US hints at Edward Snowden plea bargain to allow return from Russia - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/23/edward-snowden-nsa-plea-bargain-russia

<comment><USER2> This might've worked if they'd offered him full clemency _the same day_ the leaks started coming out. The handling of his case shows that capturing and punishing him was far more important to the administration than any concerns about national security.

<comment><USER3> I think concerns about national security are why the government wanted to capture and punish him to begin with. That hasn't happened fast enough and the wind is now behind Snowden's back. Showing some semblance of the possibility of mercy at least is more politically feasible than calling for his head, and they're still hoping they can stop the release of... whatever else there could possibly be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Oh, another one of US' famously unjust "plea bargains". They're just trying to make him admit that what he did is wrong in return for a "lesser punishment", to ensure nobody ever dares to become a whistleblower again if they know for sure they will be punished for it.

They're basically offering him the Aaron Swartz deal: admit you're a criminal, and we're going to put you in prison for "only" 10 percent of the ridiculous amount of prison time we're threatening you with. If I were him I'd say hell no.

</comment><comment><USER5> Let's see if Carmen Ortiz and Stephen Heymann get this gig. I'm sure they'll exercise great judgement.</comment>


Show HN: Watch movies with the freedom to filter - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/delight-im/MovieContentFilter?hn=2016-03-24 <comment><USER2> Somehow this makes me really uncomfortable. I know it seems very reasonable, inviting people to choose what they want to censor for themselves... but it just feels wrong. I'd much rather someone didn't watch my film at all than watch a butchered version. As a separate point, I think it's often more traumatic/damaging to cut away from a scene just as it's getting distressing, and then cut back after the bad thing has happened. I often had this kind of viewing experience imposed on me as a child, and I honestly think it screwed me up a little, sitting there speculating about whatever I'm missing, and generally being taught that when things are getting unpleasant you just _skip that part_. Not a good attitude for life. It's true there are films that are inappropriate for a young kid, but in that case, choose a different film.

<comment><USER3> I don't understand that. Using a chef reference I made below, if you cooked a nice dinner, but someone didn't like the brussel sprouts, should they not have eaten anything and skipped your dinner party? If you listen to some of The Donald's speech, should you not be allowed to skip some of it? Why is art all- or-nothing?

<comment><USER4> Looking at a political speech... just skipping to some of it is an abhorrent idea. That's how you lose context and likely meaning to words.

Without condoning or condemning Trump's speeches, skipping to just parts can radically change your impression of the man and his policies.

This is a problem journalism faces when covering events. They try to edit down to the meaningful parts while retaining the meaning of the whole. I can't imagine that filtering out certain triggering phrases/words would allow you paint a fair picture of him or his policies.

<comment><USER3> You're saying the inverse of the OP's solution. He'd skip over 5%. You're arguing it's not OK to skip over 95%. Skipping 5% of a political speech would probably not be bad, especially if you knew before hand what you specifically didn't want to hear (because you knew what was going to be said). Maybe I've made up my mind on the war on Iraq and I just do not want to hear any more about it. If I don't care about a candidate's position on whether it was right or wrong, don't I have a right to skip that part of their speech?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I dislike that the filters are strictly defined. What if I wanted to create a category for 'rape' or 'animal-cruelty'? I should be able to add those notes, and have them be silently ignored by unsupporting clients. Even better though, I don't see why the client wouldn't include those new categories in what can be filtered for this specific clip.

Edit: Also, it seems like the severity levels (low/medium/high) are arbitrary, meaning they will vary from film to film. It might make more sense to give categories sub-categories or tags. So for swear words, it would have the sub- categories of all the various words which might be used. For violence, it might have the tags of ('simulated', 'on screen', 'bloody'), etc. That way the viewer could decide what they want to see, and it would be somewhat consistent.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your feedback!

At present, the list of available categories and filters has been kept short to ensure simplicity.

We might think about allowing any custom categories, as you suggested. So we should definitely keep that idea in mind.

But let's assume you added "rape" as a category (which we thougth about as well): Then when do you add "rape" versus the existing "violence", "sex" or "nudity"? Do you have to add them all for most rape scenes? On the other hand, what do the consumers do? Do they have to tick dozens of boxes to ensure that no unwanted scenes are shown?

The more categories you add, the more blurred do the boundaries become.

<comment><USER6> > The more categories you add, the more blurred do the boundaries become.

I think that's kind of the point. There isn't a single coherent dependency for all cultures for all content.

To have a simplified single set is to place one (semi arbitrary) value system over another.

You could study the correlations and common concurrent uses, and maybe provide common suggestions, like Amazon does. But again, boundaries and weirdness.

<comment><USER7> But this is software that is intended to actually be used by humans. It would be a far worse user experience to prohibit the "sex" category but then be shown a rape scene because someone added "rape" as a custom category.

This concept really doesn't work without standardized categories. Of course, you could argue that more granularity should be added to the categories, and I don't necessarily disagree. You could even have a directed graph of categories, so that (for instance) "rape" could be a descendant of both "violence" and "sex" and thus rape scenes would be banned if the user banned either violence or sex.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for these interesting suggestions for implementation!

The only downside I could think of is that things could get a bit untransparent with such complex graphs. People could think: "Why did I miss this scene? I haven't even enabled that particular filter."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Aside from filtering based on moral/taste/etc grounds, I've often thought it would be interesting to filter for the sake of time. Could you conceivably trim a 3hr movie down to 90 minutes and have it still make sense? It would be an interesting experiment.

<comment><USER9> I have often wanted something like this for the 1+ hour historical shows on the likes of PBS and The History Channel. I've found that the shows repeat a lot of things before and after commercial breaks that I don't need to hear again. I enjoy the topics, but my impatience combined with the editing drives me away from watching the shows.

I think the main hurdle would be actually doing the editing because of how time consuming it is. Perhaps the edit lists could be sold, and the after market editors could get paid.

I wouldn't want to get into the mess of distributing copyrighted content, so I was thinking of using the seek mechanism built into video players. A user would load original content and the edit list, and the player would handle seeking correctly.

In the naive implementation of this scenario, time would have to be very well synchronized between source materials. I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. While writing this comment, the possibility of using image and sound recognition floated into my consciousness. Perhaps there would be a way to tag the images and sounds around cuts, to make them work even if time were off (e.g. commercial break ran longer in one time zone than another).

If you build it, I don't want my cut; I just want to know about it!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, this is definitely something that would be possible.

> I think the main hurdle would be actually doing the editing because of how > time consuming it is. Perhaps the edit lists could be sold, and the after > market editors could get paid.

That's exactly what was envisaged. This is just an open format. There could be (commercial) platforms or markets that offer complete filter lists. You don't have to do it yourself. Even more than that, you _shouldn 't_ do everything yourself. This can be a community effort, where you contribute only small parts.

> I wouldn't want to get into the mess of distributing copyrighted content, so > I was thinking of using the seek mechanism built into video players.

This is what this project is about. You don't have to distribute source material. You have to distribute the filter lists only. The format can be "transpiled" to popular playlist formats that make use of the seek mechanisms.

> In the naive implementation of this scenario, time would have to be very > well synchronized between source materials.

This is built-in. You may take a look at the converter/transpiler tool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> compiler-guy I doubt I'll use this technology myself--I generally prefer to see movies as they were created--but recuts and derivative works can be works of art in and of themselves. One could have use this technology to create "Star Wars--the Phantom Edit", for example.

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

Production companies often create airplane and television versions of movies, and it isn't any big deal. I see no reason why customization of this sort is immoral since no one is required to use it.

<comment><USER10> Yep, they should have a category for "idiocy" and things like that. Parts with annoying characters, or where they spout off nonsense. Some works are far better when they resist the urge to say dumb things. Example: "We tracked the bad guy down" vs "We tracked the bad guy using the Human Genome Project."

<comment><USER11> Time-Travel Episodes [N] Technobabble [N] ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This sounds like complete bullshit to me, and I find the the entire idea pretty reprehensible. But on the off chance that this helps someone whom is a survivor of sexual assault and buys into the idea of trigger warnings, there perhaps ought to be a differentiation between "sex" and "sexual violence" or "rape"

<comment><AUTHOR> > there perhaps ought to be a differentiation between "sex" and "sexual > violence" or "rape"

Rape is "violence" and not "sex" in this classification. But this should be documented, of course.

> This sounds like complete bullshit to me

I don't understand how you come to this point of view. You might _personally_ not be interested in this. But that's not what you wrote. Anyway, as you can see in the README, there are several commercial providers for such filtering, so it's obvious that there are people who want and need this.

<comment><USER12> I'm not arguing that there's no market for this product* . I just find artistic censorship morally objectionable in much the same way that others find violent or sexual content abhorrent.

Just on the other side of this particular culture war I guess.

* surely plenty who want, but I disagree that anyone "needs"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Apparently, an important part that was missing in my description is that this is a two-step process:

(1) The community (or even you alone, or some (commercial) provider) tags the source material with categories and severities of things that _can_ be filtered.

(2) Either in the UI of the video player (if supported), or using the currently provided "transpiler", _you_ get to _choose_ what you want to filter and what you want to see.

Sorry for having forgotten to explain this in a prominent place!

</comment><comment><USER8> Is there an existing collection of free filters for popular movies anywhere? What would it take to get this working with streaming services (like VidAngel does -- I think they pull from Google Play, but not sure)?

<comment><AUTHOR> There is one example in the repository. To get this working, all you need is some source material that VLC media player or MPlayer can play back. That should be possible with video files, DVDs, Blu-rays, but, unfortunately, perhaps not with streaming providers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Freedom to filter? "Freedom to deface a work of art" is more like it.

A work of art is an artist trying to tell you something. Chopping out bits based on your petty personal prejudices is like going through the Louvre and drawing clothes on all the nudes with a Sharpie. Even if you're the only one who ever has to see the defaced version -- and you can't tell me that your "freedom to filter" won't eventually start being forced down the throats of other people, like children in schools -- who gave you the right to make the decision on the artist's behalf that the defaced version doesn't compromise their work?

If you don't like art, you have always had the only freedom that matters, which is _to choose not to look at it._ You can live in your bubble and never risk offense if you want to; you just have to be willing to have the courage of your convictions and forgo the things you oppose. "Filtering" is just a way to try and have it both ways, to have your cake and eat it too. It's every bit as venal and cowardly today as it was when Thomas Bowdler ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bowdler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bowdler)) was doing it in the 19th century.

Art is what it is. If you don't like it, don't pollute it by trying to "fix" it; leave it alone and maybe try making some of your own that meets your standards.

<comment><USER3> Hogwash. What other part of life is a "if you get a little you're forced to have it all"?

Like that meal at the restaurant? You better damned finish it all or the chef would rather you not eat any!

<comment><USER14> That is very much the case at some restaurants that consider food to be art. Art is different. To be able to appreciate and understand it, it's all or nothing.

<comment><USER3> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. However, I know film is art, but movies are mostly watched for entertainment. Censoring entertainment seems totally fine to me -- I should be able to skip watching part of a baseball game if I want. Hell, it's MY mind and eyes -- why don't I get to control what goes in? Maybe I like 95% of something. Is that to be withheld because I don't like the other 5%?

<comment><USER14> You absolutely do get to control what goes in, and I really don't care if people use this tool only for themselves. I think you will not have seen the work in question. I think you can not have understood it the same way that someone who saw the entirety of the work can understand it, and I would consider you to be a bit silly for wasting your time.

What do you feel you gain by excising the objectionable portions of a work?

<comment><USER3> I gain not being affected by it. My buddy loves masacre horror movies. They used to scare him and freak him out, but now he's numb and it's just entertaining to watch someone get chopped up. Sure it's not real, but the effect it had on him was real. I can't say this for certain (though I need to test it now) but I'll bet I respond in a much different way to real world violence than he does now. Your mind is affected by what you put in just like your body is affected by what you put into it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Makes it way easier to directly skip to the raunchy scenes! ;-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually not, except you modified the converter to invert the filters ;) (Or if you read the timecodes and then seek manually.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Interesting idea. However there is nothing for racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia, so I added a pull request for it[1]. It does seem like a weirdly specific list of categories. Why not let people filter whatever they want?

[1] [https://github.com/delight- im/MovieContentFilter/pull/2](https://github.com/delight- im/MovieContentFilter/pull/2)

<comment><USER17> Because for each new category, you would have to tag all the scenes in the movie that fall into that category in order to filter it out.

I think the categories chosen are those that the MPAA use to set the content rating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Maybe fewer people would be complaining about opt-in filtering if the thread were titled "Watch movies with the freedom NOT to filter". This protocol would actually help those that want to watch their TV unfiltered because because it could replace the current system of filtering being forced on everybody.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot!

This is exactly what the vision (or a large part of it) was. But having phrased the title as you suggested, people would have countered that the best way "NOT to filter" is to play back the material as-is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Are there some tools that make it easy to make these filters? It would be nice to have something built-in (as a plugin?) to mpv or VLC.

I've created several filters for personal use with EDL. mplayer has a decent UI way of doing that while watching the film by pressing 'i' to start a cut and 'i' again to end the cut. It's nowhere near perfect though because you still have to edit the edl file to decide whether to cut video or mute audio.

One nice feature you could add to this editing UI would be to use the subtitle file to allow jumping to the locations of certain language in order to edit them (times in subtitles aren't enough to edit a single word).

<comment><AUTHOR> Tooling definitely has to be improved!

So this is the very beginning, and since nobody even knew of it until yesterday, manually editing the lists was fine with me.

By the way, the textual filter lists are easy to write and edit :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Niice. So if somebody were to mark all non-action scenes (like dialogues) in action movies as "language", i' be finally able to watch some real action. Nice.

<comment><USER21> I don't expect any human would have a similar-enough concern to bother doing that for you—but that sounds like a problem amenable to automation.

You could pull it off pretty easily by running the audio track through speech recognition—not for content, just for detecting speech is happening—and then snipping out an overlapping fat-margined timeslice of the video around each instance of dialogue.

<comment><USER22> ... I think original commenter is being sarcastic. There aren't a lot of movies that stand up well to having their dialogue heavily cut.

<comment><USER21> I don't think the original commenter (if not being sarcastic) would mind. They're basically asking for an unending stream of "ambient" action scenes, rather than a movie _per se_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> First thing that came to mind: Game of Thrones.

I imagine episodes would be 10 minutes long and you'd have no idea what's happening. Not saying they don't go over the top at times, but the brutality of a show like GoT is a very powerful illustration tool, and filtering out bits and pieces because they make you uncomfortable would ruin the entire purpose of the show.

I'm sure some people will find use for this tool, but I will likely forgo.

</comment><comment><USER24> I only things I find offensive are commercials and Kardashians, will this work on those?

<comment><AUTHOR> Commercials, yes. Kardashians, less so, unless you find a category that fits ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> A tool to "filter" a work of art for yourself is also a tool to censor a work of art for someone else. In this case, and judging by the reactions from some parents here, most likely for your own children. So, despite the interesting framing of this as something that will create the "freedom to filter," it inevitably will be used to oppress.

Regardless, the end effect on the viewers (both willing and unwilling) is that they have not seen the work. They may in fact have a completely different understanding of the film or show than someone who actually has seen the work. A morally ambiguous character becomes wholly righteous. A villain becomes the hero. Violent acts cease to have a consequence of gore, perhaps of pain or death. Romance no longer leads to sex. Dialogue cut for swearing completely changes the perception of a character, the story, and the world.

In the end you have seen something worse than nothing at all--a cartoon caricature of what the creators intended. You have wasted your own time, perverted the aims of the artists behind the work, and done your children a disservice.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your thoughts, but I feel many of you are way too focused on the "big picture" and arguing about moral and ethical issues. Don't always try to make philosophic arguments about what should be and what shouldn't be. This is just a tool, a utility, something pragmatic, for use in practice. Something to help people, creating value by doing what they wish for.

Somebody is always the one who shapes what you (or your children) see. If you watch uncensored movies, it's (mainly) the director who decides. If you apply some _selected_ filters, it's you who decides and shapes the movie. This is not inherently bad. And not all scenes contribute to the development of characters and story. Some are just for shock value, etc.

<comment><USER14> What you have created is an abomination. It is a tool that can only be used to diminish and destroy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> [https://www.vidangel.com/](https://www.vidangel.com/) does this as a service

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! VidAngel is actually listed in the README: [https://github.com/delight- im/MovieContentFilter#commercial-...](https://github.com/delight- im/MovieContentFilter#commercial-providers) The README does also explain why an open format and open contribution might be better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is very handy, sometimes there's a really enjoyable movie you'd like to watch at home, but has few parts that are not appropriate for kids. I don't see the need for a high-horse about censorship in this case.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your understanding! This is what was the "vision" of this project, the current use case and all that has ever been thought about. This is not forcing censorship upon all movie viewers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Hi! I have a similar project called Feerless that provides crowd-sourced, preemptive notifications for Netflix at feerless.us Would love to chat about a possible collaboration.

</comment><comment><USER28> On the flipside, reverse the sense of how that tool generates EDL and you've got a "shorten Hollywood blockbusters to the good bits" system... ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> You could certainly do that, if you were interested ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Really cool idea!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I thought it would use deep learning to do this. Silly me..

</comment><comment><USER31> How does this work?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your question!

The README tries to explain a lot of the things, but I can answer questions here, of course, and give an overview.

All in all, the idea is quite simple and the project doesn't really do _that_ much, yet.

As an alternative to commercial providers for content filters, family filters, etc., this project tries to establish an open format that can be used to describe any video source. The filters are split into several categories where each has "severity" level.

This way, you can adjust the filters to your personal needs and wishes when using them. Example: You are terribly frightened by fire because you have some childhood trauma. But you don't care about violence and blood splatters at all. For me, this might be the other way round. So if we can adjust the filters to our needs, they can be useful to both of us.

Since _nobody_ supports this format today (nobody even _knew_ of it until today), a web tool is provided that lets you "transpile" the filters to three popular playlist formats.

<comment><USER32> What are the playlist formats? Are there video players which seamlessly buffer and play content based on start/stop times defined in playlists?

<comment><AUTHOR> As outlined in the README, the playlist formats are:

* XSPF for VLC media player

* M3U for VLC media player

* EDL for MPlayer

And yes, they do support seamless plaback based on start/stop times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is basically a platform for movie censorship. Who gets to decide which parts of what movies are, violent, sexual, etc. I know I don't have to use it but regardless I hope this does not catch on. If you don't like the content in movies you don't have to watch them.

<comment><USER34> But isn't this kind of the point? This gives you a programmatic way to specify to your media player just what content you don't want to watch. If this stuff gets popular, then the publishers should feel less pressure to censor themselves.

<comment><USER33> Will they? Who wants their artistry chopped up by an automatic filter? This is a lot like the movie rating system. [http://www.buzzfeed.com/jordanzakarin/movie-ratings-mpaa- are...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/jordanzakarin/movie-ratings-mpaa-are-insane)

Many people disagree but I don't like giving groups like the MPAA the unfettered ability to label what's good and bad.

<comment><USER35> You can see the MPAA is a system imposed by other people, and this is a self- imposed system? And that this self-imposed system affects no one else?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: So what have you published recently? (Books or papers) - <AUTHOR>

Well, by recently, I mean "your" last book or paper that you consider worthwhile sharing. As usual, more power to you if you can keep it under a tweet. <comment><USER2> I did a talk on China and malware a few DC4420's ago (<http://www.dc4420.org/>), happy to share the slides with anyone that emails me (address in profile).

I'm currently working on a paper on a class of vulnerability that hasn't really been well defined, I'm doing a preview at a seminar we're running at work for the aerospace & defence industry, but if people are interested in going to the mainstream event on the same day ([http://www.mandalorian.com/resources/events/cybercrime- brief...](http://www.mandalorian.com/resources/events/cybercrime-briefing/)) I'm happy to share then. Hopefully I'll be able to present it at the Christmas London OWASP meet - that's if there's going to be one.

</comment><comment><USER3> <http://pragprog.com/magazines/2010-11/getting-clojure> <\- a tutorial about the unexpectedly difficult process of subclassing, from Clojure, a class from a third-party Java library

</comment><comment><USER4> [http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-migrate2cl...](http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-migrate2cloud-4/) <\- last in a 4 part series about migrating to EC2.

<comment><USER5> nice series!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I published an article in a local magazine on free software (Maybe I will put readable scans on somewhere). Appointed editor for it and will come out with the sixth edition right at the start of the next semester.

Have submitted a position paper for review at an international conference (awaiting the news of acceptance to present). And the usual at my blog.</comment>


The PS2's Backwards Compatibility from the Engineer Who Built It - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@freelansations/the-story-of-the-ps2s-backwards-compatibility-from-the-engineer-who-built-it-ec39cf5a0353 <comment><USER2> Duplicate of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22501566](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22501566)

</comment><comment><USER3> A nice story. A little reminder that giving engineers ownership of their projects is such an important requirement for success.</comment>


Blowing the Whistle on the Mortgage Bubble - <AUTHOR> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/business-economy-financial-crisis/untouchables/blowing-the-whistle-on-the-mortgage-bubble/ <comment><USER2> Worth it just for the email in the middle by a Citi underwriter.

[http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/fcic/20110310201200/htt...](http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/fcic/20110310201200/http://c0181567.cdn1.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/2007-11-03_Citi_Email_from_Dick_Bowen_to_Robert_Rubin_and_David_Bushnell_Re_concerns_financial_issues.pdf)

I don't agree with every stylistic choice, but that's some of the best professional writing in the fling-a-firecracker-outside-of-your-silo circumstance that I've ever seen. ("I do not believe our company has recognized the material financial losses inevitably associated with the above Citi liability." is accountant-speak for "THE WORLD IS ON FIRE!")

<comment><USER3> I sent a similar email to the CEO of my bank in 2007 -- there was a product I was involved in that (it was clear) was not understood by our sales force or by our investors. I'll spare the details, but I was called into his office and reminded that the "e" in email stands for "evidence."

<comment><USER4> I cannot express how angry reading comments like this makes me. Clearly many of these guys at the top (bank CEO's, fund managers, ect.) were systematically defrauding everyone in order to turn a larger profit. Call me naive, but isn't this shit (the massive fraud perpetrated on us by banks) supposed to result in hefty jail sentences?

<comment><USER3> I mean, you're justified in a way. I don't think it's fraud though. Consumers are equally complicit.

What I mean by that is that as the buyer of a product, you usually would go out and read the reviews, kick the tires, etcetera. At this time, many buyers of investments didn't do that at all.

Our sales guys didn't understand the product for sure, but if they had a customer who asked the right question they would have arranged a conference call with me or a colleague, no issue. That happened like, one time.

I think the concern that my firm had at this time was principally related to the likelihood that emails like this would hit the public domain at some point.

Edit: shameless plug. My stealth mode thing should change this a little bit (for certain investors).

<comment><USER5> As a client, it is perfectly reasonable for me to say to a sales rep "I want X% average return, I'm willing to accept Y amount of risk to get it, and I don't care particularly much about how you give it to me", so long as X and Y are reasonable. My understanding is that the financial institutions were accurately describing the average rate of return but drastically under- representing the risk of these instruments to their clients.

Calling consumers 'complicit' for failing to understand a company's offerings significantly better than their own salespeople is at the very least insulting.

<comment><USER3> I would agree with you that it's reasonable to expect that to be a conversation that would result in your desired outcome. There are a few technical things at issue.

Again, I agree this is broken. My only point is that saying things are "fraud" is harder than I think you expect.

The problem is that saying "I want X% return with Y risk, show me suitable investments" introduces two problems. The first is that risk is not easily quantifiable[1] and also that there are likely many things that are plausibly suitable for that requirement.

If you are dealing with a salesperson, they are required only to present stuff that has a reasonable likelihood of meeting your goals.

If they're working with someone who is a fiduciary, that fiduciary is required to do the extra analysis, but many people are not lucky enough to work with folks who are held to that higher standard.

In my view, every consumer when transacting with every salesperson should use their own judgment to make sure that the products they are being sold are sensible and suitable for them.

Failing to do that -- to just walk into a store and buy what the salesperson (not your personal shopper or your sister or someone who actually cares) says is best -- is just a bad idea.

I hope that adds some clarity as to where I'm coming from.

[1]Quanta exist, but are not comprehensively descriptive. Any metric will not comprehensively describe risk, especially because there are behavioral factors (your own changing attitude towards risk over time) that need to be incorporated into a thoughtful assessment.

<comment><USER6> It was fraud, executed at the highest level, with an associated Gresham's law corollary: honesty was driven out of the market as CEOs who failed to follow the "liars loans" trend didn't survive. As I said upthread, go read William K. Black's Wikipedia page, follow a few of the links (his appearance on Bill Moyers was good).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My reaction while reading most of this was _"Why didn't any of you try harder to let someone know? Why didn't you email everyone? Why didn't you call all the people you emailed? Wasn't there ANYONE important who would listen!?"_

After reading the whole thing, I was a little shocked to realize the answer is "No, there was no one important who would listen." The accountant who essentially documented the impending collapse of Citigroup in less than 2 pages was interviewed by the SEC and then never heard from them again. Then there's this guy:

> The congressional responses were, "Thank you for your letter, and thank you > for your interest." And, "We'll look into this," basically.

> I also wrote letters to just about every television journalist, and network > journalist that I could get my hands on. Sent as e-mail with attachments and > never received any response. [I wrote to] CNN and Fox News. ABC News, NBC > News, CBS. My daughter was working at that time with one of the network > affiliates in Phoenix, and she knew how upset I was about this whole thing. > So she put me in contact with their consumer reporter, who does the consumer > complaints and that sort of thing. He came out to my house and interviewed > me for about 45 minutes. And I gave him documentation, and tried to as best > I could to explain the situation to someone that was basically ignorant of > the mortgage industry. Never heard another word. …

> During the mortgage meltdown, [Fox News host] Bill O'Reilly was having a > temper tantrum on his show where he was going off about, "Why didn't I hear > about this? Why didn't somebody tell me about all this that was going on?" > And I almost threw my shoe through the television set. Ask my wife — I was > screaming and yelling, "I did try to let you know." 'Cause he had been one > of the ones that I had sent e-mails and attachments with all of this stuff. > …

What the hell are these people supposed to do? Start posting their warnings all over the internet and hope it goes viral? What are the chances that would work vs. the chances they'd all be dismissed as conspiracy theorist crackpots?

It's easy to think _"If I were in any of their positions, I would've gotten the entire country's attention"_ , but it seems people at every level are determined to be ignorant as long as it's profitable.

<comment><USER8> It's not that a special _somebody_ wouldn't have listened. This wasn't as big an information problem as most people make it out to be. As this, and many other articles explain, bankers and underwriters knew bank fraud was widespread. The general public, who took out the loans, knew they were defrauding banks. Wall Street knew the rating agencies were full of shit. But everybody was making a killing as long as real property kept appreciating, so nobody cared. They all thought they'd be out before the pop.

Lots of people saw this coming. Peter Schiff, among other Austrians, were ringing alarm bells for _years_. That's part of the problem. People think, "How big a problem can it really be if you're on year number four of telling us what a problem this will be? Surely if it was as bad as you say, it would have happened already/we wouldn't be making all this money." If you read Michael Lewis' The Big Short, you'll get a nice profile of five or six guys who not only saw this coming, but actually timed it perfectly and made fortunes.

You can't solve problems like these by convincing one "important" person of anything, even if its the truth.

<comment><USER9> As someone who is completely ignorant of investment strategies, would anyone explain how to make a fortune off of an impending financial collapse (when you predict the timing perfectly)? That sounds very interesting.

<comment><USER8> There are many ways to do this, but the simplest explanation is: you enter an agreement to borrow an asset and agree to give that asset back at a certain date in the future. You then immediately sell the asset. Then, on the date certain, you buy that asset back and give it back to the lender. This is called "shorting" and is very easy to do with fungible assets like publicly traded stocks, bonds, or even collateralized debt obligations. It's so easy and common that _you_ could open up a brokerage account and the broker will actually lend you money to do this.

The problem is timing. Many, many people saw this collapse coming, and most of them got hosed by betting on it. In the above example, say that you borrowed and sold 10,000 shares of Genworth Financial stock on January 1, 2007 because you knew they were sitting on a pile of bad mortgages and the stock price would tank when the music stopped. If you agreed to give that stock back on July 1, 2007, you would have lost money, because the stock went _up_. If you had just made this bet a few months later, as a few people did, you would have made a killing.

<comment><USER10> Or the big boogy man from the crisis, credit default swaps. They're complex financial basically insurance that you can take out on any asset, even one you don't own. Many institutions saw the chance of these securitized mortgage assets failing as so remote that they'd sell credit default swaps for fractions of a penny on the dollar on their coverage. They were cheaper and more predictable then shorts and when the crisis hit if you held them you made a killing. Of course a lot of that killing came on the back of the U.S. taxpayer. The number of credit default swaps that they sold were what almost killed AIG, so the government stepped up and covered almost $14 billion of their losses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I hope pbs eventually covers the zero prosecution for HSBC bank money laundering.

Only penalty was a month's worth of profit. Not one person will serve a day in prison.

But hey, don't unlock your phone, it's a felony. Or download and free journal articles.

<comment><USER12> The sensationalism isn't helping. It's perfectly legal to download free articles.

<comment><USER13> You're absolutely correct: it's perfectly legal to download free articles. But this is why I made my "semantics matter" argument a few days ago: He said "download and free," free being a verb and intending to mean "set them free."

Yes, there appears to be an allusion to Aaron's particular case. However, one could certainly see where a particular journal publisher holds the copyright on many excellent articles made available online for a fee having to protect their copyright from some unscrupulous academician using their paid acces to liberate those writings. And how, given the predilection of prosecutors to scare would-be defendants, automating that task might see the threat of criminal charges.

To actually respond to your comment, it may be legal to download free articles (and it's probably legal to download articles for which you've paid), but is it legal to distribute someone else's copyrighted work without their permission? Price doesn't matter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The senior banking executives who ignored the early warnings were making tons of money. The mid-level bankers assembling and selling mortgage securities, who also ignored all warnings, were making tons of money too. The ratings agencies and lawyers giving their stamp of approval to these crazy securities, who also ignored all warnings, were making tons of money as well. The mortgage brokers and originators who were making irresponsible loans to home buyers with sketchy credit histories were making plenty of money, and they too ignored the warnings. The home buyers who successfully flipped properties in a matter of months or even weeks were also making money, and also ignored the warnings. The homeowners who borrowed more and more against their home's seemingly ever-rising value were flush with newfound cash, and felt like financial geniuses.

To a close approximation, no one wanted to hear the warnings.

To find culprits, most Americans need only look in the mirror.

<comment><USER15> _> To find culprits, most Americans need only look in the mirror._

Without looking up the statistics, I doubt it was 'most' Americans, aka 50%+. You heard a lot about 'flipping', but I don't think the majority of the country was engaged in that, even if you include the financial enablers. It had an outsized effect on the entire economy for sure, though.

<comment><USER16> No most people weren't flipping, but cash-out refinancings were fairly common.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Our system is strictly based on confidence at this point. Fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, massive leverage, and more systemic debt than the world has ever seen all rely on the fact that big banks are essentially untouchable. We'll never see prosecutions of big banks or their principles. It would break the entire system.

<comment><USER18> This is an important point, and one that I personally believe explains why we didn't see prosecutions at the highest level. Geithner was instrumental in guiding Obama away from this heavy handed approach, as he recognized (I think quite accurately) that confidence was really the only _thing_ keeping the system from crashing completely.

If Obama had given execs the kind of treatment Larry Summers and the other half of his team wanted (heads on sticks to put it lightly) it would have rocked the investment world and brought much more pain to our economy than many could bear. The American people would have seen justice, but most likely at a substantial cost to the American way of life with ripple (tsunami?) effects seen and felt around the world.

<comment><USER19> Understand that what Presidents say in public is very different from what they do in private.

Why anyone would expect Obama to carry through such threats when his staff has mostly been from these very same groups is beyond me. If anything its more like, you guys are going on pikes unless you play ball, here let me connect you to my campaign finance coordinator. Geitner protected his buddies. The real collapse would have been the money available to the various campaigns that eat it up directly or indirectly.

Washington is the one percent, they own Wall Street more than Wall Street owns them. They excuse themselves from insider trading, tax issues, and the like. How are the executives at Fannie and Freddie any different from those at other lending groups? Simple, they have/had better political connections.

<comment><USER20> FYI, Geithner has never been employed by anything vaguely resembling a private bank. He was a consultant for 3 years after school, before joining government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "I think we've developed in our society an idea that any time we see a problem, we can create a law that's going to prevent that problem from happening in the future. We don't need new laws. We need to enforce the laws that have been on the books before." -Tom Leonard (Mortgage underwriter)

That's the duty of the Executive branch.

"we have a responsibility in the person of our President; he cannot act improperly, and hide either his negligence or inattention; [...] far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment." -James Wilson (a Founding Father of the US)

"Not but that crimes of a strictly legal character fall within the scope of the power [of impeachment]; but that it has a more enlarged operation, and reaches, what are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, various in their character, and so indefinable in their actual involutions, that it is almost impossible to provide systematically for them by positive law." -Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice, 1811-1845)

</comment><comment><USER22> It was never a secret. Everyone knew values were out of whack on housing and people were taking out mortgages to high. But the sound of a few tiny whistle blowers is nothing compared to the collective will of the American people to buy bigger and better homes or make a quick buck.

This was a lesson we needed to learn as a nation, not one we just need to blame on bankers. Many people participated in the fraud, many banks were complicit with the fraud. That means we should be locking up home buyers right along with the bankers. In fact many of the people interviewed here as whistle-blowers went on being complicit with fraud. None (except the one executive) quit their jobs or even protested in a significant fashion. They all just kept doing work they knew was wrong.

Disclosure: Im an ex-Journalist and an ex-Banker.

</comment><comment><USER23> As someone on Twitter said: "Justice Dept said they'd never speak to @FrontlinePBS again after this Wall Street doc. So naturally it's a must- watch" via <https://twitter.com/trevortimm/status/294337455321133056>

I found the programme to be very interesting and raise important points but as always, it IS very hard to prove criminal actions in cases like these and while some might be greedy they might not actually be criminal.

That said; it seems that some knew about these unsavory dealings and hopefully they will face justice.

</comment><comment><USER24> The best whistle blowing before the bubble popped had to be Peter Schiff telling a huge crowd of mortgage bankers they were about to lose their jobs in Nov 2006:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj8rMwdQf6k>

<comment><USER25> Peter Schiff fascinates me. He's had many right predictions and he's been making money off of these, all while telling the world exactly how he'll do it.

<comment><USER26> I don't think his investments are making much money. He bet on decoupling while the rest of the world looked to USA as the safe haven. He was right on some things, but didn't make a lot of money like some did in the crash. Like the hedge fund manager who bet on large mortgage defaults.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The entire expose is worth reading: <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/>

The most outrageous part in my mind was where Assistant AG Lanny Breuer (who just resigned) gave a speech in which he talked about how he loses sleep at night over concerns about what bringing a lawsuit against a big Wall Street corporation could do.

Imagine if you applied that argument to prosecuting drug cartels! "Just think of all the poor footmen and couriers who might lose their jobs if we prosecute their ringleader"

</comment><comment><USER28> This documentary implies that applicants were submitting fraudulant applications, which is not true. Most people (including the Frontline producers, apparently) still do not understand who was defrauding whom here.

If you apply for a loan and misrepresent your financial situation, this is not fraud (which is a crime) it's a lie, and lying is NOT a crime. You can say you're a teacher making a million a year and what's supposed to happen is the application should be denied (and may be your credit score might suffer).

It is the responsibility of the bank, not the applicant, to make sure that the applicant can repay the loan. Issuing a loan to someone who you know is misrepresenting one's financial situation is fraud and a crime. When such a loan is issued, it is the bank defrauding the applicant (not the other way around). It's essentially loan sharking or extortion, which is a felony. In doing so the bank is also failing in its fiduciary responsibility to the depositors, which is a (separate) crime as well.

<comment><USER29> _If you apply for a loan and misrepresent your financial situation, this is not fraud (which is a crime) it's a lie, and lying is NOT a crime._

Lying is absolutely a crime if it's considered perjury, and many (all?) loan applications require you to certify the accuracy of statements under penalty of perjury.

<comment><USER28> Taken out of the context of a loan, you're right.

But borrowing is a special case. Because if the responsibility were entirely on the borrower, then it would be advantageous to the bank that you lie on the application. Then they could take all your material possessions as soon as you fail to make a payment and send you to prison to boot. (Which is not far from what happened with the mortgage crisis.)

This is how loan sharking works, and why it is illegal.

If someone issues you a loan that you cannot repay, it is the issuer's loss, it's as simple as that. If the issuer knew you couldn't repay it, it's not just their loss, but they're also committing a crime.

<comment><USER16> You are either trolling or grossly misinformed about a number of things.

Your belief is that by intentionally misrepresenting yourself to a bank and obtaining a loan you otherwise would not have been able to obtain, that is, willfully and knowingly entering into a contract in bad faith -- you are the victim of a crime. That is ludicrous at its face.

If someone issues you a loan in good faith, and you cannot repay, it is indeed their loss. They have not committed crime however.

In the case of a personal loan if you fail to repay, the bank can go to court and get a judgement against you. With that judgement they might be able to make a claim on such assets as to make themselves whole. They cannot "take all of your material possessions" let alone send you to prison. This is very far from what happened...

In the case of a mortgage, the can foreclose on the property, liquidate it and use the proceeds to make themselves whole. Note that anything collected in excess of the loan must be passed back to the borrower. (This rarely happens, because if the property were worth more than the loan, the borrower would just sell or refinance.) After a foreclosure and sale, if the bank is still not whole, in many states they may not come after the borrower for the balance (this is called "no-recourse") in other states they can ("recourse"). In the industry so called "subprime" loans were often referred to a "home equity", because there was an acknowledgement that these were borrowers were greater risk, but the loan was guaranteed by the value of the home, and as long as home prices did not drop significantly they were of little risk.

It is almost never advantageous for the bank for the not to repay a loan, as the most the bank can do is be made whole by recovery, and almost never is.

Finally that is not how loan sharking works.

<comment><USER28> _If someone issues you a loan in good faith, and you cannot repay, it is indeed their loss. They have not committed crime however._

What I said is that it is a crime if at the time of issuance the lender has reasons to believe you cannot repay the loan. That _is_ a crime, and that _is_ a form of extortion (or loan sharking).

<comment><USER16> No.

People who misrepresented themselves engaged in fraud. There is no requirement for the bank to assume bad faith on the part of the lender.

If a bank made a loan to someone who could not repay it, they are likely to take a loss. The fraud, where it happened, was when the bank sold this loan. At that point, the idea of 'willful blindness' and 'prudent man' came into play, when banks materially misrepresented the loans they were selling as having been prudently underwritten. But the victim was the buyer of the loan, not the borrower.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> <http://video.pbs.org/video/2327953844>

[http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageo...](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous- hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213)

<comment><USER31> Matt Taibbi isn't what I would call the most distinguished journalist to be getting your info from. He's a bit sensationalist for my taste. For that matter, he seems to enjoy picking a position to write from before he really has all the facts.

<comment><USER30> _Still, some prosecutors proposed that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. meet with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, people briefed on the matter said. The meeting never took place._

 _After months of discussions, prosecutors decided against a criminal indictment, but only after securing record penalties and wide-ranging sanctions._

[http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/hsbc-said-to- near-1-9...](http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/hsbc-said-to- near-1-9-billion-settlement-over-money-laundering/?ref=business)

 _"This process has highlighted some unacceptable shortcomings that HSBC deeply regrets," said Levey in written testimony. "While our old model served us well historically, it does not work in an interconnected world where transactions cross borders instantaneously and where weaknesses in one jurisdiction can be quickly exported to others."_

 _WASHINGTON – Global banking giant HSBC and its U.S. affiliate exposed the U.S. financial system to a wide array of money laundering, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing risks due to poor anti-money laundering (AML) controls, a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations probe has found._

[http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/med...](http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/hsbc- exposed-us-finacial-system-to-money-laundering-drug-terrorist-financing-risks)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> while back I read the Big Short

what I came away with was how durable secrets are

here was this billion dollar opportunity that a bunch of people became insanely rich exploiting

and it wasn't a secret at all

a bunch of people where doing everything they could to tell people how overpriced the housing market was, and the opportunity still persisted

it seems like there is so much noise in the world, that signal becomes indistuinghable

</comment><comment><USER33> It's very simple. As long as bonuses are based on the amount of business booked, fraud of this type will continue. Once they get their bonuses, they can jump ship and spout, "I don't remember" all they want to investigators.

EDIT for a typo.

</comment><comment><USER34> Interesting related podcasts if you want to read more:

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/03/16/148751661/the- frid...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/03/16/148751661/the-friday- podcast-inside-the-mortgage-industry)

[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/405/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/405/transcript)

The Frontline episode 'The Warning' is related and also good:

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/>

</comment><comment><USER35> The people in the high-up knew. A lot of people in all levels knew. People knew it was a bubble and it cannot last. What people didn't know was how to pop the bubble gently to have a soft landing. Remember real estate and mortgage were majority drivers of the economy from 2000 on after the Dotcom and stock crash. Popping the bubble meant wrecking the economy. People were really uneasy in deliberately engineering a recession. The longer the wait the worst the crash.

<comment><USER36> Nit pick - a bubble bursting doesn't wreck the economy any more than dismantling an engine for a tune up wrecks that engine. A recession is really a readjustment of the economy, bringing it in line with reality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> My mother was on the inside of all this.... She saw it coming about a year in advance. Knew something was wrong, but couldn't do anything.

</comment><comment><USER38> [http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/financial-crisis- laws...](http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/financial-crisis-lawsuit- suggests-bad-behavior-at-morgan-stanley/?smid=tw-share)

more tragicomedy, with some great work by NYT euphemism writer "suggests bad behavior"

</comment><comment><USER39> Isn't, for example, prostitution illegal in the US even in Las Vegas? If so, I can easily imagine that there are at least a bunch of people where job description and income don't quite match up ("waitress" in Las Vegas with 12,000 USD/month).

</comment><comment><USER40> Why isn't the job of underwriter totally automated? I imagine that a good bayesian classifier should be able to spot likely fraud. Sounds like a good startup opportunity.

</comment><comment><USER41> _"industry insiders were ringing the alarm bells"_

Just as today many economists are ringing the alarm bells: the governments public debt issues (both in U.S., Japan and many countries in the Eurozone) are going to end up _very_ badly.

Many central banks (including in the U.S.) have basically become bad banks. Anyone holding medium and long-term public government debt (like many insurance products) are basically bankrupt because governments are going to default.

If you think 2008 was bad, wait until the house of cards collapse. It shall make 1929 look like a cute event.

Some economists are predicting a worlwide GDP drop of as much as 25%.

Of course economists that you see on Fox news and CNN like Krugman (sure, lets create a one trillion $ coin, it's a good idea: why not then create 16 of these and be done with our public debt?) either totally lost it or are playing the game that the state asked them to play: propaganda.

Capitalism cannot work if the cost of printing money is zero (quantitative easing).

Actually I don't think we're living in a capitalistic world. I think we live in a socialist world bent on confiscating savings (at the benefit of the state) using inflation. But the system has its limit.

And who are you going to prosecute and hold responsible once everything collapses? The states are basically forcing everyone into buying their junk bonds.

Do you really think anyone would buy government bonds seen the current situation?

The people responsible for this are very very high up the chain. They're desperately trying to prevent the house of socialist cards from falling apart.

"The problem of socialism is that at one point you run out of other people's money". And that's where we're arriving now.

Of course they're going to pretend that it's not the states that created the state debt but "evil" capitalists. What a joke : (

<comment><USER42> _> "The problem of socialism is that at one point you run out of other people's money". And that's where we're arriving now._

Ugh. I try my best not to be snarky on here, but here is the wiki explaining what socialism is:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism>

Don't worry, you don't have to read past the first sentence to reveal your complete and utter misunderstanding of the term.

The trend, over the years, has been overwhelming in favor of private ownership of the economic means of production. You're going to need to come up with another word to decry what ails you policy wise if accuracy, not dogma, is your goal.

PolySci 101. It ain't that difficult. Do I really need to GTFY on HN?

<comment><USER43> > PolySci 101. It ain't that difficult. Do I really need to GTFY on HN?

Best just to flag all political articles and rid them from the site, as they pretty much inevitably end up with discussions like this.

<comment><USER21> But at the same time we vote up articles complaining that we as engineers should stop making cat video websites and focus on important problems. We flock to advice blogs to find good startup ideas that solve people's problems. This article is food for thought IMO. I'll take a 15 page article detailing inefficiencies/fraud in banks (of which many of us are employed in IT) over a 3 paragraph blog summarizing an 8 paragraph blog on weak typing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> This documentary didn't reveal anything that wasn't already known. There aren't any criminal prosecutions because it's hard to prove that there was fraud. It then goes on to speculate why Breuer hasn't been able to charge anyone.

<comment><USER45> That is largely what Frontline does. They sometimes break original stories, but a lot of what they do is building on other people's reporting and compiling the information in a clear and organized fashion. Then they add interviews for depth and insight. They don't try to be breaking news. They try to be comprehensive.

I'm a big fan. They aren't perfect (who is), but they take reporting and informing very seriously, and they dive deep. I've always gotten a lot whenever I've actually sat down to watch. I really need to watch more.

<comment><USER46> I love to watch Frontline, but as they've reported on areas where I know a bit more, it's become obvious how often they trade on outrage rather than detailed information.

For example, in order to really report on why prosecutions did not happen, you would think they would take some time to explain how federal law defines certain crimes. But, they never did that at all--instead they ask people for a sort of gut reaction as to whether something seemed fraudulent. But of course the word "fraud" has a number of very specific legal definitions in a number of different laws.

One could argue that that is ok, because the real point is that the language of the laws themselves allow people to get away with fraud (in a gut-check sense). But again, to make that point they would have had to get specific about what the law does and does not say.

So while I found this episode entertaining and interesting as always, I did not find it illuminating.

edit: forgot a word

<comment><USER45> My biggest problem with them is that they often feel like prosecutors building a case. They lay out their arguments and pile on supporting evidence with what feels like the intent of proving things beyond a reasonable doubt. And I'm often convinced, but I never really feel like I get the defense attorney's cross-examination.

That said, it's really obvious how much work and thought goes into these. If you compare anything of this complexity against perfection, it will always come up short. But I don't know of another news show that consistently hits the level of quality that Frontline does.

Honest question: Does anyone have any suggestions for reporting they think is in the same league? I'd love to check it out.

<comment><USER46> The very best reporting is in print. A good print reporter, given the resources to investigate and write a story or series of stories, can fit much more detailed information into a smaller period of time (the time it takes you to read the story). Big newspapers, and some magazines like The New Yorker or Economist, still deliver a lot of value to society this way.

TV delivers a ton of information, but most of that information is emotional-- i.e. facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. A voice on TV cannot speak facts nearly as fast as as you can read them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> You know what's disgusting? This fucking _bubble_ shit. Let's call a spade a spade. A bubble is when you're in a la la cloud of utopia. This wasn't that. I think there was about a zillion people (rough estimate) who knew where this was all heading.

It's disgusting because we don't get to say Aaron Swartz lived in a "freedom of information bubble".

Aaron Swartz downloaded some documents – was to be thrown in jail and eventually died by his own hand, perceivably because of the weight of the hammer being dropped down on him.

BUT...wreck the entire economy, cause thousands to lose their home, their job, their careers? NOTHING. What the fuck is going on?</comment>


SF man selling jellyfish as household pets - <AUTHOR> http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=7638602

<comment><USER2> I hate jellyfish, but still have to say this is a great idea. Actual site - <http://www.jellyfishart.com/>

<comment><USER3> Wow. Those tanks seem super expensive. What's the advantage over buying a stock fishtank and ordering the jellyfish on their own?

<comment><USER4> I'm not associated with the company in the story, but I'm a long-time aquarium hobbyist and had to create an account here just to comment on this.

Jellyfish are not active swimmers--they ride whatever current is in the water. In square tanks, this causes many species to get stuck in the corners where the water is stagnant.

Also, this means that they can't fight the current and generally get sucked into the filter intake. At the same time, they need strong current (see the comment about them getting stuck in stagnant areas) so you need a filter with a strong intake.

Some species, like moon jellies, all you need to do is diffuse the intake. You can see a section in the video where in the background they demonstrate a filter with the intake buried under a layer of marbles.

For other species, you need a specially-shaped tank called a 'kriesel'. (Do an image search for 'kriesel jellyfish' for some examples.) These tanks are shaped like a hockey puck standing on its edge, and move the water in a circle, so that no area is stagnant. Also, a water current blows _across_ the filter intake, so the jellies get pushed aside instead of being sucked in.

Fun fact: The big jellyfish display tanks in Monterey Bay aquarium are actually oval-shaped kriesels with current blowing down both sides, and back up the center. That's why the jellies always seem to be upside-down--they're facing into the current in the center of the tank. :-)

I'd also disagree with the claim that jellies don't need any "exotic care": They're physically very fragile, and you have to be very careful to avoid damaging them when you clean the tank. They also require special food (notice that you're supposed to order special food from this guy) and high water quality, not to mention the special tanks already mentioned.

<comment><USER5> Great post. I don't understand why people have to trap animals like jellyfish and put them in prisons / tanks. Just let them live where they are meant to, the ocean.

<comment><USER6> To be fair jellyfish are about the least 'animal', animal you can have, it's a little like imprisoning a house plant.

<comment><USER7> To expound upon this, we have no reason to believe the jellyfish even knows what's going on, let alone cares. They don't even have a central nervous system- WORMS and FLEAS are more likely to have an opinion on the matter than a jellyfish.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Proof that there is no local news story that can't be 'improved' with a meaningless vox pop. How does this quote add to an otherwise interesting story in any way? _"I'm kind of a furry animal guy - dogs and cats and what not," said [man on a street] Hunter Hoffman._

<comment><USER9> The full quote is:

 _"Never gave any thought to having a jellyfish as a pet. I'm kind of a furry animal guy - dogs and cats and what not"_

This isn't meaningless. People who had never thought of having a jellyfish might read this and become curious. In fact it sounds like pretty good PR, considering it's just a news story.

<comment><USER8> It's meaningless in terms of providing news - asking random people on the street their opinion of a topic is not newsworthy, and does not add meaning to the story.

It does sound like pretty good PR (which is great thing for Alex and his company), but pretty poor news.

Imagine if they'd interviewed a marine biologist about this species of jellyfish instead? It would have been even better PR (expert confirms they don't sting, are abundant etc), but it didn't happen because it's always easier to ask two people in front of the ABC building what they think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There are species of jellyfish that are edible: <http://www.marketmanila.com/archives/jellyfish>

Perhaps a combination of those "AeroGarden" devices that let you grow fresh veggies and herbs, and one of these jellyfish setups with edible jellies, and you could have your own fresh sushi source (just add rice)!

</comment><comment><USER11> It's an interesting story, but it's not news:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/technology/start- ups/14sta...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/technology/start- ups/14startup.html?_r=1&hp)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=515526>

</comment><comment><USER12> Definitely ordering one of these! Just goes to show that non-tech businesses can still be cool :)

</comment><comment><USER13> That is so cool I just mailed them to check if they can ship in Europe, according to their FAQ it seems possible.

I'm wondering how long these marvellous creatures will survive in your tank if you treat them well.

</comment><comment><USER14> Glad to see your business is still afloat.

<comment><USER15> If I didn't know better I'd think you were fishing for a pun thread.

<comment><USER14> And it seems to be tanking pretty fast.

<comment><USER16> I know it's fun, but please don't do this. Pun threads are malignant growths. They're easy to reply to, since each individual pun doesn't take a lot of thought. Most upvotes are given out sparingly, for interesting or insightful comments, but everyone involved in a pun thread votes up the rest of the comments in the thread. This leads to a self-perpetuating cancer with no real meaning or value to anyone but its contributors.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What's wrong with my landing page? - <AUTHOR> TL;DR: I setup a landing page http://www.convohash.com/ , got a very low conversion, please let me know where I did wrong.
Hi HN,
I recently started to build a product called ConvoHash. It's an Instagram Hashtag Analytics. Basically it helps the user to do reporting for social media campaigns using hashtag on Instagram.
I've been running ads on Facebook & Instagram for the last 2 weeks but the conversion has been very low. Could you advise me on what I did wrong?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> I want to see a screenshot of the analytics page before providing my email.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have put the screenshots from portion of the analytics page. What do you find missing about it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The page looks decent overall, however, I'm having trouble imaging how it works. Would someone simply give an instagram id, then get nice analytics?

I wonder if pricing is high, what about a non-expiring free tier for 1000 posts?

</comment><comment><USER4> Did you segment your users and check their conversion rate. Looking for conversion rate overall is a bad idea, try to segment logically and look for conversion rates.

<comment><AUTHOR> I use facebook ads and it only have 1 very specific segment so far. It's 20-40 person who works as a marketing / social media admin.

<comment><AUTHOR> *person with age between 20-40

<comment><USER4> In my view for your product 20-40 is too big. What's your conversion rate if I may ask?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Minor suggestion: "Save your time _with_ one click, shareable, reporting"</comment>


Show HN: PreTeX, a LaTeX preprocessor to make math typesetting easier - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/s9w/preTeX

<comment><USER2> Pretty neat! As a suggestion, I would replace also the delimiters "()\\{\\}[]" with the corresponding left/right versions [1] so LaTeX adjusts automatically the size in the output and I don't have to deal with less readable code missing \left or \right errors.

As another tip to make LaTeX typesetting easier, I'd recommend using a custom keyboard distribution to input symbols easily, (e.g., alt + d for δ instead of \delta). In TeX.sx Jon Wickerson published [2] a layout for the british keyboard and the corresponding package to make LaTeX understand the unicode symbols. If you happen to have a spanish keyboard, I made an adaptation of that code [3].

And another thing: if you plan on using pretex a lot, it may be useful to parse the file on save (maybe before compilation). inotify-tools [4] or watchdog (OS X) [5] can help you, it's easy to create a script that will execute pretex whenever your LaTeX file changes.

Great work!

1: [http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/77589/what-do-the- pie...](http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/77589/what-do-the-pieces-of- latex-left-and-right-respectively-mean) 2: [http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/110042/entering- unico...](http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/110042/entering-unicode-math- symbols-into-latex-direct-from-keyboard-on-a-mac#110043) 3: [https://github.com/gjulianm/MathUnicode](https://github.com/gjulianm/MathUnicode) 4: [https://github.com/rvoicilas/inotify- tools/wiki](https://github.com/rvoicilas/inotify-tools/wiki) 5: [https://github.com/gorakhargosh/watchdog](https://github.com/gorakhargosh/watchdog)

<comment><AUTHOR> left/right: I've thought a lot about this, and I'm still divided. The left/right system in Tex is not the greatest itself and sometimes produces unwanted output. I was thinking of using another "flag" before math envs to force this. Still not sure what's the right thing to do.

<comment><USER2> Environment flags would be good. Another suggestion: per-file flags? if "% pretex delimiters" is present in the file, change delimiters; else, leave them alone.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm yes configuration options need to expand beyond command line arguments. I'm still debating the best way. A separate json or cfg file would probably be too annoying? Latex comments would be a neat way, I like that

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Looks really promising. I think i will give it a try. I am currently using a combination of Markdown and LaTeX (Markdown with embedded LaTeX expressions for math, compiled using pandoc [1]). Do you have any concerns regarding stability or output quality precompiling this combination with PreTeX? In other words: Does PreTeX only precompile statements surrounded by "$" or "$$"?

[1]: [http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/](http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/)

<comment><AUTHOR> I use Pandoc myself, actually this was written as a companion to it, focusing on the math side on things. As stated in the github text (maybe I should phrase it better), pretex works in any math environment I know of. So inline and all the \begin\ends, starred and unstarred. If you come across anything that doesn't work, shoot. So it works perfectly for pandoc!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can I haz `|\psi> \--> \left\vert \psi \right\rangle` ?

Or even better |ψ> using `{ v:k for k,v in unicodeit.net }` -- though I don't know of a convenient way to input Unicode characters (alpha, beta, ...) so maybe that's not too useful.

Attempt:

        re_ket = re.compile(r"""
        \|(
        [^\|<>]+
        )>
        """, re.VERBOSE)

What could that possibly interfere with? `R_+ = { x \in R | x>0 }` ?

<comment><AUTHOR> I've implemented kets, bras and all their friends. That explosive set case is tested and cared for, too.

Still a bit confused about those unicode inputs though

<comment><USER4> The unicode inputs was just a bad idea. Like you said, there is no convenient way to input unicode characters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can we have the inverse transformation also?

So \alpha would become a unicode α and \int would be ∫.

Emacs has an input method that does the transformation automatically [1]. Yet most of my collaborators have not yet caught that bug..

[1] [http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/TeXInputMethod](http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/TeXInputMethod)

<comment><AUTHOR> So wait, just so that I understand: This would be for editors that input unicode greek letters, and preTeX should compile them to \alpha etc? But you seem to suggest the opposite. Care to explain?

<comment><USER5> Sure. The modern TeXs (xetex, luatex) take unicode input. Also for math. That makes the text even nicer looking. But most editors are inconvenient for finding the right characters.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh now I get it. Yeah I guess every editor that allows for greek input also provides a way for compile-time translation to latex? But if there's still a wish for unicode->latex transformations just open an issue, I'll have look at it

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The real problem with any tex preprocessor is getting your collaborators to use it. One solution is to have a preprocessor that can go _backwards_ , so that when your collaborators edit you can keep working where they left off. Does PreTeX have such a feature?

<comment><AUTHOR> I've thought about doing this bidirectionally. Besides implementing that all, the problem I see would be having a reasonable "cutoff". It probably wouldn't make sense to use the shortened <bra|ket> notation if the term was insanely huge. So There would be some heuristics, meaning it can't be guaranteed a 100% accurate back transformation.

Still interested? Or maybe there could be an export-mode where the pretex math is backuped in a comment or a separate file to help reconstruction. But that might get awkward fast. Hmm

I was hoping that most of the changes are so trivial that this would be unncecessary

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> typo in Readme.md:

 _" Instead of writing $\displaymath \int_i^\infty$, just write d\int_i^\infty$"_

should be d$, right?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes of course. Fixed, thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What are \displaystyle{} and \dot{} for?

<comment><USER9> \displaystyle makes things in $...$ format like things in \\[...\\] but still inline, so it doesn't squash fractions. \dot puts a dot, usually meaning a time derivative.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah displaystyle makes inline equations render like "normal" equation environments like align etc. The difference is obvious with things that take up a lot of vertical space like integrals or sums with limits. Sometimes you want an integral inline, but you need to make it \displaystyle. It's annoying to write, hurts readability and badly supported by editors. So d$equation$ makes it trivial to toggle it.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: An Advent of Scaling Teams - <AUTHOR> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m2ygKadIzqs8Id2T2ZgxL2LYf4j_fcYH <comment><AUTHOR> I recently concluded an Advent Calendar of Scaling Teams.

Each day i studied one retrospective of growth at an engineering organization.

Here are my notes from 15 videos/articles of real-life experiences of scaling teams at startups and multi-national corporations.</comment>


Ask HN: What Is an Alternative to LinkedIn? - <AUTHOR> What is the best professional site to connect with other people besides LinkedIn? <comment><USER2> It's hard to qualify what is 'best' without knowing what parts of the site are most important to you, but here are my thoughts. There are some sites or pages that are specific to an industry.

For example, county bee clubs and state beekeeper associations typically have a Facebook group. Facebook, reddit, association/industry websites/forums can give you the ability to create a profile, share information, and connect with others. In-person meetings and conferences are an option too.

</comment><comment><USER3> Your own website operated under a domain you control. It contains prose, images, and other useful information, created by yourself and available nowhere else.

Build your own platform, not someone else's.</comment>


Best API code generator - <AUTHOR> What are the best API code generator tools available right now ? I have looked into Swagger. Are there better ones available ? <comment><USER2> What kind of APIs are you trying to generate? If you're trying to do more than REST/HTTP APIs, you can check out Quark ([https://github.com/datawire/quark](https://github.com/datawire/quark)).

</comment><comment><USER3> I've used [https://github.com/mulesoft-labs/raml- generator](https://github.com/mulesoft-labs/raml-generator) it let's you define your templates in handlebar.

I kinda favor the parsing/runtime concept over codegen. I find codegen hard to maintain.

What are you trying to achieve?

</comment><comment><USER4> We're developing apiplug.com to solve this problem. We also produce swagger documentation as a side product. Free in beta right now. Supports nodejs & php.</comment>


A Model Railway Journey - <AUTHOR> http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/59/kofman.php <comment><USER2> _In 2013, the Wunderland donated one square meter to each of the six major political parties in Germany, asking them to envision what the nation would look like if their party were in power. Top politicians and their advisors visited the Wunderland to participate in this special "Utopia" exhibition. They fretted for weeks over the small details, which each took on the symbolic importance of a plank in a political platform. They had to decide what to include, what to emphasize, and which scenarios would convey their policies most precisely; essentially, what kind of world they wanted to imagine into existence._

I really like that idea. It's almost like an elevator pitch for each party's platform.

<comment><USER3> "six major political parties"

Things are a bit different over there...

<comment><USER4> America's first-past the post system is pretty terrible and removes any real choice. Keep in mind the constitutional framers wanted to keep people who weren't educated from voting and even then, the vote was more of a suggestion (i.e. the electoral college).

America's voting system is undemocratic and next to useless. Australia's order of preference with instant runoff, New Zealand's MMP or any basic parliamentary system is better in that they promote choice, require coalitions and do a better job at representing various parts of the population. Returning to America was deeply upsetting for me, not because of the D/R debate during election season, but more because people actually think it makes a difference which one gets elected.

<comment><USER5> > America's voting system is undemocratic and next to useless.

If you're discarding the definition of 'democratic' where citizens vote on government, no country in the world is democratic. Representational democracies rule the world and—yes—are not democratic in the least.

I don't know why the world insists on using the word without meaning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Streetview URL: [https://www.google.com/maps/about/behind-the- scenes/streetvi...](https://www.google.com/maps/about/behind-the- scenes/streetview/treks/miniatur-wunderland/)

<comment><USER7> wow, thanks for posting that link. The place looks amazing and it's a great way to explore.

<comment><USER8> It is. What isn't visible in those pictures is the fact that they have a day- night-cycle that takes 15(?) minutes. Not only do you get to see the nice scenery during bright light but also during the simulated night during which > 350k [1] lights turn on. It's awesome.

[1] [http://www.miniatur- wunderland.com/exhibit/wunderland/wunder...](http://www.miniatur- wunderland.com/exhibit/wunderland/wunderland-facts/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I you ever visit Hamburg and have a spare day make sure you visit the Wunderland! I can't recommend it enough. They even have a model of their own building as a miniature. With tiny moving trains in it :-)

Be sure to get a reservation. That way you don't have wait in a queue to get in: [http://www.miniatur-wunderland.de/besuch/tickets/](http://www.miniatur- wunderland.de/besuch/tickets/)

</comment><comment><USER9> For behind-the-scenes technical details, I recommend watching their (video) development diary: [http://tagebuch.miniatur- wunderland.de/](http://tagebuch.miniatur-wunderland.de/)

<comment><USER10> And / Or consider booking a guided behind-the-scnes tour. [http://www.miniatur- wunderland.com/visit/guidance/60-min/](http://www.miniatur- wunderland.com/visit/guidance/60-min/)

Try to get in early or / late on a week day - especially if you like to let your eyes / imaganitaion wander around uninterupted. Otherwise it gets somewhat crowded despite the fact that their limiting / scheduling aproach.</comment></comment>


Open Problems in Real-Time Rendering: The Value of Pixel$ - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc_-a1CB2jc <comment><USER2> I have no idea what this is supposed to be about. It seems more like someone trying to do a book report on a book they didn't read.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't downvote because I'm OP but this is a really weird and low value comment. This is a talk from Angelo Pesce, who was previously a technical director at Activision, and worked on big rendering problems for AAA games like Call of Duty, Overwatch and Destiny. Although I understand if you don't care or aren't familiar with the topic, or even don't enjoy his speaking style, your comment implies he's not knowledgeable about the topic which couldn't be further from the truth.

<comment><USER2> He might be plenty knowledgeable, but what is it actually be about? The title doesn't really mean anything and he talks about a history of video games at lower resolutions. (Also the title of technical director is a general title, there could be a dozen lighting TDs on one game).</comment></comment></comment>


Severing Ties with the NSA - <AUTHOR> http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2013/11/severing_ties_with_the_nsa.html <comment><USER2> Excellent. Ostracizing complicit people is the key to reducing bad behavior. Imagine if you did some real bad but legal thing and then no one would talk to you, not even your family, or even serve you in a restaurant. Others would think twice. I don't think it's as horrible a consequence as prison, where these people belong. (NSA folk flouted their oath to support the Constitution and defend it against domestic enemies.) If you changed your ways you could be forgiven.

<comment><USER3> Unfortunately, "ostracizing complicit people" is often interpreted as code for "using force against people who disagree with me" (for example, someone who expresses an unpopular opinion concerning Bradley Manning).

Blackballing people based on ideology is a McCarthyite idea, not a progressive one

<comment><USER4> I'm pretty sure the OP is advocating blackballing based on their actions.

As he says, their behavior is illegal, and blackballing is better than they deserve. Nobody is advocating anything except due process and free speech.

Who can possibly object to that?

<comment><USER5> > As he says, their behavior is illegal, and blackballing is better than they > deserve. Nobody is advocating anything except due process and free speech.

It's not clear yet that what they did is illegal. No court has ruled that. It's sickening to me that you can on one had assume that a group of people should be punished for something they may not even be guilty of while at the same time claiming to support due process.

<comment> grey-area _It 's not clear yet that what they did is illegal. No court has ruled that._

These revelations have seriously weakened many people's belief in the rule of law, applicable to all. Secret courts and secret committees which oversee this activity lead us to judge actions as either moral or immoral, because we have no way to trust or verify the court decisions, or find out whether the law is even being followed, or even how it is being interpreted.

 _It 's sickening to me that you can on one had assume that a group of people should be punished for something they may not even be guilty of while at the same time claiming to support due process._

When the law is applied inconsistently or not at all, people resort to vigilante action.

This is the fault of politicians who have proposed retrospectively legalising activities like metadata collection on every American, tapping every line they can get their hands on, or ignoring breaking into foreign telecoms outfits in supposedly allied countries in order to perform mass surveillance. I'd prefer to avoid vigilante action too, because it does lead inevitably to more evil, misunderstanding and mob justice. We see this from time to time on HN as the mob picks on a target (typically a web company) and tears them apart for some trivial misdemeanour poorly understood at the time. Once the mob starts, it cannot be stopped, and everyone just joins in because to not join in or raise questions makes you a target. At times something similar has happened here to those who oppose this surveillance. People feel angry and impotent and take it out on those who support these actions.

I do think this part of your statement is incorrect though and does not follow from the first sentence - _something they may not even be guilty of_. We now know with a fair degree of certainty what they are guilty of, the legitimate question you raise is whether it is technically considered illegal or not. For many people though, because of the misuse and perversion of the laws governing these activities, they don't trust the law, and the question has now become:

Is this right and can I support it, or should I oppose it at every opportunity, and any laws which support it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "But if any healing is possible, it would probably start with making the NSA and its ilk socially unacceptable"

I'm surprised people are suggesting this as a solution. I don't see how creating an us vs them mentality is helpful here given that when you get down to it they are basically just folks trying to make a living and feed their family like any one else. A better and more positive solution could be for a bunch of private sector companies who opposed what is going on here to get together and aggressively poach their employees. It's hard to build an evil empire when all your best engineers have been hired away.

<comment><USER7> > _" when you get down to it they are basically just folks trying to make a > living and feed their family like any one else."_

aka: "The Yuppie Nuremberg Defense"

Anyway, the theory of operation here is that if you create social cost for the decision to work for the NSA, then the NSA will have a more difficult time recruiting new mathematicians. Even if you only get 5% of all graduates to swear to themselves that they won't take a job with the NSA, that is 5% of the top talent that the NSA will no longer be able to recruit.

Your _" better and more positive"_ solution can _and should_ be tried _at the same time_. We should do both. Ostracize the participants, and welcome them back into the fold with open arms and juicy salaries if they _' see the error of their ways'_.

<comment><USER3> NSA is literally Hitler now, is it?

<comment><USER7> > _" NSA is literally Hitler now, is it?"_

The _" Yuppie Nuremberg Defense"_ is a pop-culture reference to the movie _Thank You For Smoking_. In the movie, the phrase is used to describe the defense _" I've got a mortgage to pay"_, offered up by a lawyer _^W_ spokesperson who worked for large Tobacco firms.

(The _Yuppie Nuremberg Defense_ should not be confused with the _Superior Orders_ defense (often called the _Nuremberg Defense_ ); with the Yuppie version the defendant asserts that the listener should excuse them because they did it for the money, _not_ because they were commanded to.)

So, if we assume that analogies, references, and allusions to history are verboten, I am _actually_ saying _" The NSA is literally Big Tobacco"_. How senselessly inflammatory of me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is stupid. You severe ties with the NSA but what about the FBI, CIA, DEA, DISA, DIA, the list goes on. What about contractors who do business for the NSA? The big primes. Lockheed, Grumman, SAIC, CGIFederal, BAE, Booz, etc.etc.

It's pointless to say you won't do business with one when they are all interconnected. Coming from someone raised in Beltway culture.

edit: It is also funny when people say things to the effect of "Beyond what conspiracy theorist could have ever imagined". I'm honestly surprised when people say they didn't know or expect this was happening.

<comment><USER9> > This is stupid... [there are too many, they are all interconnected].

Really? Ever tried to get in shape? There's always that first step. Also -- quoting someone here who, whatever his faults, did get rid of a lot of american colonial bullshit -- it does not matter how slowly you go, so long as you do not stop.

It is very clear that you are a beltway product, and I eagerly anticipate never doing business with you, never inviting you to a convention, and never taking your money. Because the guy behind you is getting impatient. NEXT!

<comment><USER6> Like it or not Silicon Valley is a beltway product too. It's genesis was in the huge amounts of money that the government showered on universities and companies in the area during the 60's and 70's. They've diversified some since but there are still plenty of companies that are supported by it Palantir for example [http://www.palantir.com/solutions/](http://www.palantir.com/solutions/)

<comment><USER7> So?

I honestly don't know what your point is here. This isn't some sort of _" 'free market' vs 'government', and who gets credit for various achievements"_ discussion.

<comment><USER6> The point is that the valley isn't an innocent victim here they have in the past and still do facilitate the surveillance state. To act as if refusing to deal with anyone involved would only mean uninviting some government employees from a few conferences and black balling a collection of beltway bandits is naive. The uncomfortable truth is that you would probably have to stop dealing with a lot more people and companies than you would be comfortable with.

<comment><USER7> Consider the possibility of blackballing anybody who _continues_ to be involved.

Would that mean blackballing people who continue to work for government contractors as well? Possibly. I'd say that is left up to the individual implementor. We don't need to all literally agree on a list of individuals to blackball. A general trend across some subset of the community would do just fine. Some people may take it to the extreme, some may only dissociate from a narrowly defined group of people. This sort of social tension, or pressure, doesn't need to be engineered with exacting precision. A respected professor here, an influential ex-boss there, one of your college buddies that you might consider asking for a recommendation one day... all can contribute to this ostracism in their own way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> And this: [http://www.securitycurrent.com/en/writers/richard- stiennon/i...](http://www.securitycurrent.com/en/writers/richard-stiennon/it- is-time-for-the-trusted-computer-group-to-repudiate-the-nsa)

</comment><comment><USER11> Doesn't the NSA employ something in the area of 25% of all Math PHDs in the US? This will be a tough severance.

<comment><USER12> [http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual- survey/2010Survey-...](http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual- survey/2010Survey-NewDoctorates-Supp-TableE1.pdf)

Looks like under 5% of new PhD grads take a government job.

<comment><USER13> > ... making the NSA and its ilk socially unacceptable — just as, in the days > of my youth, working for the KGB was socially unacceptable for many in the > Soviet Union.

This could harm that interested 5% as well. At least I hope so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is the intellectually honest thing to do. Bravo to the people who stand up to illegal government operations.

</comment><comment><USER15> The AMS needs a `Society of Concerned Mathematicians'. Collectively, it could voice and lobby with authority in DC. Neal Koblitz, of Elliptic Curve Cryptography, has been doing humanitarian crypto outreach for political dissent in Central America for decades.</comment>