UK Police Charge Activist for Refusing to Hand Over Passwords - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/uk-police-charge-activist-under-terrorism-law-for-refusing-to-hand-over-passwords <comment><USER2> One solution is for all other countries' border control started to demand passwords to unlock phone/all social apps for UK citizens, SPECIALLY target UK politicians and government workers.

Love to see any/all the interesting info one can find from the politicians.

<comment><USER3> Politicians are exempt. Seriously.

<comment><USER4> Diplomats are exempt, but a random Member of Parliament is not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I recently flew to the U.S. - I did consider wiping my iPhone in advance and then restoring it from iCloud backup once safely in the hotel, but in the end just left it at home. It was very nice taking a break too.

Of course, as a fairly unremarkable middle-aged white guy, I didn't get stopped at all.

<comment><USER6> This makes me wonder what the statistical likelihood of 'getting into trouble' is for 'unremarkable' people entering the US (by flight).

If I'd fly to the US (unlikely), I'd definitely wipe my phone or leave it at home. But since I'm also 'unremarkable', I'm now wondering if perhaps the chance of getting into trouble is ridiculously small for me, and that perhaps I'm in a bit of a bubble of my own going through all this (pointless) trouble to be 'safe'.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Follow up from previous HN submitted article: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14340137](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14340137)

Surprised more app developers are not creating solutions to this kind of thing - e.g. some form of multisig authorisation to access certain files or 2FA that relies on the second factor only being available at times access is genuinely needed.

<comment><USER7> I'm not a lawyer, but I very strongly doubt deliberately making yourself unavailable to give the password on demand is going to be perceived by a court as as cute a way around this law as you believe it to be.

There's no technological solutions to things like this, only political ones.

<comment><USER8> There are no political solutions to things like this either - not that any of us talking about it here have any meaningful hope of accomplishing, anyway. We might as well try whatever technical fixes we can come up with, since it's better than the nothing we'll get if we wait for the politicians to deal with it.

<comment><USER9> Don't travel with electronics?

<comment><USER10> Here's a business/service idea off the top of my head.

As a traveller, just before going through security you wipe your device and "sell" it to a vendor in exchange for a voucher that will allow you to exchange it back when you land and go through the security at your destination. You take the new device, provision it with your cloud data, and go on your visit; when you go back, you go through this process again, in the other direction.

Lots of problems to be solved with that idea, not the least of which is the business model, but it would allow you to travel without any electronics on your person.

<comment><USER11> I toyed with building an application like this, except that you just carry your device with you. The application basically tarballs your entire environment up, offsites it, and then wipes and factory-resets your device (incidentally I got lost in the rabbit hole of trying to wipe an SSD heh). It's completely clean, you can surrender your device for inspection, give passwords, etc. And then after you're through, you download the application which acts like a dropper, and it explodes your environment and data onto the device again. Docker was really useful here.

<comment><USER12> But this makes it very obvious you've reset your phone. Which is a red flag - although not technically illegal, so far.

You really want something that looks like an in-use device and gives no hint that you have sensitive files stored anywhere else.

<comment><USER11> It would have been configurable. The important thing is that your blob of data (e.g. VeraCrypt volume) is offsited and wiped. You could leave your laptop otherwise completely lived-in, just not containing your data anymore. Otherwise, I've worked for companies that gave out loaner phones for overseas travel. A factory-reset phone is much less suspicious than a threadbare "factory-reset" laptop.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Cambly (YC W14) Offers On-Demand Access To Language Tutors - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/27/cambly/

<comment><USER2> Nice work Cambly! The app is very simple and well designed. Plus, I love your logo.

Immersion is clearly the way to go when learning a new language. I learned more French trying to haggle with the waiter for more ice in Biarritz, than I ever did in Madame Lefebvre's class.

I like that Cambly pairs me with a friendly native speaker rather than a professional teacher. And, I'm a big fan of the on-demand marketplace idea.

Questions for Cambly:

1) Users are required to download a separate app for each language. As you add more languages a user may be learning French and Spanish simultaneously. Are there plans to merge everything into one app so that I can toggle between two different languages?

2) Do you find that users are selecting tutors based on attractiveness?

</comment><comment><USER3> If Cambly is WebRTC-based and are looking for a solution for measuring the media quality, drop us a note and look at our measurement API [http://staging.callstats.io/api](http://staging.callstats.io/api)

</comment><comment><USER4> How does this differ from Verbling (YC S11)?

</comment><comment><USER5> Wasn't this on Shark Tank?

</comment><comment><USER6> any one know how this differs from livemocha.com?

<comment><USER7> LiveMocha isn't in YC and won't have to pivot in a few months due to a poorly thought-out business model.

<comment><USER8> Be nice.

The language immersion market is big enough for quite a few companies to co- exist. Time will tell.</comment></comment></comment>


Open sourcing our NGINX HTTP/2 and SPDY code - <AUTHOR> https://blog.cloudflare.com/open-sourcing-our-nginx-http-2-spdy-code/ <comment><USER2> Why not patch against the latest stable version?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's patched against the version we use.</comment></comment>


Startup Hopefuls: Competition Can't Matter - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jasonshah.org/post/23275320270/startup-hopefuls-competition-cant-matter <comment><AUTHOR> To be clear, I do think competition is relevant. But for most startups, worrying about competition is prematurely fought off or used as a reason not to pursue an idea.</comment>


The Dao of the Shell - <AUTHOR> http://mattgemmell.com/the-dao-of-the-shell/ <comment><USER2> > the more you become involved with it, the more you start to secretly hate it

I think he is projecting his feelings to everyone else. I've been married to computer technology for 50 years and I have never secretly hated it, just as I've been married for 40 years and I've never secretly hated my wife.

Other than that one silly comment I liked the article.</comment>


Hong Kong activists wanted by police gain protection in Germany - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/world/asia/hong-kong-china-germany-activists.html <comment><USER2> "If the German government thinks that the Hong Kong judiciary is independent, they would not grant me refugee status,"

I just want to point out that refugee status is given on a case by case basis. Even with an independent judiciary, if your laws oppress some people, refugee status can be obtained. Europe has accepted refugees from USA during McCarty's era.

Accepting a refugee from another nation does have diplomatic meaning but is does not automatically mean that they will dismiss each other judgements automatically.

<comment><USER3> And, preposterously, America has given political asylum to German home- schoolers a few years ago.

<comment><USER4> > And, preposterously, America has given political asylum to German home- > schoolers a few years ago.

Why preposterously?

<comment><USER5> Because it is preposterous to consider the German "Schulpflicht" (ie, the obligation that children visit a public^W school) religious or political persecution.

You can teach your children whatever weird shit you want. What you cannot do (in Germany) is take them out of school, where they will _also_ be taught what everyone else is taught, including sex-ed, history, comparative religion, etc.

EDIT: correction, it's not an obligation to visit a public school, it's an obligation to visit a permissible school (there are private ones, but homeschooling does not constitute a permissible school).

<comment><USER4> In America we seem to have the opposite view. The government doesn't get to make that call.

I could see how one could reasonably view this as some sort of political or religious refugee, depending on context. They are, at the end of the day, facing punishment for a practice a typical American would find acceptable if not a little strange.

<comment><USER3> At that point you have expanded the meaning of "persecution" to nonsense.

Sure, we could accept Americans as "politically persecuted", because highways in America have speed limits. But we choose not to.

At some point you need to accept that not every difference in laws is persecution. That not every difference in law means that the other one is doing something wrong.

Alas, the US Supreme Court feels similarly when its conservative wing always dismisses all analogies and examples abroad as obviously uninteresting. I think "our SCOTUS" gets this balance right, or at least more right, when it differentiates between "would not constitutional in Germany, but is a valid viewpoint" and "would not be constitutional, and is so far beyond the pale that there cannot be an accomodation".

An extradition case starring an American from some years ago is a prime example for this differentiation, in my opinion (anyone interested in reading a summary?).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Assuming Hong Kong is indeed tightening its grip on the people and accepting more influence from Beijing, I wonder if that was a smart move. I mean, Hong Kong is a cash cow for China and an innovation driver. It foots on lots of trade and internationals coming in. Why would you fiddle with that and threaten making Hong Kong less desirable to foreigners?

<comment><USER7> I think the brain drain from HK to China is much more prevalent than people know these past five years. China have been doing various "assimilation" techniques since the Qin Dynasty. I feel like China has been pretty aggressive with their "wash generation" (direct translation). Bathe the citizens in decent wealth and comfort while increasing the immigration rate from Mainlad China. Look at the new train and bridge to Shen Zhen that's part of the new government intiative to make Shen Zhen the world SV. There's new entrepreneur/startup incubator thats less than a hour travel from HK. This incubator is expected to provide tax break, living and office space, and small stipend to live for any young entrepreneur and HK citizens are qualified to apply. For the better or the worse, it's only a matter of a couple decades where HK today will cease to exist at this rate.

<comment><USER5> > it's only a matter of a couple decades where HK today will cease to exist

Well, at most three decades, to be precise, when in 2047 it will fully revert to China under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and lose its status as a Special Administrative Region.

<comment><USER8> My understanding is that HK future after 2047 is left unclear under the Sino- British Joint Declaration. Not that it's specified to be annexed to the mainland.

Granted, in practice it's hard to see any other outcome from today's lens. But my observation is that there tends to be a lot of this fact-mangling when it comes to territories PRC likes to claim that suspiciously seems to nearly always coincide with the PRC's interests, and I would prefer public discourse at least has the legal facts straight now and when the time comes.

<comment><USER5> First time I hear that interpretation, but a quick skimming of the documents suggests that you might be right. Worth investigating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The extradition law is what any foreigner shall be worried about.

But if you concern about hongkinger, he is one of the start. Not just the usual as they are the new bred of young who think more about hk as home. It is sad they have to run. Sigh.

</comment><comment><USER10> These activists are fighting against unfathomable odds. Beijing is willing to use conventional and unconventional tactics with ruthless eagerness to win. While most totalitarian state share this mentality, Beijing is an entirely different kettle of fish, They aren't just a totalitarian state; they're a _devious_ totalitarian state.

There is no better evidence of Beijing's _creativity_ than the Chinese takeover of Hong Kong. Unlike the mainland, Hong Kong is inhabited by people who are used to being free. The party's insiders quickly realized that they couldn't bring the Hong Kong population to heel with shock and awe. Worried about a popular uprising, they forged deals with the triads to maintain control of Hong Kong with a quid pro quo involving Shenzhen and access to the Chinese market;

> Easily, it turns out. Of all of the treacherous aspects of Hong Kong's > reunification with China, the most treacherous--and the least noticed--is > that it will seal what amounts to a cooperation pact between the triad > societies and the Communist Party. This dreadful alliance, of the world's > largest criminal underground and the world's last great totalitarian power, > has received surprisingly little attention in this country, even though the > U.S. Justice Department has identified triad racketeering as a significant > global threat. Even more ominously, this alliance is not accidental. It was > part of Deng Xiaoping's reunification plan for Hong Kong from the very > beginning, and dates from the early 1980s, when China and Britain were > negotiating the return of Hong Kong to the mainland in 1997.

> We know this because this past May, Wong Man-fong, the former deputy > secretary-general of Xinhua, China's news agency in Hong Kong (which > reputedly acts as a de facto embassy), admitted it during a forum at Hong > Kong's Baptist University. Wong said that in the early 1980s, at Beijing's > behest, he "befriended" Hong Kong's triad bosses and made them an offer they > could not refuse: China would turn a blind eye to their illegal activities > if they would promise to keep peace after the handover. "I told them that, > if they did not disrupt Hong Kong's stability, we would not stop them from > making money," Wong said. No one knows why Wong made this astounding > disclosure about China's secret dealings with crime bosses, but there is > even more to the story than he acknowledged...

\- [https://newrepublic.com/article/90738/partners-in- crime](https://newrepublic.com/article/90738/partners-in-crime)

The Chinese Communist Party and the triads are still in bed with one another and share the mutual passion of oppressing others;

> On Feb. 26, 2014, Kevin Lau, the former editor in chief of the Ming Pao > daily and a vocal critic of Beijing, was stabbed in the back by two men who > claimed they each had been paid $100,000 Hong Kong dollars to "teach Lau a > lesson."

> Later that same year, dozens of masked men physically attacked Occupy > Central members and pro-democracy activists and tore down their tents. > According to Hong Kong police, as many as 200 gang members from two major > triad groups had "infiltrated the protest camps, possibly in order to stir > up violence that would discredit demonstrators."

> Although many suspected who was behind the repression — nobody else had the > same motivation to act — the attacks were hard to directly trace back to > Beijing. But the circumstantial evidence points strongly in the mainland's > direction. Though the former colony was now under Chinese control, the CCP > still needed to exercise some restraint in the use of force against elements > in Hong Kong it deemed undesirable. Beijing knew full well that unleashing > the People's Liberation Army or riot police would be too direct an > intervention into the affairs of a region that, technically, had retained > the right to run its own affairs. Direct assault by the state apparatus > would have been counterproductive and likely would have alienated a larger > number of Hong Kong residents. Pro-Beijing thugs were easily manipulated, > had no compunction in using force, and, more importantly, offered plausible > deniability.

\- [https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/06/18/nice-democracy-youve- go...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/06/18/nice-democracy-youve-got-there-be- a-shame-if-something-happened-to-it/)

There are rumors that a large stake in Deng's pet project, Shenzhen, was given over to the triads in exchange for their cooperation in Hong Kong. Between this, Chinese social experiments and the deep tech feel of the city, Shenzhen seems to be something straight out of a Gibson-esque cyberpunk dystopia with a healthy helping of shadowy violence on top.

The odds are against those who fight this power. They deserve and need every bit of help that they can get. Back in the 80s, after the Tiananmen Square massacre, the Hong Kong community worked with the CIA, a few smugglers and gangs and MI6 to smuggle wanted dissidents out of China to freedom. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yellowbird](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yellowbird) Maybe we need more of the same?</comment>


When will alien life be proven? - <AUTHOR> http://www.paddypower.com/bet/novelty-betting/novelty-bets/alien-existence?ev_oc_grp_ids=512035 <comment><USER2> The phrasing should be along the lines of: "life originating outside of the planet earth."

If we found evidence of life on a moon or comet or asteroid, you would still lose the bet. The current phrasing says "on another planet."</comment>