Thousands call for Turing apology - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8226509.stm <comment><USER2> How do you apologize for something you haven't done? Governments are constituted by human beings; so who today is complicit in the persecution of Turing? Answer, no one at all. The past is the past.It happened and there's nothing we can do to change it. Use of the word apology' in this context by people not responsible for that action merely degrades the meaning of the word. By all means express regret that a previous government did such and such but don't let's call it an apology which is rather cheap if you think about it.

If this pseudo-apology-for-past-sins-by-dead-people bandwagon gets going, where's it going to stop? Will we define a year zero prior to which we will not be apologizing for what we now regard as foul behaviour by the elite who ran the country at that time? Or do we form national bureaucracies to deal with the massive inbox of accumulated misdeeds down the ages?

<comment><USER3> After reading what you wrote South Africa comes to my mind. On the one hand there are people who think that "black economic empowerment" should stop because it's causing reverse-discrimination towards young white South-Africans who were born after apartheid and therefore have nothing to do with it.

On the other hand the reverse argument is that although many young white South Africans have had nothing to do with apartheid directly, many of them are indirectly better from it - eg - the suburb/area they're raised in, the business connections they have, etc.

I don't have a concrete opinion on this, because I'm not South African. However, being an Australian, I can see how important the public apology to the indigenous Australians was.

Before the public apology was given, many (particularly older generation Australians) disagreed by your line of argument – which is that we shouldn't apologise for something done by people in the past.

It's true that the atrocities committed towards Indigenous Australians are in the past, but where the Indigenous Australians are now is a result of all that has happened to them. To these people the apology goes a lot deeper than just a symbolic gesture. It's a form of closure that begins and allows the healing process.

<comment><USER4> > n the one hand there are people who think that "black economic empowerment" > should stop because it's causing reverse-discrimination towards young white > South-Africans who were born after apartheid and therefore have nothing to > do with it.

My views on this is different and sure to be controversial, but here it goes (you are free to differ with me). Firstly, white people did not benefit from Apartheid. Taxation (of whites) during Apartheid was higher than taxation during the Mbeki era (the middle class white people actually got a lot richer during the Mbeki era).

The Apartheid experiment also cost a lot of money. All the universities (for both black and white people) were built during the apartheid era. So did the costs of setting up governments in the homelands. The apartheid government tried to "kick start" the economies near major black areas – buy for instance starting industrial zones that are free of value-added tax (a lot of those factories are empty now).

Now, the new South African government only replaced the white ruling elite with even smaller black ruling elite. For that small elite life is better in the new South Africa – but for all the other black people the living standards fell.

Here are a few good examples: Since 1995 the income inequality greatly increased – both between black and white and in the black group itself (i.e. the forming of an elite). The number of people living on less than a dollar a day increased by more than a million since the end of apartheid. Life expectancy took a nose dive and unemployment significantly increased (unemployment is 40%+). The new government did not build a single new university during the past 15 years. What is worse, they closed all the teacher and technical colleges. These colleges mainly served black people (especially in rural areas) and it led to the current severe shortage of qualified teachers. Violent crime significantly increased. The government was also not willing to provide anti-retrovirals to HIV positive people for a long time – which caused probably a million of people to die.

Here is an article that discusses some of the aspects I mentioned: <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/safr-m21.shtml>

So with all these metrics, you cannot realistically say that the Apartheid government was worse than the current government. What you can however say was that the motives for the actions were different.

Now for the apology part. Many white South African's have apologised repeatedly for Apartheid and have repeatedly been shamed for it. All of South Africa's ills are blamed on Apartheid/white people (a universal scapegoat). If you are a white person you are expected to be ashamed that you exist and take all accusations. Affirmative action have become somewhat of a joke. For example, the biggest municipality in Gauteng put a moratorium on the tendering of contracts to white owned business.

Affirmative action has become just an excellent excuse to enrich a few cronies. The biggest benefactors of BEE are black billionaires with ANC connections (e.g. Patrice Motsepe, Tokyo Sexwale, Sandi Majali, Saki Macazoma) (This is basically a black oligarchy)

My point (rant?) is that white people are politically and culturally powerless. The only sustainable solution I see(in which everyone will be happy) is for white people to leave South Africa (a million already did). Most young people I know have either short term (1-2 years) or medium term (2-5 year) plans to leave this country. I will go overseas to study early next year – I doubt that I will return after I finished.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Whether it's Alan Turing, slavery, war crimes, or anything else, the best apology to someone who is dead would be to stop doing the same things to those who are living.

<comment><USER6> Yes, but an explicit apology forces a benchmark of accountability: if the government apologized to group A for committing B, why are they still committing B to group C?

<comment><USER7> "forces"? You clearly don't have much experience with groups of monkeys.

Some of the known-successful ways to get around said "benchmark" are "this time it's different", "this government is good", "group C deserves it", and "we're not doing B".

<comment><USER8> Yeah, but it's still much worse if the official climate is that it's "acceptable". It can always be worse, you know.

<comment><USER7> > Yeah, but it's still much worse if the official climate is that it's > "acceptable".

How about some supporting evidence?

> It can always be worse, you know.

Yes, it can always be worse, but whether or not a govt has said something is wrong has no predictive power on that issue.

Every post-1900 by-govt mass murder was committed by a "we don't do those things" regime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have the very greatest respect for Alan Turing and his achievements - fantastic guy and should have got proper recognition for both his war work and his contributions to maths and the emerging science of computing.

OK - here comes the however. You can't apologise to just one person for the persecution of homosexuals during that era. What was done to Turing was disgusting and probably we should be ashamed of it as a nation but it was done to so many - any apology must be to them all.

<comment><USER10> _What was done to Turing was disgusting and probably we should be ashamed of it as a nation but it was done to so many - any apology must be to them all._

Sure, but it was hardly a phenomenon unique to the UK. That kind of treatment of homosexuals (and indeed, much worse treatments) were sanctioned by every government on Earth. In addition, just about every religion, club, society, private business and the vast majority of individuals. And not just in that era, but from the dawn of time until very recently (and continuing 'til today in many countries). So any apology needs to be by everybody.

Ah, but why just homosexuals? All sorts of other groups have been treated unfairly throughout history, often in far more horrible ways than happened to Alan Turing. And let's not forget all the individuals who were treated poorly in their lives for reasons that have nothing to do with membership of any group. So ideally, any apology should be from everybody to everybody -- nothing else would be fair.

Oh, okay, fine. On behalf of the human race, I'd like to apologize for every bad thing ever done by any now dead member of the human race to any other now dead member of the human race. Also, on behalf of the human race, I accept that apology. Can we get on with our lives now?

<comment><USER11> >That kind of treatment of homosexuals (and indeed, much

>worse treatments) were sanctioned by every government on

>Earth. In addition, just about every religion, club,

>society, private business and the vast majority of

>individuals. And not just in that era, but from the dawn

>of time until very recently

That's a very strange reading of history. There's been massive variations in the way homosexuality is treated across cultures, just go back to classical Greece and Rome for some examples. Homophobia isn't a natural instinct, it's something we learn.

I don't like historical apologies either, but I hate the implication of your argument against this one. We have to make moral judgments about history, so we can figure out how to do better. Sure it's hard and uncomfortable, but anything else is a cop-out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Led by our very own jgrahamc (<http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jgrahamc>)

<comment> a-priori Here is his blog post with the letter to the Queen.

[http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/08/letter-to-her-majesty- queen....](http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/08/letter-to-her-majesty-queen.html)

<comment><USER13> From the blog post:

> "I have the honour to be, Madam, Your Majesty's humble and obedient > subject,"

This left a very bad taste in my mouth.

<comment><USER14> I didn't feel that when writing to The Queen asking her to give someone a knighthood that it would be appropriate for me to use the following language:

"Yo, Liz. No love for AMT? Dude deserves a KCMG. Peace out, John"

<comment><USER13> You can be respectful without being subservient.

But assuming RiderOfGiraffes is right about this being nothing more than a code phrase... well, it is a funny one!

<comment><USER15> It is a standard form, adhered to for centuries when writing to a British monarch.

Protocols, especially royal protocols, have evolved to ensure that people know what is expected of them and can behave in a way so as not to cause embarrassment or offence. In some ways they really are very similar to computer protocols. They are there to help people communicate effectively without distraction. Many computer protocols seems overly verbose, and they often deal with the potential for things that can no longer happen.

So it is with social protocols. At least with computer protocols and royal protocols they are pretty explicit. Often when in a social context your really don't know how you're expected to behave, and hence become anxious, and there is the potential for huge gaffes.

Again, don't underestimate the cruft that collects over thousands of years. Most people never have to deal with it.

<comment><USER16> I have to admit that I like the idea that as an American I could walk up to President Obama, address him as "Mr. President", and then hold an intelligent conversation as fellow citizens. That's pretty cool.

<comment><USER15> I think you'd have trouble getting close enough to do that without first being vetted in some way.

Similarly, I've been introduced to the Queen (twice), addressed her as "Your Majesty" followed thereafter as "Ma'am" (to rhyme with "jam", not "arm"), and held an intelligent conversation. Again, no way that would've happened without first being vetted.

Random people in the USA don't get simply to walk up to the President, random people in the UK don't get simply to walk up to the Queen.

<comment><USER17> If you're lucky, you might catch him on the campaign trail and have a chat without being vetted. But you can write him a letter without declaring yourself his loyal and obedient subject.

I'm halfway convinced the only reason anyone still puts up with this shit is that Elizabeth in particular seems to be pretty cool. Once Prince Chuckles takes over there might be a considerable uptick in republican sentiments.

<comment><USER15> Similarly if you catch the Queen on one of her visits to schools, community centres, _etc.,_ you might very well be able to have a chat without being vetted.

It's only comparatively recently that letters, especially from a man to a woman, ceased to be signed "Your obedient servant." To this day business letters are signed "Yours faithfully". If you write that, do you really mean it? If you don't write that, you'll be considered an ignorant oik.

> _I'm halfway convinced the only reason anyone still puts up with this shit > is that Elizabeth in particular seems to be pretty cool._

Maybe, maybe not. It seems that you and most others are unaware that this is simply one miniscule example in an entire ocean of formal diplomatic and social protocol. Recently when giving a talk at one of the Livery companies in London there were similar forms to which one adhered.

In short, I think that the people who are pointing and laughing and saying it's stupid are those who don't actually know how it works and what it does. I'm not defending it or saying it's rational, I'm merely saying that looking in from the outside, you and others are speaking from a position of well- reasoned ignorance. I grew up in an informal country, similarly thinking that all this diplomatic protocol crap was an insult and a waste of time.

I was wrong.

Personally, I'm largely convinced that it's an unwillingness even to try to understand the historical and cultural reasons for this sort of "shit" that makes so many people in Europe so dismissive of so many Americans. I've lived in three different cultures and seen this in action. One culture looks at another not only with incomprehension, but an unwillingness to try to understand. The Europeans have a multitude of cultures on their doorstep, and many of them travel, so the situation isn't as bad. In the US there are cultural differences across the states, but nothing like the differences across the borders in Europe. As a consequence, it seems, people from the USA seem much less able to see, understand, and adapt to cultural differences.

Not all, of course, and perhaps not you. But think about it.

Hackers are historically reknowned for not accepting anything on faith, and thereby ensuring that while they manage to invent things no one else has thought of, they are equally constantly reinventing the wheel. That's changed a lot lately, but there is still an air of "If it's not done the way I think it should, then it's wrong." If you can accept that what someone else does actually works and has some benefits, even if you wouldn't do it like that, then you've taken a big step.

This is no longer Hacker News, but cultural differences exist in hacking, and understanding is always worth striving for.

<comment><USER17> It seems to me that Britain has quite a bit more of this type of protocol than the USA, for the simple historical reason that the USA abolished the aristocracy and established a republic while Britain never did.

The historical and cultural reasons are clear to me: Britain has an unelected, hereditary monarchy that historically held final authority and had people killed if they weren't subservient enough. (To be fair, England's experiment with republicanism was no less tyrannical.) Over time, more and more checks grew against royal authority until eventually they grew powerless in reality. There even seem to be a few practical benefits from having the same titular head of state for decades, since most sources agree that the Queen provides intelligent and thoughtful advice to her Prime Ministers. It's a role that most parliamentary republics have replicated, albeit in an elected role.

But there was a time when addressing a monarch by the phrase "I have the honour to be, Madam, Your Majesty's humble and obedient subject" _actually meant what it sounds like_. In practical terms, maybe royal protocol isn't a real problem. Maybe people tend to create their own royalties and aristocracies without the presence of a real one. But no, I wouldn't do it like that, though I understand and appreciate that it seems to work for Britain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is one of those things that sound well-meaning, but rubs me the wrong way.

Each person has to live in the time they are in -- and looking back from each age to the previous one, we've always thought the old ways were barbaric.

This means that _everybody_ in those ages did things we think are awful: persecution of gays, slavery, infant selection, serfdom, Jim Crow Laws -- the list goes on and on and on.

Going back and applying our current morality to 50 years ago is silly. The people this happened to are dead. The people who did this are either dead or very, very old. Many thousands or millions more suffered the same fate and received no such modern recognition. It serves no purpose other that to pat ourselves on the back at how much more morally superior we are today. And in fifty more years? Guess what? They'll be feeling the same way about us.

We live in a world where people are still kept as slaves. Where millions starve. Where governments systematically kill large groups of people who they don't like. I'm thinking we should take real, live action against current evils in the world instead of symbolic action against evils we had no part in and did not observe.

EDIT: I'm going to rant a bit more here, because I think we've grown this generation of people who think that all of history has to fit inside of their modern mind, i.e. that history is some kind of morality play made for current moral standards. It's not. It's a complicated dance of personalities and forces that has to be observed in it's own way, by it's own lights. To retroactively expect history to fit into some kind of conception of what you think it _ought_ to be denies all those people their humanity. </rant>

<comment><USER19> Your thinking seems self-contradictory to me. On the one hand, you seem to acknowledge the existence of evil in some objective sense, saying that such evil is rampant in the present time, yet you rule out the use of objective morality to evaluate our past actions. Do I have that right?

If so, then I think you'll find that you have little in common with most commenters here. If you reject the premise that Britain's treatment of Turing was objectively wrong, then the rest of debate will be unfruitful.

<comment><USER18> You're asking me about the existence of ultimate truth. That's a little above my pay grade (although it doesn't stop lots of folks from attempting it!)

I'd rather put it like this: according to the best I know, Turing was treated unfairly. I do not believe it is moral to treat somebody this way. (Morals, to me, are inherently personal)

Looking at my own life, I find things that I feel are immoral to me yet I allow them to happen anyway: modern slavery, the narcotizing of our youth with technology, or genocide.

When I see things in the past that I find reprehensible or immoral, the interesting question to me is: how did moral and ethical people at time feel about this? Why was it allowed? It seems that understanding these people for who they were -- warts in all -- is to respect them and try to understand them.

The moment I step back and start applying my values _totally_ to another age, I stop individualizing the people who lived there. They become puppets or cartoons for me to lionize or demonize depending on my personal values.

Take Jefferson and slavery. Jefferson is one of my heroes -- he lived very close to my house, and I admire his thoughts and works. He was the brilliant author of the DOI, and more importantly, the Virginia Declaration of Human Rights.

Yet at the same time he allowed slavery -- kept slaves, in fact. There's even proof that he sired children by his slaves. What to make of that? Was he a genius? An evil slave-holder?

The truth is that he was _person_ , who lived in his times and did the best he could. He knew slavery had to go yet couldn't figure out for the life of him how things would change eventually. He once compared slavery to holding a rabid wolf by the ears: you don't dare hold on to him, but you don't dare let him go, either.

Looking at these conflicts in people is how we identify and learn from what happened. It gives history depth, and it give us a little humility.

Looking back through history, and applying just a little bit of that humility, it seems totally obvious to me that a hundred years from now people are going to be doing the same to our generation. And I don't like it. The things I've done that are immoral I did for what I thought to be good reasons, likewise these folks with Turing. The people of this age, both good and bad, deserve our respect because _that's the way we want to be treated by future generations_.

It's not a matter of being right or wrong. It's a matter of all of us being _human_ , and respecting each other for it.

<comment><USER19> So are you the kind of person who says we shouldn't try to apply objective moral/ethical standards to other cultures in the present age? I submit that there's a much greater cultural distance from modern England to modern Pashtun Afghanistan than to England of fifty years ago. Would you say that we should withhold judgement when an Afghan woman is beaten or murdered for leaving her house alone?

You say that Jefferson was "doing his best". I think you chose Jefferson to make such a statement as easy as possible for yourself. I don't believe that the people most responsible for Turing's fate were "doing their best". I think they knew they were doing something wrong. I think that the Taliban know that blowing up girls' schools (and the girls) is wrong.

This is why I say you lack a common moral foundation with supporter of an official apology to Turing. I say that it's wrong, always and everywhere, for a man to be hounded to suicide for his sexual orientation. If we can't have any kind of objective foundation, what hope do we have of stopping this from happening in the future? (that's largely a rhetorical question; I'm well aware that there have been two millennia of debate over absolute ethics, but for me this issue is clear as day).

EDIT: Grammar-- damn this vanity.

<comment><USER20> _I think that the Taliban know that blowing up girls' schools (and the girls) is wrong._

I would totally disagree with this. Unfortunately, I think that this assumption that those who are against us "really" believe as we do and are deliberately acting in a way they know is wrong is terribly corrosive to finding solutions; it implies both that we need not sincerely explain ourselves to "the bad guys", and simultaneously, that they can be convinced to stop doing bad things if we shine a light on the things they're doing, since it's assumed that they're really feeling guilty and don't believe the things they say.

You cannot shame a person into behaving properly if they believe they are already behaving properly.

<comment><USER21> What? Are you kidding me? This may be something that we won't agree on, but I chose that extreme example for a reason. Can you honestly say, with a straight face, that you believe these people think that killing innocent schoolgirls is _good_? And I'm not talking about the ends-justify-the-means kind of good, but rather objective _good_.. Do you really think that? If so, then what exactly what are we supposed to "explain" to them, and why would you imagine that they can be reckoned with at all? Wouldn't that make them, sort of, oh I don't know... totally frickin' evil to the core? How does it benefit us to assume that about our enemies?

Besides, the evidence is against you here. When the Taliban announced last month that are now devoting themselves to protecting civilians, I can't imagine that their embrace of the PR value is completely detached from reality.

BTW - This is still nate_meurer... I can't login from my home for some reason, thus the new account.

Also BTW - Yes, I am equating the folks who hounded Turing to this death with the Taliban.

<comment><USER22> Nate, I recommend to you the work of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt. This is his TED talk: [http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_mor...](http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html)

This is an essay that describes his research on morality: <http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html>

I strongly recommend it! It changed my understanding of what morality is and what moral beliefs to expect in others, and deepened my understanding of my own moral intuitions.

The key insight that is relevant here is that educated Westerners (like me and, presumably, you) see morality as mostly about harm and fairness. But that view of morality is not so popular outside the West. When we see people doing harm to innocent girls we find it hard to believe that they think they're doing good. But other cultures are relatively more concerned with morality relating to authority/obedience, in-group/out-group treatment, and purity/disgust.

When people persecute homosexuals or let improperly-dressed girls burn[1] they're acting based on the purity/disgust aspect of morality, and probably authority/obedience too. I expect they also usually feel conflicted about it, because burning schoolgirls must register on the harm-based morality meter. I think the way to engage with fundamentalists who do this kind of thing is to emphasize the harm done, and try to undermine the concept of purity-based morality.

(Westerners also have some reckoning to do with disgust-based morality. It is hard to argue against infertile adult consensual incest using the morality of harm and fairness, but many Westerners still regard it as immoral, and find it hard to explain their moral intuitions. Similarly, Bush Administration- appointed bioethicist Leon Kass coined the term "the wisdom of repugnance"[2], using the argument against genetic engineering. I wish humans would abandon repugnance as relevant to morality.)

[1] Are we talking about this incident? <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance>

<comment><USER20> Research on morality can tell you a lot about what morals people have, but it can't tell you anything about what morals people ought to have.

I think that repugnance and disgust exist precisely because they are pretty good heuristics for things humans thrived by avoiding in general (like your example of incest), and continuing to thrive may depend on allowing your disgust to influence what you do even when you can't articulate a rational reason for it.

<comment><USER22> >Research on morality can tell you a lot about what morals people have, but it can't tell you anything about what morals people ought to have.

Yes, I recommended Haidt because the topic was whether the fundamentalists were acting according to their understanding of morality. If you're saying that research on morality doesn't yield conclusions on something like "real true morality", then I agree. But I'd add that Haidt's research helped me see inconsistencies in my morality, and in this way it's affected my view of the morality I ought to have.

I agree that repugnance can be a good heuristic for personal actions. I wish that people wouldn't impose their sense of repugnance on others, though. You know how Jews aren't allowed to mix dairy products and meat? I thought that was just an arbitrary rule until I went to Israel and talked to some Jews. They didn't just find it immoral because the Torah said so; they found the idea of a cheeseburger or a meat-topped pizza disgusting, as we might find the idea of meat ice cream disgusting. So I'm concerned that repugnance can easily get attached to arbitrary things.

More abstractly, we can view repugnance as nature's buggy hack to get us to avoid harmful things, dating from before we were as intelligent and knowledgeable as we are now. Purity-morality is just harm-morality implemented on an obsolete system. Now that we're intelligent enough to judge harm more competently than instinct (i.e. we get fewer false positives), we can and should override that judgment, when it helps us. (Trivial but real example from real life: I used to find mushrooms disgusting, just because. After Haidt got me thinking about the usefulness of repugnance, I looked up the nutritional value of mushrooms, found that mushroom-phobia was unhelpful, and decided to get over it.)

Hubris!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Signed. Bravo jgc.

You can sign it too: <http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/turing/>

<comment><USER24> Only UK citizens, expats, etc. Foreigners can't sign it.

<comment><USER10> What about Australians and other Commonwealth citizens who are nonetheless the Queen's subjects?

<comment><USER25> It's a petition to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, so Commonwealth status is unlikely to have any meaning, because he has nothing to do with the Commonwealth (except for happening to be the leader of a member country).

However, writing to the Queen in support of the knighthood would be within your rights as a citizen of a Commonwealth country, I should think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Maybe it's a little bit silly, but I do think a posthumous knighthood is in order. After all, he did crack the Enigma single-handedly (ok, with a lot of help), doing more for the Allied forces than probably any other individual. And Britain repays him by forcing him to take estrogen for a year because he had sex with some guy who robbed him? Clearly he deserves it more than anyone else.

<comment><USER17> Actually, a Polish mathematician named Marian Rejewski had the best claim of breaking Enigma "single-handedly".

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I hope I don't die and wind up a political tool.

<comment><USER14> You think I am using Alan Turing for some political end?

<comment><USER14> x[http://www.example.com/\\\>%20&<](http://www.example.com/\\\\>%20&<)?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Yeah I heard his name growing up learning CS, I had no idea the troubles he endured. A tragedy to be sure. As for all the comments regarding apologies to groups of people being impossible, I'm fairly certain I've heard some before. A certain Michal Richards comes to mind for dropping some prejudice remarks. I'm pretty sure he made a prompt apology. Just my $.02

</comment><comment><USER29> Heise.de picked it up on the 18th:

[http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Petition-verlangt- Entschuldig...](http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Petition-verlangt- Entschuldigung-fuer-die-Verfolgung-Alan-Turings--/meldung/143664)

</comment><comment><USER30> The best way to apologise would be to commemorate his work. But the government has also rejected a petition to fund Bletchley Park.

<http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20409>

</comment><comment><USER31> While it was wrong that Turing was persecuted, this feels to me a bit like trying to re-write history.

The same goes for British soldiers in WW1 who were executed for cowardice and recently pardoned.

<comment><USER29> Nonsense. These issues are to be tackled one by one.

What was done to Alan Turing and other homosexuals in that period was absolutely despicable and apology, even though much too late is a way of recognizing this.

For an encore, there is plenty of stuff done _TODAY_ to homosexuals all over the world that we would do well to recognize and to act upon.

There are only _people_ , any attempt at discriminating some subgroup is wrong.

Nobody is trying to rewrite history here, it is rare that governments will admit to errors and it takes persistence by individuals living today to 'educate' the governments of their responsibilities. Let's hope that actions like this will make people think twice before doing stupid stuff today.

People living in future times are the ultimate judges.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Unfortunately as a society we still have discrimination. Either it is against one's sexual preferences or race or color - we still have a lot of ground to cover.</comment>


The emergence of modern astronomy – a complex mosaic - <AUTHOR> https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2019/10/23/the-emergence-of-modern-astronomy-a-complex-mosaic-part-xxii/ <comment><USER2> I'd define "modern astronomy" as roughly started with the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope :( ...</comment>


How to Build a Lightweight Linux for your Low-End Laptop - <AUTHOR> http://maketecheasier.com/build-lightweight-linux-for-low-end-laptop/2011/08/31 <comment><USER2> This is nothing about building and all about ticking and unticking boxes in a graphical installer.</comment>


Apple is sharing your facial wireframe with apps - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/30/apple-is-sharing-your-face-with-apps-thats-a-new-privacy-worry/ <comment><USER4> I've been playing with the TrueDepth Camera APIs on the iPhone X. Some things I've noticed:

1) The ARKit "Face Mesh" seems to be a standard model that is scaled and skewed to fit your face (for example, it ignores glasses, still works if you put your hand in front of your face, etc). It is _not_ a 3D scan.

2) The "TrueDepth" data is not really all that granular. It seems similar to the depth map you get from the rear-facing cameras on the "plus" sized models. Here's what the sensor data spits out: [https://twitter.com/braddwyer/status/930682879977361408](https://twitter.com/braddwyer/status/930682879977361408)

3) Apple is really good at marketing. It's been shown that, even if you cover the TrueDepth camera, features that "require" it still work fine (including Animoji and the apps that I've been developing using the front-facing ARKit APIs).

3.1) The lack of Animoji and front-facing ARKit seems to be a software limitation made for business reasons rather than a hardware limitation. See: Google's Pixel 2 portrait mode photos done using a single front-facing camera that have stacked up well against the ones from the iPhone X.

4) The scary part, which is vast dystopian databases of facial fingerprints is already being done with normal photographs. The depth data is not needed.

I agree with the author that the privacy implications of all-encompassing databases could be scary. But I disagree that this has anything to do with the iPhone X or its TrueDepth camera.

<comment><USER5> > 2) The "TrueDepth" data is not really all that granular. It seems similar to > the depth map you get from the rear-facing cameras on the "plus" sized > models. Here's what the sensor data spits out: > [https://twitter.com/braddwyer/status/930682879977361408](https://twitter.com/braddwyer/status/930682879977361408)

As @braddwyer himself notes, you can probably get a _much_ better mesh integrating over time. It depends how long it takes to capture a single frame, but I imagine that's not long, so getting an order of magnitude improvement is probably quite easy.

> 4) The scary part, which is vast dystopian databases of facial fingerprints > is already being done with normal photographs. The depth data is not needed.

And yes ... after all, humans are quite capable of identifying people with high accuracy from 2D photographs. Depth maps are not required for there to be serious privacy issues with such databases.

<comment><USER4> @braddwyer is me :)

It gives you about 15 fps of depth data

<comment><USER5> Haha, cool! Hi :)

Given the small size of the laser projector, I imagine natural movement from the phone being hand-held would result in significant displacement of the projected dots over a 1s interval? Have you tried integrating the 15 frames to see what it looks like?

<comment><USER4> I haven't yet.

We submitted a game about 3 weeks ago using front-facing ARKit as its core game mechanic and it hasn't been approved by Apple yet.

I'm waiting to see if they're going to allow us to use the new technology in novel ways or not before I invest a lot more time in it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm honestly less worried about Apple than others. They've at least made some measures to prove that they are willing to go some distance to protect privacy, even losing ground to competitors in voice recognition.

Now thinking about co's like Facebook that not only has access to far more imagery of faces tied to sentiments and moments but have shown time and time again that privacy is a secondary concern AND that they're willing to use any and all that data to actively pursue vulnerable populations [1], I get quite nervous.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/01/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/01/facebook- advertising-data-insecure-teens)

<comment><AUTHOR> > I'm honestly less worried about Apple than others.

That's a pretty low bar. Yes, Apple at least gives lip service to security which other companies don't even bother to do, but Apple has had some pretty major security screwups lately (three in the last few weeks). You might be less worried about Apple than the competition, but you'd do well to be somewhat worried about them nonetheless.

<comment><USER7> Two other issues I'm worried about with iOS:

\- MAC address tracking (RTS packets thrwart MAC randomization[0], not immediately clear if WiFi is fully off[1])

\- All-or-nothing access to photos on the phone (append-only for apps that request it)

Discord in particular is bad for the photo permission, as I don't trust China's Tencent with access to all the photos on my phone (which can include lots of frequent location information!), but pasting images doesn't work in the app.

I had assumed the "Photos" permission meant "permission to prompt this dialogue" and "permission to save to Camera Roll".

[0] [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.02874v1.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.02874v1.pdf) [1] [https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208086](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT208086)

<comment><USER8> Does Tencent not have an extension that pops up in the sharing sheet for images?

<comment><USER7> Just checked again: not for Discord. No idea about other apps owned by Tencent.

It's notable Discord was developed as an American startup, and it's not clear what Tencent's involvement is. Regardless, for me it's too much access for a chat app to have in exchange for the convenince of sharing a photo from my phone.

<comment><USER9> A better solution would be for Apple to provide a decent photo picker that functions at the system level, and require a separate (special) permission to access all photos with the appropriate warning if that app needs a fancy dancy photo picker.

Why do I need to give snapchat access to all photos ever just to post from my camera roll?

<comment><USER10> It already does work like this in iOS 11. Apps can present the System photo picker to you and receive only your selected photo while having their Photos access set to "Never".

If you want to try it out install the Wire messenger (if you make the account with a web browser you don't need to provide a phone number), and try to attach a photo but deny Photo library permissions. (Here's the buttons to press: [https://imgur.com/a/gc5Iq](https://imgur.com/a/gc5Iq)). Other apps work this way on iOS 11 but this is the one that came to mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> You know how some F2P games will allow you to watch video ads in order to e.g. earn extra in-game currency, activate a point multiplier, etc?

As it stands, you can start one of these ads and then turn your phone upside down, or look away. How long until an advertising provider makes use of the attention API and makes it so that you _can 't look away?_ Seems bleak.

<comment><USER12> "15 Million Credits" from Black Mirror vibes there.

<comment><USER13> This came to mind to me, too. haha

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Clickbait headline. Apple isn't doing what the headline implies. The headline's hype also does not remotely match the contents of the article. Which leads me to discredit the article in general and look for a more reliable source on what is actually happening.

</comment><comment><USER15> Let's not jump to conclusions here based on assumptions and ignorance. What is likely being shared is a generic wireframe with pose and expression information. Not a face fingerprint as some are breathlessly calling it.

<comment><USER16> a precise wireframe could be as precise as a fingerprint... If it has a very high mesh count, it is just a high resolution 3D model of your face... much more information then what is required to face-id you

look at this model for example, it has medium amount of mesh: [http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/279553/1...](http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/279553/108981035/stock- photo-high-resolution-concept-or-conceptual-d-wireframe-human-male-head- isolated-on-black-background-as-108981035.jpg)

<comment><USER17> Not sure why this is being downed. I haven't looked into the details of this case, but the more detailed the wireframe mesh the faces are being fit to, the more possibilities there are, and the lower the likelihood of collisions between two people. Think of it as a hashmap with the number of buckets being determined by the mesh quality. At a certain point, a few collisions won't hinder apps from capitalizing on the information.

<comment><USER18> Apple is very popular among the HN crowd. Any comment critical of Apple or skeptical of their intentions will be immediately rejected by a substantial number of readers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So you mean to tell me that an app that gets camera permission can get at the things seen by the camera? Oh no!

</comment><comment><USER20> Isn't this a bit like saying that Apple is sharing your photograph with apps [that use the camera]?

</comment><comment><USER21> What's interesting is that on the previous security method - fingerprint - <USER2> data was shared with apps.

If your face is now a security feature and the data is being shared with apps, that sounds like a security leak.

If an app collects your face data, can that data be subpoenaed by a court to attempt to unlock your phone? If a court could work with an outside party to use subpoenaed face data to 3D print your face, could they try to use that to unlock your phone?

I'm satisfied with the fingerprint scanner on my phone. I don't feel like I need the change in tech. I understand if you're really concerned about security use a passcode only, but it's still true that the new face unlock is "differently secure".

<comment><USER22> The thing is, I don't think the 3D scanner really introduces that much functionality beyond what could be done with any normal front-facing camera and software. I'd bet that a few seconds of normal movement would provide enough parallax to build a decent 3D model. In fact, the Apple APIs may not even use the 3D scanner, given that Animojis apparently work with the scanner covered up (and don't work in the dark).

<comment><USER23> >the Apple APIs may not even use the 3D scanner, given that Animojis apparently work with the scanner covered up (and don't work in the dark).

Animoji uses all of the front sensors - RGB and TrueDepth.

From [https://www.imore.com/yes-animoji-uses-truedepth-camera- syst...](https://www.imore.com/yes-animoji-uses-truedepth-camera-system- iphone-x):

> the TrueDepth camera system captures a crude depth mask with the IR system > and then, in part using the Neural Engine Block on the A11 Bionic processor, > persistently tracks and matches facial movement and expressions with the RGB > camera.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The scariest part about this tech is not what _my_ phone will do with my face, but what _other people 's_ phones will do with my face. Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram were bad enough. Am I going to have to start wearing a mask in public just so I don't have my face tracked, sold to the highest bidder, and left in unsecured databases for hackers to obtain?

</comment><comment><USER25> I can appreciate the desire to limit the proliferation of permission dialogs, but this seems like a case where the implications are different enough to warrant a separate one from the camera dialog.

This has some similarities to the location permission dialog, which was updated in iOS 11 to differentiate between "allow always" and "allow while using the app." Perhaps the camera permission dialog could be updated to "allow continuous access" and "allow when taking photos."

</comment><comment><USER26> The problem in here is more or less awareness of sharing or how to prevent accidental sharing of face data. I can see sharing to some photo editing app in anonymized fashion being useful for certain things and better than say, using a flat photo from Instagram or Facebook, but sharing faces on social media is a lot more intentional than a small and hidden agree to share with app button.

I think a better solution is when app is specifically requesting face data, there is a 2-3 seconds mandatory decision time with the default option to be off and prompt this decision in a different UI from the classic permission request dialogue. In this way the user knows the request is different And is given time to actually decide before accidentally tapping agree.

</comment><comment><USER27> This article has an image comparing iPhone X mesh resolution to other 3D depth-sensing cameras, [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/warby-parker-should- you-worry...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/warby-parker-should-you-worry- newest-app-interview-tomas-petrikaitis/)

</comment><comment><USER28> I mean, didn't they demo the wireframe masks for Snapchat during the keynote? Didn't that imply that apps can see your facial wireframe?

</comment><comment><USER29> WHaaaaat? Does Apple explain details about this? When the moment they share those data to other apps?

</comment><comment><USER30> Is it controlled by app permissions?

<comment><USER31> Yes, same as the camera record permission (NSCameraUsageDescription).

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is 100% likely to be sent to advertising companies who will 100% attempt to use it to track you near their billboards et al.

<comment><USER33> And to develop their own new "fingerprints" and "big data" bases about who "owns the eyeballs".

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Notice the deafening silence.

<comment><USER35> As I understand it, apps will have access to emotions and other abstracted info about the user, but not the "face" as a reproducible element. This will be interesting for engagement analysis.

<comment><USER36> > This will be interesting for engagement analysis.

Of course it will, which is why this is another very troubling development in phone software. It's bad enough that most (all?) interactions are logged and data mined in a modern app. Soon emotional data will be too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Time to switch to Android.

<comment><USER38> Situation is quite bad for all smartphones.

But for Android there is at least f-droid.org repository made of apps automatically compiled from the source code. I prefer using these apps. And the fact you can install what you want. In iOS you are locked into a censored AppStore and have to pay to get a certificate to run your own app.

There is also a small chance for someone to develop an Android phone with fully open software in the future. There is 0% chance to have an open iPhone.

<comment><USER39> Not 100% true. On iOS you can install your own apps from Xcode for free, you have to pay the $100/year developer fee to distribute it on the app store.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> So let me get this straight: you can unlock your iPhone with your face and Apple is giving away a free high-quality 3D scan of your face to anyone who wants it, who may or may not also own a 3D printer?

<comment><USER41> You don't have it straight. That isn't what's happening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Something alarming occurred to me: Apple _has_ to be saving all of the faces of people who come into Apple stores and do the Face ID demo. There's no reason for them not to do that, they'd be leaving good data on the table otherwise.

<comment><USER43> On the contrary, Apple explicitly would never in a million years want to do that. That's a massive liability with no upside whatsoever.

Google and Facebook and other such companies treat personal data as an asset and try to collect as much as they can.

Apple treats personal data as a liability and wants to have no more than they need to operate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> So instead of asking Apple API to authenticate a user via FaceID, apps are going to obtain this data themselves and record it forever? I remember Steve talking on stage about how Apple would always make the operating system retain control of sensitive sensors and only give the result to user-approved apps(asking for permission every time). That's all thrown out of the window now?

<comment><USER23> This is not FaceID data, nor is it a replacement for it - the data available to apps is less granular than that used by FaceID, and is designed to give app developers the ability to create things like Animoji or any other creative uses of the 3D sensor data.

>I remember Steve talking on stage about how Apple would always make the operating system retain control of sensitive sensors and only give the result to user-approved apps(asking for permission every time). That's all thrown out of the window now?

Why would you think that? Apps do request permission for this, and it can be revoked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> What is this 'facial wireframe' this Jeff Bezos owned newspaper is speaking about? Looks invented just to write this article.

<comment><USER4> It's unclear whether he's talking specifically about the ARSCNFaceGeometry[1] or the ARFrame.capturedDepthData[2] or some combination of both.

[1] [https://developer.apple.com/documentation/arkit/arscnfacegeo...](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/arkit/arscnfacegeometry)

[2] [https://developer.apple.com/documentation/arkit/arframe/2928...](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/arkit/arframe/2928208-captureddepthdata)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> The FaceID camera is infrared and can see in the dark [1].

According to the Post "Once you give it permission, an active app keeps on having access to your face until you delete it or dig into advanced settings. There's no option that says, "Just for the next five minutes.""

So a random developer can (kind of) look at us when we turn the light off. Not only that, those cameras work also in the sunlight. You can go on YouTube and search "clothes transparent to infrared". Not much, especially considering that the app is not getting a real image, but still somebody will be uncomfortable with that.

However there also legit and interesting applications for infrared cameras and they've been on sale for a long time. What's changing is the number of those cameras that are getting around.

[1] [https://www.macrumors.com/2017/09/13/how-iphone-x-face-id- wo...](https://www.macrumors.com/2017/09/13/how-iphone-x-face-id-works/)

<comment><USER47> "Once you give it permission, an active app keeps on having access to your face"

Isn't the definition of an active app, one that is open and in the foreground?

The minute the phone sleeps, or the app is put into the background, access becomes more at Apple's discretion.

I'd expect an app running in the foreground to be able to keep using the camera as long as needed..

Or is your point more: allowing once allows it every time the app opens, with no option to repeatedly prompt?

<comment><USER46> I have no direct experience of iOs but according to the post it's as you wrote. It could be an app that needs the camera once for some sensible reason, then it can use it forever when it's active even if it wouldn't need it from the point of view of the user.

<comment><USER48> Users might notice the battery penalty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Tell me again how FaceID will be "so much more secure" than TouchID - <USER3> Apple itself is sharing those 3D facial profiles with third-party vendors (and governments).

In _practice_ , fingerprint readers should still remain _significantly_ more secure than any facial recognition technology.

<comment><USER23> Apps get a coarse depth map - this _cannot_ be used to replicate your face in perfect 3D, nor can it be used to bypass FaceID.

<comment><USER50> I'm not a security expert but this seems like are giving out a coarse approximation of my username (that has no password protection). I would think it is significantly easier to break into FaceID starting with the coarse depth map than no depth map at all. But again, I could just be out of my depth on this topic and the difference isn't that big of a deal?

<comment><USER4> It's possible but I 3D printed the face mesh from their API and it didn't work to unlock Face ID on my phone.

It did a pretty good job of scanning my face though: [https://twitter.com/braddwyer/status/930594896523567104](https://twitter.com/braddwyer/status/930594896523567104)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hidden portrait 'found under the Mona Lisa', could lead to it being renamed - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/hidden-portrait-found-under-the-mona-lisa-could-lead-to-it-being-renamed-a6764341.html <comment><USER2> a BBC.com article posted earlier: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10695375](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10695375)</comment>