NSA Phone Surveillance Faces Fresh Court Test - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/articles/nsa-phone-surveillance-faces-fresh-court-test-1414794375 <comment><USER2> > The U.S. argued the simple act of government computers collecting his or > anyone else's phone records aren't violations of the Constitution's ban on > unreasonable searches or seizures and, in its appeals-court filings, > suggests such issues only come into play when a government employee looks at > a specific person's phone records.

Except that a government employee specifically instructed the computers to gather and analyze his records to flag them for storage or not.

This is clearly a search performed at the request of a government agent, and should trigger 4th amendment protections.

They can't take papers out of everyone's house just because they use robots to do it: we'd all recognize that the robots were merely a tool following instructions of a government agent who instigated the seizure.

The case is no different because they used a different tool to perform the search and seizure - it was at the request and under the direction of a US government agent.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is an appeal of Klayman vs. Obama, where Judge Leon ruled last December that "[b]ulk telephony metadata collection and analysis almost certainly does violate a reasonable expectation of privacy," which, in turn, likely results in a violation of the Fourth Amendment.[1] This is probably the biggest win so far in this round of NSA cases, although EFF and ACLU also have complementary lawsuits in progress. The government's arguing that Klayman doesn't have standing because (they say) it's extremely unlikely his metadata would ever be viewed by a human being, as opposed to just recorded and analyzed.

This is by the way the same Larry Klayman who's suing the federal government arguing that the current Ebola screening procedures open the door to ISIS suicide terrorists. [2] Strange bedfellows. Indeed.

[1] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/12/historic-ruling- federa...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/12/historic-ruling-federal- judge-declares-nsa-mass-phone-surveillance-likely)

[2] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the- fix/wp/2014/10/14/la...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the- fix/wp/2014/10/14/larry-klayman-is-suing-the-federal-government-because-of- ebola-yes-really/)

<comment><USER4> The idea of "standing" seems horrible to me, "me" being firmly not-a-lawyer. It means it's difficult for me to contest something on merit in a court system if I can't prove it wrongs me directly. But judicial review doesn't happen without an actor - someone to raise the flag that something needs reviewing.

Is there a good argument _for_ having to prove standing before being able to challenge an affront to human rights or the Constitution, or anything else I can plainly see is wrong but may not _directly_ affect me?

<comment><USER5> Short version: It's better to require plaintiffs have standing (actual controversy) than to allow them to bring hypothetical controversies to the courts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There is a paywall if you go to the link directly. Try going through [https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dkcZSdqad8lGX_MN3eau- UDuh7y...](https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dkcZSdqad8lGX_MN3eau- UDuh7yUM&q=nsa+court&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1BNUVNNl1umgBP_bgegH&ved=0CCMQqgIwAA)

Which worked for me.</comment>


Steve's Photo is named "hero" by Apple - <AUTHOR> http://images.apple.com/home/images/t_hero.png

<comment><USER2> That's a common term: <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hero%20shot></comment>


Ashley Madison looks like it was always a big sad scam - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2015/08/26/ashley-madison-looks-like-it-w.html

<comment><USER2> I thought it was weird that there were more (young, beautiful) women in my area on AM than Tinder.

At first I thought it was just a prostitution ring spamming AM, but maybe AM just generated fake profiles around male profiles?

</comment><comment><USER3> gizmodo researched? nice try</comment>


Announcing September 2016 Updates for .NET Core 1.0 - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2016/09/13/announcing-september-2016-updates-for-net-core-1-0/ <comment><USER3> It's great to see the HN community responding positively to news about .NET/Mono and related tech. I've been working with C#/.NET since 2008 and always felt it's a vastly superior platform to Java in every way. It's a shame it is taking so long for the wider tech community to realise this.

<comment><USER4> I've spent the two halves of my career thus far working on each stack, and I really can't see where those sorts of claims come from, honestly. C# as a language is a win over Java, but from an operational perspective, it's a disaster--IIS is an absolute nightmare. Beyond that, I tend to think that because of the niceties that C# has over Java, that has somewhat held back .NET community adoption of some better practices (specifically immutability).

All that said, .NET Core is a huge win on the operational side of things, so it's definitely moving in the right direction.

<comment><USER5> .Net isn't IIS. It's just one web server that can host it. And I'd take IIS over WebSphere any day!

<comment><USER6> Me too.

Websphere is such a pain to use, yet it still is everywhere on enterprise projects.

<comment><USER7> Curious to know why you think WebSphere is a pain - I find it about as good as any complicated piece of software can get - it's reasonably documented, works most of the time and performance is good.

<comment><USER6> I used to know Websphere quite well (all the 5 - 6.x versions) and am happy to have managed to avoid it in the last three years.

It is the typical enterprise software suitable to sell consulting experience in what concerns configuration and management.

Endless list of configuration options, some of them only available via scripting and best of all IBM J9 specific features.

One of the issues we once had around 2006 was that our entity beans stubs would only work properly if compiled via J9.

<comment><USER7> Ah older versions. I started extensively working on WebSphere 7.5 onwards - <USER2> a course reversal with 8.5 one of our deployment which works fine with Oracle JVM spins the CPU 100% when ws uses J9 and that one ships with broken jconsole and missing jstack that does not want to connect to the spinning process! Joys of enterprise software..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm sad about the name of applyPatches. If it's something that _should_ never be needed and is a security risk, it should have a dangerous name and/or value. e.g. make it a string value that needs to be _exactly_ "No, even though I know that this is a bad idea and promotes insecurity; I have read [http://example.com/](http://example.com/) and really need this." to turn off patches.

</comment><comment><USER9> I am looking F# for CoreCLR status page, [https://github.com/Microsoft/visualfsharp/wiki/F%23-for- Core...](https://github.com/Microsoft/visualfsharp/wiki/F%23-for-CoreCLR--- Status)

Is F# support ready for Prime Time?

<comment><USER10> That page is really outdated.

It's a good start, lot of things work, lots doesnt.

Is for early adopters but it's not bleeding edge anymore i think. Not ready for production

F# using .net core sdk from command line works (new, restore, build, run, test, publish) like c#.

xplat is ok where .net core is supported, so osx/ubuntu/win/docker.

Docs need some improvements, but lots are language agnostic, or c# examples help (docs are open source, if someone want to help).

Important wip or not implemented yet feature of compiler/language:

\- type providers

\- portablepdb for enable debugging

\- f# repl

The f# libraries in ecosystem are starting to support .net core (netstandard), like FSharp.Compiler.Services (the compiler as library), Suave ( github.com/SuaveIO/Suave-CoreCLR-sample ), Argu, Fable. These are not hello world examples, so it works. Some are in prerelease, but it's expected because it's a new framework/tooling and need testing.

There are only few libraries of the f# ecosystem who support .net core, but it's expected because is a bootstrapping issue in lot of cases (i need to wait .net core support for my dependencies add support..)

Obv it's possibile to use all others .net libraries who support .net core (netstandard) like the BCL, Kestrel, etc.

As editor, vscode has the best support using usual the amazing Ionide plugin for f# (who already give f# support for .net and mono). Intellisense, build, run is ok but not debugging.

Using Visual studio, only build/run works (xproj and project.json), but not intellisense or debugging.

If you want to chat there are two good f# slack groups

\- #dotnetcore in fsharp.org slack (other chan too)

\- #fsharp in fpchat.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It still does not work on Fedora 24 :-(</comment>