Ortiz says suicide will not change handling of cases - <AUTHOR> http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/01/ortiz_says_suicide_will_not_change_handling_cases <comment><USER2> If you haven't already. Today is a very good day to write your Representative <http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/>

And your Senators [http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_c...](http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm)

And ask them why this person is allowed to wield the full might and power of the US Government.

If you want to ensure that this gets attention it's a matter of sustained pressure, and of getting both houses of Congress to ask the embarrassing and obvious questions of the Justice department.

<comment><USER3> And a pretty easy way to send your congress critter a post card is <http://postcongress.io>

That said, one wonders which audience Ms. Ortiz is attempting to court with this stance.

<comment><USER4> Are paper letters still taken more seriously than emails by most congresspeople?

<comment><USER5> This is because writing letters and making phone calls takes (sometimes marginal, but still) more effort than sending an email.

<comment><USER6> Why does the amount of effort I put into communicating with my elected representatives matter? If my view is worth taking seriously, it should be taken seriously regardless of whether I email or snail mail him.

After all, it's not much effort to vote for his opponent at the next election.

<comment><USER7> This is why men should Fedex engagement rings to their prospective fiancées. After all, it's the thought that counts not whether the act involves a romantic evening culminating in a bent-knee proposal vs. tearing open a delivery box alone in her apartment.

<comment><USER6> Your example is invalid because the power dynamic is reversed. If someone doesn't like the way you give them an engagement ring, they can ditch you and get another fiance. But in the case of mailing your Congressperson, it's _you_ that can ditch the current Congressperson by electing a new one.

<comment><USER7> My point wasn't about the power dynamic but rather the perception of effort/thought/care. Even though the message is the same, whether it's "Will you marry me?" or "Will you consider this political stance?", the perception around the delivery of the message is still taken into account.

Writing a physical letter introduces a barrier of effort which separates a two minute slap-out-an-email rant from a carefully composed and considered letter. Imagine if commenting on YouTube required writing a letter? The quality of comments would increase by many orders of magnitude.

<comment><USER3> I am _so_ going to suggest that on the YouTube help desk.

<comment><USER7> It would make for a great new feature to be announced, say... at the beginning of April. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is bringing the worst out of HN. In this thread alone, I've read people claiming that it's unequivocal fact that Swartz committed suicide because of his prosecution, because his lawyer said so, but that we can't trust a single word out of Ortiz's mouth... because she's a lawyer.

We have people claiming, in specific terms, that the US Attorneys as a whole have an interest in encouraging defendant's to commit suicide...

This is hardly the first article to demonstrate this, and there are certainly many valid issues to be reviewed and discussed, but many commenters here are demonstrating that we're just as capable of turning into a lynch mob as anyone else.

<comment><USER9> >>We have people claiming, in specific terms, that the US Attorneys as a whole have an interest in encouraging defendant's to commit suicide...

This is a strawman and nobody here has said it. The actual argument is that prosecutors have very strong incentives to put as much pressure as possible on defendants, and the latter most often cannot defend themselves because the process is so extraordinarily expensive. As a result, the defendant either has to settle for a plea bargain or lose the trial. Unfortunately, many times they take the third option, which is suicide.

Make no mistake: this isn't about Ortiz. This is a systemic problem.

<comment> jack-r-abbit _> >>>We have people claiming, in specific terms, that the US Attorneys as a whole have an interest in encouraging defendant's to commit suicide...

>>This is a strawman and nobody here has said it._

Well... <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092900>

<comment><USER9> I think you are taking that comment out of context.

<comment> jack-r-abbit That comment is in its entirety... and is in direct response to this submission. I assume "they" is meant to be "Ortiz's office" aka "US Attorneys". I'm not sure what context makes it so that the commenter is suggesting something other than the US Attorneys encourage suicide.

<comment><USER9> I interpreted it to mean that the actions of many US attorneys - motivated by incentives to win as many cases as possible - push many defendants to commit suicide. I don't think the poster genuinely meant that prosecutors literally tell the defendant that considering the charges, he/she may as well off himself/herself. THAT would be encouraging suicide.

<comment> jack-r-abbit ok. So I'm not "out of context." We just have different interpretations of the comment. I can live with that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wish more people were pissed off at plea bargaining. Yes, I know people think, the US needs it. But there's plenty of countries without plea bargaining (or at least, with a greatly reduced plea bargaining system). IMO, it should simply result in a reduced sentence, at the discretion of the judge (as evidence of remorse, not a reward for making the court's job easier).

The government doesn't threaten you with a bigger sentence if you refuse to be unconstitutionally searched (if you tell the cops to come back if they get a warrant). You don't get a smaller sentence for waiving your right to a silence, or counsel. But you _do_ get a smaller sentence for waiving a right to a fair trial. I can't really see how this is constitutional, but being forced to waive other rights isn't.

Yes, things would be easier if criminals were coerced (by the threat of a larger sentence) to let the police search them without a warrant, to answer everything the police asked, to not to lawyer up, and to confess their guilt without a trial. But it's not the way a free country works.

And you _are_ punished with stiffer sentences. If criminals are getting off lightly (due to plea bargaining), then politicians will raise sentences. This means people who do nothing more than demand a fair trial will receive stiffer punishments than they deserve.

I can't see how a lack of fair trials serves justice either. It encourages lazy police work. And an unfair process turns people against the system. If people accept plea bargains, do they really see themselves a guilty, or simply persecuted by "the system"?

<comment><USER11> I largely agree with you though some sentence reduction for making the court's life easier, avoiding the cost (emotional, time and financial) to witnesses (including the victim) is appropriate it is a question of the magnitude. 10x sentence difference is undue pressure that is enough to make the innocent plead guilty (or worse). An expectation of 30%-50% sentence for pleading early is a significant reduction but not in most cases enough to make an innocent person plead guilty unless it crosses a threshold that allows a suspended sentence or community punishment (in which case the magnitude of any improper conviction is relatively low).

I'm in the UK were there is talk of cautiously introducing some form of plea bargaining. At the moment I think pleading guilty (and how early it is done) is just something taken into by the judge. There may be some deals on the charges brought when there is some discretion but I don't think the opportunities are that great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "It may lead to the U.S. attorney's office looking at each case on its own merits."

What a concept: prosecuting each case on its own merits.

</comment><comment><USER13> With Ortiz's political aspirations this seems like the worst response she could possibly make. It seems to me that the public would respond better to something like "we'll review our practices to ensure we're best serving the public." They could then just sweep it under the rug and wait for the public to forget. If it came up again they could then they could issue a statement along the lines of this one.

<comment><USER14> I live far away from USA, so I don't know any specifics, but I happen to live in a country where "the public" elected to power a party that openly tried to transform a country into a police state. It's debatable what impact their time in office had overall, but they gained popularity thanks to exactly the same stance Ortiz presents here and maintained it (popularity) for three years thanks to many similar cases. Granted, the victims were chosen much more wisely - a doctor, a politician, a beggar, to name a few - but handling of their cases was even worse, because they were used as a propaganda and displayed in the media from the very beginning, along with a video of breaking door and cuffing said doctor on the ground for example. The politician in question even committed suicide when the police tried to arrest her, and we were told that this was perfectly normal occurrence and that nothing is going to change.

And this is perfectly normal, European country we're talking about...

So no, I don't think this is going to negatively impact Ortiz career, it's possible that she's even saying this in hope of _gaining_ popularity.

I know this seems improbable, but then winning the election by said party seemed improbable too in 2005 and then actually happened. It's easy to look at one's social circle and think it represents "the public". Well, it most often does not.

<comment><USER15> I guess Norway

<comment><USER16> My Google-fu leads me to say...Poland.

<comment><USER14> I just spent half an hour trying to find a conclusive result in google using just the data I included in the post and couldn't. Can you say what queries you used to get to this guess? Were you completely unfamiliar with the matters I described before attempting the search? What did you assume while searching?

I'm not saying you're right (or wrong) but I'm really interested in the process.

<comment><USER16> Similar to sukuriant, I googled the name half of your email in your profile, clicked on your Trello profile, copy&pasted the text from your first entry (I did not recognize the language) into Google. Google Translate told me it was Polish.

Also, on your twitter account (same username as on Trello), you mention Warsaw a few times.

I was completely unfamiliar with the matters you mentioned in your comment.

<comment><USER14> Ok, this is getting scary - the twitter account I used exactly once during a hackathon a year ago (we were mining geolocation data from tweets...) and since completely forgot. I try to control my online presence but it seems that I need to get more serious with it unless I want such things to float around forever. Thanks for explanation :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "We thought the case was reasonably handled and we would not have done things differently."

How can a suicide of a 26 year old man under prosecution by your office not warrant some sort of change? How can you not reflect and try for a better outcome. To not change suggests that this was an acceptable outcome... which is the point we are trying to make. Prosecution should not be so severe that suicide is a viable alternative.

<comment><USER18> The justice department is not in the healthcare business.

Let's not shy too far from the facts here. Aaron knew what he was doing was breaking the law. He participated in an act of civil disobedience, that does not grant freedom from consequences.

<comment><USER19> "Aaron knew what he was doing was breaking the law. He participated in an act of civil disobedience, that does not grant freedom from consequences."

Yes, it is obvious to anyone downloading academic papers that they are committing _13_ crimes and could be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. After all, changing your MAC address, hiding a laptop in a closet, and ignoring JSTOR's TOS clearly add up to 13.

He should have read the law? Have _you_ read the law? Are you sure _you_ haven't committed any felonies today?

I seriously doubt that Aaron really considered the possibility of criminal action for what he did, and certainly not so many charges that he could have been legally imprisoned for the remainder of his adult life. A civil suit by JSTOR would have been a reasonable expectation, and note what Aaron did when faced with a civil suit: he returned a hard drive of files to JSTOR and settled the matter, without any suicidal actions.

Your sort of reasoning -- that he allegedly broke the law, therefore no mercy can be considered and the prosecutor was _right_ to harass him -- is one of the most destructive far-right concepts to have been popularized in America. It is the line of reasoning that leads to teams of soldiers attacking civilian homes to serve a basic search-and-arrest warrant. It is the sort of reasoning that opens the door to the crushing tyranny of overly broad laws and abuses of the justice system. Allowing ourselves to fall victim to the logic that the law is perfect and absolute, that prosecutors have a moral duty to enforce all laws, opens us to a system where nobody is safe from the government.

<comment><USER18> If he didn't think he was committing a crime why did he attempt to conceal his identity?

If he had been accessing student's personal info, would you still be defending him?

Unauthorized access is unauthorized access.

<comment><USER19> "If he didn't think he was committing a crime why did he attempt to conceal his identity?"

I did not say that he thought he was doing something entirely legal, I said that he probably only expected a civil case for his actions, which is entirely reasonable. If I had to guess, I would say that whatever attempt he made to conceal his identity was done to ensure that he would not face a court order to stop until he had finished what he had set out to do.

If you are saying that concealing one's identity is evidence that a person is doing something criminal, then you are accusing a good friend of mine of being a criminal. He used proxy servers to download large numbers of patents, as part of his masters thesis project, to avoid bandwidth restrictions imposed by servers. In the end, he developed a system that helps locate patents, and could help people avoid violating patents or find prior art. Should he face a 50 year sentence too?

"If he had been accessing student's personal info, would you still be defending him?"

He did nothing even remotely similar to that. His actions were as close to accessing private information as posting to HN.

"Unauthorized access is unauthorized access."

His accessing was _not_ unauthorized. MIT's network is open to the public, and JSTOR's archive is open to anyone on MIT's network. What access was unauthorized in this case?

<comment><USER18> From the JSTOR TOS:

(b) except as set forth in Section 2.1(e) and 5 of the Terms and Conditions for Use for Journals, Plants, GIS Data, Select Other Content Types, and Data for Research below, provide and/or authorize access to the Content available through Individual Access, the Publisher Sales Service, or other programs to persons or entities other than Authorized Users;

(d) undertake any activity such as computer programs that automatically download or export Content, commonly known as web robots, spiders, crawlers, wanderers or accelerators that may interfere with, disrupt or otherwise burden the JSTOR server(s) or any third-party server(s) being used or accessed in connection with JSTOR; or

(e) make any use, display, performance, reproduction, or distribution that exceeds or violates these Terms and Conditions of Service and the Content- Specific Terms and Conditions of Use.

<comment><USER19> Oh, that's interesting, but so what? You must have missed this, which happened before Aaron did anything related to JSTOR:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Drew#Guilty_verdict_set_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Drew#Guilty_verdict_set_aside)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Personally, I'd love for Congress to permit the publication of all correspondence done by the prosecution in this case. I want to know what was written and discussed among the prosecutors (Ortiz, Heynman and others in that office) and everyone else involved with this case (Secret Service). I think the Internet will do a much better job of investigating prosecutorial misconduct than any internal investigation could uncover.

Once someone assumes a public office they should assume they are now a public good working for the betterment of the society that appointed them. One of the rights, we the people, should have, is the ability to provide direct oversight; maybe not in real time, but at least post hoc.

<comment><USER21> "I'd love for Congress to permit the publication of all correspondence done by the prosecution in this case."

Similar things have happened, although not always with the government's enthusiastic cooperation:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Papers#Leak>

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't think the suicide itself should change how cases are handled, but the revelations about how inherently wrong the prosecution of Swartz was, should change how cases are handled.

You absolutely don't want other cases or issues to be advanced through people killing themselves, or threats of suicide.

You also don't want non-violent civil disobedience hacking to face $1.5mm in legal costs, $1mm in fines, and 13 felony counts and multiple years in prison, particularly when the injured party comes to a successful private resolution with the offender.

Also, the cases in the future should not be handled by USA Ortiz of AUSA Heymann, who should no longer be involved in the practice of law, particularly not as employees and representatives of the people of the United States.

</comment><comment><USER23> Well.. Can she say something else? I mean - wouldn't any statement remotely similar to "In light of the recent events we will think about our approach and adapt our methods" basically admit guilt and having been wrong before?

In other words: Is this surprising, in any way?

<comment><USER17> We are deeply distraught over the outcome of this case. We will be examining our procedures to ensure that we acted correctly. Our duty to the American people is to uphold justice for defendants as well as accusers. Mr. Swartz's death leaves us having unfulfilled our obligation to both Mr. Swartz and the American people and was not the intention of this office.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Of course not - that would be an admission that they did it wrong.

<comment><USER17> How can they not admit they are wrong? A MAN DIED. something went wrong.

<comment><USER25> Chronically depressed people commit suicide frequently. I'd be interested in hearing your evidence that Aaron killed himself because of his prosecution, besides from the mere coincidence of the two events.

<comment><USER26> What a rediculous thing to say. We're past 1+1=2 now. We've moved on to greater things. Try and keep up please.

<comment><USER25> Great rebuttal. Filled with reason. A+. Great job keeping up

<comment><USER27> What you have asked for as been discussed _at considerable length_ already. If you want to read that discussion, use the search field at the bottom to get started. There is no sense in having that same conversation for the hundredth time.

<comment><USER25> Strange. I've been reading hackernews for years, and I don't remember any kind of evidence ever being presented that Aaron killed himself because of the prosecution, besides for the coincidince of the two events.

<comment><USER27> If you want to argue over it, you can do so somewhere more relevant, preferably in one of the old threads where it has already been beaten to death. It is clear there that a unanimous consensus is not going to arise on the matter.

<comment><USER25> I'll bring it up when ever it is relevant. The "Ortiz=Murderer" faction doesn't get a free pass to make their outrageous claims simply because the question has been discussed elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> There is a non-trivial proportion of humanity that simply cannot change their mind, cannot admit when they are wrong. If you think long enough about it and follow a rule-based mindset absent objective feedback (as fields such as law allow), you can justify almost any action taken ad-infinitum, as long as you follow a rule book and pattern you have practiced for years. That said, mentally inagile, cognitive calcified people should be culled from our justice system ruthlessly. We need people who can think through proportion, harm, and justice on a dynamic basis.

</comment><comment><USER29> I am suddenly understanding the phrase

 _"Don't make a federal case out of it!"_

</comment><comment><USER30> "Many remark justice is blind; pity those in her sway, shocked to discover she is also deaf."

~DAVID MAMET, Faustus

</comment><comment><USER31> Of course not. Psychopaths don't care about what happens to others, only to themselves.

</comment><comment><USER32> She's toast and she knows it. She's trying to save her political career.

It doesn't even matter anymore whether she's right or wrong. Personally I feel that she mishandled this case (and that the whole system is pretty messed up), but the truth is somewhere between the two positions we keep hearing.

</comment><comment><USER33> Precisely why she, and all prosecutors like her, need to go. They can't change - indeed, they can't find or admit fault with their unjust methods.

</comment><comment><USER34> Adding insult to injury. Wow... nice, Department of _Justice_. Do that apply to justice to the dead to respect their memory?

</comment><comment><USER35> Not only won't they admit wrong doing, but they will encourage suicides wherever possible.

</comment><comment><USER36> She should be disbarred for ethics violations.

</comment><comment><USER37> Whatever you say, "Baghdad" Ortiz.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al- Sahhaf#During...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al- Sahhaf#During_the_Iraq_war)

</comment><comment><USER38> Congress critter is from MeFi, I Believe.

</comment><comment><USER39> What is her mission?

</comment><comment><USER40> Yes, well, if it's one thing that we've learned it's that the American legal system is wholly incapable of learning from its mistakes. It takes the action of the legislative, executive, or higher judicial bodies to actually change things.

<comment><USER41> Plea bargaining has been here for many years. As bad as it can get, it is the default operating mode. Trumping up accusations in order to scare the defendant is a negotiation tactic that comes in package with it. So what can we do ? Is it a good idea to ban plea bargaining? I read that 90% of law suits end in plea bargaining, so, banning this avenue would DDOS the legal system.

Justice being the best your money can buy - it's a sad reality. They can charge an innocent and he would have to spend all he has to prove he is not guilty. How can we stop that?

Maybe we need more lawyerless law suits, like those from Small Claims Court, to even the playing field.

If only we could get rid of mandatory minimums and put common sense back in the driving chair, it would be much better. Mandatory minimums are one of those thought free zones of US, together with the war on drugs, war on terror and "won't anyone think of the children?". I believe we need more common sense and ethic into our justice and less automatic rubber stamping of convictions.

<comment><USER40> >I read that 90% of law suits end in plea bargaining

Then you don't understand what a plea bargain is. Plea bargains are used only in criminal cases. You may have heard that 90% of lawsuits are settled before they go to court but that has nothing to do with what a plea bargain is.

>Trumping up accusations in order to scare the defendant is a negotiation tactic that comes in package with it.

No, trumping up accusations is grandstanding. It is neither necessary nor wise if you have a plea bargain system in place. Yes, you can tell the defendant what the possible maximum sentence is, but that doesn't mean you have to grandstand and press conference the result for the rest of the world's consumption.

>They can charge an innocent and he would have to spend all he has to prove he is not guilty. How can we stop that?

Talk to Kevin Mitnick and Bernie S about this...

>If only we could get rid of mandatory minimums and put common sense back in the driving chair, it would be much better.

This I agree with. The entire purpose of having a judge involved in sentencing was to make sure that each case was judged on its own merits. Mandatory minimums castrate the judicial system and give too much control to a legislature that is largely bought and paid for by the military/prison/school/election/industrial complex.

<comment><USER42> 97% of federal criminal cases prosecuted to a conclusion result in plea bargains.

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044358930457763...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443589304577637610097206808.html)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tell Google: Stop Killing Monopoly Research - <AUTHOR> https://citizensagainstmonopoly.org/ <comment><USER2> I really don't understand why Google should fund this research. It's really not in their best interests.

Why can't the Open Markets team just find new funders? With this type of publicity, I'm sure many corporations and even individuals would step up.

I think the bigger problem is that the Open Market's team miscalculated that the New America foundation would have the flexibility and/or courage to stand behind this project vs stand up to Google.

It just seems a bit entitled to ask Google to fund research that can hurt them as a company.

<comment><USER3> You're conflating New America with Open Markets. Google is one of New America's funders, and Open Markets is a group inside New America. Google is using it's funds to influence New America's behavior.

Do you think it's ethical for a company funding a news agency to influence what they publish? The same would logically go for research. Google should be free to chose to fund or not fund New America, but they should not be able to use that funding for influence. That's unethical.

Furthermore there definitely is an argument for Google's behavior being unethical regardless. Acting in your self-interest is not unconditionally ethical. By analogy: a person absolutely has a personal responsibility to inform others if they are dangerous. It would be unethical to hide the fact that I'm not a safe driver, or that I'm prone to psychotic rages. Google is not ethically excused if their monopoly is deleterious to the public good just because saying it would affect their bottom line.

<comment><USER4> "Do you think it's ethical for a company funding a news agency to influence what they publish?"

Every news agency's owners and advertisers influence what they publish. The argument from ethics is an interesting one. I know many advertisers who pull their funding from a show whose host said something controversial. They make the network fire the host and cancel a show etc.

<comment><USER3> Just because something is controversial doesn't mean it's journalistically valuable. For instance if a host does something that the company considers unethical (eg a controversial statement that may or may not be true but is definitely damaging), they have an ethical responsibility to pull their business, even if it's actually against their own self interest. If you instead consider truth to be more important, then companies are also justified in pulling their business if they think the controversial statement is obviously false.

The unethical part of what google is doing is that there is very little chance they are not acting entirely in their own self-interest. There is an entire additional stratum of arguments underneath that which are about the real truth, freedom of speech, and whether it is okay to block what people think based on your opinions.

<comment><USER4> "May or may not be true, but definitely damaging" sounds like what these guys were publishing.

Lots of opinions are damaging to someone or someone's agenda if taken seriously by enough people.

Do you really think these other corporate sponsors don't think about what's good for them and their image when they pull funding? You have to compare apples to apples. Google should be compared to other corporate sponsors of projects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Two quick thoughts.

I very briefly glanced under the technical covers of this campaign. For the curious, citizensagainstmonopoly.org was created 2017-08-10T18:56:36Z. The site was apparently written by middleseat.co - "Middle Seat is a digital marketing, media and organizing firm advocating for progressive candidates and causes." Its principals are the former Bernie Sanders digital and social media directors and advisor (Zack Exley, frm Wikimedia Foundation).

Microsoft has a long history of funding, encouraging, and astroturfing opposition to Google. One easy approach to discouraging this behavior is to make sure Microsoft is mentioned whenever a Google "evil monopoly" campaign goes by. Especially if it mentions Facebook and Amazon as well, but leaves out Microsoft. So I mention it in passing here, mostly to illustrate the approach. I know of nothing connecting Microsoft with the current campaign.

FWIW.

<comment><USER6> > Microsoft has a long history of funding, encouraging, and astroturfing > opposition to Google.

What exactly have they done to this effect? The closest I can think of is Scroogled [1], which was pretty transparently a Microsoft marketing campaign. I would hardly characterize it as "astroturfing".

[1] [https://web.archive.org/web/20130207164132/http://www.scroog...](https://web.archive.org/web/20130207164132/http://www.scroogled.com/)

<comment><USER7> Microsoft caught 'astroturfing' bloggers again to promote Internet Explorer

[http://www.pcworld.com/article/2365060/microsoft-caught- astr...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/2365060/microsoft-caught-astroturfing- bloggers-again-to-promote-internet-explorer.html)

Confirmed: Ben Edelman Paid by Microsoft, Attacks Google

[http://techrights.org/2011/08/30/ben-edelman-works-for- monop...](http://techrights.org/2011/08/30/ben-edelman-works-for-monopolist/)

Astroturfing Antitrust: How Microsoft is Crafting the Grassroots Case Against Google

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/astroturfing-antitrust-how- micr...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/astroturfing-antitrust-how-microsoft-is- crafting-the-grassroots-case-against-google/)

Who's Behind This Shadow Group Attacking Google?

[http://fortune.com/2016/04/27/google-transparency- project/](http://fortune.com/2016/04/27/google-transparency-project/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If Google's doing something they don't want anyone to regulate, maybe they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

<comment><USER9> There are plenty of instances where someone may want to avoid regulation for purely legitimate reasons. Regulation is an added cost. Sometimes that cost is justified, sometimes it's not. But whether or not it is justified, the cost is present. So, it is perfectly possible and reasonable for a company to want to avoid being regulated without having malicious intent.

<comment><USER10> I think he's referencing

>If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place

-Eric Schmidt

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Getting really sick of this story. Open Markets really comes across sleazy when you read the emails published by New America. [1] Slaughter's second statement, via Medium, is also worth reading. [2] Combined with the fact that Open Markets has been publishing anti-Google stuff for years while Google funded New America, Barry Lynn's side of the story make no sense at all.

Honestly, if you read some Barry Lynn and Matt Stoler and other people in that Open Markets crew... it's like 90% empty and loud rhetoric and maybe 10% cogent argumentation. It feels like a big circular link fest, takes so long to find something meaty. So much smoke and mirrors and equivocation on key terms... like, for example, "monopoly".

I'm not saying there aren't good questions to raise about Google's power, Google's anti-competitive practices or Google's link to research.

But the tone and quality of this public surge of the conversation driven by the Open Market 'scandal' seems highly manufactured and low quality. I can only assume some larger forces are throwing a ton of money in as well. But I guess that's how policy and economic talk tends to go when it hits the mainstream.

Edit: have to admit it's also riling me up that the pretty-far-left progressives like Stoller are happily now joining up with Tucker Carlson and that ilk, who raking Google over the coals for the James Damore memo fallout. Stoller was on Tucker's show yesterday. High fives.

[1] [https://www.newamerica.org/new-america/press- releases/intere...](https://www.newamerica.org/new-america/press- releases/interest-transparency-new-america-releases-email-correspondence- barry-lynn/)

[2] [https://medium.com/@slaughteram/when-the-truth-is-messy- and-...](https://medium.com/@slaughteram/when-the-truth-is-messy-and- hard-1655a36e313f)

<comment><USER12> I've been following this closely, and having read everything Slaughter writes, I don't see how you can come down so hard against open markets- They exaggerated what happened but the essential facts are never disputed- even in Slaughter's most recent post.

1) Open Markets didn't let Slaughter know they were publishing work critical of Google.

2) Slaughter had to rush to explain the work to Google.

3) Schmidt expressed his displeasure. But didn't directly request anyone be fired

4) Slaughter told Open Markets they had to part ways, and mentioned how OM could make it harder for all of NA to get funding.

Thats the essence of the story, and no one is disputing it, and it strongly indicates New America is heavily influenced by their corporate sponsors.

Where were the exaggerations:

Barry didn't mention that he had aggreed to allow Slaughter to preview work and show it to google before he published. Also, Slaughter didn't outright fire anyone at OM. HOWEVER, Slaughter is bending the truth to imply that Google/Schmidt didn't influence her decision to remove open markets, when the entire scope of problems she has with Barry and OM come from the tension between Google and OM, and Google's desire to see what OM will publish before it becomes public. She writes a lot about how what OM says is false without EVER addressing the core issue! Instead, she tries to get around it by leaning on the fact that she was not commanded to do anything by Google.

<comment><USER11> Slaughter's July 7 email (3rd one on the page) to Lynn says "telling me one thing and doing another was just the last instance of a pattern of behavior that has been troubling to myself and your colleagues for over a year"

In multiple places, she indicates he's been difficult to work with and insubordinate. Probably understandable that a federated institution like New America, with multuple parallel units working on different interests, doesn't want the bullshit a person like that brings into the mix.

As her statement says, they tried to part amicably and leaving Open Markets intact and independent. Looks like Open Markets went for the publicity grab. Doesn't make me a fan.

<comment><USER13> It's obvious Slaughter strangled the group. She joined four years ago, three years in his group is being forced to spin out because they won't communicate. So from the emails it seems to me that they need to notify Slaughter everytime the publish something for a sponsor and then there is probably some level of pushback levied when this happens. Well New America has Google and Comcast and AT&T and Microsoft and Facebook as sponsors along with about a hundred others. Realistically, the new boss, Slaughter, just wasn't able or willing to stand up to corporate pressure in order to allow Open Markets to do it's job. Lynn was put into a no-win situation as anyone who's ever had a boss who won't fight for you can tell you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Organizations should not accept funding from donors with incongruent philosophies, as this leads to conflicts of interest.

<comment><USER15> Accepting funding from donors with congruent philosophies opens them up to the criticism that they are paid activists and not academic researches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> So...it's evil for Google to not want to fund a group that has people actively working towards hurting Google's business interests?

Meh.

Find a hand to feed you that's not the one you're currently trying to bite. There are plenty out there, you'll be fine.

</comment><comment><USER17> What's with the evil looking octopus?

<comment><USER12> Octopuses have a long tradition of representing monopoly.

They're a natural analogy for the way a monopoly's reach impacts different areas of life.

[http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/48508d5f59aa4bcaa900cb7da0d1c29f/p...](http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/48508d5f59aa4bcaa900cb7da0d1c29f/political- cartoon-entitled-next-showing-a-standard-oil-tank-as-an-cwanj9.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> "When our research team at the New America Institute criticized Google's monopoly practices..."

I might be wrong, but this doesn't sound like research to me...

</comment><comment><USER19> I am all for the little guy fighting the big guy...but this isn't it, this is the antithesis of _it_.

What this is amounts to: You were getting millions of dollars from Google and only now that the money is gone you conveniently you have a bone to pick. If you really believed Google was evil as your website claims you wouldn't have been taking Google money until the day it was revoked.

How long does this group need to perform _research_ into Google's anti- competitive behavior and how much money do they need? It seems all you need to do is try to compete or happen to be a market leader where google decides to compete and you have all the evidence you need.

Internet search market share = x%

using that dominance and information on search terms and advertising dollars to determine what market to compete in next in how many occasions= x

advertising costs increased when google began competing = x%

# of companies that were advertising on google that shut down once google began competing = x

What are the actual goals and what are the actual methods to achieve these goals other than asking for money to replace Google's money to conduct research?

I have been talking about it for some time, it starts with empowering people, show people they can take on google and win. Start small, give the people a road map and execute. Try a google search boycott, inform the public when the boycott begins, inform the public how to set their devices/computers to a google competitor, and create your list of demands. My recommendation start small, but meaningful, give an achievable goal that is understandable to the public and sets the stage for the public to wake up and accept the facts that they wield all the power but also impacts googles pocket. Create a clear cut economic line in the sand, you are either on your side or on you are in Google's pocket, you pick. In short, highlight their tax avoidance scheme in Ireland, they are headquartered in the US right? But they claim to be headquartered in Ireland to avoid paying taxes in they very country they benefit from...boycott their search engine until they stop playing the tax game, make them sign a pledge or even contract agreeing to pay the US corporate tax, including, all back taxes. Is that fair to Google? Are they alone? Most assuredly not, but its not about Google, its about tearing back the veil on the perceived power struggle, does Google owe the people or do people owe Google?

</comment><comment><USER20> So, I am supportive of Open Markets' goals and all, but "Tell Google: Stop Killing Monopoly Research" seems... mistargeted? If Google is the problem, we shouldn't be trying to tell Google to do something not in their own interests, we should be telling others, like regulators, to do something about Google.

"Tell Google" is directing your complaint at the wrong party.

</comment><comment><USER21> Using government power to forcefully break up a publicly owned company is such a barbaric way of doing things.

Here are some better suggestions: 1\. Force government institutions to use alternative search engines 2\. Have government institutions nominate a "search engine of the month" and all their employees must use that 3\. Subsidize search engine research in the public domain 4\. Determine if any search engine patents are blocking innovation, and invalidate those patents 5\. Subsidize research into decentralized search engines

<comment><USER22> It isn't barbaric to break up a company - at all.

Companies operate in our society, and they impact the citizens of our society. It is reasonable to directly stop a company when it is working against the shared values of our society.

Really, I would argue that it is barbaric to force a society to live with a company which ignores the wider interests of society.

<comment><USER23> Maybe if you owned one you'd feel differently.

Can I reach into your backpack and crush your bag of potato chips?

What's the matter; all the baked potato material is still there!

<comment><USER24> I'm pretty sure you can understand how much of a false equivalency it is to compare a bag of chips with a powerful entity like Google.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Openbook - <AUTHOR> http://youropenbook.org/

<comment><USER2> This is almost an argument for having open status updates: these are hilarious.

On the other hand, had I not just deleted my FB account, I would have been upset over this. Zuck's gang recklessly opens up whatever they see fit: it could easily and quite possibly be photos tomorrow and your wall the next day, and (as before: <http://cl.ly/16wW>) your "private" chats the day after that.

Irresponsible and disrespectful.

<comment><USER3> You can prevent that information from being public with a simple setting. I don't know why so many people are whining and bashing Facebook. It's a SOCIAL NETWORK. The entire point of it is to share information with people you know. Don't share what you don't want people to know, and lock down your settings (that they make quite easily available) to filter out the rest.

I can't stand this FB bashing. Zucks gang recklessly opening up whatever they see fit? It's a FREE SERVICE!

<comment><USER4> Gmail is a free service. They had better not open up my emails to the public.

<comment><USER5> But it's not a social network. Please don't take only one bit out an argument, ignore the other ones, and use that to justify yours.

<comment><USER6> I'd argue Gmail is a social network. Facebook just makes it a little easier to share images, videos, etc. I don't think it's a difference in kind but of degree. When I send an email to someone, I expect it to only go to that one person. Sure, there are some cases where it might be okay for the receipient to share it, and usually they have an understanding ahead of time of whether it's okay or not. But the sender usually considers it a violation of privacy if it is forwarded to third-parties, especially to the general public. If Google one day unilaterally decided to make all your Gmail email publicly viewable and searchable, there would be a shit storm. Yes, in theory before your emails _could_ have been made public. But in practice, 99% of them do not and it would only have happened if the sender or receiver caused it to happen. But in this case, the trusted intermediary service caused it to happen. That's the violation. So I think the Gmail example is valid and relevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> After a few test searches I couldn't really find anything interesting. It's actually kind of amazing to see so many people saying basically the _exact same things_ Strength in numbers? I learned some people I don't know are going to strip clubs. I learned some people I don't know are watching TV shows and movies. I also learned that people I don't know are eating various things and they are yummy. Is this something to be concerned about? People who have friends & family on Facebook, so the vast majority of the users, are already self censoring.

<comment><USER8> "paternity test" is a good start.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> _Are people really deleting their Facebook accounts?

It looks that way. Currently delete facebook account is one of the top searches on Google. [ [http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=delete%20facebook%2...](http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=delete%20facebook%20account&cmpt=q) ]_

No no no no _no_ , that's _not_ what those graphs show. They _all_ hit 100%. It's growing _extremely_ quickly, but the graph shows _nothing_ more. By the same graphs + the flawed interpretation, in July 2008, "Batman robin" accounted for _every_ Google search. Look! 100%! [http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=Batman%20robin&...](http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=Batman%20robin&cmpt=q)

Why do I see this continually misinterpreted? The "learn what these numbers mean" link is pretty darned clear, and it can easily be grokked by doing more than one search.

<comment><USER9> reply due to not being able to edit: fixed!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Not a big user of either twitter or facebook, But I am trying to understand this. How are these two examples different?

<http://i.imgur.com/ZuDt1.png>

<http://i.imgur.com/U3xcm.png>

<comment><USER2> I think this addendum the user whose tweet you posted has describes it quite well: <http://cl.ly/18ax>

Twitter users, unless they protect their tweets (in which case you're not searching though them: surprise!), know that everyone can see their tweets. Facebook users have "friended" the people they want to see their status updates.

Either you're genuinely confused, in which case I hope I've cleared things up, or you're using this as a red herring.

<comment><USER11> You are assuming people don't know that they're sharing with more than just their friends. You don't have any data to back this up. There is, however, evidence to the contrary. 35% of users adjusted their settings when presented with the privacy transition dialog back in December, and that's not including the people who had modified their privacy settings in the past, which made them not default to "Everyone".

[http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_brags_35_adjus...](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_brags_35_adjusted_their_privacy_settings.php)

Some of these people in the search results know they're sharing with everyone. Some don't. The mere presence of people who don't understand their privacy settings doesn't suggest that a large portion of the Facebook userbase shares that confusion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> awesome! Fastest/Cheapest way to teach laypeople about Facebook privacy issues.

</comment><comment><USER13> Has FB bashing fallen to this level, querying "going to the strip club" and listing the results with a big "see, I told you so"? I scrolled through maybe two hundred of the "strip clubbers", most seem to be the kind of people who put this in their status updates for sensationalist value, judging from their pictures.

I also queried "I love my wife", "I love Shakespeare", "quaternions" and wound up wasting more than an hour on this site. It's fascinating and not all in a bad sense. In fact, we should have a Digg-like "best 100 best statuses of the day" site.

Point of the matter is: If you don't want your statuses to be public, adjust the settings. At this age and time arguing most users don't know how to do this or were somehow duped is appalling.

<comment><USER14> > At this age and time arguing most users don't know how to do this or were > somehow duped is appalling.

Why? Most users _really_ don't understand the consequences of the default settings, let alone which checkbox has which effect.

Just the other day I was browsing CNN and to great surprise a section on the site named a HN user as recommending that I should go and check out some link. Turned out it was powered by facebook and I had made the mistake of not logging out.

That's something that won't be happening again, but I'm not sure I could have predicted that sort of thing would happen.

And I'm _definitely_ not comfortable with it.

For me, facebook has changed from a place where I share some stuff about me with my friends to a shingle for people to get in contact with me through other means.

I will not delete my account because that is a useful function, but my facebook days as an active user are mostly over (not that anybody cares or should care).

<comment><USER11> CNN doesn't get any of your Facebook data. It's an iframe hosted on Facebook. That HN user _wants_ people to know that he likes that article.

(Your reaction is partially justified due to the existence of Instant Personalization on Yelp, Pandora, and Docs, which _does_ share information without your consent.)

<comment><USER15> True, CNN doesn't get your Facebook data directly, but if FB automatically creates a connection and CNN gets added to your interest then, if i have understood correctly, that network can see at least basic info about you.

<comment><USER11> That was a bug that I believe has been fixed. Connections should never be made automatically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Just don't write this stuff on the web and have your identity attached to it. It's asinine.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is interesting actually. Browsing some common keywords it seems that out of 200 million users very few seem to have open status updates compared to the same test 6 months ago the number has more than halved.

</comment><comment><USER18> Search for horny, limit results to girls (or guys depending on pref). Win!

</comment><comment><USER17> Hmm, this is interesting.

My Facebook profile is "open" by default [1] ( particularly my status updates) but I can't get my statuses to show no matter what queries I try.

Has anyone been able to nail down:

\- what exactly gets pushed into this feed

\- what privacy settings remove you from or ad you to the feed

(kmavm, anything you can add in here?)

1\. <http://www.facebook.com/errantx>

</comment><comment><USER19> So what's up with all the links to hottie223? Did people get hacked, or paid to post the links or something?

[http://youropenbook.org/?q=hottie223&x=0&y=0&gen...](http://youropenbook.org/?q=hottie223&x=0&y=0&gender=any)

[edit] Nevermind, as I scrolled down, the profile pictures started repeating, guess it's just ordinary spam[/edit]

</comment><comment><USER20> Probably the best example of why Facebook's privacy policy is broken. If you do a search for "drunken" I'm sure that most of these people only intended the photos to be viewed by their friends. Such material could easily be used to embarrass, bribe, bully or discriminate against people in job applications.

</comment><comment><USER21> I think it's pretty obvious that once you put your photos on your Facebook (or other social media channel) profile they are pretty much public. I don't really understand why people would upload sensitive information about themselves in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER22> There are a bunch of fake profiles that includes all the default search keywords. While that's fun, it may destroy the authenticity of the message this site is trying to spread.

</comment><comment><USER14> Interesting, that's almost a carbon copy of another project that someone showed here a few days ago. That one had more queries than just 'rectal exam' though.

<comment><USER23> It's because they're thin wrappers around Facebook's stream search, a feature we shipped in July of 2009. The actual search engine is Facebook's. These projects are just hitting an ajax endpoint with a query and dressing up the results.

Ironically, this is the very same feature that I prostrated myself over here when it was down for a few hours 8 days ago (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1333000>). Which way do you want it, HN? :)

If I can preempt the inevitable flood of "How do you sleep at night???" variants: note that you can't really use this to target an individual user. There are 400 million people using Facebook. If you query something embarassing, you might see some titillating content go by, but that doesn't prove much of anything. Those same search terms typed into Twitter search, or for that matter Google, turn up a lot of material that I would not choose to share, but these people have apparently chosen to do so. If you really want to invade privacy, stream search would be a spectacularly stupid way to do it; any given result has a 1 in 400 million chance of being from who you're looking for.

Like Google, Twitter search, and every search box on every web site ever in the history of anything, this search feature is privacy-neutral: it only allows you to see what you were already allowed to see. Does the fact that Google'ing for "my rectal surgery" uncovers some over-sharing make Google, or the web, evil? Or is it at least possible that the good done by answering legitimate queries outweighs this apparent harm?

<comment><USER24> sorry not the same.

when I type an email I have an expectation that only I and the recipient will see the email.

similarly, a vast majority of these people are not intending to broadcast these updates into the public space (non-anonymously with a photo of their face attached next to the update)

I personally don't have any moral outrage over this, but that is the issue. You've built up an expectation of privacy with people and then took it away without enough user messaging. One dialog if I remember correctly, saying something along the lines of "Share your updates with everyone." (what does "everyone" even mean?)

tldr: you switched the defaults on people and they haven't realized it.

<comment><USER11> > _a vast majority of these people are not intending to broadcast these > updates into the public space_

[citation needed]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Did you try the other searches? I'm literally astounded to see what people write on Facebook. I would never write those things on a public place.

</comment><comment><USER26> Nice UI element on the search by male / female.

</comment><comment><USER27> If people don't mind friends and people they actually know reading such updates, why would they care about strangers?

<comment><USER2> Because friends and family aren't your boss you're bitching about on Facebook.

Please, this argument is getting old.

And if "people" didn't mind, this probably wouldn't be getting so much attention.

<comment><USER27> Honestly, what's getting old is a small, vocal, paranoid, patronizing minority blowing things way out of perspective while hundreds of millions of people go about their lives in the same world that not long ago had both water-coolers and telephone directories.

<comment><USER28> Honestly, I don't think it's that. When my parents ask me about Facebook privacy, it's a big deal. When the NYT and Newsweek run stories about it, it's getting mainstream. This is not just a vocal minority.

<comment><USER10> Is it fair to say that 200+million Facebook users are vocally concerned about Facebook security? I seriously doubt that.

<comment><USER28> That's taking it a bit too literally don't you think?

<comment><USER10> Fair enough. Can you say even 1 million Facebook users gives a crap?

The fact that Facebook really isn't reacting much to this outrage (albiet justified), farther solidifies the point that people who are vocal about it to the extend that they are ready to stop using Facebook is a very small minority and it will not effect them much, if at all. When you have 400 million users, do you really care losing 100k users who are most likely tech savvy and using Ad-blockers anyways?

<comment><USER28> No I can't say that. But neither can you with any certainty proclaim the opposite.

I admit that the particular use of "not just a vocal minority" wasn't accurate, if you interpret it to mean that the majority of Facebook users are concerned. You could also interpret my statement as "there are more people than just a vocal minority who are concerned." My point is that this is a pretty big deal, not just something that HN readers are up in arms about.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Standard Cyborg (YC W15) sells artificial limbs - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/3041860/the-y-combinator-chronicles/this-prosthetics-startup-shows-how-software-is-eating-the-world

<comment><USER2> Jeff - Congrats!!!

I clicked on the link and hoped this was your company (we met at Startup School).

Great press, looking forward to seeing your company own this space.

</comment><comment><USER3> A solo YC founder, impressive! I wonder if the branding "cyborg" appeals to most prosthetic limb users?

<comment><USER4> that's a fair criticism. so far the reactions have been positive

<comment><USER3> Not a criticism just a comment to ponder. I suspect outside of tech/HN circles people are less eager to become cyborgs. ;)

<comment><USER4> i meant criticism in the friendliest way possible!

it's been interesting to watch the shift in how prosthetics have been perceived just in my lifetime. It's shifted from "it must look exactly like a leg" to "something metal and carbon fiber looks really cool". And I expect that trend to continue. My personal theory on it is we are all becoming little cyborgs with cell phones attached to our hips or palms - that is making the regular person much more comfortable with the idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Jeff, the founder, here.

Happy to answer any questions!</comment>


Johnson and Johnson knew about asbestos in baby powder for decades - <AUTHOR> https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/421395-report-johnson-johnson-knew-about-asbestos-in-baby-powder-for-decades <comment><USER2> Reuters story:

[https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special- report/johnsona...](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special- report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/)</comment>


Should we be afraid of AI? - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/essays/true-ai-is-both-logically-possible-and-utterly-implausible <comment><USER2> The portmanteau "AItheists" isn't a good name for the AI-atheists. It works better for the first group of Singularitarians who believe that AI is god.</comment>


How to stop Firefox from making automatic connections - <AUTHOR> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-stop-firefox-making-automatic-connections <comment><USER2> [https://github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks- user.js](https://github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks-user.js)

Plus remove all the http(s) references to mozilla and google servers in about:config in your user-overrides.js file...and then tweak everything to taste.</comment>


Here's The Real Reason Apple Is Suing Samsung - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-real-reason-apple-is-suing-samsung-2011-4

<comment><USER2> This is an interesting perspective.

Is there any chance that Samsung is conspiring with Apple on this? If Apple wins, and Samsung has to pay a license to Apple, Apple could in theory, have an agreement to purchase that same amount in Samsung components.

Apple then goes and sues other Android manufacturers with the precedent set in the Samsung case. Apple wins by making a licensing fee on Android devices, Samsung wins because their Android competitors now have an increased cost of production.

I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, but I just found it so strange that Apple would sue Samsung when the designs they are claiming have been infringed really aren't that original.</comment>


Dead Drops - <AUTHOR> https://deaddrops.com/ <comment><USER2> This has been around for a while, and given the vulnerabilities in USB stacks and OSes is somewhat dangerous. When it appeared over at Reddit someone called it a "USB glory hole."

Same thing applies to chargers in public places. You never know whether it's _just_ a charger.

<comment><USER3> Do the "charge-only" USB cables fix this vulnerability?

e.g. [http://www.amazon.com/PortaPow-Micro-USB-Cable- Charging/dp/B...](http://www.amazon.com/PortaPow-Micro-USB-Cable- Charging/dp/B0088HTYUE)

<comment><USER4> For chargers, yes. For getting data of a "dead drop", obviously not, and also not if someone connects high voltage or something crazy like that. Or someone manages to exploit the power management system by turning power on and off in just the right way, but that seems far-fetched.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Are there any kind of restrictions or requirements that would ensure that a random embedded USB flash drive in the side of a wall in a dark alley would not contain BadUSB exploits, keyloggers, etc.? I kinda assumed initially that this was an extension of the creator's original art project, but it seems like people are actually using these--the security concerns far outweigh the novelty, in my mind.

<comment><USER6> I'm going to assume that there's no way for the creator to enforce this, anyway - but is there any way to access one of these without endangering your machine? I'd rather not use a burner-laptop every time I try to see what's on these guys.

<comment><USER7> I'd say it's pretty risky either way, but you could insulate yourself from risk somewhat by using a raspberry pi with a fresh image on the SD card each time.

Also, if it's possible to run a raspberry pi from a write-protected SD card (and assuming that SD-card write-protection hardware switches are actual hardware disables not something that just sets a flag that the software can ignore), then you may not need to clean the SD card every time either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For a more interesting project that resembles a "anonymous, offline, peer to peer file-sharing network in public space" \-- but is in fact much more useful, see Edgenet:

proposal: [http://cultureandempire.com/html/edgenet.html](http://cultureandempire.com/html/edgenet.html)

slides: [http://cultureandempire.com/edgenet.html#/2/1](http://cultureandempire.com/edgenet.html#/2/1)

(funded) indiegogo project: [https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/edgenet](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/edgenet)

<comment><USER9> • LibraryBox [1] is an open source, portable digital file distribution tool based on inexpensive hardware that enables delivery of educational, healthcare, and other vital information to individuals off the grid.

[1][http://librarybox.us/](http://librarybox.us/)

• PirateBox [2] is a DIY anonymous offline file-sharing and communications system built with free software and inexpensive off-the-shelf hardware.

[2] [http://piratebox.cc/](http://piratebox.cc/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The map search doesn't seem to work at all - "New York City, NY" decodes to 0.00, 0.00, apparently.

Also, the full-size image for the Union Square Dead Drop[1] is ... not very full-size: [https://deaddrops.com/db/images/fullsize/32/935838.jpg](https://deaddrops.com/db/images/fullsize/32/935838.jpg)

[1] [https://deaddrops.com/db/?page=view&id=32](https://deaddrops.com/db/?page=view&id=32)

</comment><comment><USER10> Seeing as this project is 5 years old, I'm curious how many of these are still functioning? None, I would guess, since it seems like more of an art project... but still, I'm a little curious. Is anyone close to any of these that could test them out?

<comment><USER11> I embedded one into a wall in my neighborhood. It lasted about two weeks before it completely oxidized.

<comment><USER10> That's about what I had thought would happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Every one I've tried in SF doesn't exist anymore.

</comment><comment><USER13> This seems like a great way to share viruses.

<comment><USER14> Yes, it seems like the computing equivalent of a glory hole.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> the piratebox project is much better [http://piratebox.cc](http://piratebox.cc)

</comment><comment><USER15> Why not use a burner running Linux?</comment>


Catcierge: Image recognition and RFID chip reader for automated cat door - <AUTHOR> https://joakimsoderberg.github.io/catcierge/ <comment><USER3> Wow... awesome project. That guy is living the dream...

[https://github.com/JoakimSoderberg/catcierge](https://github.com/JoakimSoderberg/catcierge)

That cat house has better documentation, unit tests and code coverage than many commercial projects I've worked on.

<comment><USER4> Yes I'm living the dream of 90% test coverage! ... Well I used this project as an excuse to write testable C code, so that's why.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nice, I bought a pi to make a "cat on the kitchen table" alarm to handle a common problem. Have not had time to complete it, but the concept is: find the pixels that compose the kitchen table-top and get the convex hull of those. Next identify pixels that are "cat color" and are inside that hull. In the case of my cat, "cat color" is several colors and stray matches can be rejected if they are not near different colors in the collection - <USER2> positives are bad, as we don't want to turn it off during dinner and people have different clothes all the time.

Another challenge is scaring the cat out of the christmas tree. This will be coming up soon so I may have to finish this thing after all. Training the cat to stay off the table has gone well, since we keep interesting stuff off it when we're not there. The tree however is full of interesting stuff.

EDIT: to clarify, I never completed the table project, in part because it's not a problem any more.

</comment><comment><USER6> I swear I've seen a similar project like a decade ago, somewhere.

I have an easier solution - weigh the cat on a pressure pad just before the flap - allow for variances of a few ounces but not much more.

But the cat door is also a safety thing for my cats when they are feeling unsafe or being chased - I wouldn't want them to have to wait to get inside.

ps. cats bring you dead things as food because they think you are too feable to hunt and triggering a nursing instinct

<comment> ryan-c > I swear I've seen a similar project like a decade ago, somewhere.

Probably "Flo Control"[0]. There was a system to get a silhouette of the cat's head to identify whether it was carrying anything.

0\. [https://web.archive.org/web/20081014091109/http://www.quantu...](https://web.archive.org/web/20081014091109/http://www.quantumpicture.com/Flo_Control/flo_control.htm)

<comment><USER7> The author of the original article references Flo Control and uses it in his implementation.

<comment><USER4> To be specific. I only took the general idea from that project. That is, to match the cat head against a lit background to make it easy to get a good profile image.

None of the implementation has anything to do with that project however.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Awesome. I've been wanting to use the RFID pet id tags for a feeder that would block out other pets and only allow a certain amount of food (by mass) to be eaten by a specific animal. I'll be going over how they implemented it and see if I can use any of it. Thanks for this post :)

<comment><USER4> As I mention in the project I bought one of these: [http://www.priority1design.com.au/shopfront/index.php?main_p...](http://www.priority1design.com.au/shopfront/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=23)

Turns out the antenna that comes with it is way too small for anything other than manually brushing it against the cats neck knowing exactly where the chip is.

However I got some mails from another guy that built a cat feeder thingie. He ended up doing his own, much bigger antenna so that the cats head fit through it (he made a structure in cardboard wrapping the coil around that).

Anyway, he had some contact with the company, and they recommend using the RS232 version instead of the USB one for such applications... They had some better spec in some way.

EDIT: I looked up the mail, and to summarize he used 0.6mm enamled copper wire and a 120mm computer fan (minus the fan in the middle, that he wrapped the coil around. The reader then outputs the MOF value so you can know what frequency you're getting.

I've bought some copper wire myself and I'm planning to make a better antenna myself, but haven't yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Awesome project. Wonder if author would eventually replace mock prey images with real camera shots with positive detections :)

But I wonder... is it common to let a cat walk freely outside, unsupervised? In my perception, author's either putting his pet to danger, has a good fencing or must be living in awesomely nice neighborhood.

<comment><USER4> It's common I'd say. And I live in a small village with lots of room.

Here are some real images (including hard cases): [https://github.com/JoakimSoderberg/catcierge- examples/tree/m...](https://github.com/JoakimSoderberg/catcierge- examples/tree/master/example)

I got lots more, just haven't uploaded them

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wonder if that corridor is going to fill up with dead birds soon.

<comment><USER4> Author of the project. Yes this happened, not with birds but with dead mice... And I did not realise it until like a week or so, not a pleasant cleaning operation.

<comment><USER11> I am waiting for Higgs to get smart:

1\. Drop the prey in front of door.

2\. Door detects no prey.

3\. Door opens.

4\. Higgs props door open.

5\. Higgs retrieve prey FTW!

<comment><USER4> Yup she's done exactly that at times, not the "prop door open", but she dropped the prey right in front of the door, went away for a while, came back, picked up the prey and went inside... But I wouldn't say it was because of detailed scheming on her part, but luck rather :)

Another thing she has done is to learn to back out of the corridor as the door locks, and then wait a while, and try going back in all while having the prey in her mouth.

EDIT: So all small things like that has led me to tweak the algorithms, and add some extra settings to be tweaked. I mean the backing out move she did several times like 6 times in a row... Some of those times she managed to get in.

So to remedy that I added some settings for extra timeouts so she cannot try again as quickly and so on :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you click on webpage ads? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Rarely, maybe twice in the last year (that I kinda remember). The real question is: do the few intentional clicks are a coincidence (I happen to see it and it happens to be relevant) or my brain rapidly sees/scans all/most ads with a background process and just puts the relevant ones on my attention/awareness?

</comment><comment><USER3> The only time I've ever clicked on them intentionally was on a site that had ads by The Deck network, because they were attractive ads and the service advertised was something I was genuinely interested in.

I have yet to have this happen on any other site and thus have installed and now use adblockers 100% of the time.

</comment><comment><USER4> Rarely, but it happens from time to time still, when it is interesting or its happen to be related to what I'm looking for.

<comment><USER5> +1, though I can't remember the last time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> No...and I avoid clicking URLs offered on all but a few very trusted sites, and never in emails...

</comment><comment><USER7> Once or twice a year, at most.

</comment><comment><USER8> Not intentionally</comment>


Infrared Scans Show Possible Hidden Chamber in King Tut's Tomb - <AUTHOR> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151106-tut-tutankhamun-tomb-thermal-imaging-nefertiti-archaeology/ <comment><USER2> another article here: [http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/new- clues-poin...](http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/new-clues-point- to-secret-chamber-in-king-tut-tomb-151106.htm)</comment>


Judge Orders Macy's to Quit Fining, Detaining Suspected Shoplifters in Jail - <AUTHOR> http://jezebel.com/judge-orders-macys-to-quit-fining-detaining-suspected-1782962867 <comment><USER2> This is absolutely ridiculous and I am happy with this judges decision.</comment>


Hipmunk (YC S10) Brings a Little Ecstasy to Hotel Search and Booking - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/hipmunk_now_lets_you_search_for_hotels_sorted_by_e.php <comment><USER2> I wish they would focus on cleaning up their flight search before moving on to new features. While I like the idea of their flight search - in practice its a confusing visual mess. I really wanted to like it - but I found myself back on travelocity in short order. I think they're really on to something with their idea, but it needs some refinement before they move on. I showed it to my folks back home and they looked at it for about 2 minutes before just going to southwest.com and booking their flight there. While hipmunk may be all the rage here - it has basically zero traction outside of the tech community.

<comment><USER3> I agree with you about their flight search issues See my previous comments - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2249984>

But this hotel search upgrade really is an improvement on the usual booking systems. I can easily add filters for the basic things I need in a room and then visualize the results based on location. Traditional booking sites give you either no grouped map or a just a small indecipherable map.

<comment><USER4> Yep, we felt that when you book an hotel you need to be able to easily compare two result sets. So that's why we made it easy to toggle amenities on and off and instantly see the result on the map.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I love Hipmunk, but 'ecstasy' is a strange word to use in a headline about an airline travel booking site.

In all seriousness, if they put an alerts feature in, it would be amazing. I find that I have to check back really often to find the best deals because airlines rejigger the prices so much.

<comment><USER6> Have you tried TripAdvisor Flights? I work for TripAdvisor, and we have an "AirWatch" feature that will send you an email whenever the price for a certain route drops. <http://www.tripadvisor.com/help/what_are_airwatch_alerts>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> These guys are moving at mach 5 for such a small team.

<comment><USER8> More likely these guys are moving at mach 5 _because_ of such a small team.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Maybe there's no way to get around this, but a flight from DCA to LAS on Aug 3 is $227 with Hipmunk, whereas on Spiritair.com I get as low as $195. With a promotion coupon (which almost always pop up about a month in advance) I could get between $19 and $50 off that.

Is there some way Hipmunk can show reduced costs direct from airlines or incorporate promo coupons? I know some promos are "random" but Spirit has them every week for different destinations and dates.

(I also notice Tripadvisor shows me one for $189 if I leave from BWA... does Hipmunk have a 'nearby airports' search option?)

</comment><comment><USER10> As a frequent airbnb host, I wonder if this is going to increase bookings... It seems like a lot more people have heard of hipmunk than airbnb.

<comment><USER11> Is it weird having other people in your place? Do you ever put up your space while you're away, leaving people unsupervised?

<comment><USER10> Its not that weird having people over. Its a lot like having friends over to visit, except you haven't met them before. We've never rented the whole place out while we were away, but we give out guests a key and they are often there while we are out during the day or out to dinner, etc.

I figure that if someone wanted to steal something there are much better ways (for example ways that don't involve giving out their full name and credit card information) and we don't own anything that steal-able anyway.

The biggest problem is that we only have one bathroom and it can get busy with showers in the morning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> One nit pick I just found when doing a hotel search is the tip was still flight related... "Tip #4: Drag the black triangle to hide flights."

</comment><comment><USER13> Been using hipmunk for a while now & love it for airline searches. People may say its confusing but I find it extremely easy to use and much less confusing then their competitors. The hotel feature is a great addition as well. The only thing I'd add to it (at least on a quick look) is an option to search/filter by pet friendly hotels.

</comment><comment><USER14> Just used Hipmunk for the 1st time to book a ticket and found it to be totally useful and intuitive.</comment>


Big data and machine learning - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2015/11/21/big-data-and-machine-learning/ <comment><USER2> Frankly, I can't tell anymore if the linked article is tongue in cheek. Enough HN for today.

<comment><USER3> It's 8am central and I've already expended my daily buzzword budget.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Could anyone explain to me whether this article is serious or sarcasm ?

And if it is sarcastic what exactly is he mocking ?

I guess that most HN readers would be unfamiliar the tools of the trade for big data and machine learning.

<comment><USER5> Not serious, or maybe ha-ha-only-serious. See:

[http://philip.greenspun.com/humor/ai.text](http://philip.greenspun.com/humor/ai.text)

      The AI field has been a prolific source of hokey new
      terminology
      ...
      AI is about the same age as the rest of computing.
      ...
      If DOD spending on AI drops far enough, universities
      like Stanford, MIT and CMU may even find the integrity
      to rid themselves of scientifically embarassing, but
      formerly profitable, AI programs. The quality of CS
      faculties and budgets at universities across the
      country will continue to be diluted by the presence of
      large numbers of AI meatballs.
      -- Gary Martins (former RAND manager)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Google is replacing PageRank with RankBrain and when this is complete they won't know why certain pages are offered as the best result"

I'm not sure if this will always be true. I think that if we move toward a sort of neural network programming (1) we won't be able to "know why" in the sense that we can explain the functions, but will instead explain programs based on output from the layers and from the relationships between variables. For instance, deep dream __is a way to understand how google 's image classifier is "working" (2). It's super interesting that the classifier thinks that a human arm is part of a dumbbell, for instance.

1) Maybe something like this: [http://web.mit.edu/~axch/www/art.pdf](http://web.mit.edu/~axch/www/art.pdf).

2) [http://googleresearch.blogspot.ch/2015/06/inceptionism- going...](http://googleresearch.blogspot.ch/2015/06/inceptionism-going-deeper- into-neural.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> Don't take away my "for" loop from me.. It is the magical thing that brought me to computer science :)

</comment><comment><USER8> _Google is replacing PageRank with RankBrain and when this is complete they won't know why certain pages are offered as the best results._

Google is well aware of the problems of machine learning:

[http://research.google.com/pubs/pub43146.html](http://research.google.com/pubs/pub43146.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> Kind of weird seeing a Greenspun post where he's not getting all het up about alimony.</comment>


Trello is now half million strong - <AUTHOR> http://blog.trello.com/trello-is-now-500000-strong/ <comment><USER2> I love Trello and am a huge fan. I'm finding that I don't use it as much as I thought I would, though.

The missing feature for me is the ability to share a column between boards. This would let me work with other people. Work is hierarchical. I make big decisions and then those big decisions get split up and consumed by other folks. I can't have everybody controlling boards at every level. So when I drop "clean room" to my "Stuff my son is handling" column, I don't care or know how he breaks that up and does it. All I care about is that once he's broken up that work and completed all of it that he passes the card to my "done" column. I create and track the task at a high level. He does the same at a lower level. My big task breaks up into a bunch of small tasks for him. The same kind of scenario plays out in lots of things: refurbishing a house, planning for a summer vacation, tending to landscaping around the house, and so on.

Everything can't be flat. There has to be some kind of hierarchical structure. Having one column appear in multiple boards would allow that to happen. Might be some other solutions. Don't know. You could get into some kind of parent- child thing, but that's butt-ugly. I think just letting one column exist on multiple boards would solve the problem without creating a complexity problem.

That's the one thing preventing me from active use. If they could fix that, and somehow figure out the hosting/privacy issues many companies have, it'd be a perfect app. Keep up the awesome work, guys!

<comment><USER3> "If they could fix that"

The question also is how long will they continue to fix and offer a service which has no revenue? And who is to say the service won't get acquired (in addition to just being outright cancelled). Saying "always be free" doesn't create a legal obligation given a change of circumstances.

(I have a workflow which depends greatly on free Thunderbird and the (paid version) of the quicktext pro extension. I was pretty upset to even see stories that TB was not going to be maintained as well going forward.)

<comment><USER4> "Saying "always be free" doesn't create a legal obligation given a change of circumstances."

Neither does charging. Most SAAS products charge on a monthly basis, so the most any vendor owes you is 30 days of usage. Even so, they could always just shut down today and refund you your money.

Not to toot our own horn, but Fog Creek has been around for 12 years, we've been profitable every year along with having dozens of employees. There's little chance that we're about to disappear (or get acquired). We've invested a lot into Trello, and we're not going to change our minds on a whim.

We realize people are running their businesses and adapting their workflows around Trello, and we're encouraging that. Our plan is to give you even more security and more reasons to integrate our product into your business in the future.

So while I can see some merit in arguing that "saying always be free" is just a promise, it's backed by a company that's over a decade old. I don't see any evidence to suggest the scenarios you are describing.

<comment><USER5> Just a plea - remember that there is a tier between "freeloaders" and "companies willing to pay $$" - it's what you would call the "supporter" level. This is the level that dropbox, for example, lacks - some ability to give, say, $3 a month not in order to get premium features, but to feel good, and support a product you like.

I use Trello every day for a whole bunch of things and it really does make my life easier. It would make me happy to give Trello a bit of money for services that I already use for free.

[Edit to comment below: I don't think it is such a strange suggestion - it's the NPR model: everybody gets to listen to the radio station for free, some get to feel good about supporting it in exchange for something nominal like a bumper sticker. Sure there is a difference between accepting money and never having to deal with money, but I assume Trello has some plan to accept money eventually for something]

<comment><USER6> > it's the NPR model

So for one week every six months, you'd go to your Trello projects and instead of being able to use them normally, you could use them for five minutes at a time before you had to listen to a 10 minute plea for money that wouldn't stop even if you donated right away?

<comment><USER7> Sure, if I got a designer tote bag.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> We implemented Trello, along with daily working/billing about a month ago, and I don't think we'll ever go back. Working on one project per day instead of trying to do 100 things at once cut my stress in half and doubled my productivity.

Trello makes it easy to see what's getting done by whom, and who is available to work on the next item coming down the pipe. Client work gets done faster, and we have more time for internal projects. We have one board for invoices, one for leads, and one for projects. Its a great system.

So, we owe a huge thanks to the folks at Fog Creek, and I can't understand why we can't pay them. But also to Ryan Carson and Thomas Ptacek, for their strong recommendations of Trello[1] and daily billing[2], respectively.

[1] [http://ryancarson.com/post/24884883426/how-i- manage-40-peopl...](http://ryancarson.com/post/24884883426/how-i- manage-40-people-remotely) [2] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4101802>

<comment><USER9> Could you elaborate on how you've implemented "billing"?

I have some ideas how to implement time tracking for billing purposes but haven't got around to it yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think Trello is fantastic. It's a game-changer for development and project management, even if you use it solo. My only problem is I can't use it at work due to our privacy and regulatory requirements.

Fog Creek: A version we can host ourselves, please! We would pay fogbugz- levels if not more.

<comment><USER4> I know it's not what you want to hear, but we have no plans to make a self- hosted version.

<comment><USER10> Yes, I should have said I've seen that in your FAQs. I understand it, of course, but it's a great pity -- the demand is relatively high, judging by the numbers of forum posts looking for "trello alternatives" out there.

It wouldn't even have to be updated anything like as frequently as real Trello, or at all. A stable snapshot, with security updates if you found egregious holes, would be more than enough.

<comment><USER11> It's very hard to sell a product only to "understanding" customers, because I doubt they would agree on what "as frequently" means. Or how much self- assembly is required to put the whole thing together if there's no installer. People will say they just want a zip of .js files and they'll be happy to get it running, but when they get that zip file they get very angry, not happy. I've seen it happen too often.

"When you said it had some rough edges, I thought you meant ..."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The title is misleading. Signups are not really what matters. I wonder how many users actually log in at least once a week.

I have Trello account and tried to use it when it launched but eventually I reverted back to my good old pad and pen once again.

<comment><USER13> Our engineering team logs into it daily, and some of us stay logged in throughout the day, checking off lists and hashing out ideas in the cards before importing them into engineering docs. It's a great way to manage features and organize tasks, even if we don't fit into a classic "Agile" cycle.

Trello has been a big hit with my wife who is a writer. She uses it to organize scenes, chapters and various snippets before integrating them into her draft. I've tried introducing various storyboarding applications to her with very high resistance -- Trello was the only thing that really "took" with her.

If you just want to jot down notes and don't need to organize them, Trello's probably just a bit too rich an interface. Once you've got more balls in the air and jugglers in the mix, Trello becomes a lot more interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I love Trello. I've been using it to plan my wedding. At first my fiancee was worried that it would add too much overhead. (She was never overly concerned that it was spectacularly nerdy to be using a software project planning suite—and that's a sign I found a keeper.) It's really shined with the guest selection/invitation process.

We created a couple of lists to group and sort guests into Definite, Good to Have, and Maybe lists and used labels to relations to whoever wanted them, which really helped with the friends and extended family that the other didn't know. We used checkboxes to track addresses that we were waiting on, who's save-the-dates have gone out, etc. I've used the API to total up people for the headcount (since cards we often for "Jack & Jill Smith"). If we were doing assigned seating, we'd probably make lists for each table and move the cards around. Thankfully, we decided to go for heavy hors d'oeuvres.

The thing's versatile: very few things feel like they're driven by the project planning domain (e.g. voting for cards). I'd love to see some kind of ability to embed scripts and save some checklists as templates that I could apply to cards with one or two clicks, but the API access suites my needs right now (and I know some people are using Greasemonkey scripts).

</comment><comment><USER15> I really love Trello, I think I could use it in so many facets of my life...but the nonstatements on its future (is it going to be monetized? is it even going to be around in six months? etc.) make me hesitant to really commit to it.

<comment><USER16> It's going to be around in six months, things that are currently free are going to remain that way, and we're not adding ads; I'll let you draw an inference on the monetization. I actually thought the Trello team had made that clear, but I'll bug them to see if there's a way we can make it even more so.

 _Edit_ : <https://trello.com/privacy> states the above clearly, near the bottom. I agree that slapping that under the "Privacy" page probably doesn't make sense.

(I work for Fog Creek; go through my comment history.)

<comment><USER15> Thanks for the response. This makes me _much_ more interested to start investing time in moving various workflow tracking processes to Trello.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I started playing with Trello a week ago. It's beautiful and I see huge potential using it for my daily todo list. One thing I really want is a dead simple way to add new items to an "Inbox" list, which I sort later. (Thinking GTD)

An Android home screen widget and maybe a Chrome extension for this would rock. This is how I currently use Remember The Milk on my phone because you can specify a default list for all new items.

Is something like this in the works? If not, looks like I should be able to cobble something together using the Trello API.

<comment><USER18> I've been wrestling with this, too. Right now my GTD Inbox list is just empty, because if I'm going into Trello, I might as well put the item where it belongs (whether Next Actions, Waiting On, etc). I guess I'm looking for my Inbox to be populated with stuff that arrived outside of Trello.

I might be wrong on this because I'm relatively new to Trello and GTD, but I also didn't see a way to tag cards, which seems really useful.

<comment><USER19> You can adopt a convention (like #tag) and then search/filter cards with that tag pretty easily. It's not built in tagging support, but I'm not sure if GTD actually requires more than that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The problem with closed source and hosted options like Trello (even if free) is that couple of years later the company could close down the product. You have seen it with Google and Google is even larger and more reputed than Fogcreek. And the reason you always hear is that they want to focus on core areas.

You will now be left with an XML dump of you data (if the provider even gives you access to your data) and the burden to code a half decent alternative for you to use the data.

That is why I would normally prefer services that has their code open sourced like teambox. It gives you the comfort that if you can get hold of your data, you could run with it from the very next day since you have all the tools already with you. <https://github.com/teambox/teambox>

<comment><USER21> That's pretty neat. I use Trello quite a bit but have some of these these reservations, so I just gave Teambox a look.

My initial impression is that it does way too much. There are a plethora of options and I just don't know what to do or what things are good for. Trello has more or less the right things in the right places and presents the right information. The learning curve is low and the usefulness high.

There are some things it does that I hypothetically like: for example, I think finding a way to cram ephemeral (not taking a burdensome place in the UI) but archived (for completeness) IRC-style conversations into Trello would be quite useful: sometimes the "activity" field is too heavy. I dislike the monolithic nature of Campfire rooms as well, so I think organizing chats around Trello cards is an intriguing concept.

All in all, I don't have a super complex and well-enriched bug database (that's elsewhere, and not really Trello's strength) in Trello, so if I had to move off, I'd take an afternoon or two or two and do it, although the upheaval to my planning would be annoying. The usability gains trump my leeriness of lock-in, but as a result I will probably never use particularly exotic features of Trello and constantly be looking for an open source replacement, even though I'm totally willing to fork over some dough for a hosted service.

My ideal would be if Trello.com made money hosting an open source Trello-the- project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> We just tried this out for hiring and it worked amazingly, we could all see at a glance who the obvious candidates were and kept a nice collection of votes for us so we didn't have to send out an annoying email every day.

</comment><comment><USER23> If Trello implemented what DanielBMarkham said (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4219109>) and what pgambling said (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4219092>) then I would start using immediately for my day-to-day task management, and people I hire would be using it then too.

</comment><comment><USER24> I've been pumped about this since I first saw them at Disrupt. I wasn't able to get TC signed up, but maybe I can get MSNBC...

</comment><comment><USER25> I use Trello on a semi-regular basis, for what may be a unique thing. Use it on a monitor for a D&D initiative board. It's great for shared viewing, shared editing of sequence. It's scale-able for display on external monitors, and easily color coded.

Not it's intended use, but it's been a great improvement over a small whiteboard and magnets.

</comment><comment><USER26> Read the whole thing without being told what Trello was. I have no idea. It could be a porn-site for all I could tell.

</comment><comment><USER27> I use Trello on the side for project planning and was looking just the other day for a way to pay fog creek for Trello

(1) just so I can say I've paid them and have some minor commitment to maintaining my data and account

(2) and because I think it is a great product that I'm happy to part with a few bucks as a way of saying thank you.

<comment><USER4> We'd rather have you tell your friends and colleagues about the product than send us any money at this point. If you get one other person to use it, that would be vastly more valuable to us than a few bucks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This looks like a tool I love called AgileZen Has anyone who has used both got an opinion?

<comment><USER29> Trello is more general purpose whereas agile zen really focuses on software development. You can use Trello for development as well but it doesn't provide fields for determining which build something was fixed in etc... You're sort of expected to do that yourself with more columns or commenting. They do have an API so you could have your build system manage cards as well.

I personally like it for the fact that it is so light weight though but for larger groups it may not be flexible enough.

<comment><USER30> AgileZen did all this and some of their initial customers were law firms-- hardly software dev only.

Trello has an iOS app that is really it's biggest strength. I still like the full color cards for AgileZen over Trello, but they are both very similar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Thanks for the great product, guys.

I use Trello to keep track of my work tasks, personal tasks, and game dev tasks. It's heavenly.

</comment><comment><USER32> congrats! i've been meaning to try this out

</comment><comment><USER33> Just signed up to trello not too long ago.

It's hard for me to differentiate it from PT. is there any killer features that stands out? It looks as cluttered as PT.

</comment><comment><USER34> What languages is Trello based upon?

<comment><USER35> There's a lengthy write up here - <http://blog.fogcreek.com/the-trello-tech- stack/></comment></comment>