Airport Security Is Killing Us - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-security-is-killing-us <comment><USER3> I opt-out of the x-ray scanner every single time, and so should you. It really doesn't take much longer to go through the process. Show up 3 minutes earlier if you have to. You're rushing to the gate, for what? To sit there longer? Boarding with the crowds is stressful anyways. The most relaxed way to board is at the very end -- there's no more line, I just walk right into the plane, most people are seated, and just grab my seat. Why would you want to maximize the time spent sitting, especially on a cramped plane? I understand the situation is different if you really want your carry-on bag to stow above you.

If everyone opted out, the program would be scrapped. You can tell me about how the scanners give harmless amounts of radiation, but I don't really care. You have to stand for your principles. In this situation, a government contractor forced more security theater upon a country, with the only benefit of the entire charade going to their bottom line. Nobody is safer, an entire mode of transport has a new bottleneck, a government agency has expanded and is emboldened and now wants even broader jurisdiction, and as the article states, people are driving more and dying.

If we don't stand up and push back now, things will only get worse. More invasive, more annoying, more useless, more dangerous. And not an inch gained against the stated purpose of deterring terrorist attacks.

<comment><USER4> > I understand the situation is different if you really want your carry-on bag > to stow above you.

Or in the cabin. If you're the last to board, there's a very real possibility that they may have to gate-check your bag, which adds additional wait time at the end of your journey at best, and your bag arriving in Minnesota while you're touching down in Dallas at worst.

<comment><USER5> _and your bag arriving in Minnesota while you're touching down in Dallas at worst_

Is this even possible when gate checking? They literally walk your bag down the stairs at the end of the gate and place it into the plane cargo hold. EDIT: At the end of the flight, your bag is walked up the stairs back into the jetway.

I personally love the gate check loophole. If you intentionally wait to board last, you get a free bag check.

<comment><USER6> I don't know whether exactly that is possible, but I have had the following happen: my bag got gate-checked on an intra-US connecting flight, and my carrier then wouldn't return it until I reached my final destination in London.

Which meant that I didn't have it with me when my flight to London was cancelled and I had to stay overnight in Chicago (too bad since it had my washkit and a change of clothes in it) and that when the replacement flight was also cancelled and I ended up going to London with a different carrier, my bag didn't get home until a couple of days after I did.

I will not be flying with United Airlines again in a hurry.

<comment><USER7> Next time just tell them you have medicine in that bag that you need in the next 8 hours (which is why you tried to carry it on).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A quibble, because this whole fucking disgusting thing fills me with limitless rage:

TSA agents do not perform 'pat-downs'. Pat-downs are very quick checks to see if any obvious weapons are being concealed on someone's body. Police will do these before putting a suspect into a police vehicle, for instance.

TSA employees do what are called 'custody searches', designed to find contraband material on detainees. These are only performed under specific scenarios, such as being incarcerated.

Custody searches in this context are forbidden by the fourth amendment, by the way, regardless of what the TSA's legal team may claim.

<comment><USER9> No they're not. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld an exemption for searches in the context of airport security under the doctrine of administrative searches, where the state's legitimate interest overrides the cost (to individuals) of the search, and where no one person is singled out by the searches.

Your argument doesn't even follow logically, as all the 4th Amendment requires is that searches be "reasonable", and "reasonable" is obviously subjective. It's a right practically tailor made for adjudication by the Supreme Court.

Given that bags have been subject to search for decades prior to "pat-down" or "custody" searches, and that it's hard to think of a more invasive search than one that allows officers to rifle through your personal luggage, I don't think Constitutionality is the issue here. We should simply pass a federal law restricting the TSA's ability to electronically strip search or invasively grope passengers.

I'm just as disgusted by airport electronic strip searches as you are, but we shouldn't using sure-loser arguments against them.

<comment><USER10> It's also important to note that you consent to the search by choosing to travel by air in the United States.

<comment><USER11> That's such a bad argument. I do no such thing. However, the reality of my profession _requires_ me to fly. So I "consent" only under considerable duress. The choice is literally "put food on the table" or submit to incredibly intrusive security.

That's not consent, that's coercion.

<comment><USER12> _The choice is literally "put food on the table" or submit to incredibly intrusive security._

No it's not. You can quit and get a new job. If you can't immediately find a new job, you will be on unemployment and food stamps. You will _literally_ still have food on the table.

Edit: by quit I meant don't get on the plane, resulting in being fired

<comment><USER13> Where would you be eligible for unemployment after voluntarily quitting?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Odds of dying from fireworks: 1 in 652,046

Odds of dying from lightning strike: 1 in 134,906

Odds of being legally executed: 1 in 111,179

Odds of dying from contact with bees/wasps: 1 in 79,842

Odds of being shot: 1 in 6,609

Odds of dying from a fall 1 in 163

Odds of dying in a terrorist attack: 1 in 3,500,000

Maybe we should switch the TSA to bee patrol.

(Source: [http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Picture%20Library/News/web_graphics...](http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Picture%20Library/News/web_graphics/Injury_Facts_37.pdf))

<comment><USER15> The numbers themselves aren't the real takeaway, it's how preventable these deaths are.

<comment><USER16> Exactly, and one can conclude that the dollars spent versus lives saved makes the waste seem even greater. Converting the TSA to bee control as mentioned above would lively save more lives (to take an extreme example).

<comment><USER17> Especially when you consider that TSA is yet to catch a single terrorist in their entire history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The sad fact is, I think TSA type security is hear to stay, and won't lighten up very much, regardless of the facts that question its efficacy.

Why? Picture this. Someone (likely a politician) crusades hard to have the TSA dismantled, and is successful. No matter how much better the system that replaces it is, there is always a chance that someone slips through and takes down a plane, and 300+ people are killed.

In the throng of people screaming that "something needs to be done to stop this from happening again", who wants to be "that guy" who lobbied to have the TSA dismantled/replaced? Former TSA proponents will jump up and down and scream _"See! This is why we can't have nice things!"_

I don't think anyone will touch it...

<comment><USER17> Then you just stand up and point out that TSA never caught a single terrorist in its entire history so there's no reason to believe it would have handled this incident.

<comment><USER19> > Then you just stand up and point out that TSA never caught a single > terrorist ...

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise -- you're using flawed logic. What would you think of an oncologist whose patients never contract serious, life-threatening cancer? Is he ordering unnecessary tests and procedures on people who aren't really sick, or is he catching all the cancers so early that they're never life-threatening?

See the point? I'm certainly not arguing one way or another about the TSA, just that your argument contains a very serious logical flaw. Maybe terrorists, knowing about the TSA, won't take the risk of going near an airport.

> ... so there's no reason to believe it would have handled this incident.

Flawed argument, flawed conclusion.

<comment><USER17> >What would you think of an oncologist whose patients never contract serious, life-threatening cancer?

Since the science tells us that his methods reduce the rate of cancer (all metrics we can test to a degree), I'd think he's doing good work.

TSA, on the other hand, has been been called out by many actual security professionals for having shit practices that don't actually work. They're basically pulling a rain man scam and people like you are buying into it because you think there's no way to prove it hasn't magically stopped something we didn't even hear about. Actual professionals who don't have money invested in one conclusion or the other are saying it isn't helping anything.

<comment><USER19> > TSA, on the other hand, has been been called out by many actual security > professionals for having shit practices that don't actually work.

Yes, that's true, but (a) those "professionals" have no better logical basis than you do, and (b) this doesn't change the fact that you were using flawed logic, my only reason for posting. The fact that there haven't been any terrorist arrests at airports doesn't mean what you seem to think.

> They're basically pulling a rain man scam ...

This is counterproductive. It might be true, it might be false, but it doesn't follow from the evidence. Again, I'm not taking a position on the TSA, only the logic.

> Actual professionals who don't have money invested in one conclusion or the > other are saying it isn't helping anything.

Name one who is using an argument more scientific than "they haven't caught any terrorists!" And again, this is not about whether the claim is true, this is about the basis for deciding whether it's true.

<comment><USER17> Actually you're wrong. At least one security expert has written up pretty good critiques of why the screening can't actually be doing anything.

Also, there are other ways terrorists could hurt us that would be much easier to exploit than getting on a plane. Why has this never been tried? There is just no reason to believe TSA is doing anything useful. The burden of proof lies with them and their extraordinary claims that they're somehow keeping us safe with their bullshit ineffective procedures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "The attention paid to terrorism in the U.S. is considerably out of proportion to the relative threat it presents."

I agree 100%! The formation of this organization was reactionary policy making at its worst. The TSA is nothing more then a works program for people who are barely qualified to do anything.

<comment><USER21> Yay! Terrorists have made America a less free place. Sort of makes you wonder who's winning this "war"...

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Someone else did an analysis of airline travel and highway travel and came up with a similar finding. Blow up one plane per month over the continental US and flying would still be two orders of magnitude safer than driving or riding in an automobile over your lifespan.

There's no proof that TSA is making things any safer either. No one will ever pull another fast one on the passengers of a plane again. We all know that the planes themselves are weapons, so I'm pretty sure most passengers will go down fighting if terrorists try to take control of the cockpit.

This is precisely why it's called security theater.

<comment><USER23> * We all know that the planes themselves are weapons *

Which is why I don't understand why pilots have to be screened. They are flying a huge flying bomb. What will screening them for nail-clippers solve? _(Side note: I did, in fact, have my nail clippers taken by the TSA once)_

<comment><USER24> _Which is why I don't understand why pilots have to be screened_

A person could be supportive of the cause without being willing to sacrifice his life. If pilots could get into restricted areas un-screened they could bring in bombs or weapons which they hand off to third parties. This would also be a more efficient use of a limited resource (the hypothetical Taliban sympathizer flying for a commercial airline).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What is the answer though? Can you imagine a politician running under a "massively downsize the TSA" banner? Would any existing Washington elected official take up the cause?

They can't even repeal the comically silly shoe removal procedure (unless you're under 12 or over 75, because no terr'ist would ever foot kerplode those demographic stereotypes).

<comment><USER26> Well, you _could_ imagine a politician taking up the cause if the Republican party returned to its small government ideals, rather than "Small government, except when it meets our special interests (which most definitely include defense and scaremongering)"

Obama won't do it, because he's shown himself to keep whatever things from Bush are convenient if unsavory, like Guantanamo (saying you're going to close it and actually closing it are two different things).

<comment><USER27> I'm not going to argue with your main point, but I think that closing Guantanamo has proven to be more difficult than merely _inconvenient_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Tangentially - the thing that most surprised me about this article was reading that over 150,000 Americans have been murdered in less than a decade.

I find that number utterly staggering. Wikipedia says that the homicide rate in the US is 4.2 per 100,000, which is more than 2.5 times the rate in Canada and 3.5 times the rate in the UK.

<comment><USER29> America has the highest murder rate of the developed world, higher even than a chunk of developing countries.

My quick glace showed America at 4.2, the next developed country is Finland at 2.2, so living in America you're 1.9 times more likely to be murdered than any other developed country.

Of course, the vast majority of Developed countries have a murder rate less than 1.0 per 100,000 people.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

<comment><USER30> The United States is very large, and the homicide rate varies wildly between states and cities.

Where I live, Oregon, the homicide rate is 2.1 per 100,000 people, a little bit better than Finland as a whole. Hawaii is at 1.2, New Hampshire and Vermont are at 1.3, and Minnesota is at 1.4.

Contrast those with Louisiana at 11.2 per 100,000 people (!), Mississippi at 8.0, New Mexico at 7.5, and South Carolina at 6.8.

It's clear that the homicide rates in the US are aligned mostly along socio- economic and racial lines, so it doesn't make sense to compare the whole country against the more homogeneous states such as Finland, Norway, Germany, and Japan.

[http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally- and-...](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state)

<comment><USER29> I find it interesting when Americans don't want America as a whole to be compared to other countries as a whole, because inevitably it makes for an unfavorable comparison.

Of course looking at a country-wide statistic is an average across the whole country - that's the entire point. I'm sure if you really wanted to, you could find a part of Oregon where the homicide rate is 0.1, but that doesn't tell us much about the bigger picture.

Is America one united country, or isn't it?

<comment><USER31> America has a single federal government, yes. If you just want a ranking, you can go ahead and use the national average.

However, America is ridiculously diverse culturally, and just using the national average is useless for understanding anything about America.

Perhaps the Americans in the thread aren't trying to avoid an unfavorable comparison - it's not like Americans aren't aware of the pros and cons of their own country. Perhaps they're actually trying to teach you something about their country and point out that relying on averages can be misleading.

<comment><USER29> > and just using the national average is useless for understanding anything > about America.

I agree. We're talking about understanding America compared to other countries, not things about America internally.

>it's not like Americans aren't aware of the pros and cons of their own country

I completely disagree with that statement. How many times have you heard someone say "Best country in the world" with no understanding of the outside world? I'm continually shocked when meeting Americans that have absolutely no idea their infrastructure, education, health care, leave entitlements and general quality of life sucks compared to the developed world. They genuinely think they are the best in the world because that has been driven into them from day 1.

> relying on averages can be misleading.

Obviously looking at an average is exactly that. An average across the entire population, not a deep dive into where is the highest and where is the lowest, etc.

<comment><USER30> Those are strawman arguments. Meeting uninformed Americans is not evidence that the entirety of the American populace is ignorant of their failings as a developed nation.

For example, we are taught about slavery and the genocide of Native Americans in primary school. We dedicate an entire month to Black History because we are acutely aware of our status as one of the most institutionally racist countries on the planet. We have impasses at the highest levels of government over dealing with our failure to control healthcare costs, and that is something that _many_ Americans are cognizant of. We are repeatedly informed of our failure to create a stable market economy. I can go on.

Please leave your preconceptions at the door when having a serious discussion.

<comment><USER29> Nothing I said was an argument, I was only stating my opinion.

An opinion, it seems, that is not uncommon.

[http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusmann/2011/10/28/america-w...](http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusmann/2011/10/28/america- worlds-number-one-think-again/)

> Please leave your preconceptions at the door when having a serious > discussion.

Upon arriving in America in 2003, I had no preconceptions. I'm speaking from my experiences living and working in the country.

<comment><USER30> I can tell you that your experience will be vastly different depending on where you live and work. That's why it's hard to make meaningful statements about America as a whole, such as "Americans think they are number 1" or "You're more likely to get murdered if you move to America". Nobody throws a dart on a map and moves to America the country, they move to California or Virgina or Wisconsin.

Your supporting evidence cited a Fox News poll, which is probably the most biased and self-selecting demographic I can think of. That's one of our well- publicized failings, actually--the inherent biases of corporate media and the echo chamber of politics.

<comment><USER32> >I can tell you that your experience will be vastly different depending on where you live and work.

I'm not sure how this makes the US different from the countries it's being compared to. They all have more and less dangerous regions. There are more and less dangerous regions within a block's walk from me, but the average over that area gives me a general basis of comparison with other areas.

I always feel that there's a racial subtext to this kind of defense of US statistics (which I often hear in terms of education, crime, and health outcomes.) It is, basically, that the parts of the US that the average Scandinavian or Japanese citizen would ever be in have comparable rates of terribleness to their own countries - just ignore the massive portion of the US behind the curtain.

e.g. I am more likely to be killed when moving to an average Chicago from an average Finland. Since Chicago is segregated, however, very few white people would ever see an average Chicago - so an average Chicago can't be a meaningful comparison.

<comment><USER30> > I always feel that there's a racial subtext to this kind of defense of US > statistics (which I often hear in terms of education, crime, and health > outcomes.)

There is, and that is a characteristic of the United States in general of which most who live there are keenly aware. This is why they speak quickly against comparisons of the United States as a whole against Scandinavian countries or Japan. Those countries do not have the ethnic heterogeneity or deep-seated institutional racism that the United States has experienced and still experiences.

For example, my state sterilized violent criminals and the mentally disabled until the 1980s, most of them being ethnic minorities. This would be unthinkable in Sweden, for example.

We also have easy access to guns and a destabilized internal culture in ethnically-heterogeneous areas, where community respect is a factor of how much crime you have committed or how many people you have killed.

You are exactly right, however, in that living in an upper-class neighborhood in Chicago would skew your perspective of crime in America.

<comment><USER29> >This is why they speak quickly against comparisons of the United States as a whole against Scandinavian countries or Japan. Those countries do not have the ethnic heterogeneity or deep-seated institutional racism that the United States has experienced and still experiences.

America is not unique in that it faces challenges and obstacles to being successful. Japan had two nuclear weapons used on it's citizens, half of Western Europe has been invaded and occupied in the last 70 years, and Australia has had the worst drought ever recorded. Those examples barely scratch the surface.

Your line of reasoning that America is "unique" or somehow "different" because of the challenges it continues to face is a perfect example of American exceptionalism.

Facing challenges and obstacles is all part of the challenge of building a successful country where the average person on the street has a high quality of life. When compared against other first world countries, which have also faced very large challenges to their success, America does not rank well. Stop making excuses and finding reasons to excuse yourself from greater comparisons.

<comment><USER30> I am not making excuses for my country, and I am not here to prove that America is unique in that it has to face challenges. I am trying to say that America is not one place or one people, or even one government, and that comparing the entirety of a loose coalition of independent states to single independent nations is disingenuous and ignores specific factors that other developed nations simply don't have to deal with. Yes, all countries have challenges, but all challenges are not the same. I listed a few in my previous posts.

I don't appreciate your belligerent discourse, putting words in my mouth, or typecasting me as a brainwashed patriot. I am well aware of America's problems and I recognize that the United States as a whole is falling well behind in many important metrics. You are not buying my argument that these metrics are skewed greatly by historical and regional concerns that are outside the control of the federal government, and that is your prerogative. But please do not belittle me and accuse me of being ignorant of the world's problems.

<comment><USER32> I'm not sure why you think that other countries are in general by nature more homogenous than the US. Most of the countries that outrank us have engaged in massive internal orgies of slaughter over their differences.

>these metrics are skewed greatly by historical and regional concerns that are outside the control of the federal government

These metrics aren't "skewed" by, they are determined by. That your concerns (if I translate "ethnic heterogeneity" as "racism") are the reason for the bad numbers is clear. The reason that they should be excluded is unclear.

Racism and easy access to guns are written into our constitution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Am I the only one to have pleasant experience flying?

I usually travel 2-4 times a year by myself as a single male. I plan for security (eg. I don't try to bring along liquids and wear shoes that are easily removed) and haven't had to wait in a security line longer than 15 minutes in the US in 6+ years.

I have been pulled aside twice to be patted down by the TSA, neither of which invasive nor did they get near my genitals. In contrast I have also been patted down by airport security in Belgium (much more invasive, didn't touch crotch) and been frisked twice by police in the USA (very invasive, definitely did touch crotch). [I have no knowledge of the female experience of being frisked - unfortunately I suspect a much higher level of both discomfort and inappropriate groping]

I don't like that our security is based stupid rules instead of smart security analysis, but the level of vitriol I see in the internet is totally disproportionate to my experience. The worst part of flying for me is getting stuck in the security line behind some person who still doesn't know full bottles of water aren't allowed through security and then try to argue with the TSA agents in an attempt to save $4 - and given that I still get through the line often under 10 minutes, that is more of pet peeve than a real issue worth complaining about.

<comment><USER34> The issue is not the time it takes to clear security. The issue is whether it makes you feel like shit to clear it.

If it doesn't make you feel like shit given how airport security works right now, I respectfully submit your shit-meter is calibrated wrong.

But also, two points:

1) Your flying experience would be quite different with kids.

2) The flying experience varies very widely by airport. Often by terminal within airport. Flying Virgin America out of BOS is a very different proposition from flying Virgin America out of SFO, and also quite different from flying United out of BOS.

<comment><USER33> I tried to make my situation clear so as to avoid making it seem like I was commenting on other people's situations. Not everyone can easily avoid taking liquids along for example, and I certainly don't want to imply that people in other situations than mine 'invite' security hassles.

But part of what I'm trying to understand is why any of the current rules "should" make me feel like shit to go through - taking a few things out of my bag and removing my shoes are easy and quick. [Of course I sympathize with people who have horror stories, but I don't think everyone posting on HN, Slashdot and Reddit have personally been treated egregiously].

What is it I am missing? Is there a moral principle people of having to go through security people are upset about? Or frustration that the TSA is a large part security theatre? Or is it that so many people traveling do so in configurations that get much more hassle than I do - traveling with children, unavoidable liquids, medical devices, etc. ?

<comment><USER35> For me, it is a feeling of being subjected to stupid and demeaning procedures which exist only for show. When I pass, for example, Israeli security - <USER2> may take more time, but does it in a completely different way - I do not feel this, because I feel I understand what they are doing and why. TSA has no real reason to grope my ass and my balls - they do it because somebody somewhere decided they should, and his reasons probably were nothing but covering his ass in case something happens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Hear. Hear. I want to be able to walk into an airport with my shoes on and walk calmly to an arrival gate to greet arriving passengers there. And I want to be able to carry a Swiss Army knife in an airline carry-on bag. And I want the terrorists to be attacked relentlessly where they live, so that they have to hide in caves and ride on goats, while Americans and other people in developed countries get to lead civilized, advanced lives in the Twenty-First Century. Taliban delenda est.

AFTER EDIT: I wonder what aspect of this people disagree with. Do you still want to have to take your shoes off in airports?

Further edit, to reply to the first kind reply:

 _I still don't think attacking terrorists relentlessly is ever beneficial._

I guess that's an empirical question of history and current events. What does help people lead tolerant, civilized lives and be at peace with other people who may have differing opinions? I read a biography of Joseph Stalin back in the 1990s, after the Soviet archives became available to independent researchers, and the striking thing about how Joseph Stalin developed his influence in the Bolshevik movement was that he was a very active terrorist, frequently directly involved in random bomb attacks. We should consider the facts about Sri Lanka and Rwanda and other places to get a reality check on the power of terrorism.

I think communism mostly collapsed (as it mostly has by now) with the help of information flow into countries living under communist dictatorships that were established in some cases by domestic terrorism and in some cases by armed invasion from another country. The case of eastern and western Germany is especially illustrative: it's just where the tanks stopped after the armistice that ended the European phase of World War II that determined which parts of Germany became the postwar Federal Republic of Germany (BRD) and which became the German Democratic Republic (DDR). Several of the communist governments of eastern Europe were turned out of power largely peacefully when Western mass media made it all too apparent how different life was on the other side of the Iron Curtain. But it took an entire human lifetime for communism to decline in its influence on Europe.

So, yeah, if a peaceful process of information flow could bring Afghanistan into the Twenty-First Century, I'm all for that. I don't see how any rational person who knows well how other people live could want a whole country to be living under Taliban rule. But the Taliban's method is not to let most people in Afghanistan or Pakistan decide the issue freely. Their method is to give girls and women no voice, all non-Muslims little or no voice, and any Muslim who thinks that Islam is consistent with science and progress little or no voice. They use violence and thuggery to get their way in the areas they control. So, yes, if they are willing to send people onto airplanes to fly from Europe to the United States with bombs in their shoes (as they have been), I say let loose the drones, and let's keep the Taliban leaders hiding in caves and unable to travel more rapidly than at goat speed until peaceful news and education campaigns have enough time to win over so many of the common people of the world that the Taliban can no longer gain influence even through threats. Taliban delenda est. Peacefully or violently, the Taliban must be destroyed.

<comment><USER28> > I say let loose the drones

You do realise that what the drone attacks are doing is to further radicalise people in Pakistan, don't you? A bit like what's happening in Gaza, what these attacks do is remove a few visible figureheads, kill people who aren't necessarily connected, and turn a good number of previously neutral or inactive people into sympathisers or more active combatants.

The idea of a relentless attack strategy is, with respect, utterly absurd and has about as much chance of real success as the War on Drugs. The rest of what you say makes much more sense. Communication is the key. Relentlessly communicate instead of relentlessly attack.

<comment><USER37> Being an invasive empire _doesn't_ make people like you? What an interesting proposition. It might baffle a few dozen suits who run the military industrial complex, before they go back to laughing while wiping their bums with $100 bills of taxpayer money.

Same way the pharmaceutical industry, for profit prison industry, and lumber industry (last one is debated plenty) will continue to shove money into politics to keep drugs illegal and prisons nicely packed full of pot smokers. It is all about the money, not the morality. That went out the window decades ago.

<comment><USER38> > lumber industry (last one is debated plenty)

The lumber industry? You're seriously comparing Big Pharma and for-profit prison companies with the timber industry?

I'm not sure if you are talking about America in the 2010s, but the timber industry is tanking. Maybe if you were talking about the 1970s I _might_ peripherally agree.

The timber industry is so bad right now that it is cheaper to buy 2x4s to burn in your fireplace than firewood harvested from logging scraps.

<comment><USER39> I think he included them because they were the original reason for suppressing marijuana, not Big Pharma

<comment><USER37> I like how I put in parens that it is debated, and it gets debated :P

But yes, they were the original reason for the widespread propaganda spree against pot, but today it is due to big pharma. And people on the internet _always_ argue about it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> _In fact, extremist Islamic terrorism [since 2001] resulted in just 200 to 400 deaths worldwide outside the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq—the same number, Mueller noted in a 2011 report (PDF), as die in bathtubs in the U.S. alone each year._

Indeed. But the problem is how to get the votes in Congress to support a significant downsizing of the TSA. Were the President to do so unilaterally (which he may well have the ability to do), he'd be accused of disregarding Americans' safety and chances are that a good number of those accusations would come from inside Congress since there's still plenty of political capital to be made from opposing him.

As I've said before, there are three factors that support reducing the TSA's budget (and powers) in the coming yeas: the withdrawal from Aghanistan, budget cutting due to deficit management, and economic growth meaning that there will be jobs available for the laid-off TSA employees. These point to a downsizing of the TSA during 2015-16, after the 2014 midterm elections.

 _According to one estimate of direct and indirect costs borne by the U.S. as a result of 9/11, the New York Times suggested the attacks themselves caused $55 billion in "toll and physical damage," while the economic impact was $123 billion. But costs related to increased homeland security and counterterrorism spending, as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, totaled $3,105 billion._

This, on the other hand, is extremely disingenuous. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been major, major expenses (and major drivers of our national debt, since we didn't raise any new revenue to pay for them). Mentioning them last, as if they were some minor component of the TSA budget, reverses the order of significance.

</comment><comment><USER41> I think this is a pretty novel argument, basically the cure is worse than the disease. Basically intrusive security measures make flying less desirable which moves people to other forms of transportation (notably cars) where they are more likely to die.

It doesn't help that people don't internalize risk well so its hard for folks to see the merits of the argument but I applaud whomever came up with it.

</comment><comment><USER42> I've always felt that airport security was always about testing the limits of the complacency of the people and not really about security. I imagine some person complaining during a security checkpoint, holding up the line, and some lady yelling from behind in support of the government keeping "us" safe. It's kind of pathetic and undignified.

</comment><comment><USER43> > _In fact, extremist Islamic terrorism resulted in just 200 to 400 deaths > worldwide outside the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq — the same number, > Mueller noted in a 2011 report > (<http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/CNApart.pdf>), as die in > bathtubs in the U.S. alone each year._

Can anyone find a citation for the "200 to 400 deaths" claim? The NCTC report (<http://www.nctc.gov/docs/2011_NCTC_Annual_Report_Final.pdf>) seems to give much higher numbers, unless I'm missing something.

</comment><comment><USER44> I don't see why there isn't more interest in high speed rail in the US: New York and Boston/Washington DC could be less than two hours travel time apart, which though it may well be an hour slower than a flight, has a lot less overhead (no arriving two hours before departure, etc). The technology is quickly reaching the point where San Francisco to Los Angeles may be equally doable in around two hours, again an obvious gain if you have to arrive at the airport that long before departure.

<comment><USER45> Because it's still too expensive when compared to flying. Just look at the cost of the high speed rail plan in California. Until the price of jet fuel is much higher, economically, it makes more sense to fly.

I say let the high speed rails come naturally (because they will eventually): don't try to force it.

<comment><USER44> Well, the plan for CA was several times the cost per mile of most high speed track built in Europe: something was wrong with that, regardless of anything else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> While waiting this morning to get through security, I overheard a TSA agent saying they were undergoing a downsizing at that airport (BDL, which is a pretty small international airport in Connecticut) from 200 to 50 on staff. So there's one "anecdata" point that the footprint of the TSA may already be shrinking.

He also mentioned it was downsizing through attrition rather than layoffs, which is probably an easier strategy for elected and appointed officials to get behind.

<comment><USER47> BDL just keeps getting worse. It's already hundreds of dollars less expensive (during the holidays) and takes less time to fly into say Newark and take an Amtrak to Connecticut.

<comment><USER48> Do you mean "more" expensive?

<comment><USER49> I read it as « It's faster and cheaper to use (other airport plus Amtrak) instead of flying in to BDL. »

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Before we checked luggage for bombs, bombers took down entire aircraft by checking in explosive laden bags. Before we checked passenger shoes, a bomber attempted to detonate theirs. If we relax our security, how do we ensure these things don't happen again?

<comment><USER17> >Before we checked luggage for bombs, bombers took down entire aircraft by checking in explosive laden bags

Not sure what you're talking about here. The reason 911 actually happened was because no one on the plane expected anymore more than a bit of inconvenience (flying to a different destination).

I'd say do nothing. There aren't enough people trying to do this sort of thing to make it worth the effort or expense. Especially since they have to die every time they do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I wonder about the deterring effect. How many attacks do not occur because security is there. It's hard to measure, with a high risk to reward factor.

<comment><USER17> Yea, that's what I tell people when they tell me this rock hasn't been protecting me from tiger attacks. Maybe the rock isn't doing anything, but is the risk of being mauled by a tiger worth testing this? Use your head people!

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> The TSA has the same problem car alarms or home security systems have: there's no way to prove how many events they've prevented.

<comment><USER53> Yep, imagine the horrors that would have fallen upon us if a terrist had gotten through with some nail clippers.

Many security experts think it is trivial to get weaponry past them. They aren't extensively trained, you know, they are cheap rental guards following a procedure.

So in fact I would say the TSA has stopped nothing, the only prevention has come from the FBI and CIA, locking the cockpit door, and putting air marshals on the plane.

<comment><USER52> > _So in fact I would say_

That's the point, right, that you aren't in a position to guess, and it's slimy position to be put in. It's the same way ADT can sell millions of home alarms every year - there's just no way to prove how many events a reactive system stops.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> The probability of a tragedy occurring is almost completely irrelevant to the common person (including my mother and wife). What does get people's attention is the shock factor when that one-in-10-million event occurs. Which helps explain the bewildering popularity of Nancy Grace...

</comment><comment><USER55> Guys with heavy beards... do you get more attention from the TSA? I heard that any male (regardless of race/religion) with a heavy beard is checked more closely. Has this been true for you or people you know with heavy beards?

<comment><USER56> I'm a 6' male with a beard, used to have long hair too.

I always got selected for "randomized" searches when flying (in the UK). At UK airports everyone goes through a metal detector. It would always beep when I went through even if I took off my shoes and belt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Unless someone cares a whole awful lot nothing's going to get better its not.

</comment><comment> at-fates-hands "The attention paid to terrorism in the U.S. is considerably out of proportion to the relative threat it presents."

W O W. My jaw completely dropped when I read this sentence.

Considering we've averted 40 terrorist plots since 2001 this is pretty scary somebody would actually print such a statement. Keep in mind, those 40 are the ones we actually know about as well.

I'll continue to put up with the minor headaches as long as we continue to stop these plots before airplanes crash into skyscrapers or car bombs start exploding in times square.

<comment><USER58> Did you read the entire article? The author rather explicitly showed that even if all 40 of those incidents would have resulted in the loss of a plane we'd still be better off going back to pre-9/11 security.

And the TSA doesn't have anything to do with car bombs in Times Square.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> There is an old Proverb, "Only Our Enemies Truly Know How Many Plots We Foiled."

I hate TSA as much as the next guy, but their presence and efforts could have deterred and foiled thousands of plots you and I would never hear about because they don't even know about them.

Denying the reality of the potential danger airplanes can cause to major population centers, like we saw on 9/11 is foolish. Airport Security May Suck. But, It May Be Saving More Lives Than It's Killing Indirectly.

<comment><USER17> Total load of bullshit. TSA has never caught a single would-be terrorist. Not one. I'd submit that the FBI/CIA have also never stopped a terrorist plot that we don't know about. The reason I'm confident in saying this is because of the ones they _have_ told us about. Why would you tell the public about cases where you pretty clearly entrapped someone if you had better examples?

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> If you can avoid it* never travel through the united states.

*Edit

<comment><USER61> That's excellent advice to those who live elsewhere, but there are hundreds of millions of people who cannot possibly follow your advice.

<comment><USER29> Luckily it's only ~4.5% of the world's population.

<comment><USER62> Useless statistic for what we're measuring.

What percentage of flights actually have the US as part of their journey would be a better measurement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> This is so NOT relevant at HackerNews. Why do you guys think other 'hackers' would be interested in such news? Can't they find newspapers on their own?

<comment><USER64> From the HN Guidelines[1]:

 _"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did."_

[1] - <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html></comment></comment>


Show HN: Web Scraper to Discover New Content Creators Every Week - <AUTHOR> http://alcovey.com <comment><AUTHOR> Not certain that this can be considered a Show HN, but I made a little tool for school that scrapes the web for new content creators in niches that you are interested in and sends a personalized list to you every Friday. Once you sign up you'll also get an email by the next day.

Just enter your email and a list of niches you love, and hopefully you'll learn about some new, great creators. My friends have been using it and have found some really cool creators with it that they now follow.

Let me know if you have any feedback I'll make sure to improve the tool!</comment>


Facebook Calls for Government Regulation - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47762091 <comment><USER2> Discussed earlier today: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19531457](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19531457)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm kind of tired to read what he (and other way-too-powerful-tech guys, such as Jack "thoughtful" Dorsey) "believe" about how things should work on this planet.

It's horrible that single individuals can gain that much influence while possibly being entirely unfit for the kind of responsibly that comes with that.

I have a lot of respect for how Zuckerberg has built the business that is Facebook. But I have zero trust left in that he's able to do anything else than just to make things worse (for everybody except Facebook's bottom line).

</comment><comment><USER4> Only surprised it took this long. One of the below-the-surface purposes of regulation is to provide a mechanism for private players to shed liability (and public accountability) for things that go wrong in their businesses. A builder can make 1000 choices that might increase or decrease the risk of a fire in a new project, but as long he is within the regulated parameters of "fire code" he is unlikely to face liability if there happens to be a fire, since compliance will be used as a defense against a charge of negligence.

Now imagine you build nearly every building in the state of California, have a personal relationship with the governor, and have the means to subtly influence the development of fire codes in such a way that makes it easy for you to comply, minimizes the effect on your business, but may make it harder for other competitors to gain compliance. This is regulatory capture, and it is endemic in almost every industry in America, with the glaring exception of software.

Facebook has finally realized that they have enough influence and market power to be confident that a regulatory regime for data and content will benefit them over the long-run. They will not get 100% of what they want, but they will get 80%, and in the long run, they will reap the benefit of knowing: \- that they can continue to shape the evolution of these rules over time \- that they no longer have to worry as much about black swan liability arising from UGC on their network \- that the next generation of UGC startups will have a hard time achieving compliance, either hurting their growth or motivating them to sell to larger players like Facebook

Regulation benefits incumbents.

</comment><comment><USER5> Mods, any reason the original title "Mark Zuckerberg asks governments to help control internet content" shouldn't be used?

The alternative used here seems clickbaity.

</comment><comment><USER6> If something is not allowed, it should go through courts if government is involved.

Free speech is not freedom from consequences, but pre-censorship is against liberal values.

</comment><comment><USER7> Its very strange to me that no one mentions any concerns about government censorship in this thread.

You ask the government to control what is allowed online, eventually they will start doing it.

The problem is that many people on Hacker News have this rose-tinted glasses worldview where their governments could never do anything too bad. Most people here have no knowledge of the history of propaganda or that it actually is part of western government operation.

What will happen is that governments will start saying that certain content about certain election candidates is "fake" and then remove it. That will be applied to some actual spam. But then some candidate will come along that is just plain completely against the direction of the current government or there is a grudge with a high-level official. They put something slightly emotional in their content. The government then flags that content as spam. This is called suppression of political dissent. And that is what you people are asking for, and will get, in your new unified global system.

I mean I'm all for global integration but you've got to be extremely mindful of the direction it goes in.

</comment><comment><USER8> So he's calling for a regulatory barrier-to-entry of the social networking space, along with asking governments to shoulder the responsibility for policing the industry.

But presumably not the responsibility to collect profits

</comment><comment><USER9> The only thing I want regulated is the Like count next to every human thought being expressed.

This number influences human behavior and thinking.

Talking about privacy, free speech, harm, manipulation, polarization/echo chambers etc etc cannot be done, without talking about the FEEDBACK architecture that Facebook has slipped under society.

People have blindly taken this architecture based on likes/view/click/upvote/follower counts as an unchangable base layer on top of which everything gets built.

Whatever position anyone takes on any subject cannot be reduced to a game of maximizing these arbit numbers.

These numbers cannot be blindly accepted as the fundamental building blocks of society. It's just too arbitrary and thoughtless.

</comment><comment><USER10> Not surprising, Facebook can ask for regulations because it becomes a way to lock the market for themselves - it will be difficult for new entrants to respect all regulations from the get go, it's a well known appeal from companies that control the market. It's not innocent.

</comment><comment><USER11> Cold me old fashioned but I miss the days of the declaration of independence of cyberspace.

<comment><USER12> That gum you like is going to come back in style.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "I don't know how to sort this out. Come get me off the hook. You can censor whatever you want! Globally!"

</comment><comment><USER14> If only legislators read HN and could see through the motives behind Mr. Zuckerbergs announcement.

</comment><comment><USER15> Blaming is kind of defence mechanism to admit a truth about yourself.

</comment><comment><USER16> I have to say I'm happy for this, I don't see much bad that can come of this, and I also agree that a lot of his suggestions are correct.

But I also agree that because of how powerful Facebook is, they can just do many of those things without fear of losing business to competition (like adopting the GDPR worldwide, or just not fighting certain governments when they do press them for privacy issues).

I think for him to blame the governments is a bit (or a lot) an escape from responsibility.

</comment><comment><USER17> Facebook announces its strategy to prevent future competition, by pressing governments to introduce regulations so opaque, open to interpretation, and difficult to implement, that no company other than a mature large established player with ample resources could hope to meet them.

<comment><USER18> That's probably only half of the story. Facebook is already a monopoly and with their endless resources they don't need government's help to marginalise their competition. I suspect the real reason is preemptive strike, Zuckerberg calls for something that was already coming whether he likes it or not, this way he controls the narrative and puts Facebook in a positive light.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> "Facebook calls for regulatory capture" is a more apt name for it

<comment><USER20> _Facebook Lobby reaches quorum on desired regulation._

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Someone's being studying strategy.

This is a great move for FB. This is the correct strategic move - punting the ball.

Fundamentally most people, and that includes most people even on tech websites like HN, don't understand that social media governance is a black hole which leads to hell.

By pushing the ball into the regulator's courts, he's hoping to divorce himself of the baggage of lawsuits and moderation costs.

Moderation work is fractal in nature - the more nuanced your rules, the more training surface area for abusers.

Leading to more nuanced ways to define the same issue, but the overall structure not changing.

That means it's a cost/spending black hole as well.

This day was coming anyway, no matter what the free speech advocates who've never had to moderate difficult forums have to say.

I'm an active mod elsewhere and its obvious to me that the internet and social media firms will dump the costs of actually moderating the web at first chance.

It would eat their income almost entirely.

There's no automated way to fix this so scaling is man power driven.

The manpower issues are simple anyway - deciding whether something is newsworthy or whether it will be pg-13/A/or PEGI-x is a whole different problem.

This means a national editorial desk in each country.

So all the benefits SM firms have been enjoying by sucking up the benefit of attention which used to be filtered by editor and journalists teams now has to be spent.

(I recognize that news was dying before the internet.)

Facebook has the answer.

It's good PR.

It's good law.

And it's good for profits.

<comment><USER22> Absolutely agree - despite all of the advances in "AI" (quotes used deliberately), I simply don't see fully automated moderation happening any time in the near future.

<comment><USER23> But it doesn't need to be fully automated. Automate 999 out of 1000 (probably quite easily) and flag the rest for human review. Surely we've got enough GPUs now to train a neural network smart enough to do that.

<comment><USER21> Automation of moderation IS very dangerous.

If there is one thing people need to realize, is that automated moderation is inherently dangerous.

People think of news and informaiton online. but its all just Content.

CONTENT can be anything, fake news, lies, or fighting against an unjust leader, rebellion, fighting for the environment and more.

Tools that effectively get better at moderating content do so for ALL content.

Any tool that you use to cut bad will is always useable to harm good.

\</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment>--

So far I have good reason to assume that intent is not paresable from content online, so human beings should be relatively safe online.

Figuring out INTENT, is the holy grail of moderation. If you know why someone said something, you know whether its meant as Nazi apologia or whether its no malicious historical context.

As long as we don't figure out a way to automate that, private thoughts are safe.

</comment><comment><USER24> I like how Zuckerberg insists on blaming all his problems on Russia, white nationalists and all these memes and not addressing the real issues of his company because he knows he can exploit the MSM due to its liberal/left tendencies for a long time. Facebook is a spamming website pretending to be a social network. Everybody can tell the difference of Facebook now and pre-2014 before he deliberately changed the feed algorithm to become the biggest spam website of all time in order to make money. Is the low interaction rate on Facebook now compared to 5 years ago due to Russia? Is hiding posts from pages people like and subscribe is due to Russia? Is extorting pages to pay to promote posts to get 1/10 of the organic reach (mind you this is the organic reach of people who like and subscribe to your page, they can't even see your posts on their feed anymore) of what they got for free 5 years ago is due to Russia?

How about reverting all these changes and going back to simple feed as in 2000s and early 2010s Mr. Zuckerberg? oh yes you won't because the entire business plan of your company is to sell users data to advertisers and make users stay in your services as long as possible to view and click on these ads.

<comment><USER25> _"...Facebook is a spamming website pretending to be a social network..."_

This.

The claim to offer you tools for controlling what you see and your privacy. I spent quite a bit of time trying to limit idiotic, banal, and click-baity crap out of my feed. What did I learn? That more and more of it keeps coming.

At some point, I realized what it reminded me of: the early days of email, when nobody had invented spam filters yet. You could easily spend 5, 10, 15 minutes a day clicking and deleting junk ... only to see just as much in your inbox the next day.

Facebook uses your friends against you. That lonely lady that lives down the street? Turns out she loves horses -- and wants to share things from a 100 different horse sites with everybody all day long. The teenage kid that your uncle is raising? He loves funny memes, and there are a 100 of them too. Repeat and rinse for anybody, anywhere that you might consider some version of "friend" who wants attention.

And they keep finding more sources. As quickly as you block one, 15 more show up.

I tried finding the people who don't value my time and preventing them from sharing anything except things they wrote themselves. Nope. Not an option. Wonder why, Facebook?

It's a captive-audience, self-generating spam machine. Anybody that knows anything about regulatory capture saw this politicized pitch for more regulation coming a mile away. We were always headed here.

<comment><USER26> But aren't these... the people you accept into your network? Facebook injects ads and applies their own capricious weighing to the visibility of posts, but doesn't the content ultimately originate from the people you accept?

<comment><USER25> Sure. So here's the question: do you want everybody you want to keep in touch with to have control over your attention span throughout the day? The site is engineered so that it's a steady stream of almost-interesting, emotionally- manipulative things somebody you once knew finds interesting.

For many things, at least at first, I was more curious as to why these people found these things interesting, so I clicked. I slowly realized that "things I rind interesting to share" and "things a lonely person who has a lot of emotional drama in their life" would find interesting to share are worlds apart.

Doesn't mean I don't like these people. Doesn't mean I want to shut them off. Many of these people are part of my past, they feature highly in important memories. And Facebook is the _only_ way to stay in touch. (No, my 85-year-old former English teacher isn't going to join Slack anytime soon)

So we're left with this binary yes-no choice. Either you accept them in your life and spend the rest of your years each day going through and muting all the various ways they find to spend their time -- or you either unfriend or unfollow them and have no idea what they're doing.

Unfollow is best of those two options, but then you end up missing things you really wanted to hear about, like them getting sick and dying. Facebook presents a Faustian choice: accept your "friends" and let them spam you or mute them completely -- and perhaps never hear from them again. Who wants to do that to Aunt Lisa?

<comment><USER26> The situation I see is that most people have multiple points of contact (phone, Line, FaceTime, Whatsapp, even Facebook Messenger) and different overlapping social networks which relay information. There's a difference between chatting with someone on Facebook Messenger vs. having the Facebook feed for major signals in life like death.

I think there may be "too much" when you're keeping track of people who die (or get married) and you're legitimately nervous about how you would've missed the news had it not been for Facebook.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: K3sup (0.8.0) – Bootstrapping Kubernetes 1.17 - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alexellis/k3sup/releases/tag/0.8.0 <comment><USER2> I think that everyone who uses HN is aware of this project by now. You re-post this every day.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's good to know. This is a new release for K8s users showing the 1.7 release of k3s.</comment></comment>


Autism Diagnosed with a Fifteen Minute Brain Scan  - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2010/08/18/autism-diagnosed-with-a-fifteen-minute-brain-scan-video/

<comment><USER2> So I'm reading and thinking, "this information is useless, I can't get a likelihood ratio out of this"... and then someone actually provides the Bayesian posterior probability! Woohoo! Rationality prevails! Could this be the dawn of a new era?

<comment><USER3> The guy who calculated the likelihood ratio was writing in a blog post in response to a bunch of mainstream articles which failed to do so. And then he was quoted in SingularityHub, which I would hope would be a bit better- informed than typical science journalists.

 _If_ this is the dawn of a new era, then the defining trait of this new era is that people outside the mainstream can make themselves heard, thanks to the internet. I'll happily change my mind about that if I see someone like the BBC mention posterior probabilities in an article about this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How annoying that they continue to refer to Autism as a _disease_. Autism is a developmental disorder.

<comment><USER5> When talking about whether obesity or autism or whatnot is a disease, I think this post sheds some light on the topic: [http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_que...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_questions_about/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> At a presentation of my university (UCL), one of the presenters told us that, amazingly, she was able to detect clinical depression from an MRI scan with very high accuracy. To be fair, she was not able to detect mild cases, but I don't think the doctors can really distinguish between people being depressed because of an external and a physiological cause...

That was the most surprising thing I've heard in quite a while...

</comment><comment><USER7> Ah, this one. Say you have a sample group with the size of 10000 people (all randomly picked). The prevalence of autism is calculated to be around 1% of an typical population. This would mean that the group consists of about 100 people who are autistic. The accuracy of this test is 90%, and thus this would yield a positive result of about 90 people who really have autism, and about 1000 people who don't.</comment>


FBI's Deep Web Child Porn Ring Questions Role of Gov't in Society - <AUTHOR> https://news.bitcoin.com/fbi-child-porn-role-govt/ <comment><USER2> The real problem with the FBI's "Innocent Images" program is that too much of the FBI's resources are devoted to it. As of about 5 years ago, the FBI's "cyber security" operation was about 50% "national security" (much of which is trolling for wannabe terrorists), 40% child pornography (much of which is trolling for people who want child porn), and 10% online fraud. The first two are easy; FBI people can sit in their offices in Baltimore and do much of that. It brings up their numbers. Solving online crimes is really hard, involving tracking through multiple countries, and is likely to be unsuccessful.

This is why law enforcement shouldn't be allowed to set their own priorities. The institutional goals and the goals of the taxpayers who pay them don't match.

<comment><USER3> > much of which is trolling for wannabe terrorists

Forgive me for being pedantic, but it's "trawling." Trolling is another thing entirely.

<comment><USER4> Trolling, the original meaning, makes sense too: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_\(fishing\))

<comment><USER3> Thank you, I learned something new.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The rule should be that law enforcement cannot commit a crime in order to catch a criminal. For instance, they cannot be part of a bank robbery, or murder someone.

This reminds somewhat of the "gun walker" case where the ATF let illegal guns flood the market in order to track the buyers, which resulted in the death of a border patrol agent and countless others along the border.

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

<comment><USER6> That's an unrealistic approach CIs and undercover agents are needed to break apart crime syndicates because otherwise you'll end up arresting the "street level" peddlers and nothing more.

Now as far as entrapment goes there are legal definitions for it under most cases law enforcement isn't allowed to change the outcome of an event.

For example it is ok for an undercover officer to sell you drugs in a sting operation but it is not ok to come to you and convince you to do drugs and then sell them to you.

For the most part wether the fbi was operating this server or not the people who visit the server came there out of their own free will in an attempt to acquire child pornography.

If the fbi did not operate the server they would still have acquired it just from a different source.

The ATF sting was a pretty shitty operation with dubious legal backing but it's not an case for not running intelligence gathering or sting operation, it's just evidence that they should be planned and executed better and that certain restrictions should apply especially in cases where public safety might be put at risk.

<comment><USER7> Legal Protections against entrapment are very minimal and not what people think.

FBI routinely creates, plots, then recruits people for made up terrorism plots, then arrests them

The DEA, in partnership with the ATF, recently ran a operation where they recruited people to rob fake stash houses, then arrested the people that were coerced into the plot

Entrapment is often used in prostitution stings as well.

None of these instances are tossed by the courts, entrapment is very much alive and well in the legal system

>>>>For the most part wether the fbi was operating this server or not the people who visit the server came there out of their own free will in an attempt to acquire child pornography.

While true, there are some very significant problems with this. For decades now the basis of the law against viewing child pornography is that each time the image is viewed the child is victimized. Thus by running the server for even 1 second the FBI was, according to the law, victimizing children in order to catch criminals.

If you then claim is no children were actually harmed by the FBI's action then one has to start looking at the very foundation of the Child Porn laws.

Personally I think the ethical and moral position (and should be the obvious one) is that the FBI should not, under any circumstances, be distributing child porn. Period.

Edit:

Sources for above can be found in this comment [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12432737](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12432737)

<comment><USER6> I think the concept of some one watching child porn that was produced in the 80's and converted from VHS to DVD is harming a child today is a bit odd one.

Don't get me wrong going after the producers of new material is very important just as it is important to go after the human traffickers that facilitate the production.

<comment><USER8> It might normalize child pornography in someone's mind. They could keep watching it long enough to the point where it just seems like another genre, albeit the only genre that works for them. They could start manufacturing their own, to join other rings and trade.

I know it's all maybe's and could-be's, but they're maybe's and could-be's that ruin children's lives.

<comment><USER9> That's been the argument against porn in general, and against strip clubs and against prostitution. Without good science behind it, it's just more made-up political rationalizing. You could equally argue the opposite that having access to porn satisfies people so they don't need to use real children. Without science, we can't know.

I recently saw an interview with a conservative Indian figure about porn where one man said "I'm not harming anyone by watching porn in my room" and the conservative man responded with "You might become corrupted and turn into a sex maniac". It sounded like hilariously backward thinking, but that's still how many people think of child porn.

<comment><USER10> Your argument is corrupt. It doesn't take science to recognize morality. Each and every child in a porn video is someone's son or daughter. Each and every child has value. Society chooses to make and enforce laws which dissuade deviant behavior. Erode the moral foundation of a society is to watch it crumble.

<comment><USER11> Absolutely. You are right. No science needed to identify morality. Therefore lot's of western countries are inherently immoral. Letting gay people openly kiss each other? Some states even let gay people marry. What an abomination to thy Lords rulings.

Not to speak of black people being allowed to vote. To marry without consent of their owners.

Sorry - but do you really need more examples, that arguing with an universal morale is just one big smelly pile of bullshit?

Morale and societal norms change and shift over time. We develop and there is no basic morality, just societal contracts. And that is good. We do not need an entity enforcing or dictating our morals. We need rationality to identify the right rules to live as a society and then a system to enforce these rules in the best possible way (not that we do have that in place anywhere in the world). But given your comment/idea and our current systems I rather live in our current systems. I just do not want to be ruled by some morality dictators.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So pedophiles obviously don't choose to be pedophiles. I'm certain it is a biological vagary. There should be a better way to treat people that are a certain way because of biology and not choice.

The other issue is I'm not sure if FBI did the right thing here. For whatever brief period this was state sponsored and sanctioned pedophile ring.

<comment><USER6> It's really not clear why and how one does become a pedophile, that said the FBI was going after the producers and dealers of child pornography not the consumers.

For the most part the consumers are being left out of major prosecutions, one can also make an argument that blocking all sources of CP might increase sexual assault cases involving children if the users cannot get their relief that way.

But this overall isn't a clear cut case.

<comment><USER13> It's a chore sometimes not to break the vulgarity rules here.

You do understand that child pornography is created by the rape of children?

You're saying, "Well, it could be argued that if we stop letting these guys rape them, possibly more children might get raped. We should let it go."

No.

<comment><USER14> s/rape/statutory rape/g

In our current environment, this is mostly a pedantic distinction because almost all child porn is produced in an otherwise abusive environment.

Also, the definition of child porn is far broader than what would be required to meet the definition of rape, which requires penetration. [0]

The definition of child porn is also sufficiently broad to include any pornographic image that _depicts_ an identifiable minor in a sexual act, whether or not said minor was actually ingaged in said act, or involved in the production in any way.

The FBI also has a stash of already created child porn. Any harm resulting from the creation of said porn has already been done, and is therefore not a reason to not use it in order to reduce future harm.

[0] Technically, many jurisdictions do not have any form of "statatury rape", but instead use other crimes like sexual abuse.

<comment><USER8> > _s /rape/statutory rape/g_

We're not talking about a 25 year old filming his 17 year old girlfriend giving him head here. This is the kind of stuff where the people involved _cannot consent_. Your spellchecker is broken.

<comment><USER9> The idea the some people "cannot consent" is disproven by the fact that some countries allow underage people to have consensual sex with each other but not with overage people. Somehow they can consent sometimes but not other times. Where I'm from, it's common for kids to be having sex at 13. They "can't consent" but somehow do it anyway without breaking the law.

<comment><USER8> I'm not talking about 14 year olds; I'm talking about people in single digits, and children who can't walk yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As opposed to the illustration of the article, one needs to note that _child_ pornography includes a photo, a drawing or a 3D CGI representing anyone below 18 years old. Given the recipient rarely has the ID card on file, it's hard to prove it to the judge, even if the porn model was 22. Not even talking about age fabrication, which turns unsuspecting viewers into felons.

I wonder how well the distinction is applied, or far this can be pushed by the FBI to take down a someone.

On the other hand, needless to say that actual child porn is disgusting.

<comment><USER14> I am not a lawyer.

The law [0] seems to provided an affirmative defense if "the alleged child pornography was not produced using any actual minor or minors."

This defense does not apply if (emphasis added) "such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an _identifiable_ minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

My reading of this is that it is legal to have a pornagraphic drawing of a child _character_ . It only become illegal when the drawing is of an actual minor.

[0] [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It also questions Tor Project's effectiveness at educating its users. Especially users engaged in high-risk activity. Once PlayPen had been compromised, this FBI operation relied entirely on exploiting a Firefox vulnerability to drop malware that phoned home, bypassing Tor. Putting tor daemon and userland in separate VMs would have prevented user compromise. Even firewall rules might have prevented it. Why doesn't Tor Project focus more on user safety?

Edit: We hear about this because defendants in criminal cases are questioning FBI practices. And because criminal cases in the US are public, unless there are national security issues. But we probably don't hear about similar efforts elsewhere against political dissidents etc.

<comment><USER17> Whonix does that exact form of security

Every state action prompts people to implement the security they already knew they should have been using

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't really understand the objection to this. Continuing to operate the site for a short period in order to catch more pedophiles seems fine to me. They weren't abusing children themselves, and shutting down the site wouldn't have prevented the continuing abuse of children by its users.

All shutting it down immediately would have done is prevented them from sharing the photos with each other, which seems like an extraordinarily small price to pay to catch even a single additional child molester, let alone a whole community of them.

<comment><USER19> If the actual owners were observed by the FBI operating the site for two weeks, and served N specific images, would they be committing a crime? Causing harm? Yes?

If the original owners sold to new owners, and the FBI observed the new owners serving the same N specific images for two weeks, would they be committing a crime? Causing harm. Yes?

If the FBI muscled in and took over the site, serving those exact same N images for two weeks, would they be committing a crime? Causing harm? Yes?

<comment><USER18> Yes, but that is a tradeoff that has been made in nearly every non-trivial investigation of organized crime in the history of investigation or crime. You can _always_ get the people at the bottom first, but you let them roam free committing crimes for a time so that you can take down the entire entity.

The tradeoff ought to be evaluated on a case by case basis, of course. Because you are trading some small harm for the theoretical reduction in some greater harm. However, I think it's pretty clear that stopping actual child abuse is much more important than preventing the dissemination of child pornography.

<comment><USER7> 1\. Based on DOJ and Court rulings what the FBI did here was actual child abuse. The FBI abused children in the course of their investigation. The Official DOJ and US Supreme Court position is that any distribution, or viewing of child porn images is in fact child abuse. As such the FBI running the server is in fact child abuse.

2\. Who were these mythical "kingpins" you believe the FBI was seeking, in every case publicly known about prosecution resulting from this operation is about simple possession of child pornography, Not production. From my understanding of the cases not a single child porn producer has been prosecuted, and I believe the FBI has stated most of the images are very old and previously known to the FBI or other agencies. That made that statement to attempt to curb some of the outrage. Given that however it contradics your reasoning for them to continue operating the server as they had already caught the largest "kingpin" the server owner. It would seem they worked backwards in this operations, they caught the top guy first then used the server to sweep up the "street level" or bottom level persons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It introduces an interesting question on tactics. Stopping child porn is good, reducing gun trafficking is good. It's not clear how that is done currently.

In place of continuing to host the content to catch predators, could the government covertly transition sites they run from hosting to linking to other sites? Making their site "more robust to takedown"?

Encouraging users to instead link to other sites? The resulting contributions can then be used to go after and prosecute, and even shut down (some of) the submitted sites?

I don't know if it's possible to do that transition well, at some point the site is just a host of links (like HN or Reddit). At some point they'd become the largest aggregator of child porn, at which point they can go after the most popular or prolific producers.

This of course is also along the lines of locate and punish, and doesn't explore helping the people who make, distribute, or consume. Addressing the demand for the content I don't like the idea of a strike system however catching and treating people and moving to prosecuting the people who reoffend after treatment is harder to do, I don't even know how monitoring to detect offenders after catching them once.

<comment><USER14> It also re-introduces the question of goals, which is to often overlooked in any discussion that involves the word "child". Specifically, most people I talk to eventually agree that a bigger goal is to stop the _production_ of child porn, more so than it is to stop the distribution of child porn. Even if the FBI was not activly catching consumers with this approach, flooding the market with already existing child porn (which the FBI should have access to), would help starve out producers, and reduce total production.

When the FBI prosecutes the consumers of their honeypot, it has the added benefit of shrinking the total market (both directly, and by spreading the perception that consuming child porn is not safe because of the chance that it is a honeypot).

<comment><USER21> While I agree with the priorities, one problem with this is that you would be using potentially degrading involuntary pictures of other people. Maybe it would be possible to find sufficient victims who would agree to have their pictures used for the cause? I don't know.

<comment><USER20> I agree that distributing images of people without their consent is wrong. I hadn't considered identifying and distributing material from people willing to help stop child porn. I can't imagine what that approval process would need to be or how to ensure the process would be carried out. It does avoid starving the market which could lead to an ideas in production. With a goal of ending production of child porn, not consumption, a very different approach may be taken.

I'm not advocating no punishment for consumers, however only focusing police/FBI resources on producers (as that doesn't appear to be the approach today) and pushing the expenses of care/treatment for consumers elsewhere (the healthcare system?) Could lead to a more significant reduction in both consumption and production.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I mean, wasn't the government supposed to learn you can't do this sort of shit, I dunno, countless government scandals involving essentially the same thing? If your involvement in an illegal industry is such that the market is composed primarily of you, you're probably doing something immoral. The ends do not justify the means, especially when you're given a privileged position of power. In my opinion, those FBI agents involved in this operation should be tried on criminal charges. The fact that no one spoke up has very concerning implications about the ethical culture at the FBI.

</comment><comment><USER23> Kind of reminds me of CIA's drug trafficking:

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

Or even FBI's own terrorist factory. It's all "for a good cause," I'm sure.

[https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/fbi-manufacture-plots- te...](https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/fbi-manufacture-plots-terrorism- isis-grave-threats/)

And now they want us to let them backdoor encryption, because they've clearly proven themselves such upstanding and trustworthy "good guys" so far.

</comment><comment><USER24> Lets assume that on the WhatsApp-Team there is a least one father or mother.

Lets further deduce that s/he implemented on his own time the following filter in Pseudo-Code:

From Conversations => Select(p1.age < 18 | p2.age < 18 ) => Select(p1.age > 16 & p2.age > 16 ) => Filter(FamilyGraph.Related(p1, 1, p2) => NNFilter(Contains(conversation.content,sexual)) => CreateReport(vicitim= NNFilter(p1.conversation.history, traumatized) | NNFilter(p2.conversation.history, traumatized), suspects = SUB(conversation.person, victim))

Now lets assume this sort of technology is already in place, but you just will never know, the sort of quantum observation, that just leads to remarkable good police work - because lucky guesses..

Which is one of the reasons why abuse cases happen in third world countrys nowadays. This is something that should be deployed worldwide. Oh, compiler is done building - better worlds, all of them.

</comment><comment> FLUX-YOU I'm guessing this wasn't in the FBI's Approach to Cyber Threats speech

</comment><comment><USER25> As a meta-point, I wonder why people who (apparently) see themselves as bitcoin/privacy advocates think it's a good idea (from an efficiency-towards- that-goal perspective) to defend child molesters, or attack people trying to catch child molesters. Maybe they're just not very capable of making the distinction between their personal convictions (about the boogey-man government) and how to realistically achieve certain goals on privacy advocacy, but talking about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face...

</comment><comment><USER26> Response in this thread seems rather contrasting with response to the similar Australian operation (Argos). I may not be grasping the differences tho

</comment><comment><USER27> It makes sense that a porn ring would question the role of government in society.

How to be taken seriously, step zero: proofread

</comment><comment><USER28> Given that this comes from a highly questionable source (bitcoin.com, run by Roger Ver, a guy convicted for sending explosives in the mail, a bitcoin investor, and libertarian who revoked his U.S citizenship so he wouldn't have to pay taxes, and is highly biased against the government), this should be taken with a massive grain of salt.

If this were even slightly true, there would be reputable news sites all over this story by now.

Edit: [http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/294341-fbi- denies-s...](http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/294341-fbi-denies- speeding-up-child-porn-site-during-investigation)

> In February 2015, the FBI seized control of the site and operated it for two > weeks so that the agency could __distribute malware to users with the > intention of identifying suspects. __

> The Department of Justice (DOJ) denies that charge, writing in case > documents, "The Government Played No Role in Creating the Crime for Which > Chase is Being Prosecuted or Otherwise Encouraged His Criminal Conduct. > Chase created the Playpen website, not the government."

> The FBI has also denied claims that during their operation of Playpen, > agents improved the site's performance, helping it run faster.

> "Chase claims absent actual factual support that the government enhanced or > improved the website's functionality," the DOJ said.

> Even if the FBI did upgrade Playpen's performance, criminal defense attorney > Norman Pattis says, it would have little impact on the case.

> "I don't think there would be much implication at all," Pattis said. "I > think the defense is misapplying entrapment."

> "Speeding up access doesn't create the desire to do it," he added. "The fact > that people come to the market looking for it already doesn't make it > entrapment."

> The DOJ justified the FBI's actions in continuing to operate Playpen after > arresting Chase. They wrote that shutting down Playpen immediately "might > have answered the immediate issue of child pornography trafficking on > Playpen, it would have done nothing to address the larger problem."

<comment><USER29> > If this were even slightly true, there would be reputable news sites all > over this story by now.

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/21/fbi-ran- websit...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/21/fbi-ran-website- sharing-thousands-child-porn-images/79108346/)

[https://www.rt.com/usa/356896-fbi-kiddie-porn- playpen/](https://www.rt.com/usa/356896-fbi-kiddie-porn-playpen/)

[https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/23/fbi-improved-dark-web- ch...](https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/23/fbi-improved-dark-web-child-porn- site-lawyer/)

[http://gizmodo.com/traffic-surged-to-a-child-porn-ring- after...](http://gizmodo.com/traffic-surged-to-a-child-porn-ring-after-the- fbi-took-1785649054)

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160614/19243034713/judge...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160614/19243034713/judge- playpen-case-fbis-warrant-is-valid-even-if-claims-about-no-privacy-ip- addresses-are-not.shtml)

[http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fbis-unprecedented- hack...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fbis-unprecedented-hacking- campaign-targeted-over-a-thousand-computers)

<comment><USER28> So, a site was made by a pedophile, they got that guy, and then kept the site online so they could make further arrests of people who viewed the site.

That's a massively different picture than what you get by reading the article, and the headline 'FBI's deep web child porn ring'. It wasn't FBI's child porn ring, it was this guy's child porn ring.

<comment><USER30> but after the creator is in jail, it's 100% the fbi that host and promotes the site.

there are law against entrapment. but when fbi agents get on a chat room anonymously and send someone a link "want to see this illegal content?" now the person who could have zero interest in the matter will just want to check it out to see if it's true, for whatever reason, which could very well be to report to the authorities if it is true. but now, since the person was entrapped, the fbi can just deny the anonymous entrapment and prosecute the person for arriving on the site by their own means and drive.

<comment><USER31> You have to be more active than just stumbling across it. If you stumble onto CP accidentally and either report it to the police (only) or delete it and show no one, you're fine. Read the USC if you're curious about the details, but no, you can't get busted just because you ran into it.

Entrapment only comes into play if you convince someone to commit a crime they weren't already predisposed to commit. So if you give them a link that says "here's CP" and they download half the site and add it to their collection, it's hard to argue that the cops made you collect CP. In general, if all the police did is provide you a chance to commit a crime and you did so, you were busted, not entrapped.

I suggest this as an entertaining introduction to the law on the concept: [http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633)

<comment><USER32> > If you stumble onto CP accidentally and either report it to the police > (only) or delete it and show no one, you're fine.

Please do not assume you'll be fine if you self-report to the police.

<comment><USER31> You would normally just send an anonymous tip:

[http://crime.about.com/od/childporn/qt/porn_report.htm](http://crime.about.com/od/childporn/qt/porn_report.htm)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Technology Is Heroin - <AUTHOR> http://tiny-giant-books.com/Entry1.html?EntryId=recgcpfuOFUesUpRy <comment><USER2> This is just another generic, pretentious piece warning of the dangers of technology (is this about video games? the internet? who cares, it's all technology) that gets even the basic facts wrong.

Some highlights:

\- Physical book sales are up ([https://qz.com/1510303/book- sales/](https://qz.com/1510303/book-sales/)), not down, as the author claims.

-"World of Warcraft beats Wikipedia hands down." \-- what does this even mean? Wikipedia get billions of page views and has hundreds of millions of unique users every month, while WoW subscribers have been hovering around 10 million for the past few years.

-"Now that sight and sound are covered, new internet appliances promise to offer touch, smell." What website promises to have a smell-o-vision feature?

Overall, lots of fear mongering and little facts, with a click-bait title.

<comment><USER3> To be fair, physical book sales were down in 2009, when this was written.

Though I wonder how relevant such a statistic is in the context of this discussion. Is there really a difference between me reading some long-form piece online (like this one) - in terms of, for example, the concentration requirement (which this piece seems to care deeply about) - and reading it in a newspaper (other than probably fewer typos)? The same could be said for reading a novel I found on [https://www.gutenberg.org](https://www.gutenberg.org) compared to reading the equivalent physical book. Except that reading it online is free, and at least equally (possibly more) accessible.

<comment><USER2> There's something to be said about reading focus, with Twitter and online articles giving us content faster than ever, and finding time and energy to read takes more effort, but why do we have to discuss it through the lens a horribly outdated article with no clear thesis?

<comment><USER3> I understand that. My point is given equivalent pieces of writing (say the [https://www.gutenberg.org](https://www.gutenberg.org) version of "Pride and Prejudice" compared to a physical version) what is the difference in terms of value (in this case, using the author's value-system)? And, if there is a difference, are they worth the numerous advantages of the online version, such as its cost and its accessibility? "Technology" has not just given us Twitter, and to reduce "technology" to Twitter or World of Warcraft is naive at best (which, I agree, is one of the primary failings of this piece).

<comment><USER4> I believe that the premise is that when you use a multifunction device it is too easy for people to get distracted from the task at hand. But in that case, something like a Kindle would still fit the bill perfectly, as it is a single purpose device. Well, it can access thousands of other books, so I guess you could get distracted by constantly going to something else, but you have the same issue reading at the library.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Author here. Previous two discussions on HN:

2009 - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=471353](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=471353)

2013 - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349447](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349447)

It's interesting to look at the pushback from my fellow HN'ers when this first came out. I'm quite interested to know if many of them still feel that way.

The essay does not have any answers. The thesis is that the main problem is that most people don't understand that there is a problem or why it exists. That may have changed over the last ten years.

Back then I was quite concerned that I didn't have any good recommendations. The best I had was some version of "We need to develop a new set of personal values before they're programmed into us."

I still feel this way. As software continues to eat everything, I feel that the programming community is going to drug into morals, ethics, law, and philosophy whether we want to go there or not. We're at the heart of most everything now.

<comment><USER6> First time reader. The definition of technology seems very narrow --- almost exclusive to the entertainment. I don't think e.g. an optimized GEMM on GPUs or SQL query would be covered in this article.

<comment><USER5> That's a great point. You're absolutely right.

For context, initially HackerNews was a site for startups, so the topics were generally along the lines of "using tech to make something people want" (People will debate what the site was about. I came here for startup stuff 2-4 months after it started. Ask PG)

Later on it switched to the more generic "Things hackers are interested in" (Once again, I'm generalizing)

So at the time, we were all swimming around in the question "How do we build things that people use a lot?" After a few years of that, I started wondering what would happen if we got what we wanted -- people using our stuff a lot without, perhaps, being able to look back years later and feel like they had spent their time wisely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Some interesting thinking hints, but I believe, as others have pointed out, that the title and the comparison are quite forced and small talk, with a uncientific approach. Heroin and technology are different fields with different benefits and problems. If you take heroin as a metaphor you can apply it to about everything.

</comment><comment><USER8> Might not be heroin but who can argue addictive technology is bad for the business that brings it to market. In another lens I see now what it takes to make profitable technology for entertainment at least.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm working on an article about neurodiversity and why I think the forces of capitalism, technology, and complex cascading social dynamics are increasing its dispersion. I.e., breadth is going up (extremes getting more extreme) and variance (less of the population is close to the mean).

That "Technology is Heroin" might be true at the immediate level, but the real question is what are the secondary effects. Evolution doesn't require fitness in a physical sense, but in an algorithmic (survival and reproduction) sense, which technology enables if you have the money to pay for it.

If anyone else is looking into this, please reach out.

<comment><USER10> I am working on something similar using a Marxist analysis. I'm very critical of the "chemical imbalance" model for analyzing mental health issues. Much of how we define neurodiversity is related to someone's ability to work, and is culturally specific. Culture also heavily influences how a neurodivergent person experiences their symptoms ([https://news.stanford.edu/2014/07/16/voices-culture- luhrmann...](https://news.stanford.edu/2014/07/16/voices-culture- luhrmann-071614/)).

There's definitely a lot of different factors in play that are caused by capitalism - social norms, individualism/isolation, trauma/stress, additional distractions from technology, etc. I'll shoot you an email, but just in case I forget mine is firstname.lastname@example.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Very poorly written.

</comment><comment><USER12> What an ignorant article, technology addiction is nothing like heroin or other drug addiction and does a disservice to those who are actually addicted to substances.

When was the last time someone died because of technology withdrawals? Please get a sense of perspective before posting such uninformed drivel.

<comment><USER13> You're absolutely right. This recent trend of calling everything addictive and normalizing this misuse is not only stupid but also dangerous to society at large. Addiction is a serious thing with a well defined meaning. By applying it to things that are just rewarding, as opposed to things that hijack the reward system via direct manipulation to skew responses to predicted reward, it creates a perception of danger.

This perception of danger then allows for the conversation about real issues that need solutions (usually education) to bottom out and begin calls for the use of government violence to prevent people from doing what they want. Encouraging the use of force against people who haven't done any violence or fraud themselves is a very bad thing.

The circumstances have to justify it. Misuse of the word addiction helps that false justification.</comment></comment>