Ask HN: If you had to choose a place to start a startup today where would it be? - <AUTHOR> Does startup location matter as much anymore?
For years yc has touted that it was critical to be located in silicon valley but things seem to be changing.
Still the biggest tech companies seem to be located in the U.S.A and more specifically the valley, will that change in the next 10 years? <comment><USER2> If you are doing a "startup", there are benefits to being near SV for the VCs and talent who want that life. If you are just wanting to start aomething new and not seeking the YC/VC model, choose whichever town makes you happy.

What I expect to change over the next 10 years is an increasing number of people making the latter choice.

</comment><comment><USER3> For me, India is one of the best place as it has a HUGE online population, growing spending capacity, quite a large number of huge problems to be solved (for e.g. there isn't even good Adult ADD care available in India in 2020, many many more probs) and a good number of decent tech workers (rising number of great tech workers).

Pardon awkward brevity, using mobile.

</comment><comment><USER4> How many years have people been saying startups would move. It was silicon hills or silicon alley or some other ppace, but it seems to always be sv.

<comment><USER5> A lot of investors, including Sam Altman, have said that SV isn't the best place anymore. It's not worth it for them to move out, but I doubt they'd do SV now if they had a choice. SV was popular because as Paul Graham said, everyone was optimistic and always smiling, but this really isn't the case anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> IMO as an individual the best is to either go to SV or stay home.

By moving to some other location you get all the downsides of migrating, few upsides of the best location and no upsides of staying home.

</comment><comment><USER7> _"(…) will that change in the next 10 years?"_

As someone living in Europe, I hope so! But I wouldn't bet on it. Silicon Valley/USA is way ahead of us when it comes to tech/startups.

</comment><comment><USER8> If it's online, South Dakota, the business friendly state.

<comment><USER9> You say "the" like it's uniquely business friendly. If so, what makes it more business friendly than any other state?

Even if that isn't what you meant, could you expand a bit on what makes it "business friendly"?

<comment><USER10> No income tax on business or personal income. You can become the state's resident after spending just one night in a hotel and opening a bank account. That's partially why it's highly favored by RVers who choose to longer have a permanent home.

There's opportunity to modify the state's politics. ;)

I am likely going to set my HQ in that state.

<comment><USER11> Don't do that. Don't move to an area and taint the books with laws that ruined the place you came from.

<comment><USER12> I agree. Be humble. Try to understand the existing laws and customs before you come in and try to make changes.

<comment><USER13> Tell that to the politicians.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My basement.

I'd like to think location matters less and less these days, but there's a lot of stereotyping and group-think to overcome.</comment>


Google is learning too well from the master - <AUTHOR> http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20071102_003354.html

<comment><USER2> "Before Ning, I started Netscape"

This is an impressive organization led by an impressive man. I think that they have potential. Give these folks a go.

<comment><USER2> This comment is definitely under the wrong story. I don't know whether it is my fault or a bug. Sorry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Can someone please explain me why Google stock price is so freaking high and doesn't involve some conspiracy theory?

<comment><USER4> Google is looking to centralize all e-mail services to their servers. The e-mail system (GMail and domain services) aren't competing with MS Outlook, they're competing with MS Exchange and hence with Windows Server. That's one hell of a market. If Google sets themselves up as the strongest "utility provider" with respect to IT, and it looks like they're the only ones that "get it" as an organization at this point, I'm wondering why Google's stock price is so freaking low...

Googling "information technology utility" points me towards a more articulate explanation of the concept at MITSloan:

<http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/2005/spring/13/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Google broke off talks with Free411.com to start a competing service? So much for "Don't be evil."

<comment><USER4> Are you being sarcastic?

 _This strategy of getting start-ups to explain their business models and share their technologies..._

This kind of accusation seems so childish. Of course Google can start a competing service, and looking into possible acquisitions instead seems like a sensible thing to do before starting one. But Google's goog411 has nothing to do with the Free411 business model - they aren't trying to sell ads, they are gathering speech data. If Free411 had an enormous database of voice samples, goog411 might have never been. Just because Google didn't consider Free411.com a valuable acquisition doesn't make them evil.

<comment><USER4> On second read, I noticed this gem of advice:

 _Google doesn't have to behave like this. At their current share price they can acquire any company -- and I mean ANY company -- for little or no cost. Killing little free411 after first cozying up to them is mean-spirited and, if Google continues to behave like this in the future, will hurt the company's reputation long-term. Maybe having a good reputation means little to Google, but it should._

 _It's time to grow up, kids._

So Google should acquire all startups that are affected by its services, even if there's nothing to gain from the acquisition... because it's the nice thing to do? I'm all for going out of your way to be nice, but let's double check who needs to grow up here...

<comment><USER6> Cringley's point is that this could lead to industrywide wariness and hatred of Google, unfortunately. MSFT was known for dirty tricks, and galvanized much of the industry against them. Maybe they're paying for this now to some extent.

If you'd think twice before going to a GOOG meeting to pitch your startup and, if they're interested, start "opening the kimono" during due diligence... Well maybe they wouldn't be first on your list of companies to sell to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do you guys this there is an PR strategy behind rhetoric like this?</comment>


Google never serves up more than 1000 results - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/statspotting/status/1070387482968100867 <comment><USER2> That limit is 10+ year old and the other major search engines do the same. Users do paginate, but those going to page 99 are more than likely automated systems. A user who hasn't found a good result by page 50 should change their search query with + and - terms.

</comment><comment><USER3> I imagine with something like Google Scholar it might be more of an issue. I'm much more likely to go very deep into the results there.

I wonder how often that's an issue for users. With the amount of testing and research google does on user experience it's probably vanishingly small. But I wonder if, when it's a problem for a user, is it a really big problem?</comment>


VQL – Data Analysis for Non-Programmers - <AUTHOR> https://getvql.com <comment><AUTHOR> VQL is a UI to explore data without writing code

Hi HN! I spent a few years working on enterprise software and noticed that a lot of tools could be replaced by SQL queries! So I prototyped a few UI's to enable anyone to use SQL (a venn diagram UI where you could drag and drop circles for joins, Mad Libs: select __(column name)__ from __(table name)__ where __(column name)__ __(>,<,=)__ __(a value)__; ).

I settled on VQL which is somewhere between IPython Notebook, Excel, and D3.

I'd love any feedback on UI/X, tech, design, anything. We're actively developing the product and adding features. I'd be interested in hearing your problems and how VQL could solve them. If you'd like to try VQL, I'm happy to set up a trial instance and get VQL to work on your problems! Email me at firstname.lastname@example.com.

</comment><comment><USER2> Yet another ad for software that is not available. The website is just collecting email addresses. After giving my address, I got an email to confirm my subscription to a mailing list about VQL. Chose not to join.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would've liked to set up an instance for a Show HN, but my demo stack likely couldn't handle it! Send me an email at firstname.lastname@example.com and I'll send you credentials for the demo stack.

Even better, I'll set you up with your own instance to import your own data!</comment></comment>


Heavier Than Air (1930) - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1930/12/13/heavier-than-air <comment><USER2> Really interesting piece and impreccably written!

A noteworthy statement from Orville: "He feels deeply upon the subject of accidents, saying that there are vastly too many of them and that this country has a bad record. He regards this as a matter of better pilot training; not, he thinks, until the spirit of daredeviltry dies out and pilots shun a hazard with the horror of a veteran locomotive engineer will we witness material improvement"

I also noted there were a few words that I have not seen before in modern English texts: "bumboatmen", "spoke-shave" "self-bailer", for example.

<comment><USER3> You're hanging out with the wrong crowd if you haven't heard _spokeshave_ (it's not generally hyphenated anymore). It's still a commonly-used woodworking tool - just another in the family of planes, really - as is its "roughing" kin, the drawknife. When I were a lad, my father once remarked that a spokeshave seemed to be a bit of a modern contraption for Roy Underhill to be using on a particular project; I had to remind him that wooden spokes were just a little bit out of date and that the class of tools probably had a more meaningful name once upon a time.

<comment><USER4> I have also not seen "spoke-shave" in modern English texts. I'm not sure how that relates to the crowds I run with. I'm an amateur wood-worker but I prefer building to finishing so I don't do much planing. Likely my neighbor and a close friend knows what that tool is, but it never came up in conversation.

So that is to say that your comment is informative, but it could do without the "wrong crowd" comment. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant it in jest!

<comment><USER5> We will forgive you if you can turn a hook on a scraper :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, what a time capsule!

I have a newfound appreciation for the New Yorker after this. I've often found their articles tiringly long and full of unnecessary mundane details and side tangents.

But reading something from a hundred years ago, those very details and side tangents are the best part. People generally don't care to record what ordinary life was like - everyone knows! - yet when we look back far enough in history that is the kind of stuff we have the most difficulty relating to and understanding. Perhaps better to think of the New Yorker's style as not writing for today, but writing for future historians.

<comment><USER7> Reading the "digression" about the plans for the monument at Kitty Hawk, and Washington's meddling and bumbling, gives you a whole "the more things change, the more they stay the same" feel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The interesting thing is that after the Wright Brothers successfully flew, their main contribution was a patent war which held back the US aviation industry significantly.

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

</comment><comment><USER9> In related news:

[https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/orville-wright-bust- stol...](https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/orville-wright-bust-stolen-from- monument/)

</comment><comment><USER10> Wher does the aëro spelling come from and where did it disappear?

<comment><USER11> The New Yorker has a famously idiosyncratic style guide that calls for diaresis to be explicitly marked (in words like e.g. coöperate). This is pretty interesting though because it seems to indicate that the pronunciation has shifted - nobody would pronounce "aero" with a diaresis today.

<comment><USER12> Obnoxious as well as idiosyncratic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Though predating it by many decades, this is a bit of a tldr of the book The Wright Brothers by David McCullough which I thought was great. Presumably if you liked this article, you would feel similarly.

<comment><USER14> I second the recommendation. It's a pretty easy read but gave me a much deeper appreciation for these two that I had sort of dismissively _mis_ characterized as "two bike shop mechanics".</comment></comment>


How to Protect Privacy While Mining Millions of Patient Records - <AUTHOR> https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=last24h&page=0&prefix=false&query=spectrum.ieee.org&sort=byPopularity&type=story <comment><USER2> This submission's link currently goes to an HN search results page. However, it should go to [https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech- talk/telecom/security/covid19...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech- talk/telecom/security/covid19-study-privacy-mining-millions-patient-records)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, rats. I can't edit/update the url.

Any mods available to right my wrongs?

Edit to explain: when I read something that I find interesting and think to post it on HN, I usually do an HN search (or a few HN searches) to see whether it has already been posted. In this instance, I've crossed tabs somewhere and copied my HN search result rather than the url that I'd wanted to post. Really sorry :-(</comment></comment>


D3.js is Not a Graphing Library, Let's Design a Line Graph - <AUTHOR> http://dealloc.me/2011/06/24/d3-is-not-a-graphing-library/

<comment><USER2> WTF is this. Where is the thesis? _What_ is the thesis? What am I supposed to take from this? Should I use d3? Should I use CSS? That information could be imparted via WRITING. WRITING. WRITE. Make a point. MAKE. A. POINT. I fucking hate the web these days.</comment>


Keeping a debugging journal - <AUTHOR> http://steverydz.com/2013/11/19/keeping-a-debugging-journal/ <comment><USER2> A particularly fine example of a bug journal (not exactly a _debugging_ journal) is the one kept by Donald Knuth for his TeX typesetting system.

The list is at [http://texdoc.net/texmf- dist/doc/generic/knuth/errata/errorl...](http://texdoc.net/texmf- dist/doc/generic/knuth/errata/errorlog.pdf;) the fairly long and very interesting paper he wrote about it ("The Errors of TeX") unfortunately doesn't seem to be freely available, but there's a very short informal article (also by Knuth) about it at [http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/tb10-4/tb26knut.pdf](http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/tb10-4/tb26knut.pdf).

He classifies all the errors he's ever found (or had found by others) into 15 categories. (Here "errors" includes "enhancements found to be a good idea", just as in many issue-tracking systems.) In the full "Errors" paper he has much to say about each category, including concrete examples and more philosophical ruminations.

<comment><USER3> You have a slight typo in that first link, HN interpreted the semicolon as part of the link, fixed:

[http://texdoc.net/texmf- dist/doc/generic/knuth/errata/errorl...](http://texdoc.net/texmf- dist/doc/generic/knuth/errata/errorlog.pdf)

<comment><USER4> This one stuck out for me:

        * Time sharing is very slow today, so I'm mostly reading technical reports while
            waiting three hours for compiler, editor, and loading routine.
        * I'm not counting this as debugging time!
        * (Came back in the evening.)

For reference, you can compile the Linux kernel in as few as eight minutes [1].

[1] [http://askubuntu.com/a/244148](http://askubuntu.com/a/244148)

<comment><USER3> By time-sharing, does he mean sharing computing time on a cluster? I work on my university's cluster and on bad days, my jobs are queued for 4 hours and then run for 20 minutes...

<comment><USER5> Dude, you didn't even look at the pdf did you. That was the entry for _13 Mar 1978_

<comment><USER3> I'm pretty sure clusters changed in their architecture and their processing power, but you still have to stand in line

<comment><USER6> In 1978 Time Sharing Machines refers to single machines with multi-tasking. ex. the terminal you are using right now. So you don't have to "wait in line" you have to share resources. Just like your web-browser shares resources with your editor.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time- sharing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-sharing)

esr also has a good article: [http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/timesharing.html](http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/timesharing.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I started keeping a development journal when I found myself getting interrupted quite a bit more than usual. It turned out to be very helpful but somewhat tedious to maintain at the level I would have liked.

I had some ideas about how to write software to automate some of the tedium and how great it would be if there were a large scale system that many developers used for tracking their work. If this system existed it could compare and contrast techniques and approaches used by more productive developers and help guide less productive developers down the path to improved productivity.

It seems like it would also provide a pretty good automatic Stack Overflow like experience in terms of being able to search for error messages and find the steps others had taken to solve the same problems.

<comment><AUTHOR> That sounds like a great idea!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've found it to be really helpful to keep a project work log when working alone. Mine are very verbose and help the most at the time of writing, since it keeps me on task and solidifies ideas.

My friend does the same thing, here's what he wrote about it recently:

[http://blag.cammunism.org/blog/2013/11/14/programmers- log/](http://blag.cammunism.org/blog/2013/11/14/programmers-log/)

<comment><USER9> I do the same thing, but not just when working alone -- I just use a a text file in dropbox + vim.

For more complicated tasks I create check lists before hand (to make sure I cover the edge cases), and sometimes create "Testing:" check lists to make sure I also test all the edge cases. I also have free form text when I'm thinking about a problem, or when I get feedback about different things.

It's organized by day and is invaluable, with a simple search I can find out what I worked on any day -- really good for reflection and marking progress.

</comment></comment><comment> daniel-levin Can you share your debugging journal? I have been thinking about keeping one, just to try see if there are patterns amongst the bugs I inadvertently write. There are indeed patterns and _classes and categories_ of bugs, and I think that knowing them might prevent me from making the same (stupid) mistakes in the future.

<comment><AUTHOR> I just started it this afternoon but do intend to share it once it fills up a bit. I'll update the post when I do this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I keep two text files open at all times: CurrentTasks.txt gets every new assignment and idea, sorted by priority order, most important stuff at the top.

Logbook<Year>.txt gets a date stamp every day, and collects the notes I take/leave myself as I go along, including any interesting command lines I won't remember later. I throw in any interesting error messages and other things I know I won't remember in detail.

Periodically, I'll garbage collect CurrentTasks and move the good intentions and other things I won't likely do over to the Logbook.

This is a corruption of David Allen's 'Getting Things Done' system, but it's worked well for me for years. I can't count the number of times the Logbook has acted as a ready reference for solving some obscure, occasional challenge.

</comment><comment><USER11> I like this idea. Would anyone find interest in a mini-site for programmers to talk about how they've squashed bugs? Sort of a mini-social network I suppose.

<comment><USER12> StackOverflow contains a list of documented "bug fixes". and I bet most devs find their solutions on SO anyways.

I find this suggestion more valuable within a medium-large company. An old employer of mine had a "Trouble Call" reporting system where you submit a problem/solution and can search the DB later to help with repeat issues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think this is a helpful action in some cases as well. Especially on teams where its less of a bug and more of a FAQ. Various questions about an application that are common and where to look for the answers. Saves everyone time.

For actual bugs. A lot of times they are one off, but if it is say an issue with a configuration or deployment that could come up again I definetly see the value there.

</comment><comment><USER14> Why not use GitHub? You can file and look up commit histories, write comments, track Issues/bug reports, collaborate with others.. all in one place.

If you want a public debugging journal for a private or self-hosted project, I think Evernote combined with [http://postach.io](http://postach.io) would work beautifully.

</comment><comment><USER15> I've created my own MoinMoin (FOSS python wiki) instance primarily for keeping a development journal ([http://wiki.juanl.org/DevLog](http://wiki.juanl.org/DevLog)).

I usually try to capture anything that I spend a significant amount of time figuring out.

The fact that it's a wiki makes it great for organizing other ideas too.

</comment><comment><USER16> So much truth! I've been keeping one myself for the past ten months and it helps immensely when switching between projects all the time. I don't use a blog or evernote but a set of scripts I made, it's an excellent use case for Dropbox too.

</comment><comment><USER17> Yep, and if you post it to say tumblr, or your blog then people searching for the same problem you have will also run across it.

Great way to help others, and keep the "Just Google It!" mantra alive.

</comment><comment><USER18> are there any sources we can go for explicitly for making some kind of debugging journal?</comment>


Ask HN: how to block all news about Facebook - <AUTHOR>

Ok, i am sick of hearing about facebook. I dont care who is rich, how much money they lost today, who got married, who did not get rich, what does this mean, what does this not mean,  blah blah blah.<p>How do i stop all things facebook WITHOUT leaving the internet and moving to a cave? <comment><USER2> You think this is bad? Wait until Apple bring out a new iPhone car charger or something...

Point is you can't duck the pop vox of the moment - just try and ignore it - it will go away in time.</comment>


Should I risk the fine and travel first class? - <AUTHOR> http://timharford.com/2010/07/should-i-risk-the-fine-and-travel-first-class/ <comment><USER2> Uggg, horrible font for a blog or any type of extended reading. However, interesting moral decision we all face at various points in time.

It's discussed like an economics decision, but I see it more as a gambler's decision. To me it's about the bankroll and the ability to sustain several losses in a row while waiting for the odds to even out.

<comment><USER3> There is also the possibility that several encounters with the inspector will increase the likelihood of getting caught in the future (the inspector will recognize you, and expect that you don't have a ticket). Kind of like a casino cheat who gets red-flagged by casino security.</comment></comment>


Elon Musk Gets Approval to Tunnel Expansion Beneath Las Vegas - <AUTHOR> https://www.simturax.com/2020/08/elon-musk-gets-approval-tunnel-expansion-las-vegas.html?m=1 <comment><USER3> The people throughput capacities seem quite low, so these don't scale - <USER2> will be expensive services for the few. At least for starters.

You could have electric buses that could travel as a "metro" in the tunnel for the longer transit or congested city centers and then on the road in the suburbs, for lower cost and better flexibility.

<comment><USER4> AIUI a single tunnel doesn't scale, sure, but part of the Boring Company's mission is to make the tunnels super cheap, so scaling up the system consists of adding additional parallel tunnels.

I guess it's like adding lanes to a highway, but instead of being limited to "make it wider" you can think in 3D and "bundle" tubes together with a honeycomb cross section.

Spitballing more, "reversing the polarity" of a single lane tunnel in such a bundle would be trivial to account for burst traffic (like they move the center divider on the Golden Gate Bridge).</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What TLD would you choose? - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
I'm planning on launching a dev startup and I'm in serious doubts what TLD to use.
I have two:
- one with .io extension - one with .ro extension (I'm from Romania)
.io advantages: - geeky - internationally known amongst dev people
.ro advantages: - great for national identity
Any advices? <comment><USER2> The recent Paul Graham essay (and discussion) is worthwhile reading on the topic of naming:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10030863](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10030863)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'll take a look.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Don't get held up decisions like this. Just pick one and move on. Moving forwards is much more important than getting this 'right'. Besides, if your startup fails because of which TLD you chose then something _seriously_ weird has happened.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're working on our product so it's not like we're waiting to decide upon the domain but I'm also very careful about the stigma that we Romanians (or Eastern Europeans) have.

However, you are right about failing because of the TLD.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Take .io

I know it's not your fault but .ro can lead to suspicions and disbelief about your capacity. :/

And you don't want that for your incoming startup ^^

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately you are right and that was the main factor for buying the .io domain.

Thanks for your feedback. :)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: do you use the phrase 'killing it'? If so, WTF does it mean? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> yes I use it when I talk about my competitors aka Flickr,43things,and Instagram for the exception of 43things the rest of them are killing it!

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't use it much, but it means something like "performing really well."

"Those guys are really killing it" is roughly equivalent to:

"Those guys are really ripping it up."

"Those guys are really shredding."

"Those guys are cooking with gas now."

etc.</comment>


Dark Emerges from Stealth and Announces $3.5M in Funding - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/darklang/dark-announces-3-5m-in-seed-financing-d64af8a58c1d <comment><USER2> I mean I guess. Salesforce did it with Apex and Wolfram did it with Wolframlang or whatever Steve is calling it these days. But I feel like this is a solution in search of a problem. The issue isn't complexity or even accidental complexity. It's that businesses usually have many competing and often conflicting needs. I can already hear the angry snort when I go to the head DBA and ask if I can use some new hosted product to replace our on prem data warehouse. It'll never happen. And it's not even an "old school" thing. We just have a variety of reasons why it's a bad solution. So now we talk about setting up small web apps hosted in Dark's cloud. How is it any better than what we have hosted in Amazon, Google, and Azure where we also have the ability to at any minute tap in to a huge market of developers? I guess then we look at this for new projects that aren't interfacing with production stuff? In that case I guess it's an interesting experiment. But the reality is that most corporate things (from my experience anyway) have an if it ain't broke don't fix it mentality and with good (often painfully learned) reasons. I'm not debating the values of this (it's hard to since their entire site is marketing buzzwords) but I'm saying it doesn't seem on the face of it to be a realistic problem solver. I'm very likely wrong but that's how it feels to me.

</comment><comment><USER3> The list of investors and advisors is impressive. It'll be interesting to see if the model takes off.</comment>


HappyFunCorp HappyWorld - <AUTHOR> http://happyfuncorp.com

<comment><USER2> Great use of responsivity. The cohesive nature of this site is holistically spot on.

</comment><comment><USER3> one of the better nyc dev shop sites i've seen – not too self-serious but well-exectued.</comment>


Zstandard v1.3.4 – faster everything - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/facebook/zstd/releases/tag/v1.3.4 <comment><USER2> One of the coolest parts of zstd is the simple support for custom dictionaries. If you have a lot of mid sized blobs that you want to separately compress (so that you can separately decompress them), you can create a common dictionary that covers the entire corpus. In real world use cases the compression ratio can go from 3x to 9x: [https://github.com/facebook/zstd#the- case-for-small-data-com...](https://github.com/facebook/zstd#the-case-for- small-data-compression)

What was the finality on the issue of patents with this library? Is there an active covenant from Facebook not to sue users?

<comment><AUTHOR> The library is dual licensed under plain BSD [1] and GPLv2 [2].

[1] [https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/LICENSE](https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/LICENSE) [2] [https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/COPYING](https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/COPYING)

<comment><USER2> Which only makes things more confusing. Is it dual licensed, both apply? Or dual license, your choice? That only complicates the patent question further.

<comment><AUTHOR> The GPLv2 license was added for inclusion in the kernel, you may choose either GPLv2 or BSD. See the header file [https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/lib/zstd.h](https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/lib/zstd.h).

<comment><USER2> Sweet. Would be nice if that was in the README too as it only mentions the BSD license, but the top level includes the GPL as well.

There's still the open patent question but this (i.e. BSD license) makes it easier to decide to use it.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is mentioned at the bottom of the README, but it isn't very findable. I've opened a PR [https://github.com/facebook/zstd/pull/1085](https://github.com/facebook/zstd/pull/1085).

<comment><USER3> Which got accepted (an hour after you submitted it) - nice!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the project homepage[1]:

"Zstandard, or zstd as short version, is a fast lossless compression algorithm, targeting real-time compression scenarios at zlib-level and better compression ratios. It's backed by a very fast entropy stage, provided by Huff0 and FSE library."

1: [https://github.com/facebook/zstd](https://github.com/facebook/zstd)

</comment><comment><USER5> A very important aspect of this project is the zlibWrapper. It provides a interface for transparently reading from zstd-compressed, zlib-compressed, or uncompressed files with one API. It's quite fast, provides an excellent balance between speed and compression ratio, and is generally my preferred way to work with compressed data.

Their emphasis on branchless coding is even more valuable now than it was when zstd was released, since we are living in a post-spectre/meltdown world.

I dislike Facebook as a company, but I cannot find fault with their engineering.

[Edit/Off-topic: I want someone to make an LZ77/DEFLATE/Led Zeppelin pun-based product sometime. Please. That joke has been begging to be made since at least 1990.]

<comment><USER6> In this case though the core innovation actually happened pre-facebook. Post facebook it got more polish/tweaking/multi-threading etc. but I don't recall any breakthrough kind of change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'll still pick lz4 based on the benchmark.

<comment><USER8> Which algorithm is best is use-case dependent. As of now, zstd offers best-in- class compression for a wider variety of use cases than lz4. lz4 (created by the same author) still wins for high-throughput software compression, yes. But _zstd --fast 4 or 5_ are getting pretty close.

<comment><USER9> It's not obvious to me what the relevant measurements are on the zstd side, but I'm pretty sure lz4 wins considerably where code size and RAM footprint are major considerations, as in some bootloader and embedded firmware situations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> These are rather large release notes for a patch release.

</comment><comment><USER11> I wonder if it's possible to create a blockchain where the proof-of-work consists of building a better compression-dictionary instead of doing useless hashing.

<comment><USER12> No

<comment><USER13> To give a little detail on why this is not possible, proof-of-whatever should be quickly verifiable while hard to generate. Compression might sound like it can achieve both requirements. However, raw data needs to be very large so that the problem is not trivial. Large data is a red flag in any blockchain application.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wish he'd stop tweaking it at this point. Newer versions are incompatible with older versions, which is a cardinal sin if you want mass adoption for something like this.

Or at least identify a stable subset of some sort and put it into another tool that I would not be hesitant to use.

So when I need something very fast I use Snappy or lz4, and when I need decent compression ratio I use pigz.

<comment><USER15> Incompatible in what way? API? File format?

<comment><AUTHOR> Zstandard also maintain ABI stability for a portion of the API, and require a macro definition to access the unstable parts.</comment></comment></comment>


FBI May Demand iOS Source Code, Signing Key - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/10/11196548/apple-accuses-department-of-justice-fbi-smearing-desperation <comment><USER2> I can't believe they're actually running with the "it's not Apple's job to protect civil liberties; it's the government's" talking point. It's pure nonsense, a complete inversion of the understanding of the nature of civil rights ever since the Constitution was written.

<comment><USER3> >it's not Apple's job to protect civil liberties

This statement reminds me of a time when a few companies tried to fix a road that the government refused to fix but kept awarding awarding contracts for yearly.

The government took em to court. The court said that building roads was not the job of civilians. And here is where things for interesting.

They asked the companies to give the government money so that the government would build that road

<comment><USER4> When and where was this?

<comment><USER3> Nigeria - don't remember the exact year. And it's happened more than once.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The FBI seems to be overtly validating the power-drunk law enforcement officer theme that's been entering the public consciousness in the law few years.

</comment><comment><USER6> It feels like the FBI has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. They have at least one judge saying they have overreached, a House of Representatives hearing where the head of the FBI got dressed down, and a hearing on the 22nd with a ton of support for Apple from tech companies and other researchers. It feels like a desperate attempt to salvage a losing battle.

<comment><USER7> Remember this thought, because in two or three years, the government will try this again, and they will continue to try until they succeed.

America is ruled by an unaccountable and corrupt elite.

<comment><USER8> God I'm sick of reading stuff like this.

The truth is that a large number of Americans believe that the FBI _should_ have access through consumer encryption. Agree or disagree, but the existence of that public sentiment is a fact easily observable in public polling.

Security vs. freedom is a tradeoff. Different people have different opinions of what makes an acceptable trade.

The role of representative government is to adjudicate between differing opinions. That is why this is still an issue, and will continue to be an issue for the foreseeable future--not because there is some secret cabal who is working counter to the wishes of all Americans.

<comment><USER9> > The truth is that a large number of Americans believe that the FBI should > have access through consumer encryption.

This is not a democracy, this is a republic. We should hold our elected (and appointed) officials to higher standards than we hold our voters. Just because our public is uneducated does not excuse the elected government taking advantage of an uneducated public to seize powers they did not have before.

<comment><USER8> > This is not a democracy, this is a republic.

I'm sick of reading this too.

We have a representative democracy in the U.S. We also have a republic. The two terms are not contradictory.

"Representative democracy" tells you how decisions are made--we select a few citizens to make decisions on our behalf. "Republic" tells you who is sovereign--in the U.S. the individual citizens have the right and power to rule, and have used that to construct our own government.

Counter examples:

The U.K. is a representative democracy, but not a republic. It's a monarchy.

North Korea is a republic but it's not a democracy. It's an autocracy.

<comment><USER9> Just because you call something a democracy doesn't mean it is so. If something is a republic, you can call it a representative democracy analogously, but not literally. Just like a zebra is a striped horse but not, you know, a horse.

Can you address anything I wrote that had substance?

<comment><USER8> I don't call the U.S. a democracy, it is a democracy. The only way to say that it is not, is to change the definition of the word "democracy."

[http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+democracy](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+democracy)

> Can you address anything I wrote that had substance?

That our elected officials represent the disparate opinions of the people they serve might be their personal failing, in your view, because you disagree with them on this issue. I disagree with them too! Encryption should not be backdoored, the FBI is wrong--I agree on all those scores.

I just don't think that the only reason the encryption conversation continues is because of corrupt political elites. It's not. The conversation continues at the public level too.

The reason that matters, is what we can do about it. If public opinion is the problem, then a public campaign can try to move it. If corrupt political elites are the problem then... we throw up our hands? Isn't that just rationalizing despair and inaction?

edit: clarity

<comment><USER9> > > [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+democracy](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+democracy)

This definition is meaningless. Under this definition, every government is a democracy. People technically voted for Kim Jong Un.

> That our elected officials represent the disparate opinions of the people > they serve might be their personal failing, in your view, because you > disagree with them on this issue.

No, their personal failing is not thinking for themselves.

> I just don't think that the only reason the encryption conversation > continues is because of corrupt political elites. It's not. The conversation > continues at the public level too.

I do agree—however, the elected officials are still failing their constituents by not actually understanding what encryption _is_. They have a responsibility to be educated when their constituents are not.

<comment><USER8> > the elected officials are still failing their constituents by not actually > understanding what encryption is. They have a responsibility to be educated > when their constituents are not.

I totally agree with you on this. Here's a sliver of hope that progress is possible...

[http://fortune.com/2016/03/10/apple-fbi-lindsay- graham/](http://fortune.com/2016/03/10/apple-fbi-lindsay-graham/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In a truly cryptographically secure system, there wouldn't be a master key, and a signing key would not be able to enable access to private data. Security would be guaranteed by mathematics, not by the UI. The data would be encrypted in a fashion that even a modified OS would not be able to decrypt without a user-generated high-entropy passphrase or key that Apple does not have. If iPhones were truly secure, Apple would technically and mathematically be unable to help, and the FBI wouldn't have a case to begin with.

<comment><USER11> That's true, but a bit off topic.

The question here is whether or not the law says the DoJ can compel Apple to hand over these items.

We do not need to allow the DoJ to win in order to get to a point where Apple and others provide us with self-controlled data security. We can both fight the DoJ's position and demand better security from Apple.

Let's focus on the DoJ for now because that is the immediate threat.

This case should be discussed in Congress, not the courts, and the American people should have a say in the matter.

I was heartened to see the video of Senator Lindsey Graham's questioning of US Attorney General Loretta Lynch today on this topic [1]. His delivery and conclusion was perfect. Mike Lee also did a good job [2]. Feinstein was scary to watch (51:00 in the C-Span full video).

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk4hYAwCdhU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk4hYAwCdhU)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOZLEhTlr6E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOZLEhTlr6E)

[3] [http://www.c-span.org/video/?406201-1/attorney-general- loret...](http://www.c-span.org/video/?406201-1/attorney-general-loretta- lynch-testimony-justice-department-operations)

<comment><USER12> Pretty sure Lavabit tried to fight this exact same type of ruling, and lost: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit)

While i'm not a legal expert, it seems the major difference is the size and name recognition of the companies.

<comment><USER13> Yes, and it makes a hell of difference in lobbying fire power.

I'm not really a Apple fan but I hope they win on this.

Lavabit eventually decided to close instead of giving access to the data of their customers. Apple won't close but I wonder if they would go as far as leaving the USA, both the country and the market. That would be more than extreme but if they lose it would be the only alternative to caving in. My very safe bet: it's not going to happen (leaving the USA).

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure if that would really work, with extradition agreements and all. A lot of other countries' governments will actually agree with the FBI's position, not the position of the American people.

In other news, Apple has been complying all along with Chinese authority requests, including placing Chinese user data on Chinese servers and hand over relevant data when asked. In China if they made a fit over this they'd be thrown out and blocked along with Google and Facebook. For them, complying with Chinese authorities is a revenue-driven business decision.

In the absolute worst case outcome of the FBI case, I imagine they would end up complying with US authorities as well, as a business decision.

<comment><USER14> Apple could take the Galt Gulch option: buy a small country and move there where there sre no extradition treaties to bother with.

<comment><USER15> I always wonder how hard it would be and just how effective it would be if it was done.

Sovereignty is a funny topic... If Apple "buys" a country with a land border the "abdication of existing government" could be considered by their neighbours over the border as grounds to consider the territory "vacant" ... If Apple "bought" an island nation or a country comprising multiple islands, then they would have to "defend" their new home from the newfound "enemy" of the USA ( and I hear the Navy is quite formidable ;-) ) who might be a little bit pissed off, or may just decide like to "consider" that Apple purchasing the country makes it not a country and they don't have to listen to Apple when they ask nicely not to enter their territory with aircraft carriers, or say ... submarines that tap into undersea cables...

Right now Apple has a fair amount of protection by virtue of being an American company, an American company that is also considered an American person with rights under the constitution, such as not being "compelled to speak", which is why we're hearing about this sort of possible change in tactics. The FBI can't force them to talk so they ask for the script so they can talk for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > "Without Apple's assistance, the government cannot carry out the search of > Farook's iPhone authorized by the search warrant. Apple has ensured that its > assistance is necessary by requiring its electronic signature to run any > program on the iPhone. Even if the Court ordered Apple to provide the > government with Apple's cryptographic keys and source code, Apple itself has > implied that the government could not disable the requisite features because > it 'would have insufficient knowledge of Apple's software and design > protocols to be effective'," the motion says.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/technology/apple-and- fbi-f...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/technology/apple-and-fbi-face-off- before-house-judiciary-committee.html)

> "There was a mistake made in the 24 hours after the attack," James B. Comey > Jr., the director of the F.B.I., told lawmakers at a hearing on the > government's attempt to force Apple to help "unlock" the iPhone.

> F.B.I. personnel apparently believed that by resetting the iCloud password, > they could get access to information stored on the iPhone. Instead, the > change had the opposite effect — locking them out and eliminating other > means of getting in.

> The iPhone used by Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the assailants in the Dec. 2 > attack in which 14 people were killed, is at the center of a fierce legal > and political fight over the balance between national security and consumer > privacy. Many lawmakers at Tuesday's hearing of the House Judiciary > Committee seemed torn over where to draw the line.

[http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fbi--terror- susp...](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fbi--terror-suspect-s- iphone-20160220-story.html)

> Had there been no reset on the iCloud password, investigators may have been > able to get a more updated backup of Farook's iPhone without any need to > unlock the device itself.

They simply aren't competent and every time someone suggests they need more power to cover for their incompetence they need to be called out on it.

<comment><USER17> Is the FBI themselves going to be comfortable using devices which, say, the Chinese government, has the source code & keys for? The NSA and CIA certainly won't be. This is a two way street and they damned well know it.

<comment><USER18> I'm not sure I follow, could you elaborate? Which phones are they using that the Chinese government have the keys for and how wold this matter?

<comment><USER19> I think his point is that, if the FBI gains this ability, foreign governments will ban iPhone use which will damage an American company.

<comment><USER20> That too, but also all foreign governments will have predecent for demanding the same capabilities. Apple might as well just strip out all security features if that occurs instead of wasting time catering to demands.

<comment><USER18> Thanks for clarifying everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wonder if Apple has a key revocation procedure for their signing key? It would have been sensible to have done this anyway, in case the key was compromised. They must, after all, be one of the highest profile targets, both for criminals and assorted foreign intelligence agencies. If they give the key to the FBI, they have to assume it is compromised, and so they should revoke it to protect their other customers.

<comment><USER22> In the same vein what would happen if Apple decided to destroy their master key and all backups? While that would completely screw over iphone updates I would honestly prefer that to the FBI getting source and signing capabilities. If Apple turns over their source it is only a matter of weeks before it gets leaked and its game over afterwards.

<comment><USER23> _In the same vein what would happen if Apple decided to destroy their master key and all backups?_

Tim Cook would go to jail.

<comment><USER24> Probably, as those who oppose the corrupt use of power are feckless and would essentially do little besides complain while American continues to establish a police state.

<comment><USER25> No, because it's textbook obstruction of justice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This needs to be framed as a political issue. This is Obama's Justice Department. What do you think Hillary Clinton's Justice Department will look like?

If this is bothering you, get out and vote for Sanders. These next few months are the only window where we have a chance to fix this before being locked into 8 more years of a power hungry DoJ.

The entire tech industry should be taking a stand right now. Setting the policy of the FBI & DoJ is more important than net neutrality or SOPA. Not to mention picking the judges that will be deciding these cases for the next 20 years.

<comment><USER8> To my knowledge Sanders has shown no inclination to take this issue on at all, let alone fight for our side.

His campaign thesis is that rich corporations have corrupted the political process. _Apple is one of the richest corporations in the world._ It's not clear to me what Sanders will think of their concerns.

Encryption is not an issue that breaks down easily along typical populist political lines, which are the lines that Sanders prefers to stay within.

That said, you are correct that it should be a political issue--particularly in Congressional elections.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's a very bad sign that America has reached a point where its overbearing government can confidently and boldly voice such demand.

<comment><USER28> I find it fascinating that it's commonly believed that big corporations run / control / own the US Government. When that's constantly shown to not be the case. Occasionally they have common ground, more often than not the government imposes its will in the process of seeking more power and control through regulation. If big corporations ran things, the executive branch would be on its knees groveling right now, with trillions of dollars in market value stacked on the Apple side of this. Apple makes so much money, their profit is almost as large as the entire spy budget for all US agencies. So where's the power and control over the government? Turns out that isn't true, the power derived from the guns beats the money every time (which history has shown repeatedly).

<comment><USER11> > the power derived from the guns beats the money every time

Our collective vote beats both money and guns. When politicians are voted out, they are out of a job and their campaign funds dry up.

From the This American Life's episode on "Take the Money and Run for Office" [1]

Dick Durbin: I think most Americans would be shocked-- not surprised, but shocked-- if they knew how much time a United States senator spends raising money. And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money. And, you know, going off on little retreats and conjuring up new ideas on how to raise money.

Barney Frank: If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district.

[1] [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/461/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/461/transcript)

<comment><USER29> While money has a hard time to get a politician to take a position contrary to the will of the public, money is a great tool to manufacture public consent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Isn't this the same thing China is in discussion of demanding of anyone who sells software in China? We've already criticized this as "they can steal our stuff." Why would any country not think the same of us?

<comment><USER11> Yes. Obama discussed his concerns over Beijing's proposed laws with President Xi directly in March 2015 [1]

[1] [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-china- idUSKBN0LY...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-china- idUSKBN0LY2H520150302)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The signing key is (ideally) not even known by Apple, but instead held in a security appliance that can be unlocked with a threshold quorum of pass phrases.

It might not even be in the US. I know that the code signing action of Microsoft Windows was done (and perhaps is still done) in Peurto Rico, for tax reasons.

<comment><USER32> Puerto Rico is definitely within US federal jurisdiction.

<comment><USER31> Definitely. My point is that it's not an unheard of practice. Stick your signing keys in a different jurisdiction and . . .

. . . well, I suppose the courts could always compel a roomful of key holders to enter their codes. But it's much harder if some physical presence is required (do they handcuff you, fly you to the Caymans and force you to enter your key? Do they try to recover the hardware in question -- that could be made arbitrarily difficult).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I can't wait to submit a FOIA request for this.

</comment><comment><USER34> What I've been wondering about this case is if there is a low tech solution. Out of all the video tapes we have, is there not one shot of him unlocking his phone at work or anywhere else he would have been recorded? Or are those tapes long destroyed. I can't tell you how many times I've sat next to someone on a bus / coffee shop and watched them put their pin code in where I could see it.

<comment><USER35> That solution would require a lot of leg-work on the FBI's part.

Much cheaper for them if they can get a judge to force Apple to work for them ---they don't even have to pay Apple for it! ;)

<comment><USER36> From what I've read, part of the All Writs Act actually does imply that compensation can (should?) be provided for services rendered to comply with the Writ.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I look forward to finding out how this plays out. This tack actually seems like it could work. I'm also curious what Apple would do operationally after being forced to hand over that key. What are the implications of rolling those keys and what ability do they have in that regard? What changes would they make to their next gen security systems to address this situation?

<comment><USER38> I think it would be easy to send each device new firmware encrypted first with Apple's secret key and then with the public part of an asymmetric key that the device owner controls (derived from the master password and the device ID) and have the secure enclave check both keys before accepting an update.

Problem with that is that forgetting your master password would mean "no more updates for you". So, to be a bit safer, Apple should restrict that to updates to the secure enclave.

Also, Apple would have extra work creating a unique upgrade package for each device, and network traffic would increase, as Apple wouldn't be able to use CDN's for distributing those upgrades.

Edit: I'm not sure that would work. The device would still have to send their key to Apple, giving Apple the ability to create the package, and giving law enforcement the opportunity to request the keys.

<comment><USER35> There is, unfortunately, nothing easy about "the public part of an asymmetric key that the device owner controls."

How does the device owner control it? Apple doesn't want to be responsible for Genius Bar calls from customers who lost that strip of paper with the huge hexadecimal code on it and now can't ever upgrade their phone again.

<comment><USER37> I think there could be a market for an optional feature like this. If you enable the super-duper crypto, you have to acknowledge in triplicate that you won't come crying to the genius bar because they can't help you. They could offer a way to print out backup keys (and a really slick method of reading the printed keys with the camera because hey it's apple) and make you sign an oath in blood that you understand that's your only hope of decrypting your data.

Edit: honestly, if apple provided such a mechanism, they'd be winning on all fronts. 1) a user is in control of whether or not there are recoverable keys (simply don't print them out or burn them if you did) and how well-protected they are (are they in your bedside table? taped to the top side of a drop ceiling tile? in a safe?). 2) you have a good answer for the government: go find the keys at the guy's house if they exist. 3) it's possible to be really serious about security and use the device in a way that is the same as if the backup keys simply didn't exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> What I don't understand is how the FBI will get what they want anyway.

Allow me to assume the DoJ supports the FBI and coerces Apple to be required to do what they're asking for: how is Apple, an organization, seriously going to be compelled to _actually_ comply, exactly?

The developers don't have to work on the project and can technically request to work on something else, or quit out of spite.

How do you force someone that works for a company, of which is compelled to do complete an action as a legal obligation, such that an individual isn't the one that would receive the jail time for failing to perofrm the request. Sure, I suppose they could make Apple pay a fine, but outside of trying to ruin them financially, I really don't see how they can hold any of the employees under any legal threat of jail-time or punitive damages for being in contempt.

<comment><USER11> The fine would probably be pretty hefty and occur on some periodic basis. Yahoo reportedly faced $250,000 daily fines that were set to double weekly back in 2008 [1]

 _Some_ engineer will do it for a million dollars, just knowing that the next guy after him will be offered the same amount. And Apple will be happy to pay that amount because to disobey a finalized court order is suicide for everyone.

A better argument for why this won't work as the DoJ would like is that criminals will just use some other method of encrypting their data. It's as easy as downloading an app. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be using devices whose security is compromised. This leaves the criminals safe, our data more vulnerable to theft, and the DoJ with their hands in the air wondering what happened.

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa- lawsu...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsuit- documents-fine-user-data-refusal)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I've been saying this for a while: The "master key" that apple is warning about, the "backdoor", already exists. The master key is Apple's ability to sign a new version of IOS, and update the software on a locked iPhone. The Federal government isn't asking Apple to create a backdoor. Their asking apple to use the backdoor that already exists.

And now the FBI may simply demand apple hands over the signing key, providing them with the backdoor that apple already has.

<comment><USER41> You may think long and hard about the meaning of the word "backdoor". A hint: it does not mean "any possible way to get access".

<comment><USER40> You're right. But a master key that can be used to load new software to password protected phones without entering your password first is a backdoor. Even if it wasn't intentionally put there to be used as a backdoor.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_(computing)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_\(computing\))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I wonder if the FBI understands that threatening to demand the signing key is the equivalent of a nation threatening another nation with nuclear war. Just saying it has serious consequences. The other nation has no other option than to prepare for the worst.

I asume Apple will now prepare for the worst and I wonder how. I think they have two options:

\- Consede with FBI that civilians can't have security against their respective nation, and start building some backdoor-per-jurisdiction feature that will allow states to decrypt iPhones within their jurisdiction.

\- Take the principled approach and decide they want to offer their customers security, even if nation states don't allow this. They can build strong blockchain / tor type encryption into the OS and hardware, behind an easy checkbox. But this will collide with government interests, they may get into problems in big markets, comparable to Google pulling back from China and WhatsApp company representative being arrested in Brazil. Apple shareholders certainly won't be happy with this approach.

</comment><comment><USER43> Don't brow beat me too much for this but I don't understand why the Government doesn't get one of their defense contractors to hire away an Apple engineer or three who helped write this code and just do it themselves. I know the timeline wouldn't be as short but then they wouldn't need to go to Apple.

<comment><USER44> My understanding is that they could easily create their modified iOS, but they can't install it on an iPhone without getting it signed by Apple's signing key.

<comment><USER45> Right, and the group with access is presumably much smaller.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is the part where the FBI begins to really scare Apple with its aggression, by intentionally over-reaching to try and prompt Apple to meet them in the middle (settle) out of fear of losing big otherwise. Classic hardball tactic from the government (prosecutors use it routinely; works best if you're an all-powerful entity with the ability to put people in prison or otherwise cripple their existence).

</comment><comment><USER46> Oh please do! This really gets to the heart of the matter, creating a more defensible position for Apple (the court would be asked to destroy an entire class of speech) and risking a less worse precedent if they do lose.

</comment><comment><USER47> This has become truly ridiculous. No one believes there's anything of use on that phone yet the FBI continues to persist to try to force Apple. If they want the key and the source code, give it to them. They're obviously so fucking incompetent they wouldn't be able to do anything with them. I assume Apple can revoke any keys remotely so give them the key and revoke it immediately. This isn't at all about anything that happened in San Bernardino anymore and it's just the FBI being the fucking, repressive assholes that they've always been. In fact, this is the exact reason for having crypto on the phone. It's to avoid the fucking assholes of the FBI getting to your data because they're the criminals that Apple refers to when they're talking about protecting their customers.

<comment><USER3> Let's assume that the FBI is truly as incompetent as their recent actions portrays.

The question we should ask ourselves is who would they share the source code with?

NSA, MI6, CIA, IDF? Are these guys incompetent? Would the Chinese not simply pick it off the safe?

<comment><USER47> They are or are making themselves seem incompetent technically (difference is irrelevant in this case), but legally they are very competent and they know exactly what they're doing. This type of sharing is a given, whether intentional or not. In fact, _using the backdoored OS for other cases, in other organizations, and for other purposes is their primary objective here._ The murder cases are simply a cover they can pander to the idiot masses willing to believe such stupidities. That's why they're calling them 'terrorism' when every single other mass shooting does not get that label nor this level of 'investigation.' To get this backdoored OS to the CIA, NSA, and other objectionable organizations is the objective. Chinese, probably not. But it'll still get into their hands, that's guaranteed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> A win would give them a kind of master key to all encrypted data stored in the US, right? And I suppose also imply that no security may restrict the FBI regardless of how that security is implemented.

</comment><comment><USER49> Can a mod please fix the title? Nowhere in the article does it say that the FBI may demand either the source code or the signing key.

</comment><comment><USER50> I wonder how long the US government can keep doing this kind of shit without most (if not all) of the people in tech with any kind of ethics left leaving the US for, let's say, Europe and take their business with it.

I really, really do.

Note -- To make things clear (in regard to the -1): While it may look like it I wasn't trolling. I'm just wondering when tech people after all the shit happening the last few years have had enough. Because there must be a last straw somewhere, right?

<comment><USER51> I wonder how long Hacker News commenters will keep excoriating the US government for this kind of shit without realizing European governments aren't really any better.

I really, really do.

<comment><USER50> Europe is bigger than the United Kingdom and France.

<comment><USER52> Or Germany ([http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/germany-hands- ove...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/germany-hands-over- citizens-metadata-in-return-for-nsas-top-spy-software/)) or Spain ([http://m.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/14/spain_encrypted_email_...](http://m.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/14/spain_encrypted_email_terror_arrests/)), or...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> can't wait for the freedom of information request for that ;)

</comment><comment><USER54> This is a scary development. Why would a judge refuse a request to subpoena some files and a number? It's a much easier play, unfortunately, than the earlier attempt to force Apple to write some code.

<comment><USER55> No court would consider these 'some files and a number', they are critical Apple trade secrets. If anything, Apple should have an easier time arguing what's being asked of them is an unreasonable burden.

<comment><USER54> I sure hope that you're right. Are there precedents in which risk of harm from disclosure has successfully served as an unreasonable burden? (I am obviously not a lawyer.)

<comment><USER55> I'm no lawyer either so probably should not have talked out of my ass about whether this makes anything easier or harder for Apple. On the other hand, a big part of the justice system adjudicating the conflicting rights and duties of various parties.

More importantly, as actual lawyers here and all over the internet always remind us, the law does not work in terms of nerd technicalities. I'm harmlessly changing numbers on a computer as I type. If I were changing numbers on a computer that keeps track of your bank account, I could go to prison.

<comment><USER11> I've been reading some court decisions regarding technology lately and they're not impossible to follow.

It's not all legal speak. There's some reason in judgements and magistrates are generally verbose in their statements.

I'm not a lawyer either but I think any reasonable person could see that forcing Apple to give away its source code and signing key would present Apple with some significant security burdens.

It's very similar to what Apple was previously arguing, except the DOJ just made Apple's case stronger because there's the added element of risk that the FBI could now be the ones to let the modified signed software get out into the wild.

In the former situation, Apple was in charge of security of the back door, so there was only one escape hatch, so to speak, and they're the experts (which the FBI Director has noted many times). If Apple were to hand over the source code, the FBI's systems become another target of attack by hackers.

It was a really dumb statement by the DOJ. They intended to sound commanding, but they just weakened their case and helped Apple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I haven't seen mention of this since the news first broke, but is the FBI not asking Google for the same permissions? Is it simply that the FBI requested this access from Apple first?

<comment><USER3> From the articles I've read about Google executives affiliation with the government - Eric S. in particular, I'd say they don't need the courts to get whatever they want

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Why is the Democratic Party and President Obama taking heat for this? It is his call. He could stop it if so desired. After all, it is an election year.

</comment><comment><USER58> This is why we have the Second Amendment, just in case anyone is wondering.

<comment> k-mcgrady Yeah, the only thing stopping the FBI just going ahead and forcing Apple to do this illegally is some citizens with guns. /s

The reason you have second amendment is people genuinely believe crap like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Url changed from [https://www.onthewire.io/apple-fbi-case-gets- nasty/](https://www.onthewire.io/apple-fbi-case-gets-nasty/), which points to this.

If there's a more substantive URL for this story, let us know and we'll change it again.

</comment><comment><USER60> You dare challenge our demand in court?

Impudent serf! We'll demand more then!

</comment><comment><USER61> What's Apple's lawyer talking about the JFK assassination for? That's kind of weird. He could have talked about the various things Hoover did without going into conspirac theory land.</comment>