Why I left math - <AUTHOR> http://bentilly.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-i-left-math.html <comment><USER2> "These days mathematicians are divided into little cliques of perhaps a dozen people who work on the same stuff. All of the papers you write get peer reviewed by your clique. You then make a point of reading what your clique produces and writing papers that cite theirs. Nobody outside the clique is likely to pay much attention to, or be able to easily understand, work done within the clique. Over time people do move between cliques, but this social structure is ubiquitous. Anyone who can't accept it doesn't remain in mathematics."

I think this is an exaggeration. Sure, much of mathematics and maybe most of mathematics today works like this, but it's the exceptions, in accordance with Sturgeon's Law, that are most interesting. The really good specialists tend to transcend little cliques, and sometimes entire fields. There are plenty of people who are respected outside the circle of their immediate coauthors, everybody (for some definition of "everybody" that is anyhow wider than a little clique) wants to read their papers, etc.

You could say that these are rare exceptions and >90% of working mathematicians are producing highly specialized papers that are interesting to maybe a dozen other people, that don't know much outside their narrow focus and don't really care, and so on. And you'd be right. But in programming, isn't it the case that >90% of programmers are chugging along in their Java or C# shops, writing some enterprisey horror or an internal corporate monstrosity, never caring enough to read Joel, nevermind Hacker News, or to improve their knowledge of the language they're using everyday, nevermind learn Haskell. The talented hackers are rare outliers. So what's different?

I do agree with some other thoughts in the article. Someone who wants to dabble in many things has their work cut out in the academic math culture. I left grad school because I couldn't hack a bloody-minded focus on working on my thesis and doing nothing else. I had other reasons to suspect I won't be staying around in academia. For one thing, I despise internal politics and petty squabbling, and what I saw when I looked at the power structure and battles more closely, being a graduate student, shocked and disgusted me. Even more importantly, I had grave doubts about ever being able to do really meaningful work rather than end up writing up small results in a little clique. I doubted I had it in me to become an exception I talked about above. I still regret not testing this more thoroughly by mustering the will-power to shut down everything else, finish the damn thesis and get the damn degree, even if I probably wouldn't end up in academia anyway.

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks very much for bringing up this subject, which has elicited several interesting replies.

My favorite book recommendation on the subject of career paths for young people considering pure mathematics:

[http://www.amazon.com/Mathematicians-Survival-Guide- Graduate...](http://www.amazon.com/Mathematicians-Survival-Guide-Graduate- Development/dp/082183455X)

My oldest son is a math-liker who has been exposed to the pure mathematics research community through summer programs, and he (college-applying age) and I are currently pondering whether becoming a math professor is a better fit for him, or whether he will truly find paradise as a hacker starting a SaaS business.

</comment><comment><USER4> I had a professor once who said something similar. He phrased it differently though: in math people didn't want you to understand. Something about how it made them feel smarter.

Amusingly, he's a top-notch theoretical computer scientist which is really a kind of math (especially what he does). From this, I gathered that its really the culture of the department, not the field that does this.

One possible counter argument which I'm not in a position to evaluate: Theoretical CS is generally more grounded in "real" problems so maybe its easier for people in other areas to understand...?

</comment><comment><USER5> The problem with mathematics is that it's very hard, it's not for everyone, the common folk cannot understand it, and 99% of those who can will not be on the level of a Felix Klein or Henri Poincaré. This is well exemplified in the book "Indra's Pearls: The Vision of Felix Klein", even today it's hard to trained mathematicians to visualize what Klein described. How many mathematicians does the author of the post supposed there was at Göttingen for just one Klein to come out of blue? To be answered just read the paper "Klein, Hilbert, and the Gottingen Mathematical Tradition". I study applied math and computational science at university, still an undergraduate, because I have fun studying it, not to be a professional mathematician, I'm not smart enough to be good in the area in which I study (Numerical Analysis and Applications, Inverse Problems, Stochastic Processes and Scientific Computing), I'll probably try be a experimental physicist if I chose to remain in academia or will try to be a sysadmin (I already work as one in a part-time job).

<comment><USER6> > 99% of those who can will not be on the level of a Felix Klein

We might be on the same plane though. (Sorry!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am glad to know that this is true of people within the field. I've always found mathematics a romantic subject, but the landscape is so broad I always feel lost.

Well, maybe not 'glad' --- it's too bad that people are punished when they try to be on more than one bleeding edge. But at least I feel like less of a dunce.

<comment><USER8> While the landscape may be broad, it should be exciting that you can spend your entire life studying one facet of a subject as deeply as you like and there will still be an infinity of other truths you could have discovered. Talk to colleagues studying other fields, even if you never have an amazing cross-discipline breakthrough, it is nice to hear about other elements of mathematics.

disclaimer: While I finished my degree in mathematics, I immediately entered the field of programming, which was what I had intended to study.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The only way to succeed in grad school is to be single-mindedly focused on mathematics. Not on being a "generalist", not about "cliques", tenure, etc. This "meta-math" reasoning is a bad substitute for doing actual work. Clearly, the guy is better off doing something else.

<comment><USER10> Just because grad schools don't currently engender generalists doesn't mean that they are a bad thing or less important. It's just harder to measure how accomplished and brilliant a generalist is than it is to measure the contribution of a researcher that has made significant progress in a specific area. Generalism is only really well rewarded when it produces an unexpected solution to or progress toward a solution of an open problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I left math for a totally different reason and I'm almost embarrassed to talk about it. A little background...

I worked full time through college and graduated with less than $100 in the bank. I had opportunities to go on to graduate school for either math or business.

Every professor in our math department drove an older subcompact except the department head who drove a Chevy Impala. Imagine, work your whole life, get to the top of your field, and drive an Impala!

I had struggled too long to set myself up for more struggle. So I went on to get my MBA, learned how to program, and have never had a lack of good quality, high paying work. I'm a little embarrassed that I was so shallow back then, but maybe my subconscious was trying to tell me something. I love math, but I'm sure glad I made the choice I did.

At a recent math reunion, I felt right at home once again. I met a buddy who graduated with me and continued on to become a tenured math professor at a major university. I asked him how he felt about his choice. He told me, "I'll never be rich, but I teach calculus for 8 hours per week 9 months per year, I don't have to publish, and my wife and I have visited over 100 countries. Not a bad life at all."

<comment><USER12> > I'll never be rich

This seems like something of a false dichotomy to me. The professors at my school (UCSD) in math, econ, and engineering were all industry consultants and/or entrepreneurs and drove around in very nice cars like Porsches, Benzes, Lexus etc. (I never saw their houses but a good many of them live in La Jolla).

In fact, many of them were so busy with their 'extracurricular' activities that they sometimes attempted (unsuccessfully) to schedule exams and lectures at hours like 7am or 9pm.

The Chancellor drove a turbo porsche! I can only imagine what the faculty at a school like Stanford is like...

It always seemed to me that being a professor _opened_ doors into industry, instead of 'locking' you down.

<comment><USER13> There's a noticeable gradient in car preferences as you go from northern to southern California. At multiple points in my career at UC Berkeley, I saw older model, unshowy American cars parked in the "NL" parking spots. (Guess what NL stands for, hint not a country in Europe.) After I graduated and started working in the Bay Area I met many people would could not have been making <$200k driving normal everyday cars. The most extreme example would be someone whom I knew for a fact was worth eight figures driving a Cadillac. It was shiny and new but, really? A Caddy?

As I went to high school in LA, where it seems like 2/3 of the population over 20 is driving a late model BMW, this was something of a eye-opener: a lot of rich people just aren't that into cars. That, and the whole conspicuous consumption thing is a lot more en vogue in some places than in others. So to answer your question, the faculty at Stanford probably drive a lot of Hondas. (Someone chime in if I'm wrong, haven't been to the Farm in a while.)

<comment><USER12> I have no idea what you're talking about, Silicon Valley and SF are filled to the brim with expensive and exotic cars. Cruise around Atherton and Los Altos hills or go to downtown PA or the nice parts of cupertino - Ferraris, Astons, Porsches, BMW, Lexus, etc, etc. Even as far as Santa Cruz I have seen plenty of people in their nice sports cars driving fast on 17 all the time.

This notion that "rich people aren't into cars" in northern california is absolutely laughable. Sure there are MORE nice cars in LA, but that's only because LA is a much larger metro area.

I've lived in both the bay and LA and I can tell that this game of "spot the differences" that so many people play are observations based on selection and confirmation bias. You're just looking for evidence that supports ideas you already have.

In my opinion SF and LA are pretty much the exact same culturally. People from SF just hate to admit it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm not sure if I'm atypical, but I do remember having Hugh Woodin give a talk about set theory that I, as a non-specialist (heck, as a computer scientist moonlighting in math grad courses to keep my brain on!) could follow reasonably easily. I still don't know what projective geometry is, but it wasn't necessary to follow his argument.

<comment><USER15> There are some mathematicians who make big efforts to make their talks accessible to a wider audience. Inexplicably, at least in the mathematics department where I did my PhD, those kinds of talks were actually looked down on by many people.

<comment> barry-cotter Same reason most postmodernism and literary theory uses obscurantist language. People value more what they had to work harder for, whether it's understanding or a mug. Making something comprehensible to a broad audience doesn't do anything for the people whose opinion really matters to you, your colleauges, and it makes their work less prestigious by association, because its theoretically comprehensible.

[Rant about Edward Said, and how he said some worthwhile stuff, then made it virtually incomprehensible thought better of]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> One could make the argument that cliques encourage more social interaction -- and subsequently more collaboration. This could be more beneficial overall for the field.

<comment><USER17> Good point.

I think the bottom line comes down to needs for cross-clique knowledge sharing. The possibility for a change in culture is low if there is no incentive for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Cliques in math are like social networking in startups: success partly depends on your connections.

Why is one case bad but the other good?

<comment><USER15> The cliques in maths are different: They are much smaller (literally a dozen or so people), and they really can't understand each other.

I agree with the article - it describes pretty well why I left pure mathematics after my PhD and got a programming job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I loved maths but life as a mathematician was very depressing. Another point I would like to add is that there are very few mathematicians compared to biologists. Actually, I am not very sure if it's true in the US and Europe but it certainly is in India. The biggest of math conferences here have a 100 or so people and so do the smallest of the biology ones.</comment>


Kidfluencers' Rampant YouTube Marketing Creates Minefield for Google - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-20/kidfluencers-rampant-youtube-marketing-creates-minefield-for-google <comment><USER3> I used to use YouTube Kids for a bit with my kids. I always kept an eye on what they chose, but I'd let them choose (even if just to see how it would play out). After a while I watched my kids choose merch focused videos and a lot of very low quality sort of inane stuff that shows up on there. I'd block them but the app really doesn't let you block them, there are always more.

You also can't just white list things in the Youtube Kids app. There's straight up no option to be able to affirmatively choose what your kids get to pick from.

So now YouTube is just straight forbidden unless I'm picking the videos and that effectively means my kids don't see it at all outside of when I have a fun video to share... and even then I'm wary of what YouTube might suggest what to watch next...

With YouTube it feels like no matter what you do you're in a very sketchy neighborhood where there might be a good house here, but maybe some hell hole next door that Youtube is more than happy to send you to... It occurs to me that while I loved the promise of an internet that offered all aspects of humanity, on a site to site basis, I don't think I want that, even for just me.

So now we're back to the PBS Kids Videos app as the only route my kids get to independently pick what they watch. I'm pretty much done with YouTube for now as far as my kids go just due to the rabbit holes of terrible things on there, and the one time they take a shot at kid friendly stuff, it's really doesn't empower me as a parent.

I'm really enjoying Odd Squad.

<comment><USER4> > You also can't just white list things in the Youtube Kids app. There's > straight up no option to be able to affirmatively choose what your kids get > to pick from.

I "whitelist" YouTube for my kids by using youtube-dl to scrape the few good channels for them (Lah Lah, Peppa Pig, etc). I pay for YouTube Premium already, and I only scrape from official channels, so I'm not pirating anything but rather directly accessing channels I paid to view, without having to go through YouTube's horrible interface which constantly (and purposely) pushes crap into my kids view that I never asked for.

Other than that, my kids aren't allowed on YouTube. They can watch scraped videos from our NAS or ABC Kids (Australian Gov-Curated kids TV).

<comment><USER5> Sounds like that could easily be a Chrome extension, though?

Say, a whitelist for Youtube. In instances where Youtube recommendations fail, they'll just see a black thumbnail/ no text, and won't click it. If they do, can just block the playing of the video too. It will teach them skills with finding what they want online, etc, while you're at it.

I'm guessing this is modern ABC Kids too, because a decade or so ago, ABC Kids had some oddly dark stuff that's stuck with me for a while now...

Your way's probably sleeker, especially if it's hooked up to a NAS + XBMC or something of that sort, though :)

<comment><USER4> My kids are only toddlers so not sure what ABC Kids was like before, but at least for the last 5 years it's been incredible. Play School, Peppa Pig, Wiggles, Daniel Tiger, Lah Lah, basically nothing but educational shows or clean entertainment (apparently vetted by educators? I can't confirm that though, just something I read somewhere).

We're pretty strict about screen-based entertainment never being wasted time and always having some practical benefit, and ABC Kids has been great.

For our YouTube stuff I simply have a youtube-dl bash script I pass a URL or playlist too and it scrapes it at highest quality MP4 then copies it to the /Kids/YouTube/ folder on the NAS, which the TV can natively play from. I'm working on a web app running local-only so we can do it from our phones too.

<comment><USER6> Is this a common thing or parents just usually give free access to youtube?

<comment><USER7> It is uncommon for people to download YouTube content. A home server is also right out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Let's be clear about all this, and where the problem arises from.

Use case #1. If Youtube only allowed people to upload videos (whether for a fee, or no charge) and share them with people they know, there would be no issue. You send videos to your friends.

Use case #2. If Youtube allowed advertisers to create videos and share those links via channels they control or purchase (e.g. paying a fee per view), there would be no issue. Companies you know market to you by video.

The _self-created_ problem that Youtube has is that it wants to make money by charging for showing category #2 to those in category #1 who didn't ask for it.

Youtube / Google could choose not to have this problem tomorrow by not selling ads, recommending random videos to people, etc.

It's their obligation to figure out this problem, and totally up to them how to solve it. It's not some social or government problem to fix.

<comment><USER9> > Let's be clear about all this, and where the problem arises from.

Yes, let's. It arises from parents letting kids not only watch but outright discover content unsupervised.

If it weren't YouTube, it would be [insert name of threat to kids].

With both parents working, supervising kids is easier said than done – I'm not saying it's their fault for having to go to work to support their families, but the responsibility of policing their own kids is certainly theirs and nobody else's.

<comment><USER10> We're dealing with this right now.

Please, tell me how I can whitelist channels and/or individual videos on youtube for my kids. I'm not being sarcastic - I've done a lot of looking and can't seem to find out how.

There are settings for "keep it kid friendly" but that isn't enough. Some kid friendly videos are terrible for kids.

We've resorted to only letting the kids watch videos on a fire tablet, because we can control exactly what they can see on it.

<comment><USER11> If you really wanted it you could download the videos for the channels and host them locally.

Even then I wouldn't trust most channels; a channel could sell out and have elsa&spidey 'porn' on it tomorrow. As a parent I carefully curate YouTube and won't let the kids watch it on their own.

Netflix "kids" channel is quite good IMO, some of the content - like Story Bots - I really quite like. Could do with more shows with people in though, most of it's animation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _> On TV, the ground rules are clearer: Ads come when the show takes a break._

Oh, you sweet summer child. TV and film would love you to believe that, but today product placement omnipresent. Michael Bay's Transformers movie is basically an ad for General Motors occasionally interrupted by robots. It's not enough to jam product placement into every inch of cinema being produced today. They now also go back retroactively insert product placement into older productions[1].

[1]: [https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/old-videos- new...](https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/old-videos-new-ads- advertisings-shocking-next-frontier-200619/)

<comment><USER13> Basically if I can clearly see a real product's logo, even for a quick moment, it's 90% chance that it was paid product placement

<comment><USER14> Unless someone really screwed up, any logo you see is absolutely an advertisement (with the exception of live format stuff like the news). They have to get permission to use brands, just like clearance for songs.

<comment><USER15> Are you sure? What law would you breaking by having someone drink a specific brand of soda on screen in a short movie? Trademark? What if it's topical?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> In my country (Norway) you're not allowed to target children with marketing.

Coca-cola has already had a smack on their fingers for using "influencers" whose primary audience are kids on their channel [1].

This might hit google directly if enough of this stuff happens. The end result I hope is that videos with kids are forced private so the parents can't use them as props to make money. It's not like the children have any say when their life is being spread out on the net.

The US which is the main base of google has unfortunately not ratified the convention on the rights of children [2] but in article 16 of this treaty [3] it is stated that children have a right to privacy.

[1] [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https%3...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrk.no%2Fkultur%2Fcoke- tv-felt-for-reklame-rettet-mot-norske-barn-1.14366096)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_th...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child)

[3] [https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1990/09/19900902%2003-1...](https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1990/09/19900902%2003-14%20AM/Ch_IV_11p.pdf) page 37

</comment><comment><USER17> > On TV, the ground rules are clearer: Ads come when the show takes a break.

Except this isn't true at all. For one, they run ads over the top of shows (which is super obnoxious), but at least they tend to be for other shows rather than products.

But even decades ago, shows like Transformers and Ninja Turtles were really just toy advertisements (literally, not being cynical). How do you distinguish that from this Youtube stuff?

<comment><USER15> > they run ads over the top of shows (which is super obnoxious)

Whose idea was this? When did it start? I've seen this mostly on American TV shows for the past few years. It completely breaks the immersion even on torrented content where the ads have been removed. (It's impossible to follow anything on regular TV with the multiple ads interruption.)

<comment><USER17> It started like a decade ago, I think? It's gotten a lot worse, though.

It's like they really really want you to only watch shows on Bluray or streaming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's assumed that large centralized platforms make the problem worse but I'm really not too sure.

When I first started using the internet, AIM was still all the rave. I'm not sure exactly how but I got into the habit of joining random chatrooms and messaging random people on AIM. As a minor I was under way more threat there than I think kidfluencers on YouTube are these days (..so many 'asl?' comments). The major difference was that advertisers were not on AIM.

Eventually I got deeper into the rabbit hole and started to see the underbelly of the internet, things were much more of a maze back then. Even today, knowing all I know about how to find the worst of the worst online -- I mainly stick to huge platforms, anecdotally it's a lot harder to get caught up in the maze online than it used to be. Maybe that's a good thing, everything is out in the open for these platforms to mitigate.

<comment><USER19> I just hope it doesn't begin infantilizjnv everyone where everything must gravitate toward "Kawaii" and have big bugeyes and have high pitched voices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> As a parent who grew up with the internet (I'm 40), I am astonished that anyone allows their children to watch anything they want on YouTube. So much utter garbage.

<comment><USER21> I think the problem today moreso than 30 years ago is that the technology to view youtube videos is ubiquitous, cheap, and easy to conceal. Just the other day a coworker of mine was complaining that his child had snuck their ipod into their room and been watching youtube videos under the blankets late into the night.

<comment><USER20> My kids are still young (5, 6, 9), so I have yet to fight most of those battles. But I've already told them they can wait to have their own mobile devices until they turn 16... We'll see if I can hold out.

<comment><USER22> Take care that your kids don't lose learning how to use technology. I knew several parents growing up that were surprised a few of us were so good at computers. Experience builds quickly. Even just running a bbs or playing games on a bbs was enough to build decent exposure. And I'm sure there were terrible things there.

<comment><USER20> My 9-year old is learning to code with a Kano Harry Potter kit, and also learning tinkercad and 3D printing in her classroom! She doesn't need a smartphone/ipod/etc.

<comment><USER22> I do love those. They have YouTube, though. Don't they?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I can't shake the notion that these "Kidfluencers" are exploited by their parents and large companies in order to seduce other children (maybe this is obvious but I want to keep a seed of doubt in my mind that these kids actually enjoy making these videos, for fun). In my dream world, anyone in the business of "kidfluencing" would be completely de-monetized across every social media network, and _all_ marketing directly to children would be strictly regulated.

</comment><comment><USER24> Well, if YouTube did nothing when 2 (very big with kids) stars were promoting a shady gambling site to minors, I have little faith they'll do something until the EU hits them hard with a court appearance & yet another multi billion euro fine.

[https://www.tubefilter.com/2019/01/02/jake-paul-ricegum- yout...](https://www.tubefilter.com/2019/01/02/jake-paul-ricegum-youtube- mystery-boxes-mysterybrands-keemstar/)

</comment><comment><USER25> _Kidfluencer_ is possibly the most repulsive portmanteau I've seen the media create so far

</comment><comment><USER26> My 8 year old was really into Minecraft videos. I started noticing him watch videos of "mods" with gun-based first person shooter games, and "trolling" where they blow up each others' creations. He talked about "slenderman" and "fortnight" like he had seen/played them before.

When he started talking about what he saw in the videos as something he himself did, we decided to pull the plug. That was scary for me as a parent. Too much stimulation for a kid, and way too much exposure to things his brain isn't ready to handle.

Added this to my home PC's hosts file for now until I figure out a better solution. Facebook was just a "while I'm in there" addition in case he gets the urge to try it.

127.0.0.1 www.youtube.com 127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com

<comment><USER11> There are plenty of YouTube proxy sites, including Bing (I think).

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> As a parent of two kids I have strong feelings and opinions regarding this matter. To be fair, there are a few responsible content creators. Jangbricks is one good example and he's well aware that his audience is largely made up of kids. But youtube is a place of unfiltered and unedited contents and thus is not an appropriate place for kids. I strongly advise parents to not expose children to youtube even if they're supervised.

</comment><comment><USER28> I was able to white list specific videos by embedding them in my own website. For this to work, you also have to turn off the play next auto suggest on the video.

This has been the only way I have found to limit viewing for kids to specific videos.

</comment><comment><USER29> If google won't allow apps or web sites to offer a curated list of videos, I think it's time to get off YouTube and create a competing service. Perhaps, someone can create a Video Site just for kids.

</comment><comment><USER30> I am still working on my philosophy around this but

1\. The idea of a split between platform provider (ie hosting) and _doscovery_ (ie promotion) is an important one

2\. Google's PageRank assigns "juice" to a trusted domain - but youtube and facebook break that concept and so google (or all search engines) need to have clearer ways to define "publisher responsible for content that gets some recommendation juice"

2.a. By splitting the hosting and recommendation we can start to see different curation approaches - this dark maze of youtube recommendations (all I get is more Marvel) could be repacked with different curation algorithms - and the more data different AI has to share the clearer the dark / light patches can be seen by researchers.

3\. Paid ad disclosure is a simple one to solve - we do it on TV all the time. Quirky home videos are great - but once you have ten million followers you are a business and can afford the regulation

4\. Yes paedophiles do spend a lot of time watching kids videos online. We can use unusual watch time patterns to spot this, and that's good - but really paedophilia has been a problem for 10,000 years and we as society need to find wider bigger ways to tackle this - along with medicine this will be a huge win for social ROI

5\. In short regulation is coming to all these platforms - but agreeing international rules for same platforms is going to involve amazing new levels of international co-operation and questions of sovereignty- let's try not to Brexit the lot up.

<comment><USER31> > 4\. Yes paedophiles do spend a lot of time watching kids videos online. We > can use unusual watch time patterns to spot this, and that's good - <USER2> > really paedophilia has been a problem for 10,000 years and we as society > need to find wider bigger ways to tackle this - along with medicine this > will be a huge win for social ROI

What is the law that is being broken here? Why is it a problem that someone (pedophile or not) is watching a lot of legal content (that happens to feature kids)?

<comment><USER32> What in the quoted sentence claims a law is being broken?

<comment><USER33> It doesn't. And GP is pretty obviously asking why we should punish pedophiles for watching kids videos on YT.

<comment><USER30> Actually I am quite happy for paedophilia to be punished (or rather child abuse / rape in case there is some distinction between fantasy and acting upon it)

but the main point I am making is that these platforms all have significant pressure to "tackle paedophilia" \- and while they do offer a novel approach (there was a reference recently in wired showing tracking the time spent watching family videos by people wildly outside of the family network (ie usually a video of a kid dancing in a tutu is seen by 30/50 people. When views hit 10,000 there is something to investigate)

But in the end "tackling paedophilia" is not something we can offload to the AI in youtube - it's a massive social cost and so a massive social investment.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Icebergs.io Brings Linux Desktop to the Browser - <AUTHOR> https://icebergs.io <comment><USER3> Terminal.com has an XFCE snap that's cheaper and upgradeable too. You can pause them, which keeps the RAM state, so it's much cheaper and more useable: [https://www.terminal.com/snapshot/56ae96b9c4d0b6c088a66e6a46...](https://www.terminal.com/snapshot/56ae96b9c4d0b6c088a66e6a46d84f21376ac05952f1b05297371ffc56bd5ec4)

[http://yourname1-8080.terminal.com/guacamole/#/client/c/Desk...](http://yourname1-8080.terminal.com/guacamole/#/client/c/Desktop)

<comment><USER4> Guacamole also has a Docker image that you can use to mount on a free AWS instance. Additionally, you can have a second docker container that runs GUI apps: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16296753/can-you-run- gui-...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16296753/can-you-run-gui-apps-in- a-docker-container)

<comment><USER3> Yea but this takes 30 seconds to setup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Really can't see a use case for myself and really looking for someone else's.

I have my own personal server where I just ssh into for my needs and it is cheaper than $9.99 a month.

<comment><USER6> The pricing isn't quite ideal, but this may be useful in certain classroom situations - like a MeetUp or something like that.

<comment><USER7> Can you suggest a better pricing structure? I'm trying to make it cheaper (it's just AWS is expensive that's all!)

<comment><USER8> I feel like you should have your own datacenter if you want to run a business like this. AWS is very expensive (but appropriate for many) and not intended for VDI.

<comment><USER7> Yes, I agree, I'm hoping that I can move the architecture to an LXC based setup to make it more efficient, and to allow instances to have unlimited hours (that's the destination).

<comment><USER5> Compared to a digital oceans' account? Just asking not making a statement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I see a bunch of comments asking about the use case, so I'll share one...

The Defense Department agency I work for employs between 50 and 100 developers, many of whom, like me, are contractors. The security folks have things locked down to such a degree that developers don't have root access to their own machines and the process for getting new software approved for use on a developer machine takes months. We just got permission to have git installed, for example. Getting Nodejs installed probably isn't going to happen unless they could figure out a way to disable npm. All ports to the outside are shut down except for 80 and 443 and everything runs through IronPort, so anything running https has to allow you to not verify SSL.

If the latency/general performance is good enough, I think developers would love to use something like this for their primary development environment. From the agency's perspective, $50-100 per developer per month would be cheap enough to be a no-brainer. As far as the security folks are concerned, this is just web traffic, so they would have no problem with it.

My only issue is that this pricing doesn't seem to be very friendly to the use case of wanting just one instance, but with unlimited hours.

<comment><USER10> This seems like a pretty bad idea. All you do is work around the security rules of the agency. If your "easy to install" software has some kind of security exploit in it you just gave someone access to all the work you were doing on your "virtual workstation", which might be pretty bad.

Its probably less bad than an exploit of some locally installed software, but if you do most of your work in the vm it can still be pretty bad.

I understand that you're pissed of at the security rules making your job hard, but the correct fix is to fix policy, not work around it.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, he can get right on fixing the policy. All he has to do is go talk to Obama and right after that he can get lunch with the Secretary of Defense and show him a powerpoint about why everything the government does with IT security is stupid.

Then, 3 years later, he can get started doing work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Just tried it out .. very nice, quite usable, and fairly decent, performance- wise. Single CPU, 2.5ghz, decent enough for most Linux desktop tasks.

The only issue I have is that it booted the instance and needed immediately to do a software update .. that's a bit of a drag, I'd be happier if the base instances were already up to date before they get configured/cloned .. but no big deal, really. ( * -)

I'll use it for some ports and see how things go .. kudos to the icebergs.io team for making it pretty smooth to get a new Linux developer workstation set up easily enough ..

EDIT: (- * ) Actually .. this _is_ a big deal for anyone trying it out - <USER2> update occurs and then the machine reboots, and then of course .. you lose your instance on the free-tier account. So if you want to use this for free, don't bother doing an update and definitely don't reboot the instance thinking you'll get back an upgraded machine. Apparently thats only for paid users.

EDIT2: Well, 5 minutes after finishing the software upgrade and accidentally hitting the "Restart" button without thinking, I'm left with a hung instance and seemingly no way to get the machine back to life. In case anyone from icebergs.io needs to know, the instance name is late-firefly-372, and all I did was log in, do the required software update, hit restart .. and wait .. and wait. The instance still seems to be responsive, but just not rebooting - some of the windows I left on the screen prior to the reboot appear to still be reacting to mouse events (the VNC config window checkboxes work), but the DE is dead and gone, and the machine doesn't seem to be letting me do anything .. thought I'd report it in case others run into this issue. Don't do the update and don't reboot! :)

<comment><USER7> Yep, founder here. Trying to work out how to reduce the cost of both the free plan & paid plans, in order to give more for less.

For performance comparison, they are AWS t2.medium instances.

<comment><USER13> Can you share who your target audience is? It looks pretty cool but I'm not sure who'd pay for this.

<comment><USER7> I do 90% of my work on a Chromebook/ChromeOS desktop, but I can't program on it, and yet I don't want to suffer trying to put Linux on it, so basically anyone who doesn't want to install Linux on their computer :)

<comment><USER14> Actually, Crouton is easy to install, and you run it from inside a ChromeOS window. I program on mine all the time. Most Chromebooks come with limited RAM and hard drive (mine is 2 GB/16 GB) so I could see using something like this if that's a constraint. Unfortunately the pricing is a bit steep (I see you've addressed that above).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> With WebAssembly and related efforts (e.g. JS threading), I'm hoping it won't be long before we have services similar to this, but actually running in the browser rather than the cloud. A bit like that i386-in-browser demo, but with performance a decent fraction of native, OpenGL access, etc.

<comment><USER16> You can run Windows 95 in the browser: [http://win95.ajf.me](http://win95.ajf.me)

(But you probably already knew this, since you follow me on Twitter.)

<comment><USER17> Ohhh! The original Windows Solitaire for free! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I can't work out what this is for

<comment><USER12> Would be good for developers who need to port something to Linux but don't want to go through the hassle of setting up a dedicated instance themselves .. build-servers that need a full Linux setup, etc.

Might be good for folks who have very slow computers, or non-usable machines (iPads/tablets/phones/etc.) who nevertheless still need access to a Linux environment for school or work, or even just for the fun of learning Linux for the first time without much hassle.

Its certainly easier to use/setup an instance than some of the other options out there, although things seem to be pretty competitive in this space .. so who knows how long icebergs.io is going to be around.

I've bought a basic plan, anyway .. good for me to have my co-developers using this to build our project code without requiring a big fuss with setting up a PC/VM-instance/whatever...

In short: it can be used to do whatever you might like to do with a Linux workstation. So: quite powerful, then ..

<comment><USER19> If you are porting something to linux surely you will want to test it on a real VM at least? Those are pretty trivial to set up and are free...

<comment><USER12> This is a real VM. The likelihood that if it runs on here, it'll run on a 'real Ubuntu instance' is quite high.

<comment><USER17> But why one would pay for a VM as a SAS when you can install one for free in a just a few minutes on your own machine?

<comment><USER12> Maybe your machine isn't good enough for the VM? Lots of folks have low- budget, slow laptops that could still nevertheless benefit from having access to a decent Linux workstation environment.

<comment><USER20> So you suggest this is a good use-case because you can run Linux in a recent Firefox on an old machine better than you can run it natively?!

Have you run a recent Firefox on an old machine for that matter?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Interesting offering. I assume it runs on the server, with some kind of remote desktop (VNC or similar)?

Back in 2000 I was involved in a start-up company doing that [1]. It failed because it was ahead of its time -- very few people had broadband, and the numbers didn't really add up, when you think about the cost of hosting the servers. (That's what we like to tell ourselves -- maybe it was also a terrible idea!)

[1] [https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/officemaster/#content](https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/officemaster/#content)

<comment><USER7> That's right! Cool!

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> 2015 is the Year of the Linux Desktop in the Browser.

I ... really didn't see this coming.

</comment><comment><USER23> I have been looking for a solution to do web development in the cloud, so that if lose my computer I can continue right away from another terminal, or I can also code from my iPad or check all my stuff from my smartphone or whatever. However your product is not suitable for my use case because I do not need a lot of computing power, for that I ssh to my AWS instances. What I would need from a remote OS is to be cheap and of course without time usage limits. The closest thing that I have seen to what I need is this Multiplex project: [https://www.reddit.com/r/SideProject/comments/3jvwj6/multipl...](https://www.reddit.com/r/SideProject/comments/3jvwj6/multiplex_cloud_os_in_your_browser/) . Just my 2 cents!

<comment><USER24> I agree with your 2 cents, so I guess that makes 4 cents if we combine our cents.

Most tasks I would do remote require minimal power. It would be great to have a cheap plan with unlimited usage but reduced access to resources (slower cpu, less RAM, etc.).

I haven't tried it myself, but I think it would make more sense (at least for me) to get a 5-dolla droplet from Digital Ocean, install ubuntu + xfce + vnc and remote into that through an app (such as, VNC Viewer for iPad or similar).

<comment><USER23> The problem is that every remote desktop solution I have tried works quite slow and laggy. It does not feel as if you are sitting in front of your computer at all. Has anybody experienced the opposite? (I haven't tried this iceberg.io, so maybe theirs works ok) And it seems it does not really make sense to render all the graphics in the backend machine and got them sent over the Internet.

<comment><USER7> Did you try this one? I'd be keen to get your feedback.

<comment><USER25> I had the same initial reaction, however I did sign up for the free plan with a great deal of skepticism. The performance was actually quite impressive, all things considered. Since I already have a significant amount of virtual and dedicated infrastructure at my disposal, and I live most of my life on the command line, I don't have much of a use for it. That said, it does seem like a very neat concept, and if I had more options for distributions and desktop environments, I'd consider renting one if only as a test machine for the rare graphical software I do run.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I use to do something similar from late-'95 to early '98 using DOS, ANSI BBS dialer, 56k modem (EDIT: 386DX, 4mb RAM). Would dial in directly into a Linux terminal (it might've been Unix) - pure, whopping fast, text-base experience. The server did the heavy lifting, including access over a T1 - I only received the formatted text results.

Lynx was my main browser (effective at the time, simple html). Pine for email. Don't recall what I used for Usenet, editors, file managers and some other stuff. Copy/paste and some automation using DOS tools & TSRs.

I did this out of necessity at the time but later moved over to Win98. Finally embraced Linux this year as my full-time OS so this site has a stronger appeal.

</comment><comment><USER27> Every minute you use it is one minute of compute time? So you actually get only 25/h of usage for 9.99 per month? Spread across two instances.

I am quite interested in such a solution but the price point seems high. With at least 8*25 per month included it would be great.

</comment><comment><USER28> Does anyone know what is used to offer the remote desktop functionality in HTML5?

<comment><USER29> They appear to be using noVNC [https://kanaka.github.io/noVNC/](https://kanaka.github.io/noVNC/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I do recall encountering a similar X-server--HTML-bridge in the early 2000's. It also was a remote server with store for working files type of service, but free as I recall.

</comment><comment><USER31> I assume a benefit is that, using icebergs.io, you could run/access linux on a lower spec machine?

So for instance I've heard it would be difficult to install linux on a macbook 2015, but using icebergs through your browser you could do so. Correct me if I'm wrong.

<comment><USER32> You wouldn't want to use this as a primary desktop, it would be like watching a YouTube video of your computer screen.

Linux runs on very modest hardware, you shouldn't have any issue running it on a powerhouse like a 2015 Macbook if I have successfully run ElementaryOS and Ubuntu on my Mid-2011 Macbook Air!

Even virtualizing Linux on top of OS X using software like VirtualBox would likely still be preferable to using browser-based VNC to a cloud desktop (and free). I have a KVM server I use for web development so I'm often in there via VNC using the desktop. It's not ideal but it works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is perfect for me guys. Nice work! I travel a lot and many times the SSH ports are disabled in the networks that I use, so having a GUI over HTTP like this is very helpful for me. Only downside is the cost, I think it could be a lot cheaper.

<comment><USER34> You can use SSLH and other similar software to multiplex HTTPS and SSH (along with a few other protocols) on the same port, so if 443/TCP is allowed, you can just use SSH.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I agree. It's hard to wrap my head around the pricing. I can use my DigitalOcean and just install a VNC. I see where you are going with this though. I long for a future where you can achieve desktop-like performance in the cloud.

<comment><USER36> VNC is terrible. I can't imagine you've used anything like this in a long time because things are moving in this space.

<comment><USER37> Can you share your experiences of better alternatives? Not hard to imagine VNC has been substantially improved on.

<comment><USER38> Spice works pretty well: [http://www.spice-space.org/](http://www.spice- space.org/)

<comment><USER39> in HTML5: [http://cgit.freedesktop.org/spice/spice- html5/](http://cgit.freedesktop.org/spice/spice-html5/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> What's the latency on this thing?

Also, I've recently looked into remote desktop software, does anyone know of a good remote desktop software with very low latency through LAN? How low can it get? <50ms?

<comment><USER41> I'm using X2Go[0] through LAN and it works very well. Just make sure you are using a compatible desktop environment[1]

[0] [http://wiki.x2go.org/doku.php/start](http://wiki.x2go.org/doku.php/start)

[1] [http://wiki.x2go.org/doku.php/doc:de- compat](http://wiki.x2go.org/doku.php/doc:de-compat)

<comment><USER40> Hows the latency? Can you move the mouse naturally? That's my biggest concern.

Also, on LAN can you run it at lossless / no compression? How's the latency on that?

<comment><USER41> On my LAN I don't notice any latency at all. The mouse movement is natural.

Regarding compression: I've set to the best quality and never had any problems or notable latency.

You should give X2go a try. It's simple to setup up[0].

[0] [http://wiki.x2go.org/doku.php/doc:installation:x2goserver](http://wiki.x2go.org/doku.php/doc:installation:x2goserver)

<comment><USER40> Thanks, I'll definitely check it out!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> For a moment I thought this was a HTML5 UI that spoke to a linux instance. I'm not sure what I'd use it for, but it'd be cool tech.

<comment><USER43> For a moment I thought it was Linux running _in_ a browser like this:

[http://bellard.org/jslinux/](http://bellard.org/jslinux/)

As far as I can see it is what you think it is - a web based graphical remote desktop to a remote Linux instance.

<comment><USER42> I believe this is using VNC?

I was thinking something like a totally custom shell/thin client that ran in a browser and spoke to a linux instance over the network.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Works great, I can start and use WebStorm faster on the server than locally on my old Core 2 Duo laptop (with SSD).

</comment><comment><USER16> I want to run a similar free service for Windows NT 4, but finding an HTML5 client for RDP v4.0 might be hard.

</comment><comment><USER45> Sounds a bit like [http://rollapp.com](http://rollapp.com)

</comment><comment><USER46> How does this work? Is this some kind of Linux VM with an XFCE interface that runs in the browser?

<comment><USER16> The VM's on their server, you're using it via some kind of HTML5 VNC/RDP client.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> It's for webkit based browsers only. The cursor cannot move when I use Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER48> Crazy stuff.

<comment><USER49> Why does it seem wild to you?</comment></comment>


PureVPN Logs Helped FBI Net Alleged Cyberstalker - <AUTHOR> https://torrentfreak.com/purevpn-logs-helped-fbi-net-alleged-cyberstalker-171009/ <comment><USER2> The criminal complaint has a lot more information[0] in what is a much deeper and involved story that this headline doesn't really do justice to. Lin had stalked her in person for over a year with a host of incidents - the affidavit is almost 30 pages long and the story is stunning.

She had a laptop in her room with no login and a file containing passwords. The accused stole all of her account details and taunted her in person using information she had written in a private journal that she hadn't shared with anybody.

He was also using his work computer to access her iCloud, Google Drive, etc. and then send bomb threats, child porn, personal diary entries and sexually explicit photos to her contacts, school and family.

After he was fired he wanted access to that computer, which his employer refused. They reformatted the drive but the FBI picked it up and found all of these artifacts on that machine (including the PureVPN software and account).

This is a case where the FBI have started with a suspect and then worked backwards to build a criminal complaint. In those cases it is much easier to look at his financial records, find that he paid for a VPN service, subpoena the VPN provider for account records, and then link that VPN account and service with IP access as another data point for the criminal complaint.

In this case it was even easier - they had the VPN provider and account details, along with a host of other evidence, on his computer.

This isn't a case of starting with an IP address and then working back through a haystack to find a suspect - but rather affirming a link that was suspected, and found, to exist.

He didn't compartmentalize his real identity from his psycho stalker identity, and this combined with the accused horrible real-world behavior is what lead to his arrest.

[0] [https://www.justice.gov/opa/press- release/file/1001841/downl...](https://www.justice.gov/opa/press- release/file/1001841/download)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for that link, it's interesting to see how the fbi operates. What always confuses me is how liberally the feds use "Wire Fraud" 1343\. In the report I don't see evidence of Lin trying to obtain money fraudulently through the internet cabling. But over and over I see "Wire Fraud" 1343 tacked on if there is any computer abuse type charges. It must be _super_ easy to get a conviction of Wire Fraud (/ impossible to defend yourself).

<comment><USER4> Wire fraud requires either a 'scheme to defraud' or 'obtaining money or property by fraudulent pretenses'. So the money part is not required.

If proven it's just an easy way to get higher sentences and thus more leverage in making plea deals.

<comment><USER3> "Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any"

It must be for property or money. I am not following. When did Lin try to gain money or property using fraud? It just doesn't make sense to 'throw on wire fraud' \- the charge in the US is more serious than rape or kidnapping.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343)

<comment><USER5> It's a criminal complaint. Also, "having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses" parses as a "any scheme or artifice to defraud" _or_ the obtaining of money or property. The three part test is intent, a "wire" ( _i.e._ Internet) communication and that "or" test. He intentionally logged into her Internet accounts, and sent emails from them, while fraudulently claiming to be her.

 _Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice nor advice of any kind. Do not commit wire fraud._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Better article with plausible explanation of how he was tracked: [https://torrentfreak.com/purevpn-logs-helped-fbi-net- alleged...](https://torrentfreak.com/purevpn-logs-helped-fbi-net-alleged- cyberstalker-171009/)

> PureVPN's Privacy Policy: We do NOT keep any logs that can identify or help > in monitoring a user's activity.

> TorrentFreak: However, if one drills down into the PureVPN privacy policy > proper, one sees the following:

> _Our servers automatically record the time at which you connect to any of > our servers. From here on forward, we do not keep any records of anything > that could associate any specific activity to a specific user. The time when > a successful connection is made with our servers is counted as a > 'connection' and the total bandwidth used during this connection is called > 'bandwidth'. Connection and bandwidth are kept in record to maintain the > quality of our service. This helps us understand the flow of traffic to > specific servers so we could optimize them better._

> TorrentFreak: This seems to match what the FBI says - almost. [followed by > further explanation]

<comment><USER7> Thanks for that link. I currently use IPVanish. Maybe I should switch since this guy who got caught was publicly criticizing them.

<comment><USER8> The VPN he was using honestly would have been fine to protect you from drag- net style surveillance, but he was specifically targeted by the FBI. By the time the FBI opens a case against you you're most likely totally fucked, regardless of what software you use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >even though this had been formatted after his employment was terminated, the FBI was still able to gather data from the hard drive.

Usual misinformation, the company only reinstalled the Windows Operating System (clearly without reformatting the volume(s)), as in the affidavit:

regmedia.co.uk/2017/10/08/lin_complaint_pacer.pdf

(point 37, page 16).

Also, according to the affidavit, what actually comes out from PureVPN is only that the same user connected to them from two different IP's, corresponding to home/work of the suspect. (point 52, page 22)

And that some traces of use of PureVPN were found in (the unallocated space of) the work computer. (point 58, page 24)

Simplified, IMHO 99% (maybe 99.99%) of the case is based on non-PureVPN derived evidence.

<comment><USER10> Are you sure reinstalling Windows doesn't involve reformatting? Reformatting doesn't usually mean you zero out the drive.

<comment><USER11> If you try and install Windows onto a drive that Windows is already installed on and basically just click though next though the installation process then setup will tell you:

> "If the partition you've chosen contains files from a previous Windows > installation, these files will be moved to a folder named Windows.old"

If you then click OK Setup will then create a Windows.old folder, move the old Windows dir, user dir to Windows.old and then install as normal.

If you delete the existing partition during the setup (or its a fresh drive), Setup needs to create a new partition(s) and will do it automatically if you wish, after which it will do a quick format.

EDIT: Reading the pdf they point too it states that the OS was reinstalled, leading to data deletion but they were able to find various artifacts in unallocated space. So they may or may not of formated the drive, but most likely at least delete the partition, but even a full format doesn't zero out the drive (unless you give format.exe the /p: argument).

<comment><USER9> >but even a full format doesn't zero out the drive (unless you give format.exe the /p: argument).

A "normal", "full" format will wipe the volume, the /P command is implied unless /Q is specified (since Vista, but previous versions didn't have the /P at all), the /P:count parameter is to add (why?) to do it a number of times, using _random_ characters:

[https://ss64.com/nt/format.html](https://ss64.com/nt/format.html)

>/P:count Zero every sector on the volume. After that, the volume will be overwritten "count" times using a different random number each time. If "count" is zero, no additional overwrites are made after zeroing every sector. This switch is ignored when /Q is specified.

More clear here:

[https://www.lifewire.com/format- command-2618091](https://www.lifewire.com/format-command-2618091)

>/p:count = This format command option writes zeros to every sector of the drive: once. If you specify a count, a different random number will be written to the entire drive that many times after the zero writing is complete. You can not use the /p option with the /q option. Beginning in Windows Vista, /p is assumed unless you use /q [KB941961].

<comment><USER11> I stand corrected, I was going off [https://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/library/cc730730(v=ws.11...](https://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/library/cc730730\(v=ws.11\).aspx) which doesn't state that /p is implied unless /q is given. But yeah that lifewire link gave the KB number to the change of behaviour notice [https://support.microsoft.com/help/941961/](https://support.microsoft.com/help/941961/)

<comment><USER9> Yep, no prob, I also posted a link to that kb above (but maybe it was posted after your post and went above your reply because it was a direct reply to roywiggins' post).

Anyway, I wanted to also highlight how since the company where he worked was specifically a "software company" (I mean not a mom and pop shop around the corner or similar) the IT guys over there should have wiped the disk anyway, possibly using the SecureErase ATA command (that wipes also not normally accessible disk areas), it should be "standard" procedure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The fundamental structure of the Internet is not designed for anonymity. That's why this is ultimately a losing battle. Strong anonymity needs a different network structure and transport protocols, and trusted, open hardware and software stacks from the ground up. A chink anywhere can be used to insert malware and track/target users. The existing networks and stacks are impossibly hard to secure and plug all the holes.

<comment><USER13> > The fundamental structure of the Internet is not designed for anonymity.

Precisely so. It would not have been approved for general public use if that was not the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Can user account information really be called "logs?" This article mislead me into thinking PureVPN kept activity logs, but the end of the article makes it sound like they just store an email address. Did I misread?

<comment><USER15> I read it to mean that he accessed his GMail account while using PureVPN, which really raises more questions than it answers because PureVPN should have no way to know which GMail account is being accessed, regardless of what logs they keep.

<comment><USER14> Or, you know, Google told the authorities. All I see is that PureVPN keeps the user's email on file.

<comment><USER16> > All I see is that PureVPN keeps the user's email on file.

Also login time, connecting IP and logout time. So no traffic is stored, just that you logged in and were connected for X amount of time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> My question is was the information from PureVPN like the statement says, or was it misworded and about his use of the vpn? Were there actually logs or did they match up his IP address after finding PureVPN on the computer and obtaining the accessing IP from Google and putting them together?

<comment><USER18> All you suggest is likely it. The logs show time connected, how long and how much bandwidth. If they knew the IP in question and timeframe based on how the VPN keeps logs they can ask Google a very precise question about access from said IP and find out that they indeed were connected at x time from x IP. I imagine with warants and all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is an email response to daily beast journo joseph cox (former vice) [https://twitter.com/josephfcox/status/916321986174996480](https://twitter.com/josephfcox/status/916321986174996480)

Even if they acted on a subpoena, it means they had the logs nonetheless. Which still makes them liars and they are deceiving their customers.

I believe choosing a trustworthy vpn is an actual challenge.

The fact that this nut-job called Ryan Lin got caught is fantastic. But I want to choose if a company has data about me or not. What if the data exchange doesn't happen with FBI, but with malicious individuals.

I use [https://protonvpn.com](https://protonvpn.com) and I trust it. A transparent team with an already successful product (protonmail) working towards making privacy the norm. A group of scientists, not hackers or liars.

</comment><comment><USER20> > he is alleged to have used Tor, anonymized online testing services and > PureVPN in an attempt to protect his identity

Well, VPN can protect your privacy up to a certain degree. If you go over it, there are always methods to dig you out, especially FBI is the one hunting.

The only possible way to protect your privacy is use anonymous services like Tor etc. But even those services can't guarantee 100% anonymity as there are still have way to compromise them.

So, I guess just don't broke the law then.

<comment><USER8> "especially if the FBI is the one hunting" is very true. Even using TOR, I remember a college student who made a bomb threat over TOR to get out of a test and got caught because they were able to see the activity on the TOR network during the time the threat was made and traced it back to his dorm.

<comment><USER21> I thought they found him because he was the only one on the campus network accessing TOR at the time of the bomb threat. Which really says nothing about TOR or anything else because they saw input and output, the middle might as well be a black box. And if you really don't suspect a real bomb, and know the traffic came through TOR, the first thing I would look for is which students used TOR and which students had tests that day. Pretty easy to narrow that down.

<comment><USER8> Sure, which was exactly my point. There are a multitude of external pieces of data that can be used to track you down if the people going after you have the resources.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > Further, records from PureVPN show that the same email accounts -- Lin's > Gmail account and the teleprtfx Gmail account -- were accessed from the same > WANSecurity IP address.

How would PureVPN records be able to show which GMail account he was accessing? This will all be HTTPS.

<comment><USER22> If the FBI compel logs from Google, I think they can line up the accesses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> "Rather, I think the account matching described in the affidavit says the FBI could have identified which VPNs Lin used via orders to Google, Facebook, and other tech companies, and using that, obtained a pen register on PureVPN collecting prospective traffic. I don't think what is shown proves that FBI obtained historic logs (though it doesn't disprove it either)."

Source: [https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/10/09/purevpn-doesnt-need- to...](https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/10/09/purevpn-doesnt-need-to-keep-logs- given-how-many-google-keeps/)

</comment><comment><USER24> It could be a case of they were court ordered to keep only his logs, like a wire tap.

<comment><USER15> That still seems to be at odds with "We do NOT keep any logs that can identify or help in monitoring a user's activity."

If they were ordered to keep some logs, they should say "We do NOT keep any logs that can identify or help in monitoring a user's activity, except in the event that we have been ordered to do so."

<comment><USER25> I've had a quick look, the privacy policy at [https://www.purevpn.com/privacy- policy.php](https://www.purevpn.com/privacy-policy.php) says:

      Since PureVPN is committed to freedom, and doesn't support crime,
      we will only share information with authorities having valid subpoenas,
      warrants, other legal documents or with alleged victims having clear proof of any such activity.

So I think it's likely they would link connection records back to individual users, and if you did that enough times (perhaps only 2 or 3 occurances?), you'd know which individual user was responsible without any detailed logs?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Sounds like they didn't get if from logs but from re-constructing a hard disk?

IE they had a suspect, went to their employer, they gave over a laptop and found evidence from info on the hard disk.

PureVPN doesn't/can't guarantee you own computer doesn't log stuff in memory cache etc on the harddisk.

Somethings missing here.

[edit]

51\. specifically states how other VPN's were used to track him, then generically says in 52. PureVPN was also used. Fits well with tristanj's comment.

[https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/10/08/lin_complaint_pacer.pdf](https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/10/08/lin_complaint_pacer.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER27> another article : _" Police in Waltham say they have identified the man responsible for a series of bomb threats that have terrified and frustrated the city for months."_ [http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2017/10/06/ryan- lin-...](http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2017/10/06/ryan-lin-waltham- bomb-threats/)

Looks like he forced the FBI to unleash hell. Let's not forget parallel construction [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dea-sod/exclusive-u-s- dir...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dea-sod/exclusive-u-s-directs- agents-to-cover-up-program-used-to-investigate-americans- idUSBRE97409R20130805) with the NSA and other intel agencies: "It's him, now go find evidence that will hold up in court"

</comment><comment><USER28> PureVPN has a history of shilling and questionable business practices: [https://badcode.pro/blog/ivacy-and-purevpn-rather- questionab...](https://badcode.pro/blog/ivacy-and-purevpn-rather-questionable)

</comment><comment><USER29> Main rule in operational security: Things you do not own AND can not be audited can not be trusted.

In this case: run your own VPN endpoint on a security hardened BSD or Linux box with your own hardware (preferably in your own rackspace or at a hosting location which is trustworthy)

You are welcome.

<comment><USER16> > run your own VPN endpoint on a security hardened BSD or Linux box with your > own hardware

In another country where you paid with bitcoin or prepaid credit cards, otherwise the IP's assigned to that hosted server will be associated with you and offer zero protection from an FBI raid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It'll be interesting to see what PureVPN's response (if any) is to this story.

Seems like they've straight up lied about their capabilities.

<comment><USER30> Nope, article states that their privacy policy pretty much is in line with the info the FBI got. Headline is misleading.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Good riddance.

That said, there are always some logs. The VPN provider may not keep session logs, but their upstream could easily log connections to the PureVPN boxes. You can use the upstream log to cross reference with gmail account accesses of potential suspects and you can establish a link.

Not to mention that no US based company is going to fight a subpoena/gag order from the US authorities for a lowlife online stalker.

edit: I see now that PureVPN is based out of Hong Kong, so the statement about subpoena may not apply.

</comment><comment><USER32> I left PureVPN 2 years ago because of their logging policy.

<comment><USER33> What do you use now?

<comment><USER32> I started using Private Internet Access after they got booted out of Russia due to their 0 logs policy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> well all I learned from this article is not to use PureVPN. In fact, i don't usually trust any VPN servers.

</comment><comment><USER35> Obligatory:

[https://thatoneprivacysite.net/vpn-comparison- chart/](https://thatoneprivacysite.net/vpn-comparison-chart/)

I heard good things about [https://vcp.ovpn.to/](https://vcp.ovpn.to/) but I doubt that I will work in China. But if you don't need a VPN in China I would go with ovpn.

</comment><comment><USER36> Using a VPN based in the US seems contradictory.

That said F stalkers, I won't cry if they catch him/her.

<comment><USER37> It can be useful to avoid geographic restrictions on content, for example, but is a pretty terrible idea from a privacy perspective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> In their Windows client PureVPN's default setting for a long time was 'No encryption'. The company had some fast servers but technically they were never privacy savvy, far from it.

</comment><comment><USER39> [https://my.purevpn.com/cancellationrequest](https://my.purevpn.com/cancellationrequest)

<comment><USER39> "Your cancellation request has been submitted " %]

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I am actually pleasantly surprised by this, stalkers can go to hell.

<comment><USER41> I think you are conflating two different issues. Yes bad people are bad and should be punished. Does that mean that good people don't get what they think they are getting when buying services (if in fact that's what happened here)?

<comment><USER42> _insert emotional defense instead of logic here_

Sadly, we live in a world where too often, emotion and reactionary tendencies guide people's opinions.

Scarily, these opinions often become law.

And since too many of these people hold power, the only solution I can see is to blend in or hide.

<comment><USER43> That's one way to put it.

Another way is: there are two options. Either we have strong anonimity on the Internet, or the authorities have the power to catch criminals. Which one do you think would win in a vote?

<comment><USER44> false dichotomy.

<comment><USER43> How do you catch criminals like these (in this article) if you have strong anonimity?

<comment><USER12> You can't. Any network having strong anonymity needs to have zero negative effects on the real world by design. The Internet is not that. It is inextricably intertwined with huge areas of our 'real' world. So strong anonymity on the Internet will never happen, politically. At most there'll be some subnet like Tor or Freenet and even those aren't immune from legislation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> could have obtained 'records' live instead of from logs... vpn provider can easy break your crypto if they need to, mitm you and get cleartext 'records' from live data. that being said, i think most vpn providers log because they are forced to do so by law. if you dont want your vpn provder to play along with fbi or nsa, try a russian one or so... they will cooperate with other agencies though ^^...

probarbly some lame story will come back if any , by purevpn, as if fbi did some mitms from their services / on their services, they would probarbly not be allowed to speak of the details of how this was done and what was done..

purpose of vpn is to hide your location mainly, if u want it to protect u from your countries agencies, don't pick one in your own country and be very specific on what one you chose... >.> seems like a case of poor choice and awareness on the user's part more than the vpn provider, who is probarbly unable to stop these kind of intrustions by the agencies without getting taken down...

<comment><USER46> > vpn provider can easy break your crypto if they need to, mitm you and get > cleartext 'records' from live data.

Could you elaborate on that? I'm going to China soon and don't know if I should trust commercial VPN providers. I was under the impression that if I use SSL/TLS it's impossible to MITM my connection.

<comment><USER47> Didn't China just recently ban VPNs?

<comment><USER48> They "ban" them for the last 20 years, but it's like baning encryption. Cat is already out of the bag.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Young engineer hates Google after leaving college - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/digitalnomad/comments/5f2j3i/im_a_22_software_engineer_and_been_working_since/?sort=top <comment><USER2> _The problem is: How the do people enjoy working 40 hour weeks? Going to the same office? Seeing the same people everyday? This is driving me crazy._

More proof that Google is still asking the wrong questions in its interview process.

<comment><AUTHOR> What should they ask?

<comment><USER2> Probably more questions along the line of "What excites you? What does your ideal job look like?"

Which, earlier in my carer, I "flunked" several times, and rightly so -- because indeed, I actually wasn't particularly interested in working for the companies I was interviewing with (I was just fatigued at the process in general, looking for a "placeholder" job, basically).</comment></comment></comment>


Linus Torvalds isn't worried about Microsoft taking over Linux - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-isnt-worried-about-microsoft-taking-over-linux/ <comment><USER2> Does anyone else remember the fictional story/memo form about 2005 in Wired magazine in which Linus Torvalds, who had been hired by Microsoft to build WinX (Windows proprietary UI over Linux) was complaining to Bill Gates and threatening to quit because Ballmer kept pronouncing it as "Winux" instead of "Winks"? That was some fantastic writing and a very interesting thought experiment... hopefully someone can find a link to that and share it.

<comment><USER3> Here you go internet friend

[https://www.wired.com/2005/02/microsoft-5/](https://www.wired.com/2005/02/microsoft-5/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have a fever dream where the most popular Linux distribution is Windows 11. 0_0

<comment><AUTHOR> Dream?? [https://www.computerworld.com/article/3438856/call-me- crazy-...](https://www.computerworld.com/article/3438856/call-me-crazy-but- windows-11-could-run-on-linux.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Windows 10 has become the most popular Linux desktop environment as far as I'm concerned</comment>