A US-born NASA scientist was detained at the border until he unlocked his phone - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/12/14583124/nasa-sidd-bikkannavar-detained-cbp-phone-search-trump-travel-ban <comment><USER2> Their point about how other countries will take the US's stance as a cue is somewhat scary.

If you try and cross any border it will be relinquishing access to all accounts.

I'm assuming email also comes along with 'social media', since communication is by its definition social.

So how do you protect yourself? I think just going with "Don't have any social media" isn't a good answer because the relationship that children growing up today with the internet is almost completely different to even people 10-15 years older than them.

Someone having carte blanche access to a person's phone will find something if they want to.

Imagine you're in a few group chats, someone mentions doing some drug. And you've just entered a country where that's an instant prison sentence.

Maybe some off colour jokes about politicians? Proof to kick you out or at least detain.

I imagine we're at the cusp of something much more unsettling. The technology to reverse image search a face is available today. It's pretty easy to make you appear associated with anything, anyone, etc.

<comment><USER3> Within Europe (ps: as a European citizen) you can go anywhere with a personal identification card (no passport) and there are no border controls (when walking or driving). There isn't even a border, just a sign: welcome to $country (ps: and maybe local driving instructions). Say what you will about the EU, but this has been a great achievement. I can go through airport security between two EU countries and security will just scan my ID and take a picture in an automated booth and I'm good to go (did exactly that several times). It's like 30 seconds to pass the security gate when entering and no personal interaction.

I'm really having difficulty to understand how the United States got from the cradle of freedom (let's say after the civil war, the colonization was not so prestigious) to the capricious and homophobic entity that it is shaping up to be.

<comment><USER4> Wasn't this how the world worked up until a century ago? Anyone could walk or sail into any country, anywhere in the world, without a passport. Apparently the World Wars changed that.

<comment><USER5> a century ago one couldn't arrive to a foreign land and immediately start receiving monthly check, free housing, health and other services [savage, barbaric regimes!]. typically people arrived to a foreign country with means and purpose. why would anyone need a passport? to protect whom against whom?

<comment><USER6> wrong, at least in the case of america. This poem from 1883, this was on the St. of Liberty, which was errected in 1886 [1]. "give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses". They didn't have means. There were the people who wanted to prevent the racially inferior from coming here, like italians, before them irish, etc. We aren't that america still, in 2016. 133 years later.

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

<comment><USER5> i am not clear, which part of what i said is wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a EU citizen, I see these events from a bit different angle. I have visited US several times and the atmosphere and behaviour of both the customs officers and the TSA personnel gets more and more overlooking.

I have never went through such extended search but going across a US airport feels really uncomfortable, to the extent I haven't seen in another country (UK comes close, though). The thing is Trump only added a little bit. This is a process that has been evolving for some time already.

I wonder if anything would change if all US travellers to Europe would be given a leaflet explaining:

"As a reciprocal measure for ESTA or Visa process, you are obliged to pay $14 entry fee. Moreover, we will perform an extended search to every fifth American passport holder. During the search, we may seize your devices and ask for your passwords. Not complying may result in a detention up to 24 hours and/or denied entry."

<comment><USER8> I'm curious, can you tell me what bad experiences EU passport holders have, or fear to have, at UK airports?

<comment><USER9> Currently, when an EU citizen enters UK from the Heathrow Airport we can just scan our passports on the machine and get through. Usually there would be a nice lady to assist you if you are having trouble with the scanning.

Usually there isn't even other personnel around. I never encountered any checks or questioning.

But then again, the British tend to be very civil and I can't imagine getting a treatment similar to those we keep hearing about US borders.

I hope Brexit doesn't change this too much.

<comment><USER10> Yes, but that's inside the EU. If you were traveling between States in the US, you would only need your drivers license and there's no going through customs.

<comment><USER9> UK is different from the rest of the EU, where is pretty much the same as your example of the US. On the Schengen area there is no border controls as the physical borders don't exist and to travel in EU all you need is your national ID card if you don't want to bother with a passport.

I prefer the passport, I think you can't use the ID card on the automated UK border check.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here's the Customs and Border Patrol policy in question [0] (see page 31).

The EFF has a nice write-up on this topic [1]. It sounds like there's a "border search exemption" that bypasses the Fourth Amendment. The rationale was to ensure duties were paid and screen for "bad guys," drugs, weapons, diseased fruit, etc.

[0] [https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy...](https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy_pia_cbp_laptop.pdf)

[1] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/law-enforcement- uses-b...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/law-enforcement-uses-border- search-exception-fourth-amendment-loophole)

<comment><USER12> Here's the ACLU's page on this, with a map of the 100 mile "constitution-free zone": [https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights- governments-100-mile-b...](https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights- governments-100-mile-border-zone-map)

Note that this zone includes New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Seattle, etc, etc, and hence a really sizable portion of the US population.

<comment><USER13> Also note that that image is incomplete: international airports count as border crossings for CBP's purposes, so any city with one and the surrounding area in a 100 mile radius should be added.

Edit: About like this. Quick & dirty edit of the ACLU's .jpg, so the quality is poor: [http://imgur.com/a/DqDeQ](http://imgur.com/a/DqDeQ)

<comment><USER12> Nice. And in case it wasn't already crystal clear at this point: that means the majority of Americans _live_ in places where the government straight out claims that the Bill of Rights just doesn't fully apply.

US Census population density map by county (pdf): [http://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps- data/maps/thematic/us_p...](http://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps- data/maps/thematic/us_popdensity_2010map.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The crux of the matter is here:

More importantly, travelers are not legally required to unlock their devices, although agents can detain them for significant periods of time if they do not....

and here: The document given to Bikkannavar listed a series of consequences for failure to offer information that would allow CBP to copy the contents of the device. "I didn't really want to explore all those consequences," he says. "It mentioned detention and seizure."

It sounds like CBP is trying to circumvent the "PIN Revealing" need by basically illegally detaining Citizens until they do.

This is grounds for "Habeas Corpus" lawsuit - should a citizen really dig their heels in.

<comment><USER15> first a citizen has to be well enough connected to even get that kind of help.

second, you need to let your connections know you need the help.

third, your still going to take a severe financial and emotional beating.

so sure, its not okay that this is happening. but not everyone is in a position to standup.

<comment><USER16> Hire a lawyer with a "dead man" instruction to instigate such action if he's not informed otherwise within 48 hours. Keep money for legal fees in escrow for that purpose. Shouldn't be difficult to set up.

<comment><USER15> dude, less than 60% of people have $1,000 in their savings account. retaining a lawyer just in case is entirely out of the question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> When I was a child (in central Europe), USA was seen as a heaven where everyone would like to live - and I did too. Nowadays I'm very happy I live in a "poor", speaking by numbers, but much more free republic in the middle of the old continent.

<comment><USER7> The same here. The reputation of USA changed really a lot since the end of communism and the nineties. We really appreciated their involvement in dismantling the Iron Curtain. We were also fascinated by some western goods :-).

Nowadays, people see USA as one of the superpowers in the world who influence or intervene in other countries for their own benefit. If I had to choose, I'd still prefer to live in USA over China or Russia. But thankfully, these are not the only options.

<comment><USER18> It's worse that the US policy makers intervene other countries mainly not because of their own benefit but because of they believe they are promoting the best values in the world. It's more deceptive and often supported by naive American public. Politicians pursuing pure self interest are more detectable. Hitler won't be in power again. But those who with strong ideology will be elected by American people. Similar situation also happened in Europa. NATO bombed Libya because French supported to overthrown a regime. Now waves of refugees come to Europa because of chaos and war.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Especially with a USG-owned device, this seems like it would have been a ripe time to assert one's citizenship for entry and just let them steal the device.

The last time I traveled internationally, I purposely brought only an old laptop. To return, I zeroed the hard drive and physically removed it from the machine so the scum would have pretext to steal less of my property.

For my preparation I was rewarded with absolutely no thuggery, which is how the sheer majority of border crossings actually go. That's the insidious thing about the inverted-totalitarian threat model - these specific situations are inherently rare. If they were common, change would easily happen through democratic means. It is only through the majority of people believing that it cannot happen to them, are the injustices allowed to persist.

We really need a reboot for a modern OS model which puts cryptographic access control front and center, with support for secret splitting and the appropriate bottom-up foundation that allows for steganographic-secure machines. I can actually see this plausibly happening for proper personal computers, eventually. Unfortunately the average person's computing device has become a "cell phone" which, even ignoring the inherent pwntivity of Qualcomm integrated chips, is a software ecosystem funded primarily through commercial surveillance.

<comment><USER20> Which government agencies can detain agents of other government agencies?

<comment><USER21> An employee of an agency is not necessarily an agent.

An agent is someone who is authorized to act on behalf of someone or something ("The Agency.")

FBI Agents pass a threshold to be empowered to act with the full force of the US Government.

Most NASA employees are not NASA Agents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There are at least four _facts_ that should cause stuff like this to be discontinued immediately:

— It is not only possible to acquire electronic data _after_ crossing a checkpoint but there are _many ways of doing so_.

— There is _no possible way_ for the contents of a _phone_ to be a threat to TRANSPORTATION security, which is theoretically the only reason someone should _care_ when you're crossing a border, boarding a plane, etc.

— Even if it _were_ possible for data itself to be a threat (and it's not), there are many ways to carry data. Someone could hide the data in encrypted form, or even hide it in plain sight by being clever. Also, the information crossing a border doesn't have to be electronic at all; it could be a page in a book.

— Even if something "suspicious" is found, _that is not guilt_ and _no charges can be laid_ so _what is the point_!?

It's long past time to shut down all of these ridiculous things. There should be a very tiny list of things that border security needs to do, and it should all fit on one hand.

<comment><USER23> > — Even if something "suspicious" is found, that is not guilt and no charges > can be laid so what is the point!?

I'm not defending this highly disturbing practice, but the point is that it's a political test. If they find anything politically disturbing on the phone, they can refuse you entry.

<comment><USER24> > If they find anything politically disturbing on the phone, they can refuse > you entry.

No they can't. Refusing to allow a US citizen to (ever) re-enter the country isn't allowed. At worst they can detain you.

<comment><USER25> I am really curious: What is the reasoning to allow this to happen to US citizens?

<comment><USER24> The theory is that 4th amendment protections are _relaxed_ at the border (but they're not entirely eliminated). [0] That allows them to search your physical property and to request digital access, but it does not override the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

However, CBP does _not_ have the right to demand that you give up your passwords as a citizen. They can attempt to coerce you through detention (but if that detainment were prolonged you'd have a solid habeas corpus case).

[0] [https://www.eff.org/wp/defending-privacy-us-border-guide- tra...](https://www.eff.org/wp/defending-privacy-us-border-guide-travelers- carrying-digital-devices)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Another terrifying part of this, is due to the nature of networks, when one of your "friends" becomes compromised, your private message do too. This goes way past national security, and 7 countries.

I have former coworkers from Syria, Iran, and Iraq. They're great people, and are great programmers. I friended them on Facebook many years ago, and now when one of them is caught at a border it's not just their private messages being raided... its my own anti-trump messages.

This needs to stop here.

<comment> blubb-fish first of all stop using FB for communication

<comment><USER27> The problem is that you usually have to use what your circle uses too. Sadly, in my circle it is FB.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The former prime minister of Norway was recently detained at the border for previously having visited Iran. Think about that, prime minister of a NATO allied country. The border rules (even before Trump) are whack.

<comment><USER29> He was detained after Trump was elected, although it is true that CBP claimed the holdup was due to Obama-era rules.

<comment><USER30> > He was detained after Trump was elected.

So? The rules were in place before Trump were elected. Let see what else what other laws we can apply to this logic.

* [Equal pay occurs even] after Trump was elected, although it is true that [Equal Pay Act of 1963] was due to JFK-era rules.

* [National Parks exist] after Trump was elected, although it is true that [National Park Service Organic Act] was due to Woodrow Wilson-era rules.

Hes not the greatest guy by far, but don't blame Trump for the mistakes of previous administrations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> For all of you guys recommending using fake accounts, do remember that right before christmas, Obama administration signed in new rules[1], giving NSA leeway to share their collected data with 16 other agencies, including DHS, which CBP falls under. So you may get caught if you try to pull these shenanigans off. US agencies are no strangers to mission creep when it come's to sharing data, as seen recently in this article from Intercept on how FBI is building a national watchlist for companies that want to have realtime updates on whether their employees have committed any crimes while employed. [2]

Two quotes from the NYT article that I feel are important to have in the back of your head when you plan your fake accounts:

 _Now, other intelligence agencies will be able to search directly through raw repositories of communications intercepted by the N.S.A. and then apply such rules for "minimizing" privacy intrusions._

 _But Patrick Toomey, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the move an erosion of rules intended to protect the privacy of Americans when their messages are caught by the N.S.A.'s powerful global collection methods. He noted that domestic internet data was often routed or stored abroad, where it may get vacuumed up without court oversight._

Let's say CBP get's a tool in a couple of months that let's their border agent search up any passenger through the NSA raw data. That search may then produce your real accounts. Let's say they do this before questioning you, and you then provide them with your fake accounts, that will not look good.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets- more...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more- latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html?_r=0) [2][https://theintercept.com/2017/02/04/the-fbi-is-building-a- na...](https://theintercept.com/2017/02/04/the-fbi-is-building-a-national- watchlist-that-gives-companies-real-time-updates-on-employees/)

EDIT: Removed the part about felony, as that was blatantly wrong.

<comment><USER32> None of what you said or quoted supports your claim (that making a second account for travel is a felony).

<comment><USER31> You are of course completely right about that. I mixed up the felony for lying when trying to gain citizenship in the US. I will edit my post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I don't see what this has to do with Trump's travel restrictions, other than it coincidentally happened at the same time. If the author is trying to imply this correlation is causation, there is no evidence in the article. That being said, no American should have to have his phone searched at the border, even with the stated border exceptions to the Fourth Amendment.

<comment><USER34> I hope you realize the job of the president is to instruct these agencies on how to conduct their operations. Don't defend people (CBP employees) which are are acting immorally, and possibly illegally. The Nazis said they were "just doing their job", and that defense did not stand up at the Nuremberg trials.

Anyone who enforces orders of questionable legality is part of the problem (such as those executing these race or religion based searches).

Edit: formatting

<comment> aaron-lebo Can we not make the leap from searches at border checkpoints (a major issue in and of itself) to murdering 6 million people in every thread?

It's a valid concern but that kind of language immediately turns people off and tilts the entire discussion one way.

<comment><USER35> Civil liberties advocates have been gently coddling people's feels for years now in hopes of persuading people of the existence of a problem. Personally I don't feel like there's time for that any more.

Just last night I found that white nationalists are planning a 4 mile march from Oakland to Berkeley that's going to go right past my home in a few weeks. At their last big rally in sacramento last year, 10 people were stabbed, all by the neo-Nazi side. So I don't have the luxury of avoiding the comparison because it is _literally_ coming to my doorstep.

<comment><USER36>
      At their last big rally in sacramento last year, 10 people were stabbed, all by the neo-Nazi side.

That's not how it was reported. There was no violent contact until "black bloc" rioters armed with clubs rushed the cordon.[0] There were _two_ reported stab wounds that required a trip to hospital.

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/26/white- nation...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/26/white-nationalist- rally-stabbings-california)

<comment><USER35> You'd be better off relying on the local paper from which this article draws, since the reporter is most familiar with their own backyard. [http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article86099332.html](http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article86099332.html)

Also, while free speech means the government ( _qua_ the police) shouldn't interfere with any group's liberty to express its ideas outside of certain very narrow contexts, members of the public are under no obligation to give people with whom they disagree a respectful hearing. Nazis aren't exactly known for becoming reasonable cooperators if their enemies would only sit down and have a cup of coffee together, are they? I'm having a hard timy buying into you considering that the self-declared Nazis may be the hapless victims here.

A _really_ hard time. "Oh, I was just doing my Nazi thing, calling for the extermination of all those lesser races and social groups we disapprove of, when what should happen but some mean old anarchist got all up in my face and telling me how awful I am! I was just shaking in my jackboots so I had to stab him with this knife I just happened to bring with me." Won't someone _please_ think of the poor, helpless Nazis?

<comment><USER36> The Sacbee article _directly contradicts_ your version, stating _half_ as many stabbing versions and clearly reporting that the "anarchists" (as you put it) initiated the violence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> No, the US should not be allowed to request or demand access to a US Citizen's electronic devices for any reason whatsoever, no matter what Homeland Security says. The whole point of customs was to insure that goods were not brought into the country to avoid paying duties. The contents of an electronic device cannot be charged a duty. Anything else is beyond their authority. Of course none of this will stop a guy in a fancy uniform from demanding an illegal search anyway and making your life hell. Given the current government this will only get worse.

</comment><comment><USER38> > just over a week into the Trump Administration.

It actually started long time before Trump. [http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/3363/laptop- search...](http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/3363/laptop-searches-by- customs-uk-and-us)

</comment><comment><USER39> >"Not only is he a natural-born US citizen, but he's also enrolled in Global Entry — a program through CBP that allows individuals who have undergone background checks to have expedited entry into the country."

Incredible. The TSA and DHS is basically "theater of the absurd". Every other disturbing detail aside, this individual actually paid good money to enroll in the Global Entry program only to be detained and humiliated by this agency.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is why we need plausibily deniable encryption. Does anyone know an Android ROM, or jailbreak app that is visually indistinguishable from the lock screen, which can be unlocked to an innocuous home screen?

<comment><USER41> Blackphone has 'Spaces' which supports multiple 'phones' on the same device. I am not personally familiar with it but this looks promising and similar to what you propose.

Does Android multi-user mode work for this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Note to self - bring burner phone for dodgy countries...like the US.

<comment><USER8> A few years ago, for foreign travel, one used to buy a new SIM card at one's destination. These days, I'm thinking I might just bring my SIM and buy a new phone at my destination.

<comment><USER43> If they have access to your sim they can probably reset your passwords and possibly get TFA via SMS to most social media and email accounts....

<comment><USER8> It depends on your exact threat model, but when your attackers are state agencies you should probably be assuming that the telephone network is compromised anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Using detention as a tool to extort access from people is underhanded at best. Rifling through people's digital devices should not be acceptable.

Why doesn't Apple/Google/Microsoft/Facebook _et al._ coordinate with organizations like EFF or ACLU and throw their weight behind a campaign to stop this bullshit?

If not companies, there's still plenty of extremely wealthy individuals in SV that one would think might care.

<comment><USER45> Because none of those companies actually care about privacy? (sans maybe Apple).

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I work at a military base, I received a background check and everything, not for anything classified, but for a scientific research group stationed on a base. Now, I think I'm afraid to leave the country because I'm not white.

Here I was planning to get global entry, but it's clear it doesn't matter lick.

<comment><USER15> i don't know why skin color has anything to do with it? its a religious issue.

or worse, its a class issue in which case, all of us are pretty boned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> All the people suggesting a "duress mode" would solve this issue need to wake up.

For as long as it's not illegal to force people to open up their phones at the border, you are not under duress. In fact, the government could even warp the situation to where you'd be commiting perjury by showing a fake screen.

Unfortunately, we can't solve this problem through technology: we need to convert the broader public and fight to make the representatives we elect work for the people.

<comment><USER15> while i disagree on your point sbout duress, you are absolutely correct about this being a legislative issue, not a technology one.

<comment><USER47> Legally, duress is defined as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]".

Key word there is _unlawful_. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has upheld that searching and seizing your device at the border without suspicion or warrant is _lawful_ if done for the public interest. [0] (Insane, no?)

Now want to become a purjure? Just sign a form declaring you're giving agents access, and then dump them on a fake screen.

[0]: [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/law-enforcement- uses-b...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/law-enforcement-uses-border- search-exception-fourth-amendment-loophole)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> > More importantly, travelers are not legally required to unlock their > devices, although agents can detain them for significant periods of time if > they do not.

What kind of ridiculous technicality is that? Detainment isn't supposed to be a tool to coerce cooperation.

<comment><USER15> every government has a right to process a crime, and that takes time.

so its not unlawful until it's unlawful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Obviously appreciating that NASA has some sensitive data but just for a second also try and appreciate how would this play out for someone who works in the financial industry, where unauthorised sharing of sensitive data is not only a breach of contract with your employer/clients but a crime(insider trading) in almost all countries.

Or imagine how the people who enforce these new regulations can exploit this.

Query from the traveller at the border what their job is, if in the financial industry request that they relinquish their email find something that could tip you off and go buy stock. If they don't you lose nothing, you deport them, you do your job.

I understand that you might want to tear this apart, but keep in mind the person that requests your data will often not be the person viewing it, so you are in no position to just "Take some names" and then ensure that your data remains confidential.

This is terrifying.

<comment><USER50> > Or imagine how the people who enforce these new regulations can exploit > this.

I can imagine that perfectly: When Trump was asked about global warming he mentioned "these e-mails." "These" e-mails are the internal communication of the climate researches working at the UK University.

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

Now, the e-mails didn't contain anything problematic, but were still used against climate researches by the "deniers" who mischaracterised and took the phrases out of the context. Details are in the Wikipedia article above.

Now this NASA guy was "enrolled in Global Entry" meaning the border searchers already _knew_ he works for NASA.

NASA does climate science.

And there's real chance that the searchers have copied the whole content of his phone.

And it's imaginable that again something somewhere can be used as a big media campaign based on something taken out of the context, because _it already happened once._

With Trump really mentioning "these e-mails" I can imagine him using such a campaign as a pretext for even more unprecedented measures against climate scientists.

I can't say if this specific case is part of something like that, only that I can imagine something like that.

<comment><USER51> His area of research seems to be adaptive optics, not climate science. These areas are way apart at the lab where he works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What is the worst that can happen to a non US citizen, who is not producing the passwords they demand? Being send back immediately and all belongings seized? Or only devices they do not get the decryption passwords for? Detainment for how long? Being charged with what?

<comment><USER8> Well, the _worst_ probably involves being abducted and tortured, but I'd expect that to be only if you were at least suspected of being a particular known person of interest.

I think the worst likely case if you're just generally noncooperative is being detained for hours/days then sent back and banned from the US for life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Some tweets from @Pinboard feel like they want to go here:

This is a small point but important: don't specify people are 'US-born'; either you're a US citizen or you're not.

Emphasizing that someone was born in the US as a kind of super-citizenship plays into the hands of people you don't want to be helping.

The proper term for someone born abroad who doesn't speak English and has a brand-new US passport is: "American"

</comment><comment><USER53> Now is the time for vendors to consider implementing a duress password. Upon entering your duress password the user is presented with a fake profile, or perhaps everything could just be wiped. I'm not sure how well this would play out in the real world, but it's one of the best things protections I could imagine if you want to carry sensitive data across borders.

<comment><USER54> I really wish mobile device vendors would add support for multiple unlock modes. E.g.:

* "Me mode" that unlocks everything.

* "Kid mode" that only allows one's kid access to pre-approved apps and features.

* A "lend to a stranger to make a call" mode that is a lot like the kid mode, but it also causes the phone to start broadcasting its GPS location frequently (and refuse to turn off [though it might fake it]) in case the stranger steals it.

* An "under duress" alternate PIN that unlocks an alternate profile full of nothing but benign activity, with no indication of (or access to) the encrypted real profile. Once in this mode, the phone cannot unlock normally without a non-phone 2-factor authentication (e.g., email).

All but the last could use the normal PIN, perhaps with different "submit" buttons. I would also love to see the same thing on ATMs, where an alternate "I'm being robbed" PIN will show a fake, low balance in the account and limit withdrawal to that value.

<comment><USER55> That idea is so good. The ATM could also sound a silent alarm, just like some home alarms do. The phone could maybe even start recording all interactions and automatically submit to something like ACLU.

<comment><USER54> The silent alarm idea is excellent. Perhaps this could also trigger the machine to scan and store the serial numbers of the dispensed bills, so the bills themselves could become evidence of the crime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> This happens in Canada too, unfortunately (was in the news quite a bit not too long ago, and can be seen in action on that reality TV show about border security).

Best to wipe your phone, and not bring any sensitive documents across borders period.

<comment><USER57> Yes, you should wipe your phone, but after they have been in the back room with it for an hour it is compromised and can not be used any longer.

<comment><USER58> Right. That's another reason why you should take only disposable stuff across borders.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> As a white man, I'm a bit concerned about coming back into my own country. The only social media accounts I have are here and reddit. Will the guards at the gate accept that I don't have a Facebook or twitter account?

<comment><USER60> I think if you don't have the apps installed they'd probably would assume you were telling the truth. As a white man, you probably don't have much to worry about.

<comment><USER61> They detained the former Prime Minister of Norway, a very white guy, because he'd been to Iran for a conference.

<comment><USER62> They actually detained him because he didn't have a Visa to be in the US, which is a requirement for anyone, even those who would not normally need a visa, who has been to Iran and a select few other countries in the last few years.

That isn't to say the entire situation wasn't bullshit, just that it wasn't the case of the Borders agent randomly stopping him for being in Iran.

<comment><USER63> Not sure what you mean by that. Norwegian nationals are covered by U.S. Visa Waiver program, they don't need a visa.

<comment><USER64> They do if they've been to Iran.

Its a relatively new rule.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> "You will not share your password (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account."

[https://www.facebook.com/terms](https://www.facebook.com/terms)

It would be a violation of my facebook terms and conditions to share my facebook password!

</comment><comment><USER66> This is bullshit. The U.S. should be required to treat its citizens in a constitutional manner regardless of where they are located.

</comment><comment><USER67> > "I asked a question, 'Why was I chosen?' And [the CBP agent] wouldn't tell > me," he says.

He should file a Freedom of Information / Privacy Act request to get the reason they chose him.

<comment><USER41> FOIA can be denied on grounds of national security, pretty sure

<comment><USER67> Definitely, but it's worth asking.

<comment><USER68> Not really. Now they have another reason to push you around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Here's gov data on device searches, from the ACLU [https://www.aclu.org/government-data-about-searches- internat...](https://www.aclu.org/government-data-about-searches- international-travelers-laptops-and-personal-electronic-devices)

</comment><comment><USER70> So, for a casual traveler who may have a phone with conversations peppered with unfavorable political views throughout - what is the best security hygiene in this situation?

Anyone have tips or tricks that average people can use, things that maybe don't involve having a separate phone etc?

</comment><comment><USER57> US citizens can not be prohibited re-entry into the US.

<comment><USER71> Really?

We MURDERED a US citizen abroad.

<comment><USER72> The legality (indeed, constitutionality) of that action is extremely suspect. Most of the War on Terror rests on extremely tortuous legal interpretations, and large portions of it have failed to hold up in court.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Nobody has mentioned the "Scroogled" short story yet? I really hope this is not the future that expects us. [http://www.crimeflare.com/doctorow.html](http://www.crimeflare.com/doctorow.html)

<comment><USER73> One of the best I have ever read. Does anyone now where to find more stuff like this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> What if you are judged by the password you have chosen ? You have 24 character password ? Clearly you want to hide something more sinister.

Why is your password "ResidentEvil3040" ? You intend to not return after visiting USA ?

</comment><comment><USER75> Honest question here... can you plead the 5th amendment to avoid civil liability? I don't know if revealing company trade secrets is an actual crime (even if you work for NASA) but working for almost any company this would be breach of contract and grounds for termination...

</comment><comment><USER76> Welcome to the USSR as we read about in school...

:(

</comment><comment><USER77> I feel myself discouraged from visiting the US for the next few years at least.

</comment><comment><USER78> The Customs agent insisted he had the authority search the device.

I was thinking about this the other day, as a non-American, and I don't see how that is possible.

I work for the Australian gov't and of course cannot give out passwords or access to any of the devices which I carry which belong to the Australian gov't. How does US Border controls deal with that situation. They definitely do not have the authority to search a device owned by a foreign gov't, though it also seems they don't have the authority to search the device of an American either.

Thoughts?

</comment><comment><USER79> Intersting thought...since this appears to be the law of the land, and the border is controlled by the Executive Branch, what happens if somebody who works in one of the other two branches is stopped? It seems they would have a good claim that it's unconstitutional given the Separation of Powers that the constitution provides.

I would think that once a lawyer frames the possibility of this in front of a judge, that the law will be stricken down.

</comment><comment><USER80> Supposedly the reason being analysed is his South Indian name ' Sidd Bikkannavar ' ; I'm curious to know the story behind his name being a South Indian myself. The part of the name 'annavar' is generally found in interior villages being associated with village gods but I have never come across anyone named this way, perhaps it was 'Siddarth' which got shortened to Sidd.

</comment><comment><USER81> Use a password manager. Use long random passwords for every site.

Set your phone PIN to something 20 chars and random and text it to your friend. Write your friend's number on a slip of paper but add 1 to each non- area-code digit.

Disable biometrics. Power off phone.

You now no longer have the ability to provide the information they seek at the border.

Call your friend when you get through (from someone else's phone) and change your PIN back.

</comment><comment><USER82> Telecommunications devices are so strongly regulated and the laws regarding privacy so systemically ignored that it's a wonder we even petition our rhetorical "ownership" of said stuff. Jokes aside, just because an airport is an "effective border" and also a big police station at the same time, that does not mean you waive your rights.

</comment><comment><USER83> While I have visited the states many times over the years, and enjoyed the time I spent there, I will never go there again.

</comment><comment><USER84> If this becomes common place across borders phones should come with a "fake" unlock access code - if you enter it it drops you into a plain vanilla setup with some fake contacts perhaps. Might make sense to create fake email and social media accounts too then...

</comment><comment><USER85> This guy is a US citizen. What are they going to do if he refuses? He has the right to enter the USA. At worst they can confiscate the phone but without a court order I don't see how they can detain him indefinitely. Can they?

<comment><USER86> They harass you for a quite a while and detain your for possibly a day or more. They might even play a game of 'I don't think your actually a US citizen'. You also get a note of 'had problems at the border' and all future crossings for you and anyone travelling with you will be far more unpleasant for many years.

Not very pleasant for most people, and most people don't care about the contents of their phone that much unfortunately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> This reminds me of the guards on the border between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan that wanted to check the photos on my phone, presumably because the import of pornographic material into Uzbekistan is strictly outlawed.

<comment><USER88> Oh man, good thing the guards didn't know you were naked underneath your clothes!

<comment><USER87> Also, they have decent internet and little censoring in the country.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> So, if it was NASAs phone, why not call their legal department before turning over the phone? I carry a work phone and would definitely seek legal counsel before turning it over to anyone.

<comment><USER35> And if they won't let you?

<comment><USER89> I'm a US citizen and as such I have the right to legal counsel.

Edit: yes that's I guess only technically during prosecution. But I still wouldn't turn over anything until I did.

<comment><USER35> Yes, but good luck enforcing that if they don't like your face. Of course you should always assert your rights, but the notion that this will always be sufficient suggests to me that the holder hasn't ever been in a tough situation.

I'm not having a go at you. I've seen criminal lawyers' jaws fall open when they take a class in immigration law and discover there's a whole parallel and much scarier legal system for 'other people'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> Looks like US gov is a self-eating snake. Reminds me of grave incident happened to Dr Stephen Mann, who was brutally deprived of his reality augmentation devices on the US border.

</comment><comment><USER91> Why is this even a story? I've had the same thing happen to multiple times coming into the UK. I'm also white and British if that makes any difference.

<comment><USER92> Just because we in the UK have the awful Schedule 7, does not mean it's generally acceptable in Western democracies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> Looks like one would need to wipe their phone before traveling to US from now on. What about laptops though? :/

</comment><comment><USER94> This happens in other countries too. It's happened to friends of mine entering Canada from the United States.

</comment><comment><USER95> I guess I will start packing my phone and using my ipad when I travel since it has less personal data attached.

</comment><comment><USER96> This happens every day in western countries. It happened before Trump and it will happen after.

</comment><comment><USER97> Could i have a dualboot jon-doe os on my phone, presenting the most boring person ever?

</comment><comment><USER74> How does this apply when my phone belongs to my employer and has sensitive data on it ?

<comment><USER98> Standard procedure is that you comply. Your employer's job is to equip you with a burner phone and laptop that contain nothing confidential and that you can give up at border. Sensitive data is shipped by other means.

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> Let it happen to Thiel or Musk, see how quickly the procedure will be reversed.

<comment><USER100> Musk would like to sit down for coffee with the border guards who are detaining him and try to steer them onto a wiser course. Which will totally work super well any minute now! All he has to do is show he supports them and is willing to work with them and they'll _certainly_ change how they operate!

</comment></comment><comment><USER101> Great freedom, huh?

</comment><comment><USER102> where did I put my old Nokia 8210...

</comment><comment><USER103> This is what happens in statism. Time to wake up, slaves. Google my name and statism. Read.

</comment><comment><USER104> > Since the phone was issued by NASA...

So it was already government property. I don't see the issue here.

<comment><USER105> Did he notify NASA Security office, or NASA OIG?

Curious what NASA OIG would have to say about this. They could determine that CBP actions were a security breach, and detain the CBP "agents" for questioning.

Their special agents have badges.

[https://s-media-cache- ak0.pinimg.com/originals/27/37/92/2737...](https://s-media-cache- ak0.pinimg.com/originals/27/37/92/273792774762e6b15e7ead6de2e4cd6a.jpg)

Defense Criminal Investigative Services (DCIS) have been known to detain federal employees like TSA screeners over security issues.

<comment><USER37> He immediately turned the phone off and gave it to NASA security to study who were none too pleased about it. This is a breach of trust between two US Departments and likely will not go away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> This is really sad. As an immigrant I always thought this was coming. I never fly on a muslim airlines like Etihad to Turkish even though they are more convenient, I do not accept friend requests from muslims people on LinkedIN and Facebook.

<comment><USER106> How does that help? Aren't you passing judgment here?

<comment><USER74> Actually I would glad to have many of those people are friends I am just worried that US government will target me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> Conceivably, it's quite possible he had information which is subject to ITAR regulations, including data about sensors, mirrors. At the very least, he probably had sensor vendor specifications which are trade secrets and often covered under NDAs.

<comment><USER108> Did you bother to read the article? He was detained coming into the country.

Just call a spade a spade. Trump wrote a shitty, racist executive order and people from all walks of life who happen to have one thing in common, a Muslim sounding name, are caught up in it.

<comment><USER109> How is "Sidd Bikkannavar" even remotely "Muslim sounding"? It's a Hindu name. He probably shortened it from "Siddarth" Bikkannavar to Sidd Bikkannavar like most Hindus in foreign countries do. Bikkannavar is a place in Karnataka, India. Maybe that is his parent's place of origin.

<comment><USER35> One furriner is very much like another. I've had to explain to people worried about a Sikh temple that Sikhism is its own religion. Lots of people are neither well aware of nor interested in the rest of the world, they only like what they already know.

<comment><USER110> > One furriner is very much like another.

The irony of your mocking my accent while trying to cast people who share it as bigoted is not lost on me.

<comment><USER35> How could I possibly know what sort of accent you have? I know absolutely nothing about you other than your screen name and what you wrote yesterday. I don't even know what country you come from or what gender you are.

'Furriner' is a good word to describe someone whose lack of interest in the outside work is so fundamental that they aren't interested in even spelling it properly. I'm not applying it to you, I'm using it to point out that many people are xenophobic to the point of being indifferent to where foreign people come from or what differences exist between them, they're just 'not from around here' and therefore undesirable. This attitude exists and is widespread, I don't know why you're upset at me for pointing that out.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Species Problem - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem <comment><USER2> From evolutionary biologist and MacArthur Fellow David Hillis[1]:

Species are exactly as real, and as unreal, as rivers, for many of the same reasons. It is true that every river (species) is different, and it is hard to describe their boundaries, and their beginning and ending points are often unclear. Also, there are some arbitrary aspects about rivers, like when we call them a river or a stream, or how we divide and name segments of a river.

When two rivers merge into one (or one species splits into two), it is very hard to determine exactly when that happens. Yet, it does happen, and it is pretty easy to see after the fact (but not in the close details of water molecules or individual genes at the point of merger). But the concept of a river is very useful, and I have floated down many rivers that seemed pretty real to me. I also regularly encounter and interact with a lot of species that seem quite real to me. All of these difficult attributes I mentioned are true of all historical lineages: species, countries, corporations, rivers, families, or almost anything to which we assign a proper name (or could).

Yet, why are biologists perplexed about species? Clearly, life is not distributed continuously, but into lineages of historically related individuals that share a common reproductive (or sometimes, ecological) boundary. I just can't see how one can make any sense out of life without understanding and accepting the reality of species. It would be like trying to understand the economy while denying the reality of corporations, or global politics while denying the reality of countries.

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

</comment><comment><USER3> See also this recent Economist article [1] on a new species, the coywolf, found in North America and their comments on the difficulty of deciding if it is, in fact, a new species. And associated HN discussion [2].

[1] [http://www.economist.com/news/science-and- technology/2167718...](http://www.economist.com/news/science-and- technology/21677188-it-rare-new-animal-species-emerge-front-scientists-eyes)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10475739](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10475739)</comment>


Ruby asynchronous job processing as devved by twitter - <AUTHOR> http://www.rubyinside.com/starling-and-rudeq-persistent-ruby-queues-958.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Has anyone here used this? What is it like compared to backgroundrb?</comment>


Tesla: Not so easily bricked - <AUTHOR> http://idc-insights-community.com/posts/c7c83d1a9d <comment><USER2> This whole bricking story is a little ridiculous.

There are any number of easy ways to 'brick' an internal combustion engine, and yet we're not all torches 'n' pitchforks over them. Partially because ICEs have been around so long that the relatively short list of "things to avoid" is burned indelibly into the popular consciousness. Partially because over a hundred-odd years of continuous engineering, a typical ICE can take a hell of a lot of abuse before it fails.

And note that the "shit that might happen to you" column still isn't trivially dismissed on the ICE side, even after 100+ years of safety engineering. We physically pump highly-flammable liquids into our gas tasks; people still occasionally get burned or even _die_ doing that shit!

Couldn't find many stats, but this is interesting: [http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/Research/FireSafetyVehi...](http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/Research/FireSafetyVehicles.pdf)

Let's assume the $40k figure is at all likely for a vehicle owner that RTFM'd. I'm pretty sure anyone ever burned in a gas-fueled vehicle fire would gladly go back in time to fork over $40k to avoid that experience.

<comment><USER3> If you run your ICE without oil, yes, you will kill it. And maybe these should be thought of in the same way, but people worry about this because draining a battery to zero seems like running out of gas, and most of us have run out of gas at some point or another. Granted it's not the same because in the short term the battery management system should reserve the bottom 5% for the health of the battery.

But the second reason people are worried about this is killing that last 5% and bricking the battery happens by doing nothing. Bricking an ICE while it is unused, sitting in your driveway takes decades. With a replacement $50 battery and $30 oil change I've restarted engines that have been sitting unused in junkyards for 40 years.

<comment> X-Istence I've been driving for 6 years now and I have never ran out of gas. Is this really so uncommon that you can safely say that at some point or another most of us have run out of gas?

I keep an eye on my odometer and on the gas gauge and know when it is time to get gas. My car doesn't have a low fuel light warning so paying attention is definitely required.

<comment><USER3> Where I drive, I am frequently 100 miles from the nearest gas station. Plus in small remote areas, gas stations can be out of gas, out of business, or just closed for unknown reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Here's the primary fact that the blogger in question doesn't understand: the Tesla battery pack is not a battery."

Gee, where might he have gotten that idea? Tesla's website and documentation, perhaps? "Custom microprocessor-controlled lithium-ion battery with 6,831 individual cells."

Not 8K, huh; talk about getting your technical facts wrong.

"Another error on the part of the blogger is the claim that if the cars discharge fully, the battery packs will be damaged. This is blatantly false. The battery management system of the Tesla Roadster keeps the battery from being discharged to a damagingly low state of charge under normal driving conditions. It's true that a full discharge to zero percent state of charge can potentially be damaging to a battery. However the battery management system of the Roadster won't allow the car to reach that low level of charge."

Just asserted it was blatantly false and admitted it was true that full discharge damages the battery in the same paragraph, hoo boy.

"But there's an antidote for this type of misinformation: confronting it with facts."

Looks more like he meant to say that the antidote for these facts is misinformation, yow.

<comment><USER5> > Just asserted it was blatantly false and admitted it was true that full > discharge damages the battery in the same paragraph, hoo boy.

No. He stated that, while discharging an individual cell below a certain voltage will damage it, the battery management circuitry on each cell will not permit the battery to discharge past that point. It simply disconnects the battery from the circuit, which means the only leakage is chemical (self- discharge), and thus very slow.

To clarify this point: "discharge fully" =/= zero percent. You will never want to go below a certain percentage of absolute charge.

<comment><USER4> "Another error on the part of the blogger is the claim that if the cars discharge fully, the battery packs will be damaged. This is _blatantly false_."

"It's true that a full discharge to zero percent state of charge can potentially be damaging to a battery."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The headline should read "Tesla: Not so easily bricked under normal circumstances".

The problem here is that not everyone lives in California, and most people think of cars as durable (vs. perishable) goods. Those two things cause problems for people who are edge cases. In places like Michigan or New York or Massachusetts, it's not 70F all year round. We have this quaint concept called "winter". In the winter, the local governments dump salt on the roads, snow and slush make driving dangerous, and when it doesn't snow, you get dusty blowing salt on the highways.

Because of this, people with the means to buy $50,000 sports cars leave them in garages for the winter. Or they head to the Caribbean for a vacation. Or both. For a car with an internal combustion engine, you usually remove the battery or trickle charge it, but the consequence of not doing so is buying a $100 battery at your local mechanic.

Another thing to consider is the meaning of "normal" as it applies to the market. If you're a working stiff, you drive every day. You may even drive to get to your vacation. People buying $50,000 cars with the limitations that electric cars have today aren't working stiffs, and their leisure patterns are probably quite different than most folks.

<comment><USER7> > _sports cars leave them in garages for the winter_

Live in CT, own a two seater that's never seen snow, for the reasons you mention. It's on a trickle charger to avoid having to replace a regular battery that would go dead if discharged fully, but still had to replace tires that got flat spotted during last year's particularly long winter.

Knowing that about regular batteries, I'd be even more careful with a Tesla, even w/o reading the manual. "Hmm, my regular car battery has to be replaced if completely discharged, and this car is all battery ..."

I think the "different patterns" should actually increase awareness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wrote the original blog post about Teslas bricking. This IDC/IDG post is embarrassingly wrong about basically everything. The cars are most definitely not "just in need of servicing". Tesla's not even arguing that - I even have a written statement from them that it's $40k to fix.

This alleged "expert" can even get the number of cells right (6,831 by the way).

The article should be retracted.

<comment><USER9> My takeaway is that the Tesla Roadster is a very expensive toy at this point. There are some electric charging stations now at my work (I can only assume they would work with the Roadster, haven't look into it), but it really sounds to me like the early adopters are going to be paying out the nose for electric for a few more years.

I have a Civic Hyprid, which is pretty underwhelming, but functions pretty much like a regular car. If I don't end up giving it to my step-daughter, I almost assuredly will keep it until the more efficient electric vehicles are as reliable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think the original article also made the same claim: Tesla is "not so easily bricked" (given the fact that 'only' 5 cases could be found). So this isn't a rebuttal.

If it was to be a rebuttal, the claim would be "Tesla cannot be bricked" or something like that.

This article did not do any background work. Why didn't he talk to the Tesla service manager(s) who were quoted in the original article? Even if he managed to talk to 1 of the 5 and showed that it was not a bricking, then he would have a point. But the way it is, the current article does almost nothing to refute the original.

<comment><USER11> Considering the original article didn't actually cite sources, just made stated that a manager claimed this, a customer claimed that, it'd be pretty hard for him to talk to the service manager.

<comment><USER10> Really? The original article lists sources like "Tesla's Los Angeles area service center manager", "340th customer", etc. And it also includes an incident involving Elon Musk and J. Joost de Vries. I'd say there are enough sources listed there that someone could do some verification.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hang on, at what point did anyone claim they were 'easy' to brick? The argument is not about how easy they are to brick, it's about the fact that the entire car is rendered useless if bricked unless you're willing to pay $40k to get your vehicle back on the road again.

If the cars were easy to brick there would be a significantly larger number of documented cases than what currently exist.

<comment><USER13> When I read the blog post in question, and the comments here, I left with the understanding that if you left a Tesla car unused for a dozen or so weeks, it would be bricked and it would cost $40,000 to replace the battery. This post directly contradicts that notion.

<comment><USER14> The response from Tesla does not contradict that notion. Note this quote: "It's true that a full discharge to zero percent state of charge can potentially be damaging to a battery. " Notice that "can potentially be damaging" is a weasel phrase for "brick". Further Tesla argues that to avoid discharge to zero percent "all that needs to be done is to tow the vehicle to a charger". Again, this misses the main point of the OP -- what happens if the vehicle doesn't get towed to the charger. The OP argues that then it discharges to zero percent which in Tesla's own words will be potentially damaging.

Tesla's PR people are particularly misleading by comparing the situation described above to someone draining oil and then taking a car on a cross country trip. Draining the oil requires action by car's owner. Leave a car in a garage for six months and the oil will still be there. The whole point of the OP is that inaction destroys Tesla's vehicles.

<comment><USER13> My understanding of what this post meant is that a full discharge is prevented by the controller in the battery itself - much like in laptops, and much like everyone here was surprised that the Tesla battery does not have.

So, to be clear, my understanding of this post, with full clarity, is: "A full discharge is disastrous. However, the situations reported were _not_ full discharges. The controller in the battery shut them off before full discharge. The reported situations did require being towed, but once towed, it was trivial to recharge the batteries."

<comment><USER15> Actually, it seems to me the article doesn't really contradict the accusation at all.

 _There is a fundamental problem when any rechargeable battery is discharged and then left to sit for months. Any boat owner understands that that's why you plug in a trickle charger when the craft is put into storage._

The line above indicates, on the contrary, that yes, if you don't drive it for a while and it wasn't plugged in to a sufficient power source, your car _will_ in fact be bricked, and potentially damage its batteries. Apparently this is a problem with boats too, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a problem with electric cars.

This "response" is in fact full of double speak... Check this one out:

 _Another error on the part of the blogger is the claim that if the cars discharge fully, the battery packs will be damaged. This is blatantly false. The battery management system of the Tesla Roadster keeps the battery from being discharged to a damagingly low state of charge under normal driving conditions._

"This is blatantly false"......."under normal driving conditions". The original article was not talking about normal driving conditions. This reads like a deliberate attempt to mislead.

If anything, it seems to me that this article validates the claims made in the other article. It states:

 _This is the most likely explanation for the five "bricks" that the blogger claims to have heard about. They probably aren't actually bricks, but cars in need of servicing._

This is hardly the kind of certainty-filled rebuttal that one would expect if the original article's claims were, in fact, incorrect.

<comment><USER16> > This is the most likely explanation for the five "bricks" that the blogger > claims to have heard about. They probably aren't actually bricks, but cars > in need of servicing.

Your attack on this point is spot on. The point of the original post this one fails to rebut is that the cars are in need of servicing! Maybe that posts use of the word "bricked" is imprecise, but the real thrust of it was that it costs $40,000 to perform this servicing, which this post does not even dispute.

<comment><USER17> It would cost $40k to replace the batteries, it would obviously not cost $40k to recharge a battery that had shut itself down for safety. I doubt every instance in the original post actually required a replacement, though it was implied.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Though I could easily believe that there was a coordinated attack against electric vehicles (I can think of a few groups), the response doesn't refute the previous article but tries to defend through vocabulary.

If you leave the car unplugged for a long period of time the battery will be ruined. If the battery is one huge battery pack or 8000 smaller batteries doesn't matter.

Also, having a car plugged in for months is a lot different that driving cross country with no oil.

<comment><USER19> As someone who "bricked" his Jetta in college by forgetting to replace the oil, I can also point out that the replacement engine cost around $6k, a (hefty) fraction of the car's then value, but nowhere close to its total _original retail price_.

<comment><USER17> The Tesla Roadster costs in the neighborhood of $130,000, so $40k is a fraction of its price.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "They probably aren't actually bricks, but cars in need of servicing."

$40k bill is not a "servicing" - it's a new car.

My problem with counter-arguments that use "drained oil" as an example, is that oil change is done every few _thousand_ miles (say, 3000 miles in case of my car). Now, this is _recommended_ (albeit, strongly) frequency. This means that if I drove my car around 3000 miles, then went to airport, left my car sitting on the parking lot for a month, chances are I'll drive back home sound and safe, and my bill for oil change will be the same $30, as it would if I get it change on or below recommended 3000 miles. Note that I don't need to trickle-change the oil in this case.

Now, if we compare battery drain to fuel tank depletion (which is technically more correct, since battery _is the fuel_ for Tesla), then comparisson is even less pleasant for Tesla.

Having said that, I don't see anything wrong to bringing the potential battery bricking issue up (especially in light of arrival of more affordable vehicles from Tesla) - Tesla should've used this as an opportunity to educate people and do right by the owners of bricked cars by picking up part of the repair bill with some strings attached.

<comment><USER21> Totally agreed.

There is simply no comparison between a internal combustion engine vehicle and a plug-in electric vehicle as the engines work very differently.

Also $40K service (reboot) is NOT a service, is a COMPLETE REPLACEMENT for the battery packs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It turns out that the poster of the original story is the owner of one of the 'bricked' Teslas. This was apparently leaked to hurt his credibility but at least for me it only enhances it, as it seems he had a first-hand experience with the brick problem.

[http://jalopnik.com/5887499/who-is-trying-to-smear-the- tesla...](http://jalopnik.com/5887499/who-is-trying-to-smear-the-tesla- battery-problem-whistleblower)

<comment><USER23> > "I'm not stupid, it wasn't a mistake"

 _Any_ lithium battery is damaged after 2 months at 0% charge. How isn't that a mistake?

<comment><USER24> I'm skeptical of his story, because if he was been following instructions as he claims, he would have near 100% charge at the beginning of those two months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The original blog post made a few claims.

1) Tesla warnings were weak, and part of the Tesla documents said it's fine to leave the car unplugged for weeks.

2) Total discharge of batteries is possible under certain extreme conditions, and has happened to 5 people

3) Total discharge of batteries bricks the car, leaving it un-towable and needing a $40,000 battery replacement fix.

> _Another error on the part of the blogger is the claim that if the cars > discharge fully, the battery packs will be damaged. This is blatantly false. > The battery management system of the Tesla Roadster keeps the battery from > being discharged to a damagingly low state of charge under normal driving > conditions. It's true that a full discharge to zero percent state of charge > can potentially be damaging to a battery. However the battery management > system of the Roadster won't allow the car to reach that low level of > charge._

So, is it possible to totally discharge the battery pack or not?

<comment><USER26> The Jalopnik post has been updated with a statement from Tesla saying that the battery will take a long time to reach zero state of charge. My understanding is that the battery system will protect the battery during normal use but that there isn't much it can do if the car is left sitting unplugged.

So the 'confront misinformation with facts' tone of this article ends up being a little over the top, the blogger is interpreting the facts differently than even Tesla.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is an exceptionally lame rebuttal.

 _> There is a fundamental problem when any rechargeable battery is discharged and then left to sit for months. Any boat owner understands that that's why you plug in a trickle charger when the craft is put into storage._

Yes, it's an excellent strategy to assume that your car buyers will also be boat owners, and therefore know all the things that boat owners know without you needing to explain them. Because _who doesn't own a boat,_ right?

<comment><USER28> I think the point there is that anyone purchasing an electric vehicle should do some basic research about electric cars and batteries. It's not that they should know this because boat owners know it; instead it's that they should take it upon themselves to find out this important and simple piece of maintenance, just as boat owner's have done. In other words, when you buy a boat, you understand that it's different from your (gas/diesel) car and you find out what you need to know. An electric vehicle is different, too, and you should act accordingly.

<comment><USER29> I don't think it's reasonable to expect the consumer to do research of any sort. It would be very easy for Tesla to mention this at the time of purchase, document it, and also provide a dashboard notification of some sort.

<comment><USER30> Based on what drzaiusapelord said I don't think there is any research required of any sort.

 _When you buy a Tesla the following happens: You are vebally told about this. You are then shown a document to sign that you were told about this Your car will beep loudly when its under 5% charge If its a newer Tesla it will beep and also log an issue with the service center, who will then continue to call you to tell you to plug it in. No boat experience required._

<comment><USER27> Funny how neither the linked post nor Tesla's official statement on the subject [1] mention any of that stuff.

That omission is either just monumentally bad PR, or they're not really that fastidious or consistent about educating the customer. (Not that I doubt drzaiusapelord, but if they were, you think they'd be shouting that from the rooftops rather than leaving it to random commenters on HN to explain.)

[1] [http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/tesla-roadsters-ev- accuse...](http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/tesla-roadsters-ev-accused-of- bricking-tesla-responds/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I think the issue is that Tesla has a warranty problem, not a design flaw. With batteries, even if the battery management system shuts itself down and all subsystems, the battery cells will still internally drain to damaging levels. Until battery technology improves that will be a real problem with all electric cars. Unlike driving with no oil and needing an engine replacement, this is primarily a problem with the car (not driver negligence), so it should probably be covered under warranty, or qualify for the cheaper $12k replacement.

Note: I do not know how Tesla designed their systems, they possibly could do a better job to extend the storage time, but it will still be a problem. Any car with an electric start has this problem, if you don't charge the battery in storage it will require service/replacement. Of course it won't be $40k...

Do anyone have similar stories from other electric cars? Is there a maximum storage time listed for the Prius, Volt, or Leaf?

</comment><comment><USER32> So, if as this article says the previous blogs were nothing more than a smear campaign against Tesla, basically accusing them of being a propaganda campaign. Doesn't this seem amazingly like counter-spin?

The article says that the facts will shine through and prove them wrong, but it's amazingly absent of facts. "The design of the car will prevent that, trust me".

If you read between the lines though, he does admit that a full drain of the battery will destroy it.

</comment><comment><USER33> What is interesting to me is what the author does not dispute - that Tesla charged $40,000 to fix the problem.

Anecdote is not evidence, but last year I had a dealer offer to reset my cars computer to reflect a scheduled inspection for $220 when it was in for a windshield replacement - this wasn't for the inspection, which is part of any routine service, but for resetting a 32,000 mile cycle which displays a warning.

The reset process is relatively arcane, but only took me about five minutes, including digging out the printed instructions which I had downloaded from the internet following an oil change and a couple of false starts.

So it wouldn't surprise me that a dealer would seek $40k to reset a system.

<comment><USER34> Absolutely. The author even claims that all is needed is a reboot of the hardware controller. This would seems even more scandalous that it costs 40 grands.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Well, the truth is really somewhere in the middle. The article says that the battery management system of the Roadster won't allow the car to discharge the battery fully. But batteries lose charge over time and if they are not charged, there is nothing that any battery management system can do about it.

So I guess while the original article was overly sensationalistic, this one is overly optimistic — if you park your car with batteries very low at the airport and leave for vacation, you might kill some cells.

</comment><comment><USER36> Doesn't explain away the previous post - if repair is so trivial, why were 40k repair bills being discussed?

<comment><USER37> Maybe the $ 40k repair bills never existed in the first place...

<comment><USER38> Then why didn't this Tesla representative say so? Why didn't he say, "We have followed up with the source(s) of this story and been unable to find any instance of a need to replace all the battery cells in a so-called 'bricked' Tesla. All instances only required a charge and reboot with service costs never exceeding $2k." ... or something like that?

I like the trashing of a bad rumor against technology as much as the next geek, but this Tesla response was spin and speculation thrown against more substantial-sounding reports of a problem. It was weak and since the strong alternatives are easily imaginable, it was likely weak for a reason -- ie, the reports of $40k bills were relatively accurate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> If there are 8k individual cells in the battery pack, what happens when an individual cell reaches zero? Will that individual cell be permanently dead, or can it be revived?

You would think with 8k individual cells, if you left it unplugged for just a couple of weeks (instead of the 6 weeks needed to brick the entire battery pack), using a normal distribution you could expect that at least _some_ of the cells would reach zero. Would that permanently reduce the capacity for the entire battery pack?

<comment><USER40> Most battery management systems incorporate some sort of cell balancing algorithm to make sure cells stay close to a common voltage. Usually this is some sort of resistor (per cell) that dissipates a small current from that cell and bleeds it off as heat. This is usually used while charging to get everything in line.

That said, if a cell goes bad or has an extremely low capacity compared to the rest, there's not much you can do...

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> The blogger might be an ignorant, but the OP post doesn't reassure me. If I go in a 5 months travel doing consulting abroad, and I'm living alone; who guarantee that my car is being constantly put on the charger? There are many cases (plug dysfunction, electric problem...) and $40K is not a trivial amount.

<comment><USER42> Did you read the article? It stated that not charging the the car WILL NOT lead to $40,000 bricking.

<comment><USER43> Where did it say that? It acknowledges that deeply discharging may damage the cells, and it does not refute that it would cost $40,000 to fix.

Even the owner's manual state this (except for the $40,000 cost of course).

<comment><USER42> quote from the article:

Another error on the part of the blogger is the claim that if the cars discharge fully, the battery packs will be damaged. This is blatantly false. The battery management system of the Tesla Roadster keeps the battery from being discharged to a damagingly low state of charge under normal driving conditions. It's true that a full discharge to zero percent state of charge can potentially be damaging to a battery. However the battery management system of the Roadster won't allow the car to reach that low level of charge.

<comment><USER44> _However the battery management system of the Roadster won't allow the car to reach that low level of charge._

This is just plain wrong. If the car is not charging, self-discharge will happen and nothing can stop it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Tesla needs to publish an exhaustive analysis of the problem. What will brick it, what will harm the battery X%, what happens when you discharge fully repeatedly, what it will cost to fix at each point of damage.

</comment><comment><USER46> His letter to Musk makes him seem much more reasonable than Tesla honestly.

[http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1073312_is-tesla- brickin...](http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1073312_is-tesla-bricking- story-just-an-angry-owners-shakedown/page-2)

The part that really registered with me is the request for a simple phone call. Why didn't Tesla call the owners and warn them about the battery discharge issue? Why didn't they just upgrade the original cars to include that low battery notification service? What do you think the actual real cost of that upgrade is in hardware and work hours? $100? $500? How much would they have spent having some people call the owners of those 500 original roadsters? A few hundred dollars to personally notify their first customers? It was a 100K+ car was it not? This guy might be foolish for not closely scrutinizing the warranty/owner's manual, but Tesla's customer service and PR response are horrible.

</comment><comment><USER47> The fundamentally silly part about all is that Tesla doesn't offer insurance for this rare thing.

Seems trivial to setup an insurance scheme for this rare, but exceedingly costly event, either internally, or via an external insurer. _It may not be cheap_ but this PR issue can be fixed in an afternoon talking to Farmers insurance or the like.

<comment><USER25> Or even just having big clear warnings in the manuals, and then pointing to those warnings when this comes up.

<comment><USER47> I don't find a line in a maintenance manual an effective tool for handling this 40k expense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I wonder why their super computerized battery doesn't just sacrifice some of its 6,831 commodity, 18650 form-factor, Li-ion cells to preserve the others and why aren't these cells cheap to replace being the most common form factor of lithium cell in the world.

</comment><comment><USER19> Do we have an answer on how long, from 100% and 80% charges, it would take for a Roadster to get bricked? That would strongly effect any judgement on the reasonableness of Tesla not prominently disclosing this risk.

</comment><comment><USER49> IMO, there are two things Tesla could do, one is an automated notification when your battery runs low, presenting you the options to a) let it just sit, b) turn off all electronics to preserve a little more battery and c) to let a Tesla service guy come to save your battery.

The other thing is, that you should be able to enter tow mode just from an external power supply, so it will be trivial to pull it out of your garage.

</comment><comment><USER50> The op does not state whether the claim that replacing all cells will cost $40K! In many cars today... replacing the engine or any single major component(because of mechanical failure) would hardly cost $40K unless you are talking about super cars! So for people who want to drive cars that cost less than $100K, $40K is a big chunk of money!

</comment><comment><USER51> this isn't much of a rebuttal. he's basically agreeing that a non-trickle charged battery can fail completely, which was exactly the problem pointed out in the original post.

the problem isn't that an EV is battery based which has this flaw. the problem is that its not really addressed enough for people who dont daily drive their EV.

</comment><comment><USER52> "However the battery management system of the Roadster won't allow the car to reach that low level of charge."

The battery management system is in not position to not allow the battery to discharge itself over time. It can only stop the car from powering up to prevent active battery usage.

</comment><comment><USER53> Why is it that fully discharging a Li ion battery ruins it for all time? I have experienced this with my MacBook too. Closed it at 1% and forgot about it for two weeks. Battery was a paperweight when I returned.

<comment><USER54> You can go look it up on wikipeadia; but in summary, the battery relies on a chemical reaction to produce electricity. After a certain discharge point, the chemical reaction is irreversibly changed, and can no longer be recharged.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> ICE cars have a number of problems that EVs don't:

ICEs depend on a single form of stored energy. The single source dependency creates a dependency between the functioning of the one's country's economy and the stable supply of a difficult to obtain resource from many countries with potentially hostile attitudes towards the country.

ICEs require a massive active infrastructure for refining and transporting oil. With EVs, you suddenly don't need to drive energy around in heavy chemical form except to a much smaller number of locations which can be serviced by much more efficient freight trains.

ICEs are extremely inefficient at extracting energy from oil compared to large turbines at power plants. So not only do you not have to spend energy and human labor driving chemical energy around to deliver it all over the place, you get more from that stored energy.

ICE cars are mechanically more complex than EVs, and they require more in the way of maintenance than EVs (the Roadster, an exotic sports car, has a recommended maintenance interval of once per 12k miles). EVs can be more modular, since they can have a simple electric motor on each wheel or axle instead of having a single engine with a complicated system of driveshafts and gearboxes to transfer mechanical forces all around the chassis. Also, no oil changes and no emissions checks.

Keep in mind that the problem described here mainly affected the first 500 cars Tesla ever built, and was largely mitigated in later versions. Overall, I think it is obvious that if the cost can be reduced to ICE car levels for 200+ miles of range, EVs will be the most practical form of automobile for all but long trips, and I think even the long-trip challenge will eventually be solved. I think it's really silly and a bit embarrassing to call the future of the electric vehicle into question over an early design flaw which exacerbated a problem which is really easy to mitigate, even in a fashion that requires no user intervention. The up-front cost of the vehicles due to the cost of batteries is 1000x more important in practical terms, and what we should be focusing our energy on.

<comment><USER17> Why the downvotes? I'm reasonably sure there aren't any inaccuracies in there, and I think it's important to remember all the downsides of our current cars versus electrics, especially when some commenters are claiming that the ICE has already proven itself and isn't on trial here. It most definitely is, and I think it's losing handily, regardless of some potential new complications with EVs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> How heavy would a small ICE unit need to be to produce enough current to keep the batteries alive for longer periods of time? And how much fuel would such a thing use?

</comment><comment><USER56> Here's a business opportunity: Battery insurance.

</comment><comment><USER57> This comment doesn't clearly refute claims made by the original blog post. The statement "they probably aren't actually bricks, but cars in need of servicing" sounds inconclusive.

All I am saying is if people are going to refute the original blog post as "nonsense" and will "confront it with facts", then do so convincingly and without contradiction.

<comment><USER58> The original blog isn't exactly sussed out either. We have an anonymous source giving vague anecdotes about 5 cars whose owners haven't been contacted to verify details.

<comment><USER59> The link to this article is down unfortunately, so I can't comment on it. But Tesla's statement did nothing to refute the article, it just stated that you have to put oil in a regular car, and that you can optionally have the car contact Tesla if it gets low.

The oil analogy Tesla and others are using just doesn't work. A normal car doesn't total itself after sitting idle for a few weeks to few months depending on whose side you believe.

Imagine your new car of choice having a 5 gallon gas tank, and if it goes empty, your car burns to the ground. Oh, and the gas evaporates at rate of half a gallon a week.

I don't know about you, but that fear would keep me from enjoying the vehicle. I think the stress of always making sure it's charging would beat me down.

<comment><USER58> A normal car engine unused for a long time has to be handled just as well. If you're lucky the worst you'll have is a dead battery. If you're unlucky the engine has seized and the tires are deformed and need to be replaced. Ask any university town mechanic what happens when students leave cars parked in the lot, untouched, for months.

Actually as a former car owner (city dweller now), my biggest concern was making sure the car was still there when I came back later.

Really the biggest responsibility this car has is for the owner to keep batteris charged up, not check the oil, not check the coolant, nor check the break fluid or transmission fluid. When did spending a lot of money on a car mean you could also switch your brain off.

<comment><USER60> I've run down the battery on my car, motorcycle, mower, or other vehicles I don't often use. It is not an expensive ($40,000) fix -- often it just takes a recharge because lead-acid batteries are not as easily damaged as lithium-ion. Replacement is relatively cheap too.

When you talk about tire deformation, this is rare and would not happen before many years of disuse. And engine seizure? Again, unlikely to happen even if left to sit for a decade. You're more likely to have issues with rust in the gas tank and bad, coagulated gas, than a seized engine.

The point is that it is relatively safe to leave a vehicle unattended in a garage for long periods of time. The vast majority of its value will remain undamaged. Contrast to the Tesla, where if left for a year with a low charge it is alleged that it's likely to lose fully half of the car's value ($40,000).

This is a big deal.

<comment><USER61> Firstly, given that gas contains up to 10% ethanol now, no, your engine will be seriously damaged if you leave your car with gasoline in it for ten years and then start it without flushing it first. That's because the ethanol attracts water, and water does not compress as easily as gasoline, and the attempt to spray a high volume of water into your cylinder and then compress it will likely destroy something along the way. Agreed though that what passes for gasoline in that tank is anything but gasoline.

Now, add further that all of the rubber hosing, if your car was built in the last two decades, will likely have dry-rot, and the vehicle is unlikely to run again without replacement on all of them. Should a rear main, or other important seal have been damaged, you'll be looking at around $1,000 in labor alone to disassemble the engine. How much was that car worth again?

I've had lifters separate on me while driving taking out the engine block, radiator, and several other components along the way - the cost to replace with a -new- engine and radiator exceeded 40% of what I paid for the vehicle. (Don't be confused by the pricing on a used, junk-yard engine, and a new crate engine. Gets even worse with a V8 - have you seen the price on a 6.1L crate Hemi?)

I still don't see what the big deal is - if I leave -any- electronic device with an li-ion battery in it discharged for a long period of time, that battery is toast. You think it's absurd that the battery in the car costs $40k? I'm sure mac laptop batteries would be even more expensive once you chained enough of them together to get to that level of sustained discharge capability.

<comment><USER60> Yes, I mentioned the gas/rust/coagulation issue in the post you replied to. I should mention that I have been through this process myself and I am well aware of the steps necessary to restore a long-sitting gas vehicle to service.

If a car is left to sit for a year the gas will be bad, but there will likely be no further repair necessary other than flushing the fuel system. This is relatively cheap. Even if one mistakenly tries to start it and gets water in the engine, the repairs are far less costly than the $40,000 battery price tag on the tesla.

I had mentioned a decade specifically in regard to engine seizure -- you will not have this problem over a shorter time period such as one year. Nor will you have dry-rot of your hosing or any other major mechanical malfunction. Ruined gas and a dead battery are about the limits of damage in the one year period -- possibly a tire may go flat.

The big deal is that if I leave my $80k gasoline car in a garage for a year it will take very little to get it running again. Probably a few hundred bucks. Perhaps up to several thousand dollars if I foolishly try to start it and get very unlucky. But you can't reasonably construct a scenario where a garaged gasoline car is likely to sustain $40,000 in damages just from safely sitting out of the elements. It's just not possible, period.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I checked out the Tesla sedan and would definitely buy it if I could afford it!</comment>


One Lesson from the Crisis: It's Time to Create Your Own Economy | Fast Company - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/137/create-your-own-economy.html <comment><USER2> Thanks for posting this. Tyler Cowen's blog, Marginal Revolution, is often quite interesting as well: <http://www.marginalrevolution.com/>

</comment><comment><USER3> It never seizes to amaze me how people are able to dress-up bad business.</comment>


Britain to ban sale of all diesel and petrol cars and vans from 2040 - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/25/britain-to-ban-sale-of-all-diesel-and-petrol-cars-and-vans-from-2040 <comment><USER2> 2040\. Why so late?

This kind of law pisses me off. Not the intended result, but that it won't take effect for 23 more years!

I live in London. I'm severely affected by all the diesel emissions. I've had Bronchitis and other respiratory ailments several times over the past few years. I notice this most when walking through the exhaust (trucks and buses are by far the worst), the sharp NOx odors are unmistakeable, and a few hours later I'll have a coughing attack.

It's been estimated 10k people in the UK die each year from diesel exhaust, but NOTHING is being done to remedy this in the short term.

To put into perspective, that's like the number of people who died in the Grenfell tower fire every three days. After the Grenfell fire, immediate checks were done on all council block towers with efforts to change them to avoid another similar tragedy.

Yet for Diesel engines, which affect far more people, nothing is being done other than some vague laws to slightly increase taxes in 3-5 years for diesel.

I was looking to buy a used car and went to CarGiant the other day (like CarFax in USA). 90% of the used cars were diesel. It's ridiculous.

Politicians are scared to make a laws, eg even slight financial disincentives on diesel cars, despite 30 people per day dying because of those cars.

Pisses me off.

(Edit - the article talks about the proposed law to charge the 'worst' diesel owners £10 for their daily central London congestion charge. This is useless, it only affects cars before 2007 and also those that enter central London. Heavily polluting diesel cars and buses from 2008+, or older ones that don't go into central London, can keep on happily poisoning the air for the rest of us without penalty. And btw, you can tell the year of a UK car by its license plate. And many of the affected cars and buses are well newer than 2007.)

<comment><USER3> Why so late? Because changes of this scale need phasing in over a long period. You can't replace the billions of capital investment in vehicles, petrol stations, fuel storage facilities and distribution networks overnight. Our economy and basic life necessities like food distribution are critically dependent upon it. A replacement network needs creating, from charging stations to national grid upgrades and new power stations to power everything. The power stations alone will be a decade+ away.

Setting this big milestone will cause effects in vehicle ownership well in advance. Will your next car be all electric, or a hybrid? What about the one after that? Most people will go through at least two or three from now to 2040, and with vehicle manufacturers already committing to electric, the migration is already underway; just give it time.

That said, there's nothing preventing increasing the scope and value of pollution charges independently.

<comment><USER2> You're greatly overestimating the difficulty of migration of diesel to petrol.

Also you say to "give it time". Why, that's 30 people a day, a Grenfell disaster every 3 days. Will you personally apologise to the families of the 30 people every day that are dying from complications related to diesel exhaust, and that giving it time while their loved ones die is the best solution?

I'm assuming you either drive a diesel vehicle and are against financial burden to yourself, or you love away from an urban centre where you are happily naive to the actual impact diesel exhaust causes to yourself. (or maybe you're lucky that diesel fumes don't affect your lungs and heart the way they do many others like myself).

A £500 pound annual fee for all diesel vehicles, to be upped to £1000 after one year, will go far to motivate diesel owners to consider other options and make "the right choice" on next vehicle and fleet.

This could also go straight towards the NHS to offset treatment for air pollution health issues.

Did you see what I wrote about CarGiant? Diesel cars are _easier_ and _cheaper_ to buy right now. You have to go out of your way to get petrol instead of diesel.

This law is basically putting the status quo on hold for a decade or more, because no politician wants to be the one putting his or her name on a bill to cause financial burdens on diesel owners.

Yet they have no problem continuing to poison the rest of us.

<comment><USER3> If you think I'm arguing in favour of the status quo, you're greatly mistaken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is this an attempt to get ready for 2040's peak oil issue? Removing cars and trucks, frees up oil to go elsewhere. And gives OPEC nations time to figure out what to do.</comment>


Resist Pokémon Go - <AUTHOR> https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/07/pokemon-go-pokestops-game-situationist-play-children/ <comment><USER2> response from free-market website "Reason": [http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/14/fun-hating-socialist- magaz...](http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/14/fun-hating-socialist-magazine- jacobin-sa)

</comment><comment><USER3> Dude needs chill. It's just a game bro.

</comment><comment><USER2> PrivacyBadger says 16 potential trackers...

</comment><comment><USER4> LOL I'm trying</comment>


Maximizing profits and evaluating success as a Craigslist seller - <AUTHOR> https://robertheaton.com/2019/07/23/maximizing-profit-and-evaluating-success-as-a-craigslist-seller/ <comment><USER2> The correct Craigslist price is ebay - 20% Because that's still ebay profit for you and buyer saves on tax and shipping costs. You don't risk getting PayPal scammed but do have to deal with the hassle of people.

Normally I ebay anything that can be shipped or that's got low local demand because I can't get the -20% price locally and pucker factor is much lower even with shipping.</comment>