Is Copyright Infringement Theft? - <AUTHOR> http://www.copyhype.com/2010/09/is-copyright-infringement-theft/

<comment><USER2> This argument is somewhat disingenuous. It completely glosses over a huge portion of the issue, that has nothing to do with legal definitions. Namely, stealing _deprives the victim of something they otherwise would have_ , or even more coloquially "did he take away your stuff?". Now the crux of the debate rests on this very simple concept.

If I take your car, without permission, it is stealing it. Very obviously you have been deprived of your car.

If I stay in your hotel, and then decide not to pay my bill, I have deprived you of the 1. the overhead associated with a person's visit and 2. revenue that room otherwise could have generated.

Now here is the question: when I copy your song, am I depriving you of anything? All the electronic devices are using resources paid for by third parties. You can still sell your song just fine, my act of copying has in no way prevented you from selling the song to other people. I may or may not have bought the song, so it is questionable if I am even depriving you of money you otherwise would have made (assuming no-fee copying, e.g. torrenting).

So, all that explaining to get to a "maybe" answer to "did he take away your stuff?" when applied to copyrighted data (a song). Now, there is some more nuance than even that: if I sell your song, I am obviously depriving you of money people are willing to pay for it. If I give away your song tho, there is no money I am depriving you of -- the people who gave me $0 are not guaranteed to give you the asking price without my giveaway. Further, how much of my giveaway is made up for in increased popularity? Could I charge back with a "stolen services" suit, declaring that my giveaway of your song helped push it to number 1, therefore you owe me marketing fees?

Basically, yes, some people get caught up in the legal definition aspect, but that is because the legal definition argument closely mirrors my question of "did he take your stuff". I do agree though, that maybe we nerds should come up with a good way of discussing it w/out invoking lawyers anyway.

<comment><USER3> _Now, there is some more nuance than even that: if I sell your song, I am obviously depriving you of money people are willing to pay for it. If I give away your song tho, there is no money I am depriving you of -- the people who gave me $0 are not guaranteed to give you the asking price without my giveaway._

This is a new one on me... Bootlegging is bad because it deprives the creator of measurable money. But giving copies away is fine because the recipients might or might not have bought it anyway.

Or, to use a similar argument: Russian roulette is perfectly safe, since it's questionable if there's a bullet in the chamber.

Here's a thought experiment: suppose a bootlegger sells millions of copies of a song at one penny apiece, and he mails all the money to the song's creator. Does the creator have any cause to be upset?

<comment><USER2> This whole response is a strawman. I never claimed the author should not be upset at copyright infringement. I never claimed that giving away copies is fine. I merely claimed that they _may be different than theft_. The ethics of the situation was never in the realm of discussion.

The russian roulette analogy you make is doubly vile, and reeks of the worst type of intellectual dishonesty. First is based on the assumption I shot down above. Second, it has an emotional load and severe connotations which are not appropriate. (seriously, suicide games are in no way emotionally close in content to a song download, no matter how you spin it). Finally: a declaration of safe vs (presumably) not safe is a declaration of degree (of risk in this case), my declaration of theft vs not theft is not of degree, it is a declaration of category. Your analogy does not hold.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> alan-crowe Picture yourself as a philosopher-king trying to write wise laws so that your people prosper. You are going to have to face the distinction between rival goods (usually made of atoms) and non-rival goods (often made of bits). The difference is important in economics and hence to the prosperity of you people. You will end up with different laws, calling the misappropriation of rival goods theft and the misappropriation of certain non-rival goods copy- right infringement.

Perhaps one adviser will argue that theft and copy-right infringement should both be criminal matters and attract the same penalties _despite_ the differences.

Perhaps another adviser will argue that theft and copy-right infringement should be criminal and civil matters respectively _because_ of the differences.

Perhaps a third will try to elide the differences between rival and non-rival goods by calling both misappropriations theft.

You should kick the third adviser out of you council because the difference between rival goods and non-rival goods is central to the discussion. Burying the point by stretching the meaning of the word theft is an obstacle to a sensible discussion not a contribution.

</comment><comment><USER4> Copyright has put such a serious restraint on the public that we have become prohibited from ever owning our own culture. I'll die long before the public owns any work created in my lifetime.

Was bootlegging immoral? It certainly could be, but prohibition created such an oppressive environment that it was necessary. The same goes with Micky Mouse copyright law. Decades old TV shows lost to time, no name bands disappearing from the shelves at Walmart, and Wedding Photos aging beyond the point of restoration require we infringe out of cultural preservation.

Describing it as theft, or a crime is not relevant. The infringement is necessary.

</comment><comment><USER5> Hart's argument is basically the same as Sheffner's argument, at least the part he quoted:

 _I just have a hard time getting too worked up about what label we attach to copyright. And I suspect most non-philosophers agree. Consider this thought experiment: Go to a studio head and say, "I've got a deal for you. I'll give you your copyright wish list: repeal first sale, make Justice Ginsburg's concurrence in Grokster the controlling opinion, delete Cablevision, Perfect 10 v. Amazon (and a few other Perfect 10 cases while we're at it) from the law books, and codify a "making available" right. But here's the catch: From now on, you are forever forbidden from referring to copyright as 'property,' and must instead call it a 'set of social relationships.'" Or go to a copyright skeptic, and say, "I've got a deal for you. I'll give you your copyright wish list: reduce the term of copyright back to 14 years, expand fair use, eliminate the derivative works right, and repeal the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. But there's the catch: From now on, you must refer to copyright as property; no more of this 'set of social relationships' mumbo- jumbo." I'm confident both the studio head and the copyright skeptic would take those deals in a heartbeat. Ultimately, it's the substance, not the label, that matters._

My question is: why the hell do you think the "studio head" and the "copyright skeptic" are arguing about terminology in the first place?

The way I see it, Hart is basically saying "If you were offered to have things your way, but had to give up terminology, you would do it in a heartbeat, so why do you argue about terminology in the first place?" Which, to me, sounds naive.

The reason people are arguing about legal definitions of terminology in the first place is because legal terms have certain definitions which govern how decisions are made in court.

</comment><comment><USER6> For those of you interested in the history of intellectual property, copyright, and its "evolving principles", may I suggest the book _Common as Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership_.

[http://www.amazon.com/Common-Air-Revolution-Art- Ownership/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Common-Air-Revolution-Art- Ownership/dp/0374223130)

Also, since we love hypothetical situations, how about this:

I create a replication device that can create an identical copy of any physical object.

Walking down the street, I stop in front of your brand new Lexus and make a copy of the car for myself. I then drive away in the replica.

Now, did I steal your car? Is that larceny? Or did I violate some other law? What if it was a Model T manufactured in 1908?

Of course, if new laws need to be created/revised/abrogated to treat IP violations as acts of larceny, clearly the original laws were never intended to equate the two. Otherwise, additional legislation would not be necessary (DMCA, ACTA, etc...)

</comment><comment><USER7> Semantics aside, the situation is very different between physical goods and duplicable goods. I don't know anything else but this very thing ought to be reflected in the interpretation of law _somehow_.

For example, the scale of thievery/infringement goes roughly from:

\- Stealing physical media (= traditionally illegal, one is left without)

\- Copying to self or a friend (= should be legal: it's none of anyone else's business what I and my friends share among ourselves. And I have a limited number of friends anyway)

\- Copying to a "friend" or internet peer (= question mark; I think it should be legal but many don't)

\- Selling copies to a friend (= should be illegal as I would be pocketing actual money and the original author wouldn't)

\- Selling copies to a "friend" or internet peer (= definitely illegal, I'm making money out of others' work)

Thus, the culprit gray area is copying to others without a fee. It's also the point where the most arguments (to both directions!) are about.

I don't have the answer. I do, however, have one point: no law should be based on speculation.

If you could clearly show that someone would have bought a copyrighted piece but got it for free instead, only then there _might_ be some case for the original copyright holder to be entitled to _some_ money, capped at most to the regular list price of the copyrighted work in particular.

However, if you can't show that then I think it's pretty clear that nothing substantial has happened and, also, nobody could ever be convicted in that situation.

</comment><comment><USER8> What do you think, 'grellas? I think I speak for a lot of us when I say we'd be interested in your take.

</comment><comment><USER6> Here is an actual example.

Last week, I visited the Cincinnati Museum Center ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Museum_Center_at_Uni...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Museum_Center_at_Union_Terminal)) and saw the traveling exhibit, "America I Am", presented by Tavis Smiley.

As I entered the exhibition, a museum attendant informed me I was not allowed to take any videos or pictures of anything within the exhibit (with or without flash).

As I walked through the exhibit, I noticed a copy of the Declaration of Independence. For those of you unaware, this document was created in approximately 1776. The copy on exhibit is one of 25 remaining copies of approx. 200.

If I were to take a picture of the Declaration of Independece, would that be theft? Would it be copyright infringement?

Ironically, at the end of the exhibit, visitors have an opportunity to record a video of themselves, which is then uploaded and distributed to the "America I Am" website (<http://www.americaiam.org>).

</comment><comment><USER9> Copyright infringement is not theft.

Copyright needs global reform.

Patent law requires global reform.

And ACTA is about as far from the appropriate reform as one could possibly be. But that's what you get when you leave these things to politicians who have zero experience of them. And have zero buy-in and ultimately zero responsibility for them. They have no idea of which they speak. But they aren't going to admit it, are they?

Caveat: I own both copyrighted and patented works. I say: reform, reform, reform.

<comment><USER10> I think it is necessary to recognise an author's moral right to the work or, if you wish, mandatory attribution. No-one ought be allowed to take someone else's work as theirs.

Beyond that the issue gets a bit hazy.

<comment><USER6> No-one ought to be allowed to murder, rape, molest, torture, etc...

<comment><USER10> One component of the discussion is getting rid of copyrights altogether, so I fail to understand your point.

<comment><USER6> Are you serious?

You said "No-one ought be allowed to...".

Well, to do those kinds of things, we need laws, and ways of enforcing those laws.

So, to enforce "mandatory attribution" to an author of a work, would require some sort of legal mechanism to do so.

Protecting the author's "moral right" involves him or her having some sort of protection by the law, in the same vein the law protects citizens from rape, murder, and other violent acts.

My point being, simply because there is a law or a "moral right" to prevent certain acts, does not and cannot stop those acts from occurring, although it may reduce the frequency of those acts.

Lastly, I was unaware this thread mentioned anything about "getting rid of copyrights", particularly when you "think it is necessary to recognize an author's moral right to the work or, if you wish, mandatory attribution."

<comment><USER10> I do not understand what you are arguing about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Mangling Proudhon, "Intellectual property is theft."

</comment><comment><USER12> Let me preface this with my bias: I personally advocate the abolishment of copyright and patents.

I think that crowds like this find the "lolz it's not theft, it's infringement" argument to be a particularly apt one. I've been guilty of such things myself, after all, it's technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

However, I think this makes an interesting distinction: it doesn't really matter, from a 'hearts and minds' perspective. Neither side really 'wins' from this kind of argument, because the argument fundamentally isn't about the definition of theft. It's unfortunate that 'pro idea freedom' (two can play this game) advocates are effectively slandered by suggesting that they're 'thieves' or 'pirates,' but I'm not sure that an overtly semantic argument is the best way to get around this.

I think it's better to make it a 'stealthily semantic' one, that is, don't talk about definitions, just move the dialogue to the core point: creators do not have a _right_ to profit, and therefore, they're not deprived of anything through infringement. It's not about theft, because they had nothing in the first place, ideas are not property.

Even if you disagree with this line of reasoning, I think everyone can agree that a real, actual dialogue is better than what appears on the surface like quibbling. Yes, one can still be 'anti-theft' and 'anti-copyright', and theft and infringement are semantically distinct. But it's just not a deep enough level of discourse to truly explore the issue: we're seeing a natural progression of technology and culture, with many powerful, entrenched interests. It's a really, really important topic, and deserves more than soundbite arguments.

<comment><USER13> It's a business model problem but the IP defender _fear_ that it isn't possible to make money or there will be less money to be made after IP are abolished. They want to hold the IP abolitionist to the highest standard of evidence and at the same time, not give up every inches of ground without a really strong fight.

Meanwhile, the abolitionists have the hard task of finding examples. Then, the defenders alway have an objections to all the examples that the abolitionists did find, which are diverse range of examples. For example, popular band business model wouldn't work for small, in between-size, and vice-versa or mock business models that sell ancillary goods such as T-shirt.

All the objections by IP defenders is nice and all, except it's _irrational._ There is no attempt on behalf of IP defenders to gather experimental data, any kind. There is no attempt to think but refute every single abolitionist's suggestions. They make any excuses for staying still, good or bad.

For the reason of criticizing without offering much in return, few IP opponents have the ability to force a model update in me or at least an ample amount of models to investigate. One recent model update was making me take into account that monopoly profit can be use to maintain marketshare against copyfree and copyleft opponents. Another model was that weak DRM technologies sometime does increase sales though I didn't do much reading into it.</comment></comment>


Facebook supports horrible proposed Internet bill CISPA - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2012/04/13/facebook-supports-horrible-pro.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29 <comment><USER2> A short summary of CISPA:

\-- any large internet company can share your data with the government; they can't be sued for it. The U.S. will end up with large data hoses stuck into all large internet companies.

\-- any large internet company can share your data with the RIAA/MPAA/private copyright police; they can't be sued for it. The copyright police will end up with large data hoses stuck into all large internet companies.

That's about the start and the end of it. If you think it's great that the RIAA/MPAA will end up with the ability to suck down everything that Google/Facebook/Twitter/Verizon/Comcast/etc. know about you, with no subpoena or other legal process required, based on their allegation that you are infringing their copyrights, then you should be cool with this bill. If you think it's great that the NSA will end up with the ability to suck down everything those companies know about you based on their allegation that you are a threat to national security, again with no legal process required, then you should be cool with this bill.

If you don't think that's great, you should probably oppose this bill.

<comment><USER3> Here's the actual text of the bill, which of course doesn't say any of that:

<http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3523/text>

Boing Boing, the EFF, and Demand Progress have seized upon the words "theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information", claiming that they betray an intent for CISPA to be used as a tool for antipiracy. But, of course, "DVD rips" are just one of a zillion kinds of "intellectual property", most of which is obviously worth protecting.

The real problem with this bill is that it doesn't do anything that private industry already does. ISPs already share information about attacks between themselves. The ECPA already allows potentially private information to be shared as part of good-faith investigations of computer misuse.

I am personally much more cynical about the motives of major anti-CISPA activists.

<comment><USER2> >Here's the actual text of the bill, which of course doesn't say any of that:

Of course it does. Learn to read.

>Boing Boing, the EFF, and Demand Progress have seized upon the words "theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information", claiming that they betray an intent for CISPA to be used as a tool for antipiracy.

Yes, they "claim" that a law about the theft of intellectual property is about anti-piracy. Heavens to Betsy! What will they claim next?

>I am personally much more cynical about the motives of major anti-CISPA activists.

Do tell! What are the motives of Boing Boing, the EFF and Demand Progress? They hate America, right?

Sorry tptacek, but your above comment is truth-free. If you have any actual comment on the bill, feel free to make it. The bill says exactly what I said it says.

<comment><USER4> tptacek already made a very reasonable claim about the bill which you have yet to refute: that the bill doesn't make anything important legal that wasn't already legal.

<comment><USER5> Let's assume the ECPA already allows all the information sharing and immunity from liability and disclosure that this bill allows.

1) This bill still says what it says, even if it is redundant.

2) Why is Facebook supporting this bill if it does nothing? They like risking social capital for a no-op?

<comment><USER3> This mindset, very common on HN, confuses me. It says, in effect, that it's more important for us to pick sides and cheer on our teams than to understand what is actually happening. If I said that about a Javascript library, I'd be run off the site on a rail. But when I suggest people actually read the bills they're yelling about, the opposite happens.

Why do I care whether Facebook supports the bill?

<comment><USER6> It's hard to show how right you are without proving how wrong someone else is. Today you get to be the somebody who is wrong.

<comment><USER7> He's not wrong. He's giving an argument based on a reading got the text of the bill, while harshreality is giving an argument (it doesn't even rise to the level of argument) based on nothing.

<comment><USER5> If you want to read what the ECPA says, here's one relevant portion: 18 USC 2511 (2)(a)(i).

Whether it carves any exception into the ECPA privacy protections for wholesale disclosure to 3rd parties as tptacek claims looks debatable. What's not debatable is that that exception does not grant immunity from any other laws if you disclose information to a 3rd party.

If tptacek had cited something supporting his position then there could be a real discussion. As it is, all I can do is say his argument looks wrong, Facebook and EFF also apparently think his argument is wrong, but since I'm not a legal expert on ECPA and related laws, I can't say for sure that there isn't some more obscure provision of ECPA that does say what he's saying.

<comment><USER3> What's the law you think Facebook would be violating by sharing potentially PII-encumbered data with another service provider incident to anything they could claim was a legitimate investigation?

In other words: in the world we're in now, pre-CISPA, what's the specific legal risk you think is preventing Facebook from sharing data?

It's certainly not the ECPA! The ECPA, like I've pointed out repeatedly, specifically carves out an exception for service providers sharing information, and makes no mention of anonymizing that data (ironically, it's CISPA that brings anonymization into the picture).

You yourself make a not-invalid point, that ECPA doesn't prohibit sharing but also doesn't shield providers from claims under other laws. I agree that if CISPA is worth keeping, the language around immunity should be tightened --- oh wait, it just was in the latest draft! --- but again:

For CISPA's sharing immunity to be a meaningful threat, you'd have to cite some statute that could reasonably threaten (again, say) Facebook for sharing information during an investigation.

Finally, I know it's annoying that I keep saying this, but: _providers already share information about attacks_ , and it's not all anonymized or particularly carefully targeted. I have firsthand knowledge of what they used to do a few years ago, and understand that sharing has only increased since then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Remember guys, this bill does pretty much nothing. If you read it, it simply allows some completely optional data sharing for prevention against attacks. However, in most cases, there is already no law against completely optionally sharing data with the government or private security firms.

But, tptacek said it better than I can: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3815912>

<comment><USER9> I'm trying to understand this bill better before taking a true stance on it. Is there a possibility that the powers that it grants can be abused?

<comment><USER10> If one is a fan of the National Security State, this is a great bill. For the rest of us, not so much.

[https://www.cdt.org/blogs/greg-nojeim/112cyber- intelligence-...](https://www.cdt.org/blogs/greg-nojeim/112cyber-intelligence- bill-threatens-privacy-and-civilian-control) :

\- The bill has a very broad, almost unlimited definition of the information that can be shared with government agencies notwithstanding privacy and other laws;

\- The bill is likely to lead to expansion of the government's role in the monitoring of private communications as a result of this sharing;

\- It is likely to shift control of government cybersecurity efforts from civilian agencies to the military;

\- Once the information is shared with the government, it wouldn't have to be used for cybersecurity, but could instead be used for any purpose that is not specifically prohibited.

<comment><USER3> What information that service providers and app providers are currently _not authorized_ to share under the 1986 ECPA would become lawful to share under this act?

<comment><USER10> The vagueness of this bill IS the problem. Vagueness in the law makes for really bad laws.

Give me one reason I should support this bill.

<comment><USER3> I don't support it (I think it's a NOP designed solely to gain attention for its sponsors), so I certainly won't be offering you any such arguments.

Where I take exception is with efforts to stir up hysteria about it.

<comment><USER10> Valid concern ≠ hysteria.

<comment><USER3> Sure, that's true. But not all the concerns regarding CISPA are valid.

<comment><USER10> Which ones?

<comment><USER3> See: every other comment of mine on this thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> CISPA does not include domain seizure. Doctorow has a tendency to go for sensationalism instead of accuracy. His writings are getting close to going on my "automatically flag" list because of this.

<comment><AUTHOR> agreed, but it does not need to be included either because they simply do it already.

<comment><USER3> Words mean things. This is what Doctorow wrote:

 _CISPA, the pending US cybersecurity bill, is a terrible law, with many of the worst features of SOPA -- surveillance and domain seizures and censorship and so on_

But 'tzs is right. CISPA does not include "domain seizures" or, for that matter, censorship. It's an information sharing mechanism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The linked article doesn't have a source for this, but after a bit of digging I found this page - <http://intelligence.house.gov/hr-3523-letters-support> which does unfortunately list Facebook as a supporter. Looks like it's time to delete my Facebook account, sigh.

</comment><comment><USER4> Meta note: while usually it's considered good practice to leave the title of the article, when the title of the original article is extremely opinionated without direct explanation (this specific article is about Facebook supporting CISPA, not CISPA being bad), I would consider it good practice to rewrite the title to moderate the language.

</comment><comment><USER13> Shouldn't be any surprise there really. Facebook is now a major corporation and is listed alongside Microsoft, IBM, Symantec, Intel, EMC, and Oracle as supporting the bill.

<http://intelligence.house.gov/hr-3523-letters-support>

</comment><comment><USER14> Are people really under the impression that Google and Facebook opposed SOPA for surveillance reasons? SOPA would have broken the Internet so fundamentally that they couldn't continue operating without special immunity from the US Government. Failing something that serious, I wouldn't expect them to be on my side, generally speaking.

</comment><comment><USER15> Its funny, I remember starting out on the internet, I would never put an ounce of "real" information on there and that was how people lived... now we have facebook/myspace/twitter/"blogging" and people are happy to disclose all types of personal information. Let alone geodata on photos.

As far as I can tell CISPA will only give out the information you provide to them. As bad as it is, you can mitigate it by not giving people your information on the webz?

<comment><USER16> I understand why some people can be upset, but when i think about what I enter into websites... are people really under the impression the government doesn't have this data?

The government knows my credit card numbers, they know where I live, they know how much I make, etc. They don't give two shits that I bought new racketball glasses yesterday on Amazon, and they really, really don't care that I posted a new picture on facebook.

It seems to me the people who are really upset with this bill are the people doing the illegal activity. Everyone is torn on the whole pirating issue (probably because they love consuming for free), but the fact is that it's still illegal in the US. I imagine the opponents of this saying "Oh, well, look at these rights they're taking away from us!!" while they've got six torrents in the background in an attempt to distract from the point.

<comment><USER17> See: "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy": <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565>

<comment><USER16> I had a long post that talked about this paper, which you may or may not still be able to see. If not, I'm replacing it with a much shorter version:

A 28 page PDF, which is single column, and takes up about 25% of a page is an absolute joke. To think this has actually been deemed a "book" is outrageous. Also, it's padded with comments he received on HIS BLOG. He references fiction novels to prove points, and he generally skirts the question.

I read the whole thing, which honestly seemed like it had no real point, and I still say (as a business intel guy): No company- no entity care about me or you unless we do something very wrong. We're so full of ourselves thinking "The government is going to read my e-mails!" The fuck they will; in the grand scheme of things, your e-mails are as important as goose shit.

As I'm reading this PDF I get the feeling the author is under the impression that for every person on the planet there are two more in a backroom somewhere just following his life. We all need to get over ourselves. We're just not that important.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> it's an election times, you have your votes to make the difference. why show any surrender. use it to stop this bill. If republican is behind this then vote for them, so did with the dems but if both of them inside then just vote them out. As for the presidential election, push to all the candidates in which running for the primary and the one who now incumbent. Vote for the law from one of your party; then you're history. what I truly meant is that you have to power right now. so use it. if any of the presidential candidate party supported this bill, tell those presidential candidates either the challenger or the incumbent; that the support from the people who love the freedom is lost forever for them and their party should any of the candidate party member who sit on the congress or senates support this bill. Against it then we'll support your candidancy; is just that plain and simple. Truly there's no need to black out the net. Please shared this to every one that love the freedom ASAP.

</comment><comment><USER19> Horrible for us and internet in general, but probably as good as Facebook Inc can do to protect ITS own, vast, interests. What if a key US Senator offered them help with a privacy /cookie tracking bill in exchange for supporting this? It's just one of the many possibilities.

Remember the Verizon-Google neutrality thing?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> since i "cancelled" my FB account 15 months ago i miss nothing.

</comment><comment><USER20> i would me much more concerned if the contents of my email box were shared than my FB profile. the government already has 100 ways to get at most of the info i give to facebook and the rest is pretty meaningless. if i want to do something questionable or off the radar, don't f*cking post it online or have a trackable device with you while doing it. common sense 101 here.

case in point: if your data is transmitted without encryption or can be decrypted by anyone other than you, don't expect privacy, the law is much more flexible than AES.</comment>


The Linux commands you should Never use - <AUTHOR> https://www.hpe.com/us/en/insights/articles/the-linux-commands-you-should-never-use-1712.html <comment><USER2> I complained about this in another recent thread, about 15 hours ago, at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15953505](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15953505) .

In short, several of these commands are safe to use. "rm -rf", for example, was defanged over 10 years ago for most Linux environments.</comment>


That Old Phone Trump Uses for Twitter Could Be an Opening to Security Threats - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/technology/donald-trump-phone-social-media-security.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur <comment><USER2> From the article:

> _Could be_... _could be_... _but it's unclear_... _could be_... _if_... > _if_... _he could_ \--- _It is unclear_... _could be_... _could_...

So, we don't if Trump keep his old device, but we will pretend he keep his old device.</comment>


Ask HN: Trapped by knowledge - <AUTHOR> I'm a tech lead for a small group of developers and sysadmins.  I often find that even though they are experts in their own domain, I am able to help them to resolve problems in specific areas for which I have little or no knowledge.  I find it surprising that they have not arrived upon the solution themselves.
I describe it as being trapped by knowledge.  Those that I am helping appear to have passed some magical threshold of knowledge, beyond which they stop asking "stupid" questions, and instead rely only upon what they know.  That's where I step in.  I ask those stupid questions, or I do a quick Google search, and more often than not I find a solution very quickly.  Maybe my team experience the same thing with me, and I just don't recognise it.  Or maybe I'm just the sort of person who doesn't mind asking those stupid questions.
Is this a known phenomenon?  Has any research been done in this area?  I'd be interested to know if anyone else experiences the same thing. <comment><USER2> I've had the same thing happen. We had a guy write some JNI code (C shim for Java). It was woeful; didn't even check the return value of getenv(). I don't find out until this thing crashes first deployment in production.

Another example: our Java and QA guys wondered why they couldn't get Jmeter to do Kerberos authentication. I quickly Googled and found that their Jmeter used a version pf Apache's HTTP library which couldn't do Kerberos. They just needed to update.

I'm constantly asked 'quick' questions (unfortunately quick questions tend to have the longer answers).

I ask them dumb questions and ask them to ask dumb questions (why, where, what) but it's taken to be insincere. Perhaps it's just straight fatigue that I find difficult to hide.

I realise I need a new job, even if its giant drop in salary.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't think you should be so quick to classify your team members in any way. It's hard to see the answer when you are heads down in something. You lose orientation and a fresh pair of eyes is helpful in those cases.

</comment><comment><USER4> The issue isn't that they know too much. The more likely difference is that you are an expert at relevant kinds of problem solving and they are not (they might be pretty good, but that's not the same thing). Expertise is _not_ about knowing lots of facts or APIs or whatever.

Chances are you don't even realize you have the relevant skill (there's a thing called "expert blind spot") so you also have hard time articulating what exactly you're doing.

There is in fact quite a lot of research on the subject. Might want to start with "Sources of Power" by Gary Klein, and "The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance" (which I haven't read yet but gets cited a lot).

</comment><comment><USER5> I once worked with a guy that was supposedly a C expert.

One day he was asked to estimate the memory consumption of a new project. He did it by writing a simulator that would fill a data structure with random data. Each data size had a specific probability to be generated. Then he would measure memory used.

Why didn't he simply compute the total size ? That's basic math/CS.

There are stupid people and smart people. Being expert doesn't mean they are smart.

<comment><USER3> Did you ask him why he took the approach he took?

<comment><USER2> Yes, and why random data? Possibly he needed 'real' data because the store used compression/RLE.

But certainly they should have got an estimate first - given a probability and size.

<comment><USER5> He was not using real data because we anticipated that with this new feature, the usage would change. (Making our existing data meaningless).

And there was no compression or anything fancy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's something to be said about people who ask "dumb questions". There are some really great lines about it in the Tim Ferriss/Malcolm Gladwell podcast when Gladwell is talking about how his dad is one of those people that are really great at asking dumb questions.

I think it has something to do with confidence. Confident people don't care too much about being wrong - they are confident in what they know and aren't concerned about being labeled "an idiot."</comment>


Ask HN: Dating Site API - <AUTHOR>

Are there are dating websites or databases out there with a public API? This would help a new dating website startup bypass the chicken and the egg problem. <comment><USER2> It seems to me there was a dating-site boom back in the early 2000's. At that time there were a few sites that offered nice white-label packages. Spring Street Networks seemed like the best to me (powering the often lauded Nerve.com site). I worked with a company called Vintacom who had an API. They ran their own site called DreamMates, I think.

But I haven't seen anything similar in recent years. It seems like the market for premium dating sites has somewhat dried up. Sites like OkCupid and PlentyOfFish (free) seem to be doing alright though.

My recommendation would be to look into the Facebook API. While you can't poll the whole userbase, many new dating sites start by listing all the friends of anyone who authorizes their app. I think this is a small dance around ToS, but maybe if you don't use PII it's allowed? Regardless it can be used to give the impression of having an egg before you've got a chicken.

<comment><USER3> White Label Dating [1] is one (aptly named) white-label package that I know of.

[1] - <http://www.whitelabeldating.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> They force you to use their hosted service rather than allowing you remote access to an API though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hi, i don't have a database. But i have been stuck with a business model that could make you stand out in the online dating industry. I am not going to go ahead and pursue it, so i could share it with you if you would like... please contact me at email@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Please note I'm not talking about a database. I'm talking about an api to an existing sites database or a service where multiple sites use and update the same database.</comment></comment>


Instagram's Windows Phone App Leaves Out The Photo Taking - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/20/in-dumbest-possible-launch-instagrams-windows-phone-app-leaves-out-the-photo-taking/

<comment><USER2> Not sure which is a bigger fail. That instagram is just now coming to Windows Phone, or that it lacks it's own primary feature

</comment><comment><USER3> There's already several comments on that story saying it's not correct. I don't have a Windows phone or Instagram to check, but maybe this isn't true.

</comment><comment><USER4> I use instagram on android and I rarely use the camera that is within the instagram app. Not sure this is as big of an issue as its being made out to be.

<comment><USER5> I also prefer to take my instagram photos with an app that has a few extra features (stabilizer, countdown timer) and then import them from there - however think about the technical difficulty of building an instagram-like app (social networking and attaching a camera snap) versus serious productivity software or a high-performance game.

To me this is troubling because their actual app should be really simple to implement. If they can't/didn't get something as simple as using the camera from an app but they managed to get in all of the photo transformation and retouching that makes me wonder if developing apps for this platform is trickier than for iOS or Android.</comment></comment>


Five ways to skip Windows 8 - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/five-ways-to-skip-windows-8-7000001753/

<comment><USER2> Microsoft spent many years on WinCE before learning that a mobile UI should be different than a desktop UI. I wonder how long it will take them to learn that a desktop UI should be different than a mobile UI.

It's not that windows 8 is terrible - I actually like using it on the tablet they gave out at the build conference, but it's very difficult to use with a normal computer (i.e keyboard and mouse).

<comment><USER3> Honestly I don't really see how it is _hard_ to use on a desktop/laptop? Sure it is different and a little bit odd at first but basically all they have changed is the start menu, something which I hardly ever use these days. The 80% of applications I use are pinned to the taskbar, the other 20% I did have pinned to the start menu but on Windows 8 I just have them "pinned" on the start screen. Not hugely different.

The whole Metro thing I have kept away from as I have no real need for "full screen apps". It is a little annoying that it is pushed into your face now and then but with the RTM it is possible to load to the desktop rather than the start screen which, while only a small change, is very helpful at making the upgrade to Windows 8 less jarring than it was in the previews we had before.

<comment><USER4> They're forcing touch paradigms, like seeking screen edges with the mouse since you can't swipe, essential a workaround, onto desktop environments. With previous mobile versions they were forcing the mouse paradigm where touch would've worked better. If you as a tech person find it odd and need time to adjust then you have to multiply that many times for the average user, and all this without any benefit to a desktop user.

<comment><USER5> Is using the edges and corners of the screen not a mouse paradigm? Isn't the Fitts's Law value of the edges and corners one of the classic tricks of mouse UI design?

<comment><USER4> Having to take the mouse to an area of the screen that doesn't have any UI clues that something may happen is not a mouse paradigm. If I show you a window that doesn't have the red X in the top right corner, would you still take the mouse there and click anyway or would you not even bother?

<comment><USER5> It's not particularly a touch paradigm either. It's simply a "new" convention introduced by Windows 8. FWIW, moving to the mouse to the corners or edges to trigger "invisible" actions isn't unprecedented, for example that's how you show an auto-hidden taskbar (ok, so there's like a 1-pixel edge visible) or show tabs in a fullscreen IE in Windows, and Mac OS X has a "hot corner" feature that has you set actions for the corners.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Or . . . "A List of 5 Things That Are Not Windows 8". Kind of a weird "article". ?

<comment><USER3> Agreed the article is pointless. They basically say stick with your current version of Windows, switch to Linux or switch to Mac or go totally crazy and switch to "the cloud" (Chromebook) or buy a tablet. Wow genius needed to write this article!

<comment><USER7> This kind of stuff is always published on Sundays. The good journalism has to wait for weekdays: when office traffic, the news room being fully staffed, and new news to write about all intersect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So, basically, a guy who really likes Linux dislikes Windows 8. He is a guy with an agenda, I get that. But, I am pretty sure he completely made this up: "Now, though even some of Microsoft strongest fans are beginning to back off from praising Windows 8." I have heard nothing but excitement from the Microsoft community about Windows 8 and the Surface. Honestly, I didn't read past that statement. This guy is a hack.

<comment><USER9> My thoughts exactly.

He says that Surface will be priced in the range that everyone was expecting, then follows up with that he thinks it will be "dead before it hits the market".

Dead? Based on what? That it's priced the way everyone was expecting?

It's a pretty transparent agenda if you're making wild claims without even attempting to back them up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Many users don't like it, vendors don't like it, and developers don't like it."

I would love to know how he came to the conclusion that developers don't like it. I'm building a Metro app in JS with VS 2012 and couldn't be happier. What is there to complain about when the preview OS, the SDK and the IDE are free? The level of documentation already available (incl. the sample projects) is also impressive.

<comment><USER4> I'm a developer and I don't like it. It's like a house that makes you go through the bathroom to get to the living room, that has the light switches hidden, and one room is decorated by IKEA while another is stuck in the seventies. Sure the AC is better and the beds are comfy, but there are so many oddities that while I could live in it, I wouldn't like it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This article is kind of BS. It refers to another article by the same author ([http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/five-reasons-why- windo...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/five-reasons-why- windows-8-will-be-dead-on-arrival/10275)) on why windows 8 sucks, which doesn't even make fair points.

The problem is that too many people evaluate Windows 8 as being solely Metro, even though you can use it just like you would Windows 7 and pretty much avoid Metro. The fact of the matter is that Windows 8 (as a Desktop) is snappier and more featureful than 7.

This article seems like it was written by a non-power user attempting Windows 8 in an hour, not someone who has been "working with Windows 8 for months," whatever that means.</comment>


History of the browser user-agent string (2008) - <AUTHOR> https://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/ <comment><AUTHOR> Needs to be updated for Microsoft Edge:

"Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/39.0.2171.71 Safari/537.36 Edge/12.0"

Also, "And so Microsoft made their own web browser, which they called Internet Explorer..." is not quite right, they licensed Spyglass and named it IE, eventually freezing Spyglass out and taking full ownership.

Ref: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,_Inc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,_Inc).</comment>