The Internet is a surveillance state - <AUTHOR> http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/16/opinion/schneier-internet-surveillance/index.html?eref=edition <comment><USER5> The elephant in the room that CNN doesn't want to talk about or admit to is that much of the problem lies in Big Media (of which CNN is obviously a part).

US/Western media companies are more aligned with the government of China than any notion of freedom when it comes to the interests they pour money into (as opposed to platitudes they might espouse).

The push to lock down computers and make it hard/impossible to buy one that doesn't clearly identify you - so that you cannot "steal" big media content - is exactly what makes it hard/impossible to prevent yourself being tracked and surveilled.

Can knowledgeable hackers beat the system...? Sure, somewhat, and increasingly this is harder and harder to do. But society is lost in the middle not on the fringes.

We live in the Panopticon [1] and this is a problem for many reasons. When a small elite can strengthen its ability to pull the levers of power decision making is concentrated in a smaller and smaller group. Small groups make worse decisions than large scale collective "marketplaces" of ideas and thought. This is what allowed the US and the West to flourish for so long. But it's easily lost. We are moving to a world where elections lead to less and less change, where major problems are going unresolved and punted to a future on the assumption that exponentially growing challenges can be out-waited. The only hope is in the increased connectivity of the Internet, access to information, and ability to share dissenting views. As this is taken away, to preserve Hollywood profits, and in the name of "security", we run further and further off the cliff.

Even Wylie Coyote has to look down eventually and see that it's time to fall to the canyon floor.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon>

<comment><USER6> I can't help but wonder about the top rated comment on HN being one that kindly shifts attention away from our beloved ad-powered Silicon Valley firms, to the Real Bad Guys all the way in LA and Washington.

<comment><USER7> Exactly. When every other startup relies on ad revenue, they're nothing but furthering the goals of big corporations and big media.

<comment><USER8> While I do believe that all of the reliance on ad revenue contributes to the "Internet surveillance state," I wouldn't exactly say that the newspaper industry would agree that ad-supported blogs are 'furthering their goals.' I think that many big newspapers would disagree with you there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Many if not most HN users create software and internet infrastructure. Collectively, we have so much power.

Yet much of what we make (directly or indirectly) is what the surveillance state is built on. It relies on us to build it, make it work, and keep it running.

If we care at all about privacy, we should think carefully about the privacy impact of what we make, and try to make a positive difference (or at least do no harm).

<comment><USER10> I highly doubt that's a stable or dominant strategy. As long as there's pressure to build systems, they will find people to build them. Not to mention, those sorts of jobs can be fun, intellectually challenging problems.

Like Narus - we probably agree it's not in the world's interest to have companies or governments with such technologies. But offered money and a chance to work on such a system, I'd work on it in a heartbeat.

It's unlikely that there will be a shortage of qualified people or that the extra money required will make any impact. And you could always take such jobs, and donate to the EFF.

This is such a common argument, I'm sure it has a name.

<comment><USER9> _"offered money and a chance to work on such a system, I'd work on it in a heartbeat"_

You would. But that doesn't mean that everyone would.

I am appealing to those of us who value privacy and ethics above making a quick buck or getting to play with neat toys.

It's not like there's some huge shortage of interesting technology jobs in this second internet/startup bubble. And not all of these jobs are for companies that want to spy on their users. Many of us still have a choice.

Even if you are at a company which spies on its users, you could at least try to make some positive change from within, or at least avoid advocating for going down the road of ever more surveillance and spying.

Way too many developers, VCs, and founders either don't consider the privacy implications of what they're doing, or are only too happy to collect and sell data about their users to the highest bidder.

This mercenary mentality is not some unchangeable part of human nature, but is a learned attitude that can be countered and rejected.

<comment><USER10> My point is that it's not even remotely practical to convince enough of the population to "value privacy" so much that these things won't be built or to even remotely hinder them. The population of earth is just too large. "HN readers" aren't some magic special bunch that cannot be replaced.

> This mercenary mentality is not some unchangeable part of human nature

No, it's just basic game theory. The more people that refuse to sign up for these "unethical" things, the higher the reward for those that do. And those rewards are very small compared to the pressures involved.

So even if you succeed in convincing a ton of hackers to join your cause, you've done what? Raised the salary from $250K to $750K a year for the people that do defect? That's nice, but the actual effect on privacy is zero.

<comment><USER11> inspiration produces better everything (software) than lucre but if you wanna talk $ rewards its obvious theres a mass market for privacy developing.

<comment><USER8> Please expand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Rendering Mr. Schneier on CNN's website caused my browser to send requests to:

\- cnn.com and turner.com

\- disqus.com

\- facebook.net, facebook.com, and fbcdn.net

\- imrworldwide.com

\- cleanprint.net

\- outbrain.com

\- twitter.com and twimg.com

\- chartbeat.com

\- linkedin.com

\- googlesyndication.com and google-analytics.com

\- scorecardresearch.com

\- doubleclick.net

...and yields an unending stream of pings to chartbeat.net just to let them know my tab is still open.

<comment><USER13> I long ago installed a plug-in that blocks most or possibly all of the above. There are several now that will do this for, say, Firefox.

In a related benefit, sites load way faster for me and consume substantially less bandwidth, since I'm not constantly waiting and paying to download the malware that so many sites now feel the need to embed.

<comment><USER14> Which one do you like the best?

<comment><USER13> Ghostery takes care of most such things, including blocking the major spying tricks by the likes of Google and Facebook.

A decent ad blocker like AdBlock Plus will go some way to helping as well, though it's more of a side effect in that case.

There's also BetterPrivacy, which mostly deals with the non-cookie cookies like Flash LSOs.

Unfortunately, for reasons I can't fathom, even generally privacy-friendly browsers like Firefox still seem quite happy to send vast amounts of fingerprint-friendly information that serves almost no legitimate purpose to anyone who cares to listen. However, there are clearly people thinking about this, e.g., see <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Fingerprinting>.

<comment><USER15> I learned recently that Ghostery is owned by Evidon [1] and thus no longer trust it.

My solution on Chrome is AdBlock, NoScript, turn off Flash, and turn off third-party cookies.

I prefer Firefox, which I additionally use CookieSafe, BetterPrivacy, and RefControl.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidon>

<comment><USER16> Besides a certain feeling about the company, do you have any hard facts that might give some suggestions about ghostery not beeing trustworthy?

If you do not agree to send them data (config wizard first checkbox I think), is there still data sent to them?

Feelings are ok, but keep them for your friends and family. We need facts here, so please deliver.

<comment><USER15> I have absolutely no facts whatsoever that they are misusing information. The only fact is that they have an obvious conflict of interest. I assume people interested in privacy would like to be aware of it. I'm sorry that you don't consider it relevant but I am certain others do.

<comment><USER16> I consider it relevant, otherwise I would not haved asked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> No, no, no, no, no.

We are always under surveillance - my neighbours know I stay up late watching crap tv, the bookshop assistant knows I browse the comics section but don't buy, and a hundred people each day see me do weird or normal things.

I am not oppressed when they do that. Embarrassed maybe, but not dragged of for "re-education".

As long as no-one uses the surveillance to force political outcomes from me or any individual, then this is pollution, not dictatorship.

Yes we need radical privacy laws - but not ones trying to put the genie back in the lamp. There are amazing benefits from technology - the sharing of knowledge seamlessly across 7bn people is going to ,produce wonders we cannot guess.

But we must embrace this new world - a world without secrecy. For privacy is not secrecy - it is politeness of our neighbours.

The problem is not my neighbours who know, it is companies across the world who now know. Their knowledge and actions are kept secret from me - and that must be prevented. Sunlight is the best disinfectant applies to targeted ads as much as corrupt politics.

Firstly any organisation that holds informant that can be used to identify and track people must publish the identifications they hold in real time. Expect a cottage industry of telling me about everything about me. Oh and those cottage industries must publish as well. So not a profitable cottage industry. Seen me walk out the door of mcdonalds after paying with my Loyalty card - great mail me the link so I can see.

Secondly a legal framework that makes commercial profit from my identity only allowed if I consent and preferably if I get a cut. Want to sell me ads - great pay me. Oh suddenly finding ads less profitable? Want to sell me a coffee after that burger - you could use the freely published info mcdonalds has to fling my phone a coupon - but that's my information. I charge a flat 2c for every commercial use of my info - I get 2c even if I don't want coffee.

Thirdly, get used to the idea your wife instantly knows you are sleeping with the secretary.

<comment><USER18> The surveillance you describe is ephemeral. After you move, your neighbors will forget you ever existed. The bookshop assistant probably forgets you the moment you walk out the door.

Internet data is not that way. It potentially lasts forever. A fear I've heard expressed is that in the future, totalitarianism will arrive, and past data will be used against people.

<comment><USER17> Who will be running that totalitarian regieme and can we see their Facebook pages from their early twenties?

In the end how the hell will you use data against people if you do not already do all the dictator necessary things anyway - torture, secrecy, disappearances. These are the things to fight, not the data storage but the people torture.

March to stop privatisation of the army, to stop torture in our names, to stop child labour. Fix those, then we have nothing to fear about our Facebook shopping trends.

Edit: some might comment that eg their sexual preferences might be discoverable on Facebook and that would be a breach of their rights to privacy. Firstly we change privacy - it has always been politeness not to mention what all your friends knew. The fact that anyone interested can now piece it together does not change that.

Second - the use of that data "against" you only matters if it matters outside of politeness. Alan Turing could not today be prosecuted for being gay, could not be chemically castrated nor driven to suicide. Because the legal system has been changed - so that the only thing that matters if people find out you are gay is _politeness_. Live in a free society - have to learn to deal with impoliteness. Don't live in a free society - deal with that not the Internet. We know how to defeat dictators, and the iPhone won't fix it for free.

<comment><USER19> This doesn't work if access to that information tempts those in power to do things that they wouldn't have if the the information didn't exist.

<comment><USER17> I kind of understand but I believe the benefits will outweigh the costs in all cases, and we can mitigate with sensible laws respecting the rights of individuals.

Or in short, that argument could have been made about fire, bronze, iron, steel, writing, printing cameras etc

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think that this is one of the big reasons that privacy-focused named-data networking will become popular. Another reason is that that model fits better with most internet usage today where data is disseminated from a source to a number of users.

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

Of course, surveillance can be built into those types of systems as well, but I think that the right engineering approach building in features like encryption and anonymity, especially combined if possible with mesh networks, could be a big advantage for privacy.

Also see <http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan>

</comment><comment><USER21> [After-post update: I've no idea why this got auto-dead'd. Ideas?]

What is the way out though? Nobody cares about privacy. Nobody.

Google used to be happy divining long clicks from access logs. Then, they said "screw privacy!" and started explicitly tracking every outbound search click (I'm ignoring all your email, calendars, contacts, and phone data they have).

Twitter used to be happy being just messages, then they click-nabb'ed every link. At least the interaction model on twitter is mostly benign.

Facebook does mephistopheles-knows-what with everything they have. It can't be good. They're in an unspoken competition with Google for who can get users to voluntarily exploit themselves over the widest personality surface area.

Then there's the hundreds of spy-tracking JS, ad networks (Hi, Google/DoubleClick!), ad markets (Hi, AppNexus!), mobile networks logging every URL you visit (Hi, Verizon!) and everything else tracking almost your every move across the Internet.

Why don't we just make it illegal to have a webpage without embedding <https://js.gov/tracker.js> and give the information to everybody in realtime?

</comment><comment><USER22> "If the director of the CIA can't maintain his privacy on the Internet, we've got no hope."

I couldn't help but laugh when I read that.

<comment><USER23> Interestingly, I consider that a fair equilibrium. Not something to despair over. I think it would be worse if the director of the CIA could keep privacy but not random individual. That power does not affect ability to avoid lack of privacy means things are becoming more balanced.

<comment><USER24> Yes, I'd say privacy is actually much more of a problem for the elite. How many investigations dig up infidelity, etc, in the normal population and then carefully step around it instead of enlarging the investigation?

But I do think the power elite are driven by excessive compulsions, and I worry if we eliminate the ones with relatively normal/outside compulsions we will be left with the Machiavellian freaks running everything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> There is a privacy ecosystem that is rising from it all. There are ways. the TOR network allows you to anonymize your dealings from your ISP. Some sites are now advertising the anonymity and encryption they are using for their services (MEGA). Bitcoin has seen a stellar growth (and still poised to) due to its uncontrollable nature, and can be tweaked to achieve pseudo anonimity through enough shuffling of the coins. Assange puts it best by saying that "The universe believes in Encryption - [it] is the ultimate form of direct non-violent action." What WE can do, is help put the blocks in place...

</comment><comment><USER26> Why not stop using facebook, google, apple and all these surveillance tools?

Have you ever asked yourself why you can't remove the batteries of your Iphone? Ow Yes, design is everyting. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone- trac...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tracking- prompts-privacy-fears)

Demand privacy, respect privacy, develop privacy and pay for those that offer it to you.

"If you are not paying for a service you are the product being sold" and no, google and facebook were never your friends.

Time to wake up!

<comment><USER27> I highly doubt the battery not being removable is designed to aid in tracking. It's a vital part of making the iPhone smaller. Open one up and look inside if you don't believe me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Sorry, I can't resist. And, I'll preface this by saying OF COURSE I AM JOKING. Here it goes:

I've clashed many times with folks here on HN who are super-pro-government liberals. They take every opportunity to point out how government has built everything of value to us and how government has wisely invested in infrastructure and other projects that make our lives possible. The implication, of course, is that we should be pro-government, pay more taxes and be thankful we are allowed to flourish under such a system.

One of their favorite things to say is "government created the Internet".

Fantastic! Let's take the good with the bad. If government is going to be credited with the good then we credit them with the bad as well. They created such a shitty system that we are all under surveillance, like it or not.

Not so you say? Well, this kind of thing was nearly impossible before our government created the Internet. They must have had ulterior motives and knew it could be used for this.

Why didn't they protect us with regulations BEFORE the Facebook's and Google's of the 'net were even up and running? They knew what they were creating.

Anyhow. I am not much of a comedian but there's a joke in there somewhere. The point is that government is an ass. They fuck-up nearly everything they do.

This "internet == surveillance state" thing is very real and it is something governments (PLURAL) are benefiting from immensely. Never before in the history of humanity has it been possible to spy on individual human beings with this degree of granularity. And it won't get any better for probably another five to ten years, if ever.

<comment><USER29> >I've clashed many times with folks here on HN who are super-pro-government liberals.

Since we're talking about the surveillance state, we shouldn't be leaving the super-pro-government _conservatives_ out of this. In the US (where these lib/con terms seem to matter most), both major parties love the surveillance state, and this is tied in heavily with the warfare state that both parties love as well.

I'm not very optimistic that the situation is going to improve. Privacy is increasingly something of yesterday, not today, and certainly not of the future. Those who will enjoy some degree of privacy will be the ones who know how to achieve it, and many aren't going to bother, just as they don't today (people are lining up to give it away, in fact).

>The point is that government is an ass. They fuck-up nearly everything they do.

No disagreement here, though I'd suggest that the only things at which government seems to excel are areas where no one should _want_ to excel. I'm thinking primarily of war, excessive policing, and weird, arbitrary laws.

<comment><USER28> > we shouldn't be leaving the super-pro-government conservatives out of this.

You are absolutely correct.

> the only things at which government seems to excel are areas where no one > should want to excel. I'm thinking primarily of war, excessive policing, and > weird, arbitrary laws.

That is probably true as well. It's sad to think that we will all live to see more wars.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "Increasingly, what we do on the Internet is being combined with other data about us."

My fiance receives tampon ads during the appropriate time of the month on Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER31> And the irony for Schneier would be, if you share this article on Facebook or anywhere, or heck even leave a comment there at CNN, you'd be tracked.

<comment><USER32> For the record, using chrome:

\- disconnect blocked Facebook, Linkedin, and Twitter

\- ghostery blocked more than 20 scripts from 10 different classes of trackers (e.g. there are 5 different references to DoubleClick resources)

<comment><USER33> And while using Disconnect and Ghostery you still got tracked by IP address, your installed fonts, screen resolution, installed plugins, while your internet activity was stored by your internet provider.

<comment><USER34> Privacy is not a binary function, it's shades of gray.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> "this is how liberty dies.. with thunderous applause"

</comment><comment><USER36> Eventually there will be some good and accessible options that will enable you to truly opt-out of the internet surveillance state.

Other than the occasional embarrassing thing (like googling a dance song) I really can't think of anything I have to hide.

Even so, I would pay a subscription fee to keep all of my internet communications completely private. I don't like being profiled, and it feels like an infringement on my freedom. I would even pay enough of a fee that the company I pay it too could in turn pay lobbyists to help protect their interests or headquarter in another country etc.

And the worse it gets, the more I'm willing to pay.

I'm sure I'm a minority right now, but I think our numbers are growing.

</comment><comment><USER37> I used to think people actually wanted privacy. (I did, why wouldn't everyone else?) But the data does not support that hypothesis -- in fact, I think the exact opposite is true.

People's personal information is not being stolen from them, it is given away; and not even for free -- more than 70% of the US population [1] pays an ISP a monthly fee in order to connect to Facebook's servers and upload their data. That is how the Internet works -- it is not Facebook sending the SYN packets.

In general society (outside of our tiny bubble), _not_ having a Facebook account is considered strange. It is even seen as grounds for suspicion of criminal activity. [2]

Everyone says they want to eat right, exercise and be healthy, but more than a third of them are obese. [3] The surveillance state is not happening _despite_ us, it is precisely what the majority of people want, even as they deny it. If you wish to change this unfortunate fact, change the culture.

[1] [http://www.onlineschools.org/visual-academy/facebook- obsessi...](http://www.onlineschools.org/visual-academy/facebook-obsession/) [2] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware- te...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-tech- abandoners-people-without-facebook-accounts-are-suspicious/) [3] <http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html>

</comment><comment><USER38> From a linked article in TFA: "Monsegur was a Tor user, although he was caught after logging on to IRC without going through Tor."

So he forgot to route IRC through Tor. Luckily there are a couple live distros that do it automatically, like tails. There are also VPN that accept payment in bitcoin, so anonymity is still preserved.

This doesn't matter in the scope of the article though, since obviously we are talking about people who are not going to any precautions to hide their privacy.

</comment><comment><USER39> This comment probably won't go down well considering the audience ... but here goes:

Yes the internet is a surveillance state ... and that is terrible ... except ... except ... is it?

My long held belief is that in an age where even the most tech-savvy cannot possibly remain anonymous all the time our best hope for privacy is in the simply overwhelming volume of data being collected. Unless I do something worthy of government attention I have reason to believe no human is going to closely examine my gmail - why on earth would they?

Therefore the only breach of privacy is by a parser collecting information for an algorithm. So I get a few ads in gmail ... 90% of the time I ignore them ... the other 10% of the time I would MUCH rather they were targeted at my interests than just meaningless drivel! Furthermore - if the ad revenue collected by these companies allows them to continue to improve a free service I love then power to them! People bitch about ads, without considering the reality that without them most of the service we value which make up the internet would not exist without them. You can't always have your cake and eat it.

Lastly I would like to address the point of privacy invasion by a government body. This is nothing new! It has just become easier. I live in the UK - <USER3> tiny island with 4,000,000 CCTV cameras. There is probably an accumulation of hundreds of hours of footage of me throughout my life... So What ?! I have done nothing wrong, and if the existence of that footage allows the prevention or solving of even one crime then I'm all for it.

If a government body wants your data - the chances are they are going to get it. Through warrant or some other means. The acceleration of this process is not necessarily a bad thing. They are, after all, the elected officials.

Anyway /rant (... runs and hides)

<comment><USER40> i agree with you about how nice it is to have targeted ads (although Google still hasn't gotten good enough that I have ever clicked on anything).

The dangers for the government are when it uses its powers to stay elected (Nixon), or spy on activists (Nixon, Bush), or pilfer the IP of other countries (Airbus). And of course these dangers also apply to commercial enterprises - if I were a MS competitor, I sure as heck wouldn't allow Skype in the office.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Hahaha, there's a hilarious typo in the article. ".. one of the leaders of the LulzSac hacker movement.." It feels oddly appropriate.

</comment><comment><USER42> Great read, but I wish he hadn't glossed over the part about not being something the free market can fix; and explained why only strong government will can.

He admits that governments are partaking in the frenzy at least as much as are companies, but doesn't explain why it would be easier to get a government to change, than to change a company, or start a new one.

<comment><USER43> I think it's more accurate to say that the free market currently does not think that Internet surveillance is a problem. Consumers in general have decided that for Internet services and Internet access devices, factors such as cheapness, ease of use, and trendiness are more important than privacy.

Governments are able to reach more definitive consensus than free markets - <USER3> market would be not easily be able to make everyone use an anonymizing proxy, for example, but a government could legislate that. Governments can also move costs around, such as by funding a national proxy service with tax money.

But on one level, free markets and democratic governments are both just methods that societies use to enforce their collective wills. There are limits to how much their decisions can differ. There's a reason Schneier calls a situation created by Internet _companies_ a surveillance _state_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> The technology exists for the privacy conscious to greatly reduce their track- ability.

However the problem is that the platform which are becoming more popular for convenience reasons such as ChromeOS or iOS do not necessarily make this stuff easy or even possible.

I would be much happier to recommend these systems to people if they did not lose this control.

</comment><comment><USER45> Its not like people are victims here, for the most part they've chosen the "free" privacy violating services over the paid ones every time.

If people cared about their privacy, this wouldn't be the case, they'd be willing to pay for useful services. There was a chance that a market could have developed for services that protected privacy, but thats long gone.

At this point kids growing up are used to the idea of a world withoit secrets. Its terrifying to people over 30, but it could lead to a better world, because even those in power cannot escape the watchful eye of Big Brother.

<comment><USER46> That would be a fine argument if the majority of computer users actually understood what tracking is being performed and how it is performed. Most computer users have no idea how they are tracked, nor do they understand how they can be tracked.

People generally do not know how their computers work, and companies take advantage of that ignorance when they track people. Most people do not understand that they are trading privacy for access to websites and web apps.

"At this point kids growing up are used to the idea of a world [without] secrets"

Nonsense. Kids just have a different idea about what should be kept secret. There are still plenty of in-the-closet gay teenagers whose friends understand that they are being trusted with a secret. Plenty of kids have odd habits they do not want to tell their friends about. Teenagers still keep secrets from their parents -- that is basically an invariant. There are many college students who work hard to keep their Facebook profiles "clean" in an attempt to present the best image possible to potential future employers.

What has changed is the meaning of keeping things secret. A 15 year old in- the-closet gay teenager most likely has no idea that "deleting" a "private" message sent over Facebook does not actually delete the message from Facebook's servers. That same teenager probably has no idea that his public "friends" list is sufficient to determine that he is gay with high probability. _That_ is the problem society faces right now: people _want_ to keep things secret, but it is very difficult to actually do so.

I think that eventually society will adapt and people will learn how to keep secrets in an age of widespread surveillance. It is inevitable: eventually there will be so many incidents of embarrassing secrets being revealed by these various companies that people will start to use technologies to hamper the tracking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Scheier is right that information will be collected, and that the government will have access to it. That genie is out of the bottle. But there is still hope for reasonable and even strong controls on the USES of information. This is exactly the distinction I've been drawing for years, e.g. in [http://www.dbms2.com/2012/03/01/where-the-privacy- discussion...](http://www.dbms2.com/2012/03/01/where-the-privacy-discussion- needs-to-head/)

</comment><comment><USER48> A lot of commenters focussing here on technical privacy solutions - but that seems to be missing the current move towards behavioural tracking. And the irony is that this is a lot of the really exciting stuff for many here - <USER4> at truelens and storm for example. Given the adulation and reverence here for highly politically engaged and extreme right-wing characters like Peter Thiel, we shouldn't be at all surprised by this kind of outcome.

</comment><comment><USER49> Coincidentally, the CISPA is up for debate again in the House.

However you feel about such surveillance, it legal scope and extent _is_ being democratically debated now.

You can contact your Representative using this site: <http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/>

Speak your mind to your Rep. It's how Representative Democracy works.

</comment><comment><USER50> [http://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen- WhyFreedomOfThoughtReq...](http://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen- WhyFreedomOfThoughtRequiresFreeMediaAndWhyFreeMedia)

[https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc- archives/dc-18-archive....](https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc- archives/dc-18-archive.html#Marlinspike)

</comment><comment><USER51> When the gold rush came, it was easy to see that prospecting was not where the value was at. Smart entrepreneurs sold pans, shovels and dungarees. Likewise in the age of surveillance, the Ciscos and Choicepoints rake in, handing off infrastructure and data to the highest bidder. The gold ran out, but we still have the Gap.

</comment><comment><USER52> From my perspective, the problem is that these companies are effectively acting as government agents. FWIW, I blogged about it here: [https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more- gover...](https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more-government/)

</comment><comment><USER52> I put up a perspective on this not too long ago; see [https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more- gover...](https://considerforexample.com/less-government-is-more-government/)

</comment><comment><USER53> _This isn't something the free market can fix_

He assumes that people care and are willing to change technology but can't for some reason. In my experience, people don't care.

</comment><comment><USER31> > We can use an alias on Facebook

I'm not following. How does one use alias on Facebook?

<comment><USER54> Just change your name to a fake name. There's no magic.

<comment><USER31> Well then Facebook doesn't really work or does it? Facebook works best if you keep it confined to your friends and family, the people you know in-person. Having a fake name would defeat that purpose.

<comment><USER32> Facebook works best when you don't use it :) I prefer in-person discussions. If that's not possible, calling > texting > email > physical mail. every other solution is irrelevant to me.

<comment><USER55> I have this in my /etc/hosts:

      127.0.0.1  www.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1  facebook.com
      127.0.0.1  connect.facebook.net
      127.0.0.1  facebook.net
      127.0.0.1  ads.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1  ads.ak.facebook.com

Anyone know of any others?

<comment><USER56> Run your own resolver on 127.0.0.1, and your own authoritative nameserver on 127.0.53.1, and configure the resolver to ask the nameserver (returning NXDOMAIN) for

      * facebook.com
      * doubleclick.net
      * google-analytics.com
      * su (abuse)
      * 2o7.net
      * any others you want; get ideas from the MVPS hosts file

Since facebook domains (fbcdn.net, facebook.net, etc.) are all serviced by facebook.com nameservers, returning NXDOMAIN for *.facebook.com will thereby sabotage all facebook related queries. This way you won't have to play whack- a-mole with future facebook tracking hosts, so long as they use facebook.com nameservers.

Or hell, just create a list of prefixes announced & owned by AS32934, Facebook, and block all. Just to be sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> People have control over their individual online use cases and should assume more personal responsibility for managing their online profile. It is voluntary to join the LE email spam network, FB/G privacy invasion operations, disqus commenting, etc.

It's a shame that these social networks that were intended to enable friend and family (biz in LE case) have devolved into open public access to your personal interactions. As they further infringe on the original use cases more people will leave them for alternative solutions.

<comment><USER58> unfortunately, the average user is convinced that one has no problem if one has nothing to hide. i don't foresee the average user deciding to jump ship without a strong push.

<comment><USER9> I don't think the typical user thinks he's got nothing to hide.

More probably, he doesn't realize just how much he's spied on or by whom. Nor does he realize how the information these spies gather on him could be or is being used to his detriment.

He also probably doesn't know about any privacy-respecting alternatives, or if he does, he finds them too much of a pain to use, or doesn't want to sacrifice his Facebook friends or his nifty smartphone.

Fortunately, the masses are slowly becoming educated, more computer literate, and more privacy/security aware overall. It is heartening to see stories about online privacy on mainstream news sites like CNN. Being a victim of identity theft, stalking, or harrassment can also be an unfortunate but powerful wake up call to the need for privacy.

It's a slow process, but the more people become aware of their vulnerability and victimization by the surveillance state, the more they will try to seek alternatives and call for positive change. I just hope by then it won't be too late.

<comment><USER58> I wish I could agree, but I recently explained to one of my most intelligent friends just how much tracking is done, by whom, and how. She just argued that she didn't have anything to hide. A few days later, she admitted that I might have a point, but still wasn't interested in ditching Facebook.

I hope you're right. If something doesn't change for the masses, alternatives will never really gain traction.

<comment><USER57> A lot of the tracking technology is developing from the advertising space, but also to monetize clicks for affiliate commissions. It's the same technology applied to an adjacent market.

<http://www.viglink.com/>

The throughput, latency, computing power and memory wasn't sufficient to do what we can do today a short 5-10 years ago. The hardware has advanced so much over the past decade that it is attainable at the consumer/non-sovereign level now. Anyone with a thousand bucks free monthly cash flow and the coding chops can get very far independently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Does anyone have more info on Apple tracking users, he didn't post a link. All I can find is the log file debacle from two years ago.

<comment><USER60> I don't have any info on intentional tracking but Macs surely do leak a lot of data. If you install Little Snitch you will have a better feeling of what is being sent over the network. These are the rules that I have regarding apple:

* aosnotifyd: aosnotify.me.com * AppleIDAuthAgent: identity.apple.com * apsd: push.apple.com * assistand: apple.com * helpd: apple.com * imagent: apple.com * IMRemoteURLConnectionAgent.xpc: apple.com * ntpd: time.euro.apple.com * SoftwareUpdateAgent: sw _.apple.com_ storeagent: apple.com * SyncServer: configuration.apple.com * ubd: configuration.apple.com * XProtectUpdater: configuration.apple.com

The mac is able to change your timezone depending on your location. I don't think it would be too hard for Apple to build a precise profile of my location and movements if they wanted to.</comment></comment>


Mission Impossible: Hardening Android for Security and Privacy - <AUTHOR> https://blog.torproject.org/blog/mission-impossible-hardening-android-security-and-privacy <comment><USER2> Date 2014</comment>


Inside the Chase plan to 'ban' screen scraping - <AUTHOR> https://bankinnovation.net/allposts/operations/comp-reg/inside-the-chase-ban-on-screen-scraping/ <comment><USER2> This is great news. I wanted to sign up to a service recently, but it required me to use Plaid to link my bank account. My bank presumably doesn't support an API, as I was presented with a fake, branded login screen. I don't want to share my bank username and password with anyone.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed! I've avoided using 3rd party budgeting apps because I can't bring myself to give them my banking credentials. This would be a much more secure solution. I'm hoping this ships with an API available to customers. I would be extremely happy with an endpoint to retrieve all of my transactions, at the very least.</comment></comment>


Mars – a tensor-based unified framework for large-scale data computation - <AUTHOR> https://docs.mars-project.io/en/latest/ <comment><USER2> Is this intended as a competitor to Dask?</comment>


Why Yahoo Japan Is Worth Nearly As Much As Yahoo - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/23/3-reasons-why-the-internet-in-japan-is-ruled-by-one-single-company-yahoo/ <comment><USER2> There are a lot of factoids in that article that sound impressive, but all the junk obscures the simple reason Yahoo Japan is such a massive success.

The Japanese internet is very small, compared to the english language internet, so when Google stepped in with just pagerank and no human-powered indexes, Yahoo's colloquial indexing was able to provide a better experience. Even today, any time I search in Japanese, google seems to provide much less useful results.

</comment><comment><USER3> Honestly, this is one of the most well-written and well-researched articles I've seen on TechCrunch in a long time - excellent read, very interesting stuff there!

</comment><comment><USER4> I disagree with one of the article's points: That Yahoo! outperforms Google in Japan. Reading the (poorly labeled) graph, we have the following numbers:

Yahoo! in Japan: 40-45k eyeballs

Google in Japan: 20-25k eyeballs

If all eyeballs are equivalent (ad money for a Google eyeball = ad money for a Yahoo eyeball), then Yahoo would be making around twice as much. However, they have this problem:

"Currently, Yahoo Japan is owned 40% by local telecommunications powerhouse SoftBank and 33% by Yahoo in the US, demonstrating a textbook perfect Japanese-foreign joint venture structure."

Ok, so Yahoo! effectively gets 1/3 of twice the market value that Google gets. So, how is Yahoo!'s localization and extra push from SoftBank helping Yahoo!?

<comment> daniel-cussen It says eyeballs in thousands; Yahoo has 40-45 M, Google has 25 M.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Masayoshi Son was once the SECOND richest man in the world, after BillG, at 70 billion dollars!

The guy who ran Hikari Tsushin (mobile phones, internet) is even more interesting! He was worth about 40 billion at the Hong Kong bubble peak, and is now worth a lot less. But it's cool to be up there once!

[Edit] Relevance - Son owned a lot of Yahoo (not just Japan) and was worth tons for it.

#618 Yasumitsu Shigeta is the other guy, and is just up there due to being bubble cool!

</comment><comment><USER6> I've always wondered about the dollar value of Yahoo's most obvious liability: The name "Yahoo". Perhaps the Japanese don't translate this into "Stupid Idiot".

<comment><USER7> That is a liability? As is the name "GoDaddy", right? You are quite ignorant about branding if you think that the name Yahoo is a liability. So what is your suggestion: best-search-engine-and-portal-online.com?</comment></comment>


Live iPhone 4 press event coverage - <AUTHOR> http://live.gdgt.com/2010/07/16/live-iphone-4-press-event-coverage/

<comment><USER2> Q: Are you willing to make an apology to investors? Steve: You know we hear from customers who love this phone and have a great experience with it, and we're doing a lot to help them with any issues they're seeing. To investors, you know, you invest in the company we are, so if the stock goes down $5... I don't think I owe them an apology.

Whether or not Jobs is bs-ing about loving his customers so much, I wish more CEOs took this attitude. I think that doing your best to make your customers happy reaps far more benefits in the long haul than doing your best to make investors happy. In Apple's case at least, the fact that they ignored what their investors demanded of them during their dark days actually made the investors a lot more money.

<comment><USER3> I think this is the correct attitude when you're an entertainment company, or a company that does have a direct relationship with costumers, but might not work for other types, such as services for enterprises.

<comment><USER4> Is it? When you are selling services for enterprises, shouldn't your focus still be on making those businesses happy? I've never been in such a market, so maybe I don't know, but it seems to me like your focus should be similar.

<comment><USER3> Yes it is, but there the focus on the customer is far less important than on the investors. This is part of something that makes Apple and some other companies unique.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Brief summary of what they've said so far:

1\. Similar things happen to all smartphones. (They had videos showing them happening to many other smartphones.)

2\. This isn't making lots of people return their iPhones. (Return rate ~ 1/3 that of 3GS at the same point in its life.)

3\. The iPhone 4 does drop more calls than the 3GS, but by less than 1%. (Not clear whether that's 1% of all calls or 1% of calls dropped on the 3GS.)

4\. They're going to give everyone a free case and refund everyone who's bought one from them.

5\. They've got improvements coming up for the proximity-sensor problems some people have had.

6\. That's about it.

<comment><USER6> It's 1% of all calls: [http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/07/iphone...](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/07/iphone- reception-pc-0923-rm-eng.jpg) . Am I the only one that thinks that's actually a lot?

<comment><USER7> If the norm is a 5% drop rate, that's a 20% increase.

If the norm is even higher, then the increase is less as a percentage, but no wonder ATT won't release the numbers.

<comment><USER8> If my family and friends' experience is any indication, the drop rate is over 50%. So it's probably going from 55% to 56%: horrible to a teensy bit more horrible.

I live in Los Angeles. There are cell towers uglifying the sky everywhere. My favorites are the mock trees -- one in Burbank is a squat, fake palm tree with "coconut" repeaters. And despite the apparent ability to put towers absolutely anywhere... AT&T still blows.

<comment> brown9-2 Your friends and family have one out of every two calls dropped?

<comment><USER8> It's comical. I call home when I leave work. We might talk for five or ten minutes as I drive. This requires two or three calls, due to the drops -- on a major freeway with five bars of reception.

My family and friends have similar issues. A couple don't have it so bad because they're on the West Side, where AT&T seems to have built more towers -- gotta keep Beverly Hills & the movie studios happy, you know.

Oddly, we have little trouble with 3G data. I can stream podcasts and use Google maps simultaneously. It's the calls that are the issue.

<comment><USER9> I have a weird theory about that, actually. I have seen some similar issues in the Seattle area when moving from one part of the city to the next; the signal is at full strength, but the call suddenly drops, almost as if I'm crossing a boundary. Now, I preface this by saying I know little to nothing about the cell phone network handles calls, but thinking about this made me wonder if it had anything to do with handing off the connection from one tower to the next. Maybe it's better to have fewer, higher power towers to minimize hand-off than many low powered ones. Of course, that's exactly what most people don't want: high powered cell towers blasting them with radiation.

But I have to wonder if this problem is exaggerated by the 3G connection maintained by the phone. My dad used to have the same problem in NY (not the city), but he switched to edge and stopped dropping the calls. He just turns on 3G when he knows he wants to do some faster web browsing, which is rarely for him. Maybe you could try turning off your 3G and see if it reduces your problem in LA?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One of the things that most bothered me in the initial responses from Apple (the Jobs emails and the open letter) is that none of them acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between antennas from other smartphones losing signal and the iPhone 4, where the antenna is exposed and can be shorted, even with one finger. I'm kind of disappointed they apparently still don't acknowledge that (maybe the live transcript is incomplete).

Citing dropped call numbers or return rates or showing other smartphones with signal reduction caused by something completely different just seems like willful misinformation. I suppose their usual MO is to not acknowledge complaints head-on, but that's usually with new features people would like to see. If I can short an antenna and change its RF characteristics so as to lead to an instant dropped call, that seems like a fundamental engineering flaw, and I would've liked them to acknowledge that.

<comment><USER11> > caused by something completely different

Um, from what I saw it was caused by the same thing. You hold a phone a certain way you lose signal strength.

> that seems like a fundamental engineering flaw, and I would've liked them to > acknowledge that.

I watched the whole thing and several times it was acknowledged as such. Maybe you wanted them to say it was only an iPhone4 issue and not a general smartphone problem?

<comment><USER12> >Um, from what I saw it was caused by the same thing. You hold a phone a certain way you lose signal strength.

Apple is playing some extraordinary deception with that. They're comparing a death grip on phones (which is entirely unnatural and I certainly don't hold a phone like that), and saying "See, it's all the same".

That _isn't the issue_. The issue is ruining the profile of the exposed 3G antenna by electrically distorting it (whether with your body or against the GPS antenna).

It was pretty clear when he talked about the 3GS and cases -- a death grip with or without a case will yield exactly the same outcome. But they're trying to conflate the downsides of an external, unavoidable antenna with holding the phone in a ridiculous fashion.

<comment><USER13> Hey, neat. An Apple comment by ergo98 that I agree with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> In the Wall Street Journals live blog of the event, Jobs indicates they have a Verizon testing site:

[http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/07/16/live-blogging- apples-...](http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/07/16/live-blogging-apples-press- conference/)

"We have both an AT&T and Verizon cell site set up on our campus" for testing, says Jobs.

Did Jobs go out of his way to say _Verizon_ there?

</comment><comment><USER15> Free bumpers.

If you already bought one, you'll get a refund.

If you didn't, they'll mail you one.

If you want to return your undamaged phone for a full refund, you can do that, too.

</comment><comment><USER16> Something no one is mentioning or commenting on: When the 3GS launched the majority of buyers walked out of the store with a case in hand. When the iPhone 4 launched 80% of buyers were not able to take a case with them as well (due to their being no third party cases at launch and a shortage of bumpers). If it would have been the opposite, and 80% of customers walked out of the store WITH a case, I'm guessing that "less the 1%" stat about the iPhone 4 vs 3GS would actually flip to the iPhone 4 as having the better ratio of dropped calls.

I'm willing to bet you'll see @Gruber focus on this point heavily, which is a good thing, because it's a great point by Jobs.

<comment><USER17> Does 3GS reception improve with a case? I thought the iPhone 4 only improved because of the exposed antenna.

<comment><USER18> According to Steve (and others) you get a similar phenomenon with earlier iPhones, it's just that the "do not touch" zone is in a different place. So a case would help any of these phones.

<comment><USER17> The case helps the iPhone 4 because it prevents conductive contact between your skin and the antenna, right? Previous iPhones had no exposed antenna, yes? Or did they? If not, the case would not have made as big a difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> A lot of people ask how Apple didn't pick this up in field testing.

I think the answer is that they wrapped the iPhone 4 in plastic to camouflage it as an iPhone 3GS (as we know from the Gizmodo phone). Hence all their field testing was effectively done with bumpers on.

<comment><USER20> They knew... Steve Jobs: "The iPhone 4 went through all of these tests. We KNEW that if you held it in a certain way, the bars would go down."

<comment><USER21> Absolutely. This is a human psychology problem, not an engineering problem. They designed the phone knowing that it suffered more attenuation than other phones, but it also dealt with highly-attenuated signals better than previous iPhones. Overall reception is the same or better, all things considered.

What killed them was the way the reception bars dramatically plunged toward zero within seconds of bridging the antennas. If the iPhone 4 had shipped with the bar distribution formula in 4.0.1 and used the same level of hysteresis as other phones, no one would have noticed the drop and everyone would have happily gone on using their iPhone 4's oblivious to the attenuation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> We're not perfect. Phones aren't perfect. - Steve Jobs

</comment><comment><USER23> Just to get some clarity on how people who have the device actually feel about all of this (And that it's not just the media), how many of you are going to return the iPhone 4?

</comment><comment><USER24> Good free case, problem solved in my mind. Recall avoided, patch applied, everybody stays happy.

Iphone 4gs, design it and sell it with the case.

</comment><comment><USER25> In Q&A they seem to be glossing over or ignoring the whole "if you bridge the gap the signal drops" issue (demonstrated here with a paperclip <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgouzUMlQpY> but as I understand it your finger will do the same thing).

At least when asked somewhat directly, one engineer gave a complete non- answer.

<comment><USER26> What you see there is a drop of between 6 and 22dB (from four bars to one [+]). Gripping the iPhone will reduce the signal by at most 24dB.

I don't know whether they don't acknowledge that. They showed a "X marks the spot" slide. That, to me, seems to be a pretty clear acknowledgement that merely touching that spot weakens the signal.

[+] [http://www.anandtech.com/show/3821/iphone-4-redux- analyzing-...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/3821/iphone-4-redux-analyzing- apples-ios-41-signal-fix)

<comment><USER12> In reference to the "x marks the spot" they claimed that it "showed you where to cover the antenna", trying to draw a parallel with covering the internal antenna on any other phone.

That is ridiculous. You aren't "covering the antenna" when you cover that spot. The antenna is the big strip of metal _above_ that spot. Instead you're upsetting the profile of the antenna, which is entirely different.

The presentation was incredibly deceptive and flawed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Interesting, they're going to give away a free case. There seemed to be some sentiment that wouldn't happen.

<comment><USER11> Yes but I think a lot of opinions were formed before the actual facts were known.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Based on the little I know about signal strength for digital phones, the number of bars really doesn't matter, The bars could just be replaced with an indicator letting you know whether or not you have strong enough signal to make a call. And from that perspective, the stats discussed today that there is less than one additional dropped call per 100 calls make this whole thing seem like a non-issue.

However, what I haven't heard discussed and would like to hear about from someone who knows what their talking about is whether or not signal strength affects data transfer rates. I use data a lot more than voice on my phone and if it's significantly easier to reduce the signal quality on the iPhone 4, I don't think I would get one.

<comment><USER29> Without getting into details about digital modulations, yes, parameters such as signal strength, network congestion, user speeds, etc. do affect transfer rates.

The speeds quoted by phone providers are always the maximum transfer rates allowed by the communication standard used by the network.

To give an example with WiFi networks. Even though a router might support 802.11n and have a maximum speed of 144Mbit/s, if you're far from it, your transfer speed could only be 11Mbit/sec.

<comment><USER28> Thanks for the explanation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is a good quote, from the Q&A session:

 _You could make a really big smartphone that doesn't have this problem — some of these guys are making Hummers now — so big you can't get your hand around it. But no one's going to buy that._

</comment><comment><USER31> Those pictures of other phones losing signal were hilarious.

Yes, if you hold other smartphones in a clam-like grip then they do lose signal. But not when you place a single finger on one small spot on the outside of the phone.

It's good that Apple will be providing free cases, but it's still going to suck when they start releasing phones with tweaked antenna insulation in a few months that eliminates this issue.

<comment><USER32> I can't believe people still aren't getting this. Their return rate has been ~1%, they've received apple care calls on 0.55% of the phones they've sold.

This is a non-story blown out of proportion by the press who obsessively over- cover Apple products.

(Disclaimer, Apple iPhone owner, 3G and now 4; no problems with either.)

<comment><USER33> I agree, but, live by the sword, die by the sword.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Apple is really bad when it comes to bars.

[http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/07/iphone...](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/07/iphone- reception-pc-0858-rm-eng.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER35> Body language from Q&A is telling:

[http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/07/iphone...](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/07/iphone- reception-pc-1034-rm-eng.jpg)

<comment><USER4> I think they are just listening to a question, there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> "Maybe we should have a wall of PR people to insulate us, but we don't."

I bet Katie Cotton and Steve came up with that line together.

</comment><comment><USER37> Try to search "are not perfect" in Google you will see somethings.</comment>


How I ditched my 9-5 and went all in on a fintech startup - <AUTHOR> https://www.navexa.com.au/blog/how-i-built-two-fintech-startups-within-two-years <comment><USER2> Nice journey so far, I have some questions:

\- How did you get your very first customer? I am always having this problem when I build something for myself first. \- What do you miss from your full- time job though? There must be something :)</comment>


Show HN: We're building graphs of Hurricane Sandy with pressureNET - <AUTHOR> http://www.cumulonimbus.ca/pressurenet-2-1/?onemoretime

<comment><AUTHOR> pressureNET is our open source barometer network for Android - some phones and tablets have barometers that enable us to build a global network. We're looking to use the data to improve short-term local weather prediction.

You can see all of the source code on github at <http://github.com/JacobSheehy> and of course you can download pressureNET on Google Play: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.cumulonimbu...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.cumulonimbus.barometernetwork)</comment>


Algebra, Asimov, and Missing Steps - <AUTHOR> http://math-blog.com/algebra-asimov-and-missing-steps/ <comment><USER2> Textbooks must have changed. The steps in Asimov's book were exactly how I was taught algebra years ago. Something got lost (perhaps in the New Math).</comment>


Is Uber getting too vital to fail? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38252405 <comment><AUTHOR> As the poster of the news article, I'd like to point out that there's nothing new on such situation. Someone probably asked the same questions about the telefone companies when the hospitals started taking telefone calls and sending in ambulances.</comment>


CNET forbidden from reviewing Aereo following CBS-Dish controversy - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/25/3915406/cnet-forbidden-reviewing-aereo-cbs-dish-controversy

<comment><AUTHOR> CBS is making a pretty good list of everything I'll probably now buy.</comment>


What Facebook Can Learn from Craigslist - happy-go-lucky http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/06/30/religious_freedom_laws_suppress_visibility_for_the_benefit_of_the_pious.html <comment><AUTHOR> The title is currently heavily editorialized.</comment>


Vizio Admits Modern TV Sets Are Cheaper Because They're Spying on You - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190114/08084341384/vizio-admits-modern-tv-sets-are-cheaper-because-theyre-spying-you.shtml <comment><USER2> The thought of connecting my TV which has super limited security support to the internet seems like madness. It's only a matter of time until it's part of a botnet.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is it really that hard to disable the spying? What if I don't connect my TV to the internet? What if I use my 40" 4K display as a computer monitor — is it still spying on me if I never have it the ability to connect to WiFi?

<comment><USER4> That is pretty much the solution. Just do not ever plug in a network cable or connect it to wifi and you should be fine.</comment></comment>


Little development time vs perfect code? - <AUTHOR>

I am sure I am not the only one to have this "issue".
I have created some small libraries for my side projects (mainly C++ lately) but I keep spending an awful lot amount of time trying to make it look good and take into account all corner cases while I should probably just be hacking away to get something working (i.e some kind of prototype).
How do you guys deal that ? <comment><USER2> Hack away to get something working putting those libraries to good use. Code will be optimized throughout the process.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right. Code optimisation should be a process rather than a task in itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I use a priority list for each project. A working implementation would be a high priority. Security bugs too. Optimizing code a bit lower and so on and so forth.

<comment><AUTHOR> Priority list ? Good idea. I have a JIRA instance for my project with all tasks though none of them are prioritised. It might seems slightly overkill but I guess I could use it to prioritise task/issues with it.

PS: Lumberjack ? Are you the one who wrote the Cocoa Lumberjac logging API by any chance ?

<comment><USER4> If you already have the tasks, prioritizing them should be fairly easy. Then just scan down the list until you find the first non-essential feature and there you draw the line. Anything after that goes into version two.</comment></comment></comment>


The Most Effective Weapon on the Modern Battlefield Is Concrete (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://mwi.usma.edu/effective-weapon-modern-battlefield-concrete/ <comment><USER2> Although this article highlights soldiers as building barriers, the majority of base construction on the modern battlefield is done by contractors.

This article from 2013 is, well, "interesting" to put it lightly: [https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/contractors-385...](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/contractors-385-billion- military-bases/)

A company controlled by Dick Cheney made the most money in the Iraq & Afghanistan wars. It's probable that those wars would have been logistically impossible otherwise, considering how many contracts they held and how vital a role they played.

Someone said that control of a superior supply chain wins wars [or at least, delays their resolution]. But private contractors, not the US Military, control the supply chain. They supply virtually every aspect of the temporary- cities that are U.S. wartime bases. Without them, we can't have these wars. And the people who run them work in the highest levels of government. It's less conspiracy theory than blatant war profiteering.

I think this brings up two interesting points. (1) If you control the corporations that profit, and you influence the government's war policy as well as budget, you can create wars for profit. Would we even have these wars if contractors weren't involved? And (2), if the contracting companies "went away" tomorrow, would we still have the military might we imagine we have?

<comment><USER3> If there are no private contractors then the US Military would just takeover those duties itself.

<comment><USER4> I believe that was the OP's point. If these roles are filled by soldiers instead of contractors, the profit motive for war goes away. At the time, the VP's company was providing billions of dollars of support for the war in the Middle East. While he had divested himself while in VP, to think there was no influence would be naive.

<comment><USER3> To rephrase: lack of private contractors would not affect military might.

As far as profits, there will always be contractors and vendors to buy stuff from. The military is not going to be making everything from scratch.

<comment><USER2> As of 2016, there were 3 contractors for every 1 military personnel in Afghanistan, which is a titanic inversion from a few decades ago. Removing contractors would limit the availability of our military to fight in other engagements. We also get less recruits these days, in poorer condition. The states where we normally recruit the most soldiers has also had the highest incidents of accidents incurred during basic training, due in part to steadily dropping physical fitness rates in trainees.

We rely on contractors to buffer our ranks not just logistically but also politically. Due to a lack of reporting on contractors and their budgets, we don't know exactly how much we spend on our wars, nor how many people get killed (more contractors have died than U.S. personnel in past 2 wars). Our military may not be able to wage wars of tacit public approval without the use of contractors to hide the true cost.

Of course we will always contract for things the military isn't specialized in, such as manufacturing. But this isn't about manufacturing, it's about a logistical supply chain and service industry, in addition to [what appears to be] an approaching mercenary army. Without these services, the military would probably take years to build up the same specialization, and would have to use less money than the contractors use, with more volunteers.

<comment><USER5> Indeed, there are more contractors than US personnel in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq.

These are not only used in logistic and services but also as combatant troops.

And this not always has been the case, during the first Golf War, the percentage of contractor was much lower at 10 to 20%.

This is a recent evolution (around the 2000s).

It also raises a number of questions like:

* legal loopholes when atrocities are committed (one example is the Blackwater case in 2007)

* the very damaging conflict of interests that arise from privatizing war (conflict of interests in a public contract for let say a bridge can cost money to the collectivity, a conflict of interest in for waging war can destabilize a region, kill a lot of people and damage a country reputation for decades).

* This can be also be liked to the fact that contractors have an incentive to have their contract extended ie not ending a war quickly but pouring gas on the fire.

In my opinion, privatizing wars is really dangerous. War is a kind of violence that only a state should be able wage and preferably with a lot of checks from outside (UN) and within (governments, public opinion, votes and laws).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Archive: [https://web.archive.org/web/20181210211633/https://mwi.usma....](https://web.archive.org/web/20181210211633/https://mwi.usma.edu/effective- weapon-modern-battlefield-concrete/)

<comment><USER7> Thanks, wasn't loading for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> See also the Hesco bastion

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

<comment><USER9> Hesco's drag-a-container-to-deploy product[1] is quite clever.

[1] [https://www.hesco.com/products/mil- units/raid/](https://www.hesco.com/products/mil-units/raid/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > In response to the situation, the US forces basically engaged in siege > warfare. But atypical to historic examples, instead of attacking to break > through fortified wall, they imposed the siege on the enemy by building > walls.

This concept is about 2000 years old. [1]

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

<comment><USER11> So common there's even a word for it: circumvallation.

Not just that, but it's also fairly common for the besieging army to also have to worry about an enemy field army trying to relieve the besieged area, and so have to build a contravallation - another wall facing _outwards_ outside of the circumvallation.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_(military)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_\(military\))

The only really new and interesting part is the challenge of besieging a single neighborhood within a larger conurbation - historical examples usually include a large open space between the defender's fortifications and the circumvallation.

<comment><USER10> > The only really new and interesting part is the challenge of besieging a > single neighborhood within a larger conurbation.

Ghettos in the third reich come to mind. They were less an element of conventional warefare but definitely an element of extermination warefare. Without the ghetto the killing would have happened less orderly. Sick.

<comment><USER11> Tactically, the "element of extermination warfare" made the character of that fighting very different than what's going on in Iraq.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> North Korea uses concrete traps in the DMZ: [https://99percentinvisible.org/article/hostile-terrain- tank-...](https://99percentinvisible.org/article/hostile-terrain-tank-traps- fake-towns-secret-tunnels-korean-borderlands/)

</comment><comment><USER13> See also: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12962776](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12962776)

</comment><comment><USER14> >At over $600 a barrier, the cost of concrete during the eight years of the Iraq War was billions of dollars

Does anyone have any insight as to why resistance forces are seemingly so much more effective today compared to the past? Rebels were able to bleed the US of billions with the threat of a cheap car bomb

In the past there didn't seem to be situations like Vietnam and the middle east with guerrilla warfare being able to drag things out for years and making things so costly.

Is it because the US isn't willing to go total war and massacre civilians until they give up Mongolian style or what?

<comment> fake-name > Is it because the US isn't willing to go total war and massacre civilians > until they give up and stop aiding rebels or what?

Or maybe because we did stuff like that, and it lead to _more_ resistance.

You can't murder your way to peace. Killing for peace just leads to everyone being dead.

<comment><USER15> > You can't murder your way to peace. Killing for peace just leads to everyone > being dead.

(Assuming "everyone" includes the attacker here.)

The Mongolians did. You just had to be willing to thoroughly finish the job. Fear of guaranteed annihilation kept the rest in check.

<comment><USER16> And we all know the Mongolian Empire lasted for centuries using this method (Hint: they collapsed relatively quickly)

<comment><USER17> The Mongolian Empire lasted for centuries as a series of successor states. It wasn't a collapse. It was just divided among the family. Those states stayed stable for quite awhile, with one of them taking over China.

<comment><USER16> I'm not sure I would classify "disintegration into competing entities" as a "stable" empire.

0\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire#Disintegration_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire#Disintegration_into_competing_entities)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Probably shouldn't have enjoyed an article on concrete this much

</comment><comment><USER19> Hedgerows served the same purpose in the past. I thought one of the justifications for the English enclosure acts was national defense, but now I can't find a reference. In any case, French hedgerows certainly made the D-day invasion difficult.

<comment><USER20> French hedgerows were a typical property-boundary mechanism long before retreating Germans utilized them for defense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Interesting Rebuttal:

Concrete Barriers: A False Counterinsurgency Idol (2017)

[https://mwi.usma.edu/concrete-barriers-false- counterinsurgen...](https://mwi.usma.edu/concrete-barriers-false- counterinsurgency-idol/)

</comment><comment><USER22> Previous discussion with 192 comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12962776](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12962776)

</comment><comment><USER23> General Smedley Butler's "War Is A Racket" is every bit as relevant today as it was when he published is it in 1935.

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

For those of you who have never heard of Smedley Butler, he was a rare kind of American hero. WWI commander, advocate for veteran's rights, and single handly thwarted a Fascist coup in the United States.

</comment><comment><USER24> The title made me think of the killdozer.

</comment><comment><USER25> so, an autonomous self-propeller 3d printer using sand and solar to build the walls is the weapon of the future.

</comment><comment><USER26> Wouldn't AI be cheaper, With recognition + automated interdiction likely being more effective in the long run?

This is what I don't understand about Trump's "border wall", aren't there more effective means like drones and advanced surveillance of the border?

</comment><comment><USER27> The most effective weapon on the modern space battlefield is boron-nanotube foamed concrete, though it'll probably work on earth too. (PhoamBCon)

</comment><comment><USER28> Currently, the most effective weapon is false news, and other tools of information war. Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube will spread them almost for free.

<comment><USER28> Can anybody explain why this comment has so much downvotes, please?

<comment><USER29> Because this article is about concrete.

<comment><USER28> Article is not about concrete. It's about effectiveness of concrete on modern battlefield (especially in guerilla-like war), with false claim that it's most effective weapon.

As officer of army at war, I know that concrete will not help much at battlefield. Hard concrete causes ricochet, soft concrete spreads fragments. Concrete is not movable. Concrete is hard to recycle. Concrete is hard to destroy in case of retreat.

In case of guerilla-like war, propaganda, agents, double agents, and false news are much more effective, about thousand times more effective than concrete. Make double agent in a guerilla, then spread false news about his glory, then shot in the back everybody who will join him. Problem solved.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mark Zuckerberg AWOL from Facebook's Data Leak Damage Control Session - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-mark-zuckerberg-awol-from-facebooks-data-leak-damage-control-session <comment><USER2> BS, he's not scared to show his face. He and his team are just analyzing their next moves. What's the hurry? Whatever the problem is it can't and won't be fixed in a flash.

He's one of the smartest CEO's in tech. He's looking to get an understanding of the problem. There's no point of making a mistake because he has faulty info.</comment>


House forces vote on amendment that would limit NSA bulk surveillance - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/23/house-amendment-nsa-bulk-surveillance

<comment><USER2> This is the best chance we've yet had. We have _actual support_ from congress! Please, even if you do nothing else for this cause, call your congressman and urge him/her to support this (the Amash Amendment).

Here's a helpful webpage that'll give you your congressman's phone number from your zip code as well as a script to read: [http://defundthensa.com/](http://defundthensa.com/)

<comment><USER3> I agree. It seems very few people are actually calling Congress [1]. If we could achieve this with only so little, imagine if everyone who feels "helpless" but doesn't call, would also call. It would help a lot more.

[1] [http://sina.is/call-now-for-privacy/](http://sina.is/call-now-for- privacy/)

<comment><USER2> Takes _literally_ 33 seconds to call (just timed it)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Did a double take at this:

"Alexander's meeting was listed as 'top-secret' and divided into two two-hour sessions, the first for Republicans and the second for Democrats."

<comment><USER5> They should compare the transcripts...

<comment><USER4> I have the suspicion that transcripts are distinctly forbidden =P

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The White House statement on the amendment is really something to behold.

"... We look forward to continuing to discuss these critical issues with the American people and the Congress.

However, we oppose the current effort in the House to hastily dismantle one of our Intelligence Community's counterterrorism tools. This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process. ..."

Not the product of an informed process - and whose fault is that?

More... [http://pastebin.com/RF5U59N0](http://pastebin.com/RF5U59N0)

<comment><USER7> I'm crossing my fingers on this one. I have hoped from the get-go that Obama was trying to do some political jiu-jitsu to get the House to fight against him on the NSA thing by pretending to support it. People attack him for talking all loftily about most topics and then not getting anything done, so I found it strange that he basically didn't even pretend that the NSA scandal was bad. Keep in mind he didn't start the program; maybe he never really supported it. Everything he's tried to do has resulted in congress opposing him, so trying to change his tactics seems like the logical thing to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> While this is a nice gesture and I certainly support it, it's hard to believe it would have significant impact. It's clear the NSA is willing to lie to both the public and congress and bend whatever rules they have to. So this will probably just force them through a new loop hole to get where they are today.

When you have your own private supreme court(FISA Courts) to rubber stump rules for you, it's pretty easy to find and/or create loop holes.

On the plus side, if it gets stopped at least we will know who to throw out of office.

<comment><USER9> The NSA continues to be viewed as a shadowy government agency, limited in its capabilities by federal law. But what do we really know about that? Besides trivial inconvenience, is there any real disadvantage to taking the most paranoid and defensive stance against it?

I continue bringing this up whenever a submission like this appears, because I am very much afraid that the technical community will accept a congressional victory as "okay, let's continue business as usual", when we need to be reinventing everything that has made mass-wiretapping possible in the first place.

<comment><USER10> _when we need to be reinventing everything that has made mass-wiretapping possible in the first place._

Are you suggesting we somehow roll back the last sixty-odd years of telecommunications and information technology? What do you suggest we replace it with?

<comment><USER9> It probably isn't necessary to replace the hardware infrastructure if privacy and security again become fashionable in software development. A great deal of important peer-to-peer, encryption and general data-obfuscation research has been done already. The trouble is, as Schneier so eloquently put it, that spying is the business model of the Internet.

But we can take another approach.

If this REALLY matters, we should be directing our attention not to some nebulous and almost certainly unenforceable government action, but rather to the eye of the storm: the very things we are building.

This is good mind-fodder if you have a moment to spare: [http://zeroknowledgeprivacy.org/](http://zeroknowledgeprivacy.org/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a HUGE turning point. PLEASE call your member of Congress using this easy calling tool: [http://defundthensa.com/](http://defundthensa.com/).

<comment><USER12> Just used this site to call my representative. It was super easy, and the person who took my message was very polite.

Let's put some momentum on this thing!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "In case you ever thought writing, calling, or emailing your representatives was a waste of time, take it from Steve Hildebrand, Barack Obama's openly gay deputy national campaign director: "I don't think our voices are as powerful as they should be. I think too many people in the gay community do not push their elected officials as hard as they should. If you had 20 gay people together in a room and asked how many of them actually have reached out and either called, e-mailed or sent a letter to their member of Congress over the last two months, I would say the vast, vast majority of them will have done nothing. My suggestion is that people need to become strong activists, that we need to multiply by hundreds the number of activists we have in the gay community. We need more voices, we need louder voices, and we need to tell politicians at every level we're not willing to take their excuses anymore."

And in case you needed reason not to write, call, or email your representative: You will almost never be able to get her on the line. An office staffer will answer the phone (or sometimes just a voicemail box), sort the letters, and go through emails, responding with a form reply, if anything.

What those staffers will hand your legislator, likely, is a tally of how many notes and calls they received from X number of constituents on Y different issues. That summation, however, is what's powerful. In a legislator's very busy day, these briefs are easy to digest and send the most black-and-white picture of what his voters believe.

So yes, your letters and phone calls matter. In aggregate. JUST LIKE VOTES!"

</comment><comment><USER14> This seems like a great (and concrete) step forward and folks should call their congressmen. However, the following gave me pause for thought.

 _"... the NSA itself has indicated its willingness to consider abandoning the phone-records collection provided the telecommunications companies it partners with retains the data."_

<comment><USER2> This actually seems like a reasonable compromise

<comment><USER15> So you trust the phone company more than the NSA - remind me again what over sight the phone companies have from the FCC?

The FCC is unable to actually regulate in some areas (ADSL for example)as states rights trump its ability to be an effective regulator.

<comment><USER16> _So you trust the phone company more than the NSA_

It's not about whom you trust more. It's about the power of the phone company to string together your phone calls, your cell phone calls, your Internet access, your library books, and your license plate camera sightings. That power is nil with the phone company since they don't have all that other data and they don't have any kind of reason or mandate to make those kinds of connections. The NSA, on the other hand...

<comment><USER17> And, further, it creates systemic inertia.

If the NSA has to ask, via court order, for each set of records it wants, I'm a lot less worried about somebody in government using the data for personal entertainment, financial gain, or political advantage.

<comment><USER14> > "And, further, it creates systemic inertia"

This is an assumption (and a dangerous one, imho). From what I've read they've already optimised the hell out of getting 'court-orders' so I don't see it as a stretch to imagine that they would do the same with data stored at remote locations.

There have been stories that said companies would help with NSA access since the alternative was to have NSA machines on site. Pushing data back to the companies doesn't mean NSA would walk in and demand to install some of their own hardware.

<comment><USER17> No, I think it's more than an assumption. The number of people whose records have been seized through court order is much smaller than the the wholesale collection of every phone call record and photos of every piece of paper mail.

We literally have no idea what is done with the bulk-collected data at the NSA. As Snowden and Manning show, internal controls on supposedly sensitive data are weak. But we do know that they can't look through the data they _haven 't_ collected.

The court order, even if it's easy to get, leaves a paper trail thrice over. One with the executive branch, one with the courts, and one with whatever company has to cough up data. That won't prevent somebody sufficiently powerful and confident from getting data. But it will act as a significant deterrent to casual snooping by insiders, and also to political misuse of the system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Maybe I'm too cynical, but the NSA will just redefine in their minds what all the terminology means so they can keep doing what they want. If we forbid "collecting records" they'll consider "collecting" to be taking ownership of records and allow themselves to query via PRISM on site at Facebook et al. If that's considered a 'search' violating the 4th amendment, they'll make an AI robot to do the searching. They'll be constantly one step ahead in making new technology to avoid being restricted by terminology. People need to go to prison for what they've already done. Passing a new law to explicitly forbid their past and current behavior only legitimizes what they've done and will lead to further acceptance of their actions.

</comment><comment><USER9> Be careful with your optimism. If the amendment passes, it will be a sign to many that the days of draconian domestic surveillance are over. The trouble is that this may or may not be the case; we likely won't be told the truth. And yet our defenses will be lowered just the same.

</comment><comment><USER19> Question, they keep mentioning phone records. What about the mass surveillance of email, texts, multimedia, and the cooperation of all those big corporations? Does this include that as well?

<comment><USER11> It doesn't, but it's a concrete first step. If we can win this fight, we redefine the debate, and the discussion becomes "which part of the NSA's surveillance will be blocked next?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It is good to see that some politicians still have the balls to speak truthfully about this issue...

</comment><comment><USER21> How is this not getting upvoted more?

<comment><USER2> It's creeping up the front page. Looks like it got hit early on by the HN purists who flagged it a bunch, but now that they're out of ammo it's getting up there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> _hahaha_

You can't be _serious_. NSA simply won't lose.

<comment><USER9> All such agencies will lose if we start creating software more responsibly. I understand that Stallman is a somewhat controversial figure here, but his mantra of "freedom over convenience" might bear repeating.</comment></comment>


Lucene wins - <AUTHOR> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1000000

<comment><USER2> The 1,000,000th commit at Apache is on Lucene, just check the source of the link: [http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1000...](http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1000000)

</comment><comment><USER3> Lucene's lucky that Solr merged with them :)

-former Solr committer

</comment><comment><USER4> What has lucene won?

<comment><USER5> Referring to this, evidently: [http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/dhc0d/apache_sv...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/dhc0d/apache_svn_will_reach_one_million_commits_very/)

1,000,000th commit on Apache SVN done by the Lucene project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is 'commit count' the new 'lines of code' metric?

<comment><USER7> No, it's the new karma points.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> the title should be Lucene should be the 1,000,000th commit on the apache svn repo

</comment><comment><USER9> Context?</comment>


If Higgs Boson Calculations Are Right, A 'Bubble' Could End Universe - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/02/19/172422921/if-higgs-boson-calculations-are-right-a-catastrophic-bubble-could-end-universe

<comment><USER2> Reminds me a bit (apocryphal?) of the first test of the atomic bomb at Trinity.

All the famous scientists had put down bets on how big the explosion would be. Edward Teller, IIRC, had a macabre one: it would set off a chain reaction that would ignite the atmosphere through nitrogen and hydrogen fusion.

Calculations were done, and the possibility of it happening was shown to be one in a million. The test went ahead.

<comment><USER3> Not a very wise bet. Even if he won, it would hardly matter!

<comment><USER4> Yes, if they were right, it wouldn't matter much, but it would energy a lot

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In their paper, Coleman and de Luccia noted:

The possibility that we are living in a false vacuum has never been a cheering one to contemplate. Vacuum decay is the ultimate ecological catastrophe; in the new vacuum there are new constants of nature; after vacuum decay, not only is life as we know it impossible, so is chemistry as we know it. However, one could always draw stoic comfort from the possibility that perhaps in the course of time the new vacuum would sustain, if not life as we know it, at least some structures capable of knowing joy. This possibility has now been eliminated.

The second special case ... applies if we are now living in the debris of a false vacuum ... This case presents us with less interesting physics and with fewer occasions for rhetorical excess than the preceding one.

S. Coleman and F. De Luccia (1980). "Gravitational effects on and of vacuum decay". Physical Review D21: 3305.

<comment><USER6> As cited in this Wikipedia article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum#Vacuum_metastabil...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum#Vacuum_metastability_event)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Even more proof that Douglas Adams saw this all coming

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." [1]

I can't believe I'm the first one to get this quote in :)

[1] <http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Douglas_Adams/>

<comment><USER8> You're not someone else did but the quote was something completely different, now you've gone and changed it to a bizarre new quote ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If the Everett's many-worlds interpretation is correct, this could be happening all the time. But we can only experience one of the world lines where our universe does not collapse.

<comment><USER10> The old quantum suicide argument?

It's not an especially cheerful idea, to be honest. Even if that argument works -- and to be fair, this is about the best possible scenario for it -- it's too easy to generalize.

There's no particular reason you should limit your self-identification to just the other branches you exist in in _this_ universe. The full argument is a bit oversized for this site, but.. consider that there are branches where you've got the exact same past as here (as far as you can tell), except that you're actually living in a simulation being run by some alien.

If you accept the notion of quantum suicide, and also provisionally this expanded version, then consider that even if the proportion of timelines in which you live in simulations (and thus, the credence you should give to such claims) is low _now_ , a sufficient number of vacuum collapse events could actually change that over time.

<comment><USER9> I don't mind that generalization. I feel that modal realism[1] is the only sensible way to explain why anything exists at all.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_realism>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This reminded me of Schild's Ladder: (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schilds_Ladder>)

> ...the experiments unexpectedly create a bubble of something more stable > than ordinary vacuum, dubbed novo-vacuum, that expands outward at half the > speed of light as ordinary vacuum collapses to this new state at the > border... The local population is forced to flee to ever more distant star > systems to escape the steadily approaching border...

<comment><USER12> Wow this book looks f'ing awesome. I'm definitely going to read it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It seems that npr is talking about this paper [1]. Where a simple Standard Model Higgs is assumed and then extrapolated to the Planck mass. (We already now that this does not work.) And the news is not that we all are going to die ( we knew this already), but the news [2] is actually that such a naive extrapolation gives a value for some coupling very close to 0 at the Planck Mass, which might hint at some interesting phenomena.

In addition the paper makes a nice sales pitch for a future electron-positron collider.

[1][http://pubdb.desy.de/fulltext/getfulltext.php?uid=23383-5971...](http://pubdb.desy.de/fulltext/getfulltext.php?uid=23383-59716) (pdf)

[2] News for me, I am no specialist.

</comment><comment><USER14> Both interesting and terrifying if this is true. The idea sounds a lot like Vonnegut's ice-nine, only for space instead of water.

<comment><USER15> It's exactly like ice-nine. The universe exists in some sort of meta-stable state. The usual argument against this sort of thing happening is that we'd already be dead. Cosmic ray interactions happen all the time at very high energies, so these interactions have already been seen in the universe. The LHC, however, pushes the energy limits towards unexplored territory -- due the fact that it is a collider, the center of mass energy of the LHC may exceed the highest ever cosmic ray collisions.

<comment><USER16> The LHC collision energy is around 7 TeV. GZK limit (theoretical maximum cosmic ray energy) is about 50,000,000 TeV. Particles have been observed with energies above the GZK limit.

You know the Higgs Boson as the "god particle". Well, there's also the "oh my god particle", which was a cosmic ray with observed energy on the order of 300,000,000 TeV.

<comment><USER13> But the center of mass energy for a GZK proton colliding with a proton in the air is something like 100 TeV - 1 PeV. So still quite a bit higher than the LHC, but not by a factor of 10^7.

<comment><USER15> If the highest energy cosmic rays are nuclei, the energies available for particle production are comparable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A self eating Universe? come on guys, i still struggle to make the change from the flat earth model to the geocentric model.

</comment><comment><USER18> So the bubble forms within, not outside?

Because I've heard it both ways before, and even in the article it mentions something about two bubbles that are separate from each other colliding.

In the later circumstances...

What I can't understand is how two universes that are "separated" from each other by a vacuum (no space-time fabric) could ever collide... As they are separate by a pure nothingness, they for all purposes exist inside different realms and have no chance of ever colliding as there is nothing for them to travel through to reach each other.

</comment><comment><USER12> Even if it expands at the speed of light, it would likely be outside of our observable universe though, right?

<comment><USER19> Are you referring to the fact that the furthest galaxies are actually receding from us at faster than the speed of light (due to the expansion of space itself) ?

<comment><USER20> Lol, I'm pretty sure that's horse manure.

<comment><USER19> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than- light#Universal_exp...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than- light#Universal_expansion)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> _Physicists Michael Turner and Frank Wilczek wrote ... that "without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light, and before we realized what swept by us our protons would decay away."_

Carpe Diem.

</comment><comment><USER22> "If you use all the physics that we know now and you do what you think is a straightforward calculation, it's bad news,"

That's exactly it, there is much more physics to discover and count in. People always think they know everything, at every point in history.

<comment><USER23> No, they don't.

If we thought we knew everything, we'd stop researching. They're called "theories" for a reason.

<comment><USER24> That's not exactly the way the word "theory" is used in a scientific context. I'd say the scientific use of the word is more like that in "music theory". It's not intended to imply a lack of confidence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> adam-f This could be worse than the Silicon Valley and the housing market bubbles combined.

</comment><comment><USER25> Not with current accelerator energies. [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v302/n5908/abs/302508a0...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v302/n5908/abs/302508a0.html)

<comment><USER26> Your article is referring to an accelerator-induced transition. The OP refers to a spontaneous transition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This sounds a bit like the plot of Fringe.

</comment><comment><USER28> Phew, from the title I thought we were talking about soap bubbles. Just one more thing kids of this age would have to grow up without.

</comment><comment><USER29> listen: there's a hell of a good universe next door; let's go.</comment>