Overkill: Java as a first programming language (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://matthias-endler.de/2010/overkill-java-as-a-first-programming-language/ <comment><USER2> I'm on board with Java not being a great first language but I'm pretty tired of posts constantly citing ancient unidiomatic Java to prove how bad of a language it is. Their file i/o example could just as easily be

      import java.io.IOException;
      import java.nio.file.Files;
      import java.nio.file.Paths;

      public class fileIO {
        public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
          Files.copy(Paths.get("test.txt"), System.out);
        }
      }

Granted that Files utility was added in 2011. Even in 2010 there were plenty of better ways to write that example.

<comment><USER3> Nothing kills a beginner's interest more than "you need to have a class and a main method, always, and I can't explain why, just trust me, you'll understand later."

Java was my first language. No one explained any of that stuff to me. And for whatever reason I lacked the agency to go figure it out for myself although I had internet access. Probably because I assumed paying attention in class and doing my homework was enough.

<comment><USER2> I agree. I don't believe Java is a good first programming language. I'm just tired of posts bashing Java by citing code that doesn't take advantage of any of the improvements in the language since 1.4.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would partially agree with this even though Java is a great language.

I can firmly recall in my CS 101 class where they were teaching basic programming using Java, and the teacher seriously told us "just put static in all of your method declarations, don't worry about why yet otherwise you won't be able to use them in your main".

...didn't fully learn what static meant until over a year in my programming career.

<comment><USER5> It was even worse starting in C++. Almost half the code in any project was opaque black magic. What is char __and why do I need it? Why do I need `using namespace std`? Why do I need to create a Pair in order to insert into a Map?

<comment><USER6> I don't think it's worse in C++. You can make purely imperative C-like programs in C++ with essentially no boilerplate (with the exception of maybe needing io from the standard library), and build things up as they go.

<comment><USER7> While I still am a big fan of C++, I'd attest to the fact that is a worse language to teach beginners. Funnily enough, that's not so much because of the language, but because of its legacy.

I learned programming with Borland Turbo Pascal and later Delphi and have to admit I struggled with the OOP mindset at first. The according chapters of the book I used were filled with contrived examples that left me saying "I can also do this the old way!". Apart from this, I found the book to be very well written, though.

Then, I tried learning C++ (using a Book frome the same series) with Borland C++ Builder. Boy, was that a mistake. I didn't get around to understand why I had to keep using -> instead of . everywhere (before, I almost never used a pointer anywhere), the whole delete-dance was a nightmare and the Borland tooling was so filled with magical clicks that generated event handlers that I never understood how the whole thing really worked (you never got to see the whole code). Headers vs. .cpps was a similar disaster, and compiler errors could only be met with comparing your code with the example on a symbol by symbol basis[1].

So, while C++ is a nice language (far better than Java IMO), starting in it was a nightmare. The problem here is that you have to explain way too many concepts at the beginning (which still holds true even with C++17), and since APIs like the Borland GUI libraries or win32 are based on so much cruft and ages old crap, you'll never get to the point where a beginner can say "Look, I've drawn a circle!".

Honestly, if you ask me, programming courses should best just start with a modern version of Python. But even then you'll have trouble setting up on Windows and getting over the whole UI frameworks disaster.

[1]: This _kills_ experimentation. That's the _absolutely last thing_ you want to do if you're trying to teach a motivated kid how to program.

Edit:

Also note: Often, the mindset seems to be that "beginner" means someone at a university. In my opinion, that's a fallacy too. I started out when I was 11 - I'd never even had any decent english course in school back then. Think of that, and you'll start to see the flaws in starting out with some way too complicated concepts. We should get rid of the notion that a learner has to "push through" things (especially at the start!). It will be to the benefit of society.

<comment><USER8> The problem there seems to be that you were learning an IDE/Gui builder and c++ at the same time. I still think I language that exposes pointers directly (c, c++, others?) are far better than something like python. Pointers force you to understand memory, allocations, the heap and stack, etc. There are way too many professional programmers that don't understand them.

<comment><USER7>
      The problem there seems to be that you were learning an IDE/Gui builder and c++ at the same time.

Even from a modern persective, I'd disagree with that. Yes, the IDE was a pain point, but it existed because the alternative is _much worse_. You don't want to start out explaining Makefiles to anyone (even if you start with VS you'll be spending an hour setting up instead of programming).

      Pointers force you to understand memory, allocations, the heap and stack, etc.

Yeah, and we'll both agree that this is crucial knowledge for any _professional_ programmer. But if you're _starting out_ (we're talking _first language_ here), it's in the way. You don't even know what a loop is yet. You're at least _years_ away from professional.

Also, not everyone who programs wants to become a software developer. Sysadmins don't need pointers, but a readable alternative to shell scripts is nice (I know such people, _they exist_ ). A journalist who wants to make a flashy chart on the internet doesn't need to know pointers. A biologist also doesn't - but (s)he can certainly benefit from programming. Have you seen what Jupyter can be used for?

Edit:

As a side note, I also see much value in starting with a more functional language than C++.

Lexical scope really affects your thinking. If you can get to that at the end of the first course, you'll have taught something _tremendously_ useful. I've been working at a local university of applied sciences until last year, and you really don't want to know how many students there struggle with a C++ lambda expression.

Again, to reiterate: I'm a fan of C++. I still cringe at most other imperative languages. But I see its weaknesses (especially in teaching).

<comment><USER8> > Also, not everyone who programs wants to become a software developer. > Sysadmins don't need pointers, but a readable alternative to shell scripts > is nice (I know such people, they exist). A journalist who wants to make a > flashy chart on the internet doesn't need to know pointers. A biologist also > doesn't - but (s)he can certainly benefit from programming. Have you seen > what Jupyter can be used for?

In context, this is about CS classes, while the others might do some programming they shouldn't need to do computer science. Also, although being easier, is jupyter doing anything not being done in emacs years ago?

>You don't want to start out explaining Makefiles to anyone (even if you start with VS you'll be spending an hour setting up instead of programming)

To anyone on the path of becoming a professional programmer, yes, it's worth a few minutes to write a trivial makefile. It's worth teaching how to compile from the command line and how to batch those commands with a DSL is really simple. Again, there are way to many programmers who have no idea what their IDE is doing, which really isn't that much.

> Yeah, and we'll both agree that this is crucial knowledge for any > professional programmer. But if you're starting out, it's in the way. You > don't even know what a loop is yet. You're at least years away from > professional.

c/c++ don't force this straight away though, you can easily do for loops before you begin managing memory. In any language memory should be understood before arrays are.

<comment><USER7> > Also, although being easier, is jupyter doing anything not being done in > emacs years ago?

While I already think it's worthwhile that you can sidestep emacs' setup and learning curve for uninterested students, you might be interested in how it is already used for collaboration and teaching.

One list of examples might be this:

[https://github.com/jupyter/jupyter/wiki/A-gallery-of- interes...](https://github.com/jupyter/jupyter/wiki/A-gallery-of-interesting- Jupyter-Notebooks)

If you're teaching math or physics to a bunch of students who know Python and SciPy, I would assume Jupyter notebooks are an amazing way to distribute course material.

<comment><USER8> Clicking on a few random ones seemed to be broken in the web view, which doesn't bode well ;)

I'm sold on the idea though. 20 years ago all our math books came with basic programs in each section, I can't help but think maths and physics would have been much more fun if we'd been able to run them or had something like jupyter. I've been told textbooks don't come with this any more, which seems like a shame now that computing devices are so ubiquitous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What's the point in hiding the fundamentals of OOP, rather than starting with them very quickly? You can't get very far before you're calling methods on the strings you're printing.

I'm genuinely curious, I sat through an intro to programming & follow-up course in PHP and that line of thinking seemed to confuse the students. They weren't sure of what a function was even though they were using functions! The professor never got around to explaining OO or any fundamentals.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not about hiding OOP, it's about being overwhelmed with too many new concepts at the same time. Put yourself in the shoes of a beginner: the runtime, the IDE, the language keywords,... everything is new to them. Once you know your way around simple functions you can start adding another layer of abstraction. But slowly. Maybe Ruby would be an easier start for OOP than Java.

<comment><USER10> Just my opinion, but it seems that starting off all at once with the language runtime, "Hello World", an IDE, and language keywords will cause more confusion than a few extra lines of code.

Java was the first language used when I was in school, and nobody had a problem with the "Hello World" boilerplate. The professor took about 2 minutes explaining it, told us we'd cover it later in the course (and we did), and then we jumped into the main function.

A bad teacher can teach any language poorly.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, the class was something like, "Data Structures in Java," and the main focus of the class was introducing data structures, with Java tacked on because it was popular at the time (right around y2k) and it made grading easier to have everything in the same language. After that, I don't recall there being any classes explicitly about learning particular language. There was an "Advanced Java" class, but it was an elective showing how to create GUIs and a (brief) intro to things like Java Server Pages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> He's deliberately made the java example of file input too busy, it's poorly written. And added multiple exception handling to make it longer than it needs to be (in its context).

I started in BASIC as a kid. The barrier to entry was minimal and fun for a few hundred lines of code.

To manage the complexities of a large code base, you need to have supports and infrastructure and information hiding to structure it neatly. That adds extra code, but contains it in a way to makes sense of it all.

<comment><USER12> _> He's deliberately made the java example of file input too busy, it's poorly written._

Do you have evidence to judge the intention of the author?

The simple truth is that good pedagogical code is hard to write in any language, but Java makes it especially hard since it makes the two most essential things, invocation and I/O, needlessly difficult. Java _also_ makes graphics (AWT and Swing) and even something as simple as Date/Time needlessly difficult. Just about the only thing that's really outstanding in the standard library are the Collection classes (arguably util.concurrent is good too, but a) concurrency isn't for beginners and b) concurrency requires better language and runtime constraints, like those provided by Clojure or Erlang).

Java was invented for embedded devices and was supposed to be C without pointers that could run anywhere. Not quite sure how it ended up as an Enterprise Server platform. marketing, I guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Logo[0] was my first programming language on an Apple IIe. I was in 2nd grade and I loved it. You had subroutines, but that's it. Essentially all state was visible (although you could do increasingly more magical-seeming things the more state you hid - a truism that has held since then). It was a lovely way to see the thread of execution.

What an amazing experience to read Papert's[1] Mind Storms[2] as an adult to understand the profound thinking behind Logo.

Why not teach Logo as the first programming language?

0\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_(programming_language)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_\(programming_language\))

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Papert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Papert)

2\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstorms_(book)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstorms_\(book\))

<comment><USER13> We feel the same way! That's why we re-created Apple LOGO with 3D [adding UP / DOWN / R(oll)L(eft) / R(oll)R(ight) commands] support to make it more palatable to modern audiences...

[http://octalyzer.com/downloads/](http://octalyzer.com/downloads/)

Any feedback you could give would be awesome! Thanks =)

<comment><USER14> While there is nothing wrong with adding up, down, roll, pitch, and yaw commands (I guess yaw is already provided by RT and LT) it feels like you are missing the point of LOGO when you make statements like these.

The turtle graphics are great at getting you sucked in, but the language is so much more powerful than that. Logo is a lisp and can be used to do many wonderful things in addition to turtle graphics

<comment><USER13> We are aware =) This is why we re-implemented the entire language syntax (not just turtle graphics).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> One thing to consider when picking a language for someone's first programming experience: students like the 'language du jour' \- it motivates them. I like the idea of using Basic/Pascal/Blockly/etc (and students like how easy those are) but about 3-4 weeks in they'll start to ask "Sooooo.... does anyone actually use this for real, in industry?". This tension between wanting something easy enough that students can handle it vs. wanting something that 'real' programmers use is common.

Picking a language like Java (and handing out starter files to overcome the required verbosity) is a nice way to go - it reduces the cognitive load to something they can reasonably handle AND it keeps the motivation of using a "real world language"

</comment><comment><USER16> Disagree 100% and that's because I've helped and seen many juniors who learn ruby or JavaScript first not actually understand what they're doing. More so ruby, FWIW.

Examples: in junior ruby engineer, even some mid level, the confusion between local variables and attributes causes huge amounts of confusion. I don't know how many times I've asked "why is this an instance variable?" to a response being the sound of crickets.

Things like attr_* in ruby cannot be appreciated until you know why they're there. In more verbose languages like Java you're forced to understand from the beginning. Yes, there's more to learn before you get started but once you've learned it you're capable.

Learning Java was a huge "aha!" moment for me after having spent years with ruby. I've known others who express the same.

I think developers who don't learn a language like Java first hit a very hard and tall walls at some point in their learning and advancement.

Java also is much better, IMHO, language to learn design patterns in, because there is often no shortcuts provided by syntax to "prevent" or circumvent them. Also an added bonus is that the example you're reading is likely to be in Java.

I used to think scripting languages were great for learning to program but my tune has changed as I've progressed over the last decade. I now think they inhibit learning at a certain point because they lack the rigidity needed to demonstrate more advanced techniques to the learner.

I love ruby, it's in my damn username, I just don't like it as a first language these days.

</comment><comment><USER17> I disagree. Yes, Java is verbose, but all this verbosity makes sense.

I think it is better to write more code, but be able to understand it and reason about it, than write one line and rely on all magic under the hood (having no idea how it works).

<comment><USER18> > But all this verbosity makes sense

The thing is, a person learning a first programming language doesn't understand it and cannot reason about it. They're more interested in "why do we use a for loop" and "what's an int?" and less interested in "How do these static objects work?".

But I agree with you to an extent. Eventually the hand holding has to stop, we have to take the training wheels off, and they're going to have to fall a few times. But it's easier to get back up after you've had training wheels, because you know what it feels like to ride a bike.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Or for younger programmers (pre-college) a learning oriented language like Processing where you can gently move into java, and get to do graphical and interactive programming quickly seems to be a better option. As a teen, the lack a excitement from learning to write to files and handle text input killed my initial enthusiasm for programming and had me go first into the sciences instead. Whereas, I still find it very satisfying to be able to make interactive graphics in a few lines of code in a way that text output or static webpages never will for me.

For the college level, I agree with the writer's suggestion of Python, not just for its ease of learning, but its breadth of libraries making it useful for many science and engineering courses. However, I think that for getting advanced (fun) features early on by picking and getting the right library (working) may still be a bit too much unnecessary friction to do 'fun' programming to get earlier students engaged. Learning extra tooling and library systems is 'trivial' if you code regularly, but is still a surprising amount of work when you're new to programing and gets in the way of early feedback. (I have had colleagues in the sciences hesitate at the sight of import statements, dealing with multiple libraries, and new IDE's when suggesting using something like sci-py/python over Matlab for projects, for these sorts of reasons.)

</comment><comment><USER20> The examples the author cites of having to write a great deal of code that one does not understand is the motivation for Racket's language levels [0].

However, it is not just a matter of Java having a syntax that imposes a lot of cognitive load on novices. It is about being able to talk basic programming language features independently from advanced languages features. This is independent of both syntactic and semantic complexity. Python's clean syntax, for example, masks some really complex semantics.

Neither Java and Python are poor programming languages, but their overriding design goals are to be languages that proficient programmers can be very productive in. The pervasive mistake in CS education seems to be that these languages are therefore great choices for teaching programming to non- programmers. They are almost certainly not.

I really hope that the discussion of languages for CS1 can move beyond this. There are many languages whose overriding design goal is to be phenomenal for introductory computing education. They are designed by computer science educators, and are shaped foremost by the observed successes and difficulties of actual students that are learning to program with them. They provide answers for educators beyond just a syntax and semantics; frequently, they come battle-tested textbooks and teaching materials.

[0] [https://docs.racket-lang.org/drracket/htdp- langs.html](https://docs.racket-lang.org/drracket/htdp-langs.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> This isn't a bad idea (Python not Java for a first language makes sense on a number of levels) but the example is setting up a straw-man. Why is the Java code handling exceptions when the Python code isn't? Why is the Java code reading the file line-by-line and the Python code isn't?

Further, you could easily write a simple file library in almost any language that abstracts over the difficulty of using the full file library if you're looking to ease people into programming.

All that being said, Python is a pretty good first language and there's a reasonable chance that someone who does one course in Python might be able to do simple tasks later on, which is nice. I think first languages should generally either be simple scripting languages or 'hazing' languages (i.e. something weird to put everyone on a more level playing field).

<comment><USER22> >Why is the Java code handling exceptions when the Python code isn't? Why is the Java code reading the file line-by-line and the Python code isn't?

Because you _have_ to do those things in Java. That's the entire point of this article

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> If you're going to take CS AP classes in high school, it's gonna be Java. This probably explains why a lot of people learn Java as a "first" language. (And no, not everybody started programming when they were five.)

[https://apstudent.collegeboard.org/apcourse/ap-computer- scie...](https://apstudent.collegeboard.org/apcourse/ap-computer- science-a/course-details)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Computer_Science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Computer_Science)

<comment><USER24> In Europe I'm not aware of any country offering Java classes in high-school. It's typically Python or other languages with a low barrier to entry. Maybe JS today.

Yet most good universities stick to Java for CS101, and for good reasons imho. On the other hand, non-CS majors at my school were sent right away to "useful" languages in their field (C++ at that time, I assume Python is more common nowadays).

<comment><USER25> Here I'm the UK visual basic is collages and universities language of choice, its out dated and not even used much in the industry.

I finished computing science degree in may last year and every single code example was in visual basic, before that in my HND and HNC both visual basic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> So we should start to teach ppl to fly planes by first teaching them to ride a bike? Riding a bike will not help you fly. Programming isn't hard but if "public static..." melts your mind, software may not be for you.

Also the classic file read idiom (the C one) teaches some of the most basic things _every_ programmer should undertand:

. file encoding (which you ignore)

. buffer sizes

. error handling (likely 80-90% of production code)

Your python example ignores these basic instructive points. Why is there no "String str=String.read(file)"? Because it's seldom useful in production (see points above).

</comment><comment><USER27> I disagree with this. The second course most [software] engineering students at my university are exposed to, after basic MATLAB and C programming, is 'Object Oriented Design', which teaches the fundamentals of OOP using Java.

It's very useful to have a consistent mental model of classes, methods, variable lifetimes, etc. early on.

Of course, if you're teaching yourself to program (or recommending a language for self-teaching) then Java probably isn't the way to go. However, with a competent teacher, fundamental Java knowledge can be invaluable.

</comment><comment><USER28> Currently learning Java in AP Computer Science in highschool.

I have past experience with Java/C/programming, so it's not too difficult, but a lot of my classmates struggle due to the complexity of Java. Thankfully, the AP test is mostly logic focused, but the amount of time we spend going over Java is less time we can talk about problem solving. (And the amount of time we go over topics like what "static" means is substantial)

</comment><comment><USER29> Seems like if you did spend the time and effort to understand all the parts of the Java example, you'd be well on your way to being a coding badass. But it's important for someone forming their first impressions to be able to have a quick turnaround from having an idea, to telling the computer to do something, to having the computer do it. That's the part that gets 'em hooked!

</comment><comment><USER15> I teach Java in my "Intro To Programming For NonMajors" class. I get around the problem of "lots of boilerplate code required" by giving them a file with the boilerplate code, and then have them start writing their code in main(). It works well enough (certainly as well as having them write 10 PRINT "Hello, World!") and the students are fine with it.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think the first language course should not be any single language but a language sampling course. Students learn the concept of variables, switches, loops and subroutines, then they learn how it is used in all common languages. And for homework, they are allowed to pick their favorite.

For starting programmers, language is not important, concepts are. Any specific language will skew the concept.

</comment><comment><USER31> Any easy and quick language will do.

I started with Visual Basic in high school, it was a great base and kept things interesting. Our teacher did a great job of giving us fun projects to develop and I think that was way more important than the language chosen.

</comment><comment><USER32> In my high school we learned Pascal first. OOP Pascal Second. C++ third. and C last. I am forever grateful to have learned programming in this order. It has enabled me to jump into any language and just "get things done".

</comment><comment><USER33> As someone whose university had Java as their introductory course's language, I feel morally compelled to upvote this.

</comment><comment><USER34> If you want something intended specifically for beginners, Microsoft's Small Basic is interesting.

<comment><USER35> Is great.... except the lack of support for writing your own functions. Except you can simulate it with hacks, which are confusing to kids. My son did SB at school, and the code they produced was a mess because they couldn't structure things well when they needed repeated, but slightly different things to happen, they end up copy pasting, then they have a problem and have to track down all the copy pastes, etc

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Still, JVM languages are wonderful and meet this criteria.

Groovy \--- print "Hello World"

Clojure \--- (print "Hello World")

<comment><USER37> Apache Groovy meets the one-line criteria but fails the simple syntax rules criteria. In your example, you have to explain that Groovy's println syntax above only works for certain types of arguments. If you want to print a string then

      println "Hello World"

is being translated internally to `System.out.println("Hello World")` and therefore works. But if you want to print a list then

      println [1, 2, 3]

doesn't work because it's being translated to `println.getAt([1,2,3])`. You need to put parentheses around it, writing

      println([1, 2, 3])

to achieve the same effect. Your choice of example obscures this dirty little secret about Apache Groovy. There's many other confusing rules like this in the language, e.g. `myVariable.class` returns the class of myVariable, whereas `myVariable.clazz` returns a property called clazz.

The Java example in the blog post works for all types of arguments, even if it is 5 lines long. I agree with you that Clojure meets both the one-line and simple syntax rules, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Java is my favorite language now, but its power comes with a lot of potentially confusing constructs. The sheer complexity of the syntax is bad for beginners as well.

It's harder to create program that compiles and runs, at least until you understand compiler and syntax errors well enough to avoid them.

I learned Java as my second language after Perl and I remember how horrible it was to grok all the concepts at once.

At the same time, like I said, it's my favorite language now. The syntax, constructs, and standard library are built in a very sensible way. There's nothing I can look at in Java and say "wow this really fucking sucks" which is rare among languages. C# is the only language I can think of that definitely has cleaner design.</comment>


Do you get offended when people think you are a programmer? - <AUTHOR>

Isn't it like people thinking that a novelist is literally a writer?  And might be willing to write a novel based on their ideas if they share the profits with him/her? <comment><USER2> I don't mean this as a dig, honestly I don't, but if you're walking around life getting offended by things as small as that you should probably re- evaluate some things. Getting offended by something, at its root, is just a way to make people feel bad. Either just you (if the person meant to offend you) or you and the other person (if they didn't). Either way, it causes nothing but pain.

That's ok because it's an emotion with purpose in that it drives you to act. I am offended by the conditions in many African countries so I donate to those charities. I am offended by the jokes that person is telling so I don't hang around them anymore.

But if you are getting offended at something like this, where no action can fix it, than you're just causing yourself undue pain.

</comment><comment><USER3> I get silently offended when people think I'm a computer repairman and that is what I went to school for.

<comment><USER4> And others get offended when I refute that exact same thing by saying "Nope, I'm not a computer janitor." :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hmmm....

Edsger Dijkstra described himself as a "humble programmer" in his Turing lecture ([http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD03xx/EW...](http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD03xx/EWD340.html)). Don Knuth categorizes his contributions in three groups: "As a researcher... As a university professor... And as a programmer..." (<http://www-cs- faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/bio.dvi>). Joseph Weizenbaum's New York Times obituary headline called him a "Famed Programmer" ([http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/world/europe/13weizenbaum....](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/world/europe/13weizenbaum.html)). Tony Hoare's description of his work on implementing Algol includes this: "I eventually married Jill, the other programmer who came to work on the same project" ([http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2009/3/21782-an-interview- with...](http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2009/3/21782-an-interview-with-car- hoare/fulltext) \-- ACM access required).

Maybe one day if I work very hard and am very lucky people will think I am a programmer, too.

</comment><comment><USER6> No, why would I be? I _am_ a programmer. You can call it a "developer" or words like that, but to me that sounds like title inflation.

<comment><USER7> I like coder or designer or business guy. 'Programmer' seems a bit formal. What I do is design and code and run a business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's nothing wrong with being a ghostwriter, or a session musician for that matter.

</comment><comment><USER9> I am a programmer and I want to be one. Unlike "web designer", this is the first time I've come across negative feelings to the term "programmer" and I can't really see why (if you want to insult a programmer call them a code monkey).

What title would you prefer over programmer?

<comment><USER10> Imperial code magistrate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Absolutely. If anyone ever refers to me as anything less than a ninja rockstar hacker, I never speak to them again.

</comment><comment><USER12> It sounds like you are inventing ways to put yourself above other people. There is no title that guarantees that you do good work. Ovid was a writer, Tolstoy was a writer, James Joyce was a writer, Thomas Pynchon is a writer, and none of them would be offended to be called a writer, even though there are multitudes of talentless scribblers who have never completed a novel (and many talentless scribblers who _have_ completed novels -- so I'm not sure why "novelist" is any better than "writer.")

So why should you be offended at being called a programmer? There are people ignorant enough to think that "programmer" places an upper bound on your talent and accomplishments, but there are also people ignorant enough to think that writing is an easy task that requires no talent. If you want to impress such people, allow me to suggest that you rely on your clothes and hairstyle and just be vague about what you do for a living. Such people will be even more impressed if they think you do nothing at all.

</comment><comment><USER13> Most people outside of the tech industry have no more idea of what I do other than "he works with computers." I've long since given up trying to explain it to them.

<comment><USER14> I've started telling people I'm a database administrator just to pre-emptively ward off "will you check why my computer is so slow?" questions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why would someone get offended by that? Does programmer equate to only codes for $ or something?

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases, it does.

<comment><USER14> I don't really understand why that would carry any stigma. I mean, do we hate doctors who are only in the medical field because it pays well?

<comment><USER7> Personally, yes, I do, particularly if they insist on using honorary titles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> No. Who cares, there are bigger things to worry about.

</comment><comment><USER17> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=545530>

_Sometimes "programmer" carries too strong a connotation of "code monkey". I find it best to just avoid places where this is true._

<comment><USER18> > Sometimes "programmer" carries too strong a connotation of "code monkey".

You write that like code monkey is a bad thing.

> I find it best to just avoid places where this is true.

It is good to avoid places that look down on code monkeys.

<comment><USER17> Well, sure, okay. I'm quite happy to be called a code monkey by someone who respects what we code monkeys do. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Not at all. I think about the end of The Fountainhead, when Roark's accomplishment is symbolized by the sign that says "Howard Roark: Architect," and I think about what that sign would read for me. I've never come up with anything better than Programmer - better in the sense that it conveys what I do in a way that people understand. Anyone who understands deeply enough to care about the distinction will probably dig deeper anyway.

</comment><comment><USER20> Software developer is a broad term as well. ;-)

And the last bastion of respect, the software engineer is not without its enterprise-ish feel.

Researcher seems cooler, but it's all about feeling good and self-esteem in the end. :-)

What about the designers, web designers, front-end engineers? Does it piss them off being called a programmer every now and then?

</comment><comment><USER21> You think "programmer" is bad. Try "Visual Basic Programmer" or "PHP Programmer". That kind of stigma can never be erased.

</comment><comment><USER22> As opposed to what? Developer? As a developer, I don't really see that much of a distinction, or care about it.

</comment><comment><USER23> not really. i don't tend to get offended at this by default because most people who say this type of thing just don't know any better.

i might get annoyed if someone was doing it on purpose with the intent to get under my skin or something.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not entirely their fault. There are people after all who write code for money. So it's not too much of a stretch to think they might be willing to write code if you share with them any resulting profits.

How many people would be willing to write a novel based on your ideas for money? How many would be willing to write a novel based on your ideas for a share of profits?

<comment><USER24> Enough of them that they have their own term -- ghostwriters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I call myself code simian all the time. I am beautiful no matter what you say!

</comment><comment><USER26> No.

</comment><comment><USER27> No, I am proud of it.</comment>


Ask HN: Police in your country - <AUTHOR>

I'm interested to know the general opinion of the Police force in various countries.
I am from the UK and more so than ever I feel suspicious/guilty when I see a police officer, as opposed to safe/protected.
Post your country and your opinion in the comments. <comment><USER3> When you see police/cops in India or Pakistan, the first thoughts to cross the mind are a) What excuse are they going to make to rob you b) How can you bribe/pressure them in letting you go.

<comment><USER4> Not to forget , they really are not the type of people you can go and talk freely . You can go and talk to an army officer and tell them the problems , somehow you feel connected to them but to a police officer its not the same .

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've never felt uneasy around British police officers. The Metropolitan Police were particularly helpful to me on two occasions. I'm just a somewhat frequent visitor, though. However, the British police have a rather good reputation they mostly live up to in my opinion.

Police in Germany are good as well in that respect. Mostly polite and to the point. Never needlessly aggressive.

I do feel uneasy about the police as a system though and what it's about to become. Home security (or whatever euphemistic term that's called nowadays), politicians and police representatives arguing for ever more surveillance and authoritarian measures. That's what's undermining police work in almost every Western country no matter how good and trustworthy the police in those countries actually might be.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm from France (and white, sadly it matters) so I never encounter police once in my life (literally), and I'm actually "scared" of them, I don't trust them.

If a police officer stops me, I would actually be very defensive, a police officer or a gangster stop me I would have the same kind of state of mind, nothing good can come out of it, the best outcome is nothing happens.

I was also in Cameroon for a month (still white) and boy every time I saw the police I knew I would be arrested and asked for money. Being white I knew I would be arrested every time they saw me but make no mistake, they arrests and steal everyone including their fellow citizens. Good stuff.

<comment><USER7> > (still white)

Well good to see as much as things change somethings stay the same.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Really interesting to see everyone's opinions - thank you all for taking the time to contribute.

The Independent has just published a story detailing the most trusted professions in the UK - the police rank 6th to last. [http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/these-are- the-12-most-...](http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/these-are-the-12-most- and-least-trusted-professions-in-britain--bJWXJhZKEe)

I'd like to pad out my opening comment on my experience with the police - Luckily I live in a society where corruption within the force is a lot less noticeable than some others listed, however one can easily identify when certain groups are intentionally targeted as a way to increase the statistics for policing in my country.

My experience as a young white male, living in a large city is that _most_ police officers whom I have contact with come with an undeserved air of superiority about them. This has always led me to the assumption that this is potentially a character trait not caused by the police but one that's unusually high amongst the police - perhaps shedding some light on the kind of person that grows up wanting to police/control his neighbor.

The fairy tale job of being a policeman you're told as a kid has long since disintegrated amongst my circles, a police officer is no longer a hero figure with the same stature as a Paramedic/Firefighter but somebody to be avoided/approached with caution.

</comment><comment><USER8> Australia - I feel the same for no real reason. I wonder if the US press we see on the bad cops permeates local thinking. Here I've generally had fair experiences with cops in my handful of encounters though they tend to be on the arrogant side. Twice I've had bad experiences though this is fairly first world problems E.g. Once 2 young cops stopped me leaving a car park one night as I took my time driving out. They said I must have been drinking, which I hadn't. I suggested they breathalyze me to which they said they didn't have a machine. They then properly tailgated me for the drive from the station car park to my home.

Side point but I've noticed the fire brigade attend local fetes and periodically setting up outside shopping centers with their truck to let people look about the trucks/gear and chat (mainly parents/kids). You never see this with cops. Maybe just my area. I feel it would be valuable for cops to introduce themselves to the community like this on a regular basis. Both for citizens to say hi in non-negative situations. Also so the police engage more with 'good society' while on duty and perhaps lose some of that arrogance and expecting the worst behavior.

Ive also lived in London and Norway and felt relaxed around cops there. They typically dont carry guns on them which I liked. In Norway they have firearms but leave them in the trunk of the car. I feel this is a really good compromise.

</comment><comment><USER9> I feel threatened when I see police guys nearby.

I was fined in my early twenties, because I just turned around my car where it was possible - it didn't happened on the street and police officer told me that I have violated the law. I have argued for long minutes only to give up and pay the fine.

When I checked the laws regarding this, there was no reason to fine me, but it was too late. The paragraph on my ticket was also completely bogus and the fine was already paid.

Not so many years back I was traversing the pedestrian crossing on completely calm Sunday (no car in sight). Of course there was red on the semaphore, but that would only mean spending senseless minute(s) to cross two and half meters. Officers were nearby, just waiting to fine me. What works here - <USER2> can always tell them that there's nothing to talk about, hand them your ID card and tell them that you'll be glad to visit their office once they're down with all the paperwork. Since the paperwork that needs to be done is quite obnoxious, whole thing is usually silently discarded (win).

To conclude - I don't expect anything from police. Most normal people around are reasonable and they will do whatever is needed to stop or alleviate the things that endanger someone.

Being fined because bandage from your compulsory first aid kit in the car expired week ago is just completely senseless. Why would a thinking human trust and feel safe around people who enforce such thing(s)?

This is Czech Republic, heart of Europe.

</comment><comment><USER10> Mexico - We have three several different levels of police, like many other countries. Federal, state, municipal, transit and ministerial among others (there are certainly more but this are the ones that you encounter for the most part.). The general view varies wildly between each different level.

Federal police: They are generally considered to be highly educated individuals so they have a certain amount of respect among civilians, most people feel comfortable around them and will trust them in case of an emergency.

State police: They are kind of iffy, particularly in my state you generally don't get to see ordinary state officers patrolling the city, but the state police has a famed SWAT team that is staked out at the state border 24/7 and will sometimes be seen patrolling around the city at night. Even though it has been a couple of years, they still have this terrible reputation that where ever they go something (not nice) is probably going to go down. A few years back they were always early whenever large shootout broke out, so now people are wary of them.

Municipal police: They are generally viewed as lazy uneducated people, and have a certain fame of being rude, corrupt (although, they aren't particularly corrupt), and unhelpful which is certainly warranted. Most people don't feel comfortable calling them.

Transit police: They are known for preying on the most vulnerable in an attempt to make some quick bucks, some are quite cheeky, most are rather subtle.

Ministerial police: They have a reputation of rampant corruption, and depending on where you lie on the socio-economic ladder, you are either not scared at all of them or you are absolutely terrified about having to deal with them.

YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER11> American. I used to get really nervous around police (my dad doesn't trust them, and that rubbed off on me), and I still get nervous when I'm driving with a cop behind me.

I used to be scared of police, but as I got to know a few cops and ex-cops and as I researched more statistics about police in America, I've grown to sympathize with them.

I think my attitude towards them is most similar to my attitude towards my immediate superiors at work: they could make my life hell if they wanted to, but they're generally good people.

I worry about non-LEOs that carry guns. Cops don't worry or bother me anymore. They're unpopular right now (thank you, sensationalist media), but they're generally doing a good job. I feel safe.

</comment><comment><USER12> In Canada. Ethnic looking, but it doesn't matter. Feel a little lighter than the feeling of cops in London. They're there to help, but don't waste their time or distract them. I feel safe enough to call if I were in trouble or safe enough to go to a station for official business.

Reminds me of that old saw, Heaven is where: The French are the chefs The Italians are the lovers The British are the police The Germans are the mechanics And the Swiss make everything run on time.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm in Germany, and I'm pretty OK with our police. Most officers I've met were friendly, it just happens to be their job to have to do unpopular things at times.

<comment><USER14> As a Canadian visiting Berlin, I was blown away by the way police carried themselves. At one point I was walking up to Nollendorfplatz station and I see a woman, looking heavily intoxicated and enraged, chasing around a police officer and hitting him with her purse as a handful more looked on. Where I come from (and having only traveled to the US before, where I'd been) this only ends one way... but shockingly the officers were standing around and laughing. The target of the woman's aggression was running in a circle comically as if Yakety Sax was playing in the background.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm a white male from Texas, which probably weighs into my experiences a great deal. It mostly feels like police officers want to be your friend and end the encounter with you as soon a possible unless you've done something wrong (like speeding or other small offenses) in which case they seem to act more like an angry and bothered parent. Overall it seems like they don't want to have to deal with people unless they feel like they have to.

</comment><comment><USER16> Canada - I've had only good interactions with the police, although we do have some issues (RCMP has/had some sexual harassment issues, there was a man killed by tasers a couple years back that was covered up/lied about, etc.). I wouldn't hesitate to call the police if I was in danger, and generally wouldn't worry about being treated poorly.

I am white though; I suspect if I was Native I might have different opinions on the police.

</comment><comment><USER17> Another data point from the UK:

I feel relaxed and safe when I encounter the police. Were I stopped an officer I would do my best to assist them, and to be courteous. I would be surprised if the courtesy were not returned. My interactions with the police have all been positive.

FWIW I'm white British and I live in a pretty 'typical' area, crime-wise. I accept there's a good chance I would feel differently were I a young black male living in London.

</comment><comment><USER7> American, majority of life in NYC (the worlds largest police force)

I can't stand being around them. They are arrogant, aggressive and petty. They frequently take liberties with the law to suit themselves. The NYPD has recently taken to posting dehumanizing pictures of the homeless on Twitter to shame the mayor.

"We know you didn't do it but we are arresting you anyway" \- Police officer to me

</comment><comment><USER18> American, safe/protected. I feel like the police are villified in American media, promoting paranoia over nothing. That, and to incite racial tension.

</comment><comment><USER19> Hi, interesting post.

First I wanted to say USA may be different from others in the fact that silence can't be hold against you. If police detain you, the advice I hear from lawyers is to zip it. ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGgKLgVNfAo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGgKLgVNfAo) is a great presentation featuring a former detective and a defense attorney)

In other countries, like UK - not giving an alibi in situ _can_ be used against you.

In USA - I trust the integrity of the legal system, but the police are trained to use deception - ranging from gigantic pretexts, like posing as your telephone repair man, to simple bluffs and lies. (Funny spoof: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfF8OSlGhKk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfF8OSlGhKk))

This creates a chilling effect of distrust which discourages informants. No one worth his salt can take a cop at his or her word. And I think the cumulative result that has on communities is drowned in relation to what we see with cop violence in the public eye.

Not having a line between community and police means cases can go unsolved and serious crime can go unpunished.

</comment><comment><USER20> One time at band camp a policeman confiscated my flute. And I never got it back.</comment>


Google chief: I'd disclose smart speakers before guests enter my home - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50048144 <comment><USER2> I was a huge Google Fan but this is becoming lunacy.

I understood trading some data and privacy for great search results, maps and free quality email.

But people willingly bringing always on listening devices in to their homes (beyond what smartphones are already capable of) I just can't comprehend it.

Why would people voluntarily do this in exchange for being able to ask for weather, play a playlist, add a todo and a few other parlor tricks.

I guess I value my privacy more than others and don't like the idea of entities compiling a record of my data that they can sell and market.

Imagine how some governments could use this data to limit freedoms, crack down on their opposition.

And what about the first data breech that includes transcripts or even audio of all your household conversations/activities over the past three years matched up to your email or even address?

It just sounds like we are heading down the wrong road.

<comment><USER3> What does having a Nest thermostat get you? I'm a tech dude, I build modern software, but I live in a dumb, old fashioned house. My programmable Honeywell thermostat, which has no internet connection, does a perfectly fine job of keeping my home the right temperature. My door locks use a key, and keys have great battery life, and my smoke detectors beep instead of speaking to me. What am I missing by not having internet connected stuff?

<comment><USER4> A programmable keypad is nice. I have a Z-wave one which can notify my Smarthings hub which notifies me when it's locked or unlocked.

The Nest thermostat allows me to control the heat remotely.

These two things are great for rental properties. Guests often forget to lock the door, I have records of when guests or maintenance people are coming or going, I can adjust the heat to 55 when nobody is there which saves a lot of money and more importantly I can ensure the heat is not turned off (which could cause frozen pipes) which some guests do for some reason.

Outside of a rental, these things aren't as useful. But I'd still get a programmable keypad (I've been running the Yale touchscreen ones in the mountains for years). It's very handy for friends or maintenance and with a Smartthings hub you can unlock the door remotely and give no code. Or give a code and change it later. I got the one with a key backup just in case but I haven't had the touchscreen fail yet.

I do run the Nest cameras outside and they've been nice to check snow levels, bust the spa maintenance guy for not even showing up, expose a neighbor for stealing firewood and rocks, expose guests who brought an actual bus full of people, expose another guest for filming a movie, and plenty of other things that have been helpful documentation.

It's kind of crazy how far the Nest cams pick up audio and how clear it is. So be cautious of these things because they are constantly recording and it makes it easy to scrub for footage (detects and quick links to voices, dogs barking, people, etc). I only listen to the audio when it's applicable (guests are doing something they shouldn't) but I'd imagine that some homeowners are watching and listening for fun.

<comment><USER5> It sounds like you have _short-term_ rental properties, aka unregulated hotels, or more accurately regulation-skirting residential businesses. In normal rentals, guests are called tenants, and in most places tenants have all the same privacy rights as property owners. Therefore, a landlord having access to or retaining any information about door usage or audio-video of the property would likely be illegal. Perhaps a camera pointed at the driveway and public street for security purposes, but even then only with full disclosure to the tenant. Frankly, I wouldn't rent anywhere the owner had installed his/her own cameras--if necessary for security, I'd install my own.

Of course, the same privacy rights also likely apply to short-term guests as well, but while everyone is skirting regulations, what's a bit of surveillance in addition. I mean you've basically admitted (why people can't just shut up when they break the law) that you record your guests in outside areas where they can expect privacy (sounds like the hot tub). That people make movies in places they expect privacy (shocking), and of course you don't look at any of those skinny-dipping videos _wink wink_. Funny how unregulated businesses attracting unregulated activities still like to have some way to regulate their guests--and do so likely illegally.

Yeah, I know, some airbnb guests can be jerks, abuse the crap out of your investment, I mean second-home you couldn't afford without hotel-income. But you don't deal with the bad apples by violating the rights of everyone else, at least unless you want to invite scrutiny and regulation into your activities.

<comment><USER6> >That people make movies in places they expect privacy

If they're doing unpermitted guerilla filmmaking on someone else's property, they're just as guilty of violating someone's privacy and doing unregulated business activity.

FWIW, when I lived in a house where the landlord installed security cameras there wasn't much we could do about it. The law was on their side for outside cameras and cameras in common areas (like a laundry room)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >"Gosh, I haven't thought about this before in quite this way," Osterloh said. "It's quite important for all these technologies to think about all users... we have to consider all stakeholders that might be in proximity."

How much do they not care about privacy that a chief exec with an army of lawyers and advisors "haven't thought about this before"?

<comment><USER8> All "big tech" are at it, I tried to go to "My Pictures" the other day and microsoft asked me to run my pictures through facial recognition.

They said that by consenting I was asserting I had the consent of anyone who appeared in any of my photos or might appear in future which is insane to ask of anyone, no-one can really give that third party consent.

Then when I refused they showed me a nag screen which didn't have that warning.

Then just yesterday I opened google camera and it really wanted to run face recognition on my photos. I refused.

I wanted to try the google podcasts but it was a brick because I had disabled "youtube & web activity" in google account settings. There was no way to subscribe to podcasts without web activity, the application said. And without subscribing there was nothing the app could do.

We have a company claiming that because I don't consent to have my web and youtube activity tracked that there's no way I could subscribe to a podcast that I explicitly choose to subscribe to in an application designed for subscribing to podcasts.

They don't stop trying, everyone is trying to hoover up all data, all the time.

<comment><USER9> Google has implemented this asshole design/nagware in many products to push unnecessary to me and invasive data collection or functionality I want won't be available.

For example, their maps app on iOS won't save locations for me unless I sign in an enable web history tracking. I get prompted every time I try to save a pin as well as every once in a while I'm case I change my mind.

It's a free app and it's Google's prerogative to try to get value out of it. But it's annoying to me that they purposely don't implement client tech (eg, save to app cache, device cookie not tied to individual) that would make their app better for me. And that they nag with no way to turn off forever. Their app already shows ads and makes money for them, they just want more money from the data stream.

I also worry about less savvy customers who don't understand the prompt and unwittingly opt in to data collection that exists forever. The Facebook privacy explosion of last year is an example of users who accepted terms, but didn't understand them, and got upset when data was used in ways that upset them.

<comment><USER10> I think Google Maps not saving your history as you described is an incredibly bad, frustrating experience.

FFS, my phone has gigs of RAM, why can't Google Maps remember the address I searched for ten minutes ago? One minute ago? This is 2019. It has been this bad for a decade plus. Embarrassing IMO and demonstrates true UX myopia and true UX incompetence.

<comment><USER11> Personally I switched to Apple Maps after the iOS 13 release and haven't looked back. Because it's integrated into the OS, Apple Maps can look into your messages and auto-complete addresses from that. It can also save places without you signing into an account.

The only thing I miss is google's "offline" mode. I live in Michigan, and I frequently go on trips up north into heavily wooded areas. I don't always get cell service, so being able to save map data locally is a huge benefit. I can still search for nearby gas stations or stores even if I do not have cell service.

From what I tried, there's no way to save data in Apple Maps - it assumes the device is always connected to the internet.

<comment><USER12> HERE WeGo has an offline version. [https://apps.apple.com/us/app/here-wego- city-navigation/id95...](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/here-wego-city- navigation/id955837609)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I feel like this headline is a bit misleading. If you read the actual conversation, the question posed to this Google Exec seems to be more about manners than anything else. The question reads to me as: "Do you think you should let your houseguests know that you have a camera in the house?" to which the answer is clearly yes. The way this headline is structured seems to imply that the Google Exec is warning users that they're always being watched/recorded.

Again, this is simply my interpretation of the conversation, but I feel as though it's a reasonable one. And one that was likely shared by the Google Exec in this article.

</comment><comment><USER14> A few short years ago it was incomprehensible, even in the west, to have what is essentially a permanently bugged house. Now it has been normalised to such an extent that even people who claim to be aware of privacy use Alexa et al at home in a striking display of dissonance. The general public at large has been sold such attractive shiny toys that they don't realise that the price they pay for using them is to unconsciously disabuse themselves of any notion of assuming privacy, even in your _private_ space and activities. This training has been so effective that they will actually defend these practices and claim that you're a 'tin foil hat wearer' and paranoid to be speaking up for reclaiming what was normal and natural as short as two generations back.

<comment> irq-1 People used to ask me why I don't use Facebook. I haven't been asked that in about two years.

I predict that three years from now the majority will share our views about voice and video recording.

<comment><USER15> This is such an optimistic and hopeful comment. Thanks. I hope you're right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> These comments are lunacy. He's suggesting etiquette if someone puts a Nest recording device (not a thermostat) inside their house purposefully, probably for security purposes. Security cameras have existed for decades and nothing has changed here.

<comment><USER17> Welcome to hacker news, where facts don't matter and big tech is always out to get you.

<comment><USER18> Watch this be downvoted and people post comments like "DuckDuckGo way better", "I want an offline smart speaker", "Google doesn't know technology".

<comment><USER19> These people are going to be easily outcompeted in society while they find terror in every corner and box shadows. On the Internet, this shrill outrage may pass for conversation but in real life people will walk away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm genuinely curious why only nest, alexa, google home[^1] devices get highlighted - aren't they all use the same tech as the Google App on android? Why are android phones not flagged as well?

[^1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21262521](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21262521)

<comment><USER21> I wish it were socially accepted to tell people to turn their Android device off while they are in company. I wish I could tell people that visit me to turn their device off or put it into rf and sound shielded containers.

I don't mind people using computers and their powers to ease their lives. I don't want to deny them that just because they are next to me or in my home. I just don't want them to use that power to collect and track and surveil everything at all times around them, wittingly or unwittinlgy.

<comment><USER22> I have voice-activated assistant on my droid turned off, meanwhile Siri is active on all iDevices, and everyone with a laptop at your place is a mole.

Do you expect to altogether prevent people from bringing computing devices into your home? If you are not a state target, then that is just silly. Focus your malcontent on the real bad actors, not their victims.

<comment><USER23> Actually this is interesting. Some US states require two party consent for recording. Doesn't that make a phone in your pocket illegal in those states, unless you say "I have a phone in my pocket, and it's recording."

<comment><USER22> Let's travel to such a state and find out for ourselves. We'll flip a coin on who gets to be the defendant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Having read the short article it's pretty clear that he was simply saying that if you have an indoor nest camera it would be proper etiquette to tell your guests that they are being recorded on your device. From how I read it, he wasn't saying to let your guests know that Nest/Google might be listening.

Personally I'd never have one of these devices in my house but I would appreciate it if my friends gave me a heads up if I was in their house with one.

<comment><USER25> Yes, I read it this same way. I'm not really sure that's an outrageous statement....

I thought initially that Nest meant thermostats and was shocked, but it's pretty clear he's talking about Nest Cameras.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think a device with a camera/microphone should have a physical on/off button and a LED which indicates when it's on. At least, that's how I would design it.

<comment><USER27> I'm sure any 0-day capable of eavesdropping on your phone can also disable the LED.

<comment><USER28> I'm sure that is why any device which includes such an LED insists on it being hardware not software. Even a magical 0-day is not going to break the laws of physics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Since cameras and mics are embedded in all kinds of consumer devices these days, it makes me think we need a site that recommends devices that DONT include surveillance as a "feature". Sort of a Wirecutter for privacy.

Does this exist?

<comment><USER30> well it really depends how far down the rabbit hole you want to go.

a laptop running OSS is better than a laptop running win10, but then there's usually still intel ME doing goodness knows what.

a phone running sailfish or f-droid is better than OEM android, but there's still your cellular service provider selling location data to goodness knows who.

anyway, check out the pinebook (laptop), librem 5 (phone), mycroft (voice assistant).

<comment><USER31> Yep. Two phones hacked already, could be a us-based three letter or could be something else. Can find the hacking only because of transperancy into some components of the network, but certainly that does not include my phone...

Just another ant on the ant hill, the only difference is that I was able to identify that I had compromised security (with the phone)...

I want to go all the way down the rabbit hole & can hardly wait for the lebrim 5.

"Those that would give up a little liberty for security deserve neither liberty, nor security"- my attitude is those who were spying on me can go screw themselves!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Every time an article like this comes up on HN it's the exact same concerns, the exact same HN comments, and the exact same arguments. I don't feel like the conversation has moved on significantly since Alexa came out. It makes me wonder why articles like these keep getting upvoted and commented on with the same stuff. Is this tabs vs spaces for the privacy world?

<comment><USER33> Tabs vs Spaces, Windows vs Apple (vs Linux to a smaller extent), Xbox vs PlayStation, Coke vs Pepsi, people are opinionated and it's as old as time itself (religion, nationality, us vs them).

People like agreeing with those that agree with them, and disagreeing with those who don't. Very rarely will any news on any of those topics actually progress anything, or change anyone's beliefs/opinions, but people still like trying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> FWIW, I'm living a Google-free live now, and it works very well:

\- DuckDuckGo as default search engine

\- Own domain for email, forwarded to Apple's mail

\- Apple map, Yandex map, Waze, Here WeGo for maps (depending on the country)

\- For videos, I search them in DDG with "<searchterm> !yt", then copy the links I want and download them with `youtube-dl`

\- Firefox and Safari

\- Zoho as a replacement for online docs and spreadsheets

etc.

EDIT to add: I should say that I _try_ to live Google-free...

<comment><USER35> You're likely not at all living "Google free". [https://gizmodo.com/i-cut- google-out-of-my-life-it-screwed-u...](https://gizmodo.com/i-cut-google-out- of-my-life-it-screwed-up-everything-1830565500)

<comment><USER36> This was a great article. I found the one on the author attempting to cut Amazon out of her life even more interesting:

[https://gizmodo.com/i-tried-to-block-amazon-from-my-life- it-...](https://gizmodo.com/i-tried-to-block-amazon-from-my-life-it-was- impossible-1830565336)

It's next to impossible. Maybe one day our antitrust laws (and the rest of our laws I suppose) will catch up to the world we're living in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Your layman user has an very limited concept of what privacy actually is or represents. Conceptually speaking they don't understand this data is curated, profiled, stored, analyzed, and continually built upon 24/7 from dozens of sources and companies leaving the user with little to no capability of ever erasing or controlling said data.

I've personally encountered numerous people/families who think it's the utmost importance for them and their children to know how to interface and learn with this technology as if they won't be able to survive without them in the future. What frightens me is how now these systems are able to start incorporating voice patterns, literal emotion in my voice that can be analyzed alongside any of the multitude of other data points they've already collected.

</comment><comment><USER38> The Internet of Things I Won't Buy

</comment><comment><USER39> Does two-party consent even works if it's a 3rd party doing the recording and it goes who knows where?

I'm sure this will also work just fine in Germany.

<comment><USER40> It's a good question.

I hope that the law comes down on these devices such that it only makes sense to keep and analyze all recorded data locally.

If recorded data is never the property of the corporations but of the private owner of the device, a lot of the issues with them could be defanged.

On the flip side, the value proposition for these devices may then be reduced - both for the corporations that produce them and the customers that use them.

<comment><USER41> Not really, in many places you're not allowed to record conversations you're not actively engaging in, even on private property.

<comment><USER42> Can you give an example of those places?

<comment><USER43> Germany's Criminal Code, Section 201 Violation of the Confidentiality of the Spoken Word [0]:

Punished with imprisonment up to three years or a fine, just the attempt is already punishable.

[0] [https://germanlawarchive.iuscomp.org/?p=752#201](https://germanlawarchive.iuscomp.org/?p=752#201)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Law people of HN: say you went into someone else's home, someone who owns one of these devices, and recited, aloud, your own License Agreement, from start to finish, where you state that the speech following the terms agreed by the processor of your own spoken records must follow certain hard rules etc. (i.e. your run-of-the-mill ToS language), and then just behave normally.

Imagine Google or whichever tracking corporation's server parses your speech and turns it to text. Which then gets labeled, processed, fed back into other databases, etc.

The question is: Would it become binding at any point? Would it grant you any rights, produce any liability?

Edit: added one key aspect.

</comment><comment><USER45> How is this even legal if wiretapping is illegal in many places?

<comment><USER46> I don't think there's anywhere where it's illegal to record conversations of both parties know about it.

<comment><USER47> That's the point though, if your Nest device starts automatically recording your guests and you don't warn them, could you be liable in a 2-party consent state?

But on the flip side, Google Assistant devices don't start recording unless it gets the "OK Google" keyword, so it's not like it's randomly recording everything. You specifically have to turn it on (albeit it can be turned on accidentally if it misdetects an OK Google). Is this somehow different from Nest devices?

<comment><USER48> its listening for that keyword, whose to say its not listening for others

<comment><USER49> As an EE, this is the exact point of failure I see even from tech people on this topic.

There is LITERALLY ZERO way to tell that your "Assistant" is not listening for words like Trump or Sanders then marking down in a log if they were mentioned with other words like "Fucking" or "Communist" or whatever.

No one has or realistically can do a full reverse engineer of the firmware here, you're talking about the same protections used in game consoles and smart phones.

The "research" into "is my Alexa spying on me" looks at large pattern encrypted traffic and determines they aren't always uploading. But they absolutely could be collecting metadata of what you talk about without the words themselves.

The meta data of your habits and conversations for a month would be kilobytes at most and sent in a single HTTP/MQTT message that could look a ping or keepalive or some normal traffic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I know it puts me in the minority, but I honestly do not care that much. It's obfuscation by volume.

If Google wants to hear me and my roommate argue about Red Dead Redemption online or the new Bill Burr comedy special, good luck with that.

When I worked in IT, people always used to say oh you can read my emails? Nobody wants to read about your boring-ass life.

My understanding is they are using our speech to create better speech- recognition and it shows. I have much better luck with OK Google than Siri. I willingly give up my privacy for a superior product because most of my conversations are inane.

And if I ever intend to murder anyone, I will turn off Alexa.

<comment><USER51> This is simply a "I have nothing to hide" argument, and the rebuttals to this have been done frequently and better than I can manage.

<comment><USER52> Yup, here are a number of articles on the subject

[https://leastauthority.com/blog/debunking-the-nothing-to- hid...](https://leastauthority.com/blog/debunking-the-nothing-to-hide- rhetoric/)

[https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/why-nothing- to...](https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/why-nothing-to-hide- misrepresents-online-privacy/)

[http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/surveillance-you-may-have- nothing...](http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/surveillance-you-may-have-nothing-hide)

[https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide- is-...](https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong- way-to-think-about-surveillance/)

[https://www.zdnet.com/article/privacy-is-innately-flawed- not...](https://www.zdnet.com/article/privacy-is-innately-flawed-nothing-to- hide-does-not-exist/)

[https://mashable.com/2013/06/13/julian-sanchez- nsa/](https://mashable.com/2013/06/13/julian-sanchez-nsa/)

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130613/12180423457/if- yo...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130613/12180423457/if-youve-got- nothing-to-hide-youve-actually-got-plenty-to-hide.shtml)

[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-even-law- abidi...](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-even-law-abiding- people-should-oppose-surveillance)

[https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters- Even-i...](https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even- if/127461/)

[https://uproxx.com/technology/prism-why-you-should-care- even...](https://uproxx.com/technology/prism-why-you-should-care-even-if-you- have-nothing-to-hide/)

[https://reason.com/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing- to-h...](https://reason.com/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide- crowd/)

[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_pr.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I wonder - has Google became with "no-privacy" by default ?

</comment><comment><USER54> I think the issue of smart speakers picking up a fragment of conversation is less an issue than security cameras which are designed for constant recording function. Nest sells inside the house security cameras. Regardless of whether these things are internet connected or not, recording people (eg house guests) on video without their consent is a problem.

If a Nest cam was recording to VHS tape in the closet and didn't have an internet connection at all it would still be an issue.

</comment><comment><USER55> Google could have the device say that it records conversations the moment it detects an unknown voice. Google could even ask that unknown voice for consent.

<comment><USER56> Didn't Nest want to create devices with cameras? It should just do face recognition to detect people who hasn't consented.. /s

And just like clicking "I'm under 18" on porn sites takes you to disney.com, or "continuing to use this site means you accept cookies", if they don't consent, stuff connected to Google would stop working...

"Ok Google, turn on the kitchen lights". "Operation failed with error undefined!"

<comment><USER57> What's the point of a security camera if it can't record strangers?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Whatsapp stipulates that users are responsible for ensuring that their phonebook contacts consented to having their details uploaded to facebook inc.

</comment><comment><USER23> Why would anyone come back to a home after such a warning?

Think back 20 years. Would you come back to a home after the resident switched on audio and video recorders and said "you're being recorded."

Now come back to the present, and add the word "thermostat." Does it make any difference?

<comment><USER59> The Nest thermostats don't have microphones. Houses have had security cameras long before Google existed, as have a large percentage of retail businesses, banks, gas stations, convenience stores, government offices.

<comment><USER60> I'd wager most people adjust their behavior accordingly. I would absolutely expect privacy inside a home. If a friend had cameras inside their home I'd probably even opt to meet in public, where at least there's no false sense of privacy.

<comment><USER59> I get where you are coming from. How do you feel about things like Ring doorbells, where you are on camera approaching a home. Audio is being captured of at least some conversation inside the home, assuming there will be some proximity to the front door.

<comment><USER60> In the general sense I'd say I'm ok with a ring pointed at people's own property. I don't expect privacy in their front yard, might be a bit bothered in a backyard. A neighbor pointing their camera at the street accidentally capturing my coming and going would somehow feel like a privacy breach.

Ironically I currently have 2 ring cameras setup on the outside of my house, installed by previous owner. I'm looking to replace them down the line as I don't trust Amazon with my data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I have the original Nest thermostat. I think I'm going to rip it off the wall and replace it with something that isn't front a scumbag company.

This is exactly why I don't own google phones, assistance, or home automation products. YOU ARE THE PRODUCT!

</comment><comment><USER62> A friend of mine likes to say, "The P in IoT stands for Privacy".

</comment><comment><USER63> _> > Why would people voluntarily do this in exchange for _

I live in an apartment. Having a Nest thermostat installed was _not my choice_ \-- I would not have opted for that myself, but alas, my apartment complex installed them in every apartment. I have chosen not to connect it to any network. I've heard speculation that we're not far off from having hard social-discussions about the rights of renters -- what is the relationship between tenants and landlords going to look like in regards to smart devices?

</comment><comment><USER64> Just another example of why I want to be done with Google. Between privacy concerns and the way they drop their own hardware I simply no longer trust them. Time to start migrating away...

</comment><comment><USER65> Just wanted to point out that voice control doesnt have to involve audio from peoples homes being streamed over the internet. We already have the technology to do everything client side aside from the search request itself. You can bet companies have no interest in pursuing this though. The voice control vs privacy narrative is preferable to these companies because they can pretend there are no alternatives and keep collecting.

</comment><comment><USER66> Google Home/Assistant doesn't provide much value for me anyway. Half the time it doesn't even do what I say. I'd like to stop using it, but I use it to control a variety of smart lights and smart plugs, which are extremely useful in my very old apartment.

Is there an app that can handle those and other connected devices without a Google Home or similar? Or would I have to use a different app for each individual component?

</comment><comment><USER67> Don't forget all the TV panels in your house listening in on you too. Me, I don't plug any "smart" TV into the Internet. But a lot of folks do.

I think the horse has left the barn on this kind of technology. What I hate most about it is that it's impossible for an ordinary person to understand exactly what all might be spying on them at any moment.

<comment><USER15> Sure, but TVs aren't always on like this Nest device.

<comment><USER68> This is not always true anymore. Many modern Samsung TVs (and I am sure some other popular brands) have a standby update option, which would imply it is actually "always on".

Ideally, it is only checking for the latest firmware version while you think it's off, but almost certainly it is doing other nefarious things you have zero visibility into.

<comment><USER15> > but almost certainly it is doing other nefarious things you have zero > visibility into.

I just can't get on board with that.

[https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/how-to-turn-off- smar...](https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/how-to-turn-off-smart-tv- snooping-features/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Yeah, I'm definitely selling or throwing out my nVidia shield now.

I think we should start shaming people who have these stupid "assistant" devices in their homes...

I generally turn my phone off when I'm home and keep it in a cigar box. However, it sucks because it'd still be great to actually communicate with friends / use the internet without my device having a hot mic.

</comment><comment><USER70> As this website is called _Hacker_ News, I would suggest to install rather one of the numerous IoT platform such as Home Assistant or OpenHAB, and connect one of your devices to it. A Raspberry Pi is more than enough to do the job.

</comment><comment><USER71> Url changed from [https://www.pulse.ng/bi/tech/google-exec-says-nest-owners- sh...](https://www.pulse.ng/bi/tech/google-exec-says-nest-owners-should- probably-warn-their-guests-that-their/z1e1d5n), which points to this.

</comment><comment><USER72> Is it unfeasible to pursue expansion of dual/two-party consent laws to cover this in some way?

</comment><comment><USER73> I think that's how you end up with corp. speak. Anything an exec says is going to be blown out of proportion for grabbing clicks. Next time he gets a question he's going to read his answer from a legal and PR approved script.

</comment><comment><USER74> Conveniently moving the burden of privacy awareness from the company to the consumer. Sort of like how big oil wants us all to think the climate emergency is about our choices as individuals rather than their massive horrendous enterprises.

</comment><comment><USER75> Legislation we need: "smart" devices need to come packaged with labels for people to put on their door warning guests that there is audio recording equipment inside and no expectation of privacy can be provided.

<comment><USER76> Is the distinction that it's private space? There's tons of recording equipment monitoring public roads, sidewalks, streets, inside stores, etc. In Manhattan, you're on camera way more than you're off camera.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> Also time to start asking people to leave their phones in their cars, taking them as they walk in your door, or warning them that you have your phone on as well.

Anyone who uses a voice assistant should be warning others of this at all times.

</comment><comment><USER78> Which is why I unplug my Nest from the wall socket when I get back to my apartment.

</comment><comment><USER79> Why has the original BBC article not been linked to instead? [https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50048144](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50048144)

</comment><comment><USER80> What about recordings by that radar gizmo the new pixel is fitted with? Should owners warn "guest" that their movements are recorded?

My promotion is not dependent on finding ways to monetize this data but Gait analysis is a thing.

</comment><comment><USER81> I can guarantee you I'm not letting any of that smart crap into my home. The fact people willingly hook up something that records conversations and even video of their private lives...dumbfounds me.

</comment><comment><USER82> [https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50048144](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50048144)

why wouldn't you post the original BBC article, I wonder.

</comment><comment><USER83> We already are potentially bugged everywhere via our phones.

That said, I refuse to install cameras anywhere except the outside of my house. I don't want a recording of friends coming over and talking to me.

</comment><comment><USER84> I just don't understand the value added by a smart speaker or an "AI Assistant" of any kind. It seems like so much effort for such a minute return on convenience.

</comment><comment><USER85> Darn, I just bought for nest smoke alarms - I figured that was safe from being spied on by google. Man thats super disapointing. Why do we need microphones in smoke alarms?!

</comment><comment><USER86> Dumb question, but why are people so surprised by this? Can you honestly say at this point in the game that you had no idea this was happening or that this is news to you?

<comment><USER87> One simple answer is that marketing (a.k.a. thought manipulation) works. Propaganda works. What's the advertisement/marketing spending for all these surveillance companies' products in the past 10 years? And, in comparison, what about the advertising spending for consumer awareness of privacy respect and personal information security? Combine that lopsided-ness with the general person's lack of technical/surveillance education and it's more understandable why people aren't rejecting these companies' creepy behaviour.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> For home automation usage, Voice UI doesn't need to be in the cloud. Does anybody here have any experience using Mycroft AI or other local solutions?

</comment><comment><USER89> The mobile phones and apps are already eavesdropping when it is active. Smart speakers are just add-ons to collect data 24X7.

</comment><comment><USER90> I make my guest sign agreement before they enter my property... I don't have many people visiting me anymore

</comment><comment><USER91> It is a crime in WA and some other states to record conversations without consent of all parties.

</comment><comment><USER92> Then what about digital assistants, and cellphones, and connected car computers, and...?

<comment><USER93> Seriously, most people here probably send location data to Google several times a day and have for almost a decade. We all make security tradeoffs for convenience, people high roading on this thread are no different.

The people avoiding voice assistants and smart locks probably have 50 way more vulnerable security gaps in their personal lives

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> Wonderful times when your thermostat cant work without spying on you having sex

<comment><USER95> All's good so long as you yell out "BB is great!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> Quote A: "I haven't thought about this before in quite this way"

and then

B: "Does the owner of a home need to disclose to a guest? I would and do when someone enters into my home"

If A is true, then B is a lie.

If B is true, then A is a lie.

If A is true, then Google doesn't have the smartest kids in the room running things.

</comment><comment><USER97> Maybe they can drop in Soli and have Nest warn them automatically...

</comment><comment><USER98> So Google has made it official that they're a manufacturer of spyware. All that stuff should be illegal right off the bat since it merrily spies on people who never gave their consent.

</comment><comment><USER99> I have an ordinary thermostat that doesn't need firmware, an internet connection, or to eavesdrop on my conversations. It works great!

What exactly is the advantage here?

<comment><USER100> Automatically turning HVAC systems on and off depending if the place is empty, turning it back on remotely, cycling the fan on and off to circulate air more often, removing excess humidity, using data about sunlight to adjust temps.

There must be energy savings for the utility companies to give them out for free or almost free. Although I prefer the HomeKit thermostats since I presume Apple has better privacy controls.

<comment><USER99> Don't know about other parts of the country, but where I'm at (low 80s @night, mid 90s @day), that's all false economy.

Turning it down while away for a few hours just means a struggle to get the temps back down when I return. And in places where summer is less hateful, best option is to turn it off altogether and open the windows.

To a utility company, just shaving a percent or two off consumption is a slam- dunk. Not so much out of eco-friendlyness as fear of having to add more capacity. Personally, I will gladly pay another percent or two on my power bill to not have any more SV awfulness in my house than necessary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> Or more simply not buy a nest product

</comment><comment><USER102> Make your own IoT Devices people!

</comment><comment><USER103> jUst PUT a GDPR nOtice on THE DOoR

<comment><USER104> You mean, a curtain [banner] that displays a notice, which the visitors need to move aside [close] to enter the house? ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER105> Not being funny but i have a nest and i don't remember anything i the set up about any microphone at all, also i don't remember anything about agreeing to share personal data.

I assumed it would be uploading usage and stats as nobody respects privacy but that is very different to actual recordings or images ffs.

i live in the EU so this seems a pretty clear breach of GDPR no? i would have needed individual opt in consent for each of these (i would have thought)

</comment><comment><USER106> Hahaha. Sorry, really? Your bloody thermostat requires a consent form now for visitors to your house. This madness should really stop. All these appliances with microphones phoning home your every spoken word should be burned in a large pile. Let's start over, this is not going to end well.

<comment><USER107> It's not including the thermostat, but he's specifically talking about etiquette, not legally binding EUAs with your house guests.

Think of it more as "Oh, btw, I've got cameras in the living room, kitchen, and on the back patio if that's something that bugs you."

</comment></comment><comment><USER108> No person or device has ever asked me for consent for _their_ Siris, Cortanas and Alexas. So this time and place is as good as any:

I do not consent to the audio-, image- or video recording of any "smart device" that is not my own. I ask that any such data about me that has been passively recorded be deleted.

</comment><comment><USER109> This happens to be a good example of how there are so many laws you likely break some all the time. California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations (but not with your ears and brain storage!). That means if the google phone in your pocket listens to people at a restaurant or your alexa listens to your delivery man for a second you are a criminal under California penal code.

<comment><USER22> > California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while > you record the air vibrations

One-party recording laws enable us to catch bad actors. Otherwise, you can't do things like record Rob Ford smoking crack and being a racist piece of shit while the incumbent mayor. The fact that you don't have the right to record a conversation you are participating in is _not a good thing_.

<comment><USER72> I'll tell of an actual situation that is different, but with similar elements.

Guy A arranges for presumed friend (pf) to provide transport for post surgery where benzodiazepines are administered along with local anesthetics. Guy A is still hesitant after 1st dose of benzo, so another is given and surgery proceeds. Afterwards, pf transports intoxicated guy A home, but for whatever reason, they agree to go elsewhere. Along the way, pf insists on purchasing liquor, which guy A feebly objects to. Liquor is purchased. Guy A and pf arrive at some home and drink liquor. Guy A is now drinking hard liquor on a double dose of surgical grade benzodiazepine and is concealing the effects poorly. Guy A, whose personality includes jovially natured hyperbole on occasion, is now saying abnormally odd things. Throughout this occasion, pf fails to inform guy A of recordings taking place in the car, home and on pf's phone. The following day, pf takes Guy A to retrieve vehicle from medical facility and informs guy A of his obnoxious behavior and deranged rhetoric on previous night. Guy A is a bit alarmed and skeptical, but regretfully accepts that in such a state, dumb things were said. Pf, however, does not share recordings with guy A, but does with friends, without disclosing context.

<comment><USER22> That really sucks. Unfortunately some shitty behavior might not be able to be legislated away if the alternative is severely impactful to the state of civil liberty.

We won't find a perfect law which only allows good behavior, but we can find one that catches the most bad behavior with the least impact on those with good behavior.</comment></comment></comment></comment>