Copyright Holders Punish Themselves With Crazy DMCA Takedowns - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-holders-punish-themselves-with-crazy-dmca-takedowns-120525/

<comment><USER2> There really needs to be an immediate financial cost associated with incorrect DMCA takedowns.

For instance, the entity the requests are made of (in this case Google) should be able to claim money for every false take down request.

<comment><USER3> Furthermore, when a request takes down a bunch of material because it's so broad, there should be an extremely steep fine for each item taken down that should not have been taken down.

<comment><USER2> Logarithmic scale for each item taken down incorrectly.

<comment><USER4> Or exponential? You want the steep cost if they do it a _lot_ , not for someone who does it once in error. Logarithmic scale would decrease the fine for subsequent infractions.

<comment><USER2> Yep, you're right and my post is asinine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So basically, this is a way for movie/music studios to remove bad reviews from the public eye?

</comment><comment><USER6> I hope Google did take down the official content, just like their owner asked! That might push the industry to take a harder look at their DMCA takedown automation.

<comment><USER7> Doing that might give these morons the impression that what they do is legit. In the long run that might not work out well for the smaller websites and their content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Aren't DMCA takedowns notices made under penalty of perjury? Why are they being sent out in what seems to be an automated fashion without any proper review?

<comment><USER9> Because only the actual copyright holder of the content can counter-sue and most either don't have the resources to counter-sue or also work in the entertainment industry and are ultimately beholden to the same people sending the takedowns in the first place.

I can't wait for someone to finally start taking fraudulent DMCA takedowns to court.

<comment><USER10> Also, (please correct me if I'm wrong), another hurdle is that you must prove the notice was sent in bad faith - not an easy task.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is another instance of those 'clbuttic' mistakes someone can make when they learn regular expressions and think they can easily censor things they don't like.

</comment><comment><USER12> From the list of "Infringing URLs" for Wrath of the Titans at <http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=291695>:

17\. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1646987/>

32\. <http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/wrathofthetitans/>

37\. [http://www.hulu.com/watch/344340/wrath-of-the-titans--- clip-...](http://www.hulu.com/watch/344340/wrath-of-the-titans---clip---we- are-bothers-but-not-equal)

These copyright holders either have non-internet people doing their grunt work, or bots. I don't know which one makes them look dumber.

</comment><comment><USER13> Does anyone else think they've started to just google whatever they're looking for - then submit a takedown for every url in the results? How else do you submit a takedown for a wikipedia page with a straight face?

</comment><comment><USER14> This is probably the best thing these studios did on the Internet.</comment>


Stallman's Dystopia - <AUTHOR> http://blog.vivekhaldar.com/post/5667398073/stallmans-dystopia <comment><USER2> Freedom is almost always lost in small steps.

Sure, discontinuities happen in extreme cases (e.g., the WTC's destruction -> the PATRIOT Act), and when they do a lot of people notice. The more subtle losses in freedom that occur gradually (the DMCA and its progeny, for example) are harder to notice until one day you look back and say "huh, how did we get here?"

The concept of the Overton Window [1] is interesting and germane here. 20 years ago the idea that you couldn't lend a book you own to your friend or loan them the new album you just bought would have seemed insane. Over time, a gradual shift in the concept of ownership has changed the scope of the issue to the point where many people would now accept that it seems reasonable that you can't lend your books to someone else.

People at the edge of the Overton window are like our canaries in the coal mine. Gradual shifts in the window are hard to notice from the middle, but easy to notice as the "edge" passes over you. In that respect, to me RMS seems most valuable to us for precisely the reasons others call him a crackpot.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window>

<comment><USER3> Are people actually more accepting of not being able to share, or is it simply the case that they can't or don't know how?

It's a pretty easy and painless gesture to lend someone a physical book for the weekend. It's a much harder gesture to lend someone your entire Kindle or iPad in order for them to access the book. Until/unless sharing features become more available, better known, and more widely used, I think we're really just seeing the effects of "I don't know how" rather than "I wouldn't."

<comment><USER4> People had no trouble "sharing" media on floppy disks (or email, etc...). The fact that it's been made (deliberately, IMHO) difficult might be part of the proximate cause for the lack of sharing, but I don't see how that refutes the original point about the Overton window: people's perception of what is "sharable" has shifted over the past 20 years.

And that's sad.

<comment><USER3> I don't dispute that sharing has been made deliberately more difficult in the digital media age, and by parties interested in maintaining -- or at least prolonging -- that difficulty. I'm not fully convinced, however, that this difficulty has actually changed consumer notions of what is, and is not, ethically sharable. I haven't seen enough data on consumer perceptions or beliefs; all the data presented so far can just as easily be explained by the difficulty of sharing in and of itself. (Note that I'm not saying perception changes _won't_ ever happen; I'm merely saying that I don't know if they've actually happened just yet).

For the record, I am pro-sharing, and I believe that IP holders and media companies who would do their darndest to prevent sharing are incredibly short- sighted. They wring their hands about the need for (evidently magical) "viral marketing" of their material, while at the same time inherently limiting the ability of their consumers to do a lot of the peer-to-peer marketing that they used to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There are a few fundamental differences the author doesn't take into account:

1\. There is nothing stopping you from lending out your _kindle_.

2\. The notion of "lending" doesn't really apply to electronic books. Absent copy protection, you can just give someone else a copy. With copy protection, to mimic "lending" some infrastructure needs to be in place to give someone else access rights to a copy of a book while simultaneously depriving you of your copy. And _of course_ this is controlled by the seller, since they're the one putting the copy protection in place.

3\. I can't copy/paste from my paper books either, at least not in any way that's not also available to kindle owners.

4\. Every choice involves trade-offs. There is no morality involved here, much less the sound of jackboots. There is only what people value. Many seem to value the convenience of having their whole library in a small device over the ability to "lend" individual electronic copies. Those who feel differently can stick to paper books, or electronic books unencumbered by copy protection.

<comment><USER6> > 2\. The notion of "lending" doesn't really apply to electronic books. Absent > copy protection, you can just give someone else a copy. With copy > protection, to mimic "lending" some infrastructure needs to be in place to > give someone else access rights to a copy of a book while simultaneously > depriving you of your copy. And of course this is controlled by the seller, > since they're the one putting the copy protection in place.

Sometimes comments like this makes me wonder whether or not it is not in our best interests not to let technology get hijacked by corporate interests. I understand Amazon has to make a profit somehow to continue providing the infrastructure, but if computers and technology have gotten us, humanity, to a point where one can "lend" books while simultaneously keeping our copy ourselves, why do we encumber ourselves? I can't imagine what people even 100 yrs ago would have wondered at such technology.

I am quite uneducated about history, but I can imagine a similar revolution with the printing press. How much of the clergy / priests opposed printing presses because they allowed the common masses to access information on a scale unprecedented at that time?

Edit: I realize upon a second reading the phrase "... technology get hijacked ..." might be hyperbole, but the point stands.

<comment><USER7> 'Lending' someone an ebook that they can keep indefinitely is like xeroxing them a paper book, is it not?

<comment><USER6> Yes, that is an excellent point. Although, in a lot of cases, photocopying a book requires significant labor, with much lower guarantee of quality and I've rarely seen people making a business out of photocopying novels. For technical books, on the other hand, things get much more complicated. I understand prices are higher because circulation is typically much lower.

However, that leads me to another question: Must we always look at analogies from the past and work with them? The beauty of new technologies is that they're _better_ than the old ones we had. It might take a lot more work, but it is much better to look at things afresh rather than falling back on old structures and status quo. The reason IP is so contentious is precisely because of this. We _do not_ have anything to fall back on and must device probably completely new and arbitrary rules. Clearly it is in the publishers best interest to stick to status quo as much as possible and try to find analogies to old models so that it might be easier to justify a system in place that guarantees a revenue stream. But for the consumer, it is not obvious why this must be the case. In fact, the whole notion of publisher itself was a solution to a problem that technology has now (seemingly) solved.

<comment><USER7> But if you lend someone a copy that they could keep indefinitely, the creator doesn't get paid for that copy. Isn't that simple enough?

<comment><USER6> What if you price it in such a way that lending someone a copy allows them to still pay the creator?

You do realize that you as a creator are taking advantage of the medium to distribute your creation in much more efficient ways, yet, you don't want to give the privilege of the abilities of the medium to the consumer. It is this asymmetry that fundamentally perplexes me (to which I have no satisfactory answer).

<comment><USER8> I don't see any reason for this to perplex you. The dead tree model is well established; enough people are willing to pay for their own copy so that they don't have to go through the annoyance of lending.

One of the abilities of ebooks is that there is essentially zero duplication cost. That means that (outside of legal and DRM) there would be absolutely no reason for anyone to ever pay for a book instead of getting it for free.

I would actually say that there is very little advantage of ebooks to an author; piracy is suddenly an actual problem instead of something that would be laughable (how many pirate paper backs do people own?), people suddenly can't lose your book meaning they will only purchase it once, and most importantly you lose the entirety of the extra profits from hardcover editions (the price of hardcover versus paperbacks is not really from the cost to produce). Publishers are clearly going to be decimated by self publishing becoming more viable for up and coming authors.

The efficiency of not having to print actual books, ship them, etc is nothing compared to these other factors. The real reason why they have to sell ebooks is because customers are demanding them, and would buy their competitors books if they didn't offer digital editions.

Almost nothing about ebooks is actually positive to publishers or established authors. They are the horseshoe manufacturers and the model T has just been invented; just because they start making tires doesn't mean that they wouldn't be much happier if cars had never become invented.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here in the UK you break the law when you lend a book without the author's permission.

[http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright...](http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law)

      Restricted acts
      It is an offence to perform any of the following acts
      without the consent of the owner:
        Copy the work.
        Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
        Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.
        Adapt the work.

The UK govenment have to _pay_ for the right to lend books in public libraries:

<http://www.la-sofia.org/sofia/droit-de-pret-anglais.jsp>

      The payment per loan is 5.98 p

<comment><USER10> I just had a moment of confusion and bafflement. I didn't know how to process this information. I've always thought of the US and UK as sorta, kinda, similar...and imagined that the UK would have libraries like the US. But given this fundamental difference, it seems obvious that our libraries would be vastly different (and vastly better) than those in the UK, all other things being equal. Of course, all other things are not equal, but I do recall a couple of visitors from other countries being amazed at my local library...perhaps this is part of the reason why. At some point in US history, public good was deemed more important than the ability of rights holders to receive recurring revenue from books in libraries; or maybe the question never came up because the majority of rights holders were overseas in the beginning when our libraries were being created and had no feasible way to fight for more rights. Whatever the reason, as a published author, I wouldn't take that trade...I'd rather have an amazing library, where resources go to acquiring new books rather than maintaining payments on old ones.

I often think RMS is a bit of an extremist...but, when I really think things through, I often end up agreeing with him, at least on the core issues.

<comment><USER9> I wouldn't read too much into what the UK law says - it's mostly totally ignored in this respect:everybody passes books on and we still have a thriving second-hand book market (albeit one mostly funded by the sale of coffee).

I've seen no evidence that the US has vastly superior public libraries to the UK: all UK cities have a large, comprehensive (non-lending) public library often built by Carnegie. Our local lending Libraries, however, are struggling here due to cuts in government funding - nothing to do with these copyright laws as far as I can tell.

<comment><USER10> _Our local lending Libraries, however, are struggling here due to cuts in government funding - nothing to do with these copyright laws as far as I can tell._

5.9p per loan aggregated over millions of loaned books a year is a sizable chunk of change. Funding wouldn't need to be as large without those fees (which is why I suggested "all other things being equal. Of course all other things are not equal"). I'm just saying that without those fees, UK libraries would almost certainly be better. How much better? I dunno. Depends on how much the culture values libraries. US culture, despite having an anti- intellectualism bias in many areas, takes its libraries pretty darned seriously and tends to fund them reasonably well (though I'm sure more would be welcome, and many small towns don't have sufficient library resources), and most rights holders don't get to view libraries as a recurring revenue stream.

<comment><USER9> _5.9p per loan aggregated over millions of loaned books a year is a sizable chunk of change_

£7.6 million according to the article.

(interesting to note that as the U.S. is not a member of the PLR club, American authors will get none of it)

By comparison the British Library (the UK's biggest public library)'s budget is £142million.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Library>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The underlying issue here is not one of legality or technology, but rather economics. Market transactions are based on scarcity, and the ability to cheaply copy information which is expensive to make eliminates that scarcity, resulting in a market ecosystem that is unsustainable without legal and/or technological measures.

Call me a commie if you wish, but I don't think this problem can be eliminated without rethinking capitalism as we know it, at least regarding "intellectual property". (This is arguably a self-healing problem, in that struggling entities will be forced to innovate new business models, as has been happening in the music space for the past 10 years.)

In the meantime, those who care deeply about these issues can {a} stick to real books, {b} pirate (note that you can pay _and_ pirate if you like), and {c} keep yammering on about the issue with the hope of swaying more people to value their freedoms, thereby influencing the market.

</comment><comment><USER12> Consuming locked down content is a choice, and we live in an age of an immense amount of choices. Should content producers have to do everything we say just because we choose to consume their content? Lady Gaga is not a public servant. You are not entitled to copy her work, or even put her songs on your own youtube videos.

Lady Gaga never had to exist in the first place. The fact that she does enriches some of our lives, but we must understand that content is a production of someone else's and it should be treated as such (just as we wish our users to respect the hard work we put into our web apps).

<comment><USER13> > Mrs Gaga is not a public servant

We are _all_ public servants. To cooperate with each other we are, to that extent, serving each other. And we _want_ to cooperate because when we do we _gain_.

We can cooperate enormously by sharing information/data. There is nothing in that that means we cannot pay people to produce it. Just that what has been produced is then best shared.

And the marvelous thing about information is that sharing it is _free_. It costs nothing to share it because copyability of info is infinite and abundant. We can all cooperate, and gain from it, yet no-one needs to give up anything at all.

Some people say we need to restrict information copying in order to make a market to pay for production. But that is nothing more than a pragmatic suggestion. It only makes sense to do that if we cannot devise some better arrangement that _would_ fully realise the benefits of sharing data.

(Or in short, please wake up from all that Randroid casuistry and start seeing reality.)

<comment><USER12> I disagree with your reality.

The reality I prescribe to is that we all have the freedom to create content and share it under the terms we dictate. We do not have the freedom to dictate terms to someone else.

Where it does not violate essential freedoms (such as me letting someone use my Kindle, or listen to my iPod), having an ability to trust the terms you've set helps business prosper.

Like I said before, the public "culture" feature of this content seems to give us additional rights and ownership over it. Just because we really, really like Tron or Inception does not mean we have the rights to copy it and distribute it through bittorrent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Many of the details Stallman describes in The Right To Read were taken from existing proposals for the "National Information Infrastructure" (proposed by among others, Al Gore).

The basic approach of using "cyberspace" to impose this approach predates the popularity of the Internet. In fact, the popularity of the Internet postponed a lot of plans that were already on the agenda of various powerful forces.

<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html>

</comment><comment><USER15> This article complains specifically about not being able to copy from a book in public domain to somewhere else. If you are seriously having this problem, I recommend checking out

<http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page>

They have a lot of good materials there if you are interested in older books.

<comment><USER16> You may also try feedbooks. Lots of interesting stuff there (lots ported from Project Gutenberg).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The combination of e-book adoption and an efficient market for used books (eg, abebooks.com) mean that finding and purchasing real books is easier and lower- cost than ever. While some may consider real books inconvenient, I find the fact that no batteries are required rather refreshing. So I keep buying them and don't worry about DRM restrictions.

<comment><USER18> We still need light to read :) I don't use a kindle or any tablet, but have read hundreds of ebooks on my phones (Nokia + Mobipocket, Android + FBReader or the Kindle app). The books are always with me, and it's more convenient for reading in bed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Before the advent of the printing press books cost as much as a small home. Only the wealthy could afford them, and libraries were created to others could use them. Arguably you could say an actual book was more valuable than the material it contained, on average.

Before the advent of the personal computer, computers cost as least as much as a small home. Arguably you could say the computers time was more valuable than the people using them, and people shared them in research and industrial labs.

Both items have become many orders of magnitude cheaper and plentiful to the point of commoditization. eBooks are still competing with hard copy works so the price differential isn't quite there. But once that industry capitulates look for them to drop significantly.

Personally I like the scenario where a friend recommends me a book for $2 that I can purchase for $2 myself vs. him paying $10 and letting me borrow. I like to pay for things that bring value to my life, and in a way he's subsidizing my usage.

</comment><comment><USER20> The breakthrough portable audio player, iPod, does lead users toward DRM content. But it is also perfectly compatible with copied content, user authored content, downloaded content, whatever.

The breakthrough e-book, Kindle, is similar. If you follow the brightly lit path, you'll start buying books. But there is a balance and users who want to avoid DRM content altogether are free to do so. Most of my news subscriptions are free of charge RSS and scrapes via the open source e-book manager Calibre.

The Kindle DRM, like all the e-book DRM out there, is weak and can be removed easily by readily available scripts. The current stream of commercially available e-books is being stripped of DRM and made available continuously.

So, the available readers are open for sharing.

E-books are tiny, mostly less than 2 MB uncompressed. It will always be easy to transfer lots of books quickly over any decent network link. Because the content is text, it is never going to become out of date and need to be re- ripped at a higher sampling rate. The analog hole, which is very real and relevant for all forms of media, is massive for books since the content can be OCR'ed or even retyped with relative ease.

So, current and future e-books are not protected effectively against copying.

I don't think the no-book-lending scenario has any chance of happening.

</comment><comment><USER21> The free market will ultimately decide. They can't lock us down when someone else will make a reader where you CAN copy things.

But first, the free market will have to dismantle the government protections that enforce monopoly rights for authors. That will only happen when we find a better system. Subscriptions may be that system.

</comment><comment><USER9> US law on lending copyrighted things:

<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/109.html>

Kindle rules on lending things:

[https://kdp.amazon.com/self- publishing/help?topicId=A2JGI9S4...](https://kdp.amazon.com/self- publishing/help?topicId=A2JGI9S4FDM39Q)

</comment><comment><USER22> Nah. In the future people won't think that lending books is "nasty and wrong." They'll think it's silly. They'll ask "why would I do that, when I can just give him a copy?"

</comment><comment><USER23> One of the key points that come up all the time with these 'physical goods vs. digital goods' discussions is that the latter can be distributed endlessly.

Why is there no way for me to give something I bought to my friend, digital or not? We have a digital currency now that claims that I cannot both send you money and keep it at the same time. Why isn't this possible with my mp3s, ebooks and movies?

</comment><comment><USER24> Emacs Shrugged? Stallman has more in common with Ayn Rand than people realize!

</comment><comment><USER25> Major flaws in both points here:

1) You can lend your Kindle out all you want and let people read your books, just as you could before. You just can't duplicate the book onto someone else's Kindle or in any other way, just as you couldn't before. This is a reasonable restriction and not any worse than it was with a physical book, which you are also prohibited from scanning, photocopying and distributing outside of fair use.

2) You can not copy/paste a physical book either. I agree that this should be allowed, but it's not a dystopian future - there is no loss over physical books here, only gain.

Perhaps Amazon should allow some sort of way to help with "fair use" citations, and maybe they should remove restrictions on public domain material. On the latter though, those are generally available for free from many sources, so the fact that you can't copy/paste on your Kindle is an inconvenience, not a dystopia.

<comment><USER26> 1) except that lending someone your kindle isn't like lending them a book -- it's lending them your entire library at once

2) you are comparing "copying" text from a sheet of paper to an electronic device. that doesn't make any sense at all. people who view text on an electronic screen are used to being able to select and copy it. that was never possible, nor will it ever be with a physical paper book.

<comment><USER27> It's not anyone's fault but your own that your entire readable library lives in one physical device. Asking to change copyright to allow you to "photocopy" someone else's work and give it to a friend is unacceptable.

Now that I've played devil's advocate, I'm not a big fan of the technological measures that attempt to prevent piracy. I believe that the solution is pricing digital media so that it's more 'disposable' - that is, price it so cheaply that pirating and even lending is too much trouble.

<comment><USER28> Music is already 99 cents. It can't get more disposable than that. Apps in the iphone and Android stores are also very cheap (most are under $10).

Piracy hasn't slowed down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The kindle DRM is pointless and an idiot tax ;). All it takes is one visit to library.nu or similar sight and all books are free, and pdfs.

</comment><comment><USER30> Just a reminder - you can always stick your Kindle in a photocopier. Works quite well!

<comment><USER18> The good old analog hole.

<comment><USER16> In a couple decades it will be plugged by neural implants. ;-)

<comment><USER30> No one will give a screwey - we'll all be fucked up on eLSD then...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Note that a software that doesn't let you copy and paste doesn't prevent you from copying text. You can copy it manually to a computer, or write it by hand. This is poorly designed software.

If there were a law preventing you from copying the text, now that would be a problem. But there is no such law as far as I know. In fact, I live in a country where, so far, such copying of any book is expressly authorised as long as it is for private use.

As for the kindle, I don't understand which of its function couldn't be performed just as well by a small laptop, but I barely know what it looks like, so I may be wrong.

<comment><USER32> > As for the kindle, I don't understand which of its function couldn't be > performed just as well by a small laptop

The principle selling point of the Kindle is that you can read for days on end without hurting your eyes. Laptop screens tend to hurt people's eyes a lot when used for reading many hours at a time. It's also smaller, lighter, more convenient and far cheaper than any laptop.

> but I barely know what it looks like, so I may be wrong.

You're being downvoted because you're talking about things you know nothing about - things that take < 5 seconds to find out. Please do some research before taking time to bash products or complain on HN.

<comment><USER31> I read entire novels on my laptop. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to reading. What you're saying is not obvious. You can't use an Internet research to know how something _feels_. I wasn't bashing anything. Please take the time to actually read what I write and don't assume I mean anything else than what I actually write.

<comment><USER33> All you need to do is throw 'why kindle' into a search engine. Or look for a bit into what it _is_ ; the main feature is the e-ink screen, and that is not by coincidence.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Snorting a Brain Chemical Could Replace Sleep - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/12/sleep_deprivation

<comment><USER2> Sure, and snorting vitamins could replace eating meals. Sleep has been implicated in a lot of secondary roles, including memory consolidation, the body's ability to repair itself, etc. It's unlikely such a fundamental process can be easily replaced.

<comment><USER3> Sleep is also implicated in muscle repair, aceytlcholine turnover (related to memory formation and muscle power output) and ... well ... pretty much everything.

If sleep wasn't performing useful functions, it would have been selected against ever since higher animals evolved.

<comment><USER4> Unless, of course, stumbling about in the dark and unable to see while bored out of your skull because you can't sleep posed some sort of risk.

<comment><USER5> Owls and lots of cats have no trouble seeing at night, and still sleep for half the day. I can't think of any organism with high-level cognitive ability that doesn't sleep.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Remotely Exploitable flaws affect SAP solutions - <AUTHOR> http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/36816/hacking/remotely-exploitable-flaws-affect-sap-solutions.html

<comment><USER2> From the CoreLabs advisory: "As most of the services affected by these issues are not encrypted by default, an attacker might be able to perform a man-in- the-middle attack and trigger the vulnerabilities by injecting malicious packets within the communication."

I wonder if this can be a wakeup call for SAP to change this, and start encrypting everything. Knowing SAP, though, probably not.</comment>


Amazon, Alphabet and Uber Drones Are Coming - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-drones-are-coming-11571995806?mod=rsswn <comment><USER2> This is an excellent article. That said, holy shit those are going to be _loud_. The Wing drone hovers at 24 feet while it lowers its payload? The others descend entirely to the ground? They're typically going to hover just a few hundred feet above the ground? If these are roughly as loud as the quietest DJI drones (and I suspect they will be louder as they are heavier and have larger payloads), they are going to be incessantly annoying.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I'm really interested to see how the noise issue plays out. Videos of the Wing drone in action sound horrid:

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> On NextDoor people get really outraged whenever they see a drone flying around. I always see comments about shooting them down even though the city uses them.

</comment><comment><USER5> I wonder what the crime would be if you destroyed one of these drones while passing over your properties? A paintball gun should be enough to take it out and make it fall. Maybe we should look at destroying them, or making anti drone drones.

If I have a big property and shot down drones with a shotgun, is that a crime?

<comment><USER6> There hasn't been any prominent litigation as far as I'm aware, but federal aviation law seems to indicate that shooting down a drone in some circumstances is a federal crime. [1]

[1] [https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/88696-before- you-p...](https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/88696-before-you-pull-the- trigger-the-legal-implications-of-shooting-down-a-drone)</comment></comment>


Making it Easy for "Sugar Daddies" to Connect With "Sugar Babies"  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12sugardaddies-t.html

<comment> cool-RR I found this very interesting.

The thing that I can't stop thinking about is: Where is the line between prostitution and a relationship? I'm not talking about the legal sense; I don't find that interesting at all. I'm talking about the moral sense.

For example, if I paid a woman for sex right now, I would feel bad about it. This would be the case even if she was not whorish at all, even if it was the first time she ever had sex for money. I would feel that it's fake and that she doesn't really "accept" me.

On the other hand, I'd be completely okay with supporting a wife financially for the rest of our lives.

It makes sense that the man gives money to a woman who mates with him. But I think that the uneasy feeling that you'd get if you'll pay directly for sex is a real problem. I think it's more than just an uneasy feeling that can be ignored--I think it signifies that something is wrong, but I can't put it into words exactly. Maybe one of you can?

I think that "Sam", the sugar daddy who is mentioned in page 5 of this article, boiled it down to a pretty good formula:

 _Sam is also more determined than most to try separating a sugar baby's affection and the money she's paid to provide it. In his arrangements, he says, he establishes a trust in the woman's name that pays a monthly stipend of at least $5,000 for the length of their contract. If the woman decides to quit sleeping with him at any point, he may quit serving as adviser and pamperer, but the stipend continues regardless. "If I didn't do that, then it's like a leash I'm putting on somebody, and that seems really unfair," he said. "Besides, then I'd never know what the relationship was really about."_

Any thoughts?

<comment><USER2> I find it somewhat pathetic that these are men looking for a prostitution service, then going to great lengths to psychologically justify to themselves that this is something other than prostitution.

<comment><USER3> They're looking for the convenience of a prostitute, without the hassle (logistical, legal) and the "worry" that might come with a normal prostitute (guilt, higher disease risk, whatever).

I'm happily married, but I don't think calling these people "pathetic" is appropriate. Everyone's sexuality is different, and their own. Judging someone else like that doesn't seem right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Didn't AdultFriendFinder's parent company boast of 1M+ paying members? Perhaps sites like these are only formalizing and bringing relative transparency to the way American society has been functioning for decades (or even longer)? Certainly rich men have had mistresses for quite some time. How did men find mistresses fifty years ago? Personal ads? Did women who wanted to be mistresses know at which Financial District bars they should hang out? Perhaps the more interesting question is how the "not talked about" sorts of relationships formed pre-Internet.

</comment><comment><USER5> _A well-dressed man meets a really attractive woman at a bar. He approaches her and then propositions her. "Would you be interested in having sex with me for a million dollars?"

The woman thinks for a while. And then says, "For a million dollars? Yes."

Then the man says, "Well, actually, I don't have a million bucks. How about I pay you $50."

The woman then becomes indignant and says, "What? $50? What kind of woman do you think I am?"

The man retorts smartly, "We already established what kind of woman you are. Now we're just negotiating the price."_

</comment><comment><USER6> The article is quite interesting - but what if someone had told you 10 years ago that the New York Times would publish an article using the term "sugar relationships"?

<comment><USER7> I'd conclude that they're keeping up with the times

<comment><USER8> Too bad they're only keeping up with the times when it comes to their lingo, and not with their business model

<comment><USER9> Times is trying to reinvent itself a lot more aggressively than other newspapers

<comment><USER10> They even launched two APIs recently. If there's a newspaper out there trying to reinvent itself, that newspaper is the NYTimes.

<comment><USER11> Actually that newspaper is the Seattle P-I, but okay.

<comment><USER10> <http://developer.nytimes.com>

Actually there are more than two APIs...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I find this business model much more agreeable than the adultery-only sites, which seems to me to only be enabling dishonesty. Here, presumably, everything is on the table. It doesn't involve purposely lying to your spouse as much as it does making arrangements for, er, extra "services"

Not that I would go for anything like this. I've found from watching myself and others that the line between sex and emotional relationship is too blurry for to dance around for a long time.

I really wonder who is screwing whom here. Can you have a one-night stand and walk away? Sure. Can you spend tens of thousands of dollars on someone and then walk away? Sure -- it's only money. How about your time? How much of your personal time do you want to spend wooing and chatting up and getting to know somebody who's there only as a sort of human rental car?

It's the time investment that doesn't make much sense. If you're paying for sex seems like you drop your cash and badda boom, badda bing the transaction is done. If you're looking for a relationship, you spend your money _and time_ and build a knowledge of somebody. But this is almost like saying "I'm too insecure to meet people, so I'd just like to pay you and pretend we like each other for a period of time. Then we'll both move on"

I'm not buying it. I think these guys have emotional needs they're covering up by rationalizing dating into a business deal. Since their emotional problems aren't going away, and since there will always be young, attractive girls who want more money, it looks like a solid business model. I'm just glad I'm not a customer.

</comment><comment><USER10> _"He has an almost mathematical approach to assessing relationships, and once even computed the costs for a girlfriend, mistress, prostitute and wife — mistresses turn out to be most expensive by the hour; wives, by the year; girlfriends are cheapest all around. But he's not as calculating as he seems. In fact, he concluded there's little correlation between cost and quality. Still, he is relentlessly searching for an algorithm that will predict relationships' success."_

LOL. This guy's a hacker!

<comment><USER13> Also emotionally challenged.

<comment><USER10> Making decisions in a rational manner is usually well regarded in business. Why not apply the same principles to one's sex life? It sounds sociopathic, I know, but it's a serious and honest question. Why is it cool to be a good _homo economicus_ in one's professional life, but NOT in one's personal life?

<comment><USER13> Because it cheapens you and lowers your self-worth. You are sub-communicating to yourself that you are not attractive and nobody would want to spend their time with you unless you're forking off cold hard cash.

To someone with high self-esteem and some regard for the non-utilitarian value of human relationships, that escort/prostitute money can spent on a new cologne and a funny hat and much fun could be had for a whole night at the pub shaking hands and introducing yourself as an eligible bachelor .. with a big broad smile :-)

Someone will find you quirky enough to come chat with you, and you go from there.

<comment><USER14> "non-utilitarian value" - to some people's mind, all value is treated as having utility. the rest of this mentality stems from there. You're reading minds according to your values, and not those of your subjects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interesting article. I think prostitution should be legalized. But this website seems like it could fall afoul of the law since it is essentially taking a commission on illegal sexual transactions - not so different from what an escort service does. Obviously police frequently look the other way when escort services with white-collar clients are involved and that's probably what will happen here too. But an overly zealous public official could cause a lot of trouble for a site like this, I would think. Especially after it receives high profile coverage in The NYT. Of course I'm not a lawyer so take that with a grain of salt.

<comment><USER16> you bring up an interesting point.

also, what happens when one of these girls ends up seriously hurt or even dead? who now owns the responsibility. i just can't imagine this lasting very long, especially as it becomes more and more popular.

<comment><USER9> What do you mean who owns the responsibility? The person who hurt or killed her, of course. I don't see the gray area. How is, what is in essence, a niche dating site responsible for what its members do any more so than the mainstream ones?

<comment><USER16> the person who spilled the hot coffee bought from mcdonalds was responsible for it, but somehow mcdonalds got stuck with paying for the lawsuit and the alleged damages.

to a certain degree, the lawyers will push that it's the sites responsibility to check who is on the site.

i'm not saying it will happen, but it's just something to think about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Interesting idea. I seem to not be able to access the site ( SeekingArrangement.com). Not that I have enough money in any case...

<comment><USER5> _Not that I have enough money in any case..._

And, presumably, also too much.</comment></comment>


Zazzle to charge dormant account fees - <AUTHOR> https://i.imgur.com/ttqBF1Y.png <comment><AUTHOR> I think this is a terrible idea. You're incentivizing users to publish "quick and dirty" junk they aren't passionate about, in order to avoid fees.

In an era when you should be putting users first, you're putting them last. Both your creators (since they now have to do something they don't want to), and consumers (who'll be subject to more "spam"-quality listings).

How much do dormant user accounts really cost your platform? My guess is it's pretty insignificant.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Fees: [https://help.zazzle.com/hc/en- gb/articles/360019101674-Non-C...](https://help.zazzle.com/hc/en- gb/articles/360019101674-Non-Contributing-Account-Fees)

Waived if you contribute new products or referral sales every 15 months, and they stop charging them once your balance hits 0.</comment>


Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeed.com/salvadorhernandez/lyft-uber-to-halt-operations-in-austin-after-vote <comment><USER2> I feel like I'm missing something. Reasonable people can disagree about what jobs should/should not require a background check, but it doesn't seem entirely outrageous that the drivers of buses, taxis, and similar transportation services should have them.

> Unfortunately, the rules passed by the City Council don't allow true > ridesharing to operate.

Why? Like, I read the whole article twice, and I'm still confused. It's being presented as "Uber is literally unable to operate with this rule in place", but why? Do they need to fund the background checks? Are they too expensive? Would their drivers refuse to undergo them? Would their drivers fail them? Do taxi companies face the same rules? How is it they can maintain service?

I don't get it.

<comment><USER3> The real issue for Uber and Lyft may be the fact that fingerprinting puts them closer to needing to classify drivers as employees instead of contractors. They could surely solve any friction around fingerprinting, but requiring drivers to be classified as employees would put them out of business. Fingerprinting through a government clearinghouse is typically reserved for employees. IMO, they spent $8M on this local vote to delay the real issue as long as possible.

<comment><USER4> > Fingerprinting through a government clearinghouse is typically reserved for > employees.

Source? Financial services corporations fingerprint both their employees and contractors. I've never seen a distinction in the process for either.

<comment><USER3> Here's an example of contractors requiring fingerprinting in a highly regulated environment pushing them to 'covered employee' status.

The requirement of fingerprinting does not in and of itself make some an 'employee' or vice versa, but there are precedents in Texas, like this example, that could inch Uber even closer to this line.

[http://www.newcaneyisd.org/cms/lib5/TX01918142/Centricity/Do...](http://www.newcaneyisd.org/cms/lib5/TX01918142/Centricity/Domain/60/Independent%20Contractor%20Guidelines.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why do they still call it ride sharing?

Just yesterday it was in the news that Uber drivers will now accept tips.

How is this anything else than a glorified app based taxi service? Maybe call it freelancing taxi, but definitely not ride sharing.

On a positive note, I am glad to see Uber respecting the law for once!

<comment><USER6> I find it to be a useful term to delineate the apps from traditional taxi services in conversation but otherwise I agree entirely. Both firms likely enjoy the term in press coverage because it makes them seem less threatening.

<comment><USER7> I use the term "ride hailing" for this, because for the most part the "sharing economy" has no actual "sharing" whatsoever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The efforts of Uber and Lyft over the last few months to rewrite the laws of the City of Austin to their pleasing through a not-at-all-subtle application of money, spam and propaganda went far, far beyond taste. Doesn't matter if you support the TNC companies or not (I mostly do), but they went _way_ too far in their blatant attempts to subvert the democratic process of our city. So, yeah, no thanks – don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

I imagine they will have better luck corrupting the State of Texas legislature to override the cities, but have fun doing this 49 more times.

</comment><comment><USER9> Don't forget who the biggest victims of background checks will be. Unemployable ex-cons. Anyone who's been convicted at any time in their life will have yet another door to employment shut in their face.

Maybe 10 or 20 years ago, New Zealand decided to ban anyone with a record of sexual offending from being a taxi driver. That sounds good and safe to the average Joe but one poor man, in his 50's I think, lost his job because he'd been convicted as a teenager of having sex with his then-underage girlfriend. They'd since been happily married and still were. Somehow that meant he was considered unsafe to drive people around in a taxi.

Background checks are a blunt and harsh tool to re-punish people for unrelated crimes.

<comment><USER10> There are lots of jobs besides jobs where strangers get into an automobile alone with you. I am against vindictive employment and voting restrictions on felons, and I'm open to having my mind changed by statistics like the recidivism rate, but I think if you commit a sex crime you don't get to be a taxi driver any more.

<comment><USER11> Or you could have a statute of limitations on criminal background checks. A 30 year old conviction should be irrelevant to any employer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Less people voted for Prop-1 than signed the petition to create it (39k vs 65k). Uber and Lyft spent over $8m and lost. Sources: [https://www.texastribune.org/2016/01/19/austin-group- gathers...](https://www.texastribune.org/2016/01/19/austin-group- gathers-65103-signatures-overturn-ube/), [http://kxan.com/election- results/](http://kxan.com/election-results/), [http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local-govt- politics/ube...](http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local-govt- politics/uber-lyft-spending-now-at-81-million-in-prop-1-rac/nrD98/)

<comment><USER13> Was the petition online?

<comment><USER14> No, all signatures were gathered in person.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The real story here is how Lyft and Uber harrassed their supporters away from the polls.

I got 7 flyers in the mail, 3 unsolicited phone calls, multiple push notifications and texts, and a visitor at my door all over a 4 day time period. It can sure make you indifferent to them not getting their way.

Their aggressive marketing campaign turned attention away from the issues on the ballot and they came off as an enormous bully who was clearly buying the vote.

<comment><USER16> I take it you prefer to be more subtly influenced into voting the way others want? Because either way you are being influenced by others to vote the way they want you to.

<comment><USER17> Would you be more likely to support someone's pet cause if they were yelling at you about how they need your support or if they asked politely? Human social structures are not based on rational decision making but on perception. That's why politics exists.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> As an Austin resident I think the real lesson to learn is how poor of a job Uber did of gaining supporters. I went from being a vocal supporter to an almost hostile opponent based on their behavior.

They spent a reported $8 million in very confusing ads. They sent text messages and push notifications to customers. All of this felt very disingenuous and deceptive. I will be sad to see them go but they are their own worst enemy right now.

<comment><USER19> It was a very bad campaign, which makes me suspect that they did it on purpose. If they won this campaign, they'd have to win again in every other city that tries this. If they lose, pull out of Austin for a while, and make sure it's national news, other cities might think twice.

But it could just be incompetence.

<comment><USER20> They basically turned it into "here's the legislation we wrote, if you don't pass it, we're leaving immediately", and then spammed everyone with text messages, INCREDIBLE amounts of junk mail, and door-to-door canvasing. They turned a lot of people off, big time. (Where's the story about that?)

I'm really hopeful some competitor can show up and eat their lunch, before they come slinking back. The way they behaved turned me from a fan into someone who actively distrusts them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I worked on the Prop 1 campaign, and I'm not happy with this result.

At first, I thought Prop 1 would pass by a good margin, but I wasn't sure once we started hitting the outer parts of the city, where public transportation was clearly not an option. In contrast, the closer one lived to downtown, the more likely it seemed to me that they were for Prop 1. In fact, many residents in downtown don't even own a car. I felt the balance would shift on what region was more likely to go vote. Living in Austin without a car is very difficult, as the wait for a taxi can be over 30 minutes and a bus can be basically non existent. Some taxi companies only serve certain regions. Uber and Lyft usually takes five minutes.

Yes, it appeared to me that the constant barrage of flyers, canvassers, and phone calls did upset some people, and that may well have turned people away or even activated people who wouldn't have cared either way. I think that many people thought the leaving threat was a bluff and they were more than willing to call it.

In any case, I got a lot of exercise these past few weeks and got the opportunity to see many parts of this amazing city.

I'm not sure about any argument about who can or cannot write petitions. The entire point of petitions is to act as a way for the public to make a direct vote without using the proxy of representatives. Every petition is backed by money.

I hope Austin does something to improve the public transport and taxi service without sacrificing the charm of the city. Try taking a cross town bus after 10pm on a Sunday night. You won't get very far and may end up sleeping on a bench until 5:30 am. For me, this is the prevailing cost of this whole situation.

Anyways, I'm not here to debate the merits of Prop 1. Just wanted to put in my 2 cents.

<comment><USER20> When you say you "work on the Prop 1 campaign", do you mean you were paid, or volunteered?

Maybe "every petition is backed by money", but never this much, or so blatantly from a single source. That's what bothered me about it. That, and the dishonest way some ads spun it so that it looked like Prop 1 was actually something you should vote for if you WANT more regulation for Uber and Lyft. Yuck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm actually not familiar with criminal background checks, but they work like this right: if you get caught for some crime, and spend time in prison, then you will have a criminal record, and be discriminated against for the rest of your life?

This seems very unreasonable to me. Perhaps some very narrow/limited discrimination would make sense. Like if someone gets caught several times for drunk driving, then perhaps that person should not be allowed to have a drivers license for a long time afterwards. But if someone gets caught for smuggling drugs, then that person should never be allowed to drive a taxi for the rest of their life? That seems unreasonable.

Some groups, such as people with criminal records, sex workers, the mentally ill, people who enjoy other drugs than alcohol and until recently homosexuals, are treated very badly in some democracies. However, it's interesting that the mainstream press never makes much fuss about such human rights violations in democracies. In a democracy the majority has the power. Also, it's the goal of the mainstream press to sell as many newspapers as possible, get as many page views as possible etc. in order to make as much money as possible. Thus, they need to appeal to the majority. Pointing out that the majority is behaving in an unreasonable way will not endear them to said majority so they don't do that much.

</comment><comment><USER23> [https://gist.github.com/tsmith512/2a369f897b84ec6949c4df0fa7...](https://gist.github.com/tsmith512/2a369f897b84ec6949c4df0fa74769dc)

for those wondering what the actual differences were. Frankly it was a good move on the cities part. As a citizen I'm not sure. I relied on uber to get me around when I was feeling lazy. That being said I don't think running background checks through FBI and in-person face to face interviews for drivers are too much to ask. When the companies posed this false dichotomy it turned me off completely. Quite literally threatening the population with disastrous consequences and questionable statistics didn't sit well with me. Neither did the constant barrage of flyers hawking aforementioned stats.

</comment><comment><USER24> I am really confused at this article. Uber and Lyft don't want to operate in areas that require fingerprint based background checks. I get it. Harder to get drivers, more process, etc.

But isn't that just a cost of doing business? On the surface this seems reasonable. Uber/Lyft are welcome to raise fares if the background checks result in less drivers on the road. Subsequently the consumer is welcome to not use Uber/Lyft if it gets too expensive.

Maybe I am missing something?

<comment><USER25> It's not just about Austin, it's about every other market as well. If they don't fight this here then other cities may implement similar fingerprinting restrictions, citing Austin as example. Uber and Lyft have strong incentives to contain this kind of legislation before it spreads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> According to one of the top comments:

> This wasn't about the fingerprint background checks. This bill would've also > required drivers to pay a yearly fee of $450/year to the city. It would've > required a % fee of each ride to go the city. It would've mandated cars have > logos for each service printed onto the side of the car. All these things > make it harder to get drivers and increase the cost of ride sharing. This > was a play by the Taxi companies to make ride sharing services as expensive > and shitty (because of less drivers) as a cab service. Taxis have lost 30% > of their business in Austin last 2 years and so they padded the current > council's pockets during the 2014 elections to try and save their business. > You can see how much they paid the council members by viewing public > records. It's disgusting.

Interesting if true, I'm Googling around to see if I can find more information on this.

<comment><USER27> I noticed that as well. If that's the case, it makes the reaction by Uber & Lyft seem much more reasonable. At the same time, it makes Uber & Lyft look like they did a poor job educating the public on these parts of the argument.

I followed the #Prop1 trend closely last night and there wasn't anything beyond fingerprinting mentioned by locals, news anchors, or even Uber / Lyft.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Checking in from Austin. Both companies are framing this as "pausing" operations. This is just another negotiation tactic, as far as I'm concerned.

</comment><comment><USER29> Lyft could try to take market share by complying. They can even use it to differentiate themselves. "The Safer Ride-Share Company!", "We Know Who are Drivers Are", etc.

<comment><USER19> It's probably a bad gamble. Lyft wants to catch up to Uber, but they also need to grow fast enough that upstarts can't unseat them from second place. Accepting regulations that slow their growth is a bad deal for them, too.

<comment><USER30> it also sets a dangerous precedent, where governments can restrict Uber to the point that Uber quit the market and expect Lyft to come and fill the void

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> What I'll be watching for: whether a competitor (existing or startup) will exploit the two big companies' absence from the Austin ride-hailing market to gain a foothold. Unlike cities that have banned ride-hailing, Austin has made clear that it's legal, but with certain requirements. Given that it's legal _and_ the two biggest national companies have entirely ceded the market, it could be an attractive place for a competitor to get a start.

</comment><comment><USER32> Austin-ite and Texan here.

Uber sent a text to it's drivers the Friday before the vote that was a thinly veiled threat that they should vote or lose their pay check when Uber pulled out of Austin.

That sort of strong arming in our electoral process, yeah, never gonna go over well.

The proposition, if passed, would _override_ regulations put in place by elected representatives. The proposition failed by popular vote in an election. Uber et al out spent their conpition several times over. The commercials they ran were so plainly attempting to confuse the issue that it was insulting. Also, the commercials were ran more frequently during the window for early voting. There were almost zero local voices speaking on behalf of both community and in favor of prop 1.

All arguments in favor of prop 1 where, imo, specious. If it causes on- boarding to become too slow, well then that is only a deal breaker if they were not yet at the critical mass to be profitable; not so. Fingerprinting is not prohibitively expensive. Uber and Lyft operate in other markets where this is a requirement. And at the end of the day, twice now, the electorate has expressed its position on the issue.

Living in Austin during this campaign, it felt like being in the middle of a proxy war.

Imho, Uber can't stand having terms dictated to them. Any terms beyond their terms are too restrictive. The citizens of Austin were simply pawns in their larger game of market domination.

With all due respect, from the city of Austin, from deep in the heart of Texas, Uber, if you don't want to work with us, you know where the door is.

</comment><comment><USER33> The same fight is brewing here in Houston, with Uber threatening to leave [1] if the city council doesn't repeal the fingerprinting requirement. Our local paper, which consistently promotes and celebrates entrepreneurship, came out strongly in favor of the city regulations [2].

[1] [http://www.chron.com/news/politics/houston/article/Uber- thre...](http://www.chron.com/news/politics/houston/article/Uber-threatens-to- leave-Houston-7379011.php)

[2] [http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/E...](http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial- Uber-threat-7388769.php)

</comment><comment><USER34> "Drivers will have to undergo fingerprint-based background checks done by the city.."

I would have voted "yes" because of that language. Fingerprint based background checks are great to see if you have a previous criminal record, but many many people have no criminal records up to the moment where they get arrested for the crime they committed.

Also, how much would the background checks have cost? How often? I'm a Paramedic in the state of Texas, and my employer requires me to have a "City of Dallas Ambulance Operator" permit, even though I do not work within the City of Dallas at all. The city has found this whole "background check" process to be a cash cow. I went through a background check for school. i went through another one for my state certification. I went through yet another one for my employer, and now I need to do an annual one for just the City of Dallas. It used to be $17 for a 3 year card, but now it's something like $40/year. Oh, and you're required to show proof of a defensive driving course. Last time I went, they were refusing to accept EVOC (Emergency Vehicle Operators Course, designed for, well, operators of emergency vehicles) and instead requiring the same defensive driving course that people use to get out of a traffic violation. Oh, and we're in the same boat as taxi drivers, limo drivers, tow truck drivers, etc.... what happens when the next city over decides they want a piece of that pie too? Would I have to get a permit for Dallas, Mesquite, Plano, Garland, Frisco, etc? Why would something like this need to be a city by city issue and not something that the state could handle? It's not like Dallas and Houston running the same fingerprints are going to get different information. (Well, they shouldn't..)

The regulations seem like they're just opening too many doors that they shouldn't.

<comment><USER34> I forgot to mention that the fine for not having this permit has gone up from $250 to $361.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Sounds like a business opportunity for a startup: we will operate in compliance in areas where Uber/Lyft won't.

<comment><USER36> Would you invest in a startup which can be destroyed by its competition at will, i.e. by Uber agreeing to do the checks? Not gonna fly.

<comment><USER37> How about investing in a startup to battle the entrenched taxi interests, who seem to have just won a major battle?

<comment><USER36> And then losing your investment when you win the battle and Uber moves in? Why would anyone do that?

<comment><USER38> Because you could make a lot of money in the interim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I was in an Uber last night in San Francisco. The driver had just started driving for the ride sharing company. During my 20 minutes in the car, the driver was flirting with the other passenger in the pool, and she was visibly uncomfortable. After dropping her off, he told me how he spent 13 years in prison, how he just got out, and how he "knew the Menendez brothers while in the pen". All of this was completely unsolicited btw.

Now I'm a big fan of uber and lyft, and generally feel safe taking it but an experience like that will make you reconsider.

<comment><USER40> Your first and only contribution to HackerNews is this comment. Your story seems a little big fish...

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> So are Uber & Lyft in cahoots now?

No need to feel like there is competition when you have billions behind you (and hence a small pool of people who regularly go to lunch together?)

</comment><comment><USER42> This doesn't make any sense, something is not adding up here. I absolutely do not see a problem with drivers submitting to fingerprint background checks. Why is this an issue?? Is it cost? Uber is a massively profitable company, why do they fight so hard to pay their drivers a reasonable wage, and work with communities??

</comment><comment><USER43> A victory for people who neither have smartphones nor extra money when it rains. If taxi services are generally to be unregulated and unmarked, people will eventually start being robbed, raped, kidnapped, and killed by random people with a phone number.

</comment><comment><USER44> Is the issue the cost of fingerprint checks? Can't fingerprint checks be made cheaper? Isn't there a YC company that is in the background check business?

Edit: Ah yes, [https://checkr.com/](https://checkr.com/)

<comment><USER45> > Is the issue the cost of fingerprint checks? Can't fingerprint checks be > made cheaper?

The logistics and costs are both high. Honestly I'm all for background checks but fingerprinting is completely unrealistic. There are a lot of on-demand services nowadays some of which drive you places, others go into your home. I can't imagine Uber and Lyft will be the only ones required to do fingerprinting eventually.

Someone has to come up with a better way of doing this, remotely, otherwise it's simply not realistic in my opinion.

> Isn't there a YC company that is in the background check business? Edit: Ah > yes, [https://checkr.com/](https://checkr.com/)

Yeah but checkr doesn't do fingerprinting either.

<comment><USER46> I don't see why fingerprinting has to be such a hassle. It wasn't for me. I was able to schedule, online, an appointment with my sheriff's department, get digitally fingerprinted, and background checked all within five days for under $50.

Granted, the privacy aspect is the ever-present issue.

<comment><USER45> > I was able to schedule, online, an appointment with my sheriff's department, > get digitally fingerprinted, and background checked all within five days for > under $50.

I think you just described a good part of the hassle. Not everyone driving for Uber / Lyft have $50 to use for fingerprinting services and a similar cost, even heavily discounted, represents a significant cost to the companies if they're covering it. Then you have the whole part where, currently, anyone can pick up people and provide lots of supply for the customer demand but if they all have to wait that introduces a huge amount of friction (so less drivers).

Granted this is just in the city of Austin so it's possible to handle it without great difficulty. But if this were to apply across the nation? That would be devastating for the businesses.

<comment><USER47> People who drive for Lyft/Uber need a newer car with insurance and registration. The cost and regulatory burden of getting a background check is not significant in comparison to a car payment.

<comment><USER45> You need to have that regardless to drive. You're missing the big part of Uber and Lyft's model: anyone who wants extra cash can sign up and start driving people. If someone wants extra cash for a weekend then realized they need to go get fingerprinting done which could take a week then they're a missed opportunity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Looks like [https://www.getme.com/](https://www.getme.com/) is sticking around

</comment><comment><USER49> Have taxis gotten better at mobile dispatch in Austin?

<comment><USER50> Of course not, why would they need to get better when they were betting the proposition would fail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Good. Uber can suck a giant dick for their lawbreaking business practices and their treatment of drivers.

</comment><comment><USER52> can't they just run their drivers through the goodhire api or something?

</comment><comment><USER53> Regarding the fingerprint background checks - there _is_ an enormous business opportunity here for someone willing to navigate a heavily regulated government market.

In California, criminal records are stored at the state level in a biometric database, based on fingerprints. If you wanted to get your state-level criminal record, you'd have to get your fingers scanned at by a "LiveScan" operator. LiveScan devices are electronic fingerprint scanners (and associated software) that go through a certification process before they can be used to submit valid fingerprints to the state DOJ. The devices and software must meet standards set by the FBI and the DOJ. LiveScan software must be go to the DOJ through regulated data exchanges--a very limited number of privately run services that electronically relay the fingerprint data to the DOJ (not sure, but I think it's either SFTP or an XML-based API over a VPN). Anyone who wants to hook up LiveScan devices must get registered as an approved vendor, and anyone who wants take fingerprints with those devices must go through a fingerprint certification process.

In short, fingerprint background check requests in CA go through a set of regulated private service vendors. If you pull your own state criminal record in CA, you're going to pay $15-50 to the LiveScan vendor + $25 to the DOJ for the lookup fee, and then you'll wait ~1 week to get a paper copy of your record in the mail.

Maybe some entrepreneur could create an umbrella company, become an approved vendor and data exchange, and then sell small affordable FBI-approved fingerprint scanners that can plug into mobile phones, and sign up people to be certified fingerprint rollers, and then let contractors collect fingerprints anywhere and get paid for it, as well as sell better devices to law enforcement agencies.

I'm not sure how big the market is, but right now there are ~1 million+ people in CA eligible to reduce their old low-level felonies to misdemeanors under Prop 47 until November 2017, and getting these fingerprint background checks is often necessary to that process (and is one of the biggest barriers).

1 out of 4 adults in the US has a criminal record. And pulling these state- level records is routine for getting professional licenses, certain government jobs, and jobs involving vulnerable populations.

How are these fingerprint records different from private background checks?

Most private background check companies pull data from a variety of sources, such as county-level court records, DMV records, and FBI. By law, these companies are not allowed to share certain types of information (like certain types of convictions over 7 years old, etc.) Keep in mind that false names and aliases are common, and county clerks can't pull records based on fingerprints.

The state biometric record is built from county-level records submitted by law enforcement and courts. It includes every arrest, prosecution, hearing, sentencing, and all the registries (for sex offenses or controlled substances). It includes both "strong links" (biometric matches, regardless of given name) and "weak links" (non-biometric matches based on multiple identity matches, such as given name, DOB, ssn). Fingerprints for biometric matching are typically taken by law enforcement and corrections departments during booking. Non-biometric records are often submitted by courts, for tracking convictions and sentencing.

The state record is only allowed to be accessed by particular types of "authorized agencies" and only for particular purposes, and they are only allowed to see certain kinds of records. Telling Uber & Lyft to put their drivers through fingerprint background checks might be analogous to saying that the drivers will be responsible for serving people who may be easily victimized and therefore (like other professional licensing requirements) Uber/Lyft's contractors should go through an authorized licensing agency and do a biometric lookup of any contact they may have had with law enforcement.

I imagine that forcing all the drivers to go through the LiveScan service + wait time would add a huge cost and time burden for signing up new drivers that is currently difficult or impossible to automate (unlike checkr, which has an API).

FWIW here are some links for more info: \- Checkr's county court fees listing: [https://checkr.com/pricing/additional-pricing- information/](https://checkr.com/pricing/additional-pricing-information/) \- CA DOJ Request for LiveScan service: [http://ag.ca.gov/fingerprints/forms/BCII_8016.pdf](http://ag.ca.gov/fingerprints/forms/BCII_8016.pdf) \- NIST Fingerprint testing standards [http://biometrics.nist.gov/cs_links/fingerprint/NIST%20Finge...](http://biometrics.nist.gov/cs_links/fingerprint/NIST%20Fingerprint%20Testing%20Standards%20V2%2002282013.pdf) \- FBI Electronic Fingerprint Transmission Specification [https://www2.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/iafis/efts_70.pdf](https://www2.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/iafis/efts_70.pdf) \- DCJS NY RFP for LiveScan services (yay procurement! /s) [http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/rfp/livescan/livescanrfp_f...](http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/rfp/livescan/livescanrfp_final.pdf) \- CA DOJ Become a LiveScan Operator [http://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/operators](http://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/operators)

</comment><comment><USER54> I would even go one step further. Certainly less than felons. For some reason in Chicago, I at least feel "safer" in a taxi because of the screaming decals and colors of the car.

I had an Uber from the southside to Midway, and I felt like just getting into his car I was being set up in a sting operation. I (white guy) shrunk down in the back seat the entire time. The dude was nice, but holy shit what does CPD think when white guys get in the backs of gangbanger's cars (yes, my driver was nice but sketchy, and his car was exactly the mid-90s low-riding Pontiac you see around here getting busted all the time). I felt like I was his "ride" while he circled the southside between drug pickups. It gave him an "out."

On the flip side, had an awesome middle aged white woman take us from A to B on the northside of Chicago. She was doing it as a part-timer and super nice.

I guess my point is that maybe with taxi companies you at least _could /should_ have a hiring/interview process? I'll plead ignorance to the Uber/Lyft process, but is there even an interview? It's just hit or miss in Chicago.

<comment><USER55> Congratulations on your blatant racism. You go to southside, and you object that the person that is working in that neighborhood fits "the stereotype".

<comment><USER54> Yuri, after seeing these comments, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not sorry for being angry, but I'm sorry for getting personal. I'm sure you're needing some help with something local to your community, unless you want to start a thread of how to help kids on the south side of Chicago get into this community.

<comment><USER55> Apology accepted, as well as the agreement to disagree as well. FWIW, I've lived in some very choice parts of Oakland and Brooklyn throughout my life, so I am familiar with the environment, and the need for safety. The hard work in normalizing relations is exactly that: giving people that set off your spidey sense an opportunity for honest work.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The CD Is 40, the CD Is Dead - <AUTHOR> https://hackaday.com/2019/03/19/the-cd-is-40-the-cd-is-dead/ <comment><AUTHOR> It's a fascinating feeling having experienced something being hyped on the way in, the excitement of having access to the technology, and also how it has become obsolete and scorned at. The zip-drives with a 100-ish megs didn't enjoy this same hype and height.</comment>


Observations-New York Times Paywall: What everyone else seems to be missing - <AUTHOR> http://ownlocal.com/newspaper-support-group/new-york-times-paywall-observations

<comment><USER2> You can reach your limit on one browser, then read another twenty on another browser. Despite that I have probably cut my reading in half.

I found the NYT had some of the most relevant ads of any site that I visit. As a result I am clicking on fewer ads and resulting in less revenue for them, but I may be atypical.

The whole paywall has encouraged me to check out other sites for news. The BBC I've found to be terrific and offers background articles on American issues not seen in any US paper.

<comment><USER3> If the argument you're making is "the free market is working because the paywall is driving traffic to other news vendors," keep in mind that the BBC is taxpayer-subsidized by Britain's citizens—and many of them aren't too happy about it.

(I don't know if you're making this argument or not. Just an observation.)

<comment><USER4> Many of Britain's citizens aren't too happy about free speech, either. But we try not to pay too much attention to them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Another possible explanation is that the way Quantcast and others count unique visitors is broken: they don't (/can't) take into account multiple computers and multiple browsers.

If the NY Times paywall has user-level tracking (I'm not sure if it does, but sometimes the NYTimes asks me to log in to read articles, so it may do) then a bunch of people who are now hitting their quota browsing across multiple machines and browsers with a single login were previously being counted as multiple uniques.

<comment><USER6> The NYT has had user accounts since at least 1999...I've had the same login name as I had about 10 years ago.

<comment><USER7> Notably, though, the account is not required.

<comment><USER5> My point exactly. I know the accounts exist, I wasn't sure if they'd made login mandatory after the paywall went up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> i've not noticed this paywall at all. do anti-tracking plugins (adblock, ghostery, disconnect) zap the cookies or whatever that it uses? or is it perhaps only for americans? (i realise it's not immediate, but i follow links there fairly regularly and have never exceeded any quota).

<comment><USER9> Adblock does _not_ allow you to dodge the paywall, from personal experience.

There is an easy way to escape the paywall: After a new page opens, wait for the text to load, then after the text is loaded but the rest of the site's infrastructure is still loading, hit Escape to stop loading. Whatever code is responsible for summoning the paywall GUI never finishes loading.

This solution does not work well when trying to open multiple NYT tabs, however.

<comment><USER10> I find that the easiest way to escape is to go incognito in chrome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A possible contribution to the decrease that was not mentioned is that they may be linked to less often because of the pay wall. For general news, a blogger might instead link to some other, more reliably visitable site. When the Montreal Gazette introduced their pay wall at least one blog I follow avoided linking there when there was another source.

<comment><USER12> Indeed I would think most bloggers would look for alternate sources.

I also find I tend not to follow links if they are identified as NYT, and the loss of the ability to push links to Instapaper has really killed NYT for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's a _pay_ wall. Which means someone is paying to get through the wall, where less people were paying before the wall.

What I'd like to see is total revenue per. Per unique, per view, per registered subscriber, per something.

It may (or may not) be that NYT has lost the battle but won the war for revenue and profit.</comment>


Open Subtitles - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/10/open-subtitles.html

<comment><USER2> _But I think we are witnessing something more profound. As big swaths of the world modernize and gain large populations who have the time and the means to enjoy films, we will see more and better films come from outside of the US._

You know, some of us outside the US have been making movies for as long as you US guys have been. And some of our movies are really good. The fact that you have to go to the Film Forum to see them as mostly your problem. Making it seem like the world is suddenly playing catch up is typical US-centric thinking.

<comment><USER3> It's not that hard to see foreign films in the US (at least if you lie in a major city, or use Netflix), but I'm happy about the open subtitling because this job normally falls to the distributor of a film and subtitling is an expensive process, usually adding $10,000 or so to the cost of release.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> More than crowdsourcing benenfit. Have been thinking that Open Subtitles has chance to transform movie search. Netflix could use Open Subtitles to enhance similarity ranking. Or Apple could let us search quotes in movies and show a few minutes clip around that timeline.

</comment><comment><USER5> Can anyone explain the legal status of unauthorized translations like these?

<comment><USER6> I've seen more than a couple subtitle sites disappear, mostly because of copyright issues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Welcome to the rest of the world.

English is not my mother tongue, however I've been watching foreign films using English subtitles for quite a while. English subtitles likely provide the most utility, at least in internet land.

I also sometimes use English subtitles on English-speaking films. It used to be a must when I was still learning English, but it's still useful for noisy films or films with British/Irish/Scottish people (living in the UK for a considerable period of time didn't help at all).

Anyway, opensubtitles.org was horrible last time I checked. Some better options:

<http://addic7ed.com/>

<http://subscene.com/>

<http://www.podnapisi.net/>

<http://forom.com/></comment>


Civic hackathon in Seattle, WA - <AUTHOR> http://www.meetup.com/Code-for-Seattle/events/113040382/

<comment><USER2> Very cool. Need event like this in Seattle! Get some Eastsiders coming over...</comment>