Does power really corrupt? - <AUTHOR> https://www.1843magazine.com/features/does-power-really-corrupt <comment><USER2> Intuitively, this feels very right with my experience being on both sides of the fence. I would need to do a study on one aspect of this in particular that gut-wise is the core of this IMO: The way people treat you shapes your personality and how you treat others in the future. To me this is more to the heart of the issue. For example, when I was poor, people treated me like I was not really wanted or that I was expected to go the extra mile to please. I tended to feel less important with less confidence and didn't feel I was special in any sense, which in some sense made me more selfless to a degree. On the flip side, having money, the service industry kisses your ass and women treat you like you're the hot item on Black Friday. This inflates your ego and you expect that treatment after awhile, becoming more picky and discerning of everything, moving in the direction of being a selfish asshole. This is the same reason IMO why beautiful women tend to be perceived as rude or the "B" word as they see most men as just a commodity as they are inundated with unwanted attention.

<comment><USER3> To play the devil's advocate: What's wrong with being more selective? I don't think anything is.

What's problematic is how people go about it. Our society doesn't teach us how to be selective with grace and manners. So when people realize they have power in a situation they freak out a bit and might over react in being excessively picky or rude to others.

<comment><USER4> The problems with class warfare are similar to those of racial discrimination.

The problem is not that there is no basis for using a filter but that assuming everybody is identical within a class (or subset, which has a 1:1 mapping to the notion of class) is a logical error.

It is not about morality so much as logic. Suppose I find Italians to be corrupt and untrustworthy. Well evidently there exist Italians who are honest with good intentions. That some of set of Italians genuinely do belong to a mafia is not indicative of the larger group, even if it were so that a majority of Italians were mafiosos.

Of course real life is complicated, people have to resort to satisficing ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing)) and worse yet harmful behavior patterns aren't limited to any subset of the group. Notoriously there exist robin hoods and bad cops. Choosing not to go down the wrong street is reasonable under satisficing but rejecting job candidates for having the wrong names is.

All of this is to say that discrimination in of itself is not illogical but discriminating indiscriminately IS.

<comment><USER5> The problem here is our lack of understanding of statistics. Yes, there probably are differences in averages on things like criminality, intelligence, lazyness and so on between groups like male/female, ethnicity, gay or straight and so on.

But, besides the fact that the difference might not be in the direction you think it goes, in all these cares, inter-group variability is tiny compared to intra group variability.

That means: it doesn't matter in practice. Whether men ow women are on average more intelligent, those 1-3 average IQ points are so irrelevant compared to the 15-30 points 5 random people in a room would generally differ from each other that it is barely of academic interest and certainly useless to use to judge a random men or women you meet.

This thing is true for many differences between groups often discriminated against. Scientist are thus inclined not to research these differences: if they exist they are rarely helpful for policy (too small) but often their reporting results in people misbehaving even more due to their misunderstanding the impact (or rather lack thereof).

<comment><USER4> It is true that inter-group variability is tiny compared to intra group variability.

However I strongly disagree that it does not matter in practice. In practice people are not randomly assigned rooms to be in. They certainly do not meet other people randomly. The result is group identity becomes ever more strongly associated and tribes form. Stereotypes are developed and so on.

For example; it does not surprise me that tiny eastern European countries have coders working for Google but much larger and closer minority populations do not. EE workers are natively nowhere close to Google HQ and they don't even share a common language and culture. These are high barriers.

That there exist a larger number of people with the hypothetical potential to code for Google (which surely exist because of intra group variability) within that minority American population is not relevant. Those people do not want to code for Google i.e. exchange their labour in this area for money. The eastern european coders from (really) tiny states on the other hand have a strong desire to work in those domains that computer corporations select for in their workers.

Even though there are many differences between a typical coder in the United States and a typical Eastern European coder, their shared 'tribe' of basically being geeks trumps everything else. That ought to be GOOD news for those who want to avoid discrimination based on the superficial differences but somehow it does not seem to be taken as this. That's politics.

Obviously scientists are under social pressure not to examine such visible differences. This is because they are failures at being scientists. I do not say that lightly. These are atrocious failures of omission. If society only receives measurements it looks for, then why bother doing any research at all? We already know the answers! It is certainly cheaper to confirm society's biases, whether we're in Victorian times or in the present. It's like being a fat man avoiding the weighing scales.

I understand your point about the gen.pop taking complex research with many confounding variables and reducing the results to a simplistic and inaccurate story. That worries me as well, not just in cases of racial discrimination, but as a general error. That said I cannot agree it makes no difference for public policy (because of the non-random sorting I mentioned earlier). Public policy ought to be based on reality, if the map does not conform to the territory problems will occur. Any system that produces inaccurate information and then has to depend on the false outputs will constantly be tripping itself up.

As a last point, although gen.pop can do dumb things sometimes, that is no reason to feed them platitudes. They do however have bullshit detectors which go off when what the media describes to them isn't what they see in their realities. They are capable of complex thought and thought evolution over time and I fail to see how deliberately misleading them can lead to a greater good without dysfunction. Frankly I think a decline in economic prosperity has a lot more to do with inter-group dynamics going bad, with propaganda causing it to be worse, but as a second order affect.

I agree that IQ is far from the deciding factor in most individual cases. 3-5 points really isn't that much. You could get that many points by taking a ten minute walk and a shower! The issue though is that just as gravity does not affect you and I on the microscale we are at, with enough mass/size things start happening that really do impact on us. I don't know if you've ever walked from a room with average people to a room with people who are totally into the thing you're into, but the difference is very palatable to me. I much prefer the second room over the first, even if that first room had a slightly higher IQ. Why? Because I can now get something done! In fact we all can. That almost comes as a relief.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Anglo-Saxon saying: "You know what a man is when he can do as he likes." Good people with power will remain good people. Narcissists, people who say "I told you so", and other nasty pieces of work will remain nasty pieces of work when in power -- look at the journal editors who rejected Egloff's paper for a petty example.

As for whether Mercedes drivers behave badly? I find it easy to believe that they do. There are those who don't know the social language of cars, and those who inherit family cars, but the sort of person who knows the language of cars and buys a Mercedes anyways is the sort who has money but no taste -- "West African cabinet ministers and Beverly Hills dentists" in Paul Fussell's phrase -- the sort of person who would voluntarily live in Malibu.

<comment><USER7> The Mercedes thing is interesting. I hadn't been paying attention to it until I began to notice a pattern -- whenever somebody in my town was driving as if the rules of the road and basic humanity did not apply, the vehicle was usually a Mercedes. I've been wondering about it ever since. There are definitely benign Mercedes drivers on the road, but the brand seems to attract more than an ordinary proportion of jerks. (This is the kind of thing one notices a lot as a cyclist, and Mercedes owners are responsible for more than their fair share of near misses with me.) I looked for the same pattern with other luxury vehicles, but it doesn't seem to apply to BMW, Audi, Porche, or Maserati. Since nobody in my social circle owns a luxury vehicle, I remain intensely curious about who, exactly, is driving these things. Does it have something to do with being the kind of person who is willing to buy a vehicle with ho-hum performance, expensive repair bills, and poor fuel efficiency? Have you got a link for the "language of cars" you're talking about?

<comment><USER8> I suspect your anecdote is just that. Around here (Texas) I tend to suspect unfriendly driving from large trucks and "cheap" sports cars and am more defensive in my driving when I 'm around them. What is the actual distribution of unfriendly drivers? Many mercedes I see are older folks who drive slowly and safely (perhaps too slowly...)

As for why buy a luxury car, it's much like why buy an apple laptop? It tends to be a completely different user experience compared to your early hyundai, low-end mazda, <insert budget models here>. As for my luxury car that I got a great deal on used, even considering repair costs, its performance and ride quality is anything but ho-hum...

<comment><USER7> > I suspect your anecdote is just that.

Sure, take it for what it's worth. At best, it applies only to the town where I live. Still, the opening anecdote in the article resonated with me because Mercedes drivers around here have shown an unusually small amount of concern for my welfare.

As a cyclist, one tends to be more than usually sensitive to people trying to kill you with their cars. I submit that as the driver of a high-performance luxury vehicle, you may be more than usually sensitive to people driving too slow for your taste.

<comment><USER9> > At best, it applies only to the town where I live. Still, the opening > anecdote in the article resonated with me because Mercedes drivers around > here have shown an unusually small amount of concern for my welfare.

Another Texan checking in, and I absolutely agree with you (with the addition of BMW and a growing number of Audi drivers).

95% of my travel is by bicycle or motorcycle and in my personal experience this group of drivers is disproportionately less concerned with the safety/welfare of others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Not that this study isn't interesting, but Lord Acton was really talking about how powerful people corrupt _us_.

''' I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility [that is, the later judgment of historians] has to make up for the want of legal responsibility [that is, legal consequences during the rulers' lifetimes]. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which . . . the end learns to justify the means. You would hang a man of no position, . . . but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greater names coupled with the greater crimes. You would spare these criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them, higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice; still more, still higher, for the sake of historical science.... '''

[http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html](http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html)

What is he getting at? We'd hang Mary and forgive Elizabeth for the same crimes, so we're corrupted by the powerful. I think the the leading presidential candidates of both major U.S. parties shows this to be true.

<comment><USER11> I don't think that interpretation jibes with the text:

Assertion:

"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases."

Rationale:

"Historic responsibility [that is, the later judgment of historians] has to make up for the want of legal responsibility [that is, legal consequences during the rulers' lifetimes]. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

He then goes on to rail against people that hold power:

"Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority."

Without the idea that power tends to corrupt those in power, there would be no reason to presume that they did wrong by default or to say that people who exercise influence and authority are bad men.

<comment><USER12> To define someone as bad you must also define good - and if you are defining the terms, they are meaningless.

From the perspective of the "bad men", they are serving good - be that the good they see in themselves or whatever cause it is they act in. Stalin genuinely believed he was acting in the interests of the Soviet people. Pol Pot was liberating his countrymen.

I would argue that the GP's interpretation is correct - we willingly ignore our own moral compasses when we examine the behaviour of the powerful, as to admit that those that hold power over you are "evil" is to admit your own weakness in not actively opposing that power - so power does indeed corrupt those who behold it, as much as those who hold it - if not moreso, as the "bad men" act in "enlightened self interest" and do no wrong in their own eyes - but you do do wrong by knowingly averting your eyes.

<comment><USER11> This is more about what Acton was saying, so we're looking at good and bad from his perspective. I don't think we need to invoke moral relativity as we already have a frame of reference. He seems to have clearly indicted men of power unless there's text that I have omitted stating otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Depends on how you think of power: a privilege or great responsibility? Power corrupts those who think they deserve it.

"Two of my cousins and I entered the apartment of the Prophet (ﷺ). One of them said: Messenger of Allah, appoint us rulers of some lands that the Almighty and Glorious God has entrusted to thy care. The other also said something similar. He said: We do not appoint to this position one who asks for it nor anyone who is covetous for the same."

"If a dog dies hungry on the banks of the River Euphrates, Umar will be responsible for dereliction of duty." Umar Ibn al Khattab

<comment><USER14> "If a dog dies hungry on the banks of the River Euphrates, Umar will be responsible for dereliction of duty."

can you explain what it means? English is not my first language and I'm having difficulty getting the meaning out of this sentence.

<comment><USER15> Paraphrasing - If a dog starves/drowns, the ruler is responsible for their failure to perform their duties (keep the dog safe).

More or less saying everything is the responsibility of the ruler, no matter how small the task, I think.

<comment><USER14> Thanks :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I know this isn't a popular idea, but I think people need to be more empathetic to those who have been entrusted with power.

I despise corruption, but I think we do ourselves a disservice when we focus all our attention on the officials who are being corrupted while allowing armies of policy experts to influence official's opinions while funding their campaigns.

The question shouldn't be "Does power really corrupt?", the question should be, "Does power become a magnet for special interests hell bent on corrupting it?"

<comment><USER17> The very nature of power forces people to be empathetic to those who wield it.

Thats almost the definition of power, and it's also what corrupts people.

<comment><USER18> This, probably apocryphal, quote applies:

Those who want power shouldn't have it, those who enjoy it do so for the wrong reasons.

<comment><USER19> You see these types of quotes all the time, but I've started to question their wisdom. Is it really hard to imagine that the most qualified ruler might happen to recognized themselves as the most qualified ruler and therefore want the position?

Maybe I'm just being optimistic that a quest for peak social optimization doesn't necessarily lead to a dictatorship...

<comment><USER18> No it's not that hard to imagine. But when I look at politicians, on either side of the Atlantic, that's not what I see.

I see a lot of hard working MPs lost in the system, doing as the party machines tell them. They're more subservient than powerful. I see the stars and office holders following a much more Machiavellian approach.

A good question is whether that's mainly down to the types of people getting involved, or the party machines that have developed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Famous quote of Giulio Andreotti, an old Italian politician.

"Il potere logora chi non ce l'ha"

("Power wears out those who don't have it")

Note: the literal translation is "to wear out", but the phrase "il potere logora" has the equivalent meaning of "the power corrupts", in the sense that it wears out the moral compass.

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

<comment><USER21> Perhaps go with 'degrades' which carries both connotations?

<comment><USER20> I used the translation I found in the linked wikipedia article and also the most frequently cited form in the wild.

Furthermore 'degrades' can also imply that it demeans a person, strips one's dignity, while recent history shows that Italy is a country where being corrupt does not necessarily make you lose respect and honour (i.e honour != rightfulness).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's a vicious cycle. In a world where corruption is rewarded, you are chastised explicitly or implicitly for passing up the opportunity to get ahead by participating in systemic abuse of power. I can't find the precise research that illuminated how identifying a cheater (who is perceived either as part of the community, or an outsider), can influence the rest of the class to cheat at tests or not. But this infographic[1] identifies peer pressure as the #1 reason for cheating in college, and seems to back it up with survey and research evidence.

1: [http://www.bestcollegereviews.org/cheating/](http://www.bestcollegereviews.org/cheating/)

</comment><comment><USER23> "A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior" [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133193) , Korndörfer et al 2015:

"Does being from a higher social class lead a person to engage in more or less prosocial behavior? Psychological research has recently provided support for a negative effect of social class on prosocial behavior. However, research outside the field of psychology has mainly found evidence for positive or u-shaped relations. In the present research, we therefore thoroughly examined the effect of social class on prosocial behavior. Moreover, we analyzed whether this effect was moderated by the kind of observed prosocial behavior, the observed country, and the measure of social class. Across eight studies with large and representative international samples, we predominantly found positive effects of social class on prosociality: Higher class individuals were more likely to make a charitable donation and contribute a higher percentage of their family income to charity (32,090 ≥ N ≥ 3,957; Studies 1–3), were more likely to volunteer (37,136 ≥N ≥ 3,964; Studies 4–6), were more helpful (N = 3,902; Study 7), and were more trusting and trustworthy in an economic game when interacting with a stranger (N = 1,421; Study 8) than lower social class individuals. Although the effects of social class varied somewhat across the kinds of prosocial behavior, countries, and measures of social class, under no condition did we find the negative effect that would have been expected on the basis of previous results reported in the psychological literature. Possible explanations for this divergence and implications are discussed."

<comment><USER4> Gwern, I declare you to be a natural aristocrat.

I hope you won't get mad if we freeze you until the world cycles back around to the idea of making rulers effective at their jobs.

I don't think we'll have long to wait. The Net is over turning many formerly reasonable ideas by holding up a mirror to us. Will Rogers said: It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so. <opinion> The Net is the end of egalitarianism, forever until perhaps genomics is truly cracked.

It's going to an interesting ride! I hope we wind up closer to the Diamond Age than Snow Crash though.

<comment><USER24> Did you not catch the hint in _DA_ where _DA_ is set in the same universe as _SC_? It's just a few decades later.

<comment><USER4> I did hear of that idea Mr Sn9 (let's bring back Dickensian mannerisms!)

Sully of Slashdot claims to have met Mr Stephenson at a book signing.

Quote forthwith:

According to Neal, Diamond Age and Snow Crash are not in the same universe at all. He stated further that any similarity is just due to the coincidence of the both novels having the same author.

Anyway. It was a good idea even if it was incorrect. Mayhap another shining hypothesis slain by ugly facts.

To clarify: I was implying to Gwern that Snow Crash would be a dismal universe to live in because the world was clearly in some kind of stagnation or slump caused by the (I don't have a good way to express this with words properly) backwash of globalization.

If the Diamond Age is an evolution from Snow Crash then it is a much better world to live in. My original impression is strongly of a more fragmented world yet also one with more stability and wealth as compared with Snow Crash, which is a slow motion train wreck.

Ironically I believe we truly do live in the world of Snow Crash. We've stagnated badly over the last few decades and we're just about waking up to the consequences of it now.

It won't surprise you to learn I'm in favour of an aristocratic approach to tackle the problem like the Vickies.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11724637](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11724637)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Great book on similar topic: "The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics"

[https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost- Po...](https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics- ebook/dp/B005GPSLHI?ie=UTF8&btkr=1&ref_=dp-kindle-redirect)

Provides compelling case that all politicians tend toward dictatorship with the difference in how fully these tendencies are realized just being in the size of the coalition they have to appease, reward, or bully. With stereotypical absolute dictators this easy to see. On the other end of the spectrum, it is more shrouded. American democracy is theoretically based on a maximum sized coalition equaling roughly the entire population. In practice, the leaders are beholden to and have to influence a much smaller coalition to wield power. Something like the current Sanders/Clinton popular vote vs inner circle super delegate issue demonstrates this pretty well. Fascinating read.

<comment><USER26> But people with more power are the ones that have to make the hard choices. And hard choices are hard, true by definition.

If one never has to burden any thing on one's shoulder, probably that one is the burden of someone else. It's like this: we civil people can't stand killing and shooting, that's why we outsource it to the government and praise the army for their service.

Is it hypocritical? I don't know anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> "SORRY, YOU NEED TO ENABLE JAVASCRIPT TO VISIT THIS WEBSITE." it tells me. I do. I see flat, plain text with some images. WTF. Don't be those web devs, guys!

</comment><comment><USER28> The page demands more power:

"Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website."

But I'm not going to give it away!

<comment><USER29> really? I write javascript(typescript) for living.

<comment><USER30> I'm so sorry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Having power is a requirement of being corrupt, by the definition. If you didn't have power, you wouldn't have the leverage to corrupt the system in the first place.

>Corruption: dishonest or fraudulent conduct _by those in power_ , typically involving bribery

</comment><comment><USER32> Exploring the Psychology of Wealth, 'Pernicious' Effects of Economic Inequality:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuqGrz- Y_Lc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuqGrz-Y_Lc)

</comment><comment><USER33> And remember in most cases (if not all) your boss is not your friend.

Kind of a corollary

</comment><comment><USER34> Power corrupts those who are in power to wield influence, eventually in attempts to please all those they serve they find themselves without any ideals or direction of their own. And I agree with some1else that people are rewarded for this behavior but the chances of that changing are pretty slim so I guess the real solution is not be weak/unempathetic people.

</comment><comment><USER35> 'We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms: it 'excludes', it 'represses', it 'censors', it 'abstracts', it 'masks', it 'conceals'. In fact power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth. The individual and the knowledge that may be gained of him belong to this production'

\-- Foucault

</comment><comment><USER36> Wow, finally an article that breaks Betteridge's law!

For a great speech on why power corrupts, by a powerful person, see this:

[https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/notes/havel.html](https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/notes/havel.html)

</comment><comment><USER37> The basic research seems sketchy. You send however many students out, what is the framing you're giving them for doing the rating? What are their own current biases or likely statistical ones considering their current training / profession / school?

</comment><comment><USER38> It's not so much that power corrupts. Power is just a multiplier.

The problem is more that the kind of people who are most likely to end up in positions of power are those who are going to abuse that power and don't care about their responsibility (or have never learned it).

<comment><USER39> It's because democracy doesn't work - and nor does any other system.

Democracy selects politicians on their ability to persuade voters. Feudalism and dictatorship select those who are the most violent and self-serving.

All are examples of a very niche kind of competence, which has nothing to do with intelligent strategic planning.

<comment><USER38> I was thinking more of business people than politics, actually. What with the trope that most successful business people are sociopaths.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Probably, but we don't spend enough time thinking about what kind of person it is who seeks that power in the first place. Maybe there was nothing to corrupt in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER41> It's called [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle)

</comment><comment><USER42> Recommended reading: "Assholes, A Theory".[1] A serious study of the rewards and effects of being an asshole.

(I gave a copy of this to a friend who's an attorney for a major Silicon Valley law firm, and she found it explained some of the people she had to deal with.)

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Assholes-Theory-Aaron- James/dp/0804171...](http://www.amazon.com/Assholes-Theory-Aaron- James/dp/0804171351)

</comment><comment><USER4> Interesting article. What I have to say will sound old fashioned but I think it is relevant.

My opinion is that power does not corrupt as much under one circumstance. It corresponds to old ideas about aligning interests of the group with the individual. About also not having to answer to competitors for your status in society.

If you are a trained member of the aristocratic class.

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

Aristocrats != Wealthy. Although they usually are as a side affect.

Aristocrats can be born or more rarely raised into the class. They are normally trained in an area of expertise or otherwise have a great deal of experience. Example would be the House of Lords as opposed to the House of Parliament members whom are democratically elected.

Today the word has a negative meaning but originally the aristocracy performed any number of astonishing feats I do not believe modern governments are capable of accomplishing.

In modern times it is possible that patriotism can serve a similar function for well paid civil servants and that also being independently wealthy can be an advantage against corruption. However these techniques are just derivatives of the original idea of an aristocracy class.

Example of an official present day aristocrat would be Baroness Susan Greenfield. A good example of a defacto (natural) aristocrat would be somebody like Freeman Dyson.

These are people we can trust to have power and wield it responsibly. I realize this is a highly imperfect system but it really is superior to modern day ideas about democracy and responsibility.

Incidentally I have no money or power, I gain no advantage from believing this. I arrive at this idea largely by reading history books. I just think if you can't separate rich from the aristocrats you will get confusing and conflated results as per the article.

Obviously the problem with aristocracy is the overly hereditary nature of it. Freeman Dyson's children are excellent people but in different (magical to me) ways. I could not say whether his grandchildren would share the same level though, that's kind of the problem that lead to the word aristocracy having negative sentiments.

</comment><comment><USER43> This is one of many arguments against total economic liberalism. Allowing unlimited economic inequality produces a superclass that is likely to treat the rest of society poorly.

<comment><USER44> As communism experiments show, enforcing economic equality also produces a superclass that treats the rest of society poorly. :)

<comment><USER43> there's a whole lot of room in between. every modern nation state produces a super class, but it's a question of how super they are, and whether possible checks exist to their superness. there are few checks to vast wealth in the US today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> has anyone ever thought about ai being in power? Maybe being unemotional and lacking emotional intelligence might be a possible solution where humans fail once again...

<comment><USER46> The Culture books by Iain M. Banks talks about this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_series)

<comment><USER47> The Culture books pretty much define the best case scenario for an AI run society - the main control on the godlike-AIs (the Minds) running everything being the opinions of their fellow Minds. Get it wrong, e.g. by fiddling with the minds of meat beasties, and you get ostracized - which is about the most severe punishment the Culture has:

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> The widespread lack of power suppresses the latent corruption in most people from having any large impact.

The availability of power exposes the latent corruption.

</comment><comment><USER49> I have two words for you: Homeowner Association

</comment><comment><USER50> Make it illegal to own a black Mercedes, Voila!

</comment><comment><USER51> No, I think it depends on the mind of the person. But yes, you are more expose by corruption with power and money.

<comment><USER2> These kind of studies address bell curves which by definition always has outliers so your statement is correct but statistically may be an outlier. You can always say "it depends" in other words.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Some people like to take responsibility. Others like to be powerful. But everyone wants to be important.

</comment><comment><USER53> As someone said:

"Power does not corrupt, corrups the fear to lose it"

</comment><comment><USER54> absolutely

<comment><USER55> Actually be scared of powerful person that is not corrupted. They are willing to commit atrocities on much bigger scale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> No. See Marcus Aurelius

<comment><USER57> You mean the Roman Emperor telling everyone they should be happy with less money, less food, less water, less everything ?

The Roman Emperor who got the position because he was his father's favorite nephew ? The Marcus Aurelius who got a special exception on at least 2 laws just for him personally from the Senate for his first job on special request from his father ? Whose first job was qaestor ("minister of finance" \- sort of) ?

That Marcus Aurelius ?

Actions speak louder than words, and given the fact that this guy was an emperor (and is thus rather unlikely to have written those books himself) ... probably were a PR campaign. A very successful one, but mostly nothing more than a PR campaign.

Granted these are all cases of other people acting in a corrupt manner to provide him with advantages in life no-one else had. It doesn't necessarily reflect on his character ... however ... especially his succession ...

<comment><USER58> You are trying to point out Aurelius' corruption by critizising the way he became emperor, which I find a bit weak. Is there evidence that he actually mis-used his power when he already held that power? Also, how did he compare to other emperors of his time? The things you mentioned could easily have been culturally accepted.

<comment><USER57> Everything he ever did is one big billboard screaming he doesn't believe in stoicism.

First, Of the things mentioned in my own post, which focus on the start of his reign. His rise to power. Do you seriously believe he had no hand in that ? He must have fought, in many ways, to get the position of emperor. He pursued power, and not by working hard in any stoic sense (stoicism accepts only actual "hand" labour as labour, and worthy of reward. Things like holding senate/government/management positions, no matter how well executed, no matter how punctual you are, aren't ever very stoic at all). That, by itself, is very very very very un-stoic of him.

Second argument is his reign. He was an emperor advocating stoicism, known for ... being extremely generous when it came to "bread and circuses". His power was built on what is close to the opposite of what his books advocate.

And third argument is the end of his reign, his kid (and his family, but that would take us too far), and his succession. Clearly the behavior of his kid was an indication of how his household functioned. His kid, Commodus, was described as an extremely self-obsessed neurotic drunk ... It is not physically possible to become either self-obsessed or drunk in a stoic household.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Yes. Next question.</comment>


Exposure to the bacteria in soil can be good for mental health - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/993258/dirt-has-a-microbiome-and-it-may-double-as-an-antidepressant/ <comment><USER2> The real takeaway for me as a parent here is that the more and more we prevent our kids from being actual kids, the more subtleties we might be depriving them of.

Dating myself a little, but growing up as a kid in Virginia, 'outside' play was a mainstay. We went out into the woods, we built tree forts, we dug holes, we made tire swings. Nowadays, the parents of my children's friends are completely unwilling to let their kids engage in such behavior, whether because it's potentially dangerous (it is), or dirty (that too), the kids are expected to meet up in a sanitized location, play in a playroom, or possibly on a playground with rubber mulch as the surface material, and seldom are kids allowed or expected to just go play.

Meanwhile, we've got more and more kids being prescribed more and more things, and while I honestly haven't the slightest clue whether to attribute it to the lack of outdoor play or the miracles of modern medicine, it seems possibly correlated.

<comment><USER3> It's a weird situation to be an adult. You got cautious along the years (for good or bad reasons) and somehow forgot what you did. When I remember all the crazy things we did as 5yo .. climbing trees out of the blue, alone, no supervision, no phones. We're all alive and well.

<comment><USER4> True, we're all alive and well.

Simultaneously,

that's the definition of survivorship bias / selection bias right there :)

<comment><USER5> I hate to say it but...what about Natural Selection bias?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I spent half of this week researching industrial food processing methodologies and the cleanliness you can get to is obviously unhealthy. It's like humans look at biology and see 10 major pathogens and over-optimize for that chunk of biology what-ifs they better understand due to macro effect. They then shut their eyes and bury their heads in the ... chemically clean and white fluffy pillow, eat a salad bathed in chlorine, sit inside in air conditioning, and wonder why they get ill. Let them eat dirt.

<comment><USER7> > sit inside in air conditioning

What's wrong with air conditioning?

<comment><USER8> There are definitely positives and negatives. This may have been mentioned in part due to this recent discussion:

The far-reaching effects of air conditioning | [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14485962](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14485962)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'd rather avoid much of the residential dirt on the eastern coast of the US, especially in older towns, due the accumulation of decades, if not centuries, of lead paint in the soil. In these parts, unless you've had it tested or you're living in a newer home with virgin soil, I'd think twice before letting the kids dig around too much. Lead exposure will negate any positive psychological effects of the dirt microbiome rather quickly.

<comment><USER10> Maybe don't let them dig around the foundation of a house with old paint on it... but just general dirt in the environment seems really unlikely to contain much lead. Not speaking from experience here, just speculating...

<comment><USER9> Which is fine and all if you're acutely aware of the risk, but most residential dirt readily available for digging in happens to be in the garden beds around houses and garages, right were flaking paint has been accumulating. The dirt people are likely digging in, if they're in an older community, isn't just any old random dirt. Also, most parents I've known aren't too keen on holes in the middle of the yard, away from the house.

[https://www.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family-exposures- lead#...](https://www.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family-exposures-lead#soil)

Rather than take my word for it, there are plenty of federal, state, and county resources which can give you some idea of the likely lead levels to be found in your area and extrapolate from there. I'm not in the safest area myself, but I hope you find it's not something you yourself have to worry about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I can feel a new startup coming up, selling packaged soil dirt on a subscription basis.

<comment><USER12> My first thought was bullies making kids eat dirt and shouting "It's good for your mental health!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> In the article they cite as evidence for serotonin deficiency's depressogenic effects:

"Overall, this evidence suggests that impairing serotonin function can cause clinical depression in some circumstances, but is neither necessary nor sufficient."

From Wikipedia[1]:

Since the 1990s, research has uncovered multiple limitations of the monoamine hypothesis, and its inadequacy has been criticized within the psychiatric community.[44] For one thing, serotonin system dysfunction cannot be the sole cause of depression; antidepressants usually increase synaptic serotonin very quickly, but it often takes at least two to four weeks before mood improves significantly. One possible explanation for this lag is that the neurotransmitter activity enhancement is the result of auto receptor desensitization rather which can take weeks.[45] Intensive investigation has failed to find convincing evidence of a primary dysfunction of a specific monoamine system in patients with major depressive disorders. The antidepressants that do not act through the monoamine system, such as tianeptine and opipramol, have been known for a long time. There has also been inconsistency with regards to serum 5-HIAA levels, a metabolite of serotonin.[46] Experiments with pharmacological agents that cause depletion of monoamines have shown that this depletion does not cause depression in healthy people.[47][48] Another problem that presents is that drugs that deplete monoamines may actually have antidepressants properties. Furthermore, some have argued that depression may be marked by a hyperseretonergic state[49] Already limited, the monoamine hypothesis has been further oversimplified when presented to the general public.[50]

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

</comment><comment><USER14> Finally, scientific proof that wandering barefoot is good for the soul.

<comment><USER15> And good for the Hookworm

<comment><USER16> Actually the hookworm is also good for us, it seems to reduce some allergic responses!

See also: [http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/244238.php](http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/244238.php)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This sounds like preliminary research spun into health recommendations that are unjustified and possibly dangerous. What else is new.

<comment><USER18> Well in this case the preliminary science looks plausible. In the 10 years since this preliminary trial nobody has bothered doing a placebo controlled trial of this bacteria for depression, so it's probably reasonable to spin it a bit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Lovely, another AFB I have to memorize. Damnit!

<comment><USER20> AFB ?

<comment><USER21> I think he's referring to Armed Forces Bikers, a UK-based motorcycle charity to assist former members of the armed forces.

<comment><USER19> Nice, I'll look them up :)

But, no, AFB = Acid Fast Bacillus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Think I'll stick with the pills...

<comment><USER23> Why, though? (Unless, by any chance, you mean pills for enhancing gut flora? :)</comment></comment>


Hopper: Stop emailing yourself notes, files, and images - <AUTHOR> http://gethopper.com <comment><USER2> On the one hand, this is cool... on the other hand, I'll never use it (sorry).

I email stuff to myself on gmail because I can have thousands of things in there that I can instantly find via powerful search. And I'm fairly confident that 5 years from now they'll still be in there and just as easily discoverable.

While Hopper's UI is certainly better than email attachments in gmail currently are, I suspect Google will rectify that on their side much faster than Hopper will rectify my previously mentioned primary two concerns about the data I'm storing.

As others have already mentioned, seamless integration into email would go a long way toward getting me to use this at all. Augment instead of trying to replace is a much better strategy here.

<comment><AUTHOR> No problem, Hopper might not be for you. However, I've gotten a lot of requests re: emailing updates, so I will consider it!

Let me say, though, that I absolutely respect your privacy and have no intention of looking at your data. It's as private as you want it to be. I'm also happy to put this in the TOS.

Exporting is another story as its easier said than done. Emailing you the pastes periodically (optionally), however, may alleviate that problem.

<comment><USER3> > Let me say, though, that I absolutely respect your privacy and have no > intention of looking at your data. It's as private as you want it to be. I'm > also happy to put this in the TOS.

OP's issue wasn't so much privacy as it was permanency, as I read it. So using Gmail, I can rest assured that in five year's time my documents will still be around, just as they are today. Whereas with a new service, who's to say what lies in store for it? What if you pivot? What if you're acquired? Unfortunately a service like Gmail wins in this context.

<comment><USER4> I used to think that about email services, too. Then one after another they changed their terms when I wasn't looking, and deleted data I thought was safely stored.

What ever happened to 'your own hard drive'? Is there some reason people can't use that for storage? I have a VPS that I use as a file intermediary. I'm highly confident that, and my backups, will be there in 5 years.

<comment><USER5> For most users, "your own hard drive" is a terrrible solution. They do not have a VPS that they use as a file intermediary (they don't even know what a VPS is), and they don't know how to keep backups, and if they did the backups would probably be corrupted or out of date.

This is the miracle of web hosted software for most users. It's also what makes Dropbox so special.

<comment><USER4> I know plenty of people who use portable hard drives, flash drives and writable optic media as a backup... I don't see many downsides in that, barring catastrophic loss (which can happen to second party storage as well, though they do tend to be more professional about being careful).

Of course, a burned DVD isn't going to let me access my file from the office and at home unless I take it with me, so there are drawbacks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have DropBox, EverNote, and Springpad, on the multiple devices I use: work/home PC/laptop and smartphone.

The above tools serve to keep notes and files. Nevertheless I continue to use e-mail as an archiving tool because: \- it pops up unread in my inbox for later processing. If I want to use it on a specific device, I can just leave it unread until I have access to the right device. \- more importantly, email is ubiquitous, and I can have somebody else email me a file.

I still need convincing on what problem Hopper solves for me that the other tools don't. That said, trivially easy drag-and-drop file storing is cool, and I for one welcome our so-simple-my-grandma-can-use-it usability overlords.

<comment><AUTHOR> I found that I regularly emailed myself notes and files for later processing, and they'd then get lost in the inbox. I wanted to be able to search my notes (and only my notes), as well as easily share them with one or several people.

Every other one of those services got me partway there but felt like they were lacking (no web search, burdensome to use, etc). Paste and forget until later - no more than 20 seconds to save something.

Notifications and device web apps are coming, too. Does that help?

<comment><USER7> I just add "note:" to my emails and then I have a gmail filter that tags the messages based on that and the sender's address.

<comment><USER8> On a similar note, I have a gmail filter that picks up when the source and destination email addresses are the same, i.e. when I send an email to myself, tagged under 'self mail'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> People use email because that's still the only ubiquitous app.

I use Dropbox and Pinboard and Instapaper. I still find myself emailing things to myself because whatever iPad app I'm using doesn't yet integrate to any of those but does have email.

Email also exists on all sorts of devices that don't support apps.

That said, nice job - the simplicity and UX is great.

<comment><USER10> The reason I (and I suspect, many others) email stuff to themselves is that I expect my email to be there with me years from now. Websites like these come and go, and I wouldn't want to build up a collection that might just disappear a few months (or maybe a few years) down the line.

I remember collecting links for years on del.icio.us before Yahoo decided to shut it down. Then I moved everything over (though it's nice that del.icio.us made it convenient to move my data over, it's still a hassle) to trunk.ly, but now they have been acquired by delicious.com and will be shutting down too. In the end, I find that email is more reliable and easier to search (searching on Gmail is pretty easy)

One way such a website could be useful is if it did the job of emailing me the stuff I collect (or some other similar solution) so that I'm still guaranteed to have my collection, but it's possible to browse it in a better interface on this website.

TL;DR - This is a well-done website, but I'll be hard-pressed to use it unless it also solves the reliability problem.

<comment><USER11> It should be trivial technically (but not sure about the biz model) to allow for itemized and tagged export to a designated email address. If they do that, I will consider using them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There are some odd things in the Terms and Conditions:

 _"Pasting any of the following is forbidden and a violation of our terms of service: ... copyrighted works or links to copyrighted works that you do not own"_ Virtually everything on the internet is under copyright, so this forbids links, a primary purpose of the site.

 _"Permission is granted to temporarily download one copy of the materials (information or software) on Hopper's web site for personal, non-commercial transitory viewing only."_ I don't know if I'm reading that right, but it sounds like you can't get your stuff off the site :-/

</comment><comment><USER13> After an unmanageable number of note-to-self emails — I mean, just _imagine_ having to sort through an inbox of hundreds of things you sent yourself with the expectation of following-up later — I finally transferred them all to Evernote and haven't looked back. (Really, I can't recommend using something like Evernote or OneNote more for the purpose of brain dumps).

The problem I see with solutions like Hopper is that they aren't ubiquitous. I have to load a website and deal with whatever interface they've decided is the 37signals-esque simple-is-best approach to solving a problem that only matters because their execution pretty decent and for that reason I come back to it more than once... At least with Evernote I can throw shit in, in whatever format I prefer, categorize it, and then come back to it later when I feel like looking at what I thought was so rad at the time. It's no wonder so many people do this over email.

Back when I had dial-up and wasn't online all the time, my solution to this problem was Notepad. Yes, plain old .txt. THAT's how to get shit done. Don't matter what fancy tools you use.

(No offense, Hopper...)

</comment><comment><USER8> The last time I emailed a piece of text to myself was to send an api key from my computer to my iPhone so it could be used in an app. It is a one time operation where I can access the data quickly and the text remains sufficiently private.

With Hopper, I don't know if the text will be shared publicly on the web, and if I can rely on it, what if the server goes down or the logs are read or stolen?

</comment><comment><USER14> I have been thinking about solving this since <https://www.xkcd.com/949/> and one thing which I think most file services get wrong is that they practically require you to write down (or email to yourself) the link to the file. I don't want <http://gethopper.com/$hexadecimalgibberish>. I want <http://gethopper.com/meaningfulfilename> If I am trying to send the file to myself because I will be on a different computer, how does this do me any good? Allowing me to make it <http://gethopper.com/reallyimportantfile> then I will remember the URL and I can just put it into the URL bar instead of going to gethopper.com first.

<comment><USER15> A nice solution to avoid namespace collisions while allowing users to create their own shortening URLs is to use their username as a subdomain (e.g., bcjordan.gethopper.com/meaningfulname).

Also:

* accept file and submissions by email: subject = optional shortener key, body/attachment = content

* slap a sign up with Facebook button on it

And one more thing... <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEgk2v6KntY>

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Haha. I pasted some random text, hit "shorten link", and changed one character (out of the two-character-long shortlink) ... ended up with [http://www.wtfeck.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fat- black-g...](http://www.wtfeck.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fat-black-guy- taking-a-big-mac-bath.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER17> I created a simple notepad for personal use. It's a textbox that syncs to my server. I have a bookmark to it on my Kindle as well as a notepad widget on the new tab page of Chrome. It can also be accessed from my phone (any device with a browser, really).

When I'm on my computer, it's there every time I open my browser. Anywhere else, It's just a few clicks away.

That seems to be enough for me as I rarely need to sync files, and when I do, I have dropbox.

Edit: Also thought I should mention that before I created my own solution, I used Simplenote (<http://simplenoteapp.com/>) for the webapp and iOS app. Since then they've added an API and have a few other apps I think.

<comment><USER18> Say more about this, please? Is it a single text box?

<comment><USER17> Sure, here's the source: <https://gist.github.com/1609919> Also requires jQuery.

I access it like this: <http://domain.com/notepad?key=yoursecret>

The JS checks to see if the contents of the textbox has changed, and if it has, it makes a POST request via AJAX to the server that saves it to a text file.

<comment><USER19> Thanks so much for that! I also added in a Ctrl+S capture because I have an irritating habit of pressing it! Kudos!

<comment><USER17> Mind sharing your code for that? I think I tried implementing that originally but I could never get it to work.

<comment><USER19> I just used the shortcut.js library.. You can find it here : <http://www.openjs.com/scripts/events/keyboard_shortcuts/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> How about sending _also_ an email to my own inbox from every share which links to the content? Could be a good way to keep users getting back if I could just enter my email easily when trying it out.

</comment><comment><USER21> You've certainly identified the problem, but I don't know if your proposed solution make people like me switch off of spamming one's inbox. I've already tried to switch off to RememberTheMilk, but email was just too easily accessible and too ubiquitous, something I look at all the time. I'd need a whole separate screen just to keep track of what I want to do in RTM.

</comment><comment><USER22> It seems like a cool idea, but as time has gone on with hosted apps I always find myself now asking this before I sign up:

 _How will you make money to stay in business?_

If you can't answer that, and you don't, I'm extremely hesitant to sign up. Personal opinion, of course.

</comment><comment><USER23> Great work and a great first start. One thing that I find that is still missing from file-sharing is to share your stuff with people in your close vicinity. I often run into cases when I just need to quickly share images, code fragments, links, etc. with another person sitting in the same room. I can use chat (but I generally don't like going on chat while working -- too distracting), I can email (which I often do) or use a service like Dropbox (but that means you have to upload and download files). An easy clipboard that can be sharable and accessible quickly would be very useful, at least for me. Just a thought.

<comment><USER24> Try Ge.tt

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is it 'Hopper' or is it 'Get Hopper'?

Ok, so by the title of this post, and the title on the site's front-page, I can see it's meant to be "Hopper".

But the site's URL is 'gethopper' and if you view one of the links created by the site there's the red 'Get Hopper' button on the top left.

Both of those things suggest the site is called 'Get Hopper'. To the user, what else is 'Get Hopper' meant to mean? You don't see "Get Google" or "Get bit.ly" (along with <http://getbit.ly>) etc. It's a little confusing.

Just thought you might like to know.

</comment><comment><USER26> If you add a hot key that allows the user to automatically upload the file/image etc. it would save steps and differentiate you from email.

I'd probably use it, and may even pay for it depending on the price.

EDIT: Just because I am price sensitive doesn't mean others are (don't price it low on my comment). You also may have some lockin with this since you will have their files so keep that in mind when pricing.

</comment><comment><USER27> I made something like this for my friend when I wanted to try out the drag/drop API. One thing I also did was give him a little bookmarklet with his hashed password that he could drag into a "login" box so he could quickly log in without typing his username and password every time. You may want to try something like that for quicker logins.

It looked something like...

hisusername:19fij12dio7giw3

</comment><comment><USER28> I generally am active about keeping my inbox clean so anything in there is important, if its not then I delete it as I prune it everytime I check so not sure this would really be all that useful but for some people it may be, if they're too lazy to categorize / archive emails though I doubt they are going to want to use an extra app just for this.

</comment><comment><USER29> it doesn't seem to work for me in Safari 5.1.2. Does it require Flash? I very intentionally do not have Flash installed.

<comment><USER4> I don't see any Flash. It seems to be implemented in javascript.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> killer feature for me:

screen capture to clipboard, paste to hopper, and its already uploaded and shareable. i need this like 4 times a week. i would push to buy it at work if it was priced right and based on our existing google apps, so safe for proprietary data.

<comment><USER31> If you use a Mac <http://getcloudapp.com/> does something similar, Clipboard capture of screenshots and adds the link to clipboard once the upload is done.

<comment><USER32> Yeah, CloudApp (Mac), TinyGrab (Universal), and Droplr (Universal) are all great products that provide this functionality. For example: <http://d.saew.it/ocSW>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> You might want to know that www.hopper.com is very well funded and launching soon. I think you should rename your project... <http://www.crunchbase.com/company/hopper>

</comment><comment><USER34> This needs to email the entire thing to me once per week before I use it, because I won't start using it if I'm not sure that it will be there in 6 months.

</comment><comment><USER35> A big benefit for a user like me would be how to integrate it into my day to day workflow. A chrome/firefox extension would really go a long way.

</comment><comment><USER36> Does anything in your privacy policy prevent you from looking through user pastes? It appears to me the answer is no, but IANAL.

</comment><comment><USER37> You might want to try wishtunes on the appstore for iPhone as a way to capture snippets of text.

</comment><comment><USER38> I really need this for my phone. Having it as a Share option would be great.

<comment><AUTHOR> A mobile version is coming soon. I'm just as eager as you are to use it on my phone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I like this.

Make items unique per user though to save yourselves a lot of trouble.

</comment><comment><USER40> also check out <http://ge.tt>

I met these guys at SeedCamp final round. Looks like a very good file sharing product

</comment><comment><USER41> And yet another chrome-only website.

</comment><comment><USER42> guilty as charged. I do it almost everyday. very simple concept. UX is great.

</comment><comment><USER43> wow this is perfect for me, would be great if there was an iOS app as well!

</comment><comment><USER44> Or use dropbox</comment>


FBI raids dental software researcher who discovered patient data on FTP server - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailydot.com/politics/justin-shafer-fbi-raid/ <comment><USER2> As a separate issue: why the "shock and awe" response to what is (even allegedly) a non-violent crime? Why the assault rifles? Why could he not have been arrested by just a couple agents walking upto the door, knocking, serving the search warrant, and then maybe having the techs step in to conduct the search and seizure?

Why does US Law Enforcement so dramatically escalate every contact with a citizen? Everytime they do this, they risk accidental injury to the people, kids, pets.

What in this particular situation necessitated a SWAT-level treatment?

Maybe the law should be fixed such that warrants have to specifically include firearm authorizations.

<comment><USER3> Two reasons perhaps. Publicity and safety of the officers. How do they know how this person is going to react (or anyone else in the house)? And the publicity is much greater with a greater show of force (hence a deterrent) as well with a shock and awe response.

<comment><USER4> Research on the subject says this is more dangerous for the cops then the calmer approaches.

The irony is cops do this to protect themselves, and statistically speaking it has the exact opposite effect.

<comment><USER5> If the research says that then either:

(1) The law enforcement decision makers are unaware of the research (which is unlikely), or

(2) The stated motivation is not the actual motivation.

<comment><USER6> Or (3) they don't believe the research and trust their "instincts", right or wrong.

<comment><USER7> Or (4) they do believe the research, and they use it in their calculation that says that while they should err on the side of caution and should overdo force "a little bit" just in case, that they should be careful not go too far...

... which turns out to be the same calculation they used all along.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This reminds me of something that happened to me in high school back in 1999. I found an Excel doc in a public network drive that contained every single student's SSN, DOB, whether they had free/reduced lunch, address, phone, etc. I was admittedly snooping around, but this was all public stuff every student and teacher had full access to.

When I found it, I told one of the teachers that I trusted and she insisted that I must tell the principal. So I went down to the principal's office and told her. My primary goal was to get this removed or made private because even at that young age I knew this was very sensitive data and I wouldn't want just anyone having access to my information like that.

When I got home from school, I found my mother upset because we'd been called to return to school for an emergency meeting. I was questioned, and when I told them I only wanted this sensitive information properly secured I was told by the county IT administrator "Did you ever stop to think if maybe this information was public for a reason?" I took a second, and literally wanted to say "There is no reason this information should ever be public" but I ended up keeping my mouth shut in hopes to not get into further trouble.

I was nearly expelled for "hacking". They placed me on "academic probation" and threatened that if I did so much as forget my school ID at home one day, I would be immediately expelled without question. I was removed from my elective classes that involved computers and was disallowed from touching any computers at school.

Fun fact: Someone on the yearbook staff accidentally deleted the only copy of the yearbook files and our yearbook was in danger of basically not being made. I was called to the principal's office and asked to help. I was able to recover the deleted files and save the day. At some point they realized I never had malicious intent, but I still hold a small grudge for the way I was treated as a criminal for uncovering such a big security hole.

<comment><USER9> I had a similar thing happen to me. In high school our user names were first letter of first name and last four of last name. The passwords were the last four digits of our phone numbers.

I figured out that the teachers had the same schema for their accounts. They also published a directory with all the names and phone numbers of the students and teachers. So basically I tried accounts until I got a teacher who didn't change their password. Then I used their ability to place files in shared folders on the network to distribute Quake2 across the different servers. I told a friend and they told people and inevitably the school blamed me for it and kicked me out of all my electives that had computers in them. I was the first student to ever fail touch typing because I couldn't complete the class.

Standardized learning and I have never been friends. I'm glad they tought me the system doesn't work and to work/learn outside of it.

<comment><USER10> I don't think that's really similar at all. You circumvented password protection and used it to play games. I don't agree with the punishment, but you clearly broke the rules. I also don't see that as having anything whatsoever to do with standardized learning, just you wanting to play games at school.

<comment><USER11> It does fit with the trend of crazy overreactions to "computer hacking" though. If some kids figure out where you keep the keys to the gym and you catch them playing basketball after hours when it's supposed to be closed, you give them some detention, you don't prohibit them from ever entering the gym thereby causing them to miss school assemblies and fail classes. But do the equivalent thing on a computer and they assume you need the Hannibal Lecter treatment or else you'll whistle into a phone and bring forth Armageddon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> About a month or so a go i found a open public mongo database with about 12GB of records regarding peoples retirement founds of what i assume was hundreds of thousands of people, account numbers, how much money was in the accounts when they had moved them to various founds and so on.

Thought long and hard about what to do but decided to not do anything, dont feel like risking my entire life just to help someone. This is me assuming they did not intend to have it publicly open.

With that story out there, it would be nice to have a legit legal way to inform the police or a similar trustworthy government agency that could handle issues like this.

<comment><USER13> You could search PGP keyservers for email addresses/domains of the local media where that retirement fund is located and take it from there, using your own judgment about the reporter and outlet, and how much you'd want to mask that communication.

<comment><USER14> > You could search PGP keyservers for email addresses/domains of the local > media where that retirement fund is located

Best case among the likely outcomes of that is: "Can you re-send that e-mail? It's all garbled or something."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It sounds like Patterson Dental deserves as much blame as the FBI, if not more, because it sounds like they were the ones pressing charges and motivating prosecution in the first place. Also, why aren't they being charged with what is almost certainly a HIPAA violation?

<comment><USER16> If patterson dental (and I say if since we don't really know) is behind him getting arrested, I hope all their patients find out about the details of this and they go out of business. If nothing else they should be charged with HIPAA violations.

<comment><USER17> Patterson is not a dental clinic. Like Henry Schein which was also mentioned in TFA, it is a large dental supply company. One reason that dentistry is so expensive, is that assholes like these run an oligopoly of "specialty" dental supplies. It's not as bad as military procurement, but it's kind of like that. Dentists as a profession are risk-averse, and that includes the "risk" of purchasing dental equipment and supplies without a 300% price markup.

So, the chance of them going "out of business" is pretty slim. It's entirely possible that dentists unfortunate enough to have chosen Eaglesoft will get to pay some HIPAA fines, however.

<comment><USER5> > So, the chance of them going "out of business" is pretty slim. It's entirely > possible that dentists unfortunate enough to have chosen Eaglesoft will get > to pay some HIPAA fines, however.

Will they? Since Eaglesoft claimed to provide encryption, and the practices relied on that claim, it seems unlikely that the practices are at fault; if they are subject to civil liability at all for inadvertent violations -- or even if they just have costs to cure the violations without money liability, which seems more likely given the history of HIPAA enforcement -- they would seem to have a claim for _at least_ the total resulting costs in damages against Patterson.

As far as _criminal_ violations of HIPAA goes, it doesn't seem particularly likely that any occurred, and if any did its pretty clear that the practices are (barring any evidence of knowledge that hasn't come to light) unlikely to have had the requisite knowledge or intent to be culpable, though the violations may have been willfully caused by Patterson's actions, which -- even though _Patterson_ might not usually be directly covered by HIPAA as regards what appears to be on-premise software they sell -- might make _Patterson_ a (and possibly the only) chargeable principal in any crime. 18 USC Sec. 2(b): "Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal."

<comment><USER18> HIPAA violations that are prosecuted are so rare they may as well not exist. I worked at a place that shared all the prod server/db passwords in a text file and they thought that was OK because they passed some half-ass audit. No one cared.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Another lesson not to trust people/organizations ignorant enough to keep confidential data in plain text on anonymous FTP.

It seems that the 21st century responsible disclosure procedure goes like that:

0\. use tor for the research itself

1\. report problems anonymously

2\. if they don't care - report them to law enforcement for breach of confidentiality

3\. if these don't care either or don't accept anonymous tips - make noise in the media

Of course, this is for dealing with idiots who keep their data on public FTP. If the attack takes some clever hacking, go check if they don't offer bug bounties. Funny times we are living in.

<comment><USER20> Step 1: Anonymously report them to law inforcement.

There is no step 2.

<comment><USER21> Nonsense. It could be as a easy as printing fliers at home and dropping them in an appropriate space, or mailing letters with the return address the same as the mailing address, or using Tails 2.x to email hippa and the police using a throwaway address. But contacting them in person? NFW

<comment><USER22> Never print anything for anonymous purpose. All printers have a watermark.

<comment><USER23> This is not strictly true. So many color printers have a yellow-dot identifier pattern now that you should just assume that anything you print with one can be forensically linked with the printer's serial number, unless you definitively know otherwise. Monochrome printers are much less likely to add a nearly-invisible identifier pattern to every page. Check your printed pages under a microscope with different colors of light.

Nevertheless, if you want to print something and wish to remain anonymous, it isn't a bad idea to assume that every document that a particular printer ever prints can be linked using the printer's serial number, even if you _think_ that specific printer is safe. Never print anything on it that can be linked to your public identity. Don't connect it to the internet.

You may never know whether there's some sort of steganographic encoding mechanism that targets certain print geometries in ways that you can't detect. There probably isn't. But if you're a dissident or troublemaker, can you take even a tiny risk?

<comment><USER21> Speaking of which, since we are talking flyers. Type once, print once at low res in b/w, and then copy that at a lower res, using that to make fliers. Done and done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The FBI is going to have a hell of a time arguing that accessing a public FTP server with no password protection is a crime.

<comment><USER25> I believe that it is still considered unauthorized access even if they don't have a password set up. I think it goes back to law that existed before computers where if you entered someones home without permission you can't simply argue that there wasn't a lock on the door.

Edit: ProAm above reminded me of the Andrew Auernheimer case that was nearly identical to this and was resolved as I describe.

<comment><USER26> Yea.. but a site on the internet is more akin to a store than someone's home. It's completely normal to walk into someone's store.

<comment><USER27> An ftp server is clearly more akin to a spooky abandoned building.

<comment><USER28> A more accurate analogy for an FTP server is a machine that sends you letters on demand.

It's like Shafer wrote a letter to their office asking for their list of patients, and lo and behold, they've sent him back an envelope containing that list.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > Defense attorney Tor Ekeland, who represented Auernheimer in the federal > court case in New Jersey, has offered to help Shafer ...

Based on his website it appears that "Tor" is actually his given name. What an odd coincidence.

<comment><USER30> Yeah common Scandinavian name, same as Thor, essentially.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I know this is only tangentially related to the HN content here, but does anyone have a sense of why the FBI would choose to respond to this sort of case with a dozen agents and weapons drawn? Rather than, say, two guys politely ringing the bell and asking him to come with them?

Unless there's a lot left out of this article, I wouldn't think most "unauthorized computer access" suspects tend to be heavily armed. (Particularly if the company actually reported the context of the "crime", including the fact that he had voluntarily notified them of the problem.)

<comment><USER32> SOP ...Military tactics against citizens. Overwhelm with force so the subject cowers in fear. Works great doesnt it ?

<comment><USER33> Yes, remember GwB's "Shock & Awe"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Reading this, I had an idea for a new law that could counteract this stupid reaction to security research:

Particularly for protected patient information (but maybe for other classes of sensitive data as well), it would be interesting to somehow classify having this information breached as a crime by the holder of the information (I realize this might be hard to do given the reality of security these days, so there would need to be some nuance of course). The crux of my idea would be to automatically count any access that results in prosecution as a breach of said data, thus meaning that prosecuting a security researcher would automatically put the information holder under separate prosecution. I wonder if something like this could be feasible.

<comment><USER11> > classify having this information breached as a crime by the holder of the > information

The source of the problem in this case is that the CFAA is too loose/broad and the penalties are _absurd_. The solution is to fix that. Make it so that the only penalties available are proportional and innocuous actions like reporting vulnerabilities are bright-line not illegal whatsoever.

You're essentially suggesting cold war style MAD as a solution to the government foolishly supplying toxic waste to children who are then found using it to poison people they don't like, under the theory that if everyone can poison everyone then everyone will have to behave. Better to clean up the toxic waste than ensure equal access to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Fun fact:

Many financial institutions use the last 4 of your SSN as identity verification.

If you're a business, it's the last 4 of your FEI/EIN.

I know at least in FL, this is publicily available at sunbiz.org

So with the account number printed at the bottom of your paycheck/stub and the FEI/EIN, you can often authenticate to a financial institution and obtain privileged information.

I know this not because I was on the "hacker" side, but because I was involved on the financial institution side of it and caught this as part of my engagement. The institution was issuing new logins for its internet banking site and the password would have been based on the users name, zip code, and SSN/FEI/EIN, all 3 of which are available (in FL) on that sunbiz.org site.

<comment><USER36> Years ago, one of my credit unions used SSN as the account number... so every one of our checks had our SSN printed right on it.

<comment><USER35> awesome!

In my experience, credit unions are usually worse than Banks on the security side. There are exceptions, but they are not the norm.

One credit union I dealt with always opened and closed with a single employee. Very dangerous for the employee. This same union kept the A and B part codes to their vault in a locked desk drawer(one of those cheap desk drawer locks that anyone can pick with a paper clip) in the lobby, and full internet access was available on all computers. Tellers all shared a single cash drawer and the teller PCs were routinely used by the tellers for general web surfing, Facebook, Pandora, etc...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Unless there is more to the story, he won't be prosecuted for accessing an anonymous FTP server. However, they will scour the computers/drives they took (for months or possibly even years), looking for evidence of this or any other technically illegal misdeed. In the unlikely event they find nothing that they can take issue with (this being a security researcher's computer equipment, they'll find all kinds of hacking tools and possibly evidence of other research that could be construed as hacking attempts), in a year or so, he might get his stuff back. If they find anything, he'll face charges for that.

That's how law enforcement in the US works. A crack in the door, in the form of a ridiculous accusation, is all it takes for one's life to be destroyed.

</comment><comment><USER38> Here's an investigative tool the CFAA & the FBI needs... if a company like Patterson Dental spins up an investigative raid with a baseless complaint, the Bureau should be able to charge them with a crime. One almost hopes the FBI investigation yields enough evidence to charge Patterson with a criminal violation of HIPAA.

<comment><USER39> Why would the FBI and prosecutors punish Patterson? The gave the FBI an opportunity for raids and prosecutions, and those look great on an annual review.

<comment><USER5> > Why would the FBI and prosecutors punish Patterson? The gave the FBI an > opportunity for raids and prosecutions, and those look great on an annual > review.

Why go after Patterson? Because that would give them opportunities for more raids and prosecutions, which look great on an annual review. And raids and prosecutions for acts which are probably more politically useful to politically-minded US Attorneys than whatever kind of case they could make against Shafer.

<comment><USER39> True. But given the choice between the two (and they clearly had this choice), I wonder if they consider that an individual will not be able to mount as strong a defense as a business.

<comment><USER5> > But given the choice between the two (and they clearly had this choice)

That's less clear than it might seem; the information Patterson gave them may have been sufficient basis for probable cause against Shafer, but it was probably shaded (at least by omission) in a way that it did not do so against Patterson.

Now, obviously, one would _hope_ that the FBI would do some meaningful additional investigation before conducting a raid, but there were very few people beside the person they'd been handed as a subject who would have been able to provide information which would have flipped this to something where Patterson would be the offending party (and even there, its for something which the FBI is neither the usual first investigating agency nor an agency that is particularly expert.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> It needs to be understood that if you react this way to responsible disclosure practices, your company & you personally will be subject to irresponsible disclosure practices.

<comment><USER41> Oh, I've already learned the lesson loud and clear. If I ever discover a vulnerability to disclose, I'm releasing it anonymously on pastebin sites while logged into Tor through a VPN from a free WiFi spot.

And, of course, sign it with a new PGP key you've just created, so that if you ever need to release a follow-up with proof that it's you, or come forward as the author of the disclosure, you can.

<comment><USER42> Of course, said key is a liability if it is found in your possession.

<comment><USER19> Encrypt, hexdump, render in green font on black background, set as wallpaper. Nobody will ask :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Do you have laws in the USA that mandate protection of health data?

<comment><USER44> Yes. HIPPA.

<comment><USER43> But apparently they didn't go after the company, so maybe those data are not the kind of information protected by HIPPA?

<comment><USER45> It most certainly is information protected by HIPAA. It's just that there are no enforced consequences for companies breaking HIPAA (or pretty much any other law) while there are dire consequences for people accessing public data under the CFAA. I'll put it this way: if I wanted to murder someone in the US and get away with it, there are dozens of opportunities under the law as long as said murder is committed under the umbrella of a corporation. But god fucking forbid you access public data that was not secured properly by idiotic corporations and your life is ruined like this researcher's is about to be. Our judicial system is a joke; a society without justice is no different than the random savagery it purports to be above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I'm not addressing the FBI response, but hear me out. As a security researcher you have to stop at the first vulnerability. Don't use the vulnerability to get more information. It's the companies responsibility to ascertain the impact of the problem. This person should not have attempted to download anything from the FTP server. It should have spotted the FTP server, notified the company and made it clear they never attempted to download anything from it.

There was a similar issue with S3 credentials and Facebook a few months ago. The security researcher went too far. There was a large outcry by everyone about Facebooks response. I'm not addressing the response. I'm saying as a security researcher you need to protect yourself by trying very hard to limit the impact of what you're doing to remove risk of legal liability. Only go as far as the first problem and no further.

</comment><comment><USER47> This is so wrong, but it's not surprising. We've been reading stories for years of security researchers being charged with a crime or harassed for simply pointing out blatant security holes.

What kind of thinking is this? He was doing them a favor. Every time, it seems to me that they are embarrassed by the incident and lash out. WHY!?? We should be treating these researchers like heroes, not kicking in their doors and having the FBI charge them with criminal CFAA violations. Once the chilling effect comes down in full force, we'll have a much less secure Internet.

<comment><USER48> I thought they did not have the "reason" for the arrest -- only the warrant.

The arrest may have nothing to do with accessing the Public FTP, and entirely to do with the research he was doing on the FTP service itself. If he was attempting to exploit the FTP service hosted by someone else (something or other aboubt database credentials was mentioned), he would absolutely be in violation of CFAA. You do that sort of research on your OWN system.

First rule of security testing: make sure you have permission.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> It's as if the CFAA was intended to protect behavior like Patterson did.

</comment><comment><USER49> The FBI seems to have lost it's way (Same with most of the other 3-letter governmental entities and other law enforcement). How do we change the system so that they are held accountable for these sort of things?

This is getting ridiculous. I can't predict the general public's opinions on things like this but it seems so clearly "wrong".

I have hope for a peaceful fix but I am skeptical that we aren't well on our way to a much more traditional violent revolution.

Everything I've read on the subject suggests that the early signs of revolution are a sufficiently large disparity between the rich and the poor such that the poor can no longer provide for themselves. It seems like this is well on its way and likely speeding up.

I'd love to see some statistics on situations like the 2014 Ferguson Missouri situation. I'm curious if there's a rise in situations where the government sufficiently crosses the line that the public backlash manifests violently. I expect that we're still in a stage where these situations are still largely centered around poor minorities [1] but situations like this suggest that incidents are starting to expand into demographics that might get the "middle class" [2] to finally pay attention.

I hope we can find a way to unite as a single voice to change things. I hope it doesn't end up being violent. The following things encourage me.

* Decreased relevance of the "mass media". This is a double edged sword. On one hand it allows for news that might be ignored by a major network to still be disseminated widely. On the other hand, the "public" has a really poor track record of consuming news that isn't also entertainment and many of these issues seem to fall entirely outside of people's interests.

* The ability to aggregate these sort of events to establish a clear pattern of behavior. It's getting harder to hide things.

Also these disclaimers:

1\. I say poor minorities because based on my knowledge of the law enforcement overstepping it's typically in situations involving people who are poor and black.

2\. The "middle class" is used here to reference a predominantly "white" demographic that most mass media caters to. I've struggled to find the appropriate language here, fearing I'll be labeled racists somehow. Hoping that my message reads as intended.

</comment><comment><USER45> In the meantime, companies like Apple and Google are deleting users' files without their consent and infecting computers with malware through ads yet I don't see Tim Cook or Larry Page being woken up in the middle of the night by a SWAT team. What a fucking joke our legal system is.

</comment><comment><USER50> Use Tor through Whonix gateway. FBI's NIT doesn't have a way through that.

</comment><comment><USER51> The FBI putting the Cyber in Cyber. I know we all feel safer with them on the watch

</comment><comment> King-Aaron So basically, when you discover critical vulnerabilities in a server, do not tell the owners about it. Sell the information anonymously to the highest bidder.

</comment><comment><USER52> I could not get this site to fully load even after (or maybe because) my adblocker blocked 68 requests.

However, loads great in lynx!

<comment><USER52> I wasn't joking, the site actually loads much better, faster and more readably in lynx than it did in my regular browser (safari with ABP)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Http/2 as a Service - <AUTHOR> http://http2service.com/

<comment><USER2> What do I get that I don't get with Cloudflare for a much lower price?

<comment><AUTHOR> Http2 Service offers http2 speeds for http 1.1 servers. CloudFlare is a great service and can be used concurrently with with H2S. We built Http2 Service for high traffic services that can see an immediate impact on the bottom line from reduced latencies. Our focus is on performance. In the future will evaluate whether supporting lower tiers makes sense.</comment></comment>


A Goat Farmer Built a Doomsday Machine That Just Booked a 4,144% Return - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2020/04/13/how-a-goat-farmer-built-a-doomsday-machine-that-just-booked-a-4144-return/ <comment><USER2> Funnily enough the "trick" with this kind of fund is to be able to survive good times.

A firm I ran actually had a fund that did what's described here. In fact Taleb himself came to visit us.

Your main problem is you're selling a lottery-like return. The professional investors that you meet would have to explain to their committees every month why they're losing money. If a collapse happens every 10 years, there's a while between.

So then your problem is "How do I credibly demonstrate that this strategy is worthwhile, and that I'm the best guy to do it?". Because this isn't going to be the only fund offering this kind of protection.

<comment><USER3> This is so true. What're your 1yr, 3yr, 5yr returns and vol? In these strategies a consistent track record makes no sense because you're planning for events with different magnitude of impact and frequency than the norm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Imagine if the market incentivized intelligent people to build useful things rather than lotteries on top of known cognitive weaknesses. As one commenter pointed out, the trick isn't identifying or executing this strategy. It's having the ability to brand and sell it in such a way that the investment seems palatable to pension and sovereign wealth funds. No mean feat but I struggle to find it admirable.

<comment><USER5> Capital allocation is hugely important for a modern economy.

Without financial markets, intelligent people would barely have any idea what to build (let alone raise capital necessary to finance their innovations).

<comment><USER6> It's actually not. We weren't remotely prepared for the pandemic which is laying waste to people and the economy. That's a complete failure of the modern economy.

<comment><USER7> In what way was the economy unprepared?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Translation: Hedge fund manager bets on financial catastrophies, wins big because of Coronavirus pandemic.

<comment><USER5> The challenge is surviving long enough to score a meaningful payoff.

<comment><USER9> Be rich to get richer, as usual.

For certain risks you sadly need a certain financial security, same for launching startups. I'd love to be a founder, but I need a stable income for two.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Correction Northport is not in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, its squarely in what is considered the Northern Lower Peninsula.

</comment><comment><USER11> How do these guys handle counterparty risk?

You might theoretically have made a bunch of cash when the markets crash, but that's exactly the time a bunch of financial companies go bankrupt and can't pay out.

</comment><comment><USER12> kelly criterion is at work.</comment>