NSA phone surveillance program likely unconstitutional, federal judge rules - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-phone-surveillance-likely-unconstitutional-judge <comment><USER2> To put it mildly this is the first step in a long, long path.

District courts have the final say in the vast bulk of routine matters that never get appealed, and they can play an influential role in setting the presumptive factual record in high profile cases destined for appeal. But in a high profile case destined for appeal that largely turns on interpreting the Constitution, this court was mostly a gatekeeper. In other words, if the district court had ruled the other way, maybe that would have been the end of the story. Given that it ruled as it did, this will certainly be heard by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (possibly by one of the judges appointed by Obama now that the filibuster has been weakened), and then if the petitioner wins there, either by the full DC Court of Appeals en banc, or the Supreme Court, or first one then the other. If _Smith v. Maryland_ is to be overturned, it will be the Supreme Court that does it, not a district court.

Still, I wish the plaintiffs the best of luck.

For further analysis keep on eye on fourth amendment guru Orin Kerr. His first post describing the opinion is already up: [http://www.volokh.com/2013/12/16/judge-leon-enjoins-nsa- tele...](http://www.volokh.com/2013/12/16/judge-leon-enjoins-nsa-telephony- metadata-program-larry-klayman-lawsuit/) and he says another with analysis will be coming soon.

<comment><USER3> > If Smith v. Maryland is to be overturned...

The Supreme Court wouldn't necessarily be deciding whether _Smith v. Maryland_ should be overturned, but whether NSA collection of phone/SMS metadata can be _distinguished_ from _Smith_. The district judge here presents some excellent arguments that _Smith_ is fundamentally different, and I was disappointed to read Professor Kerr's very sloppy analysis, given how excellent his Fourth Amendment coverage usually is. Perhaps he did not have a chance to read the case carefully.

Brief background on _Smith v. Maryland_ : In _Smith_ , a robbery victim complained to police that she was continually receiving threatening and obscene phone calls. The phone company installed a pen register at police request, without a warrant or court order, to record metadata for about 2 weeks; this revealed the phone numbers of all subsequent callers to her home. It also revealed that Smith made another harassing phone call. In short, the Supreme Court ruled that, in the process of calling, Smith voluntarily transmitted the phone numbers he dialed to the phone company, information he and everyone else know are commonly stored as business records, so he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers dialed. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment didn't apply.

Contrary to Professor Kerr's blog post, the real reasons Judge Leon thinks the NSA's metadata collection is different are quite compelling. Here's my summary of his reasons from pages 42-56:

1\. _Smith_ surveillance was only for 2 weeks; NSA surveillance is for as long as terrorism lasts in the United States (forever?)

2\. Previous case law supports a distinction on the basis of time length: In _US v. Knotts_ (1983), the Court said police use of a tracking beeper on an automobile does not implicate the Fourth Amendment because we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in our movement on public streets. But last year in _US v. Jones_ , the Court distinguished _Knotts_ , which was about short-term tracking, saying that police installation of a GPS device on Jones's car for a _month_ was too long and violated Jones's reasonable expectation of privacy.

3\. In _Smith_ there was no indication the phone records would be kept; NSA keeps phone records for 5 years

4\. _Smith_ was a one-time, targeted request; the NSA program is a daily, all- encompassing, indiscriminate dump of phone metadata. Leon: "It's one thing to say people expect phone companies to occasionally provide information to law enforcement; it is quite another to suggest that our citizens expect all phone companies to operate...a joint intelligence-gathering operation with the Government."

5\. The _Smith_ Court did not foresee in 1979 the "almost-Orwellian technology" the NSA is using to track and store hundreds of millions of Americans' phone data.

6\. "Most importantly," the nature of the information in our telephony metadata is much different.

7\. Phones are ubiquitous and much more frequently used, so metadata reveals more about our private lives and implicates a bigger privacy interest than in 1979.

8\. SMS metadata reveals who we wrote to, information that would not have been available in 1979 phone metadata when we had to write letters.

Judge Leon's conclusion, which I think is compelling given the foregoing: "I cannot navigate these uncharted Fourth Amendment waters using as my North Star a case that predates the rise of cell phones."

<comment><USER2> I see you are an attorney, so I'll skip the detailed explanation of vertical _stare decisis_ and simply point out that Sotomayor joined Scalia's opinion in _Jones_ , which commanded a majority and was the opinion of the Court. Therefore, the holding of the case has to do with the continuing validity of traditional trespass as a fourth amendment search, and the mosaic theory in the concurrence is dicta. I personally find it compelling, but I'm not a District Court judge bound by the strictures of precedent.

Nothing in _Smith_ itself or it's Supreme Court progeny indicate that the length of time the government intends to keep information that it found the people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in is of constitutional moment. Nor the number of phones, or how frequently they are used. As for SMS and writing letters, it is the Court's allowing the government to collect mail metadata (the envelope info) that got this entire line of precedents started.

If this had been an email case, I'd be right there with you. I don't think the device that the government wanted to install in the Lavabit case is sufficiently similar to a classic pen register to be covered by _Smith_ , and I think the third party and his representations matter with respect to customers' expectations. But here we have telephone records as collected by telephone companies. _Smith_ is squarely on point. Limiting _Smith_ to 1979 is tantamount to overruling it, not distinguishing it.

Judge Leon doesn't like _Smith_ , I get that, I don't either. Fortunately or unfortunately, neither if us is on the Supreme Court. (See also, Reinhardt, J. any opinion.)

<comment><USER3> It's possible to distinguish _Smith_ as inapposite without throwing away _stare decisis_. The term of surveillance (forever), the breadth of surveillance (almost every American), and the greater privacy intrusion (because of cell phones' ubiquity and because we use them more frequently) all make NSA surveillance very different from _Smith_.

And as far as the length of surveillance goes, Kerr's pointed out that 5 justices in _Jones_ (the 2012 GPS case) signed onto the idea that long-term GPS monitoring of a car counts as a search even if short-term monitoring does not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Larry Klayman is an interesting plaintiff in this case.[1] He was a career Justice Department prosecutor during the Reagan administration and worked on the successful antitrust case against the former ATT telephone monopoly. Another article[2] agrees with the article kindly submitted here in reporting that the United States district judge (appointed by President George W. Bush) has stayed his ruling, pending a very likely appeal by the federal government, but it is clear that he thinks the current surveillance program is too broad to be constitutional based on the testimony at trial. That's good legal work.

The link to the full opinion of the district court[3] loads very slowly just now, presumably because many readers are trying to access it.

AFTER EDIT: A legal blogger has put up a copy of the court opinion on a page that loads rapidly.[4]

[1] [http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/klayman](http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/klayman)

[2] [http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/16/usa-security- rulin...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/16/usa-security-ruling- idUSL2N0JV1DT20131216)

[3] [https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi- bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0...](https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi- bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0851-48)

[4] [http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/12/Klayma...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/12/Klayman.pdf)

<comment><USER5> > Another article[2] agrees with the article kindly submitted here in > reporting that the United States district judge (appointed by President > George W. Bush) has stayed his ruling, pending a very likely appeal by the > federal government

Note that staying a decision pending appeal is the norm, to preserve the _status quo_ until a final resolution. There _are_ exceptions, but it is usually not noteworthy (even if it is frustrating to those who support the decision that is stayed) that that has occurred.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> From the article: "The judge, Richard Leon of U.S. District Court in Washington, said that the NSA relied on 'almost-Orwellian technology' that would have been unimaginable a generation ago, at the time of a landmark Supreme Court decision on phone records."

I disagree strongly! The NSA's technology would more properly be called super- Orwellian. Two-way TV, hidden microphones, and steaming open your mail is nothing compared with what the NSA can do.

<comment><USER7> I was just thinking today - we're about to start using "smart light-bulbs" in a few years. Lightbulbs with Internet connections, that can potentially record everything we say anywhere, even in real world (unless they are doing that already with idle cellphones).

If we don't stop this now, and don't make it explicitly illegal, and actually punish the people involved (otherwise they's no downside to continuing it), then it will get a lot worse in the future.

Also, how can US law be so asymmetrical? It's illegal to look into someone's mail, which just includes _one single conversation_ , but it's not to look at someone's real-time conversations for a long time, which can include all sorts of topics, and then multiply that by millions of people.

If looking into just one mail conversation is illegal, how come mass surveillance isn't immediately seen as _massively illegal_?

<comment><USER8> The government's position is that collecting the data isn't surveillance until a government employee actually _looks_ at the data. E.g. the idea is that you collect a huge pool of data, and then get individual warrants to go spelunking in it.

<comment><USER9> > and then get individual warrants to go spelunking in it.

And that warrant is obtained whenever, in the future, that that person opposes the national interests. Then it's like you've been spying on them all along. Retroactive wiretapping!

<comment><USER10> McCarthy and Hoover's wildest dreams realized.

<comment><USER8> Don't knock McCarthy. If it wasn't for him then China wouldn't be on the Moon!

<comment><USER11> How do you know China actually landed on the moon?

(Just kidding...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Cool. Now just let us know when the criminal trials begin.

<comment><USER13> For a criminal trial, a specific law must be broken. We can't retroactively prosecute violators under a new interpretation of the law.

On the other hand, I would like to see a serious investigation into the NSA's behavior conducted, possibly with top jobs on the line.

<comment><USER7> Ok, how about the law that makes it a felony to lie to Congress. Let's start with that one!

<comment><USER14> That law already exists[1]. Also, Clapper could potentially be held in Contempt of Congress[2].

[1] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury)

[2] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress)

<comment><USER15> Right so is any action being taken against him? This has seemed fairly clear cut from the time of the first Guardian/Greenwald/Snowden release.

<comment><USER14> Not really. A bunch of tea partiers sent a letter suggesting that he resign or be held on perjury charges, which prompted him to apologize. His apology asserted that he forgot about the existence of the PATRIOT Act, which is why he accidentally said what he said, on accident.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't think this decision will hold up on appeal. From the article:

Basically, the judge found the on-point Supreme Court precedent to be inapplicable based on changes in technology in the intervening time:

"Leon wrote that the government was justifying its counterterrorism program based on a 34-year-old Supreme Court precedent that has been eclipsed by 'technological advances and a cell phone-centric lifestyle heretofore inconceivable.'"

It's very worthwhile to read the case that is discussed (Smith v. Maryland): [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3033726127475530...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3033726127475530815&q=smith+v+maryland&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39)

Pay specific attention to the discussion starting at the end of page 743 ("Second, even if petitioner..."). That reasoning doesn't seem any less valid to me today than it was 34 years ago. It's an easy, clear rule: "private" means private, not "private but shared with my hundred closest sysadmin friends at AT&T or Google."

<comment><USER17> IOW, you don't believe privacy should exist at all in the digital age. Others disagree.

<comment><USER16> The issue isn't whether privacy should exist in the digital age. The fact is that it doesn't, or at least not as we have understood it for all of these years. Something that dozens of sysadmins at Google can read is simply not private within traditional definitions. The real issue is whether we can create a practical pretense of privacy: treating data that isn't private, as a matter of fact, as private as a matter of law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's really interesting reading about the main plaintiff, Larry Klayman [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Klayman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Klayman)

I'm curious if he's more motivated by NSA-as-a-tool-to-attack-Obama or the merits of the case itself. Beggars can't be choosers, but still pretty strange to be in a position to back someone tactically on one issue while probably opposing most of the rest of his agenda.

<comment><USER19> As a liberal who supports social justice, the social contract, and health care reform and the like, it feels really weird to find myself cheering Freedomworks and tea party types on when we agree on something.

<comment><USER20> From the outside, the way American politics divides people is strange. The psychology of republicans vs democrats, tpartiers vs big staters seems more like the supporters of a sports team.

When you support a sports team, if your player blatantly breaks the rules, you curse when he gets penalized. However badly they perform, you say they are unlucky and will win next season. When you watch a match with other fans, you feel like you are part of a clan, you feel a sense of belonging. Some people support terrible teams because they like that feeling, and they enjoy getting angry at the other team and its supporters. Sometimes they enjoy it so much they have riots, or at least a punch up.

I'm not saying America is unique, and the... sad cynicism you see in other countries is it's own evil. It's just a bit scary watching the fate of the world be decided like a bar room sports argument.

I guess this comment is a dumb generalization, but that debt ceiling thing really freaked me out.

<comment><USER21> > From the outside, the way American politics divides people is strange. The > psychology of republicans vs democrats, tpartiers vs big staters seems more > like the supporters of a sports team.

That's _exactly_ what it's like, and the worst thing (in my opinion) is how it has spread to every facet of American life, so that arguments over _factual information_ are seen the same way. The country as a whole is far more concerned with winning or losing than with the actual significance of the "field" on which their "team" is "playing."

Mind you, given how central sports is to American lifestyles[1], it's not like nobody could have seen this coming. But that doesn't reduce how dangerous it is.

[1] Walk into any American high school. Chances are, the walls are lined with football trophies, and the faculty's letterhead is plastered with logos for the resident teams. The social hierarchy of the students revolves around the star players. Outcasts are called "losers."

<comment><USER22> Your experiences with high schools are different than the ones I've encountered. The social hierarchies aren't oriented around the sports team, but rather the standard hierarchy with the wealthy at the top and the poor at the bottom.

Granted, there's some variation, and being athletically talented or aesthetically pleasing can move you up the hierarchy, but being poor and having both of those traits will only raise you as high as the ugliest, clumsiest, wealthy student.

In four years of high school, I could only ever name one basketball player and that was only because he was my debate partner is speech class. I never knew who the quarterback on the football team was, despite hearing of some impressive victories. I was far more aware of the less popular sports (e.g. track, tennis, gymnastics), precisely because the team members in those sports came from higher income families and thus had more popular athletes.

<comment><USER23> I'm not disagreeing with your point regarding wealth, but football is the most popular men's high school sport (by participation) in the country so your experiences aren't likely the norm. Also track, tennis and gymnastics are mostly individual sports so they're less likely to be the ones driving the same level of school-wide support and pride (logos on the masthead, trophies in the hall, etc).

Also HN readers might be unlikely to have had the average American high school experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't suppose they'll use the same definition of 'related' while destroying data as when they actually collected it.

</comment><comment><USER25> > The judge, a conservative, ruled that the NSA must remove from its records > data related to two Americans who filed suit to stop the program.

Since Groklaw was KIA, can someone with a better understanding of the law explain if this applies to all Americans, or only those two who brought the suit?

<comment><USER26> EDIT: I looked at the opinion a little more closely, though I still haven't read it in its entirety. The judge's order only "(1) bars the Government from collecting, as part of the NSA's Bulk Telephony Metadata Program, any telephony metadata associated with their personal Verizon accounts and (2) requires the Government to destroy any such metadata in its possession that was collected through the bulk collection program."

So by its terms, the judge's order only applies to these plaintiffs. However, if the opinion is upheld on appeal (see below), it seems unlikely that the NSA would continue the bulk program against anyone without individualized suspicion. If the opinion is upheld it would indeed be very easy for anyone else to sue and get a similar order.

EDIT 2: Footnote 69 of the opinion confirms that it applies only to two plaintiffs, Larry Klayman and Charles Strange. Other plaintiffs did NOT get relief, apparently because they didn't prove they were telephone subscribers.

\</comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-- ORIGINAL COMMENT

I have a law degree from Stanford, but I have not read the opinion in its entirety, so this is quite possibly premature. The judge ruled that the program is unconstitutional. Typically, the remedy for such a ruling would be for the judge to enjoin the program. That would prohibit the NSA from continuing surveillance against everyone, not just the two plaintiffs.

However, the judge stayed his own ruling, meaning that he will not issue an injunction at this time. He did that to let the government appeal, which it will undoubtedly do. In other words, the ruling will not take effect unless and until it is upheld on appeal. The case was decided in the District of DC, so it will go to the DC Circuit, and (potentially) the Supreme Court. So it could be a long time before it has any effect at all.

Regarding Zikes's comment, unfortunately a district court court opinion has little precedential value. It is not binding on other federal district courts, even within the district where it was decided. It may be persuasive, and it can certainly be cited, but it has no power to bind other federal courts. If it is upheld by the DC Circuit, it will carry a lot more weight.

</comment><comment><USER27> Nice, but this only applies to americans. They are still allowed to gather the data for the whole rest of the world!

</comment><comment><USER28> _"The government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA's bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time- sensitive in nature."_

</comment><comment><USER29> Edward Snowden on this ruling: "Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans' rights. It is the first of many."

Well said, sir.

<comment><USER30> Mind me asking where you found this quote?

<comment><USER31> [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/us/politics/federal- judge-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/us/politics/federal-judge-rules- against-nsa-phone-data-program.html?pagewanted=1)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> No problem, the NSA and whatever administration happens to occupy the Whitehouse at the moment will just re-interpret the ruling as if it ruled that the program _is_ constitutional.

We used to say that whoever wins the war writes the history. But the war on terror will never be won, by definition and design. The NSA probably cares fuckall who writes the history books anymore. They want the dictionary.

</comment><comment><USER33> I have mixed feelings about this.

Some of the metadata in my opinion is obviously OK to collect - the stuff that would have been captured by a pen register decades ago - Who you called, who called you, how long you talked - this stuff, which is otherwise known as call detail records it available to nearly everyone who works for the telco and is not really what I would consider private.

Other stuff - like Geolocation data is in my opinion clearly not OK to collect - it constitutes an unreasonable encroachment on privacy, normally to track someone historically a warrant must be obtained first, and it required probable cause, I see no reason why a lesser standard should be applied here.

I don't consider blanket recording of calls to be acceptable, but I don't see that as something that has been happening, at least on domestic to domestic endpoints (it's not really technically feasible to do with the way the telephone network is structured), its a bit easier to record calls going to international endpoints because of the structure of the PSTN - VoIP is its own deal, and YMMV on weather you can actually capture those calls or not.

I don't want to see us throw the baby out with the bath water as it were, nor do I want the unreasonable encroachment on privacy to continue.

<comment><USER34> I disagree. I interned twice at a telco, and while I had access to a bunch of information in databases as a developer, I had no access to call records, and in general you didn't have access to it unless you needed it for work. The problem is as I understand it, the NSA currently has the view that if a corporation has access to it, then it's not private and they get free reign. It's not that I don't expect Google to have my gmail records, or my phone to have call records and geolocation. Those companies can use that data to improve their services to me. It's when the NSA decides that they have access to all of this information from all these companies is when I have a problem.

<comment><USER33> Different companies, different policy, I worked in customer care, and later in a quasi-engineering role. In both cases, and two different companies I had full access to customer CDR's.

<comment><USER35> Which two? I'd appreciate being able to avoid those companies.

<comment><USER33> It's really all of them - If your doing a job that involves either customer care, or resolving call based issues, you have the ability to: See call detail records, sometimes capture voice calls to and from that subscriber, capture signalling data in realtime, track a mobile user in call thru the system for the purposes of finding defective network elements.

There is a good reason why we had these abilities, they were essential to resolve and troubleshoot user reported issues.

For example, if a customer reported troubles or call quality issues calling 202-555-1212, I needed to be able to pull their CDR's so I could determine which outbound trunk group the call went out on, so I could report it to that carrier to see if they could resolve.

<comment><USER35> > There is a good reason why we had these abilities

Bullshit. Systems can be designed to allow troubleshooting and problem resolution without giving broad access to user data. Telecoms are just too lazy to do it. They have local monopolies, so they just don't need to care.

<comment><USER36> I've written tools for VoIP companies for diagnostics. The most helpful system is one that logs everything and has it available on-demand. The one I wrote literally recorded and indexed every call-related packet (except audio) and records were kept indefinitely. This is network-level traffic. It reduced time-to-resolution by at least an order of magnitude, since a ticket to the effect of "this weekend someone at the office called someone in Germany and it didnt work" could find out exactly what happened.

Apart from that, call detail records (CDRs) are available to many people in a telecom. And it doesn't matter if you trust your telco, because they probably hand off traffic to others in many cases. Even large companies like AT&T deal with very scummy third-parties to get the cheapest prices to place calls. (I know that first hand, because sometimes people sell call capacity they don't have. Instead of completing the call, they answer and play a fake recording of someone saying "wait a sec". Once, when dialing from my AT&T cell, I got the same exact recording I had PCAP'd from some third-rate provider.)

Unlike email, where you don't need to provide access to email records in most cases, CDRs are needed for all aspects of billing. While your complete profile may be relatively safe in a large company with internal controls, depending on your calling patterns, you may very well be leaking a lot of details to many third parties you've never heard of.

Edit: You could theoretically add all sorts of controls and access- limitations. There's really zero benefit to doing so. Plenty of companies still rely on techs being able to run tcpdump on a mirror port or server in question.

<comment><USER35> > You could theoretically add all sorts of controls and access-limitations. > There's really zero benefit to doing so.

Wow. That, right there, is the problem. You don't have to care about other people's privacy, so you don't. You're not accountable, and neither are the companies you work for.

I hope there's a disgruntled insider at one of the companies that uses your tools, and they vacuum up all the data they can find and leak it. Maybe a public scandal could make you care, if it affected your bottom line.

<comment><USER36> Hah. I don't mean to be condescending, but the security in telecom is laughable. I've tested nearly a dozen systems and networks, and in every case never had to spend more than a day getting root. (I'm sure there are decently designed ones, but that's not the common case.)

I had the CTO of one of the major switch vendors tell me that "buffer overflows aren't a problem, unless maybe the network is very fast". This is a company that markets an edge device with security being one of the main bullet points.

Not to mention, I'm willing to bet in many datacenters, you could literally just walk in and take disks out of machines. If they've got RAID and no alarming on RAID (not too uncommon) no one will even notice. Sure, some places have solid cages or require escorts. But a lot of colo space is relatively unmonitored and so long you look like you belong there and get past perimeter security (as easy as renting 1U in the same place, often) you're totally in.

And the sad part? To my knowledge, these attacks aren't that widespread. Why? Because there's even lower-hanging fruit that's more lucrative to hackers.

Anyways, to your point: How would this access control work? How are you going to verify a CSR actually got a call from a specific customer? How much effort are you going to put in verifying that data? This is an industry where tons of money is charged and moved around based purely on emails received, with zero verification. Also remember that full wiretap capabilities are a federal requirement (CALEA). So somewhere, they'll have a system that can turn on lawful intercept. That avenue is probably ripe for abuse.

You're right in your overall sentiment. The FCC and federal government should enact privacy laws and force companies to internalize this externality. Until they do, there's little reason to make it any more difficult for support to do their job.

<comment><USER33> Reminds me of a linux based edge router/SIP ALG product we used at a former employer if you put it on a 20 meg or faster symmetrical pipe, it would fall over, and eventually hardlock. Bugs in the drivers and a lack of hardware acceleration for the ethernet cards.

<comment><USER36> A popular ISP in one country shipped default DSL modem/routers with a SIP ALG on that didn't work. But not just the normal "totally screwing SIP up" but the alarm light would go on and the modem would be dead until power reset. On any SIP packet. This was over 6 years ago, but I think it was a ZyXEL.

<comment><USER33> the ZyXEL Modems were horrible in general. My preference was to use an Innoband 8012 and let the customer get their own router.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> It will be interesting to see what happens to the judge. 'Parallel construction.'

<comment><USER38> They have a severe momentum problem.

This one judge is the least of their worries. There are a dozen more federal cases coming over the next few years (the one going on in NY right now for example, by the EFF or ACLU, forget which).

All the momentum is strongly against the NSA, and the Snowden documents will continue to apply an endless wall of pressure. They likely won't get a chance to breathe in terms of making themselves look good (short of maybe a false flag to save the day).

Obama is about to meet with 'Silicon Valley' to try to deal with that fire. Whether it's meant to pacify them or to actually act on their marching orders (money rules), it points to the fact that the NSA & Co. are struggling non- stop to contain the wild fire.

<comment><USER30> I don't know. I don't think NSA & Co. give a crap! I think they think a lot along these lines:

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

\- Col. Jessep from A Few Good Men

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> What a sorry piece of news! A federal judge thinks that mass surveillance is LIKELY unconstitutional? The only thing the constitution is good for these days is wiping you ass. Even if these practices are officially ruled as illegal, what will change? How will the oversight be conducted to prevent such practices from continuing. In my opinion, the NSA will simply begin hiding their operations from oversight. The biggest question is whether it is possible at all to implement practical and systematic methods that correctly oversee such government organizations. Is there a solution that guarantees that it will be impossible for the NSA and the like to hide their actions considering the almost system-wide corruption of government bodies? The solution to this problem is difficult to imagine for this reason.

<comment><USER40> Um, the judge went as far as he could given the procedural posture of the case. He was not asked at this stage to go any further; nor could he have.

Yes, many provisions of the Constitution and BoR are widely ignored by congresscritters, bureaucrats, and judges. But this is not one of those examples.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I suppose there is always a small amount of hope that this could actually stick?

</comment><comment><USER42> Glad to see this ruling, but this must be too-little-too-late by now, right?

<comment><USER43> Certainly, the NSA is surely dug in like a tick when it comes to domestic surveillance. Even with this ruling, I'm sure it will be years before they actually stop the cited unconstitutional behavior, if ever.

My question is, did the process fail in allowing it to happen in the first place, or is this correction after the fact the way the system is intended to work?

<comment><USER44> "OK, now we'll _really_ stop surveilling. promise!"

they invested so much I'm sure this is how it is for good now, no turning back. that's the screwed up thing. America seems to have a lot of sunken cost fallacy. Once they've begun something it's easier to continue illegally than tear it all down. Same deal with 23andme Genome stuff. Makes more sense to them to operate illegally & take on the FDA than slow down a lucrative business.

<comment><USER43> I can seriously picture some sort of phased process where they stop doing one thing, and then another, over the course of several years. It would be as a result of this ruling or one like it, which explicitly calls out the behavior as invasive and harmful, but they would tread on as long as they could thanks to sunk costs.

It'd be akin to a bully with a tazer saying "Well I've already spent the past several years tazing you several times a day and I spent sooo much on this fancy tazer, so how about we bring that down to just twice a day for the first year, then daily for the year after that, then every other day, and so on?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> That is it ? What about prosecuting the people responsible ? When are they going behind the bars ?

</comment><comment><USER46> This is a significant ruling; but only one small step in a long journey. The importance attached to our choice of destination is heightened by the ever- changing technological landscape over which we travel.

The increasingly pervasive and omnipresent nature of public and private sector surveillance, together with the intimate and revealing nature of the information collected, presages a new phase in the relationship between individual and the institutions and organisations to which our social and economic fealty is directed.

A relationship that is far closer and far more intimate; based on an extensive knowledge of the individual's drives, weaknesses, foibles, and personality traits. We can clearly see a worrying potential for forced intimacy and abusive exploitation of the relationship; just as we currently observe (thankfully infrequent) incidents of abusive physical violence and coercion. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this is the potential that modern technologies have for scalability; facilitating abuse on an industrial and global scale, in market contrast to the inherent limitations of abusive physical interventions.

The key factors here are the fact that the information is intimate; that the collection is involuntary and coercive; and that the means of collection and exploitation may be automated and deployed on a large scale.

The presence or absence of mens rea is besides the point.

</comment><comment><USER47> Yikes, what is it with 60 Minutes lately?

Sunday night they carry water for Amazon or NSA. Right before Monday, the big day.

(My presumption: The NSA knew a ruling was coming today. Getting a puff piece on 60 Minutes is positive spin regardless of whether the ruling turns out good or bad for them.)

Edit: Link

[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nsa-speaks-out-on-snowden- spying...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nsa-speaks-out-on-snowden-spying/)

</comment><comment><USER46> The pervasive and omnipresent nature of the surveillance, together with the intimate and revealing nature of the information revealed, presages a new phase in the relationship between individual and state; one that is far closer and far more intimate; based on an extensive knowledge of the individual's drives, weaknesses, foibles, and personality traits. We can clearly see a worrying potential for forced intimacy and abusive exploitation of the relationship; just as we currently observe (thankfully infrequent) incidents of abusive physical violence and coercion. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this is the potential that modern technologies have for scalability; facilitating abuse on an industrial and global scale, in market contrast to the inherent limitations of abusive physical interventions.

</comment><comment><USER48> Is there any way to tackle this at the Terry level? It seems like we can protect ourselves more if we can explicitly eliminate the ability to systematically manufacture terry stops based on phone calls, other behavior, skin color, religion...

<comment><USER26> I don't think Terry is applicable. Terry has to do with stopping a person based on some suspicion that that person might be committing a crime. You're quite right to point out that the suspicion required is minimal, and that it's easy to manipulate. However, the type of search that can be conducted through a Terry stop is limited to fairly strict justifications--the officers can really only conduct searches to protect themselves (i.e. to see if you have a weapon) or evidence (to prevent you from destroying it).

But what's going on here is massive, indiscriminate collection of information on people whom the government has no reason whatsoever to suspect of any crime. Not only that, the officer safety and evidence preservation justifications don't apply either. NSA surveillance isn't really comparable to conducting a Terry stop on the entire nation.

<comment><USER48> Then what do they mean here, in this hearing, when they make such a big deal out of how Terry applies?

21:07, 23:04, 37:00 of first session link (morning session)

[http://www.c-span.org/Events/Civil-Liberties-Board- Reviews-S...](http://www.c-span.org/Events/Civil-Liberties-Board-Reviews- Surveillance-Programs/10737442462/)

My interpretation was that this was the justification for three-hop data imports based on phone selectors. Which, to me, is interpreting RAS as allowing for stopping and frisking an entire network of people to discover previously unknown operatives, based on suspicion of just one. If you try to imagine how that would look in real life, it's a bit scary. Actually, racial terry stops lean toward doing just that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> We need to generate tangible evidence to the political system that the defenders of the NSA have no credibility. Restore the Fourth SF and others have created a mechanism for Californians to do so. [https://shameonfeinstein.org/](https://shameonfeinstein.org/)

</comment><comment><USER50> Whether one supports the NSA program or not, it's fairly clear that it's not compatible with the 4th Amendment as understood today. The Constitution has been amended before, if this is important it needs to be taken under the umbrella of a Constitutional amendment.

</comment><comment><USER51> My next fantasy is to see Snowden come back to the US, be tried, and be acquitted.

<comment><USER52> If the law doesn't allow it, I hope the jury nullifies.

<comment><USER53> Ah, but the lawyer for the government will know the personal beliefs of each member of the jury in advance!

(hopefully kidding)

<comment><USER54> I know you're kidding but given what we've seen so far, I wouldn't put it past the NSA to pack the court with stooges.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Opinion here: [http://www.scribd.com/doc/191876642/Klayman-v- Obama](http://www.scribd.com/doc/191876642/Klayman-v-Obama)

<comment><USER56> Got a PDF?

<comment><USER55> Should be here [https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi- bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0...](https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi- bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0851-48) but the website has been chugging as this is a unusually popular district court decision, [http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/obamansa.pdf](http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/obamansa.pdf) has it too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Here's the ruling:

[http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/obamansa.pdf](http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/obamansa.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER58> In a rare showing, common sense has triumphed this day.

</comment><comment><USER19> It's weird how the URL for this link keeps changing.

</comment><comment><USER11> The government has a secret system, a machine ...

</comment><comment><USER59> "...likely unconstitutional" ya think?

</comment><comment><USER60> Does it even matter what the courts say? The NSA seems like it has no problems operating outside of the law and lying when asked what it's actually doing.

</comment><comment><USER61> No shit, sherlock.

</comment><comment><USER62> I support the NSA monitoring.

No, not a troll.

At this point, the USA has a ton of enemies. Filtering through emails, phone, etc. is a good way to catch these. We need to give law enforcement the tools it needs.

Seeing how this access was abused to hunt down Tea Party groups convinces me that the NSA needs to be de-politicized, not shut down.

I think we'll find that this monitoring is inevitable because the technology is there and also, since the technology is there, if it is not used and a terrorist incident occurs, people will be held responsible for NOT using it.

<comment><USER63> For one, the United States has a ton of enemies because of dirty and mean things we have done to other countries. Maybe if we fixed our foreign policy and stopped dropping bombs on poor people there'd be less people that hate us. That would be a lot simpler than making people hate us more by spying on them, installing backdoors in encryption standards, spending billions of dollars on said spying, not having proper auditing of said spying, and putting our democracy at risk due to said spying.

As for the monitoring preventing a terrorist attack:

A. As of yet they have not been able to demonstrate that they have successfully prevented an attack based on information they gained through the NSA. The best they could show was that they arrested some taxi cab driver in California who sent $8500 to some militants.

B. Even if the massive spying prevented some attacks, you have to ask, "at what cost?" This type of unaccountable intelligence apparatus has the very real potential to undermine our democracy and turn the United States into a police state. In some ways that is already happening. And if you get too far down the road towards an authoritarian government, some humanities worst atrocities await.

Terrorists may have killed thousands in the last century, but murderous governments have killed 10's of millions, potentially over 100 million. And I'm not talking about war, I'm talking about state-sanctioned murder. I'd rather take my chances with the occassional nutjob with a pressure cooker than an oppressive government .

<comment><USER63> I'm not saying we need to get rid of the NSA completely, but it should be dramatically curbed and it should have a lot more independent and transparent oversight. From the get-go dragnet spying on Americans should be ended.</comment></comment></comment>


Tessel: The End of Web Development (as we know it) - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/TechnicalMachine/tessel-the-end-of-web-development-as-we-know-it?fb_action_ids=10151688669002081&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151688669002081%22%3A454941664622159%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151688669002081%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D <comment><USER2> Extensive discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6467379](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6467379)

Other posts:

[https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=title%3Atessel...](https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=title%3Atessel&sortby=create_ts+desc)</comment>


A Quick Introduction to LXD - <AUTHOR> http://blog.scottlowe.org/2015/05/06/quick-intro-lxd/ <comment><USER3> LXC is really quite simple and makes a lot of sense when you need a lightweight VM, that behaves like a VM. Docker takes a very specific view of containers with layers, a modified container OS template and init that limits the container to running a single app. This may be great for deployment or PAAS specific use cases but adds needless complexity for more general use cases.

There is more to containers than running a single app. Their potential as lightweight, efficient and portable alternatives to VMs is immense. We have tons of resources on LXC at Flockport, including ready to use containers [1]

VM workloads can transition seamlessly to LXC containers. And the large ecosystem of Linux tools and apps that work on VMs and systems work perfectly in LXC. And you do not need to find a container specific way to do things.

Take networking, overlay networks or clustering that works in VMs work as well in containers. We have a largish number of tutorials on multi host container networking over both layer 2 and 3 with GRE, L2TP, VxLAN, IPSEC, tinc and more [2] A lot of Docker specific tools use these under the hood but they are easy enough to use on their own.

The LXC team are trying to move the needle with LXD. It uses unprivileged containers by default (non root users can run containers, this is not capabilities drop) multi host management with a REST api so you can query the LXD daemon for container orchestration across hosts and live migration. These are big steps forward and they really do need the support of the community. They have been doing this for 7 years and is thanks to then containers exist.

[1] [http://www.flockport.com/containers](http://www.flockport.com/containers)

[2] [http://www.flockport.com/news](http://www.flockport.com/news)

<comment><USER4> > The LXC team are trying to move the needle with LXD. It uses unprivileged > containers by default (non root users can run containers, this is not > capabilities drop) multi host management with a REST api so you can query > the LXD daemon for container orchestration across hosts and live migration. > These are big steps forward and they really do need the support of the > community. They have been doing this for 7 years and is thanks to then > containers exist.

I'm always surprised when people omit to point out that "the LXC team" is basically Canonical, the corporate sponsor behind Ubuntu (including the kernel bits).

People love to bash on the company, it'd be nice to acknowledge the achievements as well :)

Full disclaimer: I'm a Canonical employee. I hope that doesn't come out as a corporate shill, I genuinely love LXD.

<comment><USER5> _I 'm always surprised when people omit to point out that "the LXC team" is basically Canonical, the corporate sponsor behind Ubuntu (including the kernel bits)._

Perhaps now, but historically you are very much incorrect. IBM funded it originally, and it was conceived and implemented (ie. as in they made it reach the "actually working and in-kernel" state) with the goal of segregating concurrently executing workloads on fat IBM-supplied mainframes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> stephen-mw Someone here on HN encouraged others to check out LXD in a previous thread a week ago. I did it and was really blown away. It really did feel like I was running virtual machines from an extremely fast hypervisor.

What mattered to me most was getting away from "1 process per container" mentality. Phusion realized right away that this was an unnecessary constraint and built their base image[0] to help others.

With LXD you really get the best of both worlds. You can containerize your applications without having to re-write your entire stack because it also requires cron or a few other processes. Ain't nobody got time for that.

0: [https://github.com/phusion/baseimage- docker](https://github.com/phusion/baseimage-docker)

<comment><USER6> So should I use LXD or Docker? I just want to package up an app with dependencies and make it easy for others to use/test.

<comment><USER7> Use LXD, it is more flexible.

Can have application structured as multiple processes so can map VM patterns to it easier, without creating unnecessary containers.

Believe you also get better security between containers

Also LXC has been in the kernel longer and seems more mature (since 2.6.20-something).

<comment> vezzy-fnord _Also LXC has been in the kernel longer and seems more mature (since 2.6.20-something)._

LXC in the kernel? It's a userspace toolkit that makes use of kernel technologies (namespaces, pivot_root, cgroups...), but I don't recall it being bundled as a part of it.

<comment><USER7> > LXC in the kernel?

Sorry, I meant LXC support. Yeah it is comprised of a set of a features supported by regular Linux kernels + userspace tools. The feature set has been there for a quite a while.

> but I don't recall it being bundled as a part of it.

But it is in contrast to say OpenVZ which required patching the kernel to work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Look, man, you just can't have a technology called LXD and ask people to refer to it as "lex-dee". That's just not right.

<comment><USER5> Seconded: Steve Jobs just rolled over in his grave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm surprised no one's mentioned systemd-nspawn which is also for os- virtualization so more like LXC than Docker.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4SwL2t5Yh4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4SwL2t5Yh4)

Poettering discusses LXC/LXD later in this video.

</comment><comment><USER10> >Image based (no more distribution templates, only good, trusted images) - <USER2> LXD website

So instead of "lxc create -t ubuntu -n container1", I'll load a container from an image (just a monolithic template of sorts)?

<comment><USER11> You can use pre-built images even with plain LXC:

lxc-create -t download -n container1 -- -d ubuntu -r trusty -a amd64

LXD just takes it a little further, so on the UI level you are dealing just with images through the whole life-span of the container, not just when you are creating it. That makes it possible to wrap it all in a nice API and automatize the environment.</comment></comment>


Trump Filter - <AUTHOR> http://trumpfilter.com/ <comment><USER2> Was wondering how long it would take Rob to make this.</comment>


IOS Apps are not allowed to save YouTube videos for offline viewing - <AUTHOR> http://www.icab.de/blog/2013/01/26/app-reviews-are-unpredictable/

<comment><AUTHOR> This submission was triggered by this thread: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5163371></comment>


Smallest commercially made CRT in the world and it works [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8kZ7h4xZDY <comment><USER2> Definitely cool. It should get put into a PiZero arcade cabinet or something.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well actually it's not just a CRT, it's a magnetic deflection CRT picture tube.

There were much earlier and simpler CRT's in commercial production:

[http://www.magiceyetubes.com/](http://www.magiceyetubes.com/)</comment>


Why Google killed off Google Reader: It was self-defense - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2013/03/16/why-google-killed-off-google-reader-it-was-self-defense/ <comment><USER2> OK the pendulum in the tech world is swinging too far towards the "ruthless focus is the way to success" school of thought. I get where it comes from and there's certainly some truth to it, but at some point regularly creating products that consumers use and then killing those same products a few years later is also going to do some serious damage to a company and its brand.

Oh look, Google has a product called Currents, maybe I should use this infrastructure to build a workflow or even a business on? But wait a minute this is Google, a company who regularly sacrifices products, even ones with millions of users, on the alter of "Focus". Will this Google product be around a few Springs from now? Then why should I even take the risk of learning to use it and maybe depending on it?

<comment><USER3> "creating products that consumers use and then killing those same products a few years later"

You're right, but this is a product that ran for eight years. It was free, showed all signs of being killed for several years now, and can be migrated to another service. I think Google's brand can survive dropping a few products like this after 8 years if they're not going anywhere...assuming of course they continue to innovate elsewhere.

<comment><USER4> I am not betting for or against that assumption. I will note that they have nothing as big as search (except maybe YouTube) and Microsoft and Amazon have been competing and rendering ad-supported search irrelevant, respectively.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 'Self-defense'? The post's key quote sums up Google's relation to RSS:

 _lead with a compelling user experience first and then build an API from there, an API which may be based on open standards, but only if it's a means to an end._

Although an open standard, RSS is a special case: The DNA of RSS is incompatible with the data-greedy centralization enforced by the Google, Facebook, Twitter and their likes.

<comment><USER6> Seems like a variant of the old MS strategy of "embrace, extend, exterminate". The open source movement was in part motivated by a desire to limit Microsoft's control over software users in the nineties.

Perhaps it's time for an organized "open internet" movement to build protocols and communities that resist the tendency toward centralization of data and control of user experience that's increasingly evident in the services offered by the big players (and even the smaller ones - today, I wanted to post a comment on a blog article, only to discover that the latest version of Disqus has disabled OpenID support).

I think walled-gardenism on the internet has far more dangerous implications than closed-source software ever did, and it's really sad to see this spreading meme of building walled gardens as the only path to commercial success infecting Google.

<comment><USER3> As the OP, I agree it's sad that decentralized standards haven't "won" in the way they were expected to 10 years ago; it's the reason we now have Facebook, Twitter, and Google connect buttons instead of just Open ID.

The question is, when you say "it's time", how do you make it happen? Google tried to make it happen with standards like OpenSocial, but the trade-off for increased flexibility was often poorer UX, and meanwhile they watched developers jump onto standards that were more closed, but had many more users.

There's certainly a sweet spot where open standards meet a mainstream user base; the web and HTML5 overall continue to do fine, notwithstanding heavy competition from the more closed native platforms. This is very much due to the great amount of innovation amongst browsers and web apps, both of which touch the user directly, and less because users care about open for open's sake.

So my suggestion is if you want to encourage open standards, focus on the user first.

<comment><USER7> >As the OP, I agree it's sad that decentralized standards haven't "won" in the way they were expected to 10 years ago;

I don't know what most people expected, but it seems like there were at least some people complaining about the direction the web (or internet as they it called back then) was going even in 1997:

<http://www.arachnoid.com/freezone/>

The root of the problem is commercialisation, and a lot of people are to blame for that, including the creator of the site you are currently using.

<comment><USER6> I don't think the problem is commercialization per se; it's the short- sightedness and narrowness of the current commercialization strategies that are the source of the problem.

Google became a multi-billion dollar company by supporting and contributing to the open internet over the course of ten years; their current worrying tactics are very recent. So we know that it's very possible to be wildly successful without undermining your customers' interests (and in the long term, undermining your customers' interests is almost always unsustainable).

The problem is that we've got big players like Google and Facebook who have become risk-averse as they grown, and, having maximized the potential of their original founding visions, have shifted into consolidating their positions in order to preserve the status quo at the expense of others. This is a pattern that seems to recur again and again in the industry.

The way to break it, of course, is to be the source of the creative destruction that undermines the status quo - few large, vested enterprises are willing to do this, though, which is why we see them ultimately becoming dinosaurs who are displaced by startups operating under new paradigms.

I'd hoped that Google, given its nature, would be the one organization that might be able to avert the pattern, but I guess not; they should be doing exactly the opposite of what they're doing now, and support a wide range of products and services, and looking for innovative monetization strategies for products that aren't immediately profitable. But instead, they're going for ultra-focus on what seems to work in the here and now, and trying to entrench the status quo, which will take them down the well-trod path to eventual failure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "As crazy as it may sound, today even a billion-dollar business is simply a distraction to Google "

"If the company maintained every niche product with N thousand fans, even paying ones, it'd become the very bungling bureaucracy we love to hate. For a company with Google's ethos and standing, any such dead-end, non-revenue- producing product that's retained is holding others back"

For any future CEO's of large companies that might be reading the above please keep in mind that sop for this situation is to sell the product or service to another company. This has typically been how business has always operated. Even if the business lost money there is someone out there who would buy it. Taking the "don't have time for this we are moving so fast" is nonsense. The "distraction" and "rounding error" card is way overplayed.

<comment><USER9> Has Google ever sold any product off?

Could they, even? They don't build isolated products the same way that many other software companies do. Everything they build is built on their own infrastructure, not some commodity stack. Even if they released the source code to Reader for free, would it do anyone any good without the full suite of BigTable/Chubby/GFS/Googlebot/etc. services that I'm sure it is tightly integrated into?

<comment><USER10> We have sold SketchUp off to Trimble (but with a parnetship to keep the 3DWarehouse and Sketchup Free available). Not a typical scenario however.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "any such dead-end, non-revenue-producing product that's retained is holding others back, and prevents the company from moving forward and making true innovations instead of incremental improvements."

WTF?

I can just imagine the shareholders meetings... "We've had to put the self- driving car project on hold - Google Reader is just eating up too many resources, and dammit, we just can't afford to innovate with all the hundreds of engineers continually improving Google Reader with new features and functionality. And Maps? Forget ever seeing new functionality there - all our brainpower is trapped up in Reader (and Google Voice, and Wave, and...)".

I don't buy it for a second. What 'true innovations' have they been held back from by having Reader and similar services around?

<comment><USER12> How many true innovations have you failed to capitalize on because you had to pay the bills?

<comment><USER13> As if google reader didn't have ads? If monetization was the issue, why didn't they allow a paid option to keep it going?

It seems like you are ignoring some simple business issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> More handwaving about "innovation" but no counter to the truth that other services simply cannot offer and maintain a product on the level and stature that the hardcore Google Reader users are accustomed to.

I hope I am wrong about this, but every article like this simply shouts this out like it's unadulterated gospel truth, bereft of the multitudes of empirical evidence that it is simply not a given.

<comment><USER3> I think we'll see the opposite. Services like Feedly and Newsblur are already delivering a service which at least some population of people have preferred to use for several years. Even paying for it while Reader was free. And now they are in a position to serve the many Reader users moving over.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> He doesn't do a very good job arguing his point which is basically "Google moves forward rather than maintaining the status quo, so they can't afford to turn into a big bureaucracy with aging products."

Google has lots of products that no one's using, why take one away that many people depend on every day? The reason Google's getting rid of Reader is pretty simple, they don't want their own products for consuming and sharing information competing against each other, namely Google+.

<comment><USER16> Here's my view on this:

I have been using Google Reader for ages, through FeeddlerRSS on my iOS device. For most of that time, I haven't thought for even a second "that's nice of Google, providing this sync service for free". I haven't seem a Google logo or ad, either. In fact, even now that I have been checking whether I actually use Google Reader, it took me quite an effort to find that out.

Given that, why would Google keep that service running for me?

<comment><USER11> Because people have come to rely on it. And no one is suggesting that they run it for free - they could easily charge a few bucks per year, cover their administrative overhead, and keep their foot in this space, while a) not losing money, and b) not losing trust from people who may want to adopt other google tech in the future.

I've still got gmail as an email which I use a lot, but would be extremely hesitant to ever trust them with anything else (I've also got other email I manage on my own). When the sands shift in a few years and gmail doesn't make sense for them any more, they may easily just shut it down, or severely limit it.

Google Business stuff? Would not use it. Google Checkout? I use it, and their tools have not developed at all in the past few years. Google Voice? They have to be losing money on the phone numbers, and I will not be surprised one bit if they shut it off in the next couple years. And people will whine/complain about that too, but the writing's been on the wall for a while - don't trust businesses that you don't pay money to (and don't trust a business to be around _just_ because you pay them either, but it's a start).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _"So Google has an opportunity to win over media brands right now,"_

I would be amazed if Google became a "media" company and Marissa turned Yahoo back into a "search" company. That would be some weird stuff right there.

</comment><comment><USER18> I used to think Google's vision for Google Reader was to be a "content subscription" service, where anyone could "subscribe" to any site and get that content delivered to them directly - like a Google Currents for any site: blogs, media, etc.

"RSS" would be dropped as a concept, since the general Internet user has no idea what that is. Behind-the-scenes, it might still be used though, along with content crawling (something Google already does). The value to Google would be another data point on content ranking. For example, if someone subscribes to a site, that site must be of high value. Time-on-site (or time- on-article) might even be a useful proxy of how engaging that content is, as are tags, social shares, and other meta-actions a user could take on an article.

But perhaps there isn't a big enough opportunity for Google to pursue that. Too bad.

P.S. I'm not a Google Currents user. If I basically described Google Currents, then perhaps Google IS thinking about this. But then, why not merge Google Reader & Google Currents together?

</comment><comment><USER19> _Even a billion-dollar business is simply a distraction to Google_

I think they are exaggerating a bit there. Sure, million-dollar businesses _are_ a distraction for Google, but _billion_ dollar ones? Pretty sure they actually like them. It's besides the point of the article, because Google Reader probably wasn't even anywhere near of generating millions in advertising, but still.

</comment><comment><USER20> How about offering Google Reader as a feature in another product like Google+? If you think about it both Facebook and Twitter already do this, so why can't Google pull it off? It shows a lack of empathy for your most loyal users, but then again empathy is something you don't get when you're the "gifted kid".

</comment><comment><USER21> RSS is a way for the audience to access fresh web content without having to visit the original websites. Well, Google is an ad company — it makes money selling ads on those websites. RSS was a threat to Google's core business similar to ad blocking plugins.

Google Reader's role was to contain the fad of ad-free news reading, it also provided rich data about what people read. As soon as they saw the use of RSS fading, they could finally ditch the Reader, hoping it would also further marginalize RSS. They still can mine the Feedburner data, they'll still know what people read.

Did Google also have a role in making RSS unpopular? Would RSS grow bigger if Google didn't come up with the Reader? This would be, ekhmm… a far-fetched hypothesis…

</comment><comment> brown9-2 _If the company maintained every niche product with N thousand fans, even paying ones, it'd become the very bungling bureaucracy we love to hate._

This is a bold assertion with no evidence or argument behind it.

<comment><USER3> The Innovator's Dilemma is one good basis for this argument (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovators_Dilemma>). I can't do it justice, but in short, senior management can lose focus on long-term trends if there are too many diverse products being maintained. And whether they are savvy managers or not, they are in a position to heavily influence the direction of everyone across the whole company, meaning that the company can quickly lose its ability to see the forest for the trees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Why don't they sell Reader? Or spin it off as an independent company? Or put it up for auction? I can't think of when they've ever done anything like this with one of their services, and I can only speculate why. But I can imagine there are lots of companies who would love to inherit a hard-core audience that large.

</comment><comment><USER23> > even a billion-dollar business is simply a distraction to Google

Google can keep its Glasses, its self-driving Cars, its whatever. In the world of Internet's haves and have-nots, the average user would survive even if he has to with Made in China products.

</comment><comment><USER24> I know this is slightly off topic, but it would seem only natural to me to actually place a feed reader in the browser itself - actually have browsers that have smart UIs and are more than just fast javascript processors and rendering engines.

<comment><USER12> Dynamic bookmarks have been around forever...

<comment><USER24> A little exaggeration, but that's a good point. A better bookmark UI then!

<comment><USER12> I made the calculation of "forever" via internet-time-units. It was longer than a year. According to Wikipedia, it was... 2004.

But seriously, you're right that the challenge is in actually designing a good UX for yourself. You've got four months to mimic Reader if that's what you want to do. I'd suggest XSLT, since RSS actually predates JSON, it's so old. That doesn't allow for any potential mistakes by RSS creators, though, which might be hairy. /shrug

<comment><USER24> And not every browser has implemented them. Do you have control of the when they are updated, and how often etc? I like the idea though of perhaps just having them as simple bookmarks. That would allow for easy syncing.

Syncing history - could help regarding your reading history (privacy aside.)

Coupled with an 'easy read' mode in the browser (I haven't tried Safari in a long while,) might make for a pleasant experience.

Non of the popular browsers have a good Bookmark UI IMHO, which leads to inappropriate tab use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Interesting post. Slightly off topic, but why do people in IT use biological terms like DNA and ecosystem when discussing things that relate to business? Please use appropriate vocabulary, there must be other words that can be used.

</comment><comment><USER26> I hope Google doesn't intend to remove XMPP from Gtalk in their next version of messenger (I think there will be a major overhaul of their messengers with Android 5.0 and new ChromeOS at I/O).

</comment><comment><USER27> To summarize: Google killed off Google Reader because it no longer makes sense for their business.

Rather begs the question, doesn't it?

</comment><comment><USER28> They could just leave the servers running and let people continue to use with almost zero upkeep.

<comment><USER29> There's always upkeep. Very few things at scale require zero or even near zero upkeep - these aren't toy apps that get no traffic. Google has stated that Reader was an app with a very heavy amount of use from a small number of users.

The sense I get from reader being discontinued is that it was being kept alive as a best effort, and the effort was becoming too complex, too difficult to take on without real staffing. I suspect "leaving the servers running" was what they were doing for the last few years, and it wasn't working anymore.

<comment><USER30> There's more than upkeep, there's also risk. Any product that collects people's data has privacy and regulatory consequences that exposes the company to risk. You can't just put a product that has those kinds of risks on "autopilot".

Technically, one or two engineers probably could keep something like Reader going, a drop in the bucket for Google, a rounding error. The true cost is not the upkeep, but the costs of the risks. If not investing any significant resources into upgrading and maintaining Reader means some snafu over personal data leakage, then you're looking at being hauled in front of Senate panels, and EU regulators, and civil suits.

Remember, Reader was written a long time ago by an understaffed and under resourced team.</comment></comment></comment>


What's devops? - <AUTHOR> https://jvns.ca/blog/2016/10/16/whats-devops/ <comment><USER2> I still don't know what devops is. I've heard the term a couple of times but wasn't able to figure out what it means, this article didn't help either.

<comment><USER3> I've always understood it as you write the code but also you manage the systems the code runs on. Development and Operations.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Tool to compare driving, public transport and cycling commutes - <AUTHOR> https://app.traveltimeplatform.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi, I just wanted to share a link to our travel time map app. It allows you to enter a departure/arrival point, transport mode and a maximum travel time area to see where you can reach in 'X minutes' using your preferred transport mode.

You can add up to 3 shapes at a time and see where's a good meeting point for 2/3 people too. I'm keen to get your feedback on the usability of the app. Public transport assumes you need to walk to a station, catch the next timetabled service, and exit on the other side. Thanks</comment>


Germany's Solar Industry Is Imploding - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/07/08/germanys-solar-industry-is-imploding/ <comment><USER2> It would be more accurate to state that Germany's manufacturers of solar panels are imploding due to the large volume of lower cost panels produced in China which are flooding (allegedly being dumped in) the market.

There is a two-way battle between the installation and service companies that use panels manufactured in the EU and other installation and service companies which use Chinese panels and equipment. The former claims potential job losses of 25,000 but the latter claim that over 70,000 jobs are also at risk in Germany and many thousands more across the EU if tariffs are imposed.

The media appear to be presenting this as a clear-cut issue of dumping to destroy European jobs but the reality is far from it. The BBC seems to be one of the better sources for dis-entangling the various points of view, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22766639](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22766639), but the coverage does appear to favour the anti-dumping suits.

<comment><USER3> Indeed. Businesses involved in something that falls rapidly in price tend to have these type of issues, and also tend to complain and get government support a lot. Managing a business with fast falling prices is different from one where they gradually rise.

In other news, Germany reached 23.9GW of peak solar power output a few days back, around 40% of consumption [http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/07/breaking- germany-sets-so...](http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/07/breaking-germany-sets- solar-power-record-again-23-9-gw/)

<comment><USER4> This is a case where, even if the businesses are failing, the mid to long term outcome will benefit Germany anyway.

<comment><USER5> How exactly do you think Germany (as a whole) could profit from this? With the EEG (Energie-Einspeise-Gesetz), the German government created an artificial solar bubble which is costing electricity customers several billions of Euros each year, only to fill the pockets of (mostly Chinese) panel producers, homeowners and companies who install that stuff, and last but not least the banks (most installations are financed by credit).

The amount of electricity actually produced is almost neglible (a meager 3.1% in 2011), whereas the consumer price has almost doubled since 2005, and is now one of the highest in the world.

Even if you assume that this giant experiment in planned economy would somehow lead to technological breakthroughs, making producing electricity via solar economically feasible in the long term, Germany would still have to recover the cost of 20+ years of subventions (which already amount to over 100 billion €, and that's only a fraction of the total sum which has been guaranteed by the EEG), while other countries with much better climatic conditions would be able to reap the majority of the profits.

<comment><USER6> How about by forcing the government to admit it was a jobs program and not a program to improve the environment. How about the government officials having to acknowledge the burden their system puts upon their local manufacturers?

So was it a jobs program or environmental? Politicians love to sell programs as one while really doing the other. Jobs programs tend to be vote buying schemes for the most part.

<comment><USER7> How about we call it an energy security program and be done with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I see it more as a failure of subsidies. Those companies were built for the sole purpose of grabbing government money. Not only is the installation of solar panels highly subsidized in Germany, these companies were often also founded in economically poor regions in eastern Germany which would grant further support. A few years ago there was a real alternative energy goldrush, companies expanded quickly, IPOs happened etc. . The money was plenty and the companies lived well of it. Then the Chinese catched up, and afaik there was/is no real reason to not buy the Chinese product since the German companies had no real advance in quality or technology (maybe they did not innovate, since they thought they were in a comfortable position?). Now the subsidies for installations would go to China. So basically the tax money supposed to prop up German industries supports a Chinese price-dumping scheme. And if that was not worse enough our energy prices are rising and rising (I think I pay about 0,25€ / kWh) (about a third of it is going to alternative energy subsidies). And don't get me started on the problems with keeping the grid at 50Hz....

<comment><USER9> Yes, they are grabbing government money, but this was the idea.

Most people won't lift their asses, if not getting paid for it.

I want Germany to be green, if it only gets this way with money, I'm glad to spend it.

<comment><USER5> > if it only gets this way with money, I'm glad to spend it.

I'd be perfectly okay with that if you only spent yours, not mine. Since when has socialism and planned economy become acceptable on HN?

<comment><USER10> Acceptable? What on earth are you talking about? Do you think because some people use a news board they all of a sudden have to have the same world view?

Further the Germans who have had democracy have voted for (a kind of) socialism and (a kind of) planned economy for the last 60 years, and they are in the top 5 healthiest economies of the world (although not largest), and their long term prospects with regards to manufacturing and exportation are much better than the US.

Are you a german citizen?

<comment><USER11> I don't think you're using "socialism"[1] or "planned economy"[2] correctly. There's a large difference between a "mixed economy"[3] and "planned"/"socialism".

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

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

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The article doesn't state why the solar industry is imploding.

It appears it may be due to reduced government subsidies as well as cheap Chinese solar panels.

[http://europe.autonews.com/article/20130325/ANE/130329940#ax...](http://europe.autonews.com/article/20130325/ANE/130329940#axzz2YXEdFFnf)

</comment><comment><USER13> I wonder whether the Chinese manufacturer are really dumping them, or whether the German companies only had high prices from the beginning. Companies like Siemens and Bosch aren't exactly known for low prices or efficiency. Massive government subsidies certainly did not help making them more efficient. It rather seems like this made the companies focus on maximizing subsidies instead of producing something of market value, simply because the subsidies were more profitable. And now, with fewer subsidies and more market pressure, their business model ceases to exist. Can you blame the Chinese companies for that?

<comment><USER14> "Companies like Siemens and Bosch aren't exactly known for low prices or efficiency."

Which products, exactly, are you referring to? Siemens is a huge company that spans transportation, energy, healthcare, etc. I know their sub-critical, superheated steam turbines are pretty cost-effective. What's your experience with Siemens?

<comment><USER15> Mine is that they were convinced of bribing in several countries and whenever they won a deal (they only went into government or municipality-financed things), they were more expensive than competition. I wonder how they won those.

<comment><USER16> Maybe some people go with the notion you get what you pay for? Not to say that it's always the case that expensive means quality, but you shouldn't necessarily always go with the lowest bid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If Chinese products are being dumped, then the cheaper products become available to more people, resulting in reduced consumption of fossil fuels, which equals less pollution, which ends up being a net win for the planet...

<comment><USER18> > _resulting in reduced consumption of fossil fuels, which equals less > pollution_ //

This bit isn't necessarily the case. Certainly reduced fossil fuel usage and pollution in Germany though.

<comment><USER17> Good point. I guess PV manufacturing isn't very _green._

<comment><USER19> On Saturday night, a hippie at a campfire told me solar panels are using 10% of the world's silver. I politely told him I was interested and I'd look it up...

It turned out to be true! It's easily verifiable, but just to start you off, here's one link. [1]

It isn't actually un-green to use lots of silver IMO, b/c solar cells will be around for a long time, but I think more people need to realize this fact b/c it means that certain solar dreams may not be financially possible.

For example, I once believed in covering the square meterage necessary to produce all electricity needs in the U.S. (and everywhere else for that matter) with PV panels. I couldn't understand why everyone was taking their sweet time. I figured it was a matter of waiting for the tech to stabilize... but now I realize we're _limited by the cost of silver_! (which has recently had a huge burst [2] )

p.s. Multiple companies are working on ways to reduce the silver in PV panels, including nanosilver and replacing it with copper, but the real issue is efficiency.

[1] [http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/look-out-silver-here- comes-...](http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/look-out-silver-here-comes-solar- demand)

[2] [http://silverprice.org/silver-price- history.html](http://silverprice.org/silver-price-history.html) (see 5 and 10 year prices)

<comment><USER13> _b /c solar cells will be around for a long time_

Are you sure about that? It's something I always wondered. The efficiency of today's solar panels is 15%-20%. According to a short google search, researchers have already shown panels with 44%. It seems certain that over time the efficiency of commercial panels is going up and prices are going down. If you have only limited space (e.g. your roof), doesn't it make economic sense to replace your old panels with more efficient and possibly also cheaper panels at some point?

<comment><USER20> The old panels could go through some scheme to the roofs of poor people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Siemens to Shutter Solar Unit Following $1B Loss

Bloomberg News' Alex Webb reports that Siemens AG is getting out of the solar power industry, announcing plans to close its solar power unit after struggling to find a buyer following losses of at least $1 billion since 2011.

Source:

[http://www.bloomberg.com/video/siemens-to-shutter-solar- unit...](http://www.bloomberg.com/video/siemens-to-shutter-solar-unit- following-1b-loss-OS3v~72qSg2MROgU09oqNA.html)

</comment><comment><USER22> I think pointing the finger at cheap panels from China is only half of the issue. The real issue is that even the cheaper PVs from China aren't cheap enough to make it viable.

<comment><USER23> Why not?

<comment><USER16> Everything I've read about solar panels is that they aren't nearly efficient enough just yet to offset the long term costs. Although there is hope that they are getting better.

But the biggest factor is that for a large number of people they will likely never be viable simply because they do not receive enough sunlight on a daily basis. The solutions for them is either importing the energy from the closest region that has ample sunlight or put the panels above the weather.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Chinese just doing it cheaper.)

<comment><USER25> The trouble is they're not actually doing it cheaper. They're doing it expensively, but using Chinese government subsidies to over-expand production.

The problem is that Chinese companies like Suntech (1) get massive government grants to expand production, but when their massive overproduction swamps the market and prices crash, they still ended up losing money and had to default on their bonds. It's a debacle at both ends, Germany and China.

(1) [http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-03/business/38997...](http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-03/business/38997721_1_china- development-bank-green-tech-solar)

<comment><USER24> This is one theoretical explanation. Another one, quite plausible, is that Chinese companies spent less on salaries, especially of management and company image, given very different "standards of life" between China and Germany, and just producing the damn things.)

<comment><USER26> The WaPo article does not present the defaulting on the debt and bankruptcy as a theory. Are you suggesting that lower salaries somehow led to default and bankruptcy?

Conveniently, the article also states that Suntech is the largest global seller of PV modules, undermining arguments that it is some sort of special case (if it's the largest on the planet, it must be the largest in China...).

<comment><USER24> Default is, probably, just part of a money stealing scheme, nothing special, it is same everywhere - get loads of government money and then bust - US, especially Russia, China - all the same.

The difference in so called "standard of living", however, is very simple thing. For example, uneducated people who making roads in Sweden receiving around 3k euro salary, while exactly the same job in, say, China is just to get food and rent. Similarly, German working class enjoys very high wages, which makes any "fair" competition with Asian cheap labor impossible. Then big companies employs tricks, such as assigning taxes for Chinese solar panels in EU, just to protect inflated wages of its working class. Actually all this is the very basics of micro-economy, so nothing to discuss here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> And that, fellows, is the final demonstration of how much damage can do a State that invests money in private industry.

<comment><USER28> Sorry, not buying it. The problem here for Germany is the Chinese manufacturing prowess, not their own government.

<comment><USER29> Dutchman here (Germany's neighbor). 'Green' forces in my country set new rules so the government actually pays a part of the costs if you buy and install solar panels on your roof. The very same government who puts up an import-fine for those very same panels thus making them more expensive. Now that a lot of people have bought and installed solar panels and have become net suppliers of power (giving it back to the grid) they're working on new rules to administrate those net-suppliers. They now run the risk of having to document everything like regular power-providing companies do. (Lots of red tape). Thanks government...

<comment><USER30> Administering a power grid is no amateur job. I don't see why the government wouldn't want to put safeguards in place, in order to guarantee that lights will stay on. Obviously there's a balance to be found, but you can't just give everyone full access to the grid and expect things never to break.

<comment><USER29> Everybody has a meter in their house, only with these solar panels it will run backwards. At the end of the year everybody receives a bill of what they used... There is no need for extra red tape.

<comment><USER31> That system us actually a (usually) government mandated subsidy.

Think about it: when you pay for power you pay not just for generation but for distribution as well. When you feed it back and your meter runs backwards the power company should be paying you only for generation (at a wholesale rate, so they can turn a profit).

In some countries they measure your power in both directions and give you a credit based how much you put back into the grid. This would be much lower than what you pay to buy power.

<comment><USER29> > In some countries they measure your power in both directions and give you a > credit based how much you put back into the grid That would be perfect. No > need for extra administration and extra taxation.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Back Up GitHub and GitLab Repositories Using Golang - <AUTHOR> https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/back-github-and-gitlab-repositories-using-golang <comment><USER2> An interesting idea, but, I noticed some way down (almost the end in fact) that sadly the title is misleading. Yes you're using Golang, but, only as a "script". In reality, you're calling git command line to perform the actual "Back Up".

I had hoped to learn something new, about writing a git client in Golang, but even as a person that strongly believes in "Golang all the things", I'd do this in Bash scripting, and in much less time (and code).

</comment><comment><USER3> I only skimmed the article, because it wasn't readily apparent to me what advantage all this code provides over using git (maybe with bash) to backup Github and GitLab repositories.

</comment><comment><USER4> This seems like a very complicated alternative to git clone.</comment>


The Serial-Killer Detector (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/27/the-serial-killer-detector <comment><USER2> tl;dr a short biography of Thomas Hargrove, leader of the Murder Accountability Project (MAP). He is a former crime reporter who has often involved statistical analysis of crime databases in his work. MAP provides geographic profiling, paired with other similarities to highlight potential serial killers.

The article begins with Hargrove's biography, expands into some previous attempts, and concludes with a contrast of another member of MAP's board, who began a similar effort with the FBI in 1983. Throughout, this article relays some aspects and categories among serial killers and their victims.

This reminds me of a recent discussion [2] about another statistical source: real-time health data. Some alleged the data sinks aver on the grounds that such streams could engender legal liability. One of the interviewees alludes to this, but false positives are presumably more expensive in this case. Which sort of sucks. I don't envy police, and certainly not whichever county is dead last in unsolved murders, as that's apt to be a poorer community making the same sorts of compromises we all need to make but on a more emotionally charged scale [3].

[1] [http://www.murderdata.org/p/how-to.html](http://www.murderdata.org/p/how- to.html) [2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15717136](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15717136) [3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9juReoJxI0?t=29m35s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9juReoJxI0?t=29m35s)

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting to read about an organization working on a hard problem, but that hasn't yet solved it. I wish it gave more evidence about his 'algorithm' that showed the patterns. It didn't sound like his data background was advanced, so I'd hate to think that he's using an underpowered tool to solve an important problem. I keep wondering if someone with a solid understanding on data science could speed up his work considerably.

</comment><comment><USER4> Interesting because the University of Chicago's Crime Lab does work like this to track the epidemic and virality of murder as it happens across Chicago. Worth a listen on an amazing podcast I highly recommend called Hidden Brain: [https://www.npr.org/2017/02/21/512035150/on-the-knifes- edge-...](https://www.npr.org/2017/02/21/512035150/on-the-knifes-edge-using- therapy-to-address-violence-among-teens)</comment>


Show HN: My HTML5 multiplayer fast action game experiment - <AUTHOR> http://space.toolset.io

<comment><USER2> Black screen for me :/ On chrome 34.

<comment><USER3> Same

<comment><USER4> Same

<comment><USER5> Same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Cool game, but I was able to camp inside the launch tube and shoot down people as they joined - very annoying to everyone else since I was hidden by the launch tube art. Maybe disable the ability to go back inside the launch tube once you're on the field?

</comment><comment><USER7> Reminds me of Subspace (now Continumm), which is surprisingly still active. Last I checked they had a couple thousand active players.

[http://www.getcontinuum.com/](http://www.getcontinuum.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> it was inspired by subspace. i loved this game some years ago...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Feels very responsive, but the delay on shooting bullets feels very aggravating!

</comment><comment><USER9> >Error: connection lost

You might want to beef up that server a bit as long as you're on the front page.

<comment><AUTHOR> i upgraded the server. i hope it runs better now. i will try to restart from time to time. because it has a lot of load right now...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> completely unplayable through the lag right now</comment>


Haiti: OSM and Sat Imagery for Free iPhone App - <AUTHOR> http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/01/haiti-osm-and-sat-imagery-for.html

<comment><USER2> Wow, Apple just approved Haiti GPS, just a few hours after it was submitted!

<comment><USER3> Fastest turnaround ever :)</comment></comment>