Sovetskoe Foto (Soviet Photography) - <AUTHOR> https://archive.org/details/sovetskoe_foto/ <comment><USER2> You may like rare coloured photos made by US army Major Martin Manhoff who served in the US embassy in Moscow from February 1952 until June 1954, when he was expelled from the USSR on charges of espionage. All of this material ended up in a closet in his home in Washington State where it lay unseen for over half a century. Here is a link:

[https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1015584792...](https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10155847922929625&id=629794624)

It includes rare footage of Stalin funeral (made from US embassy building):

[http://www.rferl.org/a/manhoff-archive-part-one-stalins- fune...](http://www.rferl.org/a/manhoff-archive-part-one-stalins- funeral/28359561.html)

<comment><USER3> See also [http://englishrussia.com/2017/03/23/spy-photos-of-moscow- in-...](http://englishrussia.com/2017/03/23/spy-photos-of-moscow-in-1950s/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Y'all may also be interested in this: [https://russiainphoto.ru/](https://russiainphoto.ru/)

It combines Russian photographs from government and private collections - people basically sent in old photographs so they could be put up online. Think archive.org, but for Russian photographs.

There are 72k photos, sadly only 3k of which were donated by private individuals.

</comment><comment><USER5> What an amazing find. The collection spans 69 years, from 1926 to 1995 (with a few breaks).

There is a bit more info in the (easy to miss) About tab[1]. Petapixel has a few highlights[2]. I'd love to read more about what lead to the archival process and how it was done.

[1] [https://archive.org/details/sovetskoe_foto&tab=about](https://archive.org/details/sovetskoe_foto&tab=about)

[2] [https://petapixel.com/2017/03/21/can-browse-437-complete- iss...](https://petapixel.com/2017/03/21/can-browse-437-complete-issues- soviet-photo-magazine-online/)

</comment><comment><USER6> It's interesting how there was little to no advertisement in a photography magazine back then. Nowadays, photos are only a decoration of "digital photo advertisement pamphlets" baiting you to buy them for the six photos in them.

I wonder if this relates to capitalism vs communism or if it is simply a question of time until anything gets littered with ads.

<comment><USER7> Advertisement can not exist in a planned economy. Everyhthing belongs to the state and there is no competition. No point in avertising then.

<comment><USER8> Advertising of consumer goods certaintly did exist in USSR planned economy, but it was very different style of advertising. It didn't have advertising as a tool for brands to compete between themselves, but simply as a tool to communicate about a brand/product.

Companies had ads in various mass media that (a) advertised new products that had been issued; (b) advertised features & proper usage of products (including nudging towards desired behavior) (c) advertised the new styles/designs issued for e.g. clothing. Illustrative product catalogues were a thing. It's a quite different sort of advertising, more like public information and sometimes a bit towards propaganda, but it certainly is advertising.

Also, quite a bit of "traditional" advertising material was made in USSR for export markets.

<comment><USER9> I'm not familiar with any of it, but...

I would expect any central economic plan to miss consumer needs/desires by a fair margin on a regular basis. Was such advertising also trying to sway consumer behavior back to what the economic planners had original anticipated (as to avoid shortages/surpluses of goods)?

<comment><USER10> Central economic planning does not automatically mean that it will always miss consumer needs. It was a big issue in USSR which some academics were planning to address with advancement in cybernetics (which meant something like what we call "big data" today), but it never received proper attention from the government.

Regarding advertising, the customers of advertisement agencies (there were few in USSR) were firms themselves, not Gosplan. Every Soviet firm or Glavk ("main committee" \- sort of a business unit in Soviet government responsible for the management of whole market segment) had a plan, that's true, but it was up to them how to implement it, so some did invest in advertisement (examples were beverages, perfume etc etc).

<comment><USER11> For an incredibly interesting and riveting (even "just" for the fictional parts) treatment of Soviet's attempt at planning the whole economy I always suggest _Red Plenty_ by Francis Spufford. Get it, read it, become a fan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Not photos, but related. Recently I found a good website with Soviet and Russian movies translated to English [1]. As a Russian I can say that at least some of the movies have very solid dubbing and subtitles.

I was also thinking on making free Apple TV app to support this project.

[1] [http://sovietmoviesonline.com/en/](http://sovietmoviesonline.com/en/)

</comment><comment><USER13> Here's one my family's photo albums from Soviet Ukraine: [https://imgur.com/a/1mIwM](https://imgur.com/a/1mIwM)

</comment><comment><USER14> Thank you for posting this. "Советское Фото" was an amazing magazine. I still have some of the issues at my parents' home.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is such a great archive.

Our tech team is partially in Minsk, Belarus. As a result I've had the opportunity to sneak to nearby countries and photograph them anytime I go back for work.

The region is still relatively undiscovered to photographers and in many places there are many remnants of the old Soviet Union still around.

There are ghost military towns in Latvia. Soviet spy dish, numerous memorials to WWII, old train stations and tons of brick chimneys that still spew a lot of smoke and steam to provide heat to the city. There is also something about aged faces of the region. There is so much character and wrinkles in them. Then you have places like Georgia that have amazing historical village from 12th century and very beautiful mountainous views. If you have nostalgia like me for the photos in these archives, there are still opportunities to photograph some yourself.

On the side note. Belarus just recently opened a 5-day visa free access to the country.

Georgia and Armenia don't need a visa and they love American tourists. In Tbilisi the main road out of the airport is named after George Bush.

Best of all, US citizens have the best visa options of western citizen to visit Russia. There is a 3-year multiple visit visa that is not available to other European citizens (AFAIK) and with the World Cup hosted there next year, it might be a good time to apply for your visa now.

edit: added some photo samples

[https://www.skypixel.com/photos/soviet-secret-spy- dish](https://www.skypixel.com/photos/soviet-secret-spy-dish)

[https://www.skypixel.com/photos/me-monument-and- snow](https://www.skypixel.com/photos/me-monument-and-snow)

[https://www.skypixel.com/photos/dji_0680_0686-panorama_skypi...](https://www.skypixel.com/photos/dji_0680_0686-panorama_skypix- jpg)

[https://www.skypixel.com/photos/me-monument-and- snow](https://www.skypixel.com/photos/me-monument-and-snow)

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BMe3U1ABrQS/?taken- by=photojourn...](https://www.instagram.com/p/BMe3U1ABrQS/?taken- by=photojournalist)

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BLpvdTDB0rS/?taken- by=photojourn...](https://www.instagram.com/p/BLpvdTDB0rS/?taken- by=photojournalist)

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BHNV4ZfhkD0/?taken- by=photojourn...](https://www.instagram.com/p/BHNV4ZfhkD0/?taken- by=photojournalist)

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BHGEV3ahjDb/?taken- by=photojourn...](https://www.instagram.com/p/BHGEV3ahjDb/?taken- by=photojournalist)

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BB4qnkbsDnR/?taken- by=photojourn...](https://www.instagram.com/p/BB4qnkbsDnR/?taken- by=photojournalist)

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BLg2V_OhzHh/?taken- by=photojourn...](https://www.instagram.com/p/BLg2V_OhzHh/?taken- by=photojournalist)

<comment><USER16> > US citizens have the best visa options of western citizen to visit Russia

Do you know why this is ?

As an Australian citizen, I am a bit frustrated to have to limit my visit (planned for later in the year) to 1 month.

<comment><USER15> It's based on some US-Russia agreement signed in 2012 [0]

But I hear what you're saying.

I met a German family who had a custom-made camper van in Georgia. They told me they drove in Russia but their visa wasn't long enough. I told them I had a 3-year visa and they wouldn't believe me until I showed them my passport with my visa on it.

[0] [http://www.consulrussia.org/eng/visa- sub1.html](http://www.consulrussia.org/eng/visa-sub1.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The first magazine I clicked, page 6 - Baku, 1990. We barely escaped.

</comment><comment><USER18> Wow, this is fascinating. All that history. Too bad my Cyrillic isn't any better, but it might be a good opportunity to learn.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is a great find, browsed thru a 1932 issue and it was like traveling on a time machine. 2^6 + 2 cover pages. Passes the numerology test too. Makes me want to travel to North Korea for live footage of the same theme.

</comment><comment><USER20> You may also be interested in retro photos by years around the world [https://pastvu.com/](https://pastvu.com/)

</comment><comment><USER21> Spasibo, tovarisch (thank you, comrade)!</comment>


The House just voted to wipe out the FCC's landmark Internet privacy protections - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/28/the-house-just-voted-to-wipe-out-the-fccs-landmark-internet-privacy-protections/ <comment><USER2> This, right here, is the consequence of the withdrawal from politics many geeks advocated very strongly in an earlier time. "Everything is corrupt, it doesn't matter"... turns out to only be a viable philosophy when things _mostly work well enough_.

What we have in protections and freedoms were purchased through a ton of hard work by prior generations: the liberty to slack and think that it just works ok is a nice side effect of the prior sweat.

<comment><USER3> This whole discussion is disheartening. When I first heard about this is came to HN to get the facts and try to actually form an opinion, because honestly I can't figure out what the bill is supposed to change and how. Instead I find people pontificating along party lines like every comments section across the internet. Where's the analysis and insight? Where's the objectivity? I've come to expect more from this site and I know we can do better.

<comment><USER4> The text of the resolution is very short, it simply says the FCC rule is repealed. You can read the rule here:

[https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28...](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28006/protecting- the-privacy-of-customers-of-broadband-and-other-telecommunications-services)

At 73 pages, it's a doozy. I don't know exactly what the effects would have been, but one important thing to note that I did not see mentioned once in any of the reporting about this is that the rule has only been in effect for 84 days. So I wouldn't expect any changes to be too noticeable.

Also worth noting is that whatever restrictions on ISPs are removed by this, it doesn't guarantee that ISPs will start doing that thing immediately, if at all. I also haven't seen reporting on what past behavior ISPs have already engaged in that this rule would have stopped.

<comment><USER5> The first fifth of the linked resolution addresses what is customer personal information (protocols, ports, IP addresses, MAC addresses, contained information, etc.)

Paragraph 106 mandates that the information released should not be able to be de-identified, and third parties must be contractually obligated to not de- identify customers from the data.

Paragraph 117 says the clause must be transferable to third-parties all the way down the list, but a middle-man can hire a company in a different country to do the necessary work, outside the jurisdiction of the FCC.

Paragraph 115 says the ISP can share the IP address, and no other identifying data, and meet the requirements of de-identification. A clause to "revisit this topic later" is present. Damn right you better -- combined with other data sources from social media and search engines, I can trivially combine multiple data sources using the IP address and build a "personal profile" of your entire Internet usage, including those really unique "outlier" destinations.

Paragraph 143 says that no periodic reminder is required, so expect the "privacy notice" to be buried in a sea of required checkboxes at point-of- sale, and never seen again. There are provisions that it be available on a website and via other methods, etc., but "available" versus "easily found" are two different things.

Most of these rules will take effect in 12 months, not immediately. (The rule of preventing ISP services requiring you waive your privacy to provide service is 30 days (paragraph 295, § 64.2011), data security requirements in 90 days (§ 64.2005), and data breach notifications and requirements in 6 months (§ 64.2006).)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Before getting all spun up, I'd dig a little deeper on the issue than what the WaPo does in this piece.

These regulations were only voted on late in 2016 and never went into effect. To do the regulations, the FCC reclassified the internet as basically ye olde telephone system, which then made it subject to their purview based on laws created in the 1930s. This is classic overreach. Congress never gave this authority to the FCC and is acting to put them back in line with the law.

It's pathetic the the WaPo used their platform to create more heat than light on this, by selective quoting. Here's a more full quote from Rep Blackburn that explains her position more fully.

"The FCC already has the ability to oversee privacy with broadband providers," Blackburn explained. "That is done primarily through Section 222 of the Communications Act, and additional authority is granted through Sections 201 and 202. Now, what they did was to go outside of their bounds and expand that. They did a swipe at the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC. They have traditionally been our nation's primary privacy regulator, and they have done a very good job of it."

The lesson here really is that if the issue is really important, then get an actual law passed instead of trying to contort regulatory authority based on laws from the 1930s. The previous president could certainly have done this, but chose not to.

<comment><USER7> <edited> So as it's going to be a flame war apparently I've deleted the comment.

I'd just like to register my opinion that I don't see Washington Post is an objective, nor even a trustworthy source at this point. When they print something it's often worth looking deeper into I believe.

<comment><USER8> >Although Washington Post isn't quite Brietbart yet they appear to be headed rapidly in that direction from my perspective

So you've never actually been to Breitbart then? I checked it regularly before the 2016 elections and, in those days, it certainly earned its nickname "stormfront lite." They've toned it down since the additional scrutiny and subsequent mainstreaming of the Trump era, but WaPo has never been and will never even come close to Breitbart. Also Breitbart is an overt propaganda outlet. WaPo may seem biased, but it certainly does not engage propaganda on the same level as Breitbart.

<comment><USER9>
      WaPo has never been and will never even come close to Breitbart.

Well, they certainly weren't close to the Obama administration or Clinton campaign like WaPo was, as clearly revealed in numerous WikiLeaks-exposed email exchanges.

Meanwhile, if you see any factual errors on Breitbart, by all means post them.

<comment><USER10> > Meanwhile, if you see any factual errors on Breitbart, by all means post > them.

I liked this one:

[http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/breitbart-issues-best- co...](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/breitbart-issues-best-correction- since-forever)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Please do not complain into the echo chamber of comments here. Please take a moment to support the EFF, call your representatives, and speak to friends and family.

EFF: [https://www.eff.org/](https://www.eff.org/) Find your reps: [https://tryvoices.com/](https://tryvoices.com/)

<comment><USER9>
      support the EFF

Not to say that most of what EFF does isn't valuable, but this privacy exposure has been going on for _over a year and a half already_. Why didn't the EFF call attention to it until now?

<comment><USER12> What do you mean? They talk about this stuff all the time.

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net- neutrali...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrality- big-win)

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/network- neutrality-201...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/network- neutrality-2016)

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/congress- contemplating...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/congress- contemplating-making-it-illegal-protect-consumer-privacy-online)

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x- uidh](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh)

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/verizon-and-turn- break...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/verizon-and-turn-break- browser-privacy-protections)

etc.

<comment><USER13> I wonder where masonic is now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Something that is not mentioned in the article is that the FCC regulations in question were passed in October 2016 and have never gone in to effect. So, to be strictly accurate, the vote does not roll back any regulations which actually ever affected the internet.

Sources: [http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/03/02/fcc- sets-...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/03/02/fcc-sets-aside- new-net-data-privacy-rule/98599438/) [http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/03/28/broadband...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/03/28/broadband- rules-axed-congress-headed-trump/99744078/)

<comment><USER15> A few posters on the thread [1] for the Senate version's passing have noted [2][3][4] that this is the case, but those points appeared largely lost in the discussion to follow. To quote the comment at [2]:

 _" This undoes the 73-page publication published on 2016-12-02 by the FCC, most of which took effect 2017-01-03, some parts later on 2017-03-02, both after the election and one of them after the inauguration."_

Meanwhile, [4] says:

 _" This pending rule change is not in effect at all yet; it was only put through 3 weeks after the 2016 election and wouldn't have taken effect until next December."_

Not sure if it's [2] or [4] that's wrong about the dates of taking effect, but it's clear that the FCC rule was enacted very late.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13942345](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13942345) [2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13943942](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13943942) [3] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13943458](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13943458) [4] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13944790](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13944790)

<comment><USER16> The actual rule[0] as recorded in the Federal Register says: "The notice and choice rules we adopt today will become effective the _later_ of (1) PRA approval[1], or (2) twelve months after the Commission publishes a summary of the Order in the Federal Register[2]."

So, given that it was published on 2 December 2016[2], the _earliest_ it could possibly have taken effect is December 2 or even 4 (December 2 is a Saturday)

[0] [https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1.p...](https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1.pdf) (Item #312. Page 132 of 219 of the PDF. Yes, it's a huge file.)

[1] "PRA approval, as defined herein, is not complete until the Commission publishes notice of OMB approval in the Federal Register", so it was _also_ conditional on approval by the Office of Management and Budget. AFAIK, that never happened, either.

[2] [https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-02/pdf/2016-28006.p...](https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-02/pdf/2016-28006.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's a bit disappointing to see that aside from a few abstained votes, everybody just chose to vote along party lines. Do these people just rubber stamp a bill because there's a D or an R next to it? Even if it meant more nay votes for the bill, I really wish we had representatives that vote based on critical thought rather than what their friends were doing.

I mean, as long as I'm dreaming too, we should give assembly programming kits to first graders.

<comment><USER18> One problem is that legislators need to make decisions on a wide range of domains. This leaves them subject to influence by expert lobbyists and party whips. Critical thought about an issue requires much more time and study than most people have except for their own specialization.

I assume you know how to pitch manure, program a computer, and cook a tasty meal. Yet tell me, how long would it take you to butcher a hog from carcass to grocery portions? Have you ever done so?

How long would it take you to plan an invasion of the scale of the landings at Inchon? Have you ever done so?

<comment><USER19> They're not voting on _that_ many issues. This is their job, they're supposed to study and try to understand the issues.

And really, this isn't that hard of an issue, I could probably ask my gramma "should AT&T be able to sell your browsing history to advertisers" and she would say no.

<comment><USER20> The question you're asking your grandma isn't the issue they're concerned about. The quesiton they're asking themselves is if I go against my party, how is this going to affect my re-election. That's why we have party line votes like this. They don't give two shits about the people they're representing, they only care about maintaining office.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> As someone who grew up during the early days of the internet I don't know of any other way to describe this than utterly depressing.

The internet was supposed to be this bastion of knowledge, information and free exchange of ideas. Now it's just heading towards another avenue for large-organizations monetize the individual.

<comment><USER22> ...he posted, on Hacker News, a bastion of knowledge and information.

<comment><USER23> You're conflating a single anecdotal example with the overall issue. Of course this vote doesn't mean that all websites that are free, open, or focused on knowledge will go away. What it _does_ mean that your ISP can now sell the fact that you post here to Microsoft, who will know that malchow is you (tied to your real name, since the ISP knows that), and now Microsoft can start targeting you in new and exciting ways.

<comment><USER22> If my argument was impaired, it was certainly less impaired than the parent, who declared that the glorious free and open internet is over (b. 1974, d. 2017) because of this regulatory rollback.

By the way, the fact that you cannot predict Microsoft's "new and exciting" ways of targeting me is a great example of why your argument is unconvincing. Do you really want me to believe that, as long as we kept this rule in place, network providers would never conceive of novel ways to participate in the advertising business using the network-level data they enjoy?

Your best friend, if you are looking for a no-tracking digital lifestyle, is the free market's likelihood of delivering to you just that. It may come at a premium price, which I assume you'll be happy to pay. At the moment, you are just making everyone _else_ pay a premium price for the no-tracking digital lifestyle you prefer, and relying on bureaucrats in D.C. to patch up the rules from time to time to keep up with novel targeting methods.

<comment><USER13> If you knew the first thing about economics, you would know that the natural, regulation-free state of ISPs is for them to merge together into a single company the way that oil companies merged together to form Standard Oil at the turn of the 20th century. In that scenario, what you would get is the choice of one product, and you would pay an unreasonable amount of money for it.

Of course, since you don't know the first thing about economics, what we're treated to instead is some false ideological platitudes about the free market.

<comment><USER22> You are embarrassing yourself. Care to offer a testable hypothesis? You appear to predict that the market, with this rule repeal, will not yield any non- tracking ISP options. Is that your prediction?

You may wish to read this (now antiquated) document, which details why verticalization was market-motivated in the oil industry in the industrial age: [https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Vertical- Inte...](https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Vertical-Integration- in-the-Oil-Industrytxt.pdf)

And, again, do you really want to be in the position of saying that the ISP industry will consolidate the way the oil companies have? Do you have any idea how rambunctious the energy industry is at the present moment? At best, you've shown that you are correct for a very short timeframe, and proven that you are wrong on a longer timeframe.

<comment><USER21> Nice personal attack there.

For what it's worth the parent is right. I have a single ISP available to me, as is the case with the majority of the US(or maybe two if you're lucky enough to live in a large metro that hasn't signed exclusivity agreements).

The free market isn't going to bring a solution to this. When the internet started out there were tons of ISPs, now there's only a few large ones that are split by region so they have an effective monopoly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One aspect of this that is being missed is how well this illustrates the inability of the Democratic party to take advantage of an obviously advantageous situation.

It's a no brainer that most people would recoil at the idea of everything they do on the Internet suddenly being for sale. It would be super easy to come up with at least a dozen relatable nefarious use cases and stuff them into TV commercials and ads and tying it to the Republican party.

But nope, silence. It's almost like they don't want to be in power. It feels like I live in a de facto one-party state.

<comment><USER24> Realistically it is a fringe issue and people have 18 months to forget about it before there is an election.

<comment><USER8> The GOP has survived, and thrived, on fringe issues for generations. In the poli-sci world such tactics are known as wedge issues. The Dems know they exist, but are very poor at the successful execution of them. At the end of the day, the federal government has very little daily impact on most people's lives. In order to get people's interest, one has to elevate fringe issues and create strawmen to get people interested. The GOP has understod this forever.

<comment><USER24> The wedge issues they use have pretty big blocks of motivated voters.

I don't think privacy has that.

EFF has 25,000 members. NRA has 5 million. EFF has a budget of ~$16 million a year. NRA has a couple hundred million.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> If you want an idea to get mass movement against this;

Start some display campaigns injecting peoples names and other personal information into ads. Have this follow people around the web. Even if data is not taken from what has been allowed here, most people will find it creepy. Link ad to a website explaining whats going on and how to contact their local member.

I suspect with a fairly reasonable spend you could get some strong resistance and media attention.

<comment><USER26> This, I'd suggest to feature add porn viewing history too in those ads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This thread may grow long and maybe turn to the topic of HTTPS. SSL with SNI exposes plaintext hostnames/domainnames on the wire for anyone to read, aggregate and sell, not to mention tamper with. It should be an _optional_ extension. For many users it adds no benefit. For some users, it breaks their software and adds needless complexity. Now the privacy advocates have a reason to dislike it too. Just say no to SNI.

<comment><USER28> Please describe a way to do SSL without the domain being visible that can work for most sites.

What would you encrypt the hostname _with_?

<comment><USER29> Establish an enciphered, unauthenticated, connection to an IP.

This is now a tunnel.

Over that tunnel:

* If you've connected before attempt to reuse the cached credentials to further establish a connection to the requested certificate. This validates prior authorization of being the target host.

* If the above fails or if it's a new host, ask for the certificate, perform extensive validation including REQUIRING that the external revocation check authenticates and confirms non-revoked.

<comment><USER30> How do you create an encrypted connection to an IP address? Just a regular Diffie-Hellman key exchange? That's pretty easy to MitM, and then the attacker can view the certificate the server passes, which will contain the domain name. A little more involved than sniffing SNI, because now you need to scale out MitM-ing instead of DPI, but pretty much the same problem.

<comment><USER31> Once the connection is MitM'd, the certificate validation would fail, since the MitM host cannot sign the "hash of everything that's been exchanged in this connection so far" with the correct server certificate. So the MitM would have to choose between either learning the domain name but failing the connection, or letting the connection pass but not learning the domain name.

<comment><USER30> Darn, that right. I guess I fall back to my other answer then: the ISP can always get the domain name from the server ip address and reverse or passive DNS, and there's nothing you can do about that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> What about COPPA?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Pr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act)

<comment><USER33> You raise a good point- IANAL, but I can see this being a good avenue for challenging this soon-to-be law. Per COPPA, you have to confirm that someone is 13 years of age before collecting information on them.

What are they going to do, repeal a law that was sold on the premise of "think of the children"? Sounds like something that would come up during re-election: imagine a "Rep. X voted to make it easier for online predators to find your children online" campaign.

<comment><USER34> Anything goes at this point. They have no shame.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> # House

YEAs ---215

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

NAYs ---205

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

Not Voting ---9

R R R R R R D D D

House Results - [http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml)

# Senate

YEAs ---50

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

NAYs ---48

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D I D D D D D D D D D D D D I D D D D D D D D D D D

Not Voting ---2

R R

Senate Results - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13943060](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13943060)

(I liked this format.)

<comment><USER36> This really couldn't be clearer, could it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> While I'd definitely like to see restrictions on internet browsing being protected at least as much as library circulation records [1] and video rentals [2], as a fan of checks and balances, the mere concept of a regulatory agency passing "landmark" regulations on anything is troubling. Either that power is in the law giving regulatory authority to the agency, and hence, it shouldn't be called "landmark"; or the power is outside the scope of what Congress intended when enacting the law, in which case it's a a bureaucratic power grab.

1\. [http://www.ala.org/advocacy/privacyconfidentiality/privacy/s...](http://www.ala.org/advocacy/privacyconfidentiality/privacy/stateprivacy) 2\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act)

</comment><comment><USER38> Before we jump in a shock and talk about the TFW political disaster there is happening in DC at the moment I want to ask a question:

Is there a simple guide or steps that I can follow to make myself anonymous? I know there is TOR and VPNs, how can I go about setting it up?

<comment><USER39> Here are two good how-tos on the subject:

[https://medium.freecodecamp.com/tor-signal-and-beyond-a- law-...](https://medium.freecodecamp.com/tor-signal-and-beyond-a-law-abiding- citizens-guide-to-privacy-1a593f2104c3)

[https://medium.freecodecamp.com/how-to-set-up-a-vpn- in-10-mi...](https://medium.freecodecamp.com/how-to-set-up-a-vpn- in-10-minutes-for-free-and-why-you-urgently-need-one-12a6f63e5ddb)

<comment><USER38> Awesome, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Please share your VPN setups. I would like to have my VPN connection at the router level, if possible.

Edit: Here's sort of an answer to my own question [https://www.howtogeek.com/221889/connect-your-home-router- to...](https://www.howtogeek.com/221889/connect-your-home-router-to-a-vpn-to- bypass-censorship-filtering-and-more/)

<comment><USER40> But where would your VPN go to? It would have to be outside of the US, I assume. That means slower speeds and higher latencies.

<comment><USER41> It doesn't have to be outside the US to avoid your ISP selling the data.

If you run through a 3rd party VPN you have to trust the provider to not sell your information.

If you run through a US based datacenter your data is still within reach of a subpoena but your ISP won't have access to it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> To all of you who are you who are saying that it's now vital to use a VPN I have to ask:

Why weren't you running a VPN already?

This was a vote to head off the implementation of a regulation that hadn't gone into effect already.

<comment><USER43> I also found it quite shocking at the sheer volume of requests for VPN guidelines; something I already take for granted. Just when I thought 2013 A.D changed everything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Welp, now there's a real market opportunity for 'open' ISP's. I would gladly pay more to a smaller ISP with slightly higher latency for guaranteed privacy.

SpaceX's planned satellite internet will _hopefully_ fill this void for the world... until Elon dies and it's taken over by the evil, ignoramuses of corporate greed.

<comment><USER45> Given the obvious barriers to entry for an ISP, realistically, how is there a "real market opportunity for 'open' ISP's" when new ISPs themselves can't even get a foothold? For example, Google's recent attempt with Fiber: as much as I wish it were to succeed, they seem to have run into a lot of red tape.

For broadband Internet, my understanding is that most have exactly one choice; in my experience, usually one of Comcast or TWC. (Currently, where I live in the Bay Area, Comcast is my only choice. And it shows: Google Fiber would offer a speed _500%_ higher, for the same price, if it could only materialize.)

If you allow for non-broadband options, okay, yes, I have choices. That gets me AT&T — who sells their users data — and mobile cell carriers (the latency is unacceptable).

<comment><USER44> Yes, it's troubling. Huge infrastructure costs. Regulations. And with little to no differentiation between service providers, the incentive really hasn't been there for competition.

But all is not lost. There are municipalities that are providing a competing internet service. Internet is fast approaching a public good/right, so I believe this is a worthy approach. Here's an example near me: [http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local- news/ci_28030675/lon...](http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local- news/ci_28030675/longmonts-nextlight-internet-ranked-third-fastest-u-s)

As mentioned, SpaceX will circumvent the local restrictions and limitations of 'wire in the ground' with their satellites.

And now, if there are some ISPs that will sell your data and some that won't, that differentiation may open up the door to greater competition. Perhaps even, that's a silver lining to breaking up the ISP oligarchy that exists now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I would expect that this will have an unexpected (?) side effect of further weakening the capabilities of packet inspection by intelligence agencies through increased utilisation of VPN services, especially those outside of the US.

At face value this is a good thing for privacy, but I am concerned that when lawmakers realise their error they will just legislate themselves out of the hole by making access to VPN services harder.

<comment><USER13> Your average internet user doesn't even know what a VPN is, let alone the significance of this law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Isn't doing this type of data collection without consent already banned under the [Wiretap Act]([https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511))? What part of these protections weren't redundant?

<comment><USER48> Without consent is the important part, it will soon be part of your ISP's TOS to allow them to sell your data. The wiretap act has a specific call out for this occasion:

> _(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting > under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication > where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the > parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception > unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any > criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the > United States or of any State._

<comment><USER47> But the FCC rules that were repealed allowed data collection if you "opt-in" too, right? I haven't read the entire text of the legislation, but their news release covers this: [https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-341937A1.p...](https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-341937A1.pdf)

> Opt-in: ISPs are required to obtain affirmative "opt-in" consent from > consumers to use and share sensitive information. The rules specify > categories of information that are considered sensitive, which include > precise geo-location, financial information, health information, children's > information, social security numbers, web browsing history, app usage > history and the content of communications.

<comment><USER49> The FCC rules prohibited making consent a condition of service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> vhost- Doesn't this mean the government can basically buy user data through shell corps and bypass warrants all together?

<comment><USER50> Does this mean we can crowdsource and buy the private browsing history of our favorite representatives and post them online for everybody to see?

<comment><USER51> That's a lot of money that could go to other causes like the EFF. Black hat hacking is cheaper and has the potential to reveal much more about the people that voted for this.

<comment><USER52> This vote will be a lubricant for just such black hat cracking. The Congress opened the barn door on their own members' privacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Is there another side to this debate or is it really this black and white?

<comment><USER54> I'll take a stab at it because I think it's a useful discussion. Allowing internet companies to make contractual arrangements with their customers will result in situations similar to Google. Google shows you ads for things you are interested in, and in return you get a really great search engine for free. Similarly, if ISPs are allowed to collect information about your browsing habits, and sell it to advertisers, they will lower the monthly rates for consumers. The consumers can then choose whether they would rather pay lower rates and their ISP sells their browsing information to advertisers, or pay more.

The obvious followup is complaints about how ofter consumers don't have a choice. Perhaps the reason there is so little competition is that local municipalities enter into franchise agreements where in order to add internet to one house, you have to agree to cover the entire area. This makes it so that only big pockets and people that can influence politicians get the build an ISP. Also, we could look at access fees to explain monopoly providers. [https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on- ju...](https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable- companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/)

If there were genuine competition perhaps real consumer preference would win out, whichever that may be. Rather than deciding how much people value privacy, perhaps we should let people choose for themselves at a level other than the federal one.

<comment><USER55> See, I don't buy the market based arguments. This is not something we want anyone doing, regardless of ISP. So why allow it to happen at all?

<comment><USER56> The "market" counterargument is to set an infinite price on the practice.

Or in other words: a taboo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202) 215 yea, 205 nea. All yeas were Republicans.

<comment><USER58> >> ISP companies also contended that the FCC rules have placed them at a disadvantage with other non-ISP Internet companies that also collect user data, like Netflix or Facebook.

I think there is always a flip side and I think this is it. Why can facebook take my data and sell it but for the ISP, my data is treated like a health record? Personally, I don' think anyone should be able to sell my data.

<comment><USER59> I think part of it is choice. You can legitimately choose to not use Facebook (even though admittedly for some people that's difficult due to network effects). Don't like Google's data collection policies? Use Bing, Yahoo, or DuckDuckGo. Don't like Netflix? Use HBO Now, Prime Video, Google Play, iTunes, Hulu, or buy a cable subscription.

However, most people in the US have a choice of only one or two ISPs, so there may not be an option to choose a company that doesn't sell your data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Any clarity re: this comment[1], which seems to suggest that things are not as they seem?

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13942989](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13942989)

> In June 2015, the FCC reclassified the ISP's as common carriers. Tada, the > FTC rules no longer apply. So the FCC regulated them with roughly the same > set of rules. Now they've undone this.

<comment><USER16> The legislation, if enrolled into law, undoes the _future_ privacy changes. The existing privacy exposure (since 2015) goes on until then regardless.

Implementing this change via legislation also means that changes in these regulations require _statute_ change (not purely by the whim of any President).

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> The underlying argument here is there is no difference between say Google and Verizon: the customer has to opt in (or pay) for both. And from a free market (aka conservative) economic perspective if this is a concern shared by the population, someone will offer it as a service that people will pay for (a VPN tax if you will).

This is an unfortunate example where government is not set up to address concerns of today's environment. They are trying to apply legal constructs of 20-50 years ago to a quickly changing age. And while you can argue whether the prior administration did the right thing legislating in this environment, the one thing they did was understand that access to the Internet should be a right as opposed to a privilege. Like education, access to 911, etc. As more services move exclusively online, this fundamental access question only becomes a greater concern.

If individuals aren't guaranteed access nor have any protections online, then we are heading into a very dangerous area (if the only way to lodge a claim against your internet provider is online, then they will know what you are doing).

</comment><comment><USER62> I wonder if this has any consequences for the US EU Privacy Shield agreement.

</comment><comment><USER63> So the GOP argues that it's unfair because streaming services and search engines can already collect this data and ISPs couldn't.

I don't understand how they fail to recognize that ISPs will

a) see all of the sites you will visit and

b) many people can't choose between ISPs because there are only a few in their area

It seems that for the GOP, as long as there is profit for corporations, they are willing to give up the privacy of the voters.

How is this different than the telephone company eavesdropping on your calls and selling the information gained to marketing companies?

</comment><comment><USER64> So why is this necessarily bad? My understanding is that the Congress repealed a fiat control by the executive branch. They can now, if they are are so inclined, enshrine in law, a more durable medium than agency policy, a freer Internet. Let's assume that the Republicans don't. Let's also assume that they make local municipal Internet or competition harder. The Democrats could get elected in 2018 at which point they could enshrine privacy. How is limiting the executive branch bad?

</comment><comment><USER65> So, how should we write an daemon that pings high-advertising-value domains to poison their dataset?

</comment><comment><USER66> I hear people say how important it is to participate in the political process. But when the process itself is broken, what's the point of participating?

We can vote alright, but what we are actually voting for is the person who is the most convincing liar and makes the most appealing "promises", without them being obligated in any way to actually implement their promises once elected.

As I see it, individuals only have a couple of effective ways to influence politics:

\- withdraw your financial participation in things you don't agree with. This is extremely difficult: most people are not willing to endure the sacrifices necessary, and we're not coordinated to do it together. If everyone (or even 10%) canceled their Internet service, cable service, or whatever, for 1 month, THAT would get attention. If 10% were willing to lower their standard of living in order to reduce the government's tax take by 10%, that would get attention.

\- regular individuals need to donate more money to politicians than corporations and wealthy individuals. It's a sickening thought to me that the only way to get public servants to actually serve the public is to bribe them, but obviously that works.

</comment><comment><USER67> Can anyone explain why, when this went through the Senate, it wasn't filibustered? I was under the impression that almost all controversial legislation had to pass the filibuster threshold, and since Democrats were united in opposition against it, I would have expected them to filibuster this. Was there some loophole preventing them from doing so, or did they not consider it important enough to filibuster?

<comment><USER68> This bill is under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn rules enacted by the executive branch in the last 6 months. A joint resolution of disapproval under this act can't be filibustered.[1]

[1][https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43992.pdf](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43992.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> Does anyone know if this works retroactively? Is every data-hungry company soon going to know all of our past browsing behavior?

<comment><USER70> My understanding is that this repeals a law which was passed at the end of the Obama administration which never actually went into effect. If that's the case, it's already been happening - this bill just brought the issue front and center.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Well, they had unlimited bullets and needed just one to hit. We needed to block everyone. But how can people follow a story let alone a lobbying effort with our current ADHD news cycle...

Can someone give people like me a "5 things to fight back" list?

</comment><comment><USER72> Maybe someone at YC could reach out to Thiel who could convince Trump to veto? Something like that is probably the only realistic chance of this failing, and I have no idea how much Thiel personally cares about this issue anyway.

<comment><USER73> A presidential veto is a big deal, especially going against his own party whose support will be critical for getting anything done (or staving off those pesky ethics investigations).

I don't think Thiel has that kind of juice. Maybe Bannon does but it really seems like this would have to be an issue he cares deeply about personally, and it's hard to think of one where there's much space between the president and the modern GOP.

<comment><USER73> I should have added last night that those are the pragmatic reasons why I don't think that's likely. The stronger argument is that Thiel's most likely reaction is going to be expanding Palantir's data sources or investing in more data mining companies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Welp, time to pipe all port 80 and 443 traffic in my home through [http://privateinternetaccess.com](http://privateinternetaccess.com) , via the OpenVPN config in OpenWRT.

</comment><comment><USER75> Awful. I stand to profit greatly from that data being commercially available but the personal violation underlying it is unjustifiable.

Who will be the first to start a "privacy-driven" ISP with marked up prices?

</comment><comment><USER76> Why don't articles like this ever link to the votes so you can actually look up how your rep voted (mine? Party line, no surprise)? Took me a few minutes to find it.

</comment><comment><USER77> What's the immediate consequence of this ruling? What is liable to change? Who can buy "my" data? What kind of time-frame are we looking at? Can foreign nationals buy data en-masse directly and/or will their purchases be proxied through "US citizens"? What depth of archives will be up for purchase? So man questions regarding this... I'd like to know the general fallout of this in both short and long-term results.

</comment><comment><USER78> Time to start paying the VPN tax.

<comment><USER79> given the fact that deep packet inspection is real, to what extent will this actually help?

<comment><USER80> VPNs are encrypted.

<comment><USER72> Good ones anyway. Many don't. Even [https://github.com/jlund/streisand](https://github.com/jlund/streisand) if set up on ec2 won't warn you that your ipv6 connections probably aren't blackholed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> (1) This wipes out almost all the value of surveillance companies that don't require logins. Why bother with doubleclick et al when you can get data straight from the ISP?

(2) HTTPS makes a limited amount of sense. Even on encrypted connections, ISPs know which domains you visit. In some situations they may also be able to MITM your certificates and read the data you transmit.

(3) Any semblance of privacy now requires either a reputable VPN or TOR.

</comment><comment><USER82> Not that I'm necessarily OK with either, but what's the difference between this and the myriad of other sites that are collecting your browser habits/search history and selling it?

I'm not for this at all vote at all, and I'm not sure why Trump supporters are, I'm just trying to come up with a good argument for why it's worse.

<comment><USER83> I don't think Trump supporters are actually behind this. It's one of those things he never campaigned on but we're going to get anyway. Plus, it's congress that pushed it. Presumably, if it's unpopular enough he could veto it.

And the reason ISP is much worse is your ISP is your gateway to the internet. Everything you do can be tracked and it's directly tied to your personal identity. You can't avoid being tracked by it by using a different site. Want a list of cat owners in San Fransico? Comcast has that list and they'll sell it to you, names, addresses, etc. How about a list of people who have googled 'given medical condition' in the tri-state area? How about a list of names and addresses of people who are interested in gay sex in Utah? How about who have visited Ashley Madison in Washington, DC?

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> I wish Google would offer VPN service again (waaaay back they had some Windows utilities that would proxy your web connection).

<comment><USER85> That's would be an interesting privacy improvement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> Being that this is a pretty red vs. blue issue, there's not a ton ton can do about it if you live in non-red states.

The eff is an obvious choice and I'm a member and have been for almost 20 years.

In my mind the big thing is people that vote for republicans don't fully understand that they are voting for non-privacy, pro-business, and really, pro-military. Granted, there are some dems that can fall into this trap and 9/11 pretty much ensnared all but a few into the reactionary mindset. This actually took true visionaries and leaders to overcome; few and far between.

So, really, local debate has to happen in the red states where these majorities are elected. This is a long uphill battle, but the message of "mega-corporations are not your friends" has to be paramount and when you're not earning tech salaries, we are part of the problem.

For coal miners and all these higher profile ise cases, we need to re-connect with the human and community level. That's the disconnect right there; it's easier to get angry about 'the swamp' than it is to try to take your own local municipality into your own hands or figuring out how to stay local vs. state.

California, New York, etc - these aren't the battlegrounds. They are the future. The majority of their population already agrees on global warming, privacy, tech, etc. They're one step behind bitcoin/ethereum/altcoins globalization.

But for somone in W. Varginia that's a coal miner that has been laid off (a big Trump talking point), these things matter On a massive level.

So there's our schism - how can we provide a forward thinking, longer term vision that helps the common citizenry? In my mind, everything this repubican extremist 'president' represents are big interests and reducing their unfettered access to unlimited profits, regardless of what that means.

Your (what's left of it) privacy and whatever else is fair game.

I'd advise to (of course) moving to tor, vm's and seriously, cryptocurrencies. Currency is a great way to start hacking back towards 1:1, person:person transactions which leads to a less decentralized money system.

And, If course, money underpins pretty much all us entrepreneurs do.

So, we _do_ have options. :-/ These options include vpn, tor, cryptocurrencies, ethereum, etc.

Edit: mobile spelling corrections.

</comment><comment><USER87> I never cared too much for privacy, but that's one step too far. Lawmakers probably don't understand how this makes them a target, and how their own information will be accessible. Hopefully this will create a market for ISPs that want to protect you. I see VPN markets growing even more.

<comment><USER88> > Lawmakers probably don't understand how this makes them a target, and how > their own information will be accessible.

Your "will be" should be changed to "has been." The data selling was possible (100% guaranteed to be occurring rather) prior to Trump's election for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> How can I as a user buy access to my own personal information? Maybe this is an opportunity for a new venture.

</comment><comment><USER90> I don't care whose fault it is, what can we actually do to defend ourselves?

</comment><comment><USER91> Does anyone have suggestions on staying private that my mom could easily follow?

<comment><USER58> I'd think not using the ISP's DNS server would be a good start. Either find one somewhere else or run your own.

<comment><USER83> Does this even help? Are DNS requests encrypted? I had thought that they were not.

<comment><USER49> They aren't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> This indicates to me an architectural flaw with the internet. We need to start exploring other techniques to circumvent tracking, perhaps through more distributed systems. The politicians can not be trusted.

</comment><comment><USER93> I know the political issues are different than in SOPA, but this situation reminds me of how powerful publicity is as a factor in legislation. SOPA was a mostly-unheard of bill that seemed certain to pass (had a huge number of bipartisan sponsors in the Senate [0] and the House [1]) until it blew up into a big online campaign and became mainstream with the blackout [2]. I remember many legislators' staff saying it was the most email and calls they had ever received in a day/week, and these are for members of Congress who voted on Obamacare and the 2002 authorization of use of force in Iraq.

I can't pretend I know what it's like to be a general layperson about tech, but my base instinct is that this issue of Internet privacy protections is much more salient to the average person than SOPA. Yet even as a follower of politics, I barely heard about this until last week when the Senate voted on it.

I can think of a couple of factors:

1\. Internet giants advocated heavily against SOPA. Those same companies have less incentive to argue against selling user data, even though selling data at the ISP level is, to me, substantially different than at the website/service level.

2\. So much political energy and attention has been spent on the Trump Administration, particularly on the recent push to repeal Obamacare. IIRC, even though SOPA didn't get much media coverage until around the week of the blackout, it wasn't competing with anything quite as big as this past week's vote on Obamacare (nevermind the other issues surrounding the executive branch).

[0] [https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate- bill/968...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate- bill/968/cosponsors)

[1] [https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house- bill/3261...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house- bill/3261/cosponsors)

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

Edit: Worth pointing out the Senate vote from last week, in which no Republican broke ranks in a 50-48 vote. 2 Republicans were not present (edit: I originally wrote "abstained"), including Sen. Rand Paul who is listed as a co-sponsor:

[https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/115/senate/1...](https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/115/senate/1/94)

[https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press- releases...](https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press- releases?ID=D739A8C2-2B70-4D7B-9FFB-4E62CA992DB4)

</comment><comment><USER94> The UK and USA engaged in a fierce battle of 'hold my beer'.

</comment><comment><USER95> Question. When were these FCC rules implemented? I know they were under Obama but right now as I try to learn the history google just keeps giving me the news of the repeal.

<comment><USER96> > When were these FCC rules implemented?

Adopted last November, published in December, parts went into effect in January and parts earlier this month, with more parts due to go into effect in June and December.

<comment><USER95> Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> What are the plans to anonymize the data? Are there any standards in the advertising industry for sharing such information?

<comment><USER63> Not sure they have to anonymize the data after this. Do they?

</comment></comment><comment><USER98> Where's the crowdfunding to buy the navigation history of the representatives involved in the approval of the law?

</comment><comment><USER99> What VPN provider do you guys recommend?

</comment><comment><USER100> Just move to Europe, where there is still some semblance of reasonable regulations and politics (for now).

</comment><comment><USER101> I hope someone buys browsing history of all Republican Congressman and publishes them on the web

<comment><USER56> [http://resistancereport.com/resistance/crowdfunding- lawmaker...](http://resistancereport.com/resistance/crowdfunding-lawmakers- internet/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER102> Could and should have been filibustered in the Senate

edit: note Senate....

<comment><USER59> Democratic Senators need to be careful what they filibuster. Absurdly, it only takes a majority vote for the Senate to change the rules to disallow filibusters.

Then again, the vote to change the rules to disallow filibusters could _itself_ be filibustered.

But, the Senate, despite all that, could (on motion) declare the filibuster unconstitutional, and only require a simple majority vote to affirm it.

Man, our Congress is so broken.

Source: 2nd paragraph of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate)

<comment><USER16>
      Then again, the vote to change the rules to disallow filibusters could itself be filibustered.

That's what the Wikipedia article says, but I don't think that's correct. Otherwise, I think the Republicans would have filibustered Reid's invocation of the "Nuclear Option" that changed Senate rules to disallow filibusters on Federal judge appointments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER103> Isn't "https everywhere" going to make this a moot point?

<comment><USER88> Only partially. Your ISP can sell what domains you visit and the details of those visits such as duration. Your ISP can push various trackerware that steps in front of the https. Your ISP can do trackerware pre-installs on hardware you buy for example, such as smartphones.

<comment><USER103> But that trackerware would be easily filtered out with ad blockers. Not that we should have to do so, but we can.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> The Register: Your internet history on sale to highest bidder: US Congress votes to shred ISP privacy rules

[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28/congress_approves_s...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28/congress_approves_sale_of_internet_histories/)

"Now, the really big question is: can your ISPs see the content of your online interactions? Can it read your emails? Can it read your search results? Can it store and search through the words you typed into a webpage?

And the answer is: yes, sometimes.

If the website you visit is not secured with HTTPS – meaning that any data between you and the website is encrypted – then your ISP can see exactly what you are doing."

Read the article for suggestions on how to protect yourself.

Also read: [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28/so_my_isp_can_now_se...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28/so_my_isp_can_now_sell_my_browsing_history_what_can_i_do/)

</comment><comment><USER105> Don't worry, the president will veto this. /s

<comment><USER106> because he's worried about losing incognito mode?

<comment><USER107> Last I checked his dirty laundry has been aired and the public gasped and forgot. Golden shower anyone?

Not to mention that he already publishes his browsing and TV history via Twitter for anyone who cares to really track it down.</comment></comment></comment>


E-SIM for consumers: a game changer in mobile telecommunications? - <AUTHOR> http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/telecommunications/E_SIM_for_consumers_a_game_changer_in_mobile_telecommunications?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck-oth-1601 <comment><USER2> According to this comment [1] and other things I've read about how SIM's work, one of the primary functions of SIM's is to be a tamper-proof chip that you can't physically get into and read out the credentials (because that would allow you to clone the credentials and effectively access the cell network from multiple devices while only paying for a single device).

If you move that provisioning to something that happens over the network, how do you keep someone from passively sniffing or MITM'ing the network connection and cloning the downloaded credentials?

<comment><USER3> A soldered SIM, or eUICC (embedded Universal Integrated Circuit Card, it's official 3GPP name) is managed by a 3rd party, with a permanent secret inside it. It also has a resident provisioning profile, typically associated to a small cellular operator with roaming agreements the world over (small, not to be perceived as a threat by other operators).

The eUICC can connect to the 3rd party using the default profile, typically using roaming. This is using the standard SIM toolkit functions, and the connection is secured using the secret. This is used to download a new operator profile, based various parameters (country of connection, user choice, device vendor contracts, ...). Then the device can reconnect using the new downloaded profile.

The 3rd party manager can reach the SIM at any time, and add / delete / modify profiles as needed.

So it adds a lower layer. A bit like one can add an hypervisor under an OS, here you add this new profile management layer under an operator profile inside the SIM. But it still use secure exchanged mechanism, based on a secret burned in the SIM and known only to the manager.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> more like market capture, or attempts at it. sims are a great technology. attempting to make them embedded is a way to take away choice from consumers so you can offer locked in solutions with less competition. the fcc should do something about this.

<comment><USER5> It sounds like the plan here is to let people download sims instead of having to physically pop a chip into the device. How is this anticompetitive?

<comment><USER6> The basis of SIM security is traditionally that nobody can read out its secret keys, you can only ask the SIM to sign something with its secret keys and tell you the result. So sounds like this might be not about "writable" e-SIM tech, but convincing operators to give up the previously closely-guarded keys or support some new kind of keying system?</comment></comment></comment>


Are Google Brand Links making it tougher for your online business to compete? - <AUTHOR> http://centuryhouse.net/google-just-killed-your-online-business/

<comment><USER2> Google has been tweaking search for a while now. From what I've seen, their goal with all these brand links/shopping links etc is to make people buy adwords to show up in results.

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://www.authoritydomains.com/blogs/seo/4-ways-to-use- goog...](http://www.authoritydomains.com/blogs/seo/4-ways-to-use-google-brand- links-to-your-advantage.php)

I think you can turn this around and actually get traffic from it. Just posted a blog about it.

</comment><comment><USER4> I didn't even see the brand links at first, not sure how they're going to kill a business.

</comment><comment><USER5> Yuck. More proof that Google gives "brand name" businesses an unfair advantage.

<comment><USER6> Google's goal is to get people to the most useful page for what they're looking for. There's a good chance that what they really want is the website of a brand they've heard of, so it makes sense that Google would want to put those brands at the top.

Sure, it's kind of an unfair advantage, but so is the fact that people have heard of Victoria's Secret and not Freshpair. But you can't fault Google for trying to make their search better at sending people to the site they're looking for.

<comment><USER7> Google's goal is to make itself as much money as possible. If Google thought that result was the best one for the user, it would rank it #1 in the SERPs. You can see over the last few years that they are increasingly putting profitable (for Google) links in front of the most relevant results. And, when they can't find anything profitable to put in front of the top link, they try to find other ways to avoid you clicking through--e.g. "search within this site."</comment></comment></comment>


Paul Gray Dead - <AUTHOR> http://news.mit.edu/2017/former-mit-president-paul-gray-dies-0918 <comment><USER2> Everything's normal, Metal musicians can sometimes die twice. Oh, wait...</comment>


What Python developers need to know before migrating to Go - <AUTHOR> http://blog.repustate.com/migrating-code-from-python-to-golang-what-you-need-to-know/2013/04/23/

<comment><USER2> Some thoughts after spending ~100 hours with Go.

\- Function overloading is a major convenience that you will miss. There are differently named versions of every function and you will call the wrong version with the wrong arguments _all the time_. The number of functions in the standard library could be reduced by at least 1/4 if they'd got this right. The official FAQ ([http://golang.org/doc/faq#overloading](http://golang.org/doc/faq#overloading)) explains that leaving out overloading is "simpler", meaning _simpler for them_.

\- Default parameters are a major convenience that you will miss. Using strings.Replace() to remove some chars from a string? Don't forget to pass the -1 at the end, asshole! The -1 says don't put a limit on the number of replacements. In Python there would be a max=None default parameter and this would never bite anyone.

\- No named arguments, because fuck readability.

\- Forcing me to handle errors is great. Having 20 different ways to do it is not great. Examples: fmt.Errorf(), fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr), errors.New(), log.Fatal(), log.Fatalf(), log.Fatalln(), panic/recover...

\- Using && and || for logical operators in this day and age is just ridiculous. Why do people keep inventing programming languages as if Python doesn't exist?

\- Don't think that just because the Unicode guys invented Go that Unicode is going to be easy. Their solution is not to create an airtight abstraction layer between chars (or "runes" WTF?) and integers. Their solution is to provide almost no abstraction and force you to deal with the inherent integer- ness of all characters. Example:

In Python:

        len("нєℓℓσ")  # 5, because there are 5 chars

In Go:

        len("нєℓℓσ") // 12, because there are 12 bytes
        utf8.RuneCountInString("нєℓℓσ") // 5, plz kill me i am an abomination

tl;dr If you're inventing a programming language for human beings (not UNIX gods), try it out on a group of smart high school students first. It will be a humbling experience.

<comment><USER3> > Using && and || for logical operators in this day and age is just ridiculous

No it's not, it takes 10 minutes to learn that && means and and || means or (maybe a little longer to get the hang of it properly), and this knowledge transfers to many programming languages.

(This is a little like arguing "we shouldn't use + when English has a perfectly good word 'add'"; symbol reasoning is valuable.)

<comment><USER4> '+' is damn near universal. '&&' && '||' !universal.

<comment><USER3> They're not universal, but they're essentially so; pretty much everyone who's used C(++), Java, C#, ... has seen && and ||, and knows what it is. And people who've only used languages with 'and' and 'or' will only take a few minutes to get up to speed (they have the option of spending longer complaining about it if they want).

<comment><USER5> > people who've only used languages with 'and' and 'or' will only take a few > minutes to get up to speed

No. Cognitive overhead. You pay for it every time you parse these words in your brain. You pay for it by reducing the number of nested/combined clauses that you can parse on the fly.

(This is far from the only readability issue with Go, by the way, and you're right in that it's among the more superficial ones. The language is designed so well in all ways except the one that matters the most, it hurts.)

<comment><USER6> No, laziness.

&& is pronounced "and" but actually means "shortcircuit left-to-right- evaluated and".

If you're coming from a Pascal (or non-programming) background, you do not assume either left-to-right evaluation order, nor short circuit evaluation.

The cognitive overhead is always there, because whether you like to admit it or not, programming is applied math, and exact meaning is very important;

e.g.:

        if a == 0.0 or b/a > 3 then launch_missile();

Without the "cognitive overhead of knowning guaranteed left-to-right + short circuit", this code is wrong.

The hypothetical "newbie programmer who can write a working program but has cognitive overhead deciphering &&" is a mythical creature that does not actually exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Some of the things they listed are dubious...

 __Writing to a file, there's File.Write([]byte) and File.WriteString(string) – a bit of a departure for Python developers who are used to the Python zen of having one way to do something __

Simply because it 's not currently feasible to write a function that can have multiple type signatures (via overloading, generics, etc.).

 __Going between []byte and string. regexp uses []byte (they're mutable). It makes sense, but it's annoying all the same having to cast & re-cast some variables. __

There are actually two different versions of each regexp function: one for strings, one for []byte. Maybe they 're using a different version?

 __No tuples, have to write your own structs or use slices (arrays) __

Actually, you can declare a fixed-length array as a type. So if you need to return a triple of ints, you can declare the return type to be [3]int and have the type system check that you 're actually returning an array of ints of length 3.

Similarly, a lot of the other bullet points are natural results of having a static type system.

I was expecting more points like:

* you can't monkey-patch functions into external libraries like you can with Python modules * no generics, so you can't write a generic "map" function, for example * no preemptive multitasking, so one goroutine can wedge the entire program * passing around arrays and structs is by value, leading to unexpected allocation and memory usage * pointers

<comment><USER8> > Actually, you can declare a fixed-length array as a type. So if you need to > return a triple of ints, you can declare the return type to be [3]int and > have the type system check that you're actually returning an array of ints > of length 3.

That's different from a tuple as it is commonly known in Python and statically typed languages. Tuples can be heterogeneous in languages like Python, OCaml, and Haskell, which Go fixed length arrays can't be. For example, in Go you can't have `(int, float)`.

<comment><USER9> Something like this?

[http://play.golang.org/p/6nvdLWOi5D](http://play.golang.org/p/6nvdLWOi5D)

<comment><USER10> Not quite. What you have is a _single_ type interface{} that happens to be the super type of all other types. You still haven't solved the issue of having multiple different types in a tuple--you've just thrown all the type information away!

Think of a tuple as an anonymous struct. (Or perhaps think of a struct as a tuple with labels :P.) We want to statically differentiate between a pair of ints, a pair of strings and an int, string pair, which we simply can't do with interface{}.

<comment><USER11> RTFM! of course you can, just switch on a type

        switch x.(type) {
        // cases
        }

<comment><USER8> The parent post said "statically".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> alok-g >> No built-in type for sets (have to use maps and test for existence)

Is there any particular reason for this? Sets are so fundamental to mathematics and beyond that I am concerned right away about this. Sure you could use a map as a replacement, but what happens to "user experience"?

I do not get this for other languages as well. Data structures that are present in nearly all computer science books are often not built into the language or standard libraries, like trees, graphs. Reasoning given is that some other data structure could serve as a replacement (never mind that the programmer's intentions are not directly reflected in the code anymore), or because it is considered too removed from practical usage, or because some third-party library includes it. I do not buy any of these arguments.

<comment><USER12> Every possible way to represent a set is a very thin wrapper around an existing data structure that is commonly implemented. There isn't a generally applicable way to represent a set. All sets are simply existing structures (BitVectors, Linked Lists, BST, or HashTables) with functions like Union and Intersection being tacked on and all have very different performance considerations.

Basically there really isn't a general purpose way to make a set and it's not a fundamental component of programming, it is a modified HashTables or what ever. So I argue sets don't actually exist in CS because you can't represent one as it exists mathematically. You are simply tacking union and intersect to an existing data structure.

<comment> alok-g This would make sense for the case of a set. But does then Go provide (or intend to provide) these other data structures ("BitVectors, Linked Lists, BST, or HashTables")? Does it provide a sorted linked list?

<comment><USER13> A bitvector: []bool

Most of the time, you would use map[key]value rather than your own hash table or BST.

If you need an implicit linked list, there is one in the standard library: [http://golang.org/pkg/container/list/](http://golang.org/pkg/container/list/)

<comment> alok-g Yes, I noted that list container. If I need a sorted list, do I need to do that myself (which is OK though not ideal)? Or again there is some other container that can work possibly with a wrapper around it to emulate a sorted linked list?

<comment><USER13> I think the thing to do is just to write a function to keep stepping through the list until you find the right place to insert, and then just use container/list.

Sorry to be "that guy" who questions the question, but sorted lists aren't really a great data structure. As you probably already know, insertion is O(N), where N is the total number of elements in the list. It might be better just to use the GoLRB library, which provides some always-sorted tree structures.

<comment> alok-g You are right. I had a very specific case where I needed a sorted list. I do not recall why anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I can't help but feel like criticisms along the lines of "you have to be more precise with what you want, because unlike python it won't let you get away with blah" and praise like "it seems to run correctly as soon as it compiles" are two sides of the same coin.

<comment><USER15> They are, for sure. The difference, I'd say, is that compared to most other mostly-static compiled languages, Go generally feels a bit more velvet glove about it, rather than iron fist. The language principle of warnings are errors really helps here, as you tend to figure out potential issues sooner rather than later, and via a clear error message rather than subtle misbehavior.

<comment><USER16> Also, if you're using Google App Engine SDK it can compile in realtime (i.e. every time you save a file in the project). So if you have one terminal open to the dev server process and another for your editor, you get instant feedback each time you save. It's a very Pavlovian experience :)

<comment><USER17> If you use vim, the syntastic[1] plugin has go support and gives you this sort of feedback directly in the editor (for any go code, not just app-engine -- and many other languages) every time you save.

[1] [https://github.com/scrooloose/syntastic](https://github.com/scrooloose/syntastic)

<comment><USER16> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Previous discussions:

\- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5600883](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5600883)

\- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5596422](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5596422)

</comment><comment><USER19> Many of the things he says he misses from Python, I would rather not have in production code. Heterogenous dictionaries are often objects that should have been, with no encapsulation and a high degree of implicitness that makes them hard to refactor later.

</comment><comment><USER20> "If you're using JSON and your JSON is a mix of types, goooooood luck. You'll have to create a custom struct that matches the format of your JSON blob, and then Unmarshall the raw json into an instance of your custom struct. Much more work than just obj = json.loads(json_blob) like we're used to in Python land."

Could just load it into a map[string]interface{} and then just make sure he does type assertion on the value before using it.

</comment><comment><USER21> This is purely anecdotal on my part, but I've been working on a project for a few months and I've been developing it in Go and it has just been a pleasure to use. It's like C with the edges smoothed out using Python sandpaper.

</comment><comment><USER22> Is there a decent numpy/scipy equivalent for Go yet? By which I mean an easy way to manipulate matrices, complex numbers perform discrete Fourier transforms and the like.

<comment><USER23> Nothing nearly as mature, but the project is here: [https://github.com/gonum](https://github.com/gonum) and the mailing list is here: [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/gonum- dev](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/gonum-dev)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Has anyone tried to integrate Go with Python?

Right now, optimizing Python code by replacing critical sections with C works really well and isn't too hard to write or distribute.

How well would tooling around doing the same thing with Go work?

<comment><USER25> That won't help you much with concurrency problems, however "multiprocessing" does.

<comment><USER15> Well, it could, if your use case gets down to "pass an entire work unit in, get a result back".

<comment><USER25> Indeed, but that would mean to write the majority in Go and glue it together with Python instead of just outsourcing small performance critical pieces as described by OP.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> _" No built-in type for sets (have to use maps and test for existence)... In absence of sets, have to write your own intersection, union etc. methods"_

In my mind, a map is a set. They are both Associative containers. It's just that the key and value can be different things in a map while in a set, the key and value are the same thing.

Edit: I speak from a strong C++ viewpoint, but maybe Go is not like that (I'm not sure why it would not be): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_containers_%28C%2B...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_containers_%28C%2B%2B%29)

<comment><USER27> By that logic, a map is just a list where every odd element is a key and every even element is a value.

There are semantic differences between maps and sets and lists. Just because you can use one to represent all the others doesn't remove the benefit of having all 3 available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Any HN readers of this post have any similar experience?

I know the bright team over at bit.ly made a successful switch from python to go-- anyone else?

The more I hear about go, the more I like it.

<comment><USER29> I'm working on a personal project that uses Python for most of the page rendering and Go for the heavy lifting (receiving a large stream of data that I have to process quickly and efficiently).

The ecosystem has a long way to go (compared to Python), but goroutines and channels are a pleasure to work with. It's nice being statically typed again, and I really like object composition versus Python's inheritance. Resource usage for my cases is much lower, latency is much lower, throughput is much higher, and my deploy/provisioning scripts are a lot more simple due to Go's static compilation.

At my day job, we may start mixing in Go for background tasks that are a bit too slow/inefficient in our current Python stack. I could also see it being a good fit for some of our more high traffic HTTP APIs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Some of the items mentioned in that list are the reason why:

"The code you write with Go just seems to be correct."

e.g.

\- Having to always check errors (or at least explicitly ignore them) * By the way, do this anyway. It's really nice when every error in your app is handled. Since I've started with Go for a personal project, I've used a similar approach in my _sigh_ PHP project so every error now has an explanation and suggestion.

-Can't have variables/packages that aren't used so to test simple things requires sometimes commenting out lines

-Python is more forgiving. You can take slices of strings using indexes that are out of range and it won't complain. You can take negative slices – not Go.

</comment><comment><USER30> Here's a previous discussion of this post as well: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5600883](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5600883)

</comment><comment><USER31> > The map/reduce idiom stinks in Python.

Actually multi processing has a reasonable implementation.

</comment><comment><USER32> 'migrating to Go' implies that Go has the same advantages as Python, which is not really true.

</comment><comment><USER33> I thought Go had union types? Do those not work... normally?

<comment><USER15> Nope. I agree that it would be a good thing, and also cover about 80% of the usecases for "true" generics as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> basicly most of the difrences that is mentioned comes down to that one of the languages is compiled.

</comment><comment><USER35> so you still trust the google compiler for your business critical apps do you? haha

<comment><USER36> I agree with this 100%

Who would adopt a NEW google-ism at this point?

<comment><USER37> Is C an "ATT-ism"?

<comment><USER36> I keep looking for IEEE or ISO spec for Go and not finding it. I keep looking for alternative compilers and can't find any.

Is there a defined standard library that you can count on for the next decade?

Maybe in 15 years when Go has outgrown its lock-in it may be worth considering. At this point signing on with google is like playing russian roulette.

<comment><USER37> > _I keep looking for alternative compilers and can 't find any._

Really??? How long did you look?

I call bullshit; you did not look. GCC is an alternative compiler. Go away troll.

<comment><USER36> gccgo is still from the same google-owned go project.

I'll gladly go away, fanboy.

<comment><USER37> It is a first class member of GCC, under the GNU project. There are no possible concerns. I challenge you to attempt to articulate even one. No vague "google pulls the plug" statements, articulate a _specific_ concern. Try it. You idiot crybabies, seemingly primarily people who got butthurt at having their hosted RSS reader pulled out from under them, never can.

You are either a troll or an idiot. Actually, I'm leaning towards both.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I keep seeing articles about Go where Python developers seem to be shocked to discover that interpreted dynamically typed languages are very slow. This wasn't obvious from the get-go? Practically anything not disk bound will be many, many times faster in C++ or whatever.</comment>


Uber hauls GitHub into court to find who hacked database of 50,000 drivers - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/28/uber_subpoenas_github_for_hacker_details

<comment><USER2> I don't understand. How was an Uber public key on Github used to access an internal Uber server? And how is a ~6-11 month old list of IP addresses going to help Uber?

If my locksmith is broken into, and a master keys stolen, and then my house is broken into, the police go to the locksmith. I do not get to subpoena the locksmiths list of customers. So where is the FBI in this story?</comment>