The scrypt key derivation function and encryption utility - <AUTHOR> https://www.tarsnap.com/scrypt.html <comment><USER2> How it is news? It's been around for years already. Was there a major new development in scrypt that I didn't hear about? Or is this just "let's submit everything tar snap related week" as cperciva put it?

<comment><USER3> I find interesting that scrypt asics are on the way: [http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/20/kncminer-sells-2-million- wo...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/20/kncminer-sells-2-million-worth-of- scrypt-mining-machines-in-four-hours/?ncid=tcdaily)

<comment><USER4> OK interesting, I didn't realize that the altcoins use scrypt. I remember hearing that Litecoin used a scheme that was supposed to be GPU-resistant, but didn't realize it was scrypt.

[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Litecoin](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Litecoin)

Looks like there is a Bitcoin variant: [http://bitcoinscrypt.org/](http://bitcoinscrypt.org/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Anyone know, how do I determine the version of scrypt currently installed on my system? I've tried various things: -v, -version, --version, man scrypt, strings /usr/local/bin/scrypt... no luck.</comment>


Atlassian won't give its users a dark mode for Jira - <AUTHOR> https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRACLOUD-63150 <comment><USER2> My guess is that the product managers know that dark mode does not move the needle for customer acquisition or attrition.

I'm surprised it is still in the backlog, so to speak.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Over 2300 comments, the top 2 issue and Atlassian keeps ignoring the problem. It's still "Gathering Interest" for almost 4 years.</comment>


My server's been hacked - <AUTHOR> http://serverfault.com/questions/218005/my-servers-been-hacked-emergency

<comment><USER2> That's a remarkable piece of advice for a very vague question. Though, unlikely to help the OP.

<comment><USER3> Incident Response in a nutshell. I'm very curious to hear how the situation turned out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Carefully explaining your problem is half of the solution."

</comment><comment><USER5> I basically agree with all the advice given, but the easy-fix-guy in me realizes that it's most likely just replacing a weak password and deleting an easily found botnetscript, and he'll can have the box up and running again.

I guess that's the difference between fixing my private boxes with no sensitive informastion and fixing this guy's 600-site serving box:)

</comment><comment><USER6> just a question from someone who probably also would've asked this "incomplete" question (e.g. my server's been hacked what do i do): what kind of other information should be provided? sys logs apache logs ?

<comment><USER7> From the article... _I'm assuming you've understood all the issues that led to the successful intrusion in the first place before you even start this section. I don't want to overstate the case but if you haven't done that first then you really do need to. Sorry._

It would be better if _you_ learned to read your logs on a regular basis, to know what the baseline activities and patterns for your servers look like, configured locally-appropriate log settings for your environment (and quite possibly with more detailed settings than the logging defaults), and to then look for oddities or patterns or connections or unusual events on a daily or weekly basis, or unusual logins, or whatever particular hole(s) the attackers have exercised.

Then you look for file system modifications or unexpected server activity patterns, etc. And match these against the log activity and firewall traffic.

Posting everything from your logs is going to drown folks in data. And may well end up exposing more about your security configuration than you had intended.

Follow what the article suggests here... _What steps can you take to reduce the probability of an attack being successful?_

Going backwards to where a server configuration might be defensible and debuggable and recoverable. Look to a move to certificate-based authentication (or passphrases and certificates) and away from traditional passwords, to VPNs rather than open protocols, to sftp and away from ftp, to locked-down web and service directories for services rather than writable directories, to various options with firewall blocks or zen-based or other blacklists combined with tools such as mod_security, to staying current on your software versions, to configuring defenses in depth against common attacks, and to getting your logs where you want it, and the one that tends to get lost...

You want... _Good backups of your data._

And preferably with some of these backup copies entirely disconnected from the security domain of your server. Push-based copies or pull-based copies involving remote hosts, for instance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Amazing answer this question has spawned. I particulary like this statement, it somehow puts things into perspective:

"First: understand that the disaster has already happened. This is not the time for denial; it is the time to accept what has happened, to be realistic about it, and to take steps to manage the consequences of the impact."

</comment><comment><USER9> 600 sites on a single non-redundant box? Ouch.

<comment><USER10> Thats how essentially all "mass vhosting" tier hosts are run. Think dreamhost, godaddy, etc. If you're paying for less than a VPS, thats what you're on.

<comment><USER11> We used to run closer to 1200-1500 at every hosting company that I ran. You don't get much for $5 a month.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> For every person in this guy's situation, I wonder how many others have hacked servers and are totally unaware?</comment>


Writing the uber crazy make file to support both Raspberry and OLinuXino - <AUTHOR> http://www.agilart.com/blog/programing-for-multiple-platforms

<comment><AUTHOR> What do you think? What would you do better?</comment>


The Final Countdown for NPAPI - <AUTHOR> http://blog.chromium.org/2014/11/the-final-countdown-for-npapi.html

<comment><USER2> I'm a bit sad that first Pointer Events which had support for pressure/tilt from pen input got killed, and now NPAPI which drove the Wacom Plugin is also dead. Seems there's no future route now to get pen input (eg Wacom, Samsung S-Pen) into Chrome apps.

<comment><USER3> I don't know what exactly you want to do with the pen input, but you could use native messaging[0] to get the data into chrome. Basically a small, native program that (bidirectionally) communicates with a Chrome extension via JSON.

I used the same approach to get customer signatures from a Wacom signature tablet into a web app.

0: [https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/messaging#native- mes...](https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/messaging#native-messaging)

<comment><USER4> But that's just a Chrome-only solution again, requiring you to use a different method for each browser. A plugin at least gives you a few ones in one solution.

<comment><USER5> OP was asking about `Chrome apps`

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I understand the reasoning behind this, but this is super annoying, since:

1\. I am required to use GWT 2.5.1 for our java webapp

2\. I choose to use Chrome on Mac OS X

3\. Chrome 39 just auto-updated to support 64-bit on OS X

4\. Chrome 39 stopped supporting NPAPI

5\. GWT-2.5.1 and the GWT Chrome extension are not 64-bit compatible, and require NPAPI.

6\. I have a major deadline this week finish styling our webapp

I've heard that enabling SuperDevMode can workaround all these problems, however I'm just an HTML5/CSS3/GWT-UI-Binder developer, not a Java/Eclipse/GWT expert. PITA.

(Perhaps I should enhance my calm and work on some LaTeX or Python)

<comment><USER7> I find this kind of astonishing on the part of GWT. NPAPI has been deprecated in Chrome for more than a year, and yet GWT's development mode still depends on it?

<comment><USER8> The GWT team saw this coming a long time ago, that's why we undertook SuperDevMode. It's not just chrome that yanked our APIs, Firefox removed NPAPI, Safari make it incompatible with DevMode, and the rise of mobile devices which don't run plugins, pretty make DevMode useless for mobile development.

Our only options are to either ship our own browser fork, like Dartium does and like we used to do with GWT < 2.0 Hosted Mode, or to make Javascript debugging work. We opted for the latter.

In GWT 2.7, we can recompile million line apps in seconds, and with Source Maps, and IDE support, you can back some of the original Java debugger experience. In IntelliJ 14 in particular, it works very nicely. Folks are working on Eclipse integration of SourceMap debugging.

NPAPI is a security risk and puts restrictions on other parts of the browser internals and how they're represented. We can't prevent Chrome, Firefox, and others removing this API just because of GWT.

Ironically, Microsoft might end up supporting this API forever, so GWT DevMode might continue to work with IE.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Did they finally update the video chat parts of Talk / Hangouts to not need a NPAPI-only plugin?

It was absolutely absurd of them to kill NPAPI in Chrome and not update Talk / Hangouts accordingly. I ended up switching back to Firefox at work just so I could use Hangout video chats again.

<comment><AUTHOR> back in june - [http://www.cnet.com/news/in-chrome-googles-hangouts- plugin-g...](http://www.cnet.com/news/in-chrome-googles-hangouts-plugin-goes- extinct/)

I use video chats every day (on chrome canary os x) and never had an issue

<comment><USER9> Odd, it seems like I just checked the other week, but it has been a while.

It's also quite possible that the way they segment their product rollouts between public and Google Apps for Business accounts might have meant that we didn't get the update when I last checked it.

Using Chrome on Linux also might have something to do with it...

<comment><USER10> > Using Chrome on Linux also might have something to do with it...

The switch to NaCl/WebRTC instead of the NPAPI plugin is what made Hangouts on Linux actually starting working for me.

<comment><USER11> It also broke screenshare on Linux :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So they are indeed going through with it. I thought they would push back a bit since Unity isn't ready on WebGL and Silverlight is still used on Netflix. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Hopefully Unity can get Unity 5 live and WebGL solid by April 15 latest.

<comment><USER13> The Unity 5 WebGL programs are beasts to download. It is too bad there isn't more ThreeJS-based development: [http://threejs.org](http://threejs.org)

<comment><USER12> Indeed three.js is more like the future but until the webviews in all mobile devices run WebGL fast enough, Unity helps most on the mobile side and one build so it is used. When WebGL runs fast across the board, many games can just use that for all platforms. I personally love three.js but use Unity, Lime/Haxe/OpenFL and Cocos because of mobile first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Can Chromium use Chrome's Flash PPAPI plugin? Or will Chromium users, without access to Flash PPAPI or NPAPI, have no Flash ?

<comment><USER15> Chromium can use Chrome's flash. Unfortunately, it's not distributed separately from Chrome. This is how Arch LInux pulls it out: [https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ch/chromium-pepper- flash/...](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ch/chromium-pepper- flash/PKGBUILD)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I wonder what will happen with Java applets once Firefox will try to switch to Wayland. Flash is going to be replaced with Shumway, but Java will be left behind. There is one case where I still use it (rather dumb Cisco Web VPN).

<comment><USER17> Have you seen if OpenConnect is capable of connecting to your VPN? [http://www.infradead.org/openconnect/](http://www.infradead.org/openconnect/)

<comment><USER16> Yes, but it uses that nasty trojan which doesn't work on Linux. So only limited Java WebVPN (not full client) works in my case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's really too bad that compatibility isn't cool anymore.

</comment><comment><USER19> With Google, it's _always_ about "security". Not security as in "you can control what your software does", but as in "we'll do what we want to control you and you _will_ like it."

The security issues were real, but I don't think trying to turn the browser into one monolithic thing with everything bundled in it is the right way to go. Unwanted plugins were extremely easy to block (no Flash -> no more distracting ads) and allow for the sites you trusted, not so easy now with everything integrated (and the way they're "simplifying" the settings and hiding them just makes things worse.)

</comment><comment><USER20> So transpilation to legacy languages is now the only option?

</comment><comment><USER21> Now I've got that "Final Countdown" song stuck in my head. :(

</comment><comment><USER22> What sort of moronic thinking leads developers to 'remove the override' for advanced users?

<comment><USER4> So they can retire a complete feature, reducing complexity.

<comment><USER23> Exactly.

The ideal future isn't one where only advanced users have access to NPAPI; it's one where the browser doesn't support NPAPI at all, and (among other things) Chrome no longer has to have a big pile of special support to launch NPAPIs in their own separate process and transparently pipe all the important bits to and from the browser's process.</comment></comment></comment>


Louisiana fiber network running -- despite cable, telco lawsuits - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/lousiana-fiber-network-running-despite-cable-telco-lawsuits.ars

<comment><USER2> I live in an area that has 2 providers, Comcast and Consolidated. Neither are a good choice, both are pricey, and for some reason there is some law/policy in place preventing other companies( like AT&T or verizon )from competing in my location. It saddens me that the telcos seem to be impeding progress here and preventing us from getting any kind of reasonable bandwidth to our homes.

<comment><USER3> All is fair in love and war. Where one can not win with a better product, marketing, or price, one can legislate the outcome thereby removing the outcome of failure. Doesn't it make you all warm and fuzzy inside?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> At first glance this seems like a simple case of local government giving citizens what they want - something that should be applauded. Having worked in the old regulated telco environment, I have some questions that aren't answered by the original story. Firstly, it would be interesting to know how the municipality plans to recoup its capital investment. Are plant investments being paid for with taxes, or is this being operated like a co-op? Do taxpayers have the option to _not_ pay for this service (either directly or through taxes)?

I assume that the city does not have to pay for rights of way to install plant. If that is the case, they _do_ have a competitive advantage over private providers. Capital costs and regulatory restrictions are often the reason why there is no private competition for incumbent providers, and those regulatory restrictions are often put in place to encourage the incumbent's initial capital investment.

I wonder if the same result could have been achieved via private competition if the city had made rights of way available to all interested parties, and existing regulations had been lifted.

</comment><comment><USER5> Lovely article, and prescient in its own way in the context of diaspora-like services: when we really control our own data, computation will be pushed out to the leaf nodes of the net, which will require symmetry in net architecture.

The A in ADSL is another form of ser[vf]itude.

</comment><comment><USER6> If the Federal Gov really wanted fiber, then it should pass a law allowing municipalities to build out their own fiber networks under a certain set of requirements.

<comment><USER5> It did.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

(More broadly: one need not ask permission for natural rights.)

<comment><USER6> Well, the states are not helping, you kinda need to go a level lower. Also, to be fair, the tenth amendment has taken a beating over the year courtesy of the Commerce clause.</comment></comment></comment>


How did StackOverflow.com get initial traction? - <AUTHOR> http://russell.ballestrini.net/how-did-stack-overflow-get-initial-traction/

<comment><USER2> Hm, the consistent story I've heard is SO initial traction = founder's influential friends/contacts in the programming community.

<comment><USER3> Totally, two well known blogs with a big community</comment></comment>


The Department of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today - <AUTHOR> http://uncrunched.com/2013/02/21/the-department-of-homeland-security-stole-my-boat-today/ <comment><USER3> Ah, procedure. I'm particularly fond of situations like this where the procedure is, for the normal person, a once-in-a-lifetime event. But the flunky on the other side of the desk does it every day. And they think you are yet another stupid person who doesn't understand the simple procedure, and they have nothing but contempt for those who don't understand the procedure as deeply as they do (especially which parts of the paperwork are important, and which really are not.)

Nestled deep within this fucked up situation is an asymmetry of information that gives the flunky incredible power over someone who is, in almost every other context, perceived to be better than they are (especially in this case involving a young rich kid with an expensive toy). Most human beings, when confronted with such an imbalance of power, are not going to be able to resist abusing their power.

In practical terms, there are only two solutions to this problem that I know of. You can learn the procedure better than they do, and beat them on details. This can be effective, but it's boring and the payoff isn't very good. The other solution is to be really, really nice. To be incredibly accommodating. To engender a spirit of goodwill, joviality and kindness such that the flunky _wants to help you_. CHP officers call this the "personality test" - and they administer it every time you get pulled over, BTW.

It sucks. It's a form of psychic bribery. It's like they are saying, "If you can at least pretend that I'm a good person, just doing my job, then you won't have to suffer. However, if you annoy me, disrespect me, I will make you suffer like you've never known. Remember: I can check a _box_ that will consume _months_ of your life and untold amounts of treasure."

God bless the USA.

<comment><USER4> > It sucks. It's a form of psychic bribery.

That seems like a terribly cynical way to view the idea that, if you're nice to people, they will be nice to you.

<comment><USER3> _> That seems like a terribly cynical way to view the idea that, if you're nice to people, they will be nice to you._

I'm saying that if you're nice to someone who wants nothing more than an excuse to hurt you, and who has no compunction about doing so, then perhaps you won't get hurt.

The end goal is not for them to be nice to you. The goal is for them to refrain from making your life a living hell.

<comment><USER4> I just think there's another way to look at this situation.

Have you seen The Incredibles? The scene towards the beginning when Mr. Incredible helps the little old lady cheat the insurance system? I think most bureaucrats want to be that person. They want to give the good guy a break; they want to cut people who try hard a little bit of slack. It means more work for them, since they need to spend their own time to make sure those people followed instructions, and there's only so much energy you can give each one. Not only that, but they know the ways the bureaucracy was built a little loosely— the ways to get around things, not ways you should use all the time, but sometimes you have to.

 _That's_ the power bureaucrats have, and generally, they want to use it for good. They want to help that little old lady get her check. They want to let that kid go home when his dad dies. And yeah, they want to take a little time off themselves, but who doesn't?

What they _don't_ want to do is go out of their way to help some random idiot who just wasn't paying attention to his own shit, who seems to think because you're paid to process paperwork it's your job to advocate for _him_ , without so much as pretending like he's asking you for a favor. _Screw_ that guy.

And, seriously, what are we asking here? I'm reminded of an Ani Difranco quote:

      "Maybe you don't like your job. Maybe you didn't get enough sleep.
      Nobody likes their job; nobody got enough sleep.
      Maybe you just had the worst day of your life. You know there's no escape,
      and there's no excuse,
      so just suck up and be nice."

<comment><USER5> Being nice to a beaurocrat is stupid. Appear to be nice or even charming is one thing but always be willing to throw them under the bus once you are done with them.

And never make excuses for them online in a hackers forum.

<comment><USER4> Live your life however you want, but that sounds shitty to me.

<comment><USER6> It sounds pragmatic to me.

It takes someone very naive to be rude to a cop or other government official, knowing how miserable they can make your life with very little effort.

It takes someone even more naive to _genuinely_ care about someone who would be willing to use frivolously the power to make your life miserable.

There are "good" cops and government officials, but they are the minority. When you encounter a random one, you don't know which kind they are, and by the time you find out it's too late.

Pretending to be nice, in this context, doesn't seem shitty to me, it seems like the ONLY course of action a reasonable person can take. And thus it's my MO when dealing with cops or other government employees.

<comment><USER7> I don't think Cushman is saying pretending to be nice is "shitty".

> _Being nice to a beaurocrat is stupid. Appear to be nice or even charming is > one thing but always be willing to throw them under the bus once you are > done with them._

I think he is saying it is shitty to pretend to be nice and then be willing to thrown them under the bus when you are done with them....

Why not actually be nice? What is stupid about being nice to a bureaucrat? It's not as if a bureaucrat is not a person, and people respond to kindness. Pretending to be nice to someone and then being "willing to throw them under the bus when you're are done with them", sounds pretty sociopathic to me. And I don't know about you but I find sociopathic tendencies pretty shitty....

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A guy I know was in a similar situation when trying to enter Australia.

20+ years ago, when he was 18, he was arrested for the afternoon because of a student protest.

So now on the visa forms, when entering Australia on vacation, he was asked if he had ever been arrested.

He checked yes. The border control people in Australia denied him entry, and put him on the next plane back home.

When he told the border guy the full situation, the border guy said, "Next time, just check NO."

Then, this interesting quote: "You give us the papers we want. We give you the papers you want."

Meaning: make the papers (visa forms) look the way we want them to look, and we'll give you the papers (tourist visa) you want.

I remember that rule of thumb when crossing borders, or filling out paperwork to open a new bank account in a foreign country. Luckily, I've never had to lie, but it sure helps to make the forms look the way they want them to look, instead of treating them as an opportunity to express your individual quirks.

<comment><USER9> This highlights a problem which isn't unique to Australia. For example, if a potential employer (or whoever) asks you if you've ever been arrested and your record has been expunged or you've been pardoned, you are expected to lie and say "no". That is how the system works.

It sucks, but learning how to deal with these sorts of things is part of the price one has to pay when they have a run-in with the law. I'm not sure it's analogous to the boat thing. The agent really was wrong to insist on processing the boat with the incorrect information.

<comment><USER10> I'm wondering, isn't asking for your criminal history during job interviews the same as discriminating based on age or race? I mean, even if you were convicted, you've paid the price by doing your time and after that you should have equal opportunities at a job like anyone else, right?

Maybe I'm just too idealistic but I never understood why we hardly give these people a second chance. And then people wonder why recidivism rates are so high.

<comment><USER11> If I'm hiring an accountant I probably want to know if they have a history of dishonesty charges. You are free to give such a person a second chance, I'm less keen. I probably don't care if they had some drug charge 20 years ago though.

Not sure how that's racist or ageist?

<comment><USER12> Because the US justice system disproportionately punishes black crime, and older people are more likely to have had an encounter with the law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _It'll end by me bending over at some point._

Karma for this: [http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-asking-for- hel...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-asking-for- help-119-days-ago/)

<comment><USER14> What a bitter man you are. So my grudge and distress you're on the lookout for _karma justice_. Still got no balls to say you're sorry and move on. Truly, one of the biggest egos I have met.

<comment><USER15> The hate is strong in this one. Act like an adult and rant to Ed in private. I'm sure you feel aggravated by his comment but your anger serves no purpose in a public forum. If you feel the comment is inappropriate then simply downvote it and move on. Nothing is ever solved by offensively arguing in public.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There seem to be so many stories of this type. E.g. yesterday

[http://upgrd.com/matthew/thrown-off-a-united-airlines- flight...](http://upgrd.com/matthew/thrown-off-a-united-airlines-flight-for- taking-pictures.html)

9/11 seems to have given a big swathe of people in the US the ability to do outrageous things more or less at will. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be one of its most damaging consequences.

</comment><comment><USER17> DHS honestly makes me embarrassed to be an American. We could kill the whole thing tomorrow and it would make zero difference to public safety.

<comment><USER18> This doesn't make too much sense. DHS isn't one thing; it's many things glommed into one, including INS, CBP, FPS, TSA, APHIS, FEMA, the strategic medical stockpile, the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service, among others.

I don't like the TSA any more than you do, but can we hold on to the Coast Guard?

<comment><USER17> The Coast Guard was placed there for financial gerrymandering. The idea that they are part of DHS is a horrible joke.

Same with most of what you mentioned. Bush/Obama has shoved everything in there to create a psuedo military branch so it can't be declined in the future. Disgusting actions, honestly.

<comment><USER19> Bush/Obama shoved everything in there because people it was a national outrage after 9/11 that we had different departments for these things. We got what we goddamned asked for. It's not Bush's fault, or Obama's fault, but your fault and my fault.

<comment><USER20> Why should everyone accept collective blame for decisions they didn't make or support in any way?

<comment><USER19> Because we live in a society where we've empowered the majority to make decisions like this. We reap the benefits when it turns out well, we should share the blame when it turns out poorly.

<comment><USER20> That seems like a _non sequitur_. There is a linguistic symmetry to your suggestion, but I don't think that is a good argument for agreeing with it. Basically, I don't see any practical value to feeling like it's my fault that a bunch of other people made a decision that affects me negatively, nor would I take credit for other people's decisions that affect me positively when I originally disagreed with them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> No, DHS did not "steal" your boat. They confiscated it and you'll get it back by following some lengthy and convoluted appeal process.

But I seriously don't understand Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and why they have to be such utter dickheads on the Canadian border. Their Canadian counterparts (CBSA) are just as effective and efficient and somehow manage to be generally sane and rational.

<comment><USER22> They absolutely did "steal" his boat, for some definition of the word "steal."

The DHS agent will not be charged with theft or larceny. But he was in lawful possession of a boat, someone with a gun ordered him off the boat, and he is no longer in possession of a boat.

<comment><USER23> I don't think his _lawful_ possession of the boat starts until that form was properly signed. Moral possession, sure.

<comment><USER22> Then whose boat was it, lawfully?

You raise an interesting point, by the way. America is partly founded on the idea that laws do not create rights, but instead recognize natural rights. If this story is accurate and the DHS agent did not recognize his natural rights, that is an offense. But if the _law_ did not recognize his natural rights, that is an even greater offense.

<comment><USER23> I'm not sure - I think this is 'need a lawyer' territory.

But I would put forth the point that it's possible for an item to not be formally owned by anyone. Control is a kind of ownership, but it's not necessarily lawful ownership, otherwise a thief would lawfully own your car once he's driven off in it.

Perhaps it might be that he lawfully _owns_ it, but can't lawfully _control_ it until he gets the customs sign-off? But if he lawfully owned it while it's impounded, would that not mean he would have to pay licensing/registration for it while it sat there?

It does raise some interesting ideas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> If you refuse to sign a form because it has an error on it, it's your problem. If that form is what enables you to take custody of a boat, then you don't get to take custody of the boat. On the other hand, if the form that you signed has handwritten errata on it near the signature, and you weren't sneaky about it, then it's the bureacrats' problem instead of yours.

<comment><USER25> _and you weren't sneaky about it, then it's the bureacrats' problem instead of yours._

Actually it's your problem. They took his boat, ruined his week and it might cost him tens of thousands in lawyer fees. Other can miss flights to important meeting, bury their mom etc etc. Either way, you lose.

Do you think the agent will be punished? I doubt it, blue wall of silence, union protection and all.

<comment><USER26> I think you misunderstand. He's saying this could have possibly been avoided by manually crossing out amount and correcting it, initialing it and then signing the page. Now you haven't lied and the it's up to someone else to fix it officially.

<comment><USER23> He should have just amended it himself - "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> One thing that I have learned is that every encounter with law enforcement (and that includes customs) is governed by power relationships.

One simple example: If I am pulled over for speeding, I find I am _far_ less likely to get a ticket if I put myself in control over the interaction. I make sure I greet the officer first and ask what I can do to help. This puts me in a position of being outwardly subservient but the officer is no longer in control over the conversation. Moreover, I am doing so in a way which is emphasizing that I am not a threat and so the officer has few options to escalate a power struggle.

Here, this is all about power. "Sign this form because I have the power to make your life miserable if you don't." We believe in honesty and rule of law, but when it comes down to it, at least the latter is nothing more than a convenient fiction and efforts to make it a reality end up making it less of one.

I am here in Indonesia at the moment and the big breakthrough for me was that as corrupt as everything is over here, it functions more or less the same way it does in the US, with just surface differences.

<comment><USER28> You're not in control when you are pulled over. But its in the police officers interest to let you believe you are, as you will act in a predictable manner.

<comment><USER27> Control is relative though and nuanced. The question is one of initiative and nuance and a matter of trying to establish things up front. The officer can be legally in control, and in control of some aspects (i.e. you are not free to go) but still not in control over where the social interactions/conversation leads.

To give you an idea, I once got a warning (or maybe it was a greatly reduced speeding ticket, I don't recall) and found out the next day from someone who apparently knew the officer who pulled me over that I was suspected of having drugs in my car (which was a total misunderstanding, he saw some things he didn't recognized assumed they must be bongs or something and extrapolated from there). Go figure....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The boat in question[1] would appear to be a Coastal Craft 400 IPS[2]. Roughly, $1M CAD (roughly, $1M USD at today's rate). I don't have that kind of money lying around for anything, much less a boat, but I suppose I'd be a little pissed myself if all of it was in the hands of someone else due to red tape.

1\. [https://twitter.com/BrianKrantz/status/279015063661199360/ph...](https://twitter.com/BrianKrantz/status/279015063661199360/photo/1)

2\. [http://coastalcraft.com/coastal-craft-400-ips/boat- specs-400...](http://coastalcraft.com/coastal-craft-400-ips/boat- specs-400-ips/)

<comment><USER30> Heh, 1 mil doesn't buy much boat.

<comment><USER31> New, no. Used, yes =)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The form is being treated as a contract, and like all contracts I am requested to sign, I would line through and correct them as needed, then sign. If the other party will not allow the amendments, then we go to the next step, but in the mean time, the contract was made factually correct.

I did this with my girlfriend (now wife) on our first rental contract and was amused by her shock at my changing the "official" forms.

Likewise, forms with blanks that in no way allow for the information to be printed into the space given get writing that extends across whatever needed to supply the correct answers. Maybe the form will eventually be updated to be a little more accommodating, maybe not.

<comment><USER33> Why so overzealous? Would you be shocked if I said that I always sign stuff without even reading it?

<comment><USER32> No, not shocked. I think we all tend to live in buffer zones at times where we may not be paying attention. I am sorry to say that it is not uncommon for me to realize that I have been driving down the road and not really paying attention to road conditions.

I guess I just choose to keep myself on task when faced with a contract much more often than not, and consciously make the decision to read it or not read it each time. Most of the time I will read it, and make sure it is factually correct.

I freely admit I do occasionally choose to forgo reading a contract if other factors are weighing heavier. Like the impatient person behind me in line that seems to want to clean the floor with me because they are in a much bigger hurry :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Something vaguely similar happened to me once while registering a new scooter. Because it was shipped to me directly, it had less than a mile on the odometer. (Less than half a km even, if memory serves.)

Under penalty of perjury, I had to declare the odometer to the nearest mile, but the system wouldn't accept zero for the mileage.

After 40 minutes of trying to sort it out with a supervisor, I muttered something about forgetting the km-to-miles conversion, amended the mileage to one, and was on my way.

</comment><comment><USER35> If this story went down exactly as Mike suggests the agent will lose her job or at least her federal law enforcement qualification.

On the other hand, Mike is pleading his case in the court of public opinion, and his reputation is likely going to get him a lot of popular support either warranted or unwarranted.

<comment><USER36> What on earth makes you think the agency wouldn't cover for her even if it knew everything was true as stated?

<comment><USER35> If she acted as Mike suggests she likely has a history of being an idiot and CBP will be happy to reprimand/release her.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This reminded me of a situation Richard Stallman was involved in while visiting a doctor's office: <http://stallman.org/articles/asked_to_lie.html>

</comment><comment><USER38> It appears that agent solicited, and advised, you (the story's author) to falsify information. I don't know what weight that would carry with respect to this form, but were you to have initiated such falsification, I imagine it might or would have been construed to be some level of criminal activity.

So... did this agent solicit, advise you to commit a crime? If so, will this agent face repercussions for her actions?

Perhaps it's "not serious". Except that you sought to correct the information, to make the situation fully compliant, and she appears to have used her position to punish you for this.

I would also question why she was so eager. Are their incentives for agents, and perhaps financial incentives for the agency(s) involved, to pursue such seizures?

I guess, were I in your shoes, I'd be hesitant to further buck the might and potential maliciousness of the U.S. government. However, from my perspective, I would very much like a public airing and answers to these questions.

</comment><comment><USER39> The biggest, and in my opinion, terrifying problem with bureaucracies is the lack of humanity; when humans stop treating each other like humans and use common sense, yet I feel like both parties in this story lacked humanity. Yes, the DHS employee went ahead and followed procedure even though it was going to seriously inconvenience Arrington, and that sucks. But Arrington's pedantry also inconvenienced the employee since it no doubt would have let to a long string of seldom used contingencies, much like making a fast food employee make you a special request. There was a moment where both parties could have just looked at the system for what it was - imperfect and inhuman - <USER2> knowingly nodded in agreement at the path of least resistance; in this case, the path of least resistance was Arrington signing the damn form and getting on with his day.

Sure, _technically_ he saw the error and his signing the form would mean he was somehow not acknowledging it. But what are the consequences really going to be? I mean, what are the chances some other bureaucrat up the chain o' command would notice the mistake and contact Arrington on trumped up charges of lying on a routine customs form. Slim to nil. But it's the "principle" Arrington is worried about in this case. Well, there's principled, and there's downright ridiculous. I doubt Arrington reads every TOS on every website he's ever signed up for, and I doubt very much he would truly lose sleep at night knowing he signed that form.

Arrington tried to out bureaucrat a bureaucrat and go burned. Lessoned learned, I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER40> Some tactics that may or may _not_ work depending on jurisdiction and circumstances:

1\. Mark the correction on the form. Sign underneath the correction, or mark with your initials, in addition to the correct place to sign.

2\. When signing, write "Under Duress" underneath.

IANAL, TINLA.

</comment><comment><USER41> They didn't stole the boat, they seized it. Not wanting to sign an erroneous legal document is respectable, calling the DHS stealers is clearly not. Don't be surprize if they won't cooperate to solve the matter ASAP.

<comment><USER42> They took it by force. If I took your car by force, what would you call it?

<comment><USER43> Are you a repo person and my car loan invalidated? Did I steal my car from someone else? Was a car matching my car's description involved in a crime nearby that a judge ordered a warrant for a black ford F150 with a "geeks rule" bumper sticker? Are you a Customs/Border Patrol Agent and I do not have the proper paper work on the car I'm attempting to drive in? Are you a police officer and I do not have a driver's license on I-75? If any of the above, lawful seizure by government authorities, not theft.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> They say you're better off taking the cash you'd pay for a boat and just throwing it into the ocean.

<comment><USER45> A boat makes you happy twice: when you buy it, and when you sell it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> "What struck me the most about the situation is how excited she got about seizing the boat. Like she was just itching for something like this to happen. This was a very happy day for her."

I am inclined to believe this. Ugh. Makes me mad.

</comment><comment><USER47> Meanwhile, somewhere else out there in the blogosphere, someone is telling a story about some arrogant rich jerk who pitched a fit when asked to sign a form to bring his fancy new boat across the border.

</comment><comment><USER48> Okay all, the rest of the story(I was there). 1. The amount on both invoice and CBP form were in U.S dollars correctly completed on the form. 2. Just because someone has $$$ and posts something first on the web, doesn't make them true. 3. The officer in question did not act gleefully, in fact SHE called back to the office and vessel manufacturer several times to verify the stated value. 4. The officer in question vilified by this rich individual now has to endure all the grief posted here and elsewhere by Mr rich guy and explain why she followed the LEGAL document value and wouldn't cow to his brow beating. 5. Coastal Craft ended up paying for a broker to perform what should have been a personal importation and guess what The value on that entry was EXACTLY the same as on the CBP presented form. 6. Mr. Rich guy will probably post everywhere now that HE was right due to the fact that he has his boat and did not sign anything, but the fact is that the company took the high moral ground and due to ALL the false posting by Arrington, they paid for the paperwork to be processed. 7. We are all at the mercy of individuals who feel (right or wrong) that they can put out whatever they feel and get hundreds of all of you all worked up about the big bad government, fact is she is/was correct and all of us had to jump thru hoops due to arrington's posts and written falsehoods. 8. I am proud to work with this office/officer and all of you should be ashamed for vilifying her/DHS without knowing the facts. 9. Most working folks have bosses and we are no exception sadly we had to answer many questions for correctly performing our sworn duties due to all the bad press put out by someone who feels entitled or above the public servant. Shame on you.

</comment><comment><USER49> Hiring a lawyer will get your boat back. It will not fix the problem.

The problem is too much government.

Perhaps you should consider this:

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

We don't need to eliminate government, of course. Someone still has to throw parties for foreign dignitaries and say stupid shit on TV. We do need to trim it down to the bone and get it out of our daily lives. You just had a run-in with the "Gestapo" society we are building-up to. Thugs with badges and guns. Great stuff. That's exactly what I want the future to be in for my kids. Right.

I mean, think about it for a moment. You are buying a boat from Canada. Why should government be involved in any way whatsoever? Are you really free? You can't even go fishing to feed your family without asking for permission from the government in the form of a fishing license. Think about THAT for a moment. Our ancestors were able to fish and hunt to feed themselves, their families and communities as needed. Today, if you are caught fishing without a license ANYWHERE, you can be arrested and fined. I've seen guys with guns board group fishing boats here in California to check for fishing licenses. Imagine that image in my kid's mind: Fishing with Dad and guys with uniforms and guns interrupt the experience to ask for papers. Pretty cool setup we have, ey?

Reminds me of a story from when I was a child. We were traveling in Argentina. My Dad got pulled over by a cop at this checkpoint between Ezeiza (International Airport) and Buenos Aires. The cop asked for papers and took his time checking them out. Another cop came out of the booth. He, menacingly, looked inside the car were my Mom, Sister and I were. The first cop asked my Dad to get out of the car. They walked around the car looking for problems. The car was perfect. Then he said something like "We need to go in the office for you to pay your fine". I'm sure my Dad though "WTF, over?". He, politely, asked: "What's the problem officer". Without blinking the copy replied: "You were driving with one hand".

They went inside and my Dad, effectively, had to bribe them. It was a first class shake-down.

Here's what's funny: This was a Fiat 128 with a manual transmission. And, it would be my guess that the vast majority of cars in Argentina at the time had manual transmissions. There was no law about having to have both hands on the wheel at the same time, but, even if that law existed, you'd have to violate it for a fraction of a second every time you shift the transmission.

Next time you vote, think about who you are voting for and what they really stand for. Think beyond you and do the generations to come a favor by reducing government to the most essential functions we need and nothing more.

<comment><USER50> Blah, blah, blah.

The problem isn't some vague platitude about how there is "too much government". This wasn't caused by Social Security or other defined benefit programs (which make up most of "government"), or by the Veterans Administration, or by the Postal Service, or by FDA.

It was caused by one specific agency, created by W, which should never have been created, is duplicative by its very nature, and which has run amok. Homeland Security.

And no, this isn't evidence that we are heading for a Gestapo society. No. The Gestapo was highly organized, disciplined, and effective. Homeland Security, by contrast, is a bunch of minimum-wage flunkies, unable to get a job anywhere else because of malfeasance, complete lack of job skills, illiteracy, or a combination of these, which fails to accomplish anything of note whatsoever.

Continuing the pablum, you feed us a line about how fishing licenses are evil. I'm sorry, but we've had dozens of large world fisheries be over-fished to extinction. Mark me down in the columns as being in favor of responsible management of wildlife; this is another example of an area in which we need government.

Off-topic comparisons to Argentina, similiarly, do not really convince one that the entire US government is inherently bad. I know libertarians seek any and all excuses to drone on about this, but spare us.

Just fix or abolish Homeland Security.

<comment><USER49> There's nothing whatsoever wrong with conservation and responsible fishing or hunting. That has nothing whatsoever to do with me not being able to fish without a license. I should be able to fish any time I want without having to have a license as a prerequisite.

Now, we can debate ideas on how to prevent over-fishing and over-hunting. And that's OK. I am all for that. I won't put forth any proposals here because it is a complex subject. Licenses don't stop over-fishing. I've seen people take fish species, sizes and quantities that they are not supposed to.

See, here's the difference. I firmly believe that people --outside of extreme circumstances-- are good, not evil. For me at least, published guidance on such things as what species, sized and quantities to take would be enough. I don't need a law and a guy with a uniform and a gun to make me abide by reasonably justified social guidelines. Maybe some people do. I think most don't. A license, a background check or a permit and a set of laws will never prevent bad actors to, well, act badly.

I am using this idea of fishing licenses as an example of how much control government has over you. I live near a lake. I also live in earthquake country. Let's say we have an earthquake that takes down our infrastructure for a few weeks. If I need to walk over to the lake and fish in order to feed my family for a couple of weeks I should not need a government permit to do so. It is a fundamental right as a human animal on this planet to be able to feed yourself and yours. What's more basic than that? We have taken it to the level where you could be arrested for providing for your family. Not gonna happen? It's up to the thug with the gun isn't it. And, by the way, you are driving with one hand.

What? Politicians and officials don't twist things their way in the US like in places like South America?

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST-eE4Ud7nw>

Right.

I wonder how much of that goes on that we never become aware of.

<comment><USER51> Fish are a community resource and you should not get to take someone else's share of them, especially not to the point of destroying the population.

If you get in a situation where nobody can buy food, nobody is going to be enforcing the no-fishing law. It's a _general rule_. Courts exist for a reason.

If someone is going to lie about the fish they take then they didn't need to bother buying a license in the first place.

How is removing the ability to punish bad actors is going to improve anything?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> This is what happens when an employee KNOWS he/she can't be fired. The USA needs to seriously look at how they handle government employees. They get away with too much bs because it's hard for them to get fired.

</comment><comment><USER53> This reminds me of when I was on holiday once, riding a motorbike around Indonesia. The traffic police there are sometimes stationed at busy intersections and are known to pick on tourists for any minor infringement.

He told me I left without waiting for the green light. Nevermind that everyone else on the road including cars did the same thing. I had two choices - pay a "fine" (i.e. bribe), or have my motorbike seized on the spot.

It felt wrong but I paid the fine. After I paid the guy was apologetic and insisted on shaking my hand.

</comment><comment><USER54> "So now I have to hire a lawyer to try to figure all this out."

forgive my ignorance, but isn't Arrington a lawyer?. Question - Why does a lawyer need to hire another lawyer to represent him? Although, there are several branches of law specialization, Arrington could take it on himself to file the case against DHS? no?

"I live a fairly simple life and that didn't change much after I sold TechCrunch in 2010" - yeah we all know.

<comment><USER55> "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" - 19th century proverb.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> If it had been me, I probably would have started singing the bureaucrat song from Futurama:

People,

We didn't choose to be bureaucrats

No that's what our mighty Ja made us

We treat people like swine and make them stand in line

Even if nobody paid us

They say the world looks down on the bureaucrats

They say we're anal, compulsive and weird

But when push comes to shove you gotta do what you love

Even if it's not a good idea

</comment><comment><USER57> Sounds like Mike had a pretty crappy day. Interested in seeing how this unfolds.

</comment><comment><USER58> Barry Schwartz laments the same kind of problem in his TED talk:

[http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdo...](http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html)

</comment><comment><USER59> This is why the founders wrote a constitution circumscribing the powers of government.

This is man bites dog. Person in power (cop, bouncer, immigration officer, DHS, whatever) abuses power. It's as typical as it gets.

<comment><USER60> >This is man bites dog.

I'm sorry, but you have it backwards, the point of that aphorism is that the event is unusual.

[0]: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_%28journalism%29>

<comment><USER59> doh! yes, I meant 'dog bites man'

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Great timing: <http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/20/boatbound-aibnb-for-boats/>

</comment><comment><USER62> I'm sure they'll say they haven't seized the property yet… They're just holding onto evidence. After Michael spends thousands on lawyers fees to get it back and prevent a default judgement and seizure he might get it back. This could turn into one of those ridiculous, United States vs Buddy (yes against the property not the person) cases where Michael will have more trouble defending the boat as only a third party witness if they allow his testimony… After all they'll claim there is no known rightful owner and that it was abandoned at customs. Sick.

<comment><USER62> Really? A downvote?

Has anyone else ever heard of United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U....](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency)

I would not doubt that if you asked DHS if they seized his property that they would say they haven't and that it is currently being held as evidence.

He'll probably get his boat back but not after a legal fight costing several thousands of dollars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> They say a boat will make you happy just twice: The day you get it and the day you get rid of it. This boat truly seems a complete failure.

<comment><USER64> or this boat just made him happy twice in one day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Exactly which branch of DHS did this? I don't think the department itself has agents, it's just an umbrella for other agencies.

</comment><comment><USER66> The revolution will not be televised.

</comment><comment><USER67> Would Google Glass be able to solve this type of issues???

</comment><comment><USER68> WTF does this have to do with tech news, in any way?

<comment><USER69> Some vague connection to a liquidity event.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> 2 + 2 = 5

<comment><USER71> You have to provide a link for some of the illiterate downvoters here. "2 + 2 = 5" was my 1st thought 2.

<http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-twoplustwo.htm>

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> So, the error wasn't amended and the form wasn't signed. Now you have to put up with the law. If the agent said they didn't care about the error, surely the correct course of action would be to correct it and sign it.

Am I missing something?

<comment><USER73> No- you are correct. The authorities should be pursued _by the author_ until the paperwork is properly handled. The person who seized the boat should have to answer for trying to intimidate the author into signing false documents.

This is all provable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> He's afraid to sign a form that has an error on it, because he's a moral person.

Meanwhile, she's giddy to steal his very expensive boat, because she knows no matter how much she fucks it up, it's not going to come back on her. Plus nice new boat to screw around with.

If this situation doesn't show how profoundly corrupt government is, then I don't know what will.

And all the evil like this-- it is visited not just on rich people like him, but on poor people, who have their assets stolen by government agents just as giddy as she is.

Yet most articles about it don't even have the guts to call it what it is: Theft.

It's pathetic what "americans" have become. If he's pulled out a gun and shot her dead, right then and there, he would have been in his rights, she was in the act of grand theft, and it would have been self defense.

But of course mentioning that truth is shocking-- shocking!-- to the enslaved sheep that americans have become. (Hell the idea that he should be allowed to have a gun even, seems to be alarming to the impotent cowards that inhabit this country.)</comment>


Ask HN: What else is in your list of daily reads? - <AUTHOR> Besides HN, I am curious -- what else do folks here read on a daily basis? My short list includes:<p>* CNET News http://www.cnet.com/news/ * Ars Technica http://arstechnica.com * Mac Rumors http://www.macrumors.com * Wired http://www.wired.com * The Verge http://www.theverge.com * xkcd http://www.theverge.com * IEEE Spectrum http://spectrum.ieee.org <comment><USER2> Five thirty eight!

A healthy dose of statistics on a wide variety of articles. Science portion is fairly relevant. Some interactive graphics.

[http://fivethirtyeight.com](http://fivethirtyeight.com)

</comment><comment><USER3> For business/coding stuff:

[http://business.snapzu.com](http://business.snapzu.com)

[http://lobste.rs](http://lobste.rs)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the links!</comment>


Art created by Google's neural networks sold for thousands of dollars - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/02/29/googles-computers-paint-like-van-gogh-and-the-art-sells-for-thousands <comment><AUTHOR> Quite a coincidence, I made a movie yesterday about neural networks and how Google's 'deep dreaming' works:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJs6OqcXD8U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJs6OqcXD8U)</comment>


Full SICP Course Lectures [video] - <AUTHOR> http://academicearth.org/courses/the-structure-and-interpretation-of-computer-programs

<comment><USER2> MIT has an older video course taught by the authors of the text:

[http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.001/abelson- sussma...](http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman- lectures/)

<comment><USER3> If I recall correctly, the original is based on SICP 1st edition whereas the Berkeley lectures use the second edition. Another difference is that Berkeley's one has all the administrative stuff in it like tutorial arrangements and Brian Harvey asking if it was possible to pass the sheets around without reading it.</comment></comment>


Google Family Link - <AUTHOR> https://families.google.com/familylink/ <comment><USER2> We don't need better tech for kids, we need better tech for the elderly. Kids can learn anything. Elderly can really struggle with today's tech.

<comment><USER3> I agree. I have plans to create a site with animated gifs explaining from the most basic things in computer interface. Things i see my 70yo parents struggling to achieve/understand:

\- how to close/minimize/maximize/open a window.

\- right click, left click common outcomes

\- enter a site URL

\- Google use

\- save files

\- navegate through local files

Etc

Edit: I know "I have plans" is worth nothing, but I am unemployed right now and on a carreer change. Once I have better financial stability I plan to pursue this more effectively.

<comment><USER4> To get you to think a little more outside the box - do elderly need "computers" or "connected devices"? My dad tossed his laptop once he learned his iPad. Just something to think on. Specific "gestures" can change with tech - just like 20 years ago when my parents learned how to use a mouse was different. How do you get elderly people to intuitively use a device?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> open-source-ux The privacy implications of this are quite horrible. If you read the Google privacy notice, you'll see that Google tracks and records the activity of your child.

[https://families.google.com/familylink/privacy/child- policy/](https://families.google.com/familylink/privacy/child-policy/)

The reactions in this thread and across the tech community toward Google are just baffling to me. There is a strong double standard.

Microsoft and Facebook are, quite rightly, criticised and scrutinised over the amount and the degree of tracking they undertake. Meanwhile, Google, who capture unimaginably humongous amounts of data on users, escapes any scrutiny.

From ChromeOS (an entire OS that tracks everything you do, and one heavily used in schools) to GMail and Google Analytics and CDNs, Google's digital fingerprints can be found in every corner of the web.

It's no longer an exaggeration to say we live in a time when millions of people are tracked online from childhood to death. This isn't a dystopian episode of Black Mirror, but real life.

I don't blame ordinary users for not fully understanding the privacy implications and the myriad and insidious ways they are tracked. But what excuse does the tech community have for giving Google a free pass on matters of privacy and online tracking?

<comment><USER5> > But what excuse does the tech community have...

You may be confused due to the name of this site. "Hacker News" is not, nor has it been for a _very_ long time, by and for hackers.

The success of YC has turned this site, and the community around it, into a money-centric zeitgeist. Marketers, "growth hackers", salespeople, recruiters, and other forms of greedy, parasitic professions, are now the dominant voice in the so-called "tech community".

Anything for a buck, even at the expense of privacy and _real_ technological advancement. That is the mantra of HN.

Perhaps you might want to try Slashdot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> To contrast all the bashing comments here, I'd love to have this feature.

I've broke my 20 years long love affair with Linux for Windows 10 just because their family features.

Technology is addictive, I want my kids to use technology, but not to be dominated by it. I'm tired of seeing a bunch of kids in a park all around a phone instead of being running.

Screen time limits is a fundamental feature of any modern Operating System.

<comment><USER7> im pretty sure you can implement in a couple lines a screen time watchdog on linux.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Given how fickle google has been with their new products, and how much worse their invasion of my privacy appears as time goes by, this just makes me shake my head.

there are lots of things google provides that are so valuable that I feel it's worth the pain of supporting an increasingly crappy company.

but having them track my kids isn't one of them.

yuck.

</comment><comment><USER9> I tried this with iOS and regret it on a weekly basis, especially since I moved myself off iOS and my kid is still using an iPad. I have to keep an old iPhone around to manage the "Family" account because they don't have a web management option. Every single time I boot up the phone to approve purchases there's some issue I have to deal with that takes 20 minutes to resolve (logged out, cc expired, No SIM card). I wish I had just made him a normal account and lied about his age. He's already proven he can handle the internet responsibly and now everything is tied to that account and it can be made into an "adult" account until he's 13. Hopefully Google does it better.

<comment><USER10> The description makes it seem like it is Android only.

<comment><USER9> I assumed that, I didn't think they'd replace anything on iOS. I've accepted my fate with that. I'm just saying if they're not doing it better, think about avoiding it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I really wanted this to be something letting my wife and I share digital assets like we do real assets. Alas. Just take the device away from a kid using it at night against orders.

<comment><USER12> The lack of access to online accounts is a time bomb waiting to happen. A user friendly version of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir%27s_Secret_Sharing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir%27s_Secret_Sharing) or some type of multi-sig to handle giving access to all of a persons accounts[1] will eventually be needed for the general population. Anyone that's had to deal with this after the passing of a loved one knows how much of an added pain it can be.

[1]: _At least the ones they want you to access..._

<comment><USER13> LastPass can be configured to automatically share your vault with a nominated person after (n) days of inactivity, after trying to email you etc.

<comment><USER14> Wait, so it's a password storing service that's not encrypted?

<comment><USER12> I'd be curious to see how they've implemented this. It'd be possible to do this with cross signing encryption keys so that by supplying their credentials, they could unlock the keys to unlock your stored passwords

<comment><USER15> Given their previous monumentally bad security hole I wouldn't feel inclined to trust it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Amazon's Kindle Free Time is sensational in controlling what is accessed by your children. They have a fantastic control of what can be offered and tt supports multiple age levels and allows you to control what is displayed on a granular level.

You can also set a time limit for usage throughout the day and even the media type being consumed.

There is a monthly charge for each child, but well worth it.

<comment><USER6> Great. I didn't know about it. My sons are around 10yo, I'm really worried of them watching Netflix full of 18yo rated movies. Maybe it is time to change to Amazon for streaming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This sounds like a bad excuse to collect data on children using Android.

"We need to feed your emails to our ad systems so we can give you better ads!"

"We need to know the engagement metrics for children specifically so we can better target them and do it in a way that is not displeasing to and counteracted by parents!"

<comment><USER18> Not sure what it changes, since this data is already available to them. What they change is making it also available to parents.

The second point is weird, because Google provides only the basic apps. It's the third parties that would be interested in engagement metrics. And again - they already have access to them.

<comment><USER17> Google owns YouTube and Gmail, both of which are oft used by children and adults alike.

This adds new data, because now a parent-child link is established, and the user's "child-status"/age is confirmed by the parent using this tool on them.

<comment><USER18> Are you trying to say YouTube can't identify children based on their video history? It's be surprised if they didn't already have an excellent estimation of child/parent split. We're taking about a company specialising in targeting user groups.

Sure, there's going to be that one adult guy who does enjoy listening to the same Frozen song 5 times a day, but that's an acceptable anomaly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I want to see a selectable parental option to remove all advertising of any kind from the content my child sees. Your move, Google.

</comment><comment><USER20> I wonder how Google plans to enforce Family Link, because kids are definitely smart and motivated enough to create their own Google account. Plus, kids are connected to a cultural network where they can easily find this information or ask someone else to do it for them.

</comment><comment><USER21> I wonder why is it available in US only, and for parents only. It might be useful for giving Android devices to elderly people as well, who don't understand the technology well enough.

<comment><USER22> History shows that a very large portion of Google launches begin in the United States and then tend to scale outward.

And I agree on the use case for seniors, given this is Family Link but targeted mostly toward juniors. It's been joked about elsewhere that "Parental Controls" is to control one's parents.

(Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud Platform)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> _To get started, you'll need:

...

To be in the U.S_

At this point I'm past being the surprised by this.

Lawyers recommended it I guess?

I'd think annoying customers was something to worry about too but then again.

<comment><USER24> Limited roll out in a market you understand first.

<comment><USER25> I don't believe for a second that Google doesn't understand most of their markets. That they choose to ignore them (looking at you, myriad chat apps) is another issue, but they definitely understand e.g. France or Germany well enough to start roll-outs there.

Would be nice to see them switch it up a little now and then so everyone not in the US don't have to feel like 2nd class citizens.

<comment><USER26> We have much stricter privacy laws in Europe so perhaps they are piloting in the US before deciding whether to take the time to make the service compliant with local regulations.

<comment><USER23> Then release in Europe first:

Once they have ironed out the privacy issues here the rolling out to US should be a nobrainer : )

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> "\- You must be in the US"

Yet another feature we will never see again, it seems.

</comment><comment><USER28> Glad this wasn't around when I was a kid!

</comment><comment><USER29> Maybe this will inspire a few kids to become a bit more tech savvy in order to bypass restrictions. That is quite literally why I am where I am today. Nine year old me wanted to play RuneScape, so I cracked open the computer user manual and found a backdoor. This started a lifelong trend of exploring systems and eventually lead to software engineering.

<comment><USER30> Hardly. Back then we had an atmosphere of freedom and parents didn't understand things properly. We had root access. Now children are put under surveillance and can't leave the walled gardens set up by corporations.

<comment><USER17> Yeah right, like computers are locked down that tight.

It still takes my 13 year old brother just a few hours to figure out he has to put the Mac in recovery mode to allow the changing of system files (forgot what that security theater was called). Most parents haven't suddenly learned to set BIOS passwords or to protect the admin passwords, and even then, it's not too hard to burn and boot a disk that removes password checks from an unencrypted system.

<comment><USER31> Parents don't need to know about root passwords if even they don't have root access in the first place... (At least that seems to be the strategy on mobile)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Yak shaving and fixing - <AUTHOR> https://sophiebits.com/2018/12/03/yak-shaving-fixing.html <comment><USER2> Agree with the main point: _Do_ regularly step outside "your" assigned work to fix problems.

I still think yak shaving is bad, but tautologically. It's only called yak shaving when you go too deep.

Not yak A: My build failed with no sensible error given, so I improved the build process to log errors better.

Not yak B: My build failed with no sensible error given, so I had to log into the build server to inspect it, so I had to run around asking people how to get remote desktop credentials. I then documented on the internal Wiki how and where to find credentials, and improved the build process to log errors better.

Yak territory: In scenario B, I found the remote desktop software is running an old version, so I set out to update it on the build server.

Deep Yak territory: While updating the remote desktop software, I realized that it would be good to update it on all build servers, so I make a script to do that. Such a script should also run automatically to upgrade to a newer version when it becomes available so I don't have to manually to this every time. I could run the script on the build master, but the script is in Python 3, and the build master only has Python 2 installed. Installing Python 3 I notice I need to keep Python 2 the default to not mess with execution of existing scripts. But the existing scripts are mostly thin layers above Python libraries that exist in Python 3, so it wouldn't be a big task to port them over and thus simplify everything.

<comment><USER3> The things you cite as "Yak territory" are just bad, anti-productive decisions.

Yak shaving, by definition, is a seemingly unrelated problem that _needs_ to be solved before progressing with the primary task. In other words, if it's merely an optional decision, it's not really "Yak shaving".

The only way you avoid Yak shaving is by an uncanny combination of careful planning and organizational flexibility. Sometimes Yak shaving can't be avoided, that's OK, it's a learning experience and it builds skills, character and funny stories.

<comment><USER4> > Yak shaving, by definition

Depends whose definition you choose to use. The apparent primary source[0] doesn't have it as a dependency, the later jargon file does[1], and then there are seem to be an approximate equal split of others.

[0] [https://projects.csail.mit.edu/gsb/old-archive/gsb- archive/g...](https://projects.csail.mit.edu/gsb/old-archive/gsb- archive/gsb2000-02-11.html)

[1] [http://catb.org/jargon/html/Y/yak- shaving.html](http://catb.org/jargon/html/Y/yak-shaving.html)

<comment><USER5> My internal definition is something close to "7-steps removed"; yak-shaving is yak-shaving when you end up pretty far from the problem itself; whether its actually good or required is independent, just the fact that it might be time to start wondering if you went on too many tangents.

Eg quintessential example of knuth -- everything he did was good work, and in the end useful for his overarching goals... but at some point in the middle of that situation its time to start wondering if he's gone off the deep end. Whether you decide yes or no, it doesn't matter, you're still deep in yak territory

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The fact that that Seth Godins blog post that denigrates 'yak shaving' comes so prominent on web search for the term is really too bad - but he is not even a programmer! I believe that any healthy programmers culture supports yak shaving. The metaphor is an expression of how frustrating is to do the right thing, but it would not be a virtue if it was easy.

Yak shaving is the only sane way to maintain a big codebase. The more popular thing, and the root of all evil, is to add work arounds that mask the real problem instead of finding the right place for it somewhere deep down in the code. It is like: you discover a bug in a library that you use and instead of fixing it and sending patches to the author you just add a special case to deal with it. The result is that the code gets more and more irregular with special cases everywhere.

<comment><USER7> Indeed. If you don't shave your yak when you should, your yak(s?) will shed profusely and the hair will clog not only your shower, but also all the plumbing in your house. Thus, creating a kind of "kuldge debt".

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Organizational culture matters here. There is little benefit to fixing things if you have a culture where speed matters above everything else and people are rewarded on how quickly they can do things.

I still remember the time I spent weeks working with a giant mess of undocumented (or, worse, documented incorrectly) code to get my job done as the first engineer at a startup. We had a new hire coming (and lots more coming after that), so I took the time to clean everything up and document all the fixes, then trained the person instead of leaving them to figure it all out. Result: they got up and running within a few days instead of a couple of weeks.

Of course, when review time came, I was told that the new hire had gotten up to speed much faster than I did, which was why they were being promoted over me...

<comment><USER9> Ouch. I learned that this was a management anti-pattern when I was younger from fiction of all places. I loved reading Piers Anthony, and I think it was in his Apprentice Adept series, there was a series of tests that a person had to take to become a citizen, and some of them were competitive. Of course, at one point the main character made the mistake of giving pointers to a competitor, and the competitor only got better as a result when they played a duet. It blew my mind as a teenager when the main character won the competition _because his opponent played better_ when the two of them played together. It was such a foreign concept to me, that someone could act as a sort of force multiplier, and also be rewarded for it. After that, I don't think I ever hesitated to help bring people up. Even in college when grading curves meant others doing better could only hurt me, I'd still often try to explain things to people before a test.

It's a shame how many people never learned this lesson. Or maybe it's just a testament to how many bad managers there are that these are common things people get passed over for. Though, truthfully, if I were a manager, I'm a little afraid that I'd still be susceptible to this bias as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't see fixing the tools everyone in the team is using as you go along as yak shaving. That's just good manners.

<comment><USER3> Well, yeah, up to a point.

But if the fixing process ends up being the equivalent in cost, time and resources as putting together an expedition lead by your favorite project manager to fly to Kabul Afghanistan and then find a Yak and shave it-- that's more like the type of disruption that "Yak Shaving" refers to. It's not just a few quick edits.

I've always wondered, how much would it take for a good team of workers to leave their cubicles and literally shave a Yak?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > To be able to fix effectively, you gotta be willing to dive into code that > you didn't write. And into lower layers of the stack than you might be used > to.

Honestly, this is usually why I like to fix bugs in tools too. This, and because I don't like there being bugs in things I rely on.

</comment><comment><USER12> I always seem to find these issues when I'm in a hurry. They always show up when things are on fire. And they seem to have magically disappeared/unable to repeat, or are no longer an prioritized issue - when you have time to fix them.

</comment><comment><USER13> I just happened to be reflecting on the term "yak shaving" this morning. I saw Free Solo last week, and was motivated (by the funny scene of Honnold and Caldwell in the little hotel room) to start keeping a programming journal. Writing in it this morning I realized that my efforts yesterday were a classic shave: I forked a library, started converting the tests to my own testing framework, updated a terminal coloring module that the test harness to uses, then added an interactive mode to update failing test expectations on the command line (which I've been wanting for ages), which enticed me to port some old termcap code I had to enter `cbreak` mode gracefully for one-touch `y/N` interactions (totally optional but made it feel good).

I appreciate Deestan's comment: "It's only called yak shaving when you go too deep." However I personally find the term to be more subtle than a blanket pejorative. To me, the experience is of working with a big mental stack of contexts, where I spend the day toiling on various far-removed dependencies in an effort to achieve some goal _well_ (whatever "well" means that day). In this light, it's not that yak shaving is bad, but that there is some aspect of personal pride, and that it is hard to do without getting lost, working on things that end up not mattering, or losing momentum and motivation.

My efforts yesterday feel worthwhile. The detours I took succeeded, and yielded results that I have long desired. Other times I'm not so satisfied. Knowing when to start shaving seems to be an intuitive choice, because the payoff is too disparate and subtle to be calculated.

(There was an article on HN a while ago calling Knuth the patron saint of yak shaving, which I enjoyed, and which gave me the ideas that a) the term has something to do with pride in quality, and b) maybe it should not be used in a judgmental way. I also recall my late colleague James Golick, whom I miss dearly, using the term, with varying implications, to describe our daily work of untangling a web/mobile app that we inherited as contractors.)

</comment><comment><USER14> I work in a place filled with broken yaks where only new projects have privilege and everything else is denigrated as maintenance and often shuffled to outsourced teams. Only when a yak causes major customer complaints does it get "shaved". There is no encouragement or reward in fixing things that are broken or to avoid them breaking eventually. Maybe we as technologists only like new and exciting things and keeping older (not necessarily all that old) things working well is considered beneath us.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think it's helpful to split 'yak shaving' scenarios into 3 kinds, of which only 1 implies you should shave yaks as you encounter them: [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nbiZc7KM2KEyCAaCP/in- support...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nbiZc7KM2KEyCAaCP/in-support-of- yak-shaving)

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't look at Yak shaving any differently than a normal feature/bug workflow. If something crops up during development or fire-fighting I will make a note and continue on with what I was doing.

Later, the notes get written up into proper bug reports during the time I've set aside for this type of work.

These are added to the normal pipeline and prioritised the same as any other feature or bug. Important tasks rise to the top. Others are reserved for "cleanup sprints".

This does add some overhead but it means all tasks get careful consideration.

It also gives us a great list of short tickets to do on a Friday afternoon. Since these kinds of tasks usually don't need the kind of focus that normal development does.

</comment><comment><USER17> On fixing bugs, the author writes: "...there is always a logical explanation for why a computer is behaving in a certain way..."

I agree. Determining the logical explanation for why a bug exists is required in order to fix a bug correctly. Any fix made without doing so is pure conjecture. That said, it can sometimes be acceptable to write a fix based on conjecture, but it should at least be documented as such.

</comment><comment><USER18> When things are sane, I'll generally add a few hours to a day or so to each ticket to spend on improving process, refactoring, or just deep thinking about the domain and the stack. Nobody notices and the effort improves everything I do in the future.

</comment><comment><USER19> I use this chart from XKCD [https://xkcd.com/1205/](https://xkcd.com/1205/) to decide how much time to spend on something. Sometimes you need to do something that takes longer if there is a broken process that is only going to get worse.

I'm like the author, I do fix things as I find them, but only if there is test cases to run afterwards. I'm unlikely to mess with something if it's not fully hooked into our test environment.</comment>