I'm Terrified of My New TV - <AUTHOR> http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/im-terrified-my-new-tv-why-im-scared-turn-thing <comment><USER2> I wasn't particularly disturbed by this article until I got to the following passage regarding the "Voice Command" feature:

 _" Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party."_

I don't think there is a prison horrible enough to send these people to. There is NO legitimate reason that an always-on audio feed from your home should be sent to third parties. People shouldn't even be allowed to opt-in to something like that. No one would EVER knowingly allow this, regardless of the functionality it enabled.

I cannot envision a circumstance in which this "feature" was not put in at the direct request of law enforcement. I am extremely disappointed that he did not name the manufacturer of this TV in the article (unless he made it all up to get clicks). If this is legitimate, he needs to post the manufacturer's name and they need be boycotted, immediately, forever. Consumers need to adopt a scorched earth strategy with companies like this.

<comment><USER3> No. Government needs to have laws against this. We can't leave it up to ignorant and fickle consumers. This is a failure of the system of law, thus government. Consumer action is no substitute. Voting with wallets is not equal in anyway to voting. And never should be. We shouldn't be trying to herd consumers to punish companies, we should be asking governments to do their job.

<comment><USER4> > We can't leave it up to ignorant and fickle consumers.

People like you infuriate me to no end. The fact is that a lot of consumers are willing to trade privacy for convenience, price, etc. Privacy just doesn't weigh much in those people's list of priorities. I'm glad we still have a semblance of free market capitalism because if people like you had their way, a lot of modern technologies simply wouldn't exist. That being said, I personally won't be getting that TV.

<comment><USER5> So if the invisible hand of the market "chooses" to create an Orwellian total surveillance society, that will be OK, because hey, consumers chose it.

<comment><USER4> First, what comes closest to Orwellian total surveillance today is the NSA mass surveillance program which was created by government, not the free market.

Second, I wouldn't personally feel OK with that outcome but I would also recognize that most people do (given your premise) and that I have no authority over their personal choices.

<comment><USER6> Government elections are pretty close to the free market in the real world for many things. The better funded candidate wins 85% of the time which virtually guarantees every political seat is bought [in the free market]:

[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2011/oct/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2011/oct/17/occupy-wall-street/occupy-wall-street-protesters- sign-says-94-percent/)

Simply because you don't personally have the wealth to purchase a congressional seat of your very own doesn't change the fact that when 85% of them are essentially decided by the money spent that they are basically "buying" the win at that point.

So to claim the free market doesn't create an Orwellian total surveillance society is pretty much false across the board.

1) In the "free market", you have Google, Amazon, and a number of other businesses that try to build that sort of capability to profile their customers for advertising and sales purposes.

2) In the "government where majority power is purchased through the application of money", we have the NSA which engages in both commercial and military espionage.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying- braz...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil- petrobras) [http://www.bbc.com/news/25907502](http://www.bbc.com/news/25907502)

etc.

So when you say the NSA is divorced from the free market, I think you are delusional and/or ignorant. I find it scary that people don't seem to understand that the majority of power in government is essentially paid for and if your sponsors don't like you...the money dries up. So unless you are independently wealthy [on the scale of being a billionaire] and can just self- finance every single campaign, you aren't really an independent agent but instead doing your best to balance who "bought" your vote to minimize the damage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The only reason I feel comfortable connecting things like consumer network- connected cameras, TVs, Bluray players, game consoles, or anything else "Internet Ready" to my network is because I perform outbound filtering, and it's a big eye-opener to see first-hand what these devices are trying to connect to.

Luckily most things use HTTP so you can actually filter based on the URL it's trying to access. For example, permitting software updates, but denying any kind of analytics reporting.

And with VPN on your phone (especially Always-On VPN) you can filter the requests from your phone with the same granularity, which is even more eye- opening.

Outbound filtering is incredibly useful if you value your security and privacy.

<comment><USER8> Can you recommend any resources for getting started?

<comment><USER7> Every time I say this I feel like a shill because I worked for them briefly, but Sophos has a Home version of their UTM firewall (0). It has pros and cons, but overall I think it's pretty good (even after working there).

Some other options include Sonicwall and pfsense, and I encourage others to post their suggestions as well. I haven't used SonicWall, though I have used pfsense strictly as a firewall.

(0) [http://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools/sophos- utm-h...](http://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools/sophos-utm-home- edition.aspx)

<comment><USER9> Any hardware solution recommendations - or things that will run on a RPi/router?

I don't like the idea of having to keep a desktop/laptop computer on 24/7.

<comment><USER10> [https://www.pfsense.org/hardware/#pfsense- store](https://www.pfsense.org/hardware/#pfsense-store)

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I saw that. Not exactly consumer prices are they?

Reading the forums there are some dual LAN Atom based mini PCs that seem OK.

Edit: Also [http://store.netgate.com/Desktop- Systems-C83.aspx](http://store.netgate.com/Desktop-Systems-C83.aspx) has some preconfigured options at under $300.

<comment><USER11> Those are the same things.

If you do not want to financially support pfSense, you can buy hardware from Netgate directly, starting from $299. Even cheaper as a kit or with older hardware, but you decide for yourself whether it will be adequate for you. I'm planning on buying an assembled APU from Netgate for myself; right now I'm using m0n0wall on a separate P3 PC (Celeron 1000), modded for silence. Probably will try out pfSense beforehand, on a separate CF card I just ordered.

<comment><USER9> The Netgate APU2/APU4 devices don't appear to be available directly from pfsense. They do say money from them goes to pfsense though (and they advertise them on the pfsense site)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm probably not normal, but frankly I would just leave it unplugged from the Internet.

At the end of the day my current tv does what I need to do (ie act as a big monitor) without an internet connection. Given the number of devices already floating around here for browsing the web, I don't really need my tv to do that. For streaming I have Chromecast or whatever.

I get that tv makers want to sell me something, but they're really bad anyway at the convergence - so the best option for me is just to use it as a screen and get devices to do what I want.

The only real motivation to get a new tv is if the current one breaks. I replace all the other living room devices a lot more frequently than the tv.

But the point of bothering to read the terms is well worth knowing so I appreciate the article.

<comment><USER13> I can't believe that people buy integrated media players with their TVs. They are usually multiple hundreds of dollars on top of the base TV model price, have terrible interfaces, and are crippleware, using apps with very few services.

I suppose the economics aren't as straightforward, but I'm of the opinion that Chromecast, Roku, AppleTV, etc are the next layer of crippleware. A small form factor Windows box or a Mac Mini are superior to every set top media player on the market in every category but price. I've never seen a better interface on a media appliance. A wireless mouse always trumps a remote. But most importantly, you don't need the manufacturer to strike deals with Netflix/HBO/Hulu, you just need a web browser. The best interfaces for all of those services are the full websites. Not to mention all of the other features you get with a full blown computer.

<comment><USER14> >A wireless mouse always trumps a remote.

Absolutely not. I do not want a mouse being used at my couch. I do not want my movie interrupted with Windows Update. I do not want to fiddle with XBMC or some other hacked together, unintegrated system.

I subscribe to the Unix philosophy when it comes to my home entertainment. I have a stereo that only plays audio. I have a TV that only plays video. I have a set-top box that only streams content. I have a DVD player than only plays discs. The last thing I need is a computer sitting in my living room making demands of me that are not related to the function I need it for.

I can read ebooks on my phone or desktop, but a Kindle, as a dedicated device, is much better suited to that purpose. That's why I have a Roku. There will never be a mousepad on the arm of my couch.

<comment><USER13> Perhaps Windows would be a problem, but I've been using a Mac Mini in this fashion for 3 years now, and have never once been interrupted by OSX.

Would you at least concede that everything else being equal, there is no faster input to start media than with a mouse? Every TV/Set Top remote interface I've ever used requires at least 3x the steps of the equivalent with a mouse, because you have a D-Pad. Maybe DVD players are even, but any menu based system is crippled by design, because you cant scroll or point.

<comment><USER14> But I don't want to point. That's far too interactive for any media player design. Even PC-based things like Winamp, iTunes, or Windows Media player, it's just a list or at best, a grid. I don't need to have more than eight directions of movement, and just four is sufficient. If I'm going through a list with a mouse cursor, there's a chance I can move the cursor off that list, necessitating that I have to then move the cursor back to the list before making my selection. That's just poor UX.

A mouse is completely unnecessary when you just have a grid or a list, a directional pad is more than sufficient. You can scroll just by going to the bottom of the list and continuing to go past that, which is how all menus work. It's not about how many steps it takes with a remote vs a mouse, it's about the UX of that specific UI. I don't want a desk in front of my couch. That's what remotes solve. I have a computer in my office and a media player in my living room, and I don't want to trade that for anything.

Can media player UIs be improved? Yep. With a mouse? Not in my opinion.

<comment><USER13> Too interactive? That's like saying a type of food is too healthy. Pointing is essentially random access. It's the difference between RAM and cassette tapes. Why punish me for having lots of content?

It is _completely_ about how many steps it takes.

<comment><USER14> For certain definitions of healthy, food can certainly be too healthy. You wouldn't want to live off celery and iceberg lettuce, even though they are low fat, low carb, and high in fiber. Likewise, things can be too interactive. No one seriously looks at a car and says "if only I could turn my front wheels a complete 360 degrees." It's only safe to turn them a few degrees in each direction most of them time. Sure that might mean you need to put the car in reverse and try again, but at least you don't need to worry about getting yourself into unexpected situations like starting off with your wheels pointed straight (but straight behind you). However, I have seen some specialty vehicles (like some trucks, semi trucks, and forklifts) where these rules don't apply or only weakly apply.

I'm happy you have the options you want. I also have the options I want. I don't want a mouse to navigate my media player, and I can't agree that the mouse is the best option for that use. A mouse is great for navigating a web page where the links are scattered everywhere or through a document where you might need to click at any point to begin editing, but for structured lists, even on a computer, I navigate with the arrow keys (and occasionally pgup/pgdn/home/endm giving me an 8-way d-pad). My list is straight up and down and straight side to side, I don't need to go 10 degrees up and to the right.

I use an iPhone and iPad because I don't want to dick around with file structure and patching and rooting and rom'ing. I use a Roku because I don't want to organize my own content and make my own media player. I get enough of all of that when I'm working.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The author is afraid of his smart TV, but probably doesn't think twice about carrying around a smartphone.

Smartphones have virtually all of the capabilities that make the author fear his smart TV, only the smartphone is, if anything, even more dangerous because it is more ubiquitous.

People carry their phones around everywhere, and the phones are usually constantly on and equally capable of monitoring your every word and action that you perform on them.

If you value privacy but own a smartphone, you've already lost.

<comment><USER16> Your point about a smartphone's capabilities is well taken. But the TV straight-up says that your personal information _will_ be captured and transmitted to a third party.

I value my privacy, and trust (hope?) that my phone isn't transmitting that sort of stuff. If it did, I think it would be discovered and made public very quickly, and I would switch phones! But since the TV straight out says that it transmits my personal information, and I have no reason to doubt it, I'll be sure to not use that TV, or at least not connect it to the Internet.

We can trust others to safeguard our privacy, as a sort of calculated risk. But this TV is just saying out loud that it won't do that, so I'll avoid that model.

<comment><USER17> Are you not counting Googhle or Apple as third parties?

<comment><USER18> Do they send sound from your phone to their servers non stop? If so, I'm switching from iPhone straight away.

<comment><USER19> The Moto X has a "Google Now" functionality where the continuously listens for you commands. Whatever is ships your sound off the Google server is another question.

<comment><USER20> That's not how that works. There's something on the chip to just detect keywords, it's not a "always listening" thing

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Went through this recently at Best Buy. The salesperson said by next year they may no longer carry any "dumb" tvs. Currently, those options are almost gone. I didn't see any dumb tvs over 40" and there were no 4Ks without "smart" features.

I plan on just blocking it in my router, but who knows if the TV scans around for open hotspots. If I were a "smart" developer Id store everything locally if offline, then dump to the manufacturer if it ever does get a connection. Not my problem if the feds happen to be "selecting" for that dump somewhere upstream...really not my problem if they have a dragnet FISA warrant for the data.

Where is that noble hacker who'll make a tutorials on how to destroy smart TV WiFI radios?!

<comment><USER22> Simple solution is just don't log it into your WiFi.

<comment><USER23> This is what I was going to say. Do you guys really find the "smart" features on your television to be useful? I just, you know... use it as a television.

<comment><USER24> I find Netflix and YouTube built into the TV extremely useful. Also the fact that it has a half-decent DLNA client (which I connect to Plex on my home server), and can accept screencasting from my phone. I considered building a HTPC, but realized these features cover 99% of what I would use it for, and for the rest I can just use a laptop.

<comment><USER25> I've had all these features for years thanks to a netbook with a busted battery and a projector I got off some business or other closing up shop. The netbook runs linux mint and runs what I wants it to, and no more.

This stuff doesn't need a butlerian jihad, it needs a DIY surge.

<comment><USER24> Certainly I could hook up a netbook or raspberry pi or whatever to my tv and get this stuff, after some amount of configuration and likely some amount of debugging now and then. And indeed I've gone that route in the past. But when the TV does it all for you, it's hard to argue that that isn't more convenient.

Of course, one could certainly rationally choose to forgo that convenience in favour of increased privacy. I'm just saying the smart features aren't worthless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't even care that much about my personal privacy and yet I'm terrified of "Smart TVs" because I spent time working on many different models across various manufacturers and they are all horrible, horrible devices in their own ways (some far more horrible than others). I still have nightmares about the Insignia 'Smart' TV we wrote some apps for while working at chumby, the Samsung and LG models were only mildly better.

My TV should not require a 30 second bootup time before it can do anything if powered on cold, my TV should not crash because it has been on too long and there is a memory leak in the YahooWidgets/JavaScript engine it uses for apps, my TV should just focus on doing a really good job of displaying images from one or more sources of other boxes which are small and cheap enough to be upgraded every couple of years (unlike a TV which I upgrade far less).

Let me worry if those external boxes are invading my privacy or not, but my TV really needs to be stupid enough that it isn't even possible, if only for practical reasons.

</comment><comment><USER27> I was in the market for a new TV last year, and I found it difficult to find one that wasn't loaded with "smart" features. I didn't want the smart features since I already had a home theater PC, which I built myself. Plus from my limited prior experience with smart TVs, the UX on those is just awful. I didn't even consider the privacy issues, although I should have considering the Snowden leaks had just hit the news. Lucky me, the TV I ended up with was one of the LG Smart TVs that was caught leaking file names from USB devices (HN thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6759426](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6759426)).

Edit: It was also logging network folders. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6778397](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6778397)

</comment><comment><USER28> Yep. This is reason #1 why I haven't upgraded from my 'dumb' LCD TV yet. Give me root access and open firmware drivers and then we can talk.

</comment><comment><USER29> The solution to this lies in educating & incentivizing the vast majority of lay consumers who either (a) don't know what their devices are up to, or (b) don't care.

But looking at the way people buy ACs and refrigerators, I think a "privacy rating" of some kind might work. So a "smart TV" that monitors & reports everything you do ought to get a 1-star while another that zealously guards your privacy and uses explicit opt-ins may get 4- or 5-stars.

</comment><comment><USER30> Something I've noticed about this however is most tech-literate people who actually care about their privacy tend to leave the wireless disconnected and simply attach the TV to their HTPC device which is from there connected to the internet.

Disconnecting it from the internet and possibly even sabotaging the wifi module will ensure that prying eyes will not have access to your information.

<comment><USER31> It's a two tier world that's coming. Either you know your gear inside and out, or your gear knows you inside and out.

<comment><USER32> What other option is there? Same could be said about how knowing the internals of your car, or your house, your plumbing system, your electrical connection, hell even your health all matter because not knowing means the providers / maintainers / engineers can take advantage of you.

Caveat emptor doesn't go away with time. And I don't believe trying to use the hammer of legislation on the various hooks of businesses is an effective or even ethical way to try to "solve" it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> In the same vein it's worth knowing the privacy policy of providers such as BSkyB

[https://accessibility.sky.com/privacy-cookie- notice](https://accessibility.sky.com/privacy-cookie-notice)

Not many people know that an entire profile about what program's you watch on your sky box are linked with the websites you browse through their broadband service to build a profile about you. It's one of the reasons their tv + broadband deal here in the uk is so competitive. Personalised tv ads are then served.

</comment><comment><USER34> I was just at a conference where I had a nice conversation with a new, but already profitable company that builds face recognition for advertisers. Their customer base basically all wanted the same thing: to be able to target ads to the people walking past them, such as at bus stops (it's live in Singapore, if you're wondering).

They eventually admitted they were working on voice recognition after strong customer demand, because that was much more promising; the machine vision stuff could only detect things like age, gender and income level. Yes, that's mining the content of conversations in the public space (like aforementioned bus stop) and generating ads on nearby real estate accordingly. Launching in Asia in 2015.

Also had a 1 hour conversation in a private meeting room at another conference a couple years ago with three sharp representatives from a certain Asian TV manufacturer that may or may not have been mentioned in this thread. I was stuck by how far they had already gone applying machine learning to their customer activity. They were multiplying their efforts and investments in the space and were very excited about the new generation of TVs that go beyond passively showing you content, because of all the data they would be able to get as a result...

</comment><comment><USER35> > In the meantime, I'll be in the market for a new tinfoil hat and cone of > silence.

I know this is meant as a pseudo-joke and I know there are going to be a ton of comments here on why the guy is overreacting, but is the tin foil hat really useful anymore? We have demonstrated proof that things like this have been exploited on purpose in the past few years.

Instead of the tin foil being representative of the crazy person - it now almost seems like common sense. Is that scary to anyone else?

<comment><USER31> If anything, the tinfoil hat conspiracy wackos of yesteryear were far too conservative in their paranoid fever dreams. They'd never have believed this.

I wonder sometimes: if things like this had existed in the 50s and 60s would we ever have had a Martin Luther King? Or would such things have been picked up at their earliest stages by the data miners and nipped in the bud? Would Ginsburg have read Howl in Golden Gate Park? Would there have been a summer of love, underground basement punk shows, raves? What new civil rights movements or fascinating spontaneous emergences of culture are being silently suppressed today? Is that kind of culture jamming really going on? I really do wonder.

I also wonder about the seeming asymmetry. I see protestors in Hong Kong using mobile phones to organize, yet over here it seems as if the same technologies are being used to enforce the most toxic aspects of the status quo instead of challenging them.

<comment><USER36> The real problem here isn't Orwell. It's Terry Gilliam[1]. From Google to the NSA you have no recourse against the automated algorithms lumping you in a category which will never put you in jail but will add ridiculous restrictions to your life, for example no fly lists.

[1] [http://youtu.be/YeY1dxlC7Sg?t=1m40s](http://youtu.be/YeY1dxlC7Sg?t=1m40s)

<comment><USER37> I worry more about the chilling effects. The things people leave unsaid, the stories that go unwritten, and ultimately the free thinking that never occurs. In addition, being able to completely data mine all communication gives enormous potential to control future action (in a similar/same way to how marketers can influence future choices). Orwell had a quote about that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Sounds like there would be a market for an openWRT-like firmware hack for these TVs!

<comment><USER32> There are already several projects that have tried this. Probably most famous is Ubuntu TV. All of them crashed and burned, because the tv vendors have a vested interest in denying you your software freedoms on these things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> "Users may have the ability to disable data collection, but it comes at a cost. The device will not function properly or allow the use of its high-tech features."

In that case, the best thing to do is to return the TV to the retailer explaining exactly why you are returning it. If the result of disabling a possibly intrusive feature is as bad as this person suggests, it's a broken TV anyway.

</comment><comment><USER40> The german c't magazine examined smart TVs and what data they send home (and how to stop them) earlier this year. Check out [http://www.heise.de/security/meldung/Spion-im-Wohnzimmer- c-t...](http://www.heise.de/security/meldung/Spion-im-Wohnzimmer-c-t-ertappt- schnueffelnde-Fernseher-2096578.html) if you speak german.

</comment><comment><USER41> So what happens if you just don't plug in the network cable or setup WiFi? How does it gather anything?

<comment><USER42> FBI van with free wifi goes through your neighborhood, the TV happily auto- connects to it and dumps all its data.

How can we make the wifi module inside the TV unusable?

<comment><USER43> DDOS it?

I mean something that connects to that WiFi and smothers it with so much data that no other device can get a word in edgewise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I don't think we really understand the role or the utility of laws regarding this stuff yet. But, there are two things that I think need to proceed regardless. (1) One is user control. My android phone is running all sorts of stuff that I know about mostly because of battery use. There must be a better way. App permissions isn't the end game. (2) The second is hysterical public outcry. Sometimes a cold headed analysis is the right way of going about things, but… A terrifying and unpredictable mob response has always been an important tool of societal immune systems.

Highlight. Names & Shame. "Samsung is recording your teenagers having sex!"

I realize there isn't one culprit. That doesn't matter, pick one and deliver mob justice.

</comment><comment><USER45> 1984, 30 years later.

<comment><USER46> > Telescreens are fictional devices which operate as both televisions and > security cameras [... and] are used by the ruling Party in Oceania to keep > its subjects under constant surveillance, thus eliminating the chance of > secret conspiracies against Oceania.

> All members of the Inner Party (upper-class) and Outer Party (middle-class) > have telescreens in their homes, but the proles (lower-class) are not > typically monitored as they are unimportant to the Party.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> NBC News reported this in 2012.

[http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/your-tv-watching- you-l...](http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/your-tv-watching-you-latest- models-raise-concerns-f483619)

Nothing happened.

Vizio has a much less intrusive system. Some of their TVs have "Vizio apps", which can trigger popups on the screen based on the content being played. This can be completely turned off. They don't have microphones or cameras, just remotes. Still, the TV does phone home to Vizio HQ.

</comment><comment><USER48> I have one of the latest sony televisions. I think of the internet features as something for newbs. I would never even consider putting my tv on my network. It doesn't have a camera for facial recognition or the mic for talk to use. It's a really nice tv though and I can access all the functionality and settings without accessing the internet. This aricle is a bit overblown, but I get the point. There is a reason my xbox one's kinnect will never see the light of day.

</comment><comment><USER49> OK, I get the surveillance and all that aspect. But how is it a good idea to have voice controls and gesture controls for a TV? First of all, I'm far from the TV. So I'd have to yell to it? Not enough that I'd feel stupid talking to my TV, I should make myself looking as completely gone bananas? And instruct everybody in my home, including the dog, to be quiet around the TV lest it misunderstands and takes something as an "erase all recorded shows" command? But as that is not enough humiliation, I should also try to capture it's attention by gesturing at it from my couch - and never again be able to scratch my knee or turn to the other side without TV switching a channel or making a permanent configuration to record everything Kardashian-related on every channel? How that is a useful feature, all surveillance aspects aside?

The article author complains if cameras and microphones in the TV are disabled, it would not function properly. I say, that's the only way it would function properly! I'm ok with my remote, thank you very much, and I don't want to converse with my TV or dance for it. I want it to entertain me, not the other way around.

</comment><comment><USER50> You know, reading this and some of the comments, especially about run-away authority with the "cops making stops to take money" make me think. I recoil as I'm sure many do about the increasing ubiquity of potential surveillance technology such as this. I think about the slippery slopes that we have evidence of (see: patriot act). But then another part of me thinks back to the "dirty cop" comment. It seems like cops carrying cameras is a strong mitigation to such behavior. The counter argument that such recordings might "going missing" when convenient for the officer comes up then. The sentiment I read often is the solution to that problem is citizens with cameras as well. And that brought me back to the notion of "ubiquity" again. If and when these things are everywhere, then they aren't just in "normal citizen's" homes, they are in NSA agent's homes too, uploading details to the same manufacturer's servers, carrying the same vulnerabilities. Of course, there are loopholes and restrictions authorities can implement, but can they get them all? A good chunk of my job is penetration testing, and my experience definitely makes me think not.

<comment><USER51> "The counter argument that such recordings might "going missing" when convenient for the officer comes up then"

That's because it's what it is happening right now. See last week's trending HN story, especially the "the FBI provided two blank CDs, claiming the recording devices malfunctioned" bit (yeah, sure):

[http://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359725475/can-authorities- cut-...](http://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359725475/can-authorities-cut-off- utilities-and-pose-as-repairmen-to-search-a-home)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8527469](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8527469)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> For those looking for a modern TV that doesn't have the 'smart' feature set have a look into into commercial grade panels. They are manufactured for digital signage and usage in meeting room / corporate environments. Generally they will not come with a on-board tuner but for those who can stand free to air programming this can be added with an external tuner for < $100.

<comment><USER53> Interesting idea. Any recommendations?

<comment><USER54> I liked the idea too so just looked around, the NECs seem particularly good, for example:

[http://www.necdisplay.com/p/large--screen- displays/e464](http://www.necdisplay.com/p/large--screen-displays/e464)

A 46" display, for $769, 1080p and 3 x HDMI inputs and all of the necessary sound inputs and outputs. Additionally it's relatively low-power and doesn't actually look bad.

I can see me buying something like this in future, it fits with how I use TV anyway, feeding HDMI inputs into it and just considering it a display for other devices.

<comment><USER55> I like the commercial display idea as well. They probably could have saved some money by not bothering with a tuner, though. At least it isn't full of spy crap, and, being a commercial-grade display, ought to last a good long time.

I have one of NEC's 24" monitors (one of the few 1920x1200 panels I could find on the shelf at the time I bought it - 16:10 FTW), and I love it. Aside from my preferred 16:10, the other thing I love about it is that it's matte instead of glossy. Glossy monitors, along with chiclet keyboards, have got to go.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> It's important to remember that these privacy violations are not only building a profile of each and everyone of us.

/rant mode on It's likely that it's all about controlling us, and using our profiles to adjust not only our spending habits but also our lives. Just imagine how companies like Google, who have almost unlimited access to our data could show you progressively more left or right-leaning websites in response to your queries. Your Netflix, Amazon, Youtube suggestions are keeping you in a bubble of thinks and ideas you already know and like. And if you always go with these suggestions it will be extremely easy to adjust them slightly every time to push you in a direction that corporations and governments prefer.

We know that the filter bubble already exists, but do they adjust that bubble to their needs? If you're quick to say that this is unlikely, just think about advertisement. Isn't making us want to buy or do something main goal of advertisement?

Of course I don't think that there is some kind of conspiracy to convert everyone to be a tree-hugging left-wing fanatic, but if we have corporations with as much power over our lives as Google, Facebook or Apple it will be easy for them to slightly push us in a direction that benefits their bottom lines. Any company that has power to control our reading and viewing habits has in fact control over us. Now when they know more about our health and location, when they can automatically listen to and analyze everything we say what else is left?

Yes, privacy outside of our homes is gone forever. We will never be able to get it back under control. But what we do, read, watch and listen to, what we talk about in our homes should stay private.

So next time you think that the conveniences of having a website or a movie suggested to you, think if that suggestion is not making you an obedient, gadget buying drone.

</comment><comment><USER57> Perhaps we can all just start being someone else. Make up a few aliases and use those for different accounts. Some mass schizophrenia might really do wonders. We could make it a "thing" with young people and a rally cry for the disenfranchised. We could even get grandma in on the act in the name of "online security".

<comment><USER58> > Some mass schizophrenia might really do wonders.

Quote of the day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> If you're looking for a "dumb" TV, projectors may be one of your last options.

I just got a great Sony projector and 92" screen for less than an equivalent quality large TV would cost. The only other consideration is the size of the room and ability to limit ambient light entering the room.

<comment><USER60> Computer monitors are getting pretty darn big these days too., and hooking one up to an htpc+stereo would almost be _easier_ than some TVs!

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Put a black sticker on it's camera and it's mic (make sure voice commands no longer work) and problem solved. I don't see any use of facial and voice recognition anyway. they can send and analyze black screen and silence all they want.

<comment><USER62> Microphones are incredibly sensitive. You pretty much need to cut their wires.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Realistically the only thing that will ever change the evolving IOT industry (which is what is breeding the surveillance) is people actively choosing to buy privacy-enhancing or privacy protective products. Do we really need internet connected TV's? Does this author ever plan on using these features or is he just keeping up with the Jones? More importantly -- what does the average user think? Would they ever even bother to find the privacy policy (if you can even call it that at 46 pages) let alone read it?

To the author: if you have a problem with your TV, especially if you are actually 'terrified' of it, perhaps consider returning it and buying a normal one?

<comment><USER64> I wonder if there are enough privacy advocates to convince stores to stop carrying invasive products by buying the product and then returning it, citing the privacy policy. Question is whether the store would actually stop selling the products or just change the return policy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I have a 10 years old TV (still a CRT because they were better than LCDs back in 2004, but that's not important). It will stop working more sooner than later and I'll have to replace it with some sort of smart TV. Whatever I get inside it I decided what to do with it long ago: keep it off the Internet. Instead I'll hook it the the very same Raspberry PI with OpenELEC I'm using right now. If something breaks because it can't call home, I don't care. Obviously I'll be careful to buy one of the most dumbed down smart TVs on the market. All I need is the screen.

<comment><USER66> If you have the space buy a projector:

\- They are generally not smart

\- They cost less than TVs (especially by the inch)

\- They don't work well during the day (no daytime TV, only movies at night)

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Perhaps I missed something in the article where the television has its own LTE (or other data connection) to call home without the owners knowledge.

My "smart tv" stays disconnected from the WIFI. Problem solved.

</comment><comment><USER68> I think the always watching/listening thing is the major hurdle a lot of these devices are going to have to overcome before a lot of people feel comfortable inviting them into their homes.

<comment><USER69> Unfortunately a lot of people are not going to read the privacy policies or even care about what their TV is doing beyond "it works" and being drawn in by the promise of convenience and new features... it's to the advantage of the companies doing this that their users remain as complacent and unknowing as possible.

This isn't even the government forcing mass-surveillance devices on its citizens; it's the citizens accepting and installing mass-surveillance devices themselves -- which in some ways is quite a bit more disturbing than the government doing it.

<comment><USER70> Well. . . . What if we find the attack vectors, notify the companies then when they dont remotely patch(or cant/ignore as i assume is the most plausable option), publicly release.

I have a "smart" tv my wifw purchased while i was away on business, but theres no way thats being connected.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> TV manufactures should stay in the TV business, not the advertising, or data business.

Who's for starting a company that adheres to the moral obligation to not treat our customers, as our product?

</comment><comment><USER72> In communist state, TV watches you.

</comment><comment><USER73> One more opportunity for my crusade to make the sci-fi webcomic about the future, the internet and the privacy "Private Eye" popular among HN crowd.

[http://panelsyndicate.com/](http://panelsyndicate.com/) It is a pay what you want directly from the author business-model.

I won't tell why this story is so relevant to the story because that would be a huge spoiler. But go read it. It is worthy!

PS: I am not affiliated, just a fan.

</comment><comment><USER74> I'd guess they've done their market research on this and I'd also have to guess they figured it wouldn't hurt their sales.

Which seems odd to me. Having a TV with the ability to surveil me is a foul feature and one that'd instantly turn me off a purchase, no matter what protections they put in place. Internet-connected, closed as can be, with a possibly open mike and camera into your living room... fuck that.

Edit: s/that/they

</comment><comment><USER75> We need a Butlerian Jihad against surveillance.

You know what will never stop this? Posts on hacker news. Letters to your congressman (LG can donate a fuqton more to his re-election campaign than you can). Voting with your dollar (people who know what a privacy policy is are few and far between).

You know what will? Taking these TVs into the street, smashing and burning them. Mobs storming Best Buy and smashing the surveillance cameras built into these telescreens. Bricks through the window of every mercenary selling your privacy, selling a live feed right to your living room, to the NSA/FBI/creepy internet hackers.

It's really hard to get people to commit to _sustained_ , _long-term_ action -- that's why boycotts are not effective and why this trend has continued. But people are actually angry about this and that anger can be fueled into displays of acute disapproval. Like burning a pile of spy TVs in the street and then flipping the cop car that comes to defend the surveillance state and burning that too.

Pretty sure this will get downvoted because anything outside the blandly acceptable boring-as-fuck politics always gets downvoted. But just keep in mind that you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet, and the power structures of the world pretty much only respond to Arab Spring-esque events now. We need to make every digital dictator afraid of becoming the next Gaddafi.

<comment><USER76> I'm totally fine with your exciting-as-fuck politics but it will be difficult to get people to that point any time soon, me thinks. I think the problem is that when you say things like "these things don't work" you're glossing over the key to why they don't work: people aren't organized. That's it. It may not be glamorous or fun like tossing over the pigmobile but it's proven to work every single time throughout history.

Let's look at boycotts. The problem with boycotts isn't that they're not effective; they can be. My family participated in a successful one against Iceland's whaling policies in the 80s and even though I was young, I never forgot why we did it and that it was right. So what's the problem? They ignore institutional structures that persist despite our actions. If one particular corporation strays too far, boycott pressure is effective. Don't forget how it played into bringing down South African apartheid.

My point here is that we don't need to go looking for new solutions. Good old fashioned organizing works. It _does_ combat LG's bought politicians--remember my friend, we still have democratic institutions and we can vote anyone we want into office. People don't like to be reminded of what really works, I think. We need socialism. We need to vote them into office and make good privacy laws. That's that. No need to reinvent the wheel. Then we can talk about an informal technocracy democratically dissolving the state into libertarian socialist anarcho-communism.

<comment><USER77> He already pointed out that voting or writing to "your" representatives doesn't work, but ypu're still calling for some sort of democratic solution. Please stop.

<comment><USER78> Actually it's interesting to watch you take the contrary position on an internet forum, but without a concrete call to action. That was his point: what are you going to _do_?

I work on a solution to this particular problem every day. I don't just write on the internet about it.

Put up or shut up.

<comment><USER77> My "solution" is to wake people up to the fact that we should not have rulers at all. That's the only way to achieve a non-nightmarish future in the long term.

People see tyranny creeping up all over the West, for example, but it doesn't occur to them that instead of asking our rulers to please not oppress us, we should stop believing in their authority altogether.

You have your activism, and I have mine.

<comment><USER79> What are some historical examples of "waking" people up to a "fact?"

I'm not so sure lack of belief is enough to dissipate authority. As the old saying goes, you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you. Within my lifetime, the surest way to invite a tiny war into your life is act as if political and/or legal authority doesn't exist. Hell, just _implying_ that authority should _change_ was enough to get projectiles and tear gas loosed in Ferguson MO.

<comment><USER77> If a large enough percentage of people decide to disregard govts and forcefully defend themselves against their enforcers if necessary, then govts just cease to function and exist. I'm not saying we're there now, or even near a point where that's feasible, but it is one way out.

<comment> loup-vaillant Good luck trying to convince people to merely get rid of their government. We need an alternative, and the mere lack of government is not it. It will be perceived as chaos, and few people actually want chaos.

In other words, even if we don't want rulers we still need rules. We need a system. Actually, we _will_ have a system, anyway. even "no system" is a system. It's just not clear how it would actually work at the moment (possibilities ranges from "Libertarian Utopia" to "mob rule", including "gang rule" and "local warlords").

<comment><USER77> We keep having to tell people that having no ruleRs doesn't mean having no ruleS. If by "no system" you mean "freedom", that's fine with me. Sure, we need rules and negative consequences for breaking them, but that does _not_ require rulers.

<comment> loup-vaillant You're different from that straw-man libertarian I once met.

"Freedom" is an ideal, not a mechanism. The question is, which mechanism promotes freedom?

Personally, I currently bet on democracy. Not representative governments, but _democracy_ , which we don't currently have. Like in ancient Athens, where people where chosen by random trial, instead of elections. (Plus a host of checks and balances, before during, and after whatever short mandate was given.)

<comment><USER77> A straw-man libertarian you met?

Freedom just means that no one forcefully intervenes in your life, assuming that you're not harming anyone yourself, of course.

Demoracy is just mob rule. You'll find it unacceptable any time you're being forced to comply with what the majority wants. You know most people are idiots, right? You don't want idiots making decisions that affect your life. Does that help?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> TV watching is only one way to consume video. What about YouTube, Netflix, Hulu? They log all of what the author is talking about. That hasn't deterred people from spending millions of hours on it each day.

You just don't expect a device like TV to track your viewing habits where as you are not surprised that various websites and apps will do it. I'm sure you can disable tracking on TV if you have concerns.

</comment><comment><USER81> Whole technology setup from a technical perspective seems like; as if best in the industry got together and wrapped 1984 in a sci-fi story.

</comment><comment><USER82> This is the reason why I buy the "Dumb" TV version, and its cheaper too. No reason my tv needs to be hooked up to the internet, have apps, or a camera/microphone! I just need it to display images, I don't even need it to output any sound! If I could pay less for no speakers that would be awesome!

<comment><USER83> I'm the same way, but this is slowly becoming a non-option. Even the cheap TVs are "smart" these days--it's no longer really a premium feature and just something that every TV has tacked on as a marketing bullet point. If you limit your new TV search to only "dumb" models your selection of options becomes almost comically tiny.

Fortunately, leaving the TV unplugged from the internet is still a viable option.

<comment><USER84> Buy commercial displays / signage displays. Like the ones they have in airports.

I have a NEC commercial display as my TV. It's great and is built to last forever. Oh and it has no network capability or "smarts" of any kind. It's as dumb as a monitor gets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> a lot of these are inherent on the laptop you wrote this with coupled with using the internet in general.

<comment><USER86> Yes, and any mobile phone. "Ok Google"

RMS was right all along. We need free software, or we will have no control over our computers. And our computers are going to be everywhere.

<comment><USER31> But since it's free, nobody will pay for it. If nobody pays for it, it won't get built.

Free as in beer is the enemy of free as in freedom.

<comment><USER87> I don't understand your argument. Some of the most popular software in the world is free. Linux, Apache, OpenSSL, Firefox and more are used by millions and got built without charging people to use them.

On a personal computer, there is free software to accomplish any desktop computing task. How can you say that it wont get built when it already has been?

<comment><USER86> Those examples you mention exist mainly because interests with money decided it was cheaper to support communal infrastructure upon which they could build proprietary offerings. Even if they started for the joy of hacking, a lot of people were paid good money to make those projects what they are today.

That will not automatically happen for a lot of classes of software. You point out that any desktop computing task can be done with free software. So what? That doesn't even matter anymore. It's 2014 and we can't accomplish a significant amount of mobile computing tasks with free software, and those are more intimately connected to us than desktops ever were.

<comment><USER87> Those projects do have a lot of money behind them. The point there is that there is room to make money with open source projects. There are business models besides selling software directly.

You make an excellent point about mobile computing. However, interest in free mobile software is growing and we'll see more options available to mirror the demand.

<comment><USER86> Definitely. We've certainly seen great examples of open source projects turning into successful commercial ventures, while remaining committed to free software.

What I'm trying to say here is that I hope to see even more business models that work well so we can get free alternatives in more areas of computing sooner rather than later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> Samsung and co ship non-smart TVs with exactly the same panels for hundreds of dollars less than smart TVs of the same size. Just buy non-smart TVs and couple them with a decent AV amp and games console and you can replicate all the smart TV nonsense with other devices.

</comment><comment><USER89> My only question is why, knowing all that, he still bought that particular TV? Because when I bought my set I saw all that crap and got the dumbest one I could fine.

Even if none to be found, I'd totally pay for a large format display instead of a TV just to save the headaches.

</comment><comment><USER90> You know you can buy a TV without ethernet or wifi right?

If you think your TV is bad, try powering on a windows phone for the first time and go through the dozen privacy waivers and turn off all the defaults of all the data it sends to Microsoft and Nokia. Pages and pages worth.

</comment><comment><USER91> This is why 40% of people who buy a smart TV never connect it to the internet, and over 80% don't connect after trying it once for the novelty after unpacking.

(These numbers were stats collected internally by a minor TV manufacturer)

</comment><comment><USER92> What if its not connected to the internet (ever) and you build a Faraday cage around it? Safe then, right?

I'm going to get a projector anyway. Of course, they keep getting "smarter" too.

</comment><comment><USER93> This is why I want all my devices running a full Free Software stack, and give up functionality for being able to run free(-er) software whenever possible.

</comment><comment><USER94> "Stop listening"

Or some other key phrase to turn off and on voice control with a visible notification light could help solve some of the problem.

<comment><USER95> and then someone in the family says "Listen to me!" to another family member and TV is all ears again :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> This demonstrates the need for router firmware to be designed so that it keeps your private data in as well as keeping nasty people oit.!

</comment><comment><USER97> Display projectors are more flexible, easier to secure and it's possible to upgrade the separate media/compute component.

</comment><comment><USER98> I'm beginning to feel like they should put privacy policies in clear text on the box, like cigarette warnings.

</comment><comment><USER99> Wow, I'd be scared too. Like Mr. Finch used to say, "only the paranoid survive".

</comment><comment><USER100> I wouldn't trust anyone at Comcast to walk my dog, much less spy on me.

</comment><comment><USER101> Hope it has a very wide viewing angle, or I will have to get creative when watching porn.

</comment><comment><USER102> No mention of which TV?

<comment><USER103> Searching seems to suggest it's a Samsung device, but I haven't tried to locate the manual in order to verify that notion.

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=smart+tv+voice+facial+recognition](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=smart+tv+voice+facial+recognition)

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> When I am terrified of something I just bought, I return it.

</comment><comment><USER105> This if a fluff piece.

They write an entire article on why we should be terrified but then they don't even mention the make or manufacturer of this scary new TV, so we can't check the details of the TOS. It's the hypothetical smart TV that everyone owns.

They also neglected to mention you could just not connect it to the internet - you know, like the ancient TV he just turned in?

<comment><USER106> It's pretty easy to find the TOS though, by Googling the quoted text. Apparently it's manufactured by Samsung.

[http://www.samsung.com/us/common/privacy.html](http://www.samsung.com/us/common/privacy.html)

<comment><USER105> It's still scare mongering.

Here's the full context of the personal information, for example:

>If you enable Voice Recognition, you can interact with your Smart TV using your voice. To provide you the Voice Recognition feature, some voice commands may be transmitted (along with information about your device, including device identifiers) to a third-party service that converts speech to text or to the extent necessary to provide the Voice Recognition features to you. In addition, Samsung may collect and your device may capture voice commands and associated texts so that we can provide you with Voice Recognition features and evaluate and improve the features. _Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition._

They then go onto say you can disable this.

It's legal speak for working with a vendor to improve the accuracy of their voice recognition, but by taking it out of context you can make a scare piece. It's probably why they neglected to mention or link to the TOS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> > I just bought a new TV...The only problem is that I'm now afraid to use it. > You would be too — if you read through the 46-page privacy policy.

Wish I had the money to drop hundreds of dollars on a product, and figure out what it does afterward...

<comment><USER87> In buying a television I wouldn't fault a person for expecting it to be no more dangerous than the basic televisions they had in the past.</comment></comment>


The Beautiful Geometry of 18th-Century Forts - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2015/01/07/history_of_fortifications_british_forts_in_the_american_colonies.html

<comment><USER2> The angular design was so that guns were in place to sweep attackers from every wall. That is, some of the guns are able, without having to be moved, to fire close to and parallel to every wall.

No attacker would be able to rush the wall and remain there in relative safety (given the benefit of covering fire) and set to work breaching the wall.

Note the "Plan of Johnston Fort at Cape Fear", where the angle of the top left point seems to be inaccurate, such that the covering cannon at the base of the upper right point can't quite shoot along the wall of the upper left point.

Also note the Bristol Ferry Fort, with it's not-quite-star design, can't quite protect the small sides of the points, given the angles of the gun ports (if accurate.)

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_fort](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_fort)

Also it seems interesting that the designer of the Ontario Fort has put heavier walls toward Lake Ontario, where ship cannon may be used by an attacker. It was the opposite case in Pittsburgh, where one would expect the main attack by land.

</comment><comment><USER3> In France, many forts has been build by a military engineer named Vauban[1] in the 17th century. His life is highly impressive. He worked a lot on fortifications and breaking of sieges. Outside of military building, he has been a scientist and an economist with modern views on taxes.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9bastien_Le_Prestre_de_V...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9bastien_Le_Prestre_de_Vauban)

<comment><USER4> I highly recommend to visit Hôtel des Invalides war museum in Paris. It´s worth the time just to admire the collection of (huge) scale models of the fortified cities in the France of the S XVIII. They are impressive and show how the cities used to be. They are originals from the time, perfectly conserved, they were originally created to better appreciate the capabilities of a fortification.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_des_Plans- Reliefs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_des_Plans-Reliefs)

I must add that Paris used to have an impressively long bastion wall (94 bastions!), that it´s little known. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiers_wall](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiers_wall)

<comment><USER5> You can actually still see one-off the Vauban forts at sissy les moulineux, on the outskirts of Paris. It's about 1km from where I live :)

<comment><USER6> I don't want to be pedantic but.. *Issy-les-moulineux

<comment><USER3> *Issy-les-Moulineaux (with -eaux) !

<comment><USER6> Are you being pedantic? OK, I admit failed miserably.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is a common misconception that cannons rendered tall walls useless because they could easily distroy them. Rather guns benefited less when shooting from tall walls than arrows reducing ther advantage. Plus defensively they protected less of the inner structure as cannon could fire on taller archs and still be effective. So, it came down to a simple cost benifit analysis and ditches are fairly cheap to construct vs. the extra thick walls needed vs cannon.

<comment><USER8> Plus, putting large cannon on the top of a thin wall is not the best idea, structurally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not as beautiful, but the fortifications at Rhodes are unbelievably impressive and after 1481 were built to withstand cannon barrage. The Knights of St. John had _unbelievable_ financial resources available to them and the fortress was state of the art at the time and have the distinction of never having been defeated in battle. Despite being attacked several times by very large, _very_ determined forces.

The story of how Rhodes eventually fell to the Ottomans is even more proof at what an astonishing fortress the place is [1] - the walls never fell.

The siege [2], (the second major attempt) which took from June to December of 1522, with nearly quarter million men assaulting, and only 7,500 defending, ended only when both sides were too exhausted to fight any further. The Ottomans had lost half their forces during the siege, and the Knights of St. John had dwindled down to about 1,500, but still defending. Exhausted the Ottoman forces (under Suleiman the Magnificent) offered a deal. Leave in peace, taking what wealth you can, and you'll be granted safe passage off of the island. After some back and forth, the Knights took the offer and eventually ended up in Malta where they started over again (and engaged in yet another round of incredible impenetrable fortress building).

When the Ottomans took control, they patched up the damage they did and maintained it basically as-is for 400 years.

Walking around the fortress is like receiving a master class in fortress engineering and design. It's hard to understand exactly how a fortress like this could repel so many until you walk up to some of the approaches and start counting how many cannons could shoot at you simultaneously in crossfire. Trying to enter away from a main approach (like over a wall) meant climbing up and down several layers of very tall walls [3], essentially forcing you to trap yourself in a canyon where more clean lines of fire were aimed at you. It's not just high walls, it's interlocking pieces that slow, route and line up attackers to be slaughtered by the tens of thousands.

The fortress presented an unsolvable puzzle no attacker could overcome.

1 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortifications_of_Rhodes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortifications_of_Rhodes)

2 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_(1522)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_\(1522\))

3 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rhodes_old_town_Greece_2....](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rhodes_old_town_Greece_2.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER10> From the tail end of these, Fort Jefferson down off the tip of Florida is a fabulous example. The largest masonry structure in the United States. 16 million bricks, a hexagon about 150 meters on a side. It pretty much takes up an entire island.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Jefferson,_Florida](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Jefferson,_Florida)

Google has great street view walkarounds of it: [https://email@example.com,-82.873422,37...](https://email@example.com,-82.873422,370m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x88ce55d10406f8b0:0x5bb10efd57331ab0?hl=en)

<comment><USER11> Fort Jefferson, unlike the earlier fortifications was largely obsolete when completed because rifled artillery could efficiently reduce brick walls to rubble. See Fort Pulaski [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Pulaski_National_Monume...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Pulaski_National_Monument)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> These are not nearly the most impressive examples of this kind of fortification; as North America was a relatively peripheral area in the 18th century, only relatively small and cheap versions of star forts were built there.

For larger-scale examples:

[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fortbourtange.jpg](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fortbourtange.jpg)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Geneva_in_1841.jpg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Geneva_in_1841.jpg)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coevorden.jpg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coevorden.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER13> I read this as "18th-Century Fonts"... which I would also totally expect to find on this page.

<comment><USER14> I'm glad I wasn't the only one... Although this is kinda interesting as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Another example: "The Castle" in Cape Town, South Africa is actually a fort built between 1666 and 1679 by the Dutch East India Company and has the same five-pointed structure.

And is a national monument, as it is the oldest existing colonial building in the country.

[http://www.castleofgoodhope.co.za/](http://www.castleofgoodhope.co.za/)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_of_Good_Hope](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_of_Good_Hope)

See also "Star fort": [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_fort](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_fort)

</comment><comment><USER16> If you like this kind of "architecture" you should definitely visit Rocroi if you ever happen to be in (the north of) France:

[https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=49.925021,4.520338&spn...](https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=49.925021,4.520338&spn=0.009725,0.021436&t=k&z=16)

edit:

Palmanova in the north of Italy also looks nice:

[https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=45.905658,13.310108&sp...](https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=45.905658,13.310108&spn=0.021023,0.042872&t=k&z=15)

<comment><USER17> Hmm, it's not the one I'd pick. I cycled through Rocroi a couple of years ago, it's much more impressive from the air than it is on the ground - you're mainly looking at earthworks, and can't really see the plan. I passed through Verdun the next day, it's similarly disappointing - you can't see it until you're close by, then it's just a wall. Vauban fortifications with the advantage of high ground are far more photogenic on foot, eg Belfort and Briançon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'll add another example; La Mola in Menorca [1], built by the English starting in 1708. I was going to post a google map link but strangely it is a censured zone. I guess it still has other uses besides tourism.

[1] [http://www.fortalesalamola.com/images/fortaleza- historia/01-...](http://www.fortalesalamola.com/images/fortaleza- historia/01-la-mola-menorca.jpg) [http://www.fortalesalamola.com/en/the- fortress-history/](http://www.fortalesalamola.com/en/the-fortress-history/)

<comment><USER4> Is still a military zone, but has no strategic use now a days.

It´s just a museum, were you can visit the old fortress and a coastal artillery battery from the beginning of sXX that used the only Vickers 385/45 remaining from the times of the first world war (huge cannons that were also mounted on Battleships).

La Mola didn´t see action, and in fact it just became obsolete just before being finished (it never got the cannons) because new rifled canons with longer range made close fire and old fortress design completely infective (The bunker and underground fortification era began).

I thing it´s more impressive the fortress that it´s at the other side of the bay, la fortaleza de San Felipe, demolished by the Spanish government once menorca passed again to Spanish control because it was so big that they were unable to man it. [http://descobreixmenorca.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/dmen...](http://descobreixmenorca.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/dmenorca_britanica_sant_felip_3.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Deal Castle in the UK is also a great example of a symmetrical castle design:

[https://goo.gl/maps/NuyXw](https://goo.gl/maps/NuyXw)

</comment><comment><USER20> I visited this one in Pula, Croatia: [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pula,+email@example.com,...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pula,+firstname.lastname@example.com,13.8460665,298m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x477cd2de09337b6d:0x72324a3a7b4e580d)

I don't recollect when it was built though.

</comment><comment><USER21> Some of these star forts survived into the present day: Fort Monroe[1] was decommissioned in 2011. It's a real shame that it was, but c'est la vie (or, in this case, c'est la guerre).

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Monroe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Monroe)

</comment><comment><USER22> Also Fort George, built to help pacify the Scottish Highlands in the aftermath of the 1745/1746 rebellion:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_George,_Scotland](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_George,_Scotland)

Still an army base to this day - although also open to visitors, well worth a visit.

</comment><comment><USER23> The town I grew up in:

[https://email@example.com,3.6181717,2784m/data...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,3.6181717,2784m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)

Just occurred me, it looks a little bit like a Simpsons character.

</comment><comment><USER24> For a rather asymmetric alternative Gibraltar is a fascinating visit. The tunnels are amazing, they're still rediscovering parts, not surprising given there are more miles of tunnel in the Rock than there are miles of road on the surface.

</comment><comment><USER25> The Dutch city of Willemstad is a perfect example of this.

[https://firstname.lastname@example.com,4.4397462,1155m/data...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,4.4397462,1155m/data=!3m1!1e3)</comment>


Weird Science! NYU Student Invents Virtual Girlfriend - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/05/weird_science_nyu_student_inve.html

<comment><USER2> No thanks, I'm sticking with my blow up doll.</comment>


Apex memmove – fast memcpy/memmove on x86/x64 - <AUTHOR> http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/1110153/Apex-memmove-the-fastest-memcpy-memmove-on-x-x-EVE <comment><USER2> I am unconvinced. REP MOVS is tiny (it is literally 2 bytes, a single instruction), _extremely_ fast on modern x86, and in my experience what little gain (if any) you get from the giant blob of code will be offset by all the instruction cache bloat it causes. If you search for "enhanced REP MOVSB" you will find some further reading.

<comment><USER3> REP MOVS is the fastest option for huge copies on Ivybridge and later by a large margin, as it uses special cache semantics that aren't available via any other instructions.

For small copies with buffers that aren't aligned or cacheline-multiple length and are resident in L1 cache, it's possible to be significantly faster than REP MOVS using a software sequence of AVX instructions. This is because the branches in these sequences are usually perfectly predictable in the real world, but the "microcode sequence"[1] used by REP MOVS does not benefit from the branch predictor. This imposes a static startup cost (a few tens of cycles) that exceeds function-call overhead, which keeps software implementations of memcpy in business.

[1] Not exactly microcode as that term is classically understood, but there isn't really a better term for it that's widely used.

<comment><USER4> _[1] Not exactly microcode as that term is classically understood, but there isn 't really a better term for it that's widely used._

What are technically correct but less widely used terms? And how does the current Intel approach differ from classical microcode? Most of my knowledge is from the Intel manuals, so I don't have a context for how it is different than other approaches.

<comment><USER3> I don't think there is one, really. "Fast microcode" or something, maybe intel has an internal name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I couldn't believe it was possible to write a new article about faster copies. Reminds me of reading "Inner Loops" by Rick Booth [0] in 1996, which first opened my mind to the darker corners of x86 optimizing.

BTW, the article is quite strangely structured. The initial piece sounds like he has been up for four days straight and he just wants to get his thoughts down. But he forgot a few points, so they are added in five updates. Arguably that's the best place to start reading - around the middle of the page.

Then, he goes back in time two years and adds an earlier draft of the same piece, noting "don't even look at the original article! It's very confusing!".

[0] [https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Inner_Loops.html?id=v...](https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Inner_Loops.html?id=v2pnQgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y&hl=en)

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't see how you can write an article on x86 memcpy without having benchmarks for 'rep movs' as a baseline. That is the old x86 assembly instruction that does the entire copy in one instruction. With modern processors, that instruction drops into a microcode loop to move the data using the internal instructions.

Microcode has a bit of a delay getting in there and so 'rep movs' is not so great for short moves, but normally does pretty well for large transfers.

That is the big problem with memcpy, the optimal code depends on how it is used. Block copies of large aligned structures wants different code than moving short unaligned strings. Ideally, the compiler has more context and can select the different versions for different call sites.

<comment><USER7> Among other problems with benchmarking SSE versions, your operating system may implement lazy FPU save/restore. SSE memcpy suddenly turns every process into an FPU using process, increasing context switch overhead. This is something you won't see in single process microbenchmarks.

<comment><USER8> Are there many processes out there that _don 't_ use SSE these days? LLVM, for example, will aggressively use SSE for memcpy/memmove of medium sized values (e.g. copies of 128 byte long structs), which almost every nontrivial app will end up using at some point. Likewise, if the autovectorizer succeeds even once, then you'll also end up using SSE.

<comment><USER7> True. I'm still living in the Bronze Age, but we may already be past the tipping point. I wonder if any consideration was given. Personally I don't know what the cost is, but I know I've never seen anybody try to measure it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't want to register to download the code, so take my comment as such.

I wrote an (actually) fast memcpy() in assembly. There are more problems then just different size-s. Hardest problem is actually alignment, particularly 1 byte unaligned buffers.

A couple things (if hn doesn't autoformat): 1\. SSE2 non-temporal MOV (one that doesn't go through cache) is basically required when going over ~cache_size. 2\. One byte unaligned (or any odd number) to cpu alignment buffers need to have the first n bytes copied first to get to that alignment (16byte for SSE; also couple bytes at the end). 3\. Buffers not aligned to each other are the biggest mess. SSSE3 actually helps with that as it can shuffle bytes around, but i found it easier (and probably faster) to shift-or the things.

There's probably more that i forgot. I lost the original code but i have a half-arsed version somewhere around here if someone wants to see. It is only for 8 or 16 bytes aligned buffers (to each other) but the grand structure is there.

PS To those saying "REP MOV* is faster": In theory, yes, but no, not really.

<comment><USER10> Such a fascinating problem! For efficiency you want large aligned loads and stores. The source and destination alignment are independent issues; so the CPU uses registers for a sort of shift-and-realign engine.

And you want to unroll each case, because speed is the goal.

The longer the alignment size (4-byte? 8-byte? 16-byte?) the more permutations of start and end conditions there are. E.g. moving from a 15-byte aligned source to a 3-byte aligned destination. Maybe 256 combinations? Only 1 of which is zero-aligned source and destination (full-register move) which is all most folks think of writing to begin with.

Add in cache-line size considerations, and overlap possibilities (are we moving a string in-place left or right by 7 characters?) Can the bus do unaligned loads? Stores? How do they compare in performance to multiple single-byte transfers? So many things can affect performance, each case becomes a heuristic. After all the theorizing, testing is the only real metric.

I've dived down this rabbit hole before. Wrote a test app to move 0-128 bytes from source aligned 0-128 to destination aligned 0-128. The memcpy I was testing on a RISC architecture hit 11 bugs (processor faults, incorrect result) before I was through.

Its refreshing to find somebody else with an appreciation for the depth of this problem. Thanks for posting, gens!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> His writing is difficult to read, and makes him sound like a snake oil salesman. Good work nevertheless.

<comment><USER12> Important safety tip! Exclaiming half your sentences make you sound breathless!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> _> Although these are C/C++ functions, they were `designed by disassembly` ... meaning I was paying close attention to the compiler output. This is NOT normally advisable (we don't want the compiler to dictate how we design our functions), however, when you are designing things for maximum performance, it's important to pay attention to how the code will compile! The strange layout of the functions is a testament to my close observation of the compiler output._

Why not write in assembly then? And this sounds like a recipe for slower code when using a different compiler or a different version of the same compiler:

 _> The way instructions are ordered also prevents the compiler from making some `assumptions`!_

</comment><comment><USER14> Gee, for a fast memory move of blocks of data that contained some whole virtual memory pages the fast way was just to have an API to the OS that tweaked the virtual memory page-segment tables! I'm not sure that simple idea has ever been used -- maybe there are some problems with it.

<comment><USER15> I recall that macOS's memcpy does this for some cases. There's overhead for the syscalls and TLB invalidation, so it's not efficient for smaller copies, but it's a win for bigger ones. I think it considers the breakeven point to be 40kB. And of course the source and destination both must be page-aligned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Does anyone have any reading material that goes into the issues with unaligned load/store? I'm trying to do some research for a blog post.

<comment><USER4> You may have already found it, but I posted some experimental results here last year, and others contributed additional useful additional information: [http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=415#423](http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=415#423)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> As for size = -size I think he was inverting the bits then adding 1 in one step (or something similar). Just a guess.

<comment><USER4> I didn't look at the code, but I often use something similar in assembly when hyper-optimizing loops. The fastest memcpy-like loop structure I've found on x64 involves using a negative offset from the end of the region, which is then incremented until it hits zero.

The advantage of this construct is that you can use the flags set by the increment to test for loop termination, rather than needing an additional comparison. The problem in C is that the compiler tends to "unoptimize" it for you after seemingly innocuous changes.

Anyway, the loop ends up looking something like this:

      char *end = start + size;
      size_t neg = -size;
      do {
        register = *(end + neg);
        process(register);
        neg += advance;
      } while (neg);

For certain loops this construct shaves off 1 cycle per iteration, at the cost of ~1 cycle of initial setup cost. I'm wagering that he was doing something similar, but just kept the name "size" after the negation, rather than switching to "neg" as I did here.

<comment><USER18> > The advantage of this construct is that you can use the flags set by the > increment to test for loop termination, rather than needing an additional > comparison.

I don't understand your optimization. ZF is also set for _dec_ , so why not just use _dec_ and not negate the size?

<comment><USER4> Sticking with a positive value and using _dec_ or _sub_ works if you just have a loop counter or if it's acceptable to process the data in your buffer backwards, but switching to negative lets you go through the buffer in standard ascending order. Sometimes data dependencies require this, and sometimes ascending works better for prefetching.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Reminds me of replacing the memcpy function from turbo Pascal with run that ran 2x as fast on a 286 processor.</comment>


Ask HN: Which open source needs contributors badly? I am a beginner - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> All opensource projects need good documentation. That's not a small task ;-) but it's needed to get adoption.

Pick something interesting but hard to start/learn/understand and WRITE. This will sharpen your communication skills, which is crucial when explaining stuff to non-technical people (like your manager).

The installer / upgrade part of any project is also equally important; but it's better covered because it's part of the build process (the only exceptions is that you're selling enterprise software to a multi-million $$$ company: in that case your software must be as hard to install as posible in order to justify selling professional services).

</comment><comment><USER3> If you don't have a GitHub account yet then get one and find projects that interest you ("explore").

This tool here helps you to stay on course by sending you emails regularly:

<http://www.codetriage.com>

<comment><USER4> I tried to sign up (because it's a fantastic idea) but I got:

"We're sorry, but something went wrong."

when I tried to authorize the application in GitHub. If this is your project I'd love to try it out if there's another way for me to sign up (or another date I can try).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Portable-VirtualBox needs more developers: [http://www.vbox.me/blog/portable- virtualbox-needs-a-new-main...](http://www.vbox.me/blog/portable-virtualbox- needs-a-new-main-developer/)

HN post: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5219170>

</comment><comment><USER6> > ... Which opensource needs contributors badly?

All of them. You might be better off choosing an open-source project based on your interests and background rather than looking for a project that's particularly desperate.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thought of doing both. What would you suggest? Any favorites?

<comment><USER7> Well, then go on - list your interests (or skills).

And please don't pick a project that's desperate for people - It's a classic case of the mythical man month.

Most of the time the core folks will find bringing up a new member up-to speed as a distraction, particularly when there's no commitment from either side to keep working on it (compared something like google summer of code).

PS: if all else fails, pick up a new programming language & write examples/cookbook-recipes for it

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> <http://openhatch.org/>

</comment><comment><USER9> <http://projects.apache.org/indexes/category.html>

Take a look here.

</comment><comment><USER10> What language(s) would you want to work with?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am a C developer and I work personally on PHP and have written some utility scripts using python. I don't stick to a language. I am a quick learner and I am flexible.

I would like to start with a small tasks / modules as of now until I get a hold on things.

<comment><USER11> WordPress is run by ~17% of the web and is quite welcoming to people new to the community. These two links may be helpful:

[http://wp.tutsplus.com/articles/general/learning-how-to- cont...](http://wp.tutsplus.com/articles/general/learning-how-to-contribute- to-wordpress-getting-started/)

<http://codex.wordpress.org/Contributing_to_WordPress></comment></comment></comment>


Capitalism's tough reality for many Russians   - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9184718.stm

<comment><USER2> For some reason it doesn't click for the author that real capitalism is not compatible with:

"a thuggish, lawless society."

</comment><comment><USER3> I am pretty sure the author of this article has a very bad case of Romanticizing the Past.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the best way to read a code base? - <AUTHOR> Do you do breadth-first, depth-first, or something else entirely? <comment><USER2> I like to try to instrument every function call (or some higher level equivalent) that gets called, then perform some basic operation that I'm interested in with the code, and just start reading important-looking code from the start of the timeline to the end.

Chrome has a nice timeline view, and it now works with Node as a backend instead of the browser, so looking at a timeline chart would be a nice way to browse a new-to-me large JS codebase.</comment>


The rechargeable revolution: A better battery - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/the-rechargeable-revolution-a-better-battery-1.14815 <comment><USER2> Caterpillar started a research project to reduce warranty claims on their starter batteries, which did not last long in the cold. Their team eventually realized they could replace the lead plates with a graphite foam. This gave their batteries the energy density of NiMH, for the cost of lead. They spun off the venture into Firefly Energy [1]. This company was tooling up for release, then the 2008 financial crisis hit. Eventually an Indian company bought the IP. I don't know if they are working towards commercialization or not...

tl/dr: a better battery (probably) already exists, but is not fancy enough to get attention.

[http://fireflyenergy.com](http://fireflyenergy.com)</comment>


E Ink Introduces "Print-Color" Displays - <AUTHOR> https://liliputing.com/2019/12/e-ink-introduces-print-color-displays.html <comment><USER2> I'm really looking forward to a good electronic replacement for paper.

After a long search for an e-reader that can handle academic papers, I came up empty handed. There just isn't a good solution right now since most devices have a screen that's too small and ebook conversion isn't a good workflow. Additionally, my field has lots of colorful figures that are hit or miss when converted to greyscale. The readers that are big enough also seem to get pretty mixed reviews.

What I really need is a dumb A4 sized e-ink PDF reader. That way I can stop printing out every article I want to read.

I'm sure that someone could make a killing on this product if it was at the right price point since most of my friends have a similar need. I was kind of surprised that nothing exists yet.

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe keep an eye on the The Open Book Project [1] which is attempting to create an open-hardware eBook reader.

[1] [https://github.com/joeycastillo/The-Open- Book](https://github.com/joeycastillo/The-Open-Book)

<comment><USER3> I exists and it's called ONYX BOOX MAX 3

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just want an e-ink netbook so I can code outside in full sunlight.</comment>


Show HN: I come up with the concept of Selfie Program - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@yolpogists/sequential-and-the-power-of-selfie-programs-2cefceb9e7d6 <comment><AUTHOR> here is a cheesy example of JavaScript selfie program for the hacker news community

[https://sequential.js.org/live.html#G4QwTgBOYgnhBeCBtA5ACwKY...](https://sequential.js.org/live.html#G4QwTgBOYgnhBeCBtA5ACwKYBtsHtUAaDEAYwGtMwjUA7TAdwGciJUxMQATKlgXQDcAKFJ5aTPNkwA6fAHMAFNDjSAVngCWtBagC0qAJQGgA)

</comment><comment><USER2> That is a fine JS editor you have got up there. we should create links for most of those w t f s here [https://github.com/denysdovhan/wtfjs](https://github.com/denysdovhan/wtfjs)

</comment><comment><USER3> interesting, funny results when using console.log(this)</comment>


Terrorists are using encryption. Our laws need to keep up with the technology - <AUTHOR> http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/terrorists-are-using-encryption-our-laws-need-to-keep-up-with-the-technology-20170610-gwotyg.html <comment><USER2> How's that law thing doing vs prostitution? I ask 'cause encryption can also be a roll-your-own enterprise too, very much so: done on air-gapped computers at each end; and just use XOR and a common random (one-time) pad at each end. That's not very sophisticated - just perfectly secure. Maybe show you can successfully eliminate prostitution merely by passing laws first, and then impress me by unveiling laws that can do the same to prevent or open up any and all encryption.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sounds like a politician who dosen't know how e2e encryption works... And giving the government unfettered access to everyone's communications is a terrible idea anyway; the whole "you-shouldn't-have-anything-to-hide" mentality is BS.</comment>


The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food - <AUTHOR> http://global.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> What a great case for regulation of the food industry to address the needless harm to people by what they choose to eat.</comment>