Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on cars - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/27/oregon.gps.surveillance/index.html?hpt=T1

<comment><USER3> Makes sense to me. If sticking a GPS transmitter on your car violates a fundamental right to _privacy_ , surreptitiously following your car with a combination of cars, closed-circuit cameras, helicopters, and whatever-the- hell else they use must violate that same right. Yet clearly the police can surveille whoever they want without a warrant.

<comment><USER4> This is based on the assumption that the car is only ever used on public roads. It's usually a safe assumption, but data is still being transmitted from private property whenever the car is parked.

<comment><USER3> Unless you have an actual batcave, comparable data is being transmitted without the GPS transmitter in the form of photons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think this is a good indication that the right to privacy is obsolete. If an investigator can hear a conversation you're having in your house using amplification technology, who needs a warrant?

The whole point of the right to privacy, as I understand it, is protection against over-zealous police forces enforcing unjust laws. If you're doing something in private, and it doesn't affect anyone, you should be allowed to do it, regardless of the law.

We need a right to anonymous private activity, regardless of where or how it takes place.

<comment><USER5> Actually, the right to privacy has nothing to do with whether a law is just or unjust. I think we'll see an element of that creep into the law as they very concept of privacy erodes. But the basic idea behind privacy in the Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure context is that police ought to be subject to oversight (by the courts) so that they don't become a menace.

Incidentally, the problem with search-and-seizure jurisprudence is that every time the Supreme Court hears a case on the subject the defendant _IS_ guilty-- the debate is over whether the evidence of guilt is admissible in court. That makes it hard for the Court to turn a blind eye so they tend to expand the law in favor of the police every time they get a new case. The alternative is to free a known criminal. It takes guts to hold police to a principle when the immediate result is to free a criminal.

<comment><USER4> This is exactly what I mean when I say the right to privacy is obsolete - <USER2> itself, it's no longer capable of protecting the freedoms it was originally intended to preserve. We need something better.

<comment><USER3> _What_ right to privacy? Privacy is a very simple word. It occurs _nowhere_ in the Constitution.

<comment><USER5> It may appear nowhere in the constitution, but that doesn't mean it isn't constitutionally protected.

The substantive due process protections of the 14th Amendment extend heightened protection to a number of rights. Privacy is one of them. Marriage is another. There are plenty more.

In addition the 4th Amendment has its own privacy implications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> GPS tracking is the tip of the iceberg. I bet we're not 10 years away from the cops being able to put an all in one video-audio-gps-wifi snooper the size of an ipod-nano on you, your car, house, boat, whatever. And given how fast hardware commoditizes, the device will probably cost under $500. If these hypothetical devices become equipped to tweet, then everybody is fucked. It sure gives me confidence that our law enforcement worker-bees are amongst the most trustworthy, noble and incorruptible Americans out there! In many countries, everybody implicitly understands the police are corrupt, and basically operate like the biggest, legal gang themselves. _/sarcasm_

Thanks a lot technologically myopic courts for setting such a dangerous legal precedent!

On the bright side, isn't it trivial and relatively cheap to make a radio detector of GPS and other such radio transmissions? Or even a signal jammer? Like what the spies use to sweep a room for listening devices? Let's just assume you're cool with temporarily violating FCC broadcast regulations within a small personal vicinity. ;)

Unintended consequences are my favorite however. Perhaps, if we're lucky, this situation might just invert, and if total surveillance becomes dirt cheap, then it also means we can watch the watchers. Imagine a Facebook for watching every LE agent in real time across the entire country. Sounds laughable, but technology changes fast! (I bet certain global crime cartels already have something like this, in crude beta—all it takes is one mole and you've got the right data to connect the dots.)

<comment><USER7> _On the bright side, isn't it trivial and relatively cheap to make a radio detector of GPS and other such radio transmissions? Or even a signal jammer? Like what the spies use to sweep a room for listening devices? Let's just assume you're cool with temporarily violating FCC broadcast regulations within a small personal vicinity._

GPS jammers can be had for pretty cheap, but I believe they're illegal. Tinfoil works pretty well too.

 _Perhaps, if we're lucky, this situation might just invert, and if total surveillance becomes dirt cheap, then it also means we can watch the watchers. Imagine a Facebook for watching every LE agent in real time across the entire country._

The devices for this are already pretty cheap as well (zoombak I believe?), probably illegal to track a LEO as well though.</comment></comment>


Why aren't app permissions reflected in app classifications? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@PuzzleBoss/why-aren-t-app-permissions-reflected-in-app-classifications-44f27ff7d651 <comment><USER2> Google is a _search_ company as well as an ad company. Why can't I _search_ for apps based on the permissions they require? Still? In (almost) 2016?

<comment><USER3> Because they're an advertising company. And more transparent permissions will get in the way of advertising.

<comment><USER4> I doubt it is even anything like that, I expect it's just that they know that most of their users will never, ever, use that search feature, so they don't bother with it.

<comment><USER2> It's just another facet, though. General purpose engines like ElasticSearch can handle that.

For that matter, how many people use _site:_ or _filetype:_ in their Google web searches, and yet those features exist?

<comment><USER5> I'd assume Google isn't doing it because no one at Google cares enough to implement such a feature. Features like _site:_ and _filetype:_ are over 10 years old, and I'm sure _site:_ predates Google's IPO from when they were still figuring out how to monetize.

Infact, I wonder how many new search operators Google has even added in th epast 10 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I agree children should not be able to install a contact-accessing app.

<comment><USER7> Permission systems should not be a stand-in for good parenting. Monitor you children's electronics, educate them on what the important things are and what they mean.

<comment><USER8> Can you be more specific about what actions one would take as part of "monitor your children's electronics" to prevent these problems?

<comment><USER9> if you just want your toddler to access a couple of apps from your tablet, create a restricted account that can only access these apps.

<comment><USER8> What if I want something in between locking them down to a couple of apps, and letting them accidentally send contacts to some app maker?

<comment><USER9> Ideally, you should have more granularity in the permissions of restricted accounts, with the option to let the second profile install app but with a prompt for the admin password when a new permission is required or a payment is started.

Sadly, AFAIK, there is no way to do that.

<comment><USER8> Right, so that's exactly the sort of thing being asked for, and it's what got this annoying/useless "just monitor your kids" response.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Are there third-party search engines for apps?

<comment><USER11> apparently, yes. see my other comment in this discussion.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Offered a graduate position, it's not what I want. Should I take it? - <AUTHOR>

I'm graduating at the end of this year. For the past two years I've been working for a large financial institution. Recently, they've sent me a graduate offer. It's currently the only offer I have, has an above average salary, and in there contract there is no obligation that I work for them for any particular amount of time.
The problem is, I didn't love working there. Sure, the work was fine and the people were fine, but there was nothing that really inspired me - it was basically a nice, safe, office job.
So here's my issue - I'm 21 and graduating this year. Do I take the job anyway, knowing full well that I will probably pull out at a later date. Or should I turn the job down and hope that it lights a fire under my ass to go and find something that I really enjoy? <comment><USER2> Ask for an extension on their offer.

Here's a good guide to getting a lot of job offers really quickly:

[https://medium.com/@calcsam/outsource-your-job- search-3e9909...](https://medium.com/@calcsam/outsource-your-job- search-3e990967a1f3)</comment>