The CIA Spied on People Through Their Smart TVs, Leaked Documents Reveal (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8qbq5x/the-cia-spied-on-people-through-their-smart-tvs-leaked-documents-reveal <comment><USER3> I've gotten nothing out of my Smart TV that I couldn't have gotten from a Chromecast, or preferably, a laptop hooked up to a TV.

And I've lost a lot. My TV is slow. When I try to control the volume, sometimes I have to wait multiple seconds.

And things stop working all the time and require a reboot.

I hate the damn thing. It even comes with bloatware for some reason, games I'll never play that it insists on updating forever.

And with the privacy concerns on top of all that, I wish I had a dumb TV.

My shit cube TV from the 90s was better!

<comment><USER4> I have resisted the urge to buy a new tv for 11 years. I own the same 48" non- smart Sony I've always had. I have always felt like the grass would be greener if I were to buy one of those 65" LG OLED tvs, but thank you for setting me straight.

This old TV is 5 inches thick, but it turns on in 2 seconds. I hooked an amazon fire tv into one HDMI port. I also have a sonos "connect" hooked up to the audio-out so that I can play my TV audio through my ceiling speakers when I want.

But it's just a display, so I can plug and play the capabilities I want. I can even tell alexa to open up plex while the TV is off and the fire TV must send a signal through the hdmi port because the tv turns on and it loads plex.

<comment><USER5> Just wanted to chime in since you specifically mentioned the "65" LG OLED", which is the same TV I have (specifically the OLED65B6P). When plugged into the internet it has all of the usual unfeatures (including ads displayed over hdmi input), however if you leave it unplugged from the internet it works great and boots up almost instantly to the last input selected without any fuss. Furthermore, the HDMI CEC commands work as expected (in both directions --control of the tv from the computer and control of the computer from the TV with all of the expected buttons on the remote being passed through). The set is also quite good about supporting legacy S/PDIF (optical) passthrough so I haven't needed to replace my receiver.

So far the only feature I have been unsatisfied is that for some reason the set does not auto-shutoff when the hdmi input is not active. For example, I had it hooked up to a computer which was set to turn the monitor off after 15 minutes and instead of the TV shutting off it displayed an 'input disconnected' screen. As a stopgap solution I set the computer to have a 'screensaver' that is all black instead of turning the monitor off--which works pretty OK since the OLED is completely 'off' when displaying a blank screen. The only downside is that the the electronics in the TV stay running, so the power consumption in this state is about 20w.

<comment><USER6> I have the same experience with my LG. It's perfectly fine as a "dumb" screen. I have an Apple TV 4K and a surround receiver connected to it, and CEC works as intended: when I turn on or off the Apple TV, the LG and the receiver do the same.

I was very weary of buying a "smart" TV, but I wanted a 4K HDR one, and the public display market didn't seem interested in providing that.

Happily, the LG boots (or resumes, or whatever it does) very quickly and the only time I have to touch its remote control is if I've had the TV on for so long without using the remote that it thinks nobody's watching and turns itself off. I suppose there's a setting somewhere to change this, but it happens seldom enough that I haven't bothered.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for this post. I'd like to add that the Vizio PQ65 works the same way when using an Apple TV. I refuse to update the firmware for fear that Vizio will force a change that will require an internet connection.

<comment><USER6> If you never connect it to the net, there's never a need for an update - <USER2> no way for them to sneak one in behind your back. It's a sad world we've built, isn't it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> 'Samsung itself is aware of these risks. In its privacy policy, the company warned customers to be aware that "if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition." The language reminded some of the George Orwell classic dystopian novel 1984.'

<comment><USER8> That quote doesn't show Samsung's thoughts on the risk of hacking at all, and it shouldn't remind anyone of 1984. It's just a statement of how all voice recognition currently works.

<comment><USER9> >It's just a statement of how all voice recognition currently works.

Amazon has said on numerous occasions that no data transfer occurs without a trigger word hitting the mic -- a feature that was a main point when discussing the safety of having an always-on internet-connected mic in the house.

As for whether or not they're telling the truth, I don't know; but trigger- words have always been a feature that Amazon loved mentioning from a security/privacy standpoint.

<comment><USER10> > As for whether or not they're telling the truth, I don't know;

Luckily it's possible to check [0]! Although it gets a bit more complicated and can change, my understanding is that currently most people observe it increase it's network usage after it's trigger phrase, but not at other times (it uses the network for other stuff too, but audio data is typically rather large in comparison).

[0] [https://www.iot-tests.org/2017/06/careless-whisper-does- amaz...](https://www.iot-tests.org/2017/06/careless-whisper-does-amazon-echo- send-data-in-silent-mode/)

[1] 10.1007/s00779-018-1174-x <\- Might want to use sci-hub

<comment><USER11> The pessimist in me think that a determined actor could simply capture non- trigger voice data offline, and bundle it with the rest of the traffic whenever the next trigger word occurs. But I am talking out my ass and have in no way verified any of this

<comment><USER12> This was my thought too; there doesn't seem to be a way to verify this isn't happening.

<comment><USER13> If data is being buffered and only sent after the trigger words wouldn't the data transmitted vary depending on how much was said before the trigger word?

<comment><USER14> Maybe. All uploads could be padded with the maximum buffer size so you can't tell the difference. The buffer could flush only small amounts at a time. Some compression algorithm could be used that becomes more efficient with larger recordings.

What you should be asking with any "smart" device is "can I prove this device will do no harm to me".

Honestly I have never understood the value proposition of any smart device. Why would I want any of that functionality? Never once in my life have I ever wanted to talk to my TV. I'm beginning to (again) question the wisdom of carrying a smartphone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I hate my Samsung Smart TV too. It auto-installed a Rakuten TV app that several times a week would switch from the only channel we watch (BBC News) to channel 4000 showing trailers for its video-on-demand pay per view service.

Samsung makes it very hard to uninstall this 'feature' and even kills threads about it on its web site support forum.

I had to got back to the shop I bought it from and threaten to return the TV as defective unless they sent instructions for permanently removing it.

Samsung, you should be ashamed of yourself, taking such an obviously anti- customer stance. My next TV certainly won't be a Samsung.

And hopefully several other people reading this won't buy a Samsung either. Vote with your wallet, folks!

<comment><USER16> So did they finally show you how to remove that app? What did that entail?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> On the Max Headroom TV show, it became illegal for people to turn off their TVs.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_(TV_series)#Plot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_\(TV_series\)#Plot)

Would it be outlandish for the tech industry to lobby that Smart TVs and computers be given a 911 style emergency calling system, then for emergency dispatchers to have access to surveillance information, then for such devices to be required to be turned on all the time?

<comment><USER18> I mean it's not like your TV ever truly turns "off", is it? A lot of them power on at least the red/green LED light showing that it's "off" and who knows what else.

<comment><USER19> A TV set never turns off! It is well known in the industry. Standby usually just turns of the LCD, backlight and changes LED colour.

Try this: Switch TV to standby then turn on. Time how long this takes. Unplug TV for 30 seconds plug in and then turn on. It will take a while for the TV to boot from cold start.

Manufacturers have been doing this since CRTs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I gave a talk in China 5 years warning about this. [http://tech.qq.com/a/20140527/035512.htm](http://tech.qq.com/a/20140527/035512.htm) I asked vendors to make changes to their products, such as planned obsolescence so if the manufacturer goes out of business and a device doesn't hear from the mother ship for awhile, all internet connections are killed for good. Also, to set smart defaults so that even when not configured, it won't allow this behavior. There should be a list of more in the article but you'll have to translate to see them.

<comment><USER21> As long as this sort of planned obsolescence only kills the connectivity feature, and keeps the rest of the device functioning/useable that sounds good

<comment><USER22> except they will be (very) easy pickings for malware that do their own thing. e.g. Mirai botnet.

it's very backward to suggest planned obsolescence as a security feature instead of open software/standards

<comment><USER23> The open software / standards would need to cover every aspect of a given product, such that external people / enthusiasts / (etc) would be able to generate fixed firmware and upload it after the manufacturer ends support.

That might work for _some_ devices with extremely large user bases.

Devices with specialist properties or a low number of users sound like they'd be very tricky to have that approach work reliably.

That being said, if there's wide adoption of "known good" base level firmware (eg powering on, init device capabilities) then maybe the specialist stuff could be add on's or something. eg modularising things might be a way to get closer to the goal

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have not been excited about the release of a new consumer product in well over 5 years. The last real improvement in a consumer device for me was the iPhone 6s and even then I preferred the older form factor.

I no longer look forward to the release of any new device or expect it to make my life better in any way. I just assume it will spy on me and/or exploit some weakness in my subconscious.

When my current TV dies I might just go back to having no TV at all.

<comment><USER24> I terminated all my TV related subscriptions over the past two years and now also finally sold my TV. One of my best moves ever. I am not missing anything, have a lot more useful spare time, and save around 1k a year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I knew a guy who worked on his paper about smart TVs and their potential exploitation vectors. That was back in 2015. His supervisor wrote that paper off bluntly as "scientifically not relevant". Oh well.

<comment><USER26> The supervisor can still be right! Scientific relevance and societal relevance are at odds all the time. Just look at cosmology or any other field with very very long term, slim, payoff and huge costs. As much as we curiosity oriented people dislike it, satifsying our curiosity about the origin of the universe has very low impact. The most impact probably comes from the theoretical understanding that results in new engineering capabilities to build new weapons, industrial machines or energy sources. |But then the question can be asked "why not fund that research direction directly ?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> And people thought I was weird for dancing by myself in front of my TV. The poor folks at the CIA will never un-see that.

<comment><USER28> People think i'm weird for never hooking my smart tv up to the network. It works, why does it need to be online?

<comment><USER29> You are counting on the WiFi module not to be remote hackable?

<comment><USER14> While that is possible I would consider this to be a case of outrunning your friends rather than the bear.

<comment><USER29> So, a neighbor's compromised wifi router could remotely exploit your smart tv without even configured settings: [https://blog.exodusintel.com/2017/07/26/broadpwn/](https://blog.exodusintel.com/2017/07/26/broadpwn/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This piece challenges the current narrative you read in the press. China is an evil surveillance state that spies on its citizens and the rest of the world.

Now we know. The greatest democracy of the world also spies on its citizen _and_ the rest of the world.

<comment><USER31> This is just extreme whataboutism.

There is a vast difference between China spying on and locking people up for being the wrong religion, and the CIA secretly recording a conversation about the planning of a bombing.

<comment><USER32> That's true, but there's also a vast difference between the CIA spying on and locking people up for being the wrong religion, and China secretly recording a conversation about the planning of a bombing.

Similarities between the two governments are that they would both characterize their spying on, imprisoning, and torture of religious minorities as preventing potential bombings, and characterize their counterparts as oppressive police states. China might have the stronger case, as they have about a quarter of the prisoners per-capita that the US does.

<comment><USER33> I might prefer 4x detention time if I got to choose a US prison over China. I'd certainly prefer the freedom of thought and speech in the US.

[https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/jun/22/inside- chin...](https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/jun/22/inside-chinese- prison-americans-perspective/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> It is now completely legitimate to be afraid of every single thing connected to the internet. Thanks technology!

<comment><USER14> I remember a time when typing your credit card number into a webpage was madness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Aside from wanting to protect its citizens from foreign spying; I have to wonder if another reason for the US's curtailing Huawei is to simply eliminate the competition?

<comment><USER36> People with technical knowledge at this point shouldn't doubt this perspective anymore. No evidence of wrong doing was published, and the claim of the possibility of the Chinese government making Huawei do their bidding at some point, is no different from what other governments have been doing, including the U.S. (and getting caught in the wrong doing).

There's no shame in the hypocresy. It's a blatant attempt to damage Huawei.

I have no sympathy for what the Chinese government does to subdue everyone under their power, but the Americans seem to have been historically better at playing the victim and getting away with it while still managing to curtail on others.

<comment><USER37> That doesn't make sense to me. Especially given the GHCQ's break down of Huawei gear finding that Huawei can't even do version control right (they had revisions of firmware with the same version id for the same hardware with different build characteristics), and magically reintroducing vulnerabilities from 2006. Personally I feel that Huawei gear would be ripe for exploitation and then misdirection.

I don't get why people are so hung up on proof though. There doesn't have to be proof. No one who I've talked to in the networking industry cares about proof (this includes myself). Hell China already bans companies at will. The only thing that matters is enough of a non-zero chance of Huawei releasing malicious firmware updates to select targets in the future. Judging by their inability to have firmware revisions that completely match in functionality who knows if they're already doing so at a smaller scale.

<comment><USER38> > I don't get why people are so hung up on proof though.

The reason you look for proof is not that it gives you 100% security. It is the process of finding proof that helps us understand how secure a product is and what vulnerabilities need to be addressed. GHCQ's through examination of Huawei devices found problems with version control, and Huawei promised to fix those problems. This is how security could improve.

I think you also vastly underestimated how difficult it is to do version control for hardware due to extremely complex supply chain. If you examine products from any other brand, the situation is likely to be worse. I'm not suggesting Huawei's problems are acceptable. However, it is a misguided approach to decide which products are secure purely based on national origin rather technical merits.

<comment><USER39> These also sound like the sort of problems that could be solved without a global sales ban, people seem to really like the Hand of the Market for stuff like this when it's not down nationalist lines.

<comment><USER40> This isn't why they were banned. They were banned for conducting corrupt espionage, violating the Iran sanctions, and lying about it to federal authorities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> java-man related: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20205131](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20205131)

</comment><comment><USER41> The CIA should be completely abolished. Unlike the FBI, it does not seek to enforce any laws whatsoever; instead, they operate with absolutely zero oversight, there only rule being that they're not supposed to be involved in domestic matters. I wouldn't be surprised if they tag-team with other friendly agencies like MI6 to spy on each other's domestic targets so as not to violate that rule.

<comment><USER42> Yes, because not having an Intelligence agency is a great idea for national security. You know the LAPD beat a man a few times. We should totally get rid of them also.

A rational proposal for over-site and control would be a useful comment.

<comment><USER43> The US spy and intelligence agencies frequently infringe on domestic and international human rights, and many people would rather they didn't exist. Some people don't even consider the agencies to be constitutional. Your sarcastic comments are certainly not useful.

<comment><USER42> The issue is not the CIA. It has been incredibly successfully in its job since it was founded as the OSS in WW2. We do not hear of the successes as most of it is highly classified. There are some great books on older stuff they did in the Cold War out now that are worth reading.

The reality is we only hear about the screw ups and the illegal things because that news worthy in the 24/7/365 hype cycle we now live it.

The fact is that we as citizens have failed to provide our voices asking for proper guidance of the CIA. We the people think that TV shows like 24 are the reality and torture is okay because it works on TV and only happens to the bad guys. Society as a whole have allowed things to end up this way.

Tell me what really happened when we the public found out about the tap rooms at ATT colo or some of the stuff Wikileaks and Snowden showed? Where is the protest? I do not see the streets full of outrage. Where are the brave Americas standing up for their rights. We could learn from the people of Hong Kong at this point.

The fact is that as long as we can order from amazon and Facebook works no one cares anymore.

We get the government we deserve. Disbanding the CIA just moves the issue to the next agency.

<comment><USER44> Yes, USA has 20+ intelligence agencies.

But all you refer to can and should be done by military intelligence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> The question is how much this matters if you already have 2-5 active microphones listening in when there are two normal people in the room. I bet if the CIA wants they can get enough data from the audio alone to even say who looked at whom during a conversation.

</comment><comment><USER46> Why wouldn't they? In the current legal environment, that would be unprofessional and even a misconduct for them not to acquire these capabilities.

</comment><comment><USER47> Is it still possible to buy HD TVs that are not smart? That's a niche that may interest HN readers; I prefer smartness through a peripheral...

<comment><USER48> You can buy monitors made for commercial usage, such as signage. They'll be simple monitors with no TV tuner or "smart" functionality, and they'll be built to better resist burn-in.

They'll also cost you at least 2-3 times as much as an equivalent consumer TV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I bought a Philips 4k tv which works ok. But, when I plug it into my ethernet and hit the software update button it says it can't find the host. So I am guessing they hard coded the wrong IP/URL into the firmware. I am sure are there is some USB firmware patch I can do, but, I don't want to risk turning it into a giant doorstop/brick.

</comment><comment><USER50> Who'd have thought that always-on, internet-connected cameras and microphones could be used for spying on you?

</comment><comment><USER34> The Internet of Things is a surveillance entity's wet dream. And we are sleep- walking right into it.

<comment><USER14> Everyone is fully aware of the implications here. Even most consumers know the risks, they just don't care. The sad part isn't that people are stupid, it's that they are smart and just don't care.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I own a Samsung Smart TV, and I'd be interested in removing or disabling the microphone. Any ideas?

<comment><USER52> Image search "mems microphone" to get an idea of how it looks. There is a hole in the microphone body – fill it with glue. Or just remove the microphone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> "In America, you watch television. In Soviet Russia, television watches you!" <g>

-Comedian Yakov Smirnoff ([http://wiki.c2.com/?InSovietRussia](http://wiki.c2.com/?InSovietRussia))

</comment><comment><USER54> The tinfoil hat people get more and more correct, being validated at every turn.

</comment><comment><USER55> Louis: Really? Inspector: Sure! Louis: Ohh!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4aLThuU008](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4aLThuU008)

</comment><comment><USER56> Isn't the most obvious fix for this never connecting the TV to the internet in the first place? If your TV works the day you buy it, why do you need to connect it so it gets "firmware" updates? in some respect, isn't the user still capable of making their SmartTV a "dumb" TV?

</comment><comment><USER57> There's a microphone in the Samsung TV smart remote.

<comment><USER58> In the actual tv's too in some cases.

<comment><USER59> I think you mean telescreen

<comment><USER60> Double-plus-good reference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> CIA is able to spy but Samsung doesn't even get screen mirroring work on my TV. Thankfully, I disabled the internet connectivity and forget about it, it turned out to be a good thing maybe.

Where to get modern TVs screen wise but dumb ones? Monitors go up to only somewhat limited dimension's. Anyone have ideas? Buy the screen from LG and build yourself?

<comment><USER62> To find modern dumb TVs, you usually need to look at the "commercial" or "business" lines (sometimes called "digital signage). Companies make them hard to find.

I have a 55" 4K LG dumb tv and I'm very happy with it: [https://www.lg.com/ca_en/commercial-tv/lg-55UX340C-public- di...](https://www.lg.com/ca_en/commercial-tv/lg-55UX340C-public-display-tvs)

It's just a tv. It turns on and off quick. The remote-control is simple. The only downside is it only has 2 HDMI inputs, and it doesn't do HDR.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> (2017)

<comment><USER64> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Hey wiretap show me my favorite show. Hey wall with ears tell me the weather.

</comment><comment><USER66> > to secretly spy on targets

Apparently everyone here thinks so much of themselves that they think they are important enough to be a target.</comment>


Ask HN: What branch of CS does this recipe problem belong to? - <AUTHOR> I find that I waste a lot of food. As a side project, I'm trying to come up with some meal plans that will combine preexisting recipes such that there is minimal waste left over. E.g. I use some of ingredient X in recipe 1, and then some in recipe 2, etc. There are constraints set by the size of the units my supermarket sells the ingredients in.<p>Unfortunately, I have no idea where to start with this problem (I can code but don't have a CS background). I'm trying to start by finding out what domain it belongs to. Is it linear programming? Would machine learning be useful here? <comment><USER2> It's a variation on bin packing ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_packing_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_packing_problem), [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Bin- PackingProblem.html](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Bin-PackingProblem.html))

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I had come across this but didn't want to go too deep until I was confident it was the right way to frame the problem.</comment></comment>


The Frighteningly Modern Visions of Bruegel Get the Showcase They Deserve - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/after-450-years-the-frighteningly-modern-visions-of-bruegel-get-the-showcase-they-deserve/2018/12/17/8d4358ec-ffd7-11e8-ad40-cdfd0e0dd65a_story.html <comment><AUTHOR> I'd been vaguely aware of Bruegel for years, but it was Paul Graham's book _Hackers and Painters_ that made me look more closely. Bruegel's _Tower of Babel_ is on the cover, and _Hunters in the Snow_ appears in the _Taste for Makers_ chapter. Graham called _Hunters in the Snow_ "strangely beautiful," along with Euler's formula, the SR-71, and Lisp.</comment>


Tic Tac Toe game with nice animations [react.js and flux] - <AUTHOR> https://rawgit.com/hackhat/tic-tac-toe-flux/v0.0.4/dist/index.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Source code: [https://github.com/hackhat/tic-tac-toe- flux](https://github.com/hackhat/tic-tac-toe-flux)</comment>


The Invisible War for the Open Internet - <AUTHOR> https://medium.freecodecamp.com/inside-the-invisible-war-for-the-open-internet-dd31a29a3f08 <comment><USER3> Author here. I just realized someone had submitted this to HN. I spent a lot of time researching and writing this article, and am excited to read any feedback you may have.

Also, here's how you can contact the FCC directly:

1-888-225-5322

press 1, then 4, then 2, then 0 say that you wish to file comments concerning the FCC Chairman's plan to end net neutrality

Or on the web:

[https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express) Under Proceedings, enter 14-28 and 17-108

Suggested script:

It's my understanding that the FCC Chairman intends to reverse net neutrality rules and put big Internet Service Providers in charge of the internet. I am firmly against this action. I believe that these ISPs will operate solely in their own interests and not in the interests of what is best for the American public. In the past 10 years, broadband companies have been guilty of: deliberately throttling internet traffic, squeezing customers with arbitrary data caps, misleading consumers about the meaning of "unlimited" internet, giving privileged treatment to companies they own, strong-arming cities to prevent them from giving their residents high-speed internet, and avoiding real competition at all costs. Consumers, small businesses, and all Americans deserve an open internet. So to restate my position: I am against the chairman's plan to reverse the net neutrality rules. I believe doing so will destroy a vital engine for innovation, growth, and communication.

This information is taken from this thread on Reddit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6894i9/heres_ho...](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6894i9/heres_how_to_contact_the_fcc_with_your_thoughts/)

<comment><USER4> To be clear, and I do agree with you, that net neutrality is only half the problem. You hint on this very directly several times, but don't actually acknowledge this out right.

There are two warring trusts here, and both are equally evil in that they will abuse you as much as they can. On one hand there is the distribution problem, which is the ISP monopoly. With the recently media fallout around rolling back ISP data collection some of the big ISPs have openly promised to not resell this collected data... but if they own their own advertising networks they have less incentive to.

On the other side there is the content provider mega-states, which actually bigger and scarier than the ISPs. As your facts indicate the top 8 apps in the Apple app store come from Google and Facebook. Using their ad networks they can track your browsing habits as a third party service on second party sites, which means they know who you are even when you have no account with them or are logged out.

Remember the fallout of SOPA. SOPA scared the shit out of social media. If that law passed then social media would actually have to police the content of user submissions without motivation from multi-billion dollar law suits.

On one hand the ISP army is kind of evil in that they force their authority upon the public and the public is often powerless to do anything about it. The benefit of that is that they don't have to be dishonest about it, which is some level of transparency... even if still an aura of corruption.

The content provider side is scarier to me, because they can only gain wealth and influence if users lend it to them... and for convenience most users absolutely give up their privacy. They often don't need the same super-power lobby force the ISPs need if they can convenience their users to scream loudly enough together.

Fortunately, they are each the solution to the other's problems. If you believe the content providers are the greater evil then prioritize distribution and diversify your content sources. If you believe distribution (the ISPs) to be the greater problem then consolidate your content consumption and receive it through alternate providers.

<comment><USER5> > Fortunately, they are each the solution to the other's problems.

No, they aren't, because the major ISPs are also significant content providers and are trying to use their positions as ISPs to promote their own content- provision businesses. Unless you view "solving" the existence of incumbent large content providers as something that is done by making the oligopoly of ISPs _also_ the oligopoly of content, the ISPs are not offering a solution to anything, just the same problem you are describing, intensified, with their own faces replacing the incumbent dominant content providers.

<comment><USER4> > the ISPs are not offering a solution to anything

Of course they won't offer anything to you that is not immediately in their commercial interest. You have to take the initiative to use what they provide in a way that does what you need.

<comment><USER6> "You have to take the initiative to use what they provide in a way that does what you need."

The end of net neutrality means they control what they or others can provide to you. That includes the ability to give you what _they_ need you to use instead of what _you_ need. So, you can't just use what they provide for your needs. The main article showed the ISP's and mediums before them repeatedly did this. There's no reason to trust they won't do it again as they're already scheming on us. The Comcast cap was a recent example I personally had to fight where they were faking my data usage counting up bandwidth when the computers weren't on and wifi was unplugged.

Nah, open, decentralized, and bazaar is the best model for the Internet because that's what gave us all the great things that the Prodigies, Compuserves, MA Bell's, etc didn't.

<comment><USER4> > The end of net neutrality means they control what they or others can provide > to you.

That is not completely accurate. They are not content provides or censors... at least not directly. Some of the major ISPs do own ad networks and so can prioritize advertising distribution in a way that others down stream cannot. They can also irregularly throttle access to content using criteria of their choosing, which isn't completely censorship but is absolutely the slippery slope.

Net neutrality is beneficial and important, but the ISPs aren't the ones you should be most fearful of in these regards.

<comment><USER6> " They are not content provides or censors... at least not directly. "

They are if they determine what content you can get. They've already reduced that in the past just to save bandwidth costs. Then there's the content side. So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor in practice. A key middleman who might help you out or harm you instead of being impartial.

<comment><USER4> > They are if they determine what content you can get.

Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality.

> So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have > control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor > in practice.

No it does not. They are still merely the distributor no matter how directly they censor you. You don't get to use effect to qualify the causality in your argument. This is a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc.

<comment><USER5> > Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard > anyone make with regard to net neutrality.

Blocking -- not throttling or prioritization -- was the issue in the _original_ net neutrality action (the Comcast BitTorrent blocking case) and the threat of ISPs blocking unwelcome content and applications has always been one of the core focuses of FCC net neutrality policy while they were pursuing it.

<comment><USER4> I think you are talking about this: [https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast- sued-ov/](https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/)

The word "blocking" is used in the article by the plaintiff, but the actual issue at hand was throttling that the plaintiff perceived as blocked traffic. Even then the lawsuit wasn't about throttling either, but fraudulent advertising.

<comment><USER5> Blocking was an issue in the discussion, and its been an express concern (and directly, and separately from throttling and prioritization, been addressed in regulation) in each iteration of the FCC's Open Internet rules, which have all addressed both blocking of lawful _content_ and blocking of lawful _applications_.

The idea that the ability of the ISPs to censor has not previously been an issue in the neutrality debate is utterly wrong; its been a central concern identified and addressed in _each_ public draft and issued version of the FCC's net neutrality rules.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > This isn't capitalism — it's corporatism. Capitalism is messy. It's > wasteful. But it's much healthier in the long run for society as a whole > than central planning and government trying to pick the winners.

> Capitalism allows for small businesses to enter and actually stand a chance. > Corporatism makes it impossible.

What you're calling "corporatism" is simply "late stage capitalism". As long as you continue to buy into the delusion that your almoghty dollar will make you a multimillionaire someday, you empower those who have the actual machines of finance under lock and key to act as the new monarchs of your world.

<comment><USER8> You act like a full scale revolution is the only solution and that this would somehow redistribute wealth. I really doubt it. If done all at once, there'd be a power vacuum that someone would come into.

I think we can support last-mile competition or regulation, and educate people about why net neutrality is important. That's our job as technologists.

<comment> loup-vaillant > _You act like a full scale revolution is the only solution and that this > would somehow redistribute wealth._

Where did that come from? I didn't read that in the above comment.

Unless you have this idea that to get to socialism one has to undergo a bloody revolution? Nope. One just have to set up taxes properly and pump up public services.

<comment><USER8> I inferred it from previous similar discussions about "late stage capitalism".

"Late stage" implies people think we should get rid of capitalism _soon_. I don't see that happening. I don't want full-on communism / socialism , as it's been demonstrated to be a failed incentive for countries to both grow innovation and to defend themselves against the far-right-leaning societies in the world.

Maybe once we're all connected and communicating more effectively, we can stop building armies. I don't think we're there yet.

<comment> loup-vaillant Well, if you'll allow me this oversimplification, this is a spectrum. There are degrees of capitalism and socialism, and which you call which largely depends on your upbringing.

For instance, many US citizens here in HN would say France is a Socialist country. But we're neither a command economy nor a dictatorship (yet). We just put more money in public services (most notably health care and education). Some countries redistribute even more, and they're still quite far from full blown communism.

<comment><USER8> I agree it is a spectrum and that we may have different perceptions of each other's positions on the spectrum. That can alter how we describe them.

"Late stage capitalism", to me, implies that someone feels that capitalism is about to, or should, collapse. Plus, he mentioned "buying into the dollar". I really don't know how you're supposed to avoid that. If you're born into some country, you use their money. Even "buying into bitcoin" benefits early adopters more than the later ones. There really is no escaping "working your way up". Even being born to a wealthy family doesn't guarantee happiness or success.

If you interpret "late stage capitalism" and the other comments differently, I'm happy to hear your perspective. Perhaps I have the wrong idea.

I still consider France to operate in a capitalist nature along with most of the rest of the world, it just has more elements of socialism baked in. I absolutely don't think of France as communist, lol, but I'm sure some Americans do.

Perhaps capitalism is a bad word in France. I don't know. It's simply a matter-of-fact, to me, that many humans require a monetary incentive to do the kinds of work we do today, and that this is best achieved by having voting rights and the freedom to profit from new businesses.

<comment><USER9> "Late stage capitalism" is a technical term with a specific meaning. It's from Marxism. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism)

<comment><USER8> I think my issue with it, as that wiki article states, is that it's prophetic. Nobody knows how long this state will last, so, applying a time metric makes it unscientific.

<comment><USER9> Yup, Marx is unscientific. Always was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How can we translate this for laypeople? This was my attempt,

> Imagine your existing water utility divided its offerings into "regular > water" and "super clean water". You'd think, wait, isn't my tap water > already clean? And you'd be right.

> Swap "regular water" for "faster internet to specific websites" and you get > the lobbyists' argument for killing net neutrality. It would produce slow > internet to websites that don't pay up, effectively allowing ISPs to earn > money two times for the same product, and elbowing smaller content producers > out of the internet

Improvements welcome. I think it could be more succinct.

<comment><USER10> Try this: imagine the government put up a fence in front of everyone's house and they let poor people in fine, but charged rich people to get in through the fence. That's the basic idea for ISPs...they want to charge Google, Facebook, etc. money. They're already charging Netflix (Verizon forced them to pay or they would throttle them).

There is NO CHANCE that ISPs will actually invest in two technically different products like regular/super clean water! That's just how ISPs want paint the debate, that they want the right to invest in "better technology", but the bottleneck is the last mile and the chances that Verizon will lay 2 different cables to your house is exactly zero! The requirement for prejudicial packet routing to deliver things like HD video is a non-starter, Netflix when it's not getting throttled is already delivers great hi-def video in the current non-prejudicial packet-based internet.

It is really pure "extortion"...at least in my view and a clear case of necessary government intervention to insure fair market behavior (e.g. ISPs can only charge consumers, not web services, for internet service).

<comment><USER8> Thanks for your ideas! Points about bottleneck at the last mile and Verizon not offering to lay more cabling to your house are good

I realize that ISPs want to paint the debate as separate products. I wanted to use their language in my description so that people can interpret their words alongside mine.

If you're constantly making different points and not addressing your opponents', I feel the listener will walk away with a 50/50 chance of agreeing with you, probably choosing to follow their political party.

If you offer some translation, maybe we can get some meaningful discussion about it.

Regarding charging rich people to enter the fence. I feel that would only help convince the general public that net neutrality benefits big companies. Google and Facebook, forgive me if you work there, are teetering on not being perceived as evil mega corporations with access to all our data. Naming them as a victim doesn't do much to win over the public.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Those are some lovely data packets you've got there. It sure would be a shame if they got lost on their way to your users."

There were a lot of good quotes from the article, but this one struck me as particularly apt. I saw something on tumblr today about how "net neutrality" just doesn't resonate with people - and it's true - I tried striking up conversation about this and some people didn't even know what I was talking about.

<comment><USER12> In my country, mobile service providers (Vodafone, Digicel, Connect) all have _very_ popular packages like "Sign up for this data plan for $6 and get free unlimited access to Facebook and Instagram.

Anyone trying to push net neutrality here would have a hard time getting the masses on board once told they'd have to give up "free" social media.

<comment><USER13> Which country is this ?

<comment><USER12> Fiji

<comment><USER14> ...and Serbia. And Bosnia. And Montenegro. And Croatia. And I'm like 70% certain that I've seen similar billboards in Poland as well a couple of months ago, but can't confirm it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I do not think anybody wants ISPs to be in charge of internet. However, I also believe, that most do not want USA FCC to be in charge of internet either.

Arguing for a benefit, without clearly identifying the strategic negatives, is intellectually dishonest.

Perhaps, it is with the help of these types of arguments, is how some monopolies and dictatorships are built out.

Here is an example of the discussion analyzing some arguments of the validity of FCC reach:

      "This Comment argues that requiring ISPs to filter pirated material is within the FCC's ancillary jurisdiction pursuant to Title I of the Communications Act,'1 but only so long as the targeted activity has a detrimental impact on network activity."

[http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...](http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1436&context=uclf) pp. 535-538

I would argue, that it is the power of consumer choice to obfuscate his/her usage of internet (and, protecting companies that help with that) -- should be the goal.

Rather than, giving FCC the authority to regulate ISPs or consumer usage of the internet, via the ISPs.

I do want to mention that I appreciated some (but not all) analogies used by the author. I liked this one especially.

      "Not only did Western Union back Hayes' campaign financially, it also used its unique position as the information backbone for espionage purposes. "

It reminded me, in just recent history, of how the previous (2008-2016) US president used US (and, probably, UK's) foreign intelligence services to target the opposition of his foreign policies, and the people's choice of the next president.

I also liked the analogy of TV and facebook, I fully agree -- Facebook is working hard on creating a 'walled garden' of information dissemination, and digital identity of every individual. And they would love to cut out the 'amateur hobbyists'.

<comment><USER16> I agree. Nobody is considering the problems an FCC-regulated internet brings to the table. With the exception of the telegram and cinema (those controlled by Western Union and Hollywood), the feds regulate the telephone, radio, and television. The internet is just the latest thing government bureaucrats want control over.

> With the fate of a major Internet policy in the balance, Pai's proposal may > lend momentum to U.S. lawmakers who have proposed replacing the current FCC > rules with congressional legislation. Republican members of Congress have > said they are ready to craft a bill that enshrines some of the existing > regulations permanently into law. But that effort is expected to stall > without support from Democrats, such as Sens. Edward J. Markey (Mass.) and > Ron Wyden (Ore.) who argue the FCC can and should regulate ISPs more > heavily. [1]

In regards to Facebook, Twitter, etc. creating their own modern walled gardens, let them. They'll soon see the demise that others have, 10-20 years ago.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- switch/wp/2017/04/26...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- switch/wp/2017/04/26/heres-the-fccs-plan-to-undo-its-own-net-neutrality- rules/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Maybe losing the current web wouldn't be that bad, it's largely become a centralised, tracking and surveillance tool for mass marketing and used for spying on citizens. One gets the feeling that any significant level of "openness" died a long time ago.

It's not that it's useless, but a fresh start might not be the worst outcome.

<comment><USER18> This is exactly why an entirely encrypted internet would be desirable. ISP's won't be able to track or throttle since they won't know who's connecting to what.

<comment><USER19> Or your ISP would just MITM everything and provide their own CA you must accept to use their service.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> FCC chairman Pai has been very public about revoking Title II status. You can read his wolf in sheep's clothing speech from last week:

[https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-speech-future- inte...](https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-speech-future-internet- regulation)

It's a disappointment after Wheeler, but entirely expected, to see Pai fighting against net neutrality. I suggest reading the response by commissioners Clyburn and FTC commissioner McSweeny:

[https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-cmmr-clyburn-ftc-cmmr- mcswe...](https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-cmmr-clyburn-ftc-cmmr-mcsweeny- joint-statement-open-internet)

[https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/headlines](https://www.fcc.gov/news- events/headlines)

</comment><comment><USER21> To be clear this is less about the Internet and more about the USA. I doubt Internet users in other countries should really care about net neutrality in the USA. If anything, once the FCC ruins the Internet for Americans other countries will take pride in being less like the USA and strengthening their net neutrality legislation. Similarly to how health care discourse in EU countries often cites the USA as the bad example to avoid.

</comment><comment><USER22> I like the irony that this well researched and thought out article is published on medium.

<comment><USER23> There is no irony here.

Today, with net neutrality, the author can choose to publish on Medium, where some publishers and readers congregate for particular types of content, and anyone on the Internet who wants to read Medium can, without having to buy into a price-discriminated tier to escape beyond the home-turf vertical.

In the future, will you be able to say the same?

<comment><USER7> There absolutely is. Medium is in that "one of X top sites" while blogs would be in the long tail.

"Without having to buy X" just means you've yet learned nothing of the past. "Without having to buy" is just internet.org and (potentially, ultimately) a good tagline for trial subscriptions of zero rated content.

It's not the money (or "free" gratis) that matters, it's the control (or "free" libre).

People continuing to fundamentally not understand the rationale of controlling your own tech will be the single biggest contributor to "efforts to save the internet" failing, if you ask me.

<comment><USER23> Due to network effects and the 'discovery' problem, content on the Web will likely continue to need content silos and content aggregators to expand reach. This alone isn't a problem -- or maybe it is, depending on your point-of-view, but isn't equivalent to the issues raised in the parent post.

Equal access to pipes regardless of the nature of transmitted content -- net neutrality, or as you phrase, the _libre_ aspect is a necessary prerequisite for mass-market and indie content to both have a chance to thrive -- and not just your home ISP's preferred partners.

I get what you're saying, but both of them matter: the point is to get the same playing field, and not sidestep it with either a lower or higher price -- either zero-rating, or by charging more for a broader range of access.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> That timeline of Google ads in Part 3 is pretty damning. Not of Google specifically, but of the whole push for "native advertising". This also ties in with "engagement" measures like autoplay-by-default on YouTube and "next article" popups on news sites. It's all about maximizing appropriation of users' attention.

</comment><comment><USER25> My main gripe with Net Neutrality is simple economics. For almost any good or service you can pay for different tiers of quality.

Why should the internet not be this way too? If the answer is because its a monopoly I would have to disagree.

<comment><USER26> I think that there's a tech bubble around this issue. In my experience, most normal people happily trade internet speed for discounts. In fact, I've found that people are more likely to be suspicious of those seeking high internet speeds than sympathetic.

I am willing to bet that if someone offered an internet package that included full speeds for Facebook, Wikipedia, and 30 YouTube videos for $5 /mo, and then 20% speed for everything else, it'd do really well.

Interestingly, this is a really a question about keeping the internet a free market. Just as a local boutique retailer would not be happy about the shopping center charging customers $1 per store they entered, small publishers, as usual, will be the people harmed by a non-neutral internet.

I'm sure the big players are enthralled by the idea that their competitors will soon have an _even harder_ time accessing alternatives, as if it wasn't difficult enough with a rabid copyright regime and restrictive network access. IMO, the only reason tech incumbents oppose net non-neutrality is because they're worried that Comcast will use it as a kludge to stymie the growth of their platforms as media platforms (which Comcast et al are _desperate_ to do, because cordcutting is eviscerating the cable industry).

It's too bad that the mainstream conservative party in the US has interpreted "free markets" and "competition" to mean making the startup environment extremely difficult for the little guy.

<comment><USER13> And this article correctly highlighted an issue with the new tech firms, once the old guard of CEOs dies, and the current crop of techies take charge. Imagine google run by someone who came out of the uber school of thought,

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I have seen these five steps before, in a dream. They are chaos, discord, confusion, bureaucracy, and the aftermath. Discordians stand vindicated.

</comment><comment><USER28> I am for paying a neutral gateway to Internet. However, I don't get why we should forbid Facebook to give access for free but only to their services if they want to.

</comment><comment><USER29> If the big ISPs started throttling data and putting up walled gardens, what would stop competitors from entering the market to offer the "net neutral" flavor of internet we're used to?

Some communities are already banding together to start their own ISPs. I'm not familiar with how they deal with the "last mile" infrastructure challenge. But if it only took a big investment up front then that begs the question why did Google Fiber fail? Lack of community support?

If net neutrality was as valuable to us as we make it out to be, then what would stop local grassroots efforts from installing their own community-based ISPs in response to losing it?

<comment><USER30> In most of Europe competition in last mile networks is enforced by law and ISPs don't have nearly the scope for all this nefarious stuff. If they block/throttle or charge premiums you can just go to one of their competitors.

This is because the companies who own all the last mile networks (mostly former state monopolies,) are legally compelled to wholesale that last mile access.

<comment><USER8> Wow, that was really forward thinking of places that do this. Can you cite some speeds and costs?

We should push for this in high density areas of the US. Not just beg a federal agency not to roll back net neutrality, which, under Trump, they may be able to do without losing much popularity.

<comment><USER30> Well it was also _possible_ as most European companies had state-run telephone monopolies into the 1980s. And when they were privatised the government's were in a position to impose rules on the newly created private companies - <USER2> that they had to sell local access to competitors.

As the US govt. didn't own AT&T, not the Baby Bells, nor today's Verizon & AT&T, the situation is a bit different.

The irony that the US has a much worse situation because there is so much less competition (despite it being the home of capatalism).

In terms of speed I know Ireland (where I am,) and the UK can both get you VDSL2+ service (so like up to 80Mb) on copper pair from numerous suppliers. One service slow access to netflix? Go to another.

<comment><USER8> > The irony that the US has a much worse situation because there is so much > less competition (despite it being the home of capatalism).

Yup, pretty interesting stuff. In some ways we're more free; in others, more restricted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is insanely wordy. I would appreciate a TL;DR;

<comment><USER32> Each communication technology tends to cycle through phases: Invention, pioneering, commercialisation, lock-down and obsolescence: telegram, telephone, radio, cinema, TV, etc. Internet is in the lock-down phase if net neutrality is not enforced. Without net neutrality providers can split the Internet into channels and make bundles out of channels, like this: Base Internet $29.95 plus International sites $5 plus news $5, and so on. This way they can make more money. However this will force out the long tail (niche content) and force us into walled gardens and in the future even get us an Internet as locked-down as China's. This is not capitalism, but corporatism. We should fight the lock-down by donating to specific non-profits, educate about the open Internet, contact representatives and share the article.

Perhaps one should make a tl;dr out of this?

<comment><USER33> TL;DR now costs extra, because im some important pipe-part of the thread stack, and demand money to squeeze it down further.</comment></comment></comment>


Cargo, Rust's Package Manager, reaches alpha - <AUTHOR> http://crates.io/

<comment><USER2> Dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7936557](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7936557).</comment>


Best 16 Features of Android 7 Nougat You Should Know - <AUTHOR> http://geekonjava.blogspot.com/2016/09/best-16-features-of-android-7-nougat.html#.V9KZCv9gpB0.hackernews <comment><USER2> I didn't realize drag-and-drop was a thing on Android now. That's pretty great. I've been considering switching to Android.

Side note: Loading this article required 12.3MB of data. That seems excessive. That's with uBlock Origin turned on, even.

<comment><USER3> There 3 gif images in there which represent a total of 9 MB. I suggest you use the "Block media elements by size" feature in uBO. See: [https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site- switches#no-...](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no- large-media-elements)</comment></comment>


A new way police are surveilling: Calculating threat 'score' - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/the-new-way-police-are-surveilling-you-calculating-your-threat-score/2016/01/10/e42bccac-8e15-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html <comment><USER2> >Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer said officers are often working on scant or even inaccurate information when they respond to calls, so Beware and the Real Time Crime Center give them a sense of what may be behind the next door.

This assumes that the information present on the Internet is accurate, a scary thought. How difficult would it be for someone to make a profile with your first and last name on any or all of the major social networks, painting you as a gun nut, a recovering drug addict, or worse?

Allowing this system to inform police work without the least bit of public oversight is irresponsible. But that won't become a concern, I suspect, until something unfortunate happens. For now, the only stories we have about this technology's use point to the 'bad guys' being caught.

<comment><USER3> I think the idea of someone fabricating legal-but-indicitave online information about you so that you turn red in the police's system and then setting you up to be considered a threat in an incident where the police assume you are dangerous but you are not and are goaded into shooting you is kind of a stretch. Maybe a good plot for a movie.

But the program itself is somewhat troubling. But right now we have a profiling system the police use. It's 'dark skin -> almost certainly has a gun' instead of 'BEWARE says green BEWARE says red'. Is looking at public info with an explicit review-able algorithm better or worse than letting officers profile naturally?

I'd agree using data like this for police purposes can be fraught with issues and is troubling but even as a privacy advocate this system seems at the very least not worse than what we currently do. Not because it is good, but because what we currently do is so bad.

<comment><USER4> The notion of people seeing a comment they thought was sexist and hounding your employer to ensure you were fired seems kinda far fetch as well. The issue is that there are enough people out there that even far fetch scenarios will happen from time to time.

<comment><USER5> And it only seems far fetched until it happens to you. Then it's front and center.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The scariest part is that this kind of program drops all pretense and explicitly characterizes all interactions with the authorities in the context of the "threat" each of us poses. It anchors the discussion in terms inherently antagonistic relationship, and normalizes aggressive policing behavior. _Why aren 't more people scared by this?_

Although it is inconvenient for law enforcement, the government should not conduct persistent, universal surveillance on the citizenry - even if it only consists of monitoring & compiling publicly available information. The value of these tools is dubious, and the potential for abuse is high; there is no accountability for the costs in comparison to the utility, and they are routinely established in the absence of oversight _by design_.

Mechanisms already exist for targeted surveillance when authorities have probable cause. Normalizing casual surveillance with no specific intent marginalizes the discussion of more invasive surveillance techniques, and emboldens authorities who dismiss privacy as a trivial impediment to security.

<comment><USER7> Thought experiment: is this very different from police targeting high-risk neighbourhoods?

Police have been over-policing black and poor neighbourhoods for decades but no one is protesting that. There will certainly be a correlation between "interactions with the authorities" <-> where police spend their time patrolling, skewing the data.

The only time I've ever been stopped and interrogated randomly, simply for walking down the sidewalk with a hoodie on (in winter) in a bad neighbourhood, was visiting a friend in a housing project. Asking where I was going and who am I meeting.

All of his family and friends get harassed by police living there, despite having zero background of criminality. And in Toronto they record your name/location each time you get stopped and carded in an "anti-gang" database.

<comment><USER8> _Police have been over-policing black and poor neighbourhoods for decades but no one is protesting that._

Er, apart from all those Black Lives Matter protesters that keep getting in the news?

<comment><USER7> Apologies I wasn't aware over-policing black neighbourhoods was one of their issues.

It seems to be rare that this issue specifically gets raised. Usually the media focuses on the conduct on officers upon an altercation rather than how often police are engaging with black people needlessly.

As the parent comment pointed out, the use of counting the amount of altercations as crime data is a worrying point. Amplifying the side-effects of over-policing certain areas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A few considerations:

1) If these are good ideas and there is nothing wrong with them, than why does law enforcement keep them secret? Why don't they advertise to citizens: 'We track everything you do, including who you call, where you go, what you say online, and then we predict if you are a threat or not and respond appropriately. This makes you and the community safer!'

2) Does being black or Muslim, having far-left or far-right political views, increase or decrease your threat score?

3) Law enforcement has a very well-established history of using their power not for public safety, but to abuse and oppress vulnerable classes of people and people politically unpopular with the state (e.g., peace protesters). Just think of all the shootings, arrests, COINTELPRO, etc. etc. Why would this power be used any differently?

For example, many blacks already experience harassmet from law enforcement, including such things as pulling them over for 'driving while black', suspecting them of criminality for being in a predominently white shopping area, arresting them for no cause, etc. What will life be like for blacks on a police threat list? Will their life be constant harassment? Will the predicted threat be self-fulfilling because they will be arrested inevitably? Will corrupt police just plant something on citizens on the threat list and arrest them to preemptively get them off the street (and then tout the accuracy and value of the threat list)?

4) Police already are given the authority to shoot people based on suspicion or a feeling of threat. For example, someone putting their hand in their pocket or reaching for something in their car could be reaching for a gun. Will being on the threat list be justification for violence against citizens?

5) Aren't we presumed innocent until proven guilty? Aren't we to be judged by our actions and not what someone else thinks we will do? What happened to the land of opportunity?

<comment><USER10> > Does being black or Muslim, having far-left or far-right political views, > increase or decrease your threat score?

One of the things they explicitly mentioned was "gang associations". In my US experience, groups of black or Hispanic* youths who sometimes do illegal things (shoplifting, trespassing, underage drinking, pot smoking) are often called "gangs" in cases where groups of white or Asian youths wouldn't, even if they were doing the same things. So I think it's inevitable that this kind of Citizenship Score will reproduce and fortify existing structures of racist discrimination.

* This primarily applies in parts of the US where the local system of racism classifies Hispanic people as nonwhite.

<comment><USER11> Since when has "gang" excluded "white"? The Chicago Outfit, Hell's Angels?

<comment><USER12> He didn't say 'gang' excluded 'white', did he?

He said that a group of black youths that sometimes do shady stuff will be labelled a 'gang', while a group of white youths will not.

<comment><USER11> I guess, anecdote vs. anecdote, I've just never seen that happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Turning the profiles and prejudices of police into an explicit metric, whose code can be examined and debated, seems like an idea that might have not have legs in a free society.

However, surprisingly unmentioned here is the inevitability, so long as the client is the state, that these metrics include political dissent as a threat model. Has anyone asked Beware for comment on this?

<comment><USER11> If political dissent is correlated to violence, why _shouldn 't_ it be a parameter in the threat model?

Everyone, including police, form threat models in their own minds all the time. Ever avoided the hoodied skinhead hiding his hands in his pockets in a dark alley? Threat model.

The model isn't grounds for prosecution, but it is reasonable grounds to adjust your response.

<comment><USER8> _If political dissent is correlated to violence, why shouldn 't it be a parameter in the threat model?_

Because we know this will be implemented in a partisan way. "Dissent" implies that there is a _single_ politics from which everything different must be considered suspect. Simply using the word implies totalitarianism.

You can see this in the US where the white people talking about the violent overthrow of the government somehow aren't considered terrorists and are relatively unmolested even if they actually occupy Federal land and buildings, but a nonwhite kid holding a toy gun gets shot in a playground.

Edit: just to drive the point home, does the threat model include a database of gun owners? Do we think gun ownership might be correlated with crime? Or is it illegal to investigate that as it is for the CDC?

<comment><USER11> How does "dissent" imply totalitarianism? If someone was to believe that women should not be allowed to vote today in the USA, they would be dissenters. Does that mean the USA is totalitarian?

As far as I can tell, they're relatively unmolested because:

[http://imgur.com/AYNRxlo](http://imgur.com/AYNRxlo)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is interesting since, really, cops' brains are already creating "threat scores", it's just that they aren't available to look at or tinker with how they're calculated. It's likely these computer models are inferior to the mental models, but making them explicit is a big step.

<comment><USER15> It would be a big step if those models were under public scrutiny and not a "trade secret" of the for profit company that makes it.

<comment><USER16> As soon as the model were public it would be useless. The first thing an aspiring criminal or terrorist would do would be study the model and then do whatever necessary to make his or her own threat score low.

<comment><USER17> [https://xkcd.com/810/](https://xkcd.com/810/)

<comment><USER18> Heh. I was about to write "lower their threat score by not being gun nuts and not committing felonies?" but it appears XKCD got there first...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Ah yes, more propaganda supporting a surveillance state. What makes these sorts of things difficult to argue about is all a matter of how they get framed.

"It's good for a more peaceful society. You aren't violent? Right? You have nothing to worry about then! This technology will help keep you safe. You want to be safe? Right?"

I'm glad to see many citizens are at least sharing their voice against this. But it reads all to much like Fresno took "big strides too fast" and if they had taken baby-steps there would have been less outrage. You have to whittle down people's liberties - not try and take them all at once! If you do it slowly enough, they don't even notice.

As an aside... typo + how do they know their score? I thought only operators knew it? How does she know her threat level was elevated because she tweeted about "Rage"?

 _> Once council member referred to a local media report saying that a woman's threat level was elevated because she was tweeting about a card game titled "Rage," which could be a keyword in Beware's assessment of social media._

</comment><comment><USER20> Why shouldn't we use statistical inference to deliver information that enables responders to be better prepared to deal with a situation? I would hate to be a false positive, but I'd rather have the chance of being flagged as "green" when police are headed my way, rather than always being presumed to be a "red" as seems to be the case now. This seems like it would be the opposite of being presumed guilty until proven innocent, for most people.

And this isn't surveillance: they aren't collecting new information, just putting available data sources together. Unless deducing things from existing data is somehow surveillance?

<comment><USER21> The anecdote from the article strikes me as a really good example of why this sort of statistical profiling is unnecessary. Guy threatens his girlfriend, algorithm flags him as red, so they... call in a negotiator and successfully de-escalate the situation. I'm struggling to see how the system flagging him as red had anything to do with their actions. It was just a case of cool heads doing good police work.

<comment><USER22> Cops already have a lot of contact with parole inmates who have dramatically reduced rights. So they'll just lump "red" in with the parole inmates. You'll hear cops saying things to each other like "he wouldn't be red unless he deserved it". Generally, having the cops prejudiced against someone before they even meet them is not going to turn out well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Note that there's not just shoot to kill response.

They specifically mention "property records". For me, that works out pretty well, I have enough money to afford enough property to indicate I can easily afford legal representation and will be treated as such by the police, yes mr vlm, no mr vlm, you are free to go mr vlm, have a nice day mr vlm. On the other hand, people verified to be dirt poor can expect dramatically different treatment knowing they cannot afford legal representation. On the downside I can expect no mercy WRT ticket fees, because they'll know I can afford it. You can envision traffic cameras lighting up when I drive thru a speed trap village, between my age, clean criminal record, and property ownership they'll know they can collect quite a toll off me at zero personal risk.

Aside from property, anyone who's ever posted anything vaguely drug or alcohol related on the internet, ever, now has perpetual probable cause for a breathalyzer test or a drug test down at the hospital. This is perfect for police harassment.

</comment><comment><USER23> They must have read this article [https://www.aclu.org/blog/free- future/chinas-nightmarish-cit...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/free- future/chinas-nightmarish-citizen-scores-are-warning-americans) and misread "warning" as "inspiration"

</comment><comment><USER24> It appears that they are only using it as a caution to ensure that the responding officers have the resources so that the public, and the offices are not in harm. Now as far as the aggregation of publicly available posts to the internet, as well as corresponding that to private-state information (previous records / offences). Its nice that SAAS today can be updated on the fly to ensure that the threat scores can become more refined, so in the example of the Yellow House score for the council member, might have been avoided.... unless hes actually a yellow based on his web traffic.....

I wonder if they apply this to pulling people over as well. Think, is the car reported stolen (alert: RED), if not then the highest color for the house hold.

But lets also keep in mind that Fresno Ca, is not Palo Alto, Ca.

</comment><comment><USER25> So... Here's my thoughts on it. At first blush _how dare they_! But as I let this stew for a while and turned it over a few times, I'm arriving at a different conclusion, helped along by some of the insightful comments here.

Since the police _really are_ doing this kind of thing in their heads anyways, what I see here is an opportunity for accountability. Did the man in body armor with the gun consult the magic number before he shot the kid on the playground with a toy gun? Or did he just get excited? Like body cams, I think this is actually something that could be used in favor of a more responsible police force than not.

</comment><comment><USER26> Technology moves too fast for the law. _Even if_ police believe using a particular technology is unconstitutional, they are likely to use it anyway, because it will likely take years for a challenge to be brought to court, and definitely years to get to the highest (influential) courts. Even after all this, the police will only have to stop the unconstitutional activity, and immunity will handle the rest.

States need to enact laws that will prevent police departments from using any new software without prior approval of their constituents (e.g. city council approval).

</comment><comment><USER27> You know I hate to admit it, but as techies we are responsible for most of this power that the police have. We have created all this technology, and then some business has gone into local police departments and pitched the idea.

Kind of sad to realize there are people in our industry who don't mind doing bad things with their talents or are at best indifferent to what their company is doing. It's the "I just work here" attitude so you don't have to care if the company has an actual business model, helps people, creates a good product, or is even doing something ethical or not.

</comment><comment><USER28> Reminds me exactly of the intro from "Person of interest" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOnQ8CD3v4g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOnQ8CD3v4g)

<comment><USER29> It also is the central plot point to the anime Psycho Pass.

(off-topic but the watch in Psycho Pass was what I hoped the Apple Watch would be)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'll also point out that this is inherently unfair fron the standpoint using a person's name as the primary key for lookup. Given the roaring success that is the no fly list (/s), people's names are not evenly distributed, there are a lot more John Smiths than say Larry Ellison. It should not mean one person is easier to identify because of their name. If that's the case, there should be an even name distribution to give everyone a fair shake. Let's call everyone Bob!

</comment><comment><USER9> Also, police in at least some cities use systems that predict whether someone will become a criminal and give that person extra attention.

Here's one story on it that I found with a quick search:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/us/police-program-aims- to-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/us/police-program-aims-to-pinpoint- those-most-likely-to-commit-crimes.html)

<comment><USER30> Wow, they're even calling it "Predictive Policing". Here's my prediction: By 2020, we will have fully automated arrest warrants being served and executed based solely on big data analysis, and the legality of that practice will be working its way through the courts.

<comment><USER31> Precog Unit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The scary thing is, this is pretty much the plot for Captain America: The Winter Soldier. [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1843866/synopsis?ref_=tt_stry_pl](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1843866/synopsis?ref_=tt_stry_pl)

</comment><comment><USER33> Oh wow, they probably just gave equifax a truly horrible idea.

I wonder if this is even legal since it creates prejudice, probably is through some loophole.

Did you ever protest a war? Ah you have a terrible threat score.

Next they open it up to employers.

</comment><comment><USER34> Imagine that this is just employing machine learning, where the training set is police reports filled out after the fact. Is this just big data being applied to threat prediction?

</comment><comment><USER35> Reminds me of the Sesame Score that was being talked about so much a few weeks ago.

The Mark of the Beast looks more and more real every day it seems.

</comment><comment><USER36> It's like a high-tech version of profiling.

<comment><USER37> It reminds me of Psycho-Pass.

"Psycho-Pass is set in 2113. The Sibyl System (シビュラシステム Shibyura Shisutemu?) is actively measuring the populace's mental states, personalities, and the probability that individuals will commit crimes, using a "cymatic scan" of the brain. The resulting assessment is called a Psycho-Pass (サイコパス Saikopasu?). When the probability of a person engaging in crimes measured by the Crime Coefficient (犯罪係数 Hanzaikeisū?) index exceeds a certain level in an individual, he or she is pursued, apprehended, and killed if necessary."

Taken from: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho- Pass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho-Pass)

<comment><USER38> As plausible as Minority Report. Even if possible it would not be implemented because of how the majority of people think of human free will.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> "The program scoured billions of data points, including arrest reports, property records, commercial databases, deep Web searches and the man's social- media postings."

Does "deep Web searches" mean the program has access to your tor activity? How is that information acquired?

<comment><USER10> No, the "deep Web" is things like friends-of-friends Facebook posts, Twitter posts to locked accounts, and friends-locked LiveJournal posts — things that are in some sense "on the web" but that a standard search engine can't find. You're thinking of the "dark Web", which includes things like onion sites. Your confusion is not unusual; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_web](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_web) says, "The dark web has often been confused with the deep web, the parts of the web not searched by search engines. This confusion dates to at least 2009."</comment></comment>


Fallout 4 – Official Trailer - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE2BkLqMef4

<comment><AUTHOR> I know this is not really tech or programming related, but is there anything better then playing a little bit Fallout after several intense hours of coding? :D

<comment><USER2> Playing Dota 2 :P

<comment><USER3> If I wanted to rage and spout hatred at my fellow man I'd go read the intern's latest commit.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Apply to dev jobs with little experience of the language required? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Look for explicit statement in job offer or just send question before applying, I did that many times and usually got some response. If you don't get any response then it means that it was not worth applying anyway. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> What kind of statement, and question? Thanks for your experience on the matter.

<comment><USER2> "Java or C++" is such type of key phrase/statement, but there are other ones, depends on job profile you are looking for. Front end devs should rather avoid job offers, which mention some particular javascript library as an must have requirement.

Question is simple: I don't have a lot of professional experience in required language/technology, but (here goes something interesting about you), should I apply to your job offer?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Is it worth trying? Should you show at home learning and dev of the Lang? Do you only apply as intermediate or junior regardless of other development experience?

</comment><comment><USER3> Depends. Startups likely will not have the flexibility to allow for R&D. Large companies likely will have the financial flexibility for R&D, and will expect you to publish/share your discoveries.

There's also all sorts of circumstantial conditions for which anyone would hire you, for instance, if you have a radically unique background that no one could possibly let walk out the door.

<comment><AUTHOR> So unique experience may trump skill requirements, just need to make it clear how it can benifit them, thanks

<comment><USER3> Indeed. If you've solved a generally applicable problem of computer science, you can leverage that. If you've solved a generally applicable problem of computer science within a tech stack that aligns with the [EDIT: company in question], all the more power to you and the likelihood that they will want to hear what you have to say _as an expert_ on the subject.</comment></comment></comment>


Humour is a far more complex process than primeval pleasures like sex or food - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527451.400-the-comedy-circuit-when-your-brain-gets-the-joke.html?full=true&print=true <comment><USER2> The article points out that people used to think that nonsense jokes were more sophisticated and philosophical than classic, resolvable humor, while the research being reported on indicates that the opposite is true. Which leads me to wonder who used to think that. Because it is obvious to me looking at my son's attempts to tell jokes that nonsense jokes are something kids figure out (and respond to) at a younger age than classic, resolvable humor.

<comment><USER3> Jokes With Realistic Endings <http://www.mcsweeneys.net/1999/10/13jokeland.html>

<comment><USER4> I propose an amendment to Blonde Joke #116:

How do you brainwash a blonde? By telling them thousands of blonde jokes, until their sanity breaks and they accept whatever you tell them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I haven't seen theories of "philosophical anthropology" independently verified by MRI very often, so it's very interesting to see this -- confirming that all human beings experience humor and find it in incongruity, and thus, among other things, that we learn where a civilization finds a lot of incongruities by looking at the subject matter of its jokes. (It's also refreshing to see something like this with science, not culturally insular pop psychology, behind it.)

So, I'd predict that a civilization with more, stronger stresses should have simpler forms of humor, and one with an easier mental life should range further afield in its search for laughs. This looks like it's confirmed in the contrast between, say, Monty Python and Seinfeld on the one hand, and Restoration English, classical Greek, and Golden Age Spanish comedy on the other; does anyone know enough about East Asian or, say, Aztec (properly Mexica) humor to be able to say whether the pattern holds there, too?

This also suggests that LOLcats reveal intensifying pressures in American social life. Of course, such pressures do exist, so the question is whether we can plausibly suspect causation...

<comment><USER6> It would seem to me plausible that while your metric may hold when considering society as a whole, zooming in on a subset, especially a self-selected subset, will invalidate your thesis. Every society will have people who love simple humor, if for no other reason than there is a chunk of people who are below- average intelligence.

I'm not saying below average intelligence -> liking LOLcats, nor liking LOLcats -> below average intelligence; I like them too. It's just that you can not enjoy humor you can not comprehend, which leaves them with the simpler stuff. It's a selection effect, one I would think would dominate the thesis.

<comment><USER5> You have a very good point about the dangers of zooming in, especially on self-selected subsets; but I didn't mean that LOLcat fans are less intelligent. I think that simpler forms of humor indicate, not lower intelligence in those enjoying them, but tensions and stresses that are nearer to the surface of their lives. (Did I mention that "All Your Base" still cracks me up?)

By my theory, Monty Python's "wide accountant sea" is the product of a civilization that is largely content with its lot in the world; but if a civilization finds it adequately entertaining to observe that I are serious cat and this are serious thread, then there are problems somewhere near the surface of that civilization, and the civilization is aware of them.

As an example: at least as far as I know, East Asian (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) humor is much simpler than American and English; East Asians are more intelligent than Americans and Englishmen on average (at least as measured by IQ testing), but they have social stresses that are _much_ nearer to the surface.

I also doubt that low intelligence limits comprehension of refined humor. G.K. Chesterton thought that the English peasantry, who were at the least uneducated, were better at telling and at understanding jokes than their social betters; my own -- admittedly just anecdotal -- experience also seems to suggest no correlation between intelligence and sophistication of humor, but a high correlation between low social class and low education on the one hand, and good comedic style on the other.

<comment><USER6> I think _intelligence_ affects your understanding and enjoyment of humor, but intelligence is not particularly strongly correlated with social class or standing; there are smart garbage men and people I would say are actively stupid running around with PhDs in various things. It is certainly correlated, but less strongly than our instincts-to-hierarchy would have us believe.

(I would also observe the relevant definition of "sophistication" here would have to be something about joke complexity or the subtly of the incongruous connection being made, rather than the explicit subject matter. Someone who never heard of Proust would never generate one of my favorite unfamous Python sketches, the "Summarize Proust" competition sketch, but they can still be subtly humorous in their own way. Or humuorous, as the case may be.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The title makes this article seem like one of those "good work psychologists, that was obvious to us already" results, but it's actually much more interesting than that.

<comment><USER8> Truly - this is more neuroscience than pop psychology.

<comment><USER9> Alistair Clarke probably fits the definition of pop psychology, but his book is a lot more insightful than these findings:

[http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/source_all_h...](http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/source_all_humor_alastair_clarkes_8_patterns_recognition)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Very interesting stuff. I wonder how they would explain the fact that most people seem to dislike verbal puns. Being one of those people who enjoy them, I never really understood other people's dislike for them and it keeps puzzling me.

<comment><USER11> I think people like their own puns but tend to roll their eyes at other people's (while secretly enjoying them).

<comment><USER4> Especially with "groaners", where part of the fun is _inflicting_ the pun on the receivers ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My Dad's favourite joke is this:

 _Man walks into Paint shop and asks for some black paint. "Sorry we only do white", says the guy behind the counter. "Not a problem", replies the man, "im on my bike"._

It's great if me or my brother are there when he tells it because we instantly crack up laughing and no one else joins in :)

<comment><USER13> Is it funny because it's completely incongruous?

<comment><USER12> The article opens with a similar joke. As it says: some people find it funny, others dont</comment></comment></comment>


You can't get permission for the wrong thing and don't need it for the right thing - <AUTHOR> http://brookeallen.com/pages/archives/1300

<comment><AUTHOR> I was pleasantly surprised when someone posted my story about how my life changed when I started caring about the people I don't hire (although my ISP was not).

In wading through all the comments I categorize the reactions into two camps:

1) That's cool. 2) You're asking too much.

I am preparing an essay addressing most of the issues but I thought I'd share my thoughts on inventiveness because, after all, what happened was that my job candidates and I together invented a new process; nothing had been pre- planned.

My dad told me the secret to success was to not be evil (way before google). He didn't care if I became rich but he would be ashamed of me if I were evil.

This story from a someone who picked me up hitchhiking really makes a point about the relationship between good, evil, and inventiveness. Hope you like it.

(Original HN post: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8859199](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8859199))

</comment><comment><USER2> Don't most of the problems come up in the excluded middle? Things where people are doing things that they think are right but then, through their ignorance or otherwise, have negative consequences that would have been foreseeable by others.

Maybe you have a suggestion for improving the operation of a drill-press, but you still ask for permission on improving it because maybe other people have more knowledge than you do about why things were done in a certain way, as well as seeing potential pitfalls of your new way.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are correct in that you accurately describe the problem and human behavior.

What Jeb taught me that day was that I should put a lot more effort into thinking about what is right and wrong and not assume that just because everyone around me is doing something - or it has always been done that way - that it is right in a moral, legal, or ethical sense.

But if it is not illegal, immoral, or unethical in its implementation or in its consequences then why not try? All you risk is failure. So what?

Many people's sense of ethics really boils down to their selfish interests. They don't blow the whistle until they are denied a raise but until then they don't mind lying to clients, for example.

There are people who tell me that how I hire people is "wrong" because many of my job prospects put in a lot of work learning something that did not lead to a job.

But, look guys, I'm a nerd and a maker. I love learning things for its own sake and making stuff of no use to anyone. I was just looking for fellow nerds and makers and I started out saying that as long as we were not doing anything illegal, immoral, or unethical let's just hunker down and do something hard and fun together.

Some people thought that was BS and dropped out. So, "bye bye." The rest of my candidates just wanted to learn and yet many didn't cut it. So what? Trying to learn something and failing is no sin.

And then they take grief from friends, and the general public: "You loser... you wasted your time and nothing came of it (i.e. no job)."

That's another thing; we nerds take a lot of shit from idiots.

I did not care then and I still do not care that much what people think of me. I care whether I am doing the right thing or the wrong thing.

And I did not care about EVERYONE I did not hire.

But I sure cared about those people who put in the effort whether I could hire them or not because they are MY people.

<comment><USER3> _All you risk is failure. So what?_

Others may have a stake in your failure. The risk may not be yours alone.

<comment><USER4> Others like who? Parents, say? My parents would probably be more concerned if I were unwilling to try something out of fear of failure than if I tried and failed.

Or others like investors? Tell them the truth about risk up front. Also, don't use people like parents as first-stage investors - it can get way too nasty if you fail.

People like spouses and children are a special case. If I chase a startup idea and fail, my spouse may share in the financial hit. I know, "For richer, for poorer", but she may not be comfortable with that risk, and is entitled to me being sensitive to how she feels about this. (If you're married, don't go into a startup without your spouse's full support.)

<comment><USER3> I have a manager precisely because I need to _not_ know everything my work impacts; my head is full enough with what I'm doing to make this app work _without_ pursuing perfect knowledge of how coworkers, customers, sales, marketing, investors, etc all fit in with decisions. I may be directed to do "not the right thing" not because someone is stupid, but because I don't know (and don't need to know) some of the interactions & consequences of doing it (say, spending another day refining a process means good chance of losing a potential major customer).

"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" \- Douglas Adams, _H2G2_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't get why that Bootlegger K-turn is less likely to lead to a crash. Don't you risk a crash while backing up from A to B? But with a regular K-turn, if you make a tighter turn while backing up from A to B you can stay on the safe side of the road the entire time.

The primary advantage of that Bootlegger K-turn seems to be speed: by swerving across the opposite side of the road, you can make a quick turn into the side street, and then you don't have to make a tight reverse turn to get out. Less turn -> more speed. But if I'm worried about a crash, I'd rater stay on the opposite side of the street.

<comment><USER6> Backing up is relatively fast, especially when you are running from the cops. But you can't avoid the time you need to reverse at B, which is the most likely moment the cops will catch up with you. So it's better to be at the other side of the road then.

Funny how we think differently: I looked at the drawings and immediately saw why he reversed that way, even before I read the explanation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> _don 't need it for the right thing_

That's presuming you have all the relevant information, which is typically not the case in a larger organization.

</comment><comment><USER7> When I read the title I honestly thought this was an article on Unix permissions. Got pleasantly surprised by a great story instead.

</comment><comment><USER8> Great story. Thanks for the morning inspiration.</comment>


Rapid paper prototyping: a solid practice from studio art to software - <AUTHOR> http://spin.atomicobject.com/2011/09/07/rapid-prototyping-a-solid-practice-from-studio-art-to-software/

<comment><USER2> They mention sketching as a form of rapid prototyping, and I do a lot of that. But lately I use a program called Balsamiq Mockups to sketch out my prototypes. Does anyone have a better system (or software) to recommend?</comment>


EuGH verdict in Kraftwerk vs. Pelham, regarding samples in electronic music - <AUTHOR> http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=EE6D39F5E4736BAD3983F00CEC0A903C?text=&docid=216552&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4762240 <comment><USER2> "The CJEU has ruled that while sampling without authorisation may infringe copyright, the use of a music fragment that is altered and unrecognisable does not require authorisation." [https://www.musicweek.com/labels/read/european- ruling-on-lon...](https://www.musicweek.com/labels/read/european-ruling-on- long-running-kraftwerk-sampling-case/076932)</comment>


Phase transformation strengthening of high-temperature superalloys - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13434 <comment><AUTHOR> Good news for high-temperature creep deformation in nickel-based superalloys used in applications like jet engines.</comment>


Stranger hacks family's baby monitor and talks to child at night - <AUTHOR> http://sfglobe.com/2016/01/06/stranger-hacks-familys-baby-monitor-and-talks-to-child-at-night/ <comment><USER2> The Internet of Things That Spy On You.

There are websites which scan the Internet for publicly accessible cameras, grab preview pictures and display lists of them. Lots of public CCTVs, but also offices, zoos (really) and of course private homes (although they tend to de-index those). You see a preview you like, click it and they send you to the webcam's video feed or web interface. Sometimes there are even controls to reorient the camera in different direction.

Too bad the OP didn't tell if this particular "hack" also involved just guessing the IP address and TCP port or if they actually had to make an effort to bypass some kind of authentication.

</comment><comment><USER3> A concrete cautionary tale for our soon-to-be IoT connected world.</comment>


Naming things - <AUTHOR> http://rossduggan.ie/blog/programming/naming-things/

<comment><USER2> The initial quote is wrong. It should be:

"There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things and off by one errors."</comment>