressive than DuckDuckGo's "Please turn off your ad blocker, or tell others about us, thanks!" will really upset the people who use ad blockers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> > _And there is no way to block the ads shown to you by Facebook or Google or > Twitter in their own apps, especially not on mobile._

This is not entirely true. AdBlock Plus for Android works at the system level.

<comment><USER39> AFAIK abp does work by simulating a VPN on your system and therefore being able to block all resources channeled through this VPN. I don't know if that counts as system level. In comparison: Adaway (which needs root) edits the hosts file to block network requests on a system level.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Have we hit peak ads? [1]

[1]: [http://peakads.org/images/Peak_Ads.pdf](http://peakads.org/images/Peak_Ads.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER23> I don't run ad blocker since 2009. I just got that good at ignoring ads. F12 + delete offending element works wonders for the most annoying stuff. And there are always hosts files.

<comment><USER5> I would consider a specially-crafted hosts file a form of ad blocking.</comment></comment>


Don't Waste a Viewer's Time - <AUTHOR> http://vidplusplus.com/2010/10/dont-waste-a-viewers-time/

<comment><USER2> I really, really hate video tutorials. I've only ever seen 2 or 3 that I thought were useful. The rest were massive wastes of time. I really do -not- need to see you type. I don't need to see you actually click on the 'add new' button 60 times. I don't need to hear your bad accent and raspy microphone.

Write it down. Take screenshots. And answer your comments section.</comment>


The interruptible programmer - <AUTHOR> http://www.stevestreeting.com/2010/09/04/work-2-0/ <comment><USER2> I've always been an 'interruptible programmer'. While my bosses have really loved it, they pay for it by my being less productive.

You see, the human mind can only hold so many concepts in active thought at the same time. It's somewhere around 7. If paying attention to your surroundings is 1, there's only 6 left. If someone -happens- in the surroundings, there's at least 1 more gone. If something -interesting- happens, there 2 or 3 more as you go off on tangents thinking about them.

Yeah, half your mind is taken with your surroundings at times.

My solution is to pay attention to my surroundings when working on easy projects, and for projects that -really- need my attention, I put in earphones and block everything out. I have a few different music sets that I've heard so many times and/or they have a sound that doesn't ask my brain to process them.

With my earphones in, people have to yell (or call my phone or IM) to get my attention. I don't check even check my email.

I usually don't have to resort to the earphones. One line of thinking is that if it takes all your ability to write the code, you couldn't possibly fix bugs in it. You should be writing well below your ability so that you can fix it when it breaks. This usually means the code is easier to read as well. But some things are just innately complex, and there's nothing you can do about it.

<comment><USER3> It's 3 for lions. That's how lion taming works, the lion attempts to process each of the chair legs as a seperate object and has no mental capacity left to eat you.

<comment><USER4> If you're worried about the lion eating you, you can just feed it until it's not hungry.

Lions are surprisingly not vicious towards humans at all--since there's no species that can fuck with them they don't have the vicious fear response most animals have. That's the real trick to lion taming--and the reason you can tame a lion but not a jaguar. Tigers are the same way. The big danger with either of them is actually playfulness--they don't always realize how strong they are.

<comment><USER3> I'm not worried - me and Aslan get on just fine. So long as you remember he's not a tame lion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The problem arises when you are focused on something very specific, for example designing a particularly complicated series of function calls, you effectively have to keep a stack in your mind, think about locals, instance variables, whatever, abstract stuff that the brain isn't so well designed at retaining, which becomes very vulnerable to disruption.

If you are unlucky enough to be interrupted while in that kind of state, the spinning plates effectively fall and break - it can almost be painful, and certainly drudging to get back up to where you were before. I've found this tends to take anywhere from 30 minutes to a day of time away from me because getting back in that flow state can be so damn difficult.

I think a lot of the problem comes down to us using the brain for stuff it's not _great_ at.

<comment><USER6> Maybe your code is too complicated?

I suppose the ultimate goal is too keep one's code clean and simple enough that one does have to go into _super brain mode_ in order to solve a problem. Sadly we don't live in an ideal world.

<comment><USER7> > I suppose the ultimate goal is too keep one's code clean and simple enough > that one does have to go into super brain mode in order to solve a problem.

Let's drop back into reality for a minute. Just 15 minutes ago I was tracing sql data converted to xml by a rails application which was processed by a perl frontend. Yay legacy code.

It would really be nice for things to be simple but the reality is I'm dealing with multiple erp systems that output mostly similar xml thanks to the people that where here before me. It is not possible to not end up in _super brain mode_ with some of the problems I deal with.

Now my latest project was rather complicated. I took a report that only showed current inventories and converted it to display inventories at any specific day. It was all fine and simple until I encountered a little off by one bug which caused _most_ of the dates to be off by one. Tracing that error through all the layers required a number of hours. I am thankful I was not interrupted with an emergency fix to some production report so it only took hours to fix instead days.

It would be nice if things were simple but not everyone gets to work with clean environments and applications.

<comment><USER8> _"It is not possible to not end up in super brain mode with some of the problems I deal with."_

I'll argue that it is possible, just not necessarily preferable. You could rewrite the whole thing. You could also focus on building a number of small functions which brings the whole interface up to a human-digestible level.

The reality of the matter is not the realm of possibility, but instead that you often _just want to get it working_ by whatever super-herculean effort it takes. People are often very interruptible while fighting hydras or stealing golden fleece.

So it's twofold. Ensure that as often as possible you've got the programmatic infrastructure to only consider human-digestible chunks of complexity at any given time and try not to be interrupted whenever that's not possible.

<comment><USER9> I'm amused that you think it is possible to rewrite the whole thing without entering super brain mode. In my experience, generally the only way to reproduce such legacy reports is by reverse engineering how they currently work. (which will require super brain mode based on the above described current complexity) One would think someone in the business would know what the report is supposed to do, but I frequently encounter cases where no one does, they just want the report to work the way the old one did, whatever the heck that was.

I know of no solution not involving time travel to solve that for legacy reports and systems. Obviously going forward one can worry about documentation, etc. but with legacy stuff it is already too late to implement those rules.

<comment><USER7> Which describes what I was dealing with perfectly. Unfortunately the guy before me was a rather brilliant python programmer writing rails code on an extremely short deadline. I at least had the luxury of having a short in person meeting with the person using the report which allowed me to clean up some misfeatures that had been implemented due to miscommunication over the phone. (Person using the report was out of state)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _Maintain context outside of your head at all times

Much of the problem with interruptions is that of losing context. When you're in that Zone, you're juggling a whole bunch of context in your head, adjusting it on the fly, and maintaining and tweaking connections between issues constantly._

I find that there's an all-too common hair-shirted developer mentality that glories in the stunt of keeping track of umpteen different entities and variables at once. Mental/conceptual organization is an area where _work smarter_ should definitely trump work harder. I think a part of the problem has to do with the tendency for dramatic fire-fighting to be rewarded in organizations. What results is like an emergency responder TV show. It's exciting to watch the responders rappelling or doing something exciting and unusual every week, but in reality a well run city would strive to make such events as rare as possible and be boring as possible.

Think of it this way, if you ran a trucking company, would you want employees who had a different hair-raising tale to tell on just about every trip? Do you know developers who are full of such tales?

</comment><comment><USER11> I used to only be able to program in large blocks of time also.

Then one day I thought about the 66 minutes I 'waste' each day on the train to university; 33 minutes per trip. I started to take out my laptop as soon as I get on the train and try to work on programming. Initially I had very little done, by the time I really start programming it was time to get off.

But now, 3 or 4 months into it, I seem to manage to get something done every time; I'd say now the 33 minutes is worth at least 20 minutes of productivity if I had been spending it in a 4 hour block.

<comment><USER12> Parkinson's Law - work expands (or contracts) to fill the time available for its completion.

When I was teaching English, for one class, I gave groups a human-slide puzzle activity. A group of 8 were given a number from 1-8 and arranged randomly on 9 numbered squares. They were to re-arrange themselves in order by moving one person at a time to the empty square.

The last group to complete it was having a really tough time and kept complaining to me that they couldn't do it. After all the other groups had finished I announced they had 5 minutes left. They completed it just before the time was up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> All the good programming ideas I have ever had have occured away from a computer. And I don't mean most, I mean _all_. I still remember my first Eureka moment while waiting for a train to go home. I was so excited about it I almost turned around and went back to the office. Instead I excitedly jotted it down over about three pages of notebook and went in the next day and implemented it.

You have to figure in some time each day away from the screen but still thinking about work in a kind-of background task. And carry a notepad or make voice memos when the light bulb moment strikes.

</comment><comment><USER14> IME, the most useful tip is "maintaining the context outside your head". The article recomends a "running comment". I use a notebook, but anyway I find it efective.

<comment><USER15> Good point. I use a large drawing pad and sort of sketch out and arrange keypoints as I go along.

This recent HN item is relevant: [http://calnewport.com/blog/2007/10/08/monday-master-class- ho...](http://calnewport.com/blog/2007/10/08/monday-master-class-how-to-solve- hard-problem-sets-without-staying-up-all-night/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> _Maintain context outside of your head at all times_

I have a terrible memory and this is what I have learned to do. Long coding sessions? No; I design, then plan out a short amount of coding at a time. Especially if I'm modifying unfamiliar code, I'll make notes about what functions I need to change and what changes need to be done and in what order, and the possible side effects that may result so I can test for them. Leaving for the day, I'll just write down what I was last doing and what's next on a post it note and that removes the excuse of staying at work "just a few more minutes until I finish up this method."

In the end I find it's far more productive than sitting down for hours coding away. And a nice side effect is that it really doesn't matter if I'm interrupted because where I am and what I was doing is already documented.

Doing this forces me to think at a higher level about overall data & control flow instead of being down in the weeds all the time where it's hard to see the big picture.

</comment><comment><USER17> I have found the Pomodoro technique quite useful. Once I get off my ass to actually start the 25 minute work interval, the conditioning kicks in and concentration appears.

Surprisingly, the first part (just starting) is harder than following through.

<comment><USER12> Interesting. I have never heard of this technique. I prefer working in 3 x 45 mins blocks. At 25 mins, I'm just getting into things.

<comment><USER17> It's a valid concern. A single 25 mins block might indeed be too short for a big task but in Pomodoro it's series of such blocks interspersed with 5 mins breaks.

YMMV, but I've found out that the 5 mins breaks do not destroy my "state", as long as I don't start anything that tends to suck in like playing games or browsing the Web. Fetching coffee, going to the toilet, etc. is OK :)

Anyway, the hardest thing is usually starting the first block.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Semi-related question: can anyone suggest a lightweight, easy-to-manage ticketing system that doesn't inspire hate? I've been seriously considering setting something like this up on my own server as a personal TODO tracker, but I don't know the space well.

<comment><USER19> Org-Mode is for keeping notes, maintaining ToDo lists, doing project planning, and authoring with a fast and effective plain-text system. <http://orgmode.org/>

<comment><USER20> There's also an iPhone app for interfacing with Org-Mode, MobileOrg: <http://mobileorg.ncogni.to/>

Note: Unfortunately, the Dropbox integration is currently kinda borked, sometimes displaying the password in the clear, or with connection failures.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't necessarily know if programmers need to go so far as embracing interruptions, but I think the author makes a good point. In fact, this is the challenge most introverts face in their careers. How do you remain focused in your inner world without shutting your coworkers out?

Extraverts of course face the opposite problem. How do you remain focused on the outer world world while not becoming completely dependent on your coworkers?

</comment><comment><USER22> Keeping context outside of your head is a really good advice. I've been using Google Tasks for that and it works quite well for me. This way I also have the context with me on my phone and I can quickly note down ideas when I am away from my desk.While coding I progress through the list of small tasks and check them away.

<comment><USER10> This is an excellent tip. Sometimes something that I need to be careful about occurs to me on the way out the door. If I had the list accessible on my phone, I could just enter it when it occurs to me and have it at my desk when I return.

<comment><USER22> Exactly! I went through a lot of setups but I think I'll stick with this one for a long time. I also use it to implement GTD for my everyday life by creating different lists for different contexts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Nobody should work more than 8 hours per day. Somewhere around that mark, you start getting diminishing returns on additional hours. In Sweden, the work week is 40 hours. The maximum overtime is 150 hours per year, extensible to 300 hours if the employee and the union allows it.

</comment><comment><USER24> What I like about this article is that it's a bunch of helpful hints which are largely inside your control.

There's no suggestion that you're going to change your environment in unrealistic ways, it's more about dealing with the fact you don't work in a perfect space.

</comment><comment><USER25> This works great if you're plugging away on an existing system, knocking off bug reports. But it doesn't work at all for prototyping cool new stuff on a clean sheet of paper.

Ingenuity and Ticket Systems don't combine very well.

There's no list of action items for Truly Cool Stuff. You just dive in and start messing around. You can probably externalize some context as you cross off ideas and concepts that won't work. But there's no game plan, thus no concept of a "Next Action". You're on a blank sheet of paper with a head full of context, and any distraction will kill that.

So yeah, there are circumstances where you can survive interruptions. But there are also circumstances where they'll kill you.

</comment><comment><USER26> As I've gotten more programming experience, interruptions have become less and less of a problem. As long as it's something that I've worked on in the last few days, I can hop in and get working pretty quickly. I don't know if my brain has just adapted to the environments I've been working in, or if I'm just a better programmer now. Maybe I've just become really good at ignoring people while seeming to be paying attention.

But taking a couple weeks off from a project really sets me back. It could take can entire day to get back up to speed.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'd like to read more detail about his setup.

What ticketing system does he use that he can "get in and out of in 30 sec" ... so that he can toss every new idea into it without breaking his flow?

How, specifically, does he track his context? In particular, how does he track context across multiple projects while still being able to react to interruptions in a timely way?

How does he track his one-and-only-one next action for each project in a way that's simple/easy/fast enough that he doesn't give it up in disgust?</comment>


Linux accounts for around 4.5% of unique users on desktop Reddit - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4qqpep/linux_is_now_the_2/d4vfhuw <comment><AUTHOR> For those not understanding the "source" comment, beneath this one: a Reddit administrator (that is, an employee) distinguished his post to make clear the provenance of the claim.</comment>


Front end performance tips for web developers - <AUTHOR> http://blog.arkency.com/2014/10/frontend-performance-tips-for-web-developers/

<comment><USER2> Ironic considering how broken this looks on mobile...</comment>


EFF, ACLU Sue Over Warrantless Phone, Laptop Searches at U.S. Border - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-aclu-media-conference-call-today-announce-lawsuit-over-warrantless-phone-and <comment><USER3> I'm going on a trip to Canada within the next month, from the US, as a US citizen.

I want to be let into Canada without issue, so am taking a burner smartphone connected to a non-critical gmail account that is plausibly-maybe my "real" personal one. But not really. The maximum threat to me is detention, or more likely, refused entry. If I am asked to unlock the device, I will.

Crossing back into the US, I am less concerned. If I am asked to unlock the device, I will NOT. The maximum threat to me is semi-indefinite detention, and I know at the end of it, I can reach out to the EFF to seek representation in a larger action.

Does anyone else have any tips/tricks/ideas here? I realize trying to subvert any Canadian border search is not a good idea, but it's a good middle-grounds vs. "don't go to Canada" or "give them all your private data", I think. On the other hand, I am willing to be more stringent with the US border because (A) I am a citizen, I cannot be refused entry, and (B) this is a cause I would like to participate in, so invite any negative outcome caused by my refusal to unlock the device or share any logins.

<comment><USER4> >Does anyone else have any tips/tricks/ideas here?

The trick is to not worry about it so much. In fact, I'd say that worrying and looking nervous would make it _more_ likely that you would be searched.

I live on the US/Canadian border (on the US side) and go over probably 2 or 3 times per month. I regularly drive from New York state to Ottawa (going through Canadian customs), then fly into the US (through US customs) and then back again through Canada (Canadian customs again) driving home to the US (US customs again) with no problems. It's closer than the nearest commercial airport to me in the US and even with the customs delay, much more convenient. I also just go over to have fun in Ottawa and Montreal regularly.

My vehicle has been searched 3 times in probably 6 years. My phone has always stayed with me, in my pocket, un-searched.

I have only ever personally heard of one case of someone having their electronics searched, and the extent of the search was Canadian customs using the Windows search to look for files with "boy" or "girl" in the filename -- presumably looking for child porn.

To be clear, I'm not saying this doesn't ever happen, or that it will 100% never happen to you, but the chances are very, very slim that they'll even ask you more than a few questions, let alone do any sort of search. Your mileage may vary, of course.

<comment><USER4> To perhaps back my point up even further, look at the link that the EFF posted showing CBP's data:

[https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp- rele...](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases- statistics-electronic-device-searches-0)

189,594,422 people processed at the US border between October 2016 and March 2017 with 14,993 electronics searches.

0.008% of people processed had electronics searched.

<comment><USER5> That would mean that in all of the ports of entry to the United States only 82 phones per day were searched. That's absolutely ridiculous. There are approximately that many international airports. Just airports. Nevermind the enormous flow of land traffic with Canada and Mexico or all sea traffic.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_airports...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_airports_by_country#United_States)

CBP is claiming that they searched, on average, less than one phone per day in each airport? Give me a break.

Their claim is probably the number of times they've done some kind of deep analysis with forensic tools. Surely the number of times a border guard casually looked through emails and texts is far higher.

<comment><USER6> EDIT: I'll leave my comment below up for the record, but I'm probably wrong, and Canada above is probably right. CBP is not clear about what kind of "searches" they are counting in these stats, and they could well be only counting forensic searches, not cursory (the quick scroll through).

\</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment>---

That number sounds reasonable to me. CBP has no reason to hide their activities because they believe they are faithfully enforcing the law.

Electronic searches are not something agents do casually; federal agents do very few things casually on the clock. They're far too busy.

Typically it has to be either a decision in advance (targeting a specific person) or a big set of warning signals at once that create a suspicious profile.

I could be wrong about this; I don't have personal experience. But I've discussed these sorts of cases with friends who are federal agents and prosecutors.

<comment><USER7> There is something I don't understand about this whole debate: why is it considered a "search" of a phone when data is decrypted or exfiltrated?

If one "searches" a safe, and finds inside a paper with some random characters on it, the safe has been searched. The paper was there, it was discovered, the interior of the safe was viewed. The meaning of the characters may not be understood, but the safe was searched.

If one "searches" a phone, and finds inside some random pattern of bits, why is the search "not completed" until the bits are deciphered into something the agent understands?

It seems to me that the act of searching doesn't imply understanding what was found, yet for some reason all the public discourse - including legal analysis! - is predicated on the idea that "searching" a phone means deciphering its digital contents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The US extends the border-search exception to anywhere within 100 miles of an airport with international fights, meaning something like 60% of the US lives within a "border zone" as most international airports are close to dense population centers.

<comment><USER9> This is tangential, and I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you've come close to implying that a CBP agent can stop, search, and detain _anyone_ within 100 miles of an International airport. That's not the case, it would have to be someone who actually crossed the border in to the USA.

That said, and I can' believe I have to make this disclaimer as it feels about as obvious as saying I'm against torturing kittens, but I am against the overreaching searches the EFF and ACLU are suing over here.

<comment><USER10> _it would have to be someone who actually crossed the border_

... And if they want to detain you, who gets to decide whether that happened?

<comment><USER11> It's fine they just have to check your papers real quick. Also, never question if they can do that unless you want to be arrested for resisting arrest

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Donate to the eff. They will send you an awesome hoodie.

<comment><USER13> A few years ago, I considered starting regular donations to the EFF. Unfortunately, I did not realize they had taken pro position on state intervention and control of the Internet, a concept generally described with the orwellian phrase "net neutrality." This position directly contradicts much of the their advocacy that I wanted to support.

<comment><USER14> I am glad you commented, so that others could rebut your misguided position.

It's not usually kosher to comment on voting here, but I think in this case it's worth making an exception to help keep you readable: I un-did my downvote of you because I hope that others who, out of innocent ignorance perhaps, currently share your position, will be able to read your comment (I don't want you to go to full invisibility) and then read and consider the responses to it.

I would advise anyone who agrees with this guy (abtinf) to really think it through a bit. The "regulation is bad therefore ALL regulation is bad" trap is easy to fall into. Even if you are a strict libertarian, net neutrality is a case where regulation is stopping really bad things from happening, and, though it sounds paradoxical, enabling MORE freedom, not less.

<comment><USER15> > net neutrality is a case where regulation is stopping really bad things from > happening

I'm fairly anti-regulation and I from what I understand, net neutrality is a (federal) regulatory solution to a problem created by explicitly by (state + local) regulation.

I honestly don't understand why people think that net neutrality is a better solution than a (currently non-existant) federal policy to remove state and local regulations that created ISP oligopolies which limited internet freedom in the first place.

<comment><USER16> You don't have regulation forcing companies to share infrastructure with competitors in the US? Like the electrical grid or water pipes?

Building things from scratch to compete with an established competitor at that scale is nearly impossible, you'd never see any new players entering the market if they had to build a new grid.

Why is net neutrality different?

>I honestly don't understand why people think that net neutrality is a better solution than a (currently non-existant) federal policy to remove state and local regulations that created ISP oligopolies which limited internet freedom in the first place.

You'd have to break up the oligopolies first, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wish I could thank these guys with big hugs but instead I'll probably have to settle for donating.

<comment><USER18> No reason why you can't do both!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Interesting question to me: is any country offering easy-to-attain diplomatic- courier status, such that I could (legitimately) label my laptop bag as a diplomatic pouch to protect it from search?

(Yes, it's more complex than this; you'd have to be able to upload a manifest of what's in the bag and what it weighs to some service of that country's government, and then the country's embassy here would forward the manifest to the State Dept and they'd send you a sticker for your bag, etc.)

<comment><USER20> No. This would be in direct contravention of the Vienna Protocols [1] that define a diplomatic pouch and its protections. You are not allowed to stuff your personal shit in a diplomatic courier pouch, and any country openly and intentionally allowing the abuse of the Vienna Protocols for these purposes would be in very hot water internationally. Like, international-incident, embassies-expelled hot water.

[1] Article 27 Section 4: "The packages constituting the diplomatic bag must bear visible external marks of their character and may contain only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use."

<comment><USER19> It's still not clear to me that e.g. the Queen of England couldn't travel around with her shopping list in a diplomatic pouch. A country's government gets to decide for itself what is and isn't for its "official use", no? So if a country says your laptop contains materials intended for their official use, then it _does_. It's just a matter of you being important enough for them to be willing to make that claim on your behalf.

<comment><USER20> And as soon as they get caught, the countries so offended against will call that (rightfully) a flagrant _lie_. The treaties were written specifically to _prevent_ such a use of diplomatic privilege. That adjective "official" in the Convention is literally meaningless if a country is allowed to claim anything is "official", and trust me, treaty writers do not insert any words without a reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I hope this one goes to the Supreme Court, as that's the only place this will be resolved. Otherwise, U.S. Criminal Law is clear: searches and seizures at the border are exempt from requirements for warrants or probable cause.

Multiple circuit courts have upheld the Government's right to do this, and that this right extends to electronic files and information. Only the Ninth has disagreed ( _United States v. Cotterman_ ).

</comment><comment><USER22> Isn't the US Constitution the highest law in the US? The Fourth clearly states people should be secure from search or seizure of their personal effects and papers, which obviously extends to electronic devices.

So my question is, shouldn't there be extroardinary consequences for breaking laws such as these?

Why does it appear so easy for government to get away with this? Is it a really bad thing thay constitutional rights are being easily trampeled on? It seems like a bad deal to me.

<comment><USER23> 4A says "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against _unreasonable_ searches and seizures".

The exact definition of "unreasonable" is subject to interpretation by the executive agencies and the courts. Search at the border for the purposes of detecting contraband has been considered reasonable from the moment Constitution was in force. Right now, we're finding just how far this can be stretched.

<comment><USER22> >Search at the border for the purposes of detecting contraband has been considered reasonable from the moment Constitution was in force.

Is this really true, though? Would you be able to provide a sourced example of this -- Searching a person's personal effects and papers at the border, ideally in a case that went to the courts?

<comment><USER23> It is generally assumed to follow from the fact that the United States Customs Service was established back in 1789, and its duties, from the very beginning, involved dealing with contraband.

I poked around a bit, and while the first SCOTUS decision addressing this head on seems to be from 1977, it goes into more detail:

"That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration. The Congress which proposed the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, to the state legislatures on September 25, 1789, 1 Stat. 97, had, some two months prior to that proposal, enacted the first customs statute, Act of July 31, 1789, c. 5, 1 Stat. 29. Section 24 of this statute granted customs officials "full power and authority" to enter and search "any ship or vessel, in which they shall have reason to suspect any goods, wares or merchandise subject to duty shall be concealed . . . ." This acknowledgment of plenary customs power was differentiated from the more limited power to enter and search "any particular dwelling-house, store, building, or other place . . ." where a warrant upon "cause to suspect" was required. The historical importance of the enactment of this customs statute by the same Congress which proposed the Fourth Amendment is, we think, manifest. This Court so concluded almost a century ago. In Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 623 (1886), this Court observed:

"The seizure of stolen goods is authorized by the common law; and the seizure of goods forfeited for a breach of the revenue laws, or concealed to avoid the duties payable on them, has been authorized by English statutes for at least two centuries past; and the like seizures have been authorized by our own revenue acts from the commencement of the government. The first statute passed by Congress to regulate the collection of duties, the act of July 31, 1789, 1 Stat. 29, 43, contains provisions to this effect. As this act was passed by the same Congress which proposed for adoption the original amendments to the Constitution, it is clear that the members of that body did not regard searches and seizures of this kind as `unreasonable,' and they are not embraced within the prohibition of the amendment."

([https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=610713613239826...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6107136132398268257))

<comment><USER24> This provides a justification for customs to carry out searches, but very few countries undertake customs checks on departing passengers.

What about searches at security, be it by the TSA or otherwise? They're obviously very different (you can always opt-out and travel by another means), but I suppose one can both argue that they're a) reasonable and b) justified by contractual means (i.e., a requirement to pass through security before boarding).

<comment><USER23> TSA searches for air travellers are not done under the border search exception. They instead claim something called "administrative exception". It's a much more tenuous construct: it's basically saying that the search is reasonable, because "the primary goal is not to determine whether any passenger has committed a crime but rather to protect the public from a terrorist attack" \- which is a valid and important public interest - <USER2> because the means used are the least intrusive that are necessary to secure that interest (are you laughing already?).

Here's some more on this. [http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=16...](http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1683&context=wmborj)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> If they can search your bags without a warrant at the border, why can't they search your phone or laptop?

Edit: Contraband can be both physical and digital. If the government can conduct searches for physical contraband then searches for digital contraband in certain circumstances like border crossings seems reasonable.

<comment><USER26> Your phone / laptop is now digitally connected to everything in your life.

Giving access of that over to a government agent is like handing them a diary of everything you ever thought, a list of everyone you ever met, a record of everywhere you ever went, a list of every book you've ever read, a list of every medication you've ever taken, a list of every game you've ever played, a list of every off-color joke you've ever cracked with friends, etc.

Would you hand that over on paper?

<comment><USER19> Another thing that contains all those same things is "your brain." It's harder to get the facts out of it, but those TSA interview rooms represent an attempt. If that is allowed, then I don't see what's better/worse about searching your digital exobrain instead. Either way, you're handing over "you" on a silver platter.

<comment><USER27> Answer one: speed

Assuming you have perfect recall, and answer all of their questions truthfully, it will still take time for them to troll through all of your memories and actions.

They can do the same with a telephone / laptop in minutes.

Answer two: perfect recall

You _can 't_ recall everything perfectly, and you _don 't_ write everything down. So after a while, they won't have anything to go on. "What did you do in Thailand last Wednesday?" ... "I dunno, I got drunk with my friends?"

Versus "we searched your phone and you took pictures last Wednesday of someone who looks underage. Please turn around for the handcuffs".

In general, I have _everything_ to hide from state actors with near-infinite resources, zero accountability, a deep understanding of the law (i.e. how to get you for almost anything), and their own personal agenda to push.

They should need to prove to me why they need to look at my stuff.

<comment><USER28> You can plead the 5th. Your phone cannot.

<comment><USER29> Exactly. All the more reason to make sure the 4th is upheld.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15240700](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15240700)

Edit: Saw the downvotes, so just wanted to note that the linked post was submitted before this one, and hence this comment. Not that it matters. :)

<comment><USER29> To clarify, I meant to say that this thread (id=15240781) is a dupe of the one I linked to (id=15240700). HN marked the wrong dupe! :)</comment></comment>


The LA County serology study is now peer-reviewed AND published - <AUTHOR> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766367 <comment><AUTHOR> PCR and Serological Studies: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zC3kW1sMu0sjnT_vP1sh...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zC3kW1sMu0sjnT_vP1sh4zL0tF6fIHbA6fcG5RQdqSc/htmlview#gid=0)</comment>


Show HN: A Python Spider System with Web UI - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/binux/pyspider

<comment><USER2> This looks really nice. The API seems more user-friendly than scrapy's.

</comment><comment> adam-_- How does this compare to scrapy? Why would I use one over the other, or is either a fine choice?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm working on a benchmarking suite [https://gist.github.com/binux/67b276c51e988f8e2c31](https://gist.github.com/binux/67b276c51e988f8e2c31) and meet some problem...

pyspider comes from a vertical search engine project. we have two issues:

\- 100+ websites, they may change the template or down sometime. We need a dashboard to monitor the changes and the fails.

\- update in 5 minutes, when the website updated, we need follow that in 5 minutes. We are using a update time from index(list) page to tell the changed pages. And pages should been updated after about 30 days in case of we missed something. A powerful scheduler is needed.

obviously, I hadn't got the right way to do so with scrapy. I'm not very familiar with scrapy. So I can't say something pyspider can do but scrapy not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Can someone explain what this is?

</comment><comment><USER4> Nice project! I do wish it supported a PostgreSQL backend rather than (or as well as I guess) MySQL.

</comment><comment><USER5> I really like the flow/UX. Congratulations! Nice job!

What is the roadmap?

I am really inside scraping, it is one of my daily job. I could consider to integrate it in one of my architectures

<comment><USER5> Furthermore, what you mean with `Javascript pages supported`? Could I just specify where it has to click or do I need to make a reverse engineering of the ajax calls?

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://demo.pyspider.org/debug/js_test_sciencedirect](http://demo.pyspider.org/debug/js_test_sciencedirect) is a sample for this.

There is a phantomjs fetcher that can render the page as WebKit did. Furthermore, you can have some JavaScript running before/after page loaded to simulate a mouse click.

<comment><USER6> But will it not be slow? Assuming downloading css/images etc?

<comment><AUTHOR> Images not downloaded default. Both the fetcher and the phantomjs proxy is totally async.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Thanks for making me feel bad about my python-based aggregation solution :)

[https://github.com/AZdv/agricatch](https://github.com/AZdv/agricatch)

</comment><comment><USER8> What is a "spider system"? Never heard that term before.

<comment><AUTHOR> sorry :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> That is a nice tool....nice work!

</comment><comment><USER10> Any plans for a gui based web scraper interface similar to portia?

<comment><AUTHOR> Currently, yes and no.

pyspider is running original python code, something like portia is a code generator (Apologize if I'm wrong, I have not use it). So it can been made as another WebUI module.

But for flexible, I have no idea how to make it right currently. So, We have a css selector helper, but no plan for a complete tool.

<comment><USER11> I am not trying to offend you, but I really don't understand when someone says "yes and no". I hear it more and more these days. Is this becoming a cliche? It can be "yes" or "no", not both together. "yes and no" is "no" for me.

<comment><USER12> Don't know about other languages, but in german this phrase is pretty common when there is no clear yes or no answer. Like "yes to some extend but not completely"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How's the performance compared to scrapy?

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://gist.github.com/binux/67b276c51e988f8e2c31](https://gist.github.com/binux/67b276c51e988f8e2c31)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Take a look at source code. The package hirarchy is not pythonic (use "libs" as top package is not a good idea).

<comment><USER15> Why isn't it a good idea? I have plenty of projects setup this way and it works well.

It looks pretty well organized to me.

<comment> vertex-four The issue is that if you have two packages installed, and both use "libs" as their top-level package, they'll collide. Use "projectname.common" instead.

<comment><USER16> This is not true, you can specify package directories in setup.py.

See [https://docs.python.org/2/distutils/setupscript.html#listing...](https://docs.python.org/2/distutils/setupscript.html#listing- whole-packages)

<comment> vertex-four A package name != the actual name of the directory in the source tree. My point stands.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Legalization of Marijuana vs. American Stupidity - Global College Blog - <AUTHOR> http://www.globalcollegeblog.com/legalization-of-marijuana-vs-american-stupidity.html <comment><USER2> Can I upvote a a candidate for worst written article on HN? I'm not sure the author did any review other than using his browser's spellcheck feature.</comment>


Lyft Accuses Former COO of Stealing Confidential Docs Before Joining Uber - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/05/lyft-sues-travis-vanderzanden <comment><USER2> Read the complaint, it's pretty bad. Dude googles how to copy his work email from gmail, and also copies hot corporate documents to his private dropbox the day he quits for Uber. All the while emailing the Lyft founders saying "I still love you like brothers".

I try to avoid people and companies with poor ethics.

<comment><USER3> I think at this point, it's clear to me that Lyft is the one with poor ethics.

I would literally never have heard of Lyft without all of their accusations against Über. Über is trying to poach drivers; Über is getting our C-level guys to baldly incriminate themselves and then jump ship to Über; Über is stealing our cookies; waaaah waaah waaah Uber.

Honestly, I find it impossible to believe the Über team is both this B-movie- level evil, and stupid. It's really, really hard to believe that a COO of a successful startup wouldn't know how to copy documents that are on his OWN MACHINE (the private dropbox documents).

So, since Lyft obviously gets assloads of free publicity from all these accusations, and since I've never seen an actual court judgment against Über reported, I somewhat doubt that these are actually true, or at least not actually provable, since like others have said, if Lyft could successfully sue Über over any one of these things, the media would have even more of a field day than it's having now.

So okay. Über stole your drivers, your COO, shot your dog, made a mean face at you, whatever. Prove it in court. Until then I'm done with this bullshit. And I'll be happily using Über.

(The only thing that Über has _really_ done that's unethical is be as brutally capitalist as they can, but I find that a difficult accusation to level against them since it's not like any other company is doing exactly the same thing. That's a systemic issue, not a local one.)

Edit: You know, if Lyft was running a black-hat PR campaign against Über, it'd be _just like them_ to shill on HN. Thanks for the downvotes, Lyft.

<comment><USER4> Uber completely ignored Philadelphia's telling them that launching uberX there is illegal, then let their own drivers get their personal vehicles impounded in a game of chicken.

Yet Lyft has the poor ethics. Right.

Considering there is serious civil harm arising from making up a lawsuit, do you have any evidence that Lyft's allegations are false or do you just flap your gums because you like Uber more? It never ceases to amaze me how people in all considerations can pick a side and stick to it, ignoring all data that doesn't fit their narrative. You like Uber more, nobody is begrudging you that. Turning your preference into calling Lyft unethical and the rest of your comment is, quite honestly, stupid.

<comment><USER5> Lyft launched in Miami first, which is a market that Uber didn't enter because driving there without a taxi license was a criminal offense, not merely a fine. Uber has always launched in cities where they knew they could defend the first drivers on the road without long term consequences for those drivers. Lyft launched in Miami without regard to the long term consequences for those drivers that started riding with them. I don't think Uber entered Miami for months and only well after informing the city of Miami that they are going to enter the market if the city doesn't start enforcing their own laws. I don't know about you, but Lyft is no saint either and probably worse if they're willing to put drivers in a position where they end up with a criminal record.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> After seeing a lot of negative press on Uber and its questionable tactics, I'm wondering the following:

Is it necessary for Uber to be so cutthroat, sneaky, and brutal to survive in the space they've carved out for themselves, or is this just a reflection of the poor character of the management team?

<comment><USER7> Well I think for starters they haven't carved out a space for themselves. They were the first to a new space made possibly by recent advances in technology, but that's it. Furthermore as technology continues to march forward it's only going to become easier and easier for competitors to enter the same space.

So from that perspective yeah, yeah I guess they do have to be cut throat to survive. The service they provide is not far off from being commoditized. It's easy and cheap for competitors to step in and drive prices down. Will be very, very hard for Uber to secure their space. Honestly the only thing that will make it possible is the same time of legal protection that taxi companies have had.

Oops.

<comment><USER8> > [I]t's only going to become easier and easier for competitors to enter the > same space.

Not going to happen. Those "regulators" they decry so loudly? I'm sure they have plans to buy a few once they get big enough and use them to put barriers in place to put a stop to any competitors. Combine that with their size (and thus their ability to undercut any new competition), and I don't see anything but an Uber monopoly on the way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Complaint paragraph 47 alleges that use of Evernote constitutes a breach of confidentiality and fiduciary duty, which is one of those things that strikes me as "legally pretty defensible" and "totally disastrous when juxtaposed with how knowledge workers actually work."

Edit: Actually, on re-reading, they appear to mean not "Evernote constitutes a breach" but "We accessed his Evernote and his state of mind, as recorded in it, constitutes a breach." (Eek.)

<comment><USER10> I wonder how they accessed his evernote, if it was legal to do so, and if not, whether anyone will be prosecuted (the last question is certainly no.)

<comment><USER11> Evernote client syncs locally. They performed forensics on the filesytem, and the note was more than likely cached locally on disk.

Weapons-grade stupid on VanderZanden's part.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Every company that supports employees using their personal devices (phones, tablets, etc) as work devices should read the complaint carefully.

If it's the companies phone, they can request it be returned. VanderZanden was using his personal phone while at Lyft. When he left, he just sold it. The problem is that it puts Lyft in an awkward position: they are requesting he turn over his personal device so that they can analyze it to confirm no confidential information remains.

 _" VanderZanden provided no explanation as to why he sold his phone.... it's an odd thing for a high-net worth individual to do..."_

I'd probably tell them to stuff it too, it's my phone.

Also, I find it interesting that the complaint is also against one to ten "unnamed defendants". I didn't know you could do that.

<comment><USER13> This is why Exchange support on iOS (not sure about Android) allows remote wipes, and you better remove the account before you quit

<comment><USER14> Android too, but android has mtm software like nine or touchdown that act as virtual devices for exchange access. If the exchange account is terminated, only the virtual device gets wiped.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Hmmm. Looks like someone is flagging this item to knock it off the front page. Any bets that it's Uber-affiliated folks?

Not really cool behavior.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> How many of these suits are successful? I know often an agreement is reached at it is not public. It would be great to know.

</comment><comment><USER12> If you read the details of the complaint, it gets interesting.

They claim he failed to return his computer, but if you read points 42 and 43, they first asked him on Aug 18th (6 calls and emails went unanswered) then actually retrieved it the next day. Really? If the guy is busy he may not have made it a priority.

</comment><comment><USER16> Items 87-93 of the lawsuit are very interesting. They imply that VanderZanden convinced other Lyft employees to abandon ship to start a startup...but then they join Uber instead?

Item 27 is probably the first legal usage of "acqui-hire" ever.

</comment><comment><USER17> Isn't this exactly what non-compete clauses were meant for?

<comment><USER18> No, this is what confidentiality agreements are for. Which the defendant allegedly signed.

Non-compete clauses prevent you from competing and are largely unenforceable, particularly in California.

<comment><USER19> > Non-compete clauses prevent you from competing and are largely unenforceable

Is this true? I'm not doubting, I'm just wondering why. I know a lot of people in the games industry who aren't allowed to work on mods for another company's game and are terrified to even do a little bit, so I always thought they were enforceable.

<comment><USER20> Non-competes (including out-of-state non-competes) are automatically void in California except in very specific circumstances.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non- compete_clause#California](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non- compete_clause#California)

<comment><USER21> Notably, acquisition, which is what happened to VanderZanden is one of the few cases non-compete is enforceable, meaning they either didn't bother imposing a non-compete upon acquisition or it was only for 1 year and he ran out his term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Just a continuation of the uber-lyft saga of ethics and fair business practices ... ahahaah, sorry, I can't type that with a straight face. Seeing these crowd-sharing services eat each-other is both hilarious and sad. The underhanded tactics, the smearing, etc., just sad this is the state of affairs for companies that receive millions and millions in funding. I guess it'll be good for their legal department's bank statements, so that's somethin.

</comment><comment><USER23> Uber is proving to be one very shitty organization.

</comment><comment><USER24> how did they trace the searches back to his computer? Did they have some key logging software? or if he was using HTTP it was easy to trace back to his local IP? if he was searching w/ HTTPS is it true they probably couldn't trace the searches back to his computer? (assuming he cleared his history+cache)

<comment><USER25> Might be something so mundane as forgetting to clear his history on the company laptop (or they restored it - they mention computer forensics a few times).

<comment><USER11> If your browser does't encrypt your cookies, they sitting on the disk unencrypted at rest, easily read right of the filesystem. You could then use those cookies to gain access to the respective sites/services/accounts they're tied to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> wow this is ugly heavy duty stuff. I bet that data is more valuable then the settlement. Data like that on your competitor is priceless specially at this level of competition.

</comment><comment><USER27> I hope they destroy each other!

<comment><USER28> Me too. I despise how Lyft and Uber servers always take my request without offering stupid excuses why they can't come to where I'm at, unlike the cab companies. I hate that they never have a problem billing my credit card, unlike yellow taxis. And I especially dislike that I can usually get an estimate of my fare ahead of time, so that it's not in the driver's best interest to take me from SOMA to North Beach via Daly City - unlike the cabbies.

I'm sorry, but I just can't have this conversation non-sarcastically. Both companies offer _so_ much better service than their predecessors that I can't understand the desire to go back to the bad old days.

<comment><USER29> As someone who lives in a city that doesn't yet have either, it really frustrates me that they (but mostly Uber) keep pulling this shit, precisely because I'm stuck in the bad old days and I have tasted the new, but they're poisoning this well really severely right now.

Uber in particular is the most likely to make an entrance here (they're hosting driver registration right now, but the bylaw situation is murky at best) and I'm really worried that if they get shut out for some of the bullshit they pull it'll kill the regulatory framework for other entrants for a long time.

<comment><USER27> Yep. As much as commenters want to paint me as just anti-innovation, I really do want an end to the taxi monopoly. The difference is, I don't want a different taxi monopoly, and I do not like to support two robber-baron startups who essentially consider themselves not necessarily beyond the reach of the law, but simply more important than the law.</comment></comment></comment></comment>