Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-25/microsoft-says-it-will-file-an-amicus-brief-to-support-apple <comment><USER7> From recent polls most people think this debate is about:

"Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI"

When what it's really about:

"Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security."

In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Industry vs FBI", not what the US Govt is trying to set the narrative to: "Apple protecting Terrorism". With this announcement this brings us to:

      - <USER2>
      - <USER3>
      - <USER4>
      - Facebook / WhatsApp
      - <USER5>
      - Google (Sundar lukewarm)

Big technology companies with large user bases that's notably missing:

      - <USER6>
      - Linked In

<comment><USER8> _" From recent polls most people think this debate is about..."_

...or maybe people understand the debate, and they simply disagree with _your opinion_ on the matter.

For example, even as phrased in the second form, my answer is _" yes, sometimes"_, with an additional _" there is no such thing as a 'customer's right to security'"_, added for good measure.

Even if I believed there were an absolute "right" to security, I don't think it's Apple's job to enforce it.

<comment><USER9> The thing is, if privacy advocates lose _this_ fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one.

I agree it should be the user's job and not Apple's to enforce security, however I also think that is something that we can focus on later. We can both support Apple now in this fight against government overreach _and_ put pressure on them later to make their phone securable by the user. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive, despite appearing to be both pro Apple and anti-Apple.

<comment><USER8> _" The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one."_

I don't think that's true, but even if I'm wrong, you could say that about _any_ skirmish in the privacy debate. Every legal case sets some precedent that affects the next one.

Also, I don't agree that this is government overreach. This case seems about as clear-cut an example of a "good" investigatory behavior as we're likely to see. If you can't get behind the idea of compromising privacy when there's a valid warrant, in the case of a _known mass murderer_ with probable ties to international terrorist groups, well...you've set an exceptionally high bar. I'm a reasonable person, I see your position, and I disagree with you on the merits of your argument.

<comment><USER9> >> _" The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one."_

> you could say that about any skirmish in the privacy debate. Every legal > case sets some precedent that affects the next one.

Yes and no. The role of the judiciary is to interpret and implement the law. They are not supposed to create law. That is the job of Congress.

This case is _so unprecedented_ that there's a chance the precedent here will effectively create a law. It will come down to a matter of interpretation by the justices. If they rule against Apple, the message is, _" This is covered by the AWA, and the AWA was intended to compel companies to weaken their products' security"_. In that case, many of us in the public feel that the justices will have unfairly created a new law.

If they rule for Apple, the message is, _" This is an undue burden being forced upon Apple. That is not the intention of the AWA. If you want them to comply, go to Congress and ask for a law"_

Obama was a lawyer, he knows this, and in light of the public's disapproval of mass surveillance, he chose the path (the AWA) that is most likely to get him what he wants, which is to grant law enforcement access to all iPhones. The public currently will not re-elect congressmen and women who push through new surveillance laws.

P.S. I like your site vayable.com

<comment><USER10> >This case is so unprecedented that there's a chance the precedent here will effectively create a law.

This case is actually super with precedent, if you ignore the digital nature of things. Apple has keys to a safe (digital signage key for iOS updates), FBI has warrant to search safe, court orders keys to safe. Fourth amendment doesn't apply because Apple can't incriminate themselves by giving signage keys.

There is the whole "asking Apple to write the OS changes and sign it", instead of just "Asking Apple for the signing keys." I would call this a compromise ruling to avoid having Apple have to give the actual for real skeleton key.

Asking a judge to not force Apple to surrender the digital signage keys requires more subtle arguments about burden. Asking for any ruling on encryption itself is asking a court to legislate from the bench

<comment><USER11> The precedent you reference doesn't really apply because, as you say, the FBI isn't actually asking for the signing keys.

The big difference between what's being asked and the signing keys is that Apple already have the signing keys. There is certainly plenty of precedent for a court to ask Apple to produce something they already have, but less precedent for a court to ask Apple to make something that doesn't exist yet.

In the analogy, the FBI doesn't have a warrant to "search the safe". What is protected by the signing keys is the ability to distribute iOS updates, but the court wants the data on the phone, which is protected by a different key Apple don't have.

A more correct non-IT analogy is to imagine that the safe has two locks: one pickable, the other unpickable. Apple don't have a matching key for either, but knows how to cut a key for the unpickable one. The FBI has asked Apple to set up a key-cutting facility, _definitely only for use on this one occasion_ , so they can make a key for the unpickable lock.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Harry Shearer did an excellent mini-series three years ago called "Nixon's the One". It's just a verbatim reenactment of conversations from Nixon's tapes ( [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9HtoWea72A&list=RDf9HtoWea7...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9HtoWea72A&list=RDf9HtoWea72A) ).

There is more than one scene where Nixon talks about how he wants to get rid of J. Edgar Hoover but can't. In another the Attorney General calls FBI agents "the Gestapo".

It reminded me of another tape - a phone conversation LBJ recorded of him talking to another Attorney General - Robert Kennedy. Kennedy talks about how his subordinate, Hoover, was not only not taking orders from him, but was having agents monitoring, writing reports and spreading disinformation about him ( [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVHnkIPGC6M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVHnkIPGC6M) ).

Forget the FBI monitoring non-violent political figures like Martin Luther King Jr., or Vietnam peace groups - presidents and their attorney generals began to fear their power.

The Church committee was supposed to fix this, but it was stonewalled in many ways, and by the 1980s we saw the FBI revive these political witchhunts again against groups like CISPES, and even groups run by Catholic nuns concerned about the rapes and killings of Catholic nuns in Central America.

</comment><comment><USER13> What's the worst that could happen for any of these companies or their senior executives if they refuse to cooperate?

Most corporate criminal penalties we hear about these days have become minor costs of doing business. And it's not like the olden days where senior execs often ended up in jail for corporate wrongdoing.[0]

The largest monetary criminal penalty I could find after a quick search was the 2013 settlement between JP Morgan and the Justice Department for $13 billion.[1] That's about 25% of Apple's net income last year, hardly a death sentence.

EDIT: I am not a lawyer so I'd appreciate any insight on this question.

[0]: [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/business/in-corporate- crim...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/business/in-corporate-crimes- individual-accountability-is-elusive.html)

[1]: [http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/06/23/a-list-of-the- bigg...](http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/06/23/a-list-of-the-biggest-bank- settlements/)

<comment><USER14> Why do you assume the penalty would only be monetary?

<comment><USER15> Who would they throw in jail? Tim Cook? Continuing on down the line until Apple has 0 employees?

<comment><USER16> At some point Apple will act to protect their own employees...

<comment><USER17> I am not sure how realistic this is, but couldn't they move relevant parts of their business overseas? E.g., hardware and software development still happens in the US, but updates are vetted and signed by a separate entity in a privacy-friendly country?

The US could block iPhone sales, though I think the probability of that happening is extremely low, since it would have a major economic impact.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Trump will now have to boycott Apple, Google, FB and Microsoft.

<comment><USER19> Is it even possible to tweet without touching products from any of the above companies?

I guess Trump will have to buy one of the discontinued BB10 devices...

<comment><USER17> Hey, our prime minister (Mark Rutte) still uses a Nokia from the pre- smartphone age.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The tech industry seems to be a bit like Hollywood in how it supports the military industrial complex - the pendulum swings between 'pro- totalitarianism' (where everyone signs up the the Patriot Act of the day without hesitation) and something more 'pro-democratic' (when a Snowden type situation comes along and freedom stuff gains traction).

In a way we are lucky that money talks in the U.S.A., it allows for this dynamic. If too much 'totalitarianism' hurts the bottom line then things get pushed back a bit and the noose loosens a bit. All the government needs is another big polarizing incident and I am sure Microsoft will be back doing as much of the government's dirty work as possible.

<comment><USER9> > In a way we are lucky that money talks in the U.S.A.

Money talks, but votes are king. When we collectively vote a politician out of office, his or her money dries up. In a way, votes are made more powerful by money.

Check out This American Life's episode on "Take the Money and Run for Office" [1]

Dick Durbin: I think most Americans would be shocked-- not surprised, but shocked-- if they knew how much time a United States senator spends raising money. And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money. And, you know, going off on little retreats and conjuring up new ideas on how to raise money. [2]

...

Barney Frank: If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district. [2]

[1] [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/461/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office) [2] [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/461/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/461/transcript)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> So there's an encrypted blob. The way you input a password has nothing to do with that blob or the encryption that was used to create it.

The argument that this would be some kind of cryptographic back door seems a little specious to me, and I'm usually the biggest edgelord imaginable when it comes to decrying government surveillance.

If we were talking about a safe somewhere, and the government asked the safe manufacturer to create a physical device that makes it easier to open existing safes, that would not seem reasonable to me, but it also would be ludicrous to claim that represents a "back door." If that's a back door, then the back door already existed.

So in Apple's case, the government says "we need the data out of this device" and that's apparently a solvable problem. Can someone please remind me why it's so cut and dry for Apple to just say "no" and that's supposed to be OK?

<comment><USER22> 1) It's a backdoor because it's software, not a physical device like your example. They are not asking them to make a robot finger to push the buttons. It's not only more trivial to unlock the device, it's significantly more likely the software is copied and leaked into malicious hands.

2) The outrage, in my opinion, is much more about your exact example -- that Apple is being compelled to develop this software themselves. That they are being legally required to weaken the value of their own product.

<comment><USER21> > 1) It's a backdoor because it's software, not a physical device like your > example. They are not asking them to make a robot finger to push the > buttons. It's not only more trivial to unlock the device, it's significantly > more likely the software is copied and leaked into malicious hands.

If I wanted to get into my neighbors house, and I had some way to compel a construction crew to come install a new door in that house so I can walk through it, that would not mean _houses now have back doors_. That would be a very disingenuous way of putting it.

"But what if the software is copied" is the only argument that holds any weight, and I don't find it very convincing. If the "copyability" of sensitive software/data is such a huge concern, then we should probably start asking how we intend to survive as a species.

> 2) The outrage, in my opinion, is much more about your exact example -- that > Apple is being compelled to develop this software themselves. That they are > being legally required to weaken the value of their own product.

Perhaps, but that's not what Tim Cook is saying.

<comment><USER22> Did you read their motion?[1] It is very much part of their argument. It sets a precedent that not only will other US courts compel them to unlock devices, but other countries will as well. Even if you trust the US government to not use the software maliciously, do you trust other governments?

1) [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-0045...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-00451-SP- USA-v-Black-Lexus-IS300.html)

<comment><USER23> What's stopping other governments from compelling then to unlock phones now, given they've effectively said they can.

What's stopping rogue employees from selling that capability - is Apple Computer's internal security good enough to see off espionage by nation states?

<comment><USER24> They've already asked and Apple has had a strong bargaining position.

"Beijing last year backed off on some proposals that would have required foreign companies to provide encryption keys for devices sold in the country after facing pressure from foreign trade groups."

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/technology/apple-sees- valu...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/technology/apple-sees-value-in- privacy-vow.html?mwrsm=Twitter&_r=1)

If Apple were to allow this for the US government other governments will want the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Google has been awfully silent about the whole thing, how secure are Android phones (Nexus phones in particular) against a similar attack?

I'm wondering if they are so easy to crack that this hasn't been a problem for Google. Either that, or their phones are just as secure as iPhones, and they caved to FBI demands immediately.

<comment><USER17> I found this surprising as well. There is some information in this article:

[https://itsecuritything.com/google-nexus-6p-security- teardow...](https://itsecuritything.com/google-nexus-6p-security-teardown/)

To be honest, I think for non-Nexus phones, the situation is pretty bad. Even if a device vendor would not cooperate, security updates are so glacial (if they happen at all) that a state actor probably won't have much trouble finding attack vectors.

(I am pretty frustrated by the lack of updates for my Moto X. Motorola used to be pretty good at is. Now I have Marshmallow, but they didn't roll out any security updates beyond November. It seems that they just want to tick off the Marshmallow box and that's it.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> One thing that I can't help thinking about in all of this... would Apple have contested this case had the Snowden leaks never occurred?

<comment><USER9> Yes. But it wouldn't have been in the public sphere. It would have happened behind closed doors like what happened to Yahoo in 2008 (which we didn't find out about until 2014). And in the secret court, my guess is Apple loses. Law enforcement would get what it wants because privacy advocates only seem to exist in the public.

Although many are saying this will be decided in court, the public opinion matters a lot here. We sway action in government through our votes. Thankfully this time we have a say in the matter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I have a question for the lawyers on HN. Why doesn't the judge in the case hold Apple in contempt of court until they modify the OS, in the same way they would hold a reporter in contempt until they revealed a source?

In both cases, you have a third party who is being compelled to assist an investigation against their will. My only guess is that there is a precedent set for reporters, but not for computer programmers.

<comment><USER28> IANAL, that said, at the end of the order, it says

 _" To the extent that Apple believes that compliance with this Order would be unreasonably burdensome, it may make application to this Court for relief within five business days of receipt of the Order."_

Since Apple has presented such an application, they are now supposed to return to court next month to argue their position.

<comment><USER29> I think that doesn't speak to the expansiveness of Apple's response. It's my understanding that the burden to undertake this effort being excessive is only one of their grounds for argument. They are additionally arguing that it violates free speech principles, and also that the request goes beyond their initial compliance efforts to aid in the investigation to fringing on violating Fifth Amendment principles by asking them to go above and beyond the simple compliance.

To my untrained eyes, they're basically saying that instead of having a key and being asked to turn over the key, and doing so - they're being asked to devote efforts to create an entirely new key that would unlock many or all doors. Which could then be used in many other unrelated "need to open the door" situations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> How far could the FBI use this case as a precedent if it goes through? Could they demand to get stuff signed and put on Canonicals repos? Could they demand to get a MS-signed EFI?

Or could this case just be used as a precedent in cases that clearly only involved one (1) specific device?

<comment><USER9> Nobody knows. That would be for the unelected judge to decide, which is what makes this all so scary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Much to the FBI's chagrin, the Whitehouse agrees with Apple, which is a great sign that someone in this country is sane:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/obama-wont- see...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/obama-wont-seek-access- to-encrypted-user-data.html)

<comment><USER9> I don't think that's accurate to say. The White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in his briefing a day or two ago that the administration backs Comey's efforts. US attorney general Loretta Lynch said she backs Comey too. Obama is the only one who hasn't made a public statement about this issue.

Chain of command, by the way, is Obama > Lynch > Comey. They're certainly in communication and agreement about this issue.

You might think Obama would feel differently given his rebuke of China last year for attempting to set the same kind of precedent. But no, he fails to see the similarity. It's scary. The highest ranking official who understands this issue is Ted Lieu.

<comment><USER32> > The highest ranking official who understands this issue is Ted Lieu.

You mean the highest ranking official who agrees with us. It's _easy_ to see how, if you trust the US judicial system, you'd be okay with this. If you think warrants are only given in valid and justified situations, this wouldn't bother you, because this'd only be used for "good".

We know better, but that's probably not the position the head of one of the branches of government (and a scholar of the highest law of the judicial branch, even) finds himself in. Obama probably very much trusts the US justice system.

<comment><USER9> > You mean the highest ranking official who agrees with us

Yup that's what I meant.

> Obama probably very much trusts the US justice system

Hmm, Obama certainly wants Apple to comply here. However, he has no power to sway the justices.

Obama didn't want to go to congress for a new law surrounding this issue, and seems to have directed Comey to use the AWA. Obama hasn't said why he didn't go to congress. It _seems_ like he wants to set precedent while acting like it's only for this one phone. Pretty sneaky if that's the case.

Personally I trust our right to express our views both in speech and through our votes. I trust that elected officials can represent those of us who voted and wish to be represented. The problem is we have not yet elected enough people who understand computers. And, that's not entirely our fault. It's a new field and there are not many people with exposure to it who can represent our views.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I (, in a non facetious manner) honestly don't get this. Aren't all of the above listed giants the ones that are going out of their way to track, spam and use our personal lives as objects of advertisement in the first place?

How or why are they petitioning for the government to not be able to do what they're already doing? Isn't that completely ironic? Is this a case of _" it's okay if /WE/ steal your data, but we don't want to government too (so that only we have total access to it)"_?

Someone more enlightened than me, please help me out.

<comment><USER34> It's quite simple.

Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, et al. do not have the power to arrest you, and never will. They can't find out you said or did something in the past and put you in a gulag for it 10 or 20 years from now when you're considered a political enemy of the state.

It's the critical difference between economic and political power. Google has no guns, much less the all-powerful legal authority - and then some - possessed by the government.

Microsoft can sell you software. Amazon can sell you a blender or ebook. Apple wants to sell you a phone. The US Government can kill you, destroy your life, put you on a no-fly list, proclaim you a terrorist to be constantly surveilled to the highest degree, punish you for speaking out, sic the IRS on you, blackmail you by tracking every single thing you do digitally without any consequences to themselves and then use it against you at their convenience or for their benefit (Google execs would go to prison for that), and dozens of other things using their countless agencies (and if you happen to be a leaker or journalist, the context is that much more amplified). And that's just what they can do to you today, the fascism in America is blatantly going to keep getting worse, they keep reaching for more and more power. Tomorrow, the things you do today, will be held against you. There isn't an example of a fascist system in which that hasn't been the case.

Google et al. are the absolute least of your worries. The free market profit motive is predictable and functions at its most efficient under systems of high degrees of freedom (thus free market). Increasing political power of the sort going on in the US however is always violent and always trends toward an ultimate restriction of liberty. One need understand only the very basics of history to grasp that.

A quick look at what governments have done over just the last 200 years, versus what corporations have done, tells you everything you need to know. It isn't a close comparison. Show me one modern big corporation like Google that has done the kind of evil things that eg Mugabe in Zimbabwe has done for example - there's one simple example, and hardly the worst I could reference (how about Pol Pot?), and it demonstrates how clearly absurd it is to be frightened by the 'big bad corporations.' The notion we need to be afraid of corporations is almost entirely a myth, typically pushed by people that then turn an intentional blind eye to the endless murder, war and abuse by governments. It's power-seeking governments you should be absolutely terrified of.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The whole Apple/FBI fracas is about promoting smartphones as the centre of our universe: the confluence of medical, financial, and all other personal information. If Apple can convince us that smartphones are secure, there are lucrative opportunities for smartphone technology to become ubiquitous and pervasive in our lives.

Unfortunately, it will always be necessary for law enforcement to have access to bad guys' stuff. The Fourth Amendment guarantees your privacy, but police can break down your door and seize your financial and medical records if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you. Why should your smartphone be different?

The smartphone is not an inalienable right. We are confusing convenience with fundamental rights; technology with entitlement.

If you don't trust your smartphone to be impregnable, then guess what? Don't put your medical & financial info on your smartphone. There was an epoch when we actually did banking & medicine without smartphones.

Apple, unlock the terrorist's iPhone, and resign yourself to a reduction in sales.

<comment><USER36> > The Fourth Amendment guarantees your privacy, but police can break down your > door and seize your financial and medical records if they have reasonable > grounds to suspect you. Why should your smartphone be different?

This is a false dichotomy. Simply because technology creates a situation where governments can't access a users data without the user consent. Apple's technology hadn't reached this point in this case (aka end-to-end encryption), which is why we're even having this conversation but we've arguably passed that point as an industry where that will be the future legal environment.

It's entirely plausible Apple could create an iPhone that they can't unlock, or iMessages they can't read. So then it's no longer about coercing middlemen but the US gov vs user consent. Outside of self-incrimination this changes the legal question to be about unlocking every persons medical/financial records, not about unlocking a single persons.

The only path the government has is to coerce Apple into making backdoors or purposefully weakening their encryption for _all_ devices which affects every Americans fourth amendment rights - as well as public saftey.

Therefore this is not just about one person in a criminal trial - since a backdoor can never be made only for a single court case, it will by nature unlock the phones to any party who can create or get access to the backdoor.

So the only legal path for the government is to either coerce suspects into self-incrimination by forcing them to unlock their phones or prevent Apple/Google/etc customers from being able to meaningfully lock their phones in the first place. The problem with the latter is that criminals/terrorists won't be forced to use the backdoored Apple/Google/etc technology but can use open-source versions with encryption to side-step law enforcement's efforts - making it ultimately ineffective as a legal strategy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> It's still a muddle, and the tendentious Bloomberg headline does not help. Microsoft's position is extremely cautious, but they had to side with Apple because opening the "all writs" can of worms to compel software creation and signing binaries is going to jack up law enforcement compliance costs to unlimited levels. Gates, in the quote in the article, is also, still, trying to have it both ways: _"The extreme view that government always gets everything, nobody supports that. Having the government be blind, people don't support that."_ Evidently he thinks conditional privacy is sufficient and that the issue can be separated from encryption bans and an "all writs" model that compels new things to be created at the whim of FBI agents.

</comment><comment><USER38> This just makes the Gates story even stranger. Did the FT misquote him because they're incompetent, or do they have an ulterior motive at play?

<comment><USER39> It was stated at the end of the Bloomberg article that Bill Gates' position on the issue was misreported:

 _Earlier this week, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates told Bloomberg Television he was "disappointed" by reports that he supports the U.S. government in this dispute, saying it doesn't accurately reflect his opinion.

"That doesn't state my view on this," he said in an interview on "Bloomberg Go." "The extreme view that government always gets everything, nobody supports that. Having the government be blind, people don't support that."_

<comment><USER40> Note that the article doesn't actually go on to clarify or accurately state what his opinion is.

<comment><USER41> [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559f46e-d9c5-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559f46e-d9c5-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe09.html)

<comment><USER40> Sure, but then he's saying he was misrepresented by that?

So do the quoted questions and answers written on that page accurately represent what Gates said, because if they do, then although he might not be 'siding with the government', it seems he sees nothing problematic with the government making this sort of request, either in compelling Apple to produce a version of iOS that will allow for brute-forcing, or in this case setting any sort of precedent for what the government can ask companies to do via the All Writs Act.

Actually, if the quotes in that article are accurate, it seems that Gates doesn't understand the issue at all, specifically:

> Apple has access to the information. They're just refusing to provide the > access and the courts will tell them whether to provide the access or not

Which is not the case here. Apple doesn't have access to the information and they will need to build a customised and security-compromised version of iOS in order to allow the FBI to attempt to retrieve that information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I thought it was an _alleged_ terrorist's phone? Or has innocent until proven guilty gone out the window?

<comment><USER43> "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a criminal trial. The man in question died in a shootout with police; he will never be proven guilty, because you can't put a dead man on trial. You can't libel or defame a dead man, from the point of view of the law.

There has to be a point where media can call someone a terrorist short of conviction in a court of law. You can argue that that point hasn't been reached in this case, but there has to be a point, since otherwise we'd have to call Bin Laden an "alleged terrorist."

<comment><USER44> As a very general comment as I do not know anything about the San Bernardino case, I think we need to apply extreme caution when using the word "terrorist" because of extreme, far-reaching legislation based on the broad definition of terrorism: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Acts#List_of_legisla...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Acts#List_of_legislation)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> TL;DR here: [https://github.com/simonebrunozzi/MNMN/blob/master/Weekly- Su...](https://github.com/simonebrunozzi/MNMN/blob/master/Weekly- Summaries/2016-10.md#2-microsoft-google-facebook-back-apple-in-blocked-phone- case)

</comment><comment><USER46> This is all great but one thing bothers me: they still apply to some government requests to give some data [1].

I know that adding a backdoor is different, but why not also protect for example emails on a server?

[http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information- requests...](http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/)

</comment><comment><USER47> Let's see, what's worse...

Giving access to data in supposedly limited cases to an authority that's supposed to do it for the protection of the people, or;

sell the data to numerous third parties, who further make money of the data, while there's absolutely no assurance the data isn't bought by the aforementioned authority anyway?

</comment><comment><USER48> Aren't Microsoft working with NSA? is this just a publicity stunt?

<comment><USER49> Are you implying that Apple, Facebook, and Google aren't?

<comment><USER48> The skeptic in my wants to say they all are, but everyone is praising Apple for some reason

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Apple has to protect customer privacy. I oppose Apple to give any information to the FBI.

</comment><comment><USER51> Hey look, they took the fear-mongering word "terrorist" out of the headline.

There's hope after all.

</comment><comment><USER52> Plot twist: US companies and the US gov play a game whose only goal is to reestablish lost trust since Snowden to make more $$$ again and sell more hardware with US backdoors again.

</comment><comment><USER53> Notice how the headline makes sure to specify "over terrorist's phone" and not "over user privacy" or "against federal conscription by the FBI."

Take a second and re-read the headline. What does it say? To me, it spells out Microsoft joins Apple to back terrorist's privacy against the FBI.

The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. And the media isn't helping.

Edit: In case it wasn't clear, I think it's actually disingenuous to mention the word "terrorist" in the headline at all. Nothing about why Apple is resisting (which is the crux of this news cycle) has to do with the fact that they are, bizarrely, fighting for _this_ (dead) user (who is undeniably a madman murderer and potentially a terrorist)'s right to privacy.

Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and everyone here in the comments isn't defending _this_ person's right to privacy. It's 100% about the principle and the precedent and it's a million times about the future users and nothing to do with this horrible person. For that reason, it's unfair (in fact, you could call it purposeful misrepresentation) to say that they are against the FBI unlocking "terrorist's phone" or defending the "terrorist's privacy" in any way. What they are doing, if one excludes self-interest, is protecting the principle for everyone else out there.

<comment><USER54> I disagree. "Terrorist's Phone" is simply the most efficient way to identify the case. "User's Privacy" would mean absolutely nothing to someone who hasn't heard of the case as much as we have, especially considering most of Apple's marketing nowadays is through that lens…

> The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of > a precedent in their favor.

If you'll allow me to be pedantic, they could have; we can be pretty sure this phone has none of the evidence they want it to, and it's not like anyone at Apple will lose sleep feeling responsible for aiding terrorism.

But my point is, this is simply the headline that will get the most clicks. Any political bias in it is coincidental. (And of course, it seems reasonable for most people to agree that, in a vacuum, it would be OK for Apple to unlock the phone, as long as it never affected other users.)

<comment><USER55> I'm not sure that it's easy to dismiss political bias as coincidental given that the people publishing the article are professional wordsmiths who understand the impact of every word they choose.

<comment><USER56> There's an easier explanation.

"...around user privacy." Boring. No one will click that. "...against federal conscription." Sounds like a conspiracy rag. "...terrorist phone." Interesting! Let's click.

<comment><USER57> Reminds me of the rule "don't ascribe to malice what incompetence can explain."

Don't assume nefarious intent when there is a profit motive involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Nothing but a PR stunt.

<comment><USER59> At least we've come full circle on PR. Capitalism does often respond to consumer wishes. I tend to think the money I spend is the biggest 'vote' I have in this country.

Besides, Apple was notably missing in the PRISM program during Jobs' reign. I'm not as negative on Apple as some other companies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> This reminds me of China condemning Russia's annexation of Crimea.

I wonder why is that.

</comment><comment><USER60> Isn't Microsoft who built PRISM?

</comment><comment><USER61> I predict that Apple will win big and that their victory will be very public and greatly celebrated. The purpose of this public display is to convince criminals to buy iPhones.

They think they are safe. That's the whole point.

</comment><comment><USER62> Hmm I'm confused, so is FBI asking to unlock just this terrorist's phone or setup a backdoor to all iPhones? If they are asking to unlock only this terrorists phone I don't see why Apple should be fighting a case over this.

<comment><USER63> The FBI is asking Apple to build a tool to backdoor this particular iPhone. Once the tool is built, it gets much easier for them to ask Apple to use it on other phones. "We'll only ask for it this one time, honest" isn't a believable promise - Apple winds up with a much less defensible position later, since they already have the tools necessary.

<comment><USER64> "The FBI has asked Apple to crack at least 17 devices since October" [http://mashable.com/2016/02/23/fbi-apple- requests/](http://mashable.com/2016/02/23/fbi-apple-requests/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Couldn't Apple give the data of the terrorist's phone without creating a backdoor? I.e. making it an exceptional case rather than something that could easily be done again and again?

To be clear, I'm against the backdoor, but as an engineer I know that Apple could give the data back if they wanted. I guess it's bad PR from them to say so though.

I'm also very surprised at how transparent the FBI is about their incapacity at cracking the phone. Or maybe this is also just for PR reasons and the phone is already cracked?

<comment><USER7> > To be clear, I'm against the backdoor, but as an engineer I know that Apple > could give the data back if they wanted.

What do you know? How are you suggesting they can extract encrypted data that requires a passcode to decrypt when no existing version of iOS allows electronic brute forcing?

Tim's already attested that they don't know any other way to access the data: [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim- coo...](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-cook-iphone- cracking-software/story?id=37173343)

<comment><USER65> What does it even mean "Cancer software"? Seems like PR bullshit to me. I've got a hard time believing that Apple can't crack their own phone.

To be clear, do they mean that THIS phone is impossible to crack? I guess the part I don't understand is how creating a backdoor for THIS phone makes it so that ALL users would get a backdoor..? Couldn't they push the software just to that phone for exceptional reasons? If the FBI wants to get other phones opened, they'd have to get a court order by the law and that would be handled on a case by case basis. Similarly to how the FBI could get a court order to come in my house if they suspect criminal activities?

(Edited for clarity)

<comment><USER7> > What does that even mean "Cancer software"? Seems like PR bullshit to me.

Tim's addressing the wider public (i.e. not tech professionals) and explains what he means in context, i.e. its bad software, something they would never write or should ever be forced to write.

> I've got a hard time believing that apple can't crack their own phone.

You've said you know they can and are now saying you don't believe that they can't. So how exactly should they decrypt encrypted data without the pass code it was encrypted with?

> do they mean that THIS phone is impossible to crack, but that would let > other phones be crackable in the future?

No, it's been stated a number of times including being written in the Court Order that they can create a new version of iOS without software protections that allows the FBI to brute force the pass code electronically. This is the whole premise of the legal precedent, whether or not the FBI can compel Apple to write software that doesn't yet exist to create a new version of iOS with a backdoor that the FBI can exploit.

But they wont be able to do this with future iPhone's that are hardware protected by the secure enclave.

<comment><USER65> >> You've said you know they can and are now saying you don't believe that they can't. So how exactly should they decrypt encrypted data without the pass code it was encrypted with?

Sorry, I meant to say "As an engineer, I've got a hard time believing that Apple can't crack their own phone". Thanks for clarifying it up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> If you ask yourself if the contents of the phone could reasonably aid in saving other lives and bring about justice for those lost, then many would without a doubt say yes, make it public. Equally if it was some politicians emails then would they equally be happy for Apple to deny access being another question you could ask with many comming up different perspective of reply if you just ask the question about privacy.

Privacy is important but as with any rule, there has too be exceptions and I would say clear lives at stake would be one case.

But equaly the way things work and setting precidence, I can totally understand Apples and those supporting it's stance as the way things work in law is once the door is open, its a lot harder to close it. If better prevision without blanket abuse and a case by case basis could be approved and not set some blanket level of privacy abuse then again many would be happier.

Alas it is the way the government has approached this in that they would be in effect given a way that could be used with this but any other such devices at no need to even speak with Apple that is the real crux I feel.

We agree terroisim and indeed impacting others life spans is not the types of crimes we want hiding behind encryption or law, be that individuals or goverments themselves. But in a World in which such terroisim definitions and associated laws have and are being used on a scale and definition that trancends what a terroist is, then the element of suspicion and mistrust on the use of the term to jsutify any law or action comes more and more under public scrutiny and concerns of how it will be abused more than it should.

So an area that is very much dammed if you do and potential dammed if you do no equally. But for now Apple as others equally say are making the right moves, albeit II hope a fair and acceptable compromise is established and no blanket precedence that does more harm than good goes thru.

</comment><comment><USER67> Wow, so brilliant to have Bill Gates so he's pro-government intrusion and then the company back Apple.

Update:

This was not meant to troll. I fell for the mis-attributed quotes to Bill and thought he actually backed the FBI. I stand corrected.

<comment><USER68> Also Gates consults with Microsoft occasionally and is a large stakeholder but that does not mean Gates speaks for Microsoft, or that Microsoft speaks for Gates. In fact, they disagree pretty regularly.

<comment><USER69> He's a member of their board of directors and for a time was even the head of it. The board has more control than even the CEO so it's safe to say Gates is speaking for the company.

<comment><USER70> Was Marc Andreesen speaking on behalf of Facebook when he made those remarks about India the other day? No. Neither was Bill Gates speaking for Microsoft.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Football news website - <AUTHOR> http://www.givemefootie.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> We friends follow football as passion. We decided to give back community by starting this portal. It gives news from 4 major news website. Currently we are looking for some free scores API/feeds which gives us Live Scores, Results, Fixtures and Points table. Help us by suggesting some and also don't forget to give us some feedback on it :)</comment>


The Dangers of Bitcoin Trapping - <AUTHOR> http://qntra.net/2015/02/the-dangers-of-bitcoin-trapping/ <comment><USER2> Same as the danger of selling big items on Craigs List.

1) Don't carry any cash on you.

2) Go with a big strong friend if possible.

3) Tell people where you're going and when to expect you back.

4) Etc, etc, etc...

<comment><USER3> I generally try to meet at a bank where I'm a customer when I have sold big things on craigslist. i.e. here's what I'm giving you, you give me the money, you wait until I deposit money in my account.</comment></comment>


This Is the Gyro-Stabilized, Two-Wheeled Future of Transportation - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/05/lit-motors-c1/ <comment><USER4> This is a cool concept, although I doubt it will be ready by 2014 at their current rate. My reasoning on that is that you have to have a complete pre- production vehicle before you can even start safety testing. But that isn't a knock, I like optimism as much as the next person.

The horizontal flywheel concept is quite cool, and I'm glad they avoided the problem of earlier attempts which just had one (cars that did this would change their front/back weight balance going around turns in a non-helpful way) Having both (and running them in opposite directions!) means you can cancel out that effect.

I'd worry a bit about the need to keep them spun up at 'idle', its a work load that electric vehicles don't normally carry, but you do get some of that back in efficiency gains when using them as dynamic energy storage so perhaps it is a wash. Would love to see the math on that.

If they wanted to hit the tri-fecta of buzzword viral bingo they should use a 3D printer to print the body out of carbon fiber or something :-)

<comment><USER5> Amusingly the problems you mention are inherent to a two-wheeler, and given the necessary dimensions of the egg-shaped outside you might as well add some more wheels at the corners to solve the stability problem. Then you end up with something like Renault Twizy [0] (look at the top view on page 2 to get an idea of its dimensions), currently sold today starting at 7000€, plus 50€/month of battery rent.

I would not have bet on that vehicle but it seems to be selling, since I already encountered a bunch of them.

A bunch of stats (for the topmost model, as the lower one is limited in power and does not require a driving license):

        13kW/17ch
        80km/h top speed
        0-45km/h in 6.1s
        100km range
        6.1kWh battery
        473kg with battery (~100kg)

[0] [http://www.renault.fr/media/e-brochures/att00409285/ebrochur...](http://www.renault.fr/media/e-brochures/att00409285/ebrochure- twizy.pdf)

<comment> jack-r-abbit I always wonder how things with no doors do when it rains. It seems if I commuted in that thing and it rained, I'd show to work soaked.

<comment><USER6> There are models with no doors or half doors - apparently some legislation somewhere would require a heated front screen if it had full doors:

[http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/car-tech/1284439/renault- twiz...](http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/car-tech/1284439/renault-twizy- preview)

<comment> jack-r-abbit ah... I thought the "half door" was that bar across the opening. It seems that is a third model which would still get me wet. It seem the half door is the lower half (of course.. it wouldn't make sense to be the top half). SO driving that would be like driving with the windows down the whole time. It still makes we wonder how people make use of these when it rains. Maybe the shape of things deflects the water out enough to miss the passengers. Maybe I'm just too spoiled with my fully enclosed vehicle... I'd rather stay dry. :) Interesting bit about the heated windshield (assuming that is what "front screen" means).

<comment><USER6> Actually, the idea of having a vehicle with a windscreen/windshield in a damp climate _without_ some means of keeping it free of condensation is pretty scary - so that legislation kind of make sense (at least for Northern Europe).

<comment> jack-r-abbit oh... don't get me wrong. I understand the usefulness of having a good heater when it is raining. Likewise I understand the horror of having an inefficient heater when it is raining. It was just interesting that there is legislation mandating it. I'll assume that the US has this as well then.

<comment><USER6> Initially I thought it sounded like a particularly daft bit of legislation - then I thought about it for a bit..... :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a non-starter. This fills the same niche as an electric moped at 6% or less of the cost. And people can drive electric mopeds on city streets legally _today_. For less than half the price someone could buy a used, low-mileage sedan (such as a Civic, Corolla, or Accent), with a trunk, seating for 5, seatbelts and airbags. And then use the other $8k to pay for gas at $5 a gallon for the next 48,000 miles. Or, they could buy 2x brand-new 150cc Honda motorcycles and use the extra money to pay for the gas (at $5 a gallon) for the next 50,000 miles for both vehicles (100k total).

Doesn't make economic sense. Doesn't make safety sense. Doesn't make logistical sense. Doesn't make practical sense. Doesn't make environmental sense.

What's the value add?

<comment><USER8> I'm just as skeptical as you, but...

Electric mopeds cannot go on freeways. An electric motorcycle is better for nontrivial distances.

On the other hand, an electric moped which cannot travel faster than 20mph also has an advantage: in California it is treated as a bicycle and can travel on bike paths on major bridges.

My main complaint: if neither electric motorcycles nor self-balancing motorcycles are currently popular, why would an electric self-balancing motorcycle be popular?

<comment><USER9> Personally, I've always wanted a vehicle with the speed and fuel efficiency approaching a motorcycle and a 5-star crash safety rating. Motorcycles are a death trap, and I refuse to ride one despite their many advantages.

<comment><USER10> And this is the value add.

<comment><USER11> No...it's not. This thing is just as dangerous as a motorcycle.

The danger is from not having the steel cage protecting you, not from tipping over in a parking lot. Motorcycles aren't even difficult to balance...at all.

They're easier than bicycles in that respect because they self-stabilize from the speed that operate at. You only need balance when puttering about in the parking lot, and even then, scarcely.

I have to stop reading this thread. I'm a keen motorcyclist and it's vividly apparent none of you know what you're talking about in the slightest.

This vehicle is useless.

<comment><USER12> Sorry, but aren't you contradicting yourself? If the danger of a motorcycle lies in the lack of a cage, why is this useless?

<comment><USER11> It's useless because it's inferior to a motorcycle in every respect including safety.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> All the seating and cargo capacity of a motorcycle, with the visibility of a car! There's no way in hell I'd split lanes on that thing; when I'm on my motorcycle, I have no obstructions and can see all around me, and definitely know where the edges of my bike are. This looks like a low-slung claustrophobic nightmare.

Even if it is a very _technically_ cool thing.

<comment> jack-r-abbit As I understand it, lane splitting is illegal in many U.S. states, but is considered lawful in California (though there is no law for or against it... it is simply "allowed"). I might be wrong but I thought the main justification for lane splitting was due to the air-cooled aspect of motorcycles and the harm that can come from sitting in stalled/slow traffic (although, where I live I see this get abused everyday by motorcycles that just want to go faster than the cars around them). Being electric, this vehicle would not have that cooling problem and would have less need for lane splitting. Not being able to lane split would not be a significant negative to me.

Being two wheeled it will be classified as a motorcycle (at least here in California.. don't know if that is everywhere). Being a motorcycle gets you other privileges besides lane splitting like being in the HOV lanes and (in some places) special parking.

<comment><USER14> I split lanes (San Francisco) to avoid being rear ended by an inattentive driver. The safest place to be is between 2 cars at a red light. Of course I like going faster than all the cars around me and I can get a block or two ahead of everyone by cruising up to the front of the queue. There is a safe way to split lanes - do not go more than 5-10 MPH faster than the cars, and watch for gaps because a car will change lanes unexpectedly to fill those gaps.

I like the idea of the vehicle in the article mainly for these reasons: more throughput on the roads (every car has only one passenger) and fuel efficiency. I would like to see a world where people commuted in these and only used the SUV for bigger trips.

<comment><USER15> _I split lanes (San Francisco) to avoid being rear ended by an inattentive driver._

Isn't that statistically the least likely way of getting hit on a two-wheeled vehicle? Drivers may be distracted, but even the most inattentive look in front of them.

<comment><USER16> It's more than that. Between myself and my girlfriend, both 100% powered two wheeler riders, the only times we've been hit by cars was rear-ending - <USER2> girlfriend twice, me only once. The typical situation is a junction; looking to make sure the way is clear, the car driver - for whatever reason - <USER3> you to have already pulled away, and they pull away while not looking ahead, and instead looking for approaching traffic in the stream they're pulling out into.

When you're on two wheels, what you want is space. Space in front of you, space behind you, and ideally space on either side. Space gives you time to react to the unexpected. One of the most dangerous situations to be in is having a car tailgating you; in that case, if anything bad happens, you die. (I don't feel guilty about speeding, filtering at higher speeds, etc., to get away from a dangerous tailgater, and into a situation where they can overtake safely.)

The easiest way to make space for yourself in the urban environment - i.e. one with traffic lights - is to filter to the front and use your acceleration power to get a lead on the traffic when the lights turn green. The idea is that you can largely stay ahead of the cars until the next traffic light. If traffic starts to bunch up, you don't want to get caught in an ever-decreasing amount of space; ideally, you want to move, safely, towards increasing space, overtaking and filtering if necessary to do so.

<comment> jack-r-abbit I've come to understand there is a difference between "filtering" and "lane splitting". 100% on board with filtering to the front when traffic is stopped at a light. It is the weaving in and out of traffic that is still moving at a good clip that bothers me. When I'm driving in 40mph traffic it is quite unsettling to suddenly encounter a vehicle moving in between other vehicles at 50mph.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Remember the _last_ two-wheeled, gyro-stabilized future of transportation? The one that was largely a commercial flop, and which the company president (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Heselden>) _drove off a cliff_.

<comment><USER18> The segway does what it's supposed to do. I think it has it's useful niche. It was marketed as a replacement for all transportation, but that is silly because only because of the cost.

<comment><USER19> Speaking of cost, _this_ vehicle will start for ~$24,000.

I mean, I'd buy it for... maybe $5000ish, if I were feeling particularly spendy?

<comment><USER20> They did mention that rev two would be around $16,000, assuming they're still in business. That's getting closer to a realistic price relative to competing products. Keep in mind that this is competing with commuter cars, not motorcycles.

You can also deduct the cost of fuel over the vehicle's lifetime. For someone commuting one hour each way to work five days a week, the cost of gas for a big car can exceed $200/month, $2400/year, or $12,000 over the course of five years. That makes the up-front price seem quite a bit more competitive with gas-powered alternatives.

<comment><USER17> You need to factor in the medical bills, though. With a loaded weight of under 1000lbs, in any sort of collision, this thing _will lose_. Doesn't really matter how strong the frame is, it's just simple physics.

Similar situation with the "Smart" car. The passenger cell can take a 60mph impact into a barrier just fine. The passengers - not so much, the g-forces inflicted are much higher than a traditional vehicle. Even 12-18 inches of crumple zone would make a BIG difference.

<comment><USER20> Unless the person you crash into is also driving one of these, in which case you _both win_ , relatively speaking.

Safety does remain a very important consideration here, and I'm also wondering how safe those heavy gyroscopes under your seat are in a collision. They had better be extremely well-shielded from the passenger compartment.

<comment><USER17> Even hitting another one of these or a similar super-light vehicle, you both _still lose_. For survivability there is absolutely no replacement for deformable structure aka crumple zones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If they added two more wheels instead of the gyros, they'd get passive stabilization and lower cost. They'd also get more room for a larger battery and cargo or passengers. And since roads and parking lots are already designed for 4-wheel vehicles, the extra width wouldn't be much of a disadvantage.

<comment><USER22> Two-wheeled vehicles have a party piece - they keep moving when traffic stops. In a city like London or Paris, a pedal cycle is faster than a car for most journeys. In a city like LA, a motorcycle can be twice as fast as a car during rush-hour.

This has effects beyond the two-wheeled rider; Remember, you're never stuck in traffic, you _are_ traffic. A recent study suggested that if 10% of car drivers switched to two-wheeled vehicles, congestion would reduce by 40%[1]. Currently, riders of motorcycles are at an exceptionally high risk of death or serious injury. A fully enclosed two-wheeler could be every bit as safe as a car.

There are also substantial efficiency savings to be made, due to the C1's very small frontal area. A faired two-wheeler with a recumbent seating position is naturally very close to the aerodynamically ideal dolphin-shape. A four- wheeled vehicle could only achieve similar aerodynamic efficiency by being very long and low, with single or tandem seating, as in the Volkswagen 1L concept[2] or Shell Eco-Marathon competitors. This substantially compromises visibility and turning circle, making such a vehicle very poorly suited to its obvious use as an urban commuter.

[1] <http://www.acem.eu/publiq/PTW_Belgium_Study_FEBIAC_ENG.PDF> [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car>

<comment><USER21> I'm not sure how safe it would be to split lanes in the C1; it's wider than a motorcycle, and it's being marketed to non-cyclists who may not be so skilled at weaving through tight spaces even with gyros. It _would_ be more aerodynamic, no doubt, but I think we're a long way off from comparing the relative efficiency of electric vehicles. I think range and carrying capacity are bigger consumer concerns.

<comment><USER23> I've split lanes in LA traffic. One of the important parts is watching drivers heads as you approach to pass them for an indication that they might suddenly change lanes. That level of awareness saved my life a few times. I don't think you can do that with the C1, as the driver is lower to the ground and doesnt have the same field of vision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> _How much force would it take to knock the C1 on its side? According to Lit, a small elephant would have to hit it broadside to put the C1 on the ground._

So… a car hitting the side then?

<comment><USER25> What I really like about this is that because it's like a motor bike, you actually have time for the airbags to deploy, when it's being tipped over, shoved along, skidding on its side or flying through the air.

<comment><USER26> Having seen the end result of a low speed collision last night between motorbike and car, with said dude on motorbike tail between legs, and one very raw burnt calf, very much agree there is a _lot_ of merit in this.

For all the arguments of a motorbike, even at low speeds, no matter which way you slice or dice it, you still get the wrong end of the stick if you get hit/drop it.

I myself would make the leap to one of these in a heartbeat when they're production ready. Huge win for small commutes in and around the city, just myself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The gyro-stabilized, two-wheeled future of transportation is the bicycle, people. Seriously.

If you're really into it, you can throw an electric assist motor on.

<comment><USER28> They already have them on kids bikes. Now they just need to upgrade to adult size, lower the weight, strap on an electric motor...

<http://www.thegyrobike.com/category-s/93.htm>

<comment><USER20> And they should build the batteries into the wheel rims for extra stability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Reminds me of a recumbent bicycle, which I was always bewildered by - I live in nyc and can never imagine riding around on one because I wouldn't be able to see anything except the backs of vehicles. I feel very comfortable bicycling and motorcycling around the city precisely because I can see very far ahead by being higher up than most cage drivers. I could see this gyro bike suffering from the same problem in the city, which is probably where it was designed for?

</comment><comment><USER30> And the past too <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrocar>

<comment><USER31> The first one was commissioned in 1912? Sounds like it would have been a great opportunity for Lit to actually release it this year... They won't miss the mark by much, though.

No wait, scratch that, just looked up the word "commissioned"... So if they release it in 1914, they'll have hit the nail straight on. Good on them!

<comment><USER30> Not sure what you're trying to say. Can you please explain?

<comment><USER32> I think he's referring to the 100 year anniversary of the initial commission.

<comment><USER30> Thanks! Sorry for the confusion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Awesome, I hope this gets off the ground.

It would be ideal to become an autonomous vehicle. Most people drive to work by themselves and use a car instead of a motorbike for protection from the elements and collisions.

Imagine how much more efficient the road network would be if it was filled with autonomous gyro-stabilized motorbikes/whatever this is.

</comment><comment><USER34> IIRC, two and three-wheeled vehicles dodge a lot of the safety and licensing regulations of four-wheeled automobiles. Partly why there are so many more custom motorcycle builders than custom car builders. I don't know what two- wheels gets you over a three-wheel version except the expense of cool gyros.

</comment><comment><USER35> Motorcycles don't have "amazing fuel economy": small cars do <100 g/km and sadly few motorcycles beat that.

<comment><USER36> This. Admittedly, the aerodynamics of this thing should be better than most motorcycles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Reminds me of the BMW C1:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_C1>

<comment> excuse-me And will be killed for the same reason.

Country A will insist that it's a motorbike, require you to wear a helmet and have an enhanced heavy bike licence (because of it's top speed)

Country B will insist that it's a car and require seatbelts, airbags etc.

Country C will only allow electric bikes that have a top speed of 15m/h

<comment><USER37> _Country C will only allow electric bikes that have a top speed of 15m/h_

You certainly mean km/h.

<comment><USER38> or m as in miles

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Reminds me of the Sinclair C5... and looks equally dangerous on a road which also features real cars.

</comment><comment><USER40> While gyros are way cool, adding them for stability reeks of overengineering when simply adding another wheel could achieve the same effect. This reminds me of the urban myth of the Russians using a pencil instead of spending money to develop a zero-gravity pen.

<comment><USER15> Why do you need another wheel? I don't see a lot of tipped-over motorcycles lining the sides of roads, after all...

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> For half a century, especially in America, we've been hearing about the "future of transportation" in the form of some car, or car-like non-mass transit device.

The numbers don't work out, the logistics don't work out, and the infrastructure doesn't work out. The future of transit is obviously not cars: not normal 4 wheeled cars, not flying cars, not fancy gyro stabilized two wheeled cars.

Ideas otherwise are quaint turn of the century throwbacks that ceased making sense anywhere in non-rural a very long time ago.

<comment><USER15> The problem is that we've poured so much money into roads that any technology that doesn't use them is at a multi-billion-dollar disadvantage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> How much power do the gyros consume?

And, of course, if you're using them for regenerative breaking, then they'll have less headroom to counter tilting forces. If you saturate them with regen load then they won't provide any stabilizing force at all. I hope it has a couple of really beefy power resistors in case the ECU suddenly has to bleed off gyro load in a way that won't cause an uncommanded acceleration.

</comment><comment><USER43> I bet the future of transportation will remember that many people have children they want to transport with them.

<comment><USER22> In southern Europe, motor scooters and light motorcycles are a substantial part of the transport mix. Scooters are a fast, economical, traffic-beating option. With fuel at over $8 per US gallon, a 100mpg scooter has tremendous appeal. It's quite common for dad to ride a scooter to work, while mum takes the kids to school in the car. A young adult is just as likely to start motoring on a scooter as in a car; Towns and cities in Spain and Italy are overflowing with scooters on weekend nights. Most of those towns were never designed for cars and have a desperate shortage of parking - you can get five or six scooters into one parking space.

A vehicle like this has most of the advantages of a scooter, without the obvious shortcomings. It could fill the same role in the vehicle mix in countries where weather, safety concerns or cultural factors make motor scooters unpopular.

Most car journeys involve a single occupant. That's a luxury we've been able to afford until now, but lugging around four empty seats is seeming ever more wasteful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Will this need redundant gyros? Otherwise isn't it too risky if one blows out while you are driving?

<comment><USER44> The article says it has 2 gyros. In the test run one wasn't working so they had to test it on just one, and it seemed to work.

<comment><USER18> I thought it needed both to stay upright, like one on each side that would cancel each other out, my mistake.

<comment><USER45> It'll be very bad at going around corners with one gone though (which is why the journalist wasn't allowed to).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Looks not that far removed from [http://outcaststudios.com/forums/uploads/monthly_04_2011/pos...](http://outcaststudios.com/forums/uploads/monthly_04_2011/post-1606-0-56859500-1303191860.jpg) which makes me very excited.

</comment><comment><USER47> I'm sure they've considered this, but being able to tilt while cornering at speed is vital for 2-wheeled vehicles. I guess there will be some flexibility to allow the vehicle to tilt without falling over.

<comment><USER48> According to the article, the gyros will allow up to 45 degrees of tilt during turns.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I always liked the Velomobile concept.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velomobile>

</comment><comment><USER50> I may have missed something, but how does it stay upright when parked? Is there a kick-stand of some sort?

<comment><USER51> There was a brief moment in the video where they pulled a support out from under it to demo the gyro-stabilization. Clearly, the rolling prototype doesn't have a kick-stand, but I would suspect some kind of auto-deploying twin-leg kickstand would be added for production. Something that deploys when you turn the ignition off, for example, since you wouldn't want those gyros running all the time just to keep it upright in storage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> They had one of these in Maker Faire

<comment><USER53> I talked to one of the guys in the Lit tent, and I remember him saying that they were aiming for the mid teens as a price point, and that they were planning for a higher capacity vehicle that was closer to the price listed in the article. I wonder what changed in the last 10 days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why do they need gyros to balance the bike? I can do that myself.

</comment><comment><USER54> No, it isn't!

</comment><comment><USER55> To be honest, I wasn't sure about the whole gyros thing and thought that it was unneeded complexity, until I realised they were also using them for regenerative braking/power. Then I went ooooo...

If they are really smart with this, and if the gyros are up to the task, they could use them for ultra fast charging as well.

<comment><USER53> The gyroscope keeps the vehicle from falling over when stopped. Even without regenerative braking, thats pretty necessary complexity when you can't stick your foot out to add a third point of contact.

<comment><USER55> A lever attached to a hinged stand is all the necessary complexity required to stop it falling over when stopped.

<comment><USER53> Are you talking about an automatic kickstand? What if you stop next to a pothole?

<comment><USER55> I'm thinking about some metal tubing welded a bit like a splayed out capital 'H', that is the width of the bike and hinged along the middle bar of the 'H', which you can push forward with your foot and has a spring on it. Attach rubber ends if you want to make it fancy.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Example of annotated source code - <AUTHOR> I was looking over Underscore.js library and found a link on annotated source code[0]. Do you know such type of annotated source code which you recommended to read?
[0].http://underscorejs.org/docs/underscore.html
Some more links:
Backbone.js - http://backbonejs.org/docs/backbone.html jQuery 1.6 - http://robflaherty.github.io/jquery-annotated-source/ <comment><USER2> Small git clone in javascript:

[http://gitlet.maryrosecook.com/docs/gitlet.html](http://gitlet.maryrosecook.com/docs/gitlet.html)

Small Lisp interpreter in Python:

[http://khamidou.com/compilers/lisp.py/](http://khamidou.com/compilers/lisp.py/)

If you are interested in annotation formats other than side-by-side, many Jupyter or IPython notebooks would qualify, for example Peter Norvig's programming exercises:

[https://github.com/norvig/pytudes](https://github.com/norvig/pytudes)

<comment><USER3> > > [http://khamidou.com/compilers/lisp.py/](http://khamidou.com/compilers/lisp.py/)

Lacks an actual description of the grammar/semantics of the implemented language.

Should this work:

        ((lambda (foo) (+ foo 3)) 39)

or this

        (begin (define foo (lambda (a) (lambda (b) (+ a b)))) (define bar (foo 20)) (print (bar 22)))

> As you can see, it turns out its pretty easy to make your own interpreter

but of what language? If you don't document the language you are trying to implement, we don't know what code should be valid. It's especially easy to implement something if you don't say what you are trying to implement...</comment></comment>


JDateTime - Iranian (Shamsi) Date for PHP - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/sallar/jDateTime jDateTime is a PHP wrapper for DateTime class enabling developers to use Iranian date/time in their projects. <comment><USER2> You know you can do this:

        $idf = new IntlDateFormatter('fa_IR@calendar=persian',
            IntlDateFormatter::FULL,
            IntlDateFormatter::FULL,"Asia/Tehran",
            IntlDateFormatter::TRADITIONAL);

right?

PHP has a wrapper for ICU.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, but it's PHP 5 >= 5.3.0. jDateTime requires 5.2. IntlDateFormatter did not exist at the time of writing this code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Thank god they finally introduced all this classes and inheritance kerfuffle in PHP, so we can now manually handle Iranian dates by calling "toJalali" on a pseudo-singleton "jDateTime" class.

In all seriousness, I wanted to punch myself in the face when I had to instantiate a "GregorianCalendar" in Java, but the general idea has a lot of merit, even if the implementation is terrible.

</comment><comment><USER4> not to be confused with JDate.com..

<comment><USER5> That was my reaction as well. Maybe it is because I am from New York, but when I see JDateTime I did not think of Iranian time conversions.

<comment><USER6> Are you from Great Neck[0]? That would be doubly confusing....!

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Neck,_New_York>

<comment><USER5> I dont get it?

<comment><USER6> It's a joke - Great Neck has an extremely large population of Iranian Jews.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> don't know much about how Iranian dates work so I peeked inside the code to see the actual conversion.

Line 482 - $g_days_in_month = array(31, 28, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31);

Umm, what about leap years, you know the ones that have 29 days in February?

<comment><USER8> Looks as if lines 489 onwards are for detecting leap years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> upvote, you rock Sallar :)</comment>


No more cardboard boxes? 3M invents an ingenious new way to ship products - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90382264/no-more-cardboard-boxes-3m-invents-an-ingenious-new-way-to-ship-products <comment><USER2> "Compared to cardboard boxes, which can be easily recycled, that's a hassle most consumers likely won't bother with. Kent recognizes this is a problem"

Is this even true??

<comment><USER3> What part? That cardboard can be easily recycled (true), that most consumers probably won't bother with a recycling process that isn't curbside (seems likely), or that the company representative recognizes that the difficulty of recycling their product is a problem (I'll take FC's word for it)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "The roll is made out of three layers of different plastic"

So it's basically Paper vs Plastic. What is bad about the cardboard boxes that these thing replaces?

<comment><USER5> Are you asking what is bad about the cardboard, or what is bad about the box?

Nothing is wrong with the cardboard except weight. Nothing is bad about the box except for the remainder of unused space that is in almost every package (and filled with more expensive paper or inflated filler)

For a shipper, minimizing weight and wasted space is a double win. This product has nothing to do with what the consumer wants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> More plastic? We should be getting away from plastics....

<comment> m-p-3 Especially single-use..

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I find that interesting. I'm wondering how that opening actually works. Aren't the layers glued together?

Also, what about sending the item back? You'll need a new wrap.

Today, I expect products to be environment-friendly. We should not create more plastic to fill our only planet.

</comment><comment><USER8> Recyclable but probably only once into various second-generation foams and fillers. Then on to be land filler.

Lowering emissions is just a side-effect that might apply to any individual shipment but could easily be undone by the increased number of shipments enabled by lowering costs. The calculations that they haven't done yet really ought to have been done before making any environmental or economic claims, including accounting for the wisdom of replacing biodegradable and renewable paper products with another disposable application for a non-renewable resource.

</comment><comment><USER9> Doesn't a cardboard box also provide protection? Often, the box includes the product as well as packaging material. In the absence of material, doesn't the air help it a bit (ala a potato chip bag)?

</comment><comment><USER10> Aside from the plastics vs. paper issue, how do you pack these things into a shipping container or trailer? Can you imagine the logistics of every order Amazon packs being a (nearly) unique size?

</comment><comment><USER11> Interesting idea but it doesn't address the plastics problem. I can't stand those giant plastic bubble wrap envelopes amazon and others seem to love using. You can't easily reuse them and they cant be placed in plastics recycling (though they can be recycled with other plastic bags at supermarkets or recycling locations). At least I can find other uses for cardboard and have often recycled boxes for storage or as raw materials for a project.

<comment><USER12> I save 'em and re-use them on EBay sales.

I wish amazon better consolidated its shipments. Most of the time I don't care for 2 day shipping and would rather get everything together in 1 box every couple weeks.

<comment><USER13> Amazon offers to ship on your "Amazon Day", which appears to consolidate all your weekly deliveries on a day of your choice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My feeling about this? A much more polluting option, that nevertheless will be adopted because it's more convenient than card boxes. Poor Earth.

</comment><comment> david-gpu How is this better than bubble-wrap envelopes? It seems to suit the same use cases.

<comment><USER15> It's easier to trim it to size, meaning better space efficiency and less wasted packing material without having to buy a bunch of different envelope sizes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Needs a cardboard version.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, if they could replace one or more of those layers with paper (and/or use one of the various biodegradable plastics available nowadays), it'd be a universal win on pretty much every metric except maybe cost (though there's no way paper's expensive enough to make a significant difference in this case).</comment></comment>


Welfare state led to the riots in England? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2011/08/14/welfare-state-led-to-the-riots-in-england/

<comment><USER2> Why does anyone bother listening to this pontificating, clueless idiot any more ? Because he helped crash a crappy hilariously-named CMS product into the ground over a decade ago ?

I mean, I wouldn't write a blog post about the American Tea Party, for example, because I know too little of the forces of modern US politics, culture and economics giving rise to the phenomenon and would come off as a clueless idiot if I tried to do so. What makes Greenspun such an expert on the UK ?

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a pretty awful, short article with idle speculation. Why are you posting this on HN?

<comment><AUTHOR> The debate below the article is very interesting.</comment></comment>