Teens Aren't Partying Anymore - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/why-teens-arent-partying-anymore/ <comment><USER2> I know, I know this is anecdotal 'evidence'.

I happen to be 21 which fits me right in this generation and the main reason this occurs is due to parenting. My parents wouldn't let me go _anywhere_ by myself until I was at least 17. By that time I was completely and utterly addicted to computing to just let go and 'hang out'. As a matter in fact most of my friends are online rather than 4 real friends in real life. It seems like people in my age group had parents that would rather have their child stare at a screen than experience the world. Just my two cents.

<comment><USER3> If your parents had eliminated screens when you were very young (including theirs) save maybe one publicly-placed crappy terminal for wikipedia or looking up business hours or maps or learning you some programming or whatever, but loosened the reigns on hang-outs and travel, do you think you'd have still felt isolated because all your friends were still online most of the time?

Asking as a parent with three young kids who's seeing practically no benefit to ubiquitous screens at this point, and lots of bad things about them, and trying to figure out how to navigate this brave new world while screwing these kids up as little as possible.

<comment><USER4> Kids approaching 7 and 10 watch some movies/vetted series online, only recently got Kindle tablets which they are literally only allowed to use on long (3 hr+) transits, never at home.

No TV or analog in house.

I am now torn as the older kid is at a prime age to introduce programming...

...but the benefits we see daily from no-screen childhood are to our biased eyes overwhelming.

Our kids spend all their free time engaged in imaginative play much of it collaborative, and manipulating physical objects, and when we can get out, outside.

Their ability to sit in a room with no screen and make a world seems pretty rare, compared to peers who were given ipads or whatever years ago.

But I also worry, how do we also make sure they are literate and savvy.

I fear that as soon if the programming bug bites it will be the End...

<comment><USER5> Out of curiosity, and as someone who has a newborn and will be going through this at some point, how do you determine what effects your policies have on their potential social ostracization especially as they get older. In my youth I witnessed this social outcasting happen to children based on parental restrictions such as these. I still see it as they become adults. The effect seems to compound on itself from being the one not allowed to do something, to having only the few friends in a similar boat, to being an adult that grew up with fewer friends and fewer at-large interactions. Do you take into account these costs? Is the cost of over-exposure to media greater than the cost of having them be different/segregated to satisfy this?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder why the "young adult nightlife experience" feels so stagnant. I like going to the occasional upscale cocktail bar, but in general spending Friday or Saturday night in a crowded bar or club is not my idea of a fun thing to do. What is the alternative for more introverted people? Stay home?

I went to Copenhagen recently and on a Friday night came across a big coffee/beer+wine place with lots of tables/sofas that was packed with people drinking beer and playing board games. It seems like such an obvious concept/nightlife alternative for people who don't want to stay home but don't want to go to a loud bar. Doesn't seem to exist in the U.S. as far as I know.

<comment><USER7> i feel this. (in SF.) i think it's extra bad here in SF because most people have really small apts, so not great for getting a group together at a house. end up in kinda-shitty over-priced bars. meh.

(there's probably cooler places/things going on and i just haven't discovered them. maybe?)

<comment><USER8> It took me nearly a year to crack into the SF nightlife scene. There are a staggering amount of events going on in the city and Oakland, you just have to meet the right people. Unfortunately, you won't find these people at expensive bars.

Hanging around dance places and being proactively social (or a dance maniac) is a good start (Public Works, 1015 Folsom, Nocturnal Codes, etc). Eventually you'll be invited to the most exclusive beach fires, kikis, kickbacks, etc.

Whatever you do don't just stand in the corner expecting things to happen.

<comment><USER9> or just look for BurningMan parties or meetups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nothing new under the sun ...

___________________________________________

Human contacts have been so highly valued in the past only because reading was not a common accomplishment and because books were scarce and difficult to reproduce. The world, you must remember, is only just becoming literate. As reading becomes more and more habitual and widespread, an ever-increasing number of people will discover that books will give them all the pleasures of social life and none of its intolerable tedium. At present people in search of pleasure naturally tend to congregate in large herds and to make a noise; in future their natural tendency will be to seek solitude and quiet.

\- Aldous Huxley, Chrome Yellow

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure I would agree with this statement. I think there needs to be a balance of both solitude and human interaction, and that balances differs from person to person. I'm definitely more introverted but it doesn't mean I don't need human interaction. An example is that I play a ton of video games, one reason is for the solitude, but I also enjoy board games for the social component. At the core of games, I love the strategy and competition, but different types of games can scratch different itches. I think things like that can apply to a lot of parts of life.

<comment><USER12> All this quote says is that solitude through literature will become a natural tendency. Which it definitely has become, much more than in the centuries before today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I am a total introvert and some of my happiest high school memories involve friends pushing me to go to giant parties that pushed me out of my comfort zone. I would say that there are moments in there which are integral to who I am as a person.

I really feel like they're missing out on a developmental milestone.

I almost feel like these kids are brainwashed but that's probably just me looking in as an outsider. I am just getting old (31) and struggling with the fact that I no longer understand the youth.

<comment><USER14> > I really feel like they're missing out on a developmental milestone.

Are they though? Those milestones can take many different forms, as evidenced by the fact that "giant parties" are a relatively recent phenomenon, historically speaking.

<comment><USER15> >as evidenced by the fact that "giant parties" are a relatively recent phenomenon, historically speaking.

That is nowhere near true.

<comment><USER16> Teenage boys and girls partying together without adults is something many kind of societies frowned upon. They used to be scared of unwanted pregnancy _a lot_.

It did happened occasionally, but it was seen as something bad and stigma (especially toward such girls) could be quite high.

<comment><USER15> >Teenage boys and girls partying together without adults

I was assuming you were suggesting large parties regardless of age is a new historical phenomenon.

Although, fraternities and sororities have been around for hundreds of years and they're 17-21 or so. I'm sure they've had parties most of that time. It's probably how they started. Not sure if that counts with teen-only criteria. The concept of adult age has changed over time as well.

Humans party. Always have, always will. They of course were called "feasts" in historical times. Lack of partying is probably more of an anomaly (assuming the article is true). Of course, I would venture that even having a large online gaming or chat session would constitute a party. I mean its a group of people socializing, and I'm sure some of them are having beverages or botany of their choice, plus some hot pockets.

<comment><USER16> Sororities were around for hundreds years? Are they not offshots of fraternities after women were allowed on universities?

When I read old times, I tend to imagine either rural living or middle classes in cities or something else more common. Of course they had fun and socialized, but it was not the same as 80ties or something.

<comment><USER15> US Sororities have been around in the US since the mid-late 1800s, but that's not really the point. The point is teen-ish people have been having big parties a lot longer than "recent phenomena." Fraternities, think Greeks and Romans, pagan festivals, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Society is sick, let's face it, and technology is largely to blame. We just can't see the danger in technology so long as we're blinded by everything shiny. Human beings are primarily social beings and no, that does not mean peering at each other through the alienating window of a mobile phone screen.

In 1969, at the age of 9, I could be left to play with my friends and wander several miles from home without any sense of danger. Days were occupied with spports or just hanging out then reading and TV in the evening. There was balance because we had less technology. The ageing mill towns of East Lancashire, UK, still enjoyed a culture of trust and respect for your neighbours such that you could leave your front door open without fear of theft. Parents stressd "playing out" and being "out of the house" but it didn't stop kids from achieving academically.

The thought of hiding in my room and hardly ever seeing my friends face-to- face would have been soul-destroying. Chess, games, cricket and football was life itself in my teens up to about 15 when the music scene and girls became the main fascination. These were all social activities and I can't imagine those glorious teenage years spent hidden in my room staring at a phone screen as a substitute for real human contact. It's unthinkable.

<comment><USER18> > Society is sick, let's face it, and technology is largely to blame.

Technology is never to blame for anything, because technology is not a moral actor; people may be to blame for the manner in which they use technology.

OTOH, people have been falsely conflating "the youth of today seem to have a different lifestyle than I preferred in my youth" with "society is sick" for at least as long as we have historical evidence of what people thought.

<comment><USER19> There's lots of evidence that people in their early 20s and under are psychologically different than older people (higher rates of anxiety/depression at the same age, etc.). Anecdotally, I've noticed that people don't talk to strangers as much on planes anymore as when I was a child.

I guess you could argue that technology isn't to blame, but technology changes people. And it's hard not to use technology when it's so pervasive. At work I have a hard time not eating donuts when someone brings them in. Technology is similar. If everyone around you is on their phone or facebook or whatever it takes a lot of willpower/willingness to be different to not do the same.

<comment><USER20> Did people really talk to strangers on public transportation back in the old days? Or did they actually read books, magazines and newspapers?

<comment><USER21> Random NYC shot from the 50s: [http://i.imgur.com/SoG7Yqh.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/SoG7Yqh.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Basically it feels as if parts of American society are becoming desocialized-- losing the ability to interact effectively with other members of the society. This article echoes Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" thesis [0]. His ideas are at least a quarter century old but now seem prescient.

I find the social changes the Wired article describes far more disturbing than the "Internet is frying our brains" threat that people like Nick Carr fear, let alone Artificial General Intelligence. Unlike the latter we see evidence of the former on a daily basis.

[0] [http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/assoc/bowling.html](http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/assoc/bowling.html)

<comment><USER23> I think you are correct. I am in the UK and I saw a change happen to the students that went to university after I left. This was early nineties so pre- internet. Nothing to do with screens. However, my generation created and participated in untold amount of parties. We did not go to official organised events most of the time, more things we did. So no fancy concerts with known acts, just some of us playing records, everyone else dancing or propping up the bar (or taking drugs). In fact even the drug taking was different, it was about the 'raves' and not the drugs. People didn't take the drugs outside of the events. Undoubtedly the drug scene was a huge appeal to some but more people were happy on regular alcohol.

The generation that came along after just did not have the aptitude for getting together with a few hundred close friends for beach parties or illegal raves. At the same time the 'rave' scene or proper party scene had been killed off by capitalism, with larger venues in big cities - nightclubs - being the new thing.

In the days of partying the idea of spending a Friday/Saturday in front of a screen and not going out would be tantamount to hell. Also, back in the day, it would be possible to physically see a party event and hear the music. Nowadays that never happens, I don't see house parties as frequently as how they used to happen, e.g. on a Saturday night walking back across town there is no party to be heard, everything has to be properly organised now.

I think that the change happened with Reagan/Thatcher and how the individual mattered more than society, we become atomised then.

It would be nice to know how teenagers partied before the invention of the teenager to see the whole pattern and not assume everything is due to me being 'getting old'.

</comment></comment><comment> temp-dude-87844 It's worth digging one level deeper.

Screen time has increased, and it may be at the expense of parties, but screen time is also an unsupervised place where the parties have an expectation of privacy and control.

The stereotypical party the article laments is a complex affair that requires transportation, supplies, a venue, and desirable participants, and doesn't spring into place organically. Social circles at colleges can organize these, but there has been extraordinary scrutiny into campus parties in recent years, due to accounts of sexual assaults. These related developments makes them more difficult to plan, drives desirable participants away, and makes resulting parties less enjoyable. With common people's parties blunted, partying becomes the domain of the wealthy and attractive, in entertainment playgrounds like Miami and Vegas.

As for teenagers, parental supervision is at an all-time high, so organizing a party often requires finding a cooperating adult (e.g. a socially-connected college student, an older sibling, a laissez-faire parent) who is willing to provide the venue and supplies away from the eyes of concerned parents. Fewer college parties means fewer teen parties too.

<comment> murph-almighty >extraordinary scrutiny into campus parties

I was involved in Greek life in college and can testify. Not only did we need to register our parties with the university but we still had to worry about police presence and legal liability.

This isn't to say that these policies should be repealed- dumb people did dumb things, and thus these came into place, but it doesn't remove the fact that it's getting harder to hold a social gathering without a cop busting down your door and citing everyone in the room.

<comment><USER16> What would be the reas on for citing? I mean, you need to break some law for the cop to do so. I am pretty sure it is possible to have drinking party without dping something illegal (harder with marihuanna and that should be lagalized imo).

<comment><USER24> It's almost a given that any college party is going to have underage drinking, and providing alcohol to minors. When we used to have registered parties, there were wristbands for the few juniors and seniors that were over 21, and everybody else knew to set their cups down when Safety and Security did their walk-throughs.

Not to mention any other drugs that might get into the mix.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think a decent portion should also be laid at the feet of technology in general, not even just Netflix, but also that how teens interact on social media is more or less in the public (and their parents) eyes, with the exceptions of things like Snapchat which isn't very conducive to planning a party.

It's also worth noting that it's much, much harder for teens to get ahold of booze these days, and the penalties for having anything they shouldn't have, be it alcohol, drugs, whatever, are extremely steep. Not saying that stops it completely, but they keep that sort of thing quiet if they don't want to end up in prison for a couple of decades. Enough weed to throw a party, in many states, would get you put in a cell until you were middle-aged.

After all of that, a good amount I agree with the article is just down to kids having more to do that doesn't carry anything close to the same kind of risks; I also don't understand why this is a bad thing?

<comment><USER26> >> It's also worth noting that it's much, much harder for teens to get ahold of booze these days

20 years ago we just had an older sibling or co-worker buy for us. What's changed?

<comment><USER27> More stigma attached to it for the buyer.

Stricter enforcement of 21 to drink rules so older sibling will have a harder time buying with a fake ID if under 21.

Fewer teens working so less interaction with over 21s.

<comment><USER25> Also see above about high consequences. Any over 21 with a brain wouldn't do it, because that's another of those ways to fuck your life up that boomers and Xers could afford to do, but millennials really can't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Umm, 25 here. All my friends are in the same age-group (21-29) and every other weekend we party like crazy. Sure, it's no longer the drink-until-you-puke type of party that we had when we were 18 (yes, in Europe you don't need be 21 to buy alcohol, 18 will suffice). It might be due to the fact that I also live in Barcelona, which is known for its parties.

As far as how I was raised - umm, mom gave me a beer to try when I was 16, I spit it out because it tasted awfully (I to this day don't drink beer, do not understand the appeal), but when I got 18 I bought some cuba libre and realized that not all alcohol tastes bad. I've never had exactly strict parenting, more-so "learn through your own mistakes" with guidance provided by my parents. I think I turned out alright.

<comment><USER29> > All my friends are in the same age-group (21-29)

Your friend group is millennials. This article is about Gen Z, a decade younger than most millennials.

<comment><USER30> At a decade younger, you're talking a range of 11-19. At the lower end, hopefully not partying much. At 19, probably very similar to the 21 year old crowd.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I wonder how much the pervasiveness of dating apps has to do with this as well. One of the bigger social motivators for my generation growing up was "are members of the opposite sex gonna be there?". Nowadays a lot of people meet on dating apps, _then_ choose to potentially socialize with each other and go out, whereas before you'd have to go out and be social to stand a chance of finding someone to date. Now you actually _can_ sit at home on your couch all day and still meet girls/guys.

<comment><USER32> As someone who's used a lot of dating apps:

It's an awful way to meet new people, especially potential partners. You (being the average male, since this is my experience) are competing to have a coffee date against a ridiculous number of above average males with someone who you've never met, who knows none of your friends and likely has very little in common with you. If you get their attention (which is a _very_ hard thing to do) you might get one or two reply messages before you're forgotten about. If you manage to get a date it's unlikely to be someone who has all that much in common with you, it's likely to be someone looking for sex rather than an actual relationship, and they're unlikely to go on a second date with you anyway.

Honestly I haven't had a lot of luck dating in person or on line but at least I've made a lot of friends from doing stuff IRL, while dating apps leave you with absolutely nothing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I have a theory that introversion and extraversion don't really exist as personality traits, and that we build up preferences out of existing culture about how much social interaction we want in our daily lives.

If the culture changes, then so will our preferences.

I can easily imagine a world in which I'm gregarious and fun all the time. Making that world happen on the other hand...

<comment><USER34> Extraversion/Introversion is one of the big five personality traits and is ~50% heritable:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#He...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Heritability)

That's not to say introversion/extraversion wouldn't manifest differently in different contexts, but the trait does exist (as much as any personality trait does) and appears to have a large genetic component to it.

<comment> temp-dude-87844 Isn't "~50% heritable" a different way of stating that the results are indistinguishable from a coin flip? That doesn't sound too hereditary.

<comment><USER35> No? Lets say we intro-/extroversion is either heritable (with prob .5) or random(with prob .5). If both of your parents are introverted you have a 50% chance of inheriting the introversion of your parents or a 50% chance at a coinflip, which gives us 75% for introversion and 25% for extraversion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> If I were a teenager today, I don't know that I'd be going out to the gravel pits or up to camp and raging like we used to, and that was not so long ago. Social media is wildly more omnipresent than it was then; when we were sitting around bonfires and drinking bud lights, most people didn't even have cameras in their cell phones. When you've got that kind of evidence spread all over Instagram and SnapChat and Facebook, with little ability to control its privacy, it changes the amount of risk involved in those activities. Unless the po-pos actually paid a visit to the shindig, or you stumbled in home the next morning stove up and reeking of beer, it was pretty easy to get away with things back then.

<comment><USER36> Smart homes and smart phones would have definitely put a damper on many of my extracurricular activities as a teenager ... house parties, sneaking out, saying I was in one place while actually in another, etc.

</comment></comment><comment> at-fates-hands I was on the millennial bubble (1999) and I was a total jock in HS. I was so fearful of getting kicked off my teams, I never partied or drank beer, I was a total straight edge.

Fast forward into college and at the beginning of my Freshman year I still wasn't partying because I didn't want to flunk out of college. I was so into my classes and doing well, I just didn't have time. By the middle of Freshman year, my soccer teammates basically kidnapped me and took me to my first real party where I drank, got loaded and flirted with all the girls. It was really an eye opening experience for me to learn how to be in social situations with members of the opposite sex, as well as socialize with other students my age.

With less and less people of the current generation skipping college, I can easily see a huge reduction in partying and drinking overall. Add in the financial burden of being on your own and how much decent beer or alcohol costs and it just becomes out of reach due to financial circumstances.

Not surprised at all by the conclusions in the article.

</comment><comment><USER37> Our society has institutionalized child abuse by preventing them from doing things on their own until post-university adulthood.

</comment><comment><USER38> I understand it to a degree. I've personally never liked partying; hated the music and the culture around alcohol and only did it in order to get girls.

There are more efficient ways today.

<comment><USER39> Didn't realize it until this comment, but you're right. Tinder really made hooking up a lot more efficient, and finding mates was the only reason I had to go out after I was ~23.

Apparently the use of tinder in the NBA is actually making a big impact on away teams' sleep schedules. [http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/presents18969358/tinder...](http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/presents18969358/tinderization- today-nba)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Nostalgia for parties that "wretched parents house" says more about older people and their lack of empathy then something bad about youngsters.

Am I only one who did not grew with cell phones and still did not wretched anybodies house? I would not invite kids likely to wretch our house home.

</comment><comment><USER40> I disagree with their conclusion. Yes, teens are certainly partying less. But they're also increasingly unwilling to get driver's licenses or jobs as well. Basically, the overly controlling atmosphere of schooling and helicopter parenting has worked - it has broken them. They are successfully being prevented from experiencing the natural maturation process of growing independence. We can only hope that the neurological development which supports independence and the ability to form and maintain complex human relationships is not like other aspects of neurological development which is impossible to compensate for if the critical period of development is missed.

</comment><comment><USER41> I can personally assure everyone that plenty of people are still partying and have no problem with social interaction. This is an article that's practically targeted towards the hacker news audience of older introverted people who feel like they don't understand younger generations. One difference that might be real is people might be a little more responsible, because our education system is better and parents are more careful and have more support. But plenty of people still love going out, even when they can't legally drink.

</comment><comment><USER42> Totally anecdotal, but I'm a 17 year old in the Bay Area, and teens are partying more than they were when my older siblings (early and late 20's) grew up in the same area.

My point is that my experience isn't true for all, and I can't prove that it isn't true for the majority. This article is the same way - not enough statistical evidence to support it.

Like yes, teens get together with friends less often on a day-to-day basis. But what teens party on a day to day basis?

</comment><comment><USER43> While I'm slightly too old to have experienced what the article is describing, the trend is there and I believe technology plays an undenyable role (followed by parenting). I have many siblings but notably a brother who's in his first year high school. I also just attended a wedding and got to meet the high school brother of the groom.

I was talking to my brother on NYE. He was lamenting that he could not find anyone to hang out with on NYE for a party. We asked why he didn't text people and get something together, "that's not how it works, people communicate with snapchat, and I'm not allowed to have that, not that I want it.. it's just people posting weed and coke stories". He was obviously a little moody but still unable to find any social gathering (even a parent hosted on) on NYE of all nights.

The brother of the groom: nice kid but wholly uninterested in anything other than maintaining his snapchat streaks. First he came to me for data. A few days later his phone was dead and he wanted to install snapchat on my phone to continue the streaks. It's psychologically addicting. And it made me realize how much people are depending on fabricated social experiences on their phones instead of real social interactions.

One thing is common: snapchat. People don't hang out anymore, they have streaks. If they do hang out it's over pot or coke, no one is even that interested in drinking these days. Oh no tech is ruining everything! Well, no. But something is happening. It's not snapchat's fault, either (unless they deliberately exploit addicting behaviors to increase engagement and retention). I think parents are largely to blame. It's easy to let your 14yr old become consumed in their phone because that means more internet time and less driving around for you. My parents are very wary of this and it's largely why they waited as long as they could before giving my younger brothers a phone and why they are reluctant to let them create an entirely digital social life.

My generation, we discovered the internet before our parents knew what it was. I administered networks at 15. I built websites at 14. I was a moderator of large forums at 13. My dad gave me his old laptop when I was 12--bobs celebs era. And I think I've turned out pretty decent.

So it leaves me all really torn. Do we embrace technology or shun it? My main fear isn't necessarily the tech itself, but the dependence on it. I fear the iGen isn't learning how to use computers as tools and simply becoming consumers of all the experiences we create with them. And at the same time I hate some of those things we've created like SC and FB for literally taking the human out of humanity--despite having grown quite accustomed to virtual interactions growing up.

So I guess the real question is whether it's a problem that people aren't socializing anymore, or at least doing it differently. And if so what will we do about it? Maybe AR to the rescue...

<comment><USER44> > unless they deliberately exploit addicting behaviors to increase engagement > and retention

I can assure that this is something on the forefront of any consumer-oriented service. This stuff is tracked, tweaked, reported on, KPIs are built around it and used as important ways of measuring the health of the company.

See _Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products_ [1] which describes some of this process.

> Do we embrace technology or shun it? My main fear isn't necessarily the tech > itself, but the dependence on it. I fear the iGen isn't learning how to use > computers as tools and simply becoming consumers of all the experiences we > create with them.

YES. I'm in the same boat as you and I think the key difference is that while we created things and explored the tech world much like a giant box of LEGOs, now it's all about giving into the latest ready-made shiny expericence that is heavily marketed to us. But I don't think it has to be so. I remain hopeful that we can train our kids to only use tech on the condition that something useful or truly creative arises out of it, not just passively consuming what's offered. Yet I realize this is going to be an uphill battle...

[1] [https://www.nirandfar.com/hooked](https://www.nirandfar.com/hooked)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> The weird thing for me is that instead of partying people are watching Netflix videos of fictional people partying. Which makes those people fictional indeed. Are we going to eventually have movies about watching movies, about playing video games, and so on?

<comment><USER18> > Are we going to eventually have movies about watching movies

MST3K and it's descendants already exist.

> about playing video games,

Again, it's been done.

<comment><USER45> _> MST3K_

Thanks. Must check that out.

What I ought to have said: we've have had movies where movies or video games are _part of the adventure_ e.g. Wargames (1983).

But an adventure takes place against a _background_ of people living ordinary lives, which used to consist mainly of communal office work, socialising, chatting, families at the breakfast table and whatnot. Whereas now ordinary lives consist more and more of digital interaction. So the background will have to change too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Mostly? I suspect it's the fact that they _always_ have something more interesting to do than attempt to interact with another human which, let's face it, generally has a low probability of being interesting.

</comment><comment><USER47> The Atlantic did a long-form article about this, if anyone is interested in further reading (with survey results!): [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has- the...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the- smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/)

</comment><comment><USER48> I remember me and a friend(same age as me) went to a concert with my brother and his friend(same age as him). We offered them drinks and things, and they declined. After the concert, I was in a state of paranoia and my friend was puking in the toilet. My brother and his friend were just sitting quietly in a separate room, chilling, watching netflix on their own computers.

It was odd.

</comment><comment><USER49> Bah, I was a nerd/loser and never got invited to parties as a teenager (in the 90s) anyway.

Actually, I still don't get invited to parties...

<comment><USER49> Dang, way to rub it in, downvoters.

<comment><USER50> I'm sorry for the situation you describe. For what it's worth, the downvotes (I did not downvote you) are due to HN's insistence on comments that are productive/on topic.

<comment><USER49> It was mostly an attempt at self-deprecating humor, which admittedly wasn't particularly productive and was only marginally on-topic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> One thing I haven't seen in the comments is the pressure and expectation that you are supposed to be an excellent student and get into a good school and/or get scholarships. The pressure and work pushed onto kids from a young age is staggering.

I graduated HS in 2006. I feel like I was on the early-ish side of "must get very good grades, have multiple extra curriculars, and get into a good school." I had 4-6 hours of homework a night after sitting in school all day and having a 2-2.5 hour sports practice or a game (which was even more of a time commitment). I was often up until midnight or later and waking up at 6:15-6:30 on weekdays. Weekends were used for more practices and more homework. Even when classmates would party, it would be exceedingly rare. I would often only hang out with friends 3-5 times a month for no more than 2-3 hours. I simply didn't have the time.

I don't buy that the homework time is the same. I think the amount of homework that kids get is absolutely insane. When I would (rarely) miss school becaus I was sick, I realized how little I actually missed during the day; I was basically fine if I got my homework done.

If a boss told me in order to get a promotion (college) to a midlevel manager position I would have to work for 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, spend 2-3 hours 6 days a week for a mandatory but not mandatory activity (sports, band, plays, etc) to make my resume look better, spend another 4-6 hours after work and activities preparing for the next day, and and finally spend another 10-16 hours on the weekend learning more about my job I would be job hunting before the door closed behind me. Oh, and those mandatory activities? They cannot really be minimum wage jobs. They don't seem to do a whole lot to impress the colleges.

All told, to get into a decent state shool you are looking at __~82 hours a week! __Why is that at all acceptable? That is two 40 hour work weeks!

We are also at the point where kids have zero room for screwups. I have a family friend who is ~10 years younger than me. They had a C+/B- average freshman year. Became B+/A- into sophomore and junior year. They didn't get into Pitt or PSU main campus (those are the in state schools) despite having solid extra cuticular activities for all the years. Essentially, an average semester at the start of their HS career sunk them getting into the main campus of the big state schools. 20-25 years ago, they are accepted to Pitt/PSU main campus without a second thought.

So, between the absurd amount of work/time it takes to get into a decent school and the utter lack of room to be anything but the best, no wonder teens aren't doing anything with the very limited free time they have.

IMO, teens would be much better off with less homework, less demand on what it takes to get into a decent school, more time to work jobs, and more opportunity to be the odd kid/adult hybrids they are.

<comment><USER52> I think you're closer to our root issues than most of the comments, but there are still links further down the causal chain from here.

College admission is hyper-important and hyper-competitive today because _life_ is hyper-competitive. Stagnant wages and a steadily increasing cost of existing are destroying leisure and stability in all age groups, not just the teenagers.

It honestly terrifies me. I'm extraordinarily lucky in almost every sense, so personally I'll likely be able to live a good life no matter what. But I feel like the systems that undergird every part of our society are getting more and more fragile. Huge groups of Americans are one small misfortune from ruin, and that's choking everything from entrepreneurial risk-taking to teenage partying and other pure leisure activities that used to shape our culture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Does the same hold true in Europe?

<comment><USER54> I worked in a company with a lot of 18-25 year olds recently.Based in Barcelona but a very international mix of people. They seemed to do a lot of drinking and a lot of social media (we had a work trip to Rome one weekend and they looked nervous when they didn't have wifi or their phone was out of charge).

As it was a very international crowd out of their home countries and most working in sales maybe it captured a fairly extroverted sample of the age group.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Should we call this generation the "Solarians"

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

</comment><comment><USER56> Is it just me or was this article very thin on sources of information and in general? It ended very abruptly and was not that convincing.

</comment><comment><USER57> Not good. Better to get all the partying done in high school so one can buckle down in college.

</comment><comment><USER58> Yea... the moment the author used iGen they lost all credibility.

</comment><comment><USER59> Frankly this is totally case by case. I'm 22 and have been partying hard since 15. Simultaneous to that my career hasn't been a distraction or a replacement. It would make sense that the support on a developer driven channel like Hacker News would sway the kids who hang inside more. I promise you HN, kids are partying hard.

<comment><USER19> It's about population trends, not individuals.</comment></comment>


Google Fails Graceful Degradation - <AUTHOR> http://techblog.willshouse.com/2011/06/15/google-fails-graceful-degradation/

<comment><USER2> Its good you noticed, but as you say in your article disabling javascript is not very common. Every time I hear some one say they disable their javascript I get a bit ticked off.

<comment><USER3> I still surf with 3rd party Javascript disabled by noscript. It saved me the other day when I (not even thinking) clicked on a stupid Facebook exploit post. I soon realised as it popped up with warnings etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "I mean, they do allow their search to work just fine without Javascript, so why not the logo too?"

a) The site still works with Javascript turned off.

b) The logo is degraded.

So how is this _not_ graceful degradation?

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice find, but I think these days surfing with Javascript turned off for the site you're visting is pretty silly.

I think noscript has a place in disabling 3rd party Javascript, however.</comment>


"Emoji composer is now at 100% on Twitter" - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/tw/status/812180975559970816 <comment><USER2> This is likely getting upvoted because _it shouldn 't take that long to ship a damn emoji picker_ / _this use of resources is why Twitter is in decline_ , etc.

From a QA perspective, an emoji picker, with emoji searching and color setting, is tricker than it looks. For example, which emoji would you expect to see for a search query of "happy"? [http://i.imgur.com/HU3sP7N.png](http://i.imgur.com/HU3sP7N.png)

(Actually, why isn't the smiling cat a result for a "happy" query?)

<comment><USER3> 3.5 years, though?

FYI, I'm not sure if it's part of the standard, but you can easily get a list of keywords for the search feature you mentioned [http://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji- list.html](http://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html) (though it looks like Twitter is using a different/augmented set of keywords)

<comment><USER4> "easily" if all you care about is English (unless I missed links to translations).

<comment><USER5> (You didn't)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Without the background story, it's hard to tell whether this is a ridiculous or justified amount of time.

Does anyone know the full story?

<comment><USER7> Do you really need to know the full story? 3.5 years ago somebody started working on an emoji picker.

Perhaps he was only working on it 1 day a month, but even if thats the case, there is even a wtf that a side project made it into the main release.

How does somebody even stay interested and passionate about such a small piece of work for so long?

<comment><USER8> Uhh the full story is kinda really important here.

<comment><USER7> I dont know how "important" it is, but I'm sure interested!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here's an interesting take on the development of Twitter by Jonathan Blow. [https://youtu.be/k56wra39lwA?t=448](https://youtu.be/k56wra39lwA?t=448)

I wondered about this before I saw this video as well. For all their dev capacity, Twitter is arguably a product with a lot of problems.

</comment><comment><USER10> 1\. Shipping is good. 3,5 years may seem bad, but it's much better than never, which is probably what this guy is celebrating. Having worked in big tech companies, where you basically get nothing done because of broken process and politics, I get why he is happy about this

2\. lol, 3,5 years is still ridiculously slow. Sure there can be technical difficulties, sure it can be a side project, but that's a really bloody long time, companies are built and make dozens of millions in that time. I could probably build a faster twitter with a good team in that time.

It's hard to see which is the stance here, I'm happy for the guy for shipping, but it makes me kind of lol. Our industry is stupid sometimes.

</comment><comment><USER11> That's awesome... thanks to all who worked on it!

</comment><comment><USER12> I empathize celebrating a work project accomplishment. On the other hand, I'm perplexed by the dilemma of tarnishing my company's image, given all it's recent tribulations, devaluing my equity as a result.

Maybe I'm giving too much weight to single individual's effect on altering public opinion (stock price).</comment>


How to Get Bought by Google, Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/external/idg/2010/09/27/27idg-how-to-get-bought-by-google-facebook-18157.html?ref=technology

<comment><USER2> "Cisco has also seen those kinds of bad contracts as well as 'systemic open- source problems' at companies it was interested in buying, Adams said. Cisco will have to consider how much it will cost it to get out of those contracts or correct those issues, and whether that cost makes the acquisition worth it."

Systemic open-source problems?? Correct "those" issues???

While I understand to some extent the issues surrounding acquisitions of companies with products using GNU GPL'd code (just as an example), referring to open-source code as an "issue" or a "problem" is just asking for trouble.

<comment><USER3> I would guess the 'systemic problems' are from companies not following the license rules of many OSS projects and treating it as FREE software rather than free but with license restrictions software. Specifically their experience with their Linksys issues ([http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Cisco-settles- with-F...](http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Cisco-settles-with-FSF-on- GPL-violations/))</comment></comment>


What could possibly make numbers friendly - <AUTHOR>

http://mathema-tricks.blogspot.com/2012/05/what-could-possibly-make-two-numbers.html <comment><AUTHOR> <http://goo.gl/Efsbd></comment>


Building maintainable PHP apps using Composer - <AUTHOR> https://blog.bugsnag.com/best-practices-using-composer/ <comment><USER2> Great</comment>


Basic Security Precautions for Non-Profits and Journalists - <AUTHOR> https://techsolidarity.org/resources/basic_security.htm <comment><USER2> Before you freak out about these recommendations, please take into account:

These instructions are written for unsophisticated users, particularly journalists and activists, and were written with feedback from those users. So, for instance, the steps you might take to arrive at a secure Firefox or Android configuration _are probably fine_ , but not workable for the audience these instructions are intended for.

We're simultaneously working with the airport lawyer groups (there's a huge one at ORD). It's been jarring to realize how many compromises are required to make things workable for groups of non-experts to use. Just getting software installed is a major hassle, so anything you install or customize needs to be really worth the effort.

<comment><USER3> If you can't use your phone number for password recovery or SMS to your phone number as the 2FA, what do you use instead?

<comment><USER2> The best-practices 2FA stack is:

* U2F token (primary method)

* TOTP via phone app (backup)

* Backup keys printed or on encrypted USB, in a safe.

* SMS disabled explicitly.

TOTP fallback doesn't reduce security meaningfully, because U2F principally protects against phishing. But SMS fallback is devastating to security.

<comment><USER3> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's unfortunate that this guide is not presented in two columns, at least partially. It's hard to line up the Don't's with Do's.

For example in the Don't section it says "[Don't] Store sensitive information in cloud services like Evernote or Dropbox." Ok, but where is the corresponding entry in the "Do" section, which tells folks how to store sensitive information? Especially in a way that permits more than one person to access and use the information, which is key to how both journalists and activists work?

There might not be a "good" answer. But recognizing that people have to work, there is probably a sense of "better" or "best for now". Maybe that's the format:

        Don't                      | Better
        Don't use your fingerprint | Use a long passphrase
        to lock/unlock devices     | to lock your devices.

EDIT: This guide is very helpful and kudos to the folks to made it. I offer my thoughts solely in the spirit of "maybe this feedback will be helpful." My intention is not to sit on the sidelines throwing rocks at people who are actually doing things.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the helpful suggestion! I'll try formatting it this way, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can someone explain the reasoning behind these recommendations?

Don't :

> Use your fingerprint to lock/unlock devices.

> Use an Android phone.

> Take the devices you work on across the US border.

Anyone has experience with their devices being searched at the border? Do they just look at your social media and let you go or do they somehow copy the data on the devices or install any software on the devices? Will the persons devices always be in visibility or do the CBP officers handle them in separate rooms?

Assuming I have to carry my laptop and phone across the border, what precautions can I take to minimize the potential privacy violations? After crossing the border, do I just reinstall my OS of choice (Ubuntu) from scratch and reset all passwords?

Regarding the browser recommendation, why is Firefox not recommended? It's used in the Tor browser and I have not heard of any major security incident recently with Firefox.

<comment><USER6> > Use your fingerprint to lock/unlock devices.

Fingerprints have a different and weaker legal standard than passwords to protect them

> Use an Android phone.

It may be _possible_ to get a secure Android phone, however, it is unlikely that the one you have is. Varying levels of quality for disk crypto and TPM key storage will do you in.

> Take the devices you work on across the US border

Any data or passwords you have on you is data you could lose, get forced to cough up, etc.

> Assuming I have to carry my laptop and phone across the border, what > precautions can I take to minimize the potential privacy violations?

Put an encrypted blob on [name a cloud provider]. Download it once you cross through customs.

> why is Firefox not recommended?

Because Firefox has no sandbox and gets routinely exploited by Law Enforcement

> It's used in the Tor browser

The Tor Browser is an abomination.

> I have not heard of any major security incident recently with Firefox.

You have not been paying attention. Maybe consider accepting the advice of experts?

<comment><USER2> Adding: the Tor Browser might be the least _safe_ browser to use of all available browsers that can be installed on modern computers. It is a perfect storm of "inferior security design" and "maximized adversarial value per exploit dollar spent".

Don't use Tor Browser.

<comment><USER7> Why exactly?

<comment><USER2> The comment I just wrote says why, succinctly. It helps if you understand the economics of browser exploit development, and then remind yourself that TBB collapses a whole set of valuable targets down to a single release chain.

<comment><USER7> Does make sense. Any advice on best way to access the Tor network, if not the Tor Browser?

<comment><USER8> The TOR network is a network: you can access it using any web browser and the TOR client + a local web proxy. Use Chrome and configure it to use the local web proxy, now you're accessing TOR using Chrome.

<comment><USER9> @munin can you clarify is "TOR client" the same as "TOR Browser" downloaded here[1] or is it something different?

Do you have any links you can share to best practices for setting up this secure TOR client instead of using the insecure TBB as explained above?

[1] [https://www.torproject.org/download/download- easy.html.en](https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy.html.en)

<comment><USER10> The Tor client is the software which runs the 'onion routing' part. This provides a local network port which is your wormhole into the network; this is called a SOCKS proxy.

The TBB has the Tor client and a browser (a slightly tweaked Firefox) configured to connect via the Tor SOCKS proxy rather than via the standard network.

I was disappointed last time I booted up TBB to see they had security by default set to 'Low', which enabled lots of unnecessary stuff, like javascript on for every site by default. Too many content parsers trying to do stuff with untrusted data. Its pretty poor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's sort of sad and wonderful that the best we can do is an iPad when it comes to secure computing. It's awesome that something you can buy most anywhere for < $500 USD is pretty secure. It's also sad that it's the best we can do, and there is only 1 manufacturer of such a device. We desperately need better privacy and security, both from a legal and a technical point of view.

</comment><comment><USER12> Just a bit of feedback: might be nice to repeat the "Don't" in front of each sentence, even if it's grouped under the heading and therefore repetitive: I found myself being like "wait, it's telling me to backup my messages to google drive? Are they client-side encrypted?"

<comment><USER13> Yes, I read the article through Readability and it actually stripped out the Do and Don't headers

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you both! I'll fix this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Use a bluetooth keyboard for easier typing..."

Not a good advice for any public place (airports, cafes, etc). Very easy to listen to BT and intercept passwords as user types them in.

<comment><USER15> Is there a documented attack on say, Apple's Magic Keyboard?

(if it is true that some (relatively modern) bluetooth keyboards are sniffable and some aren't, I'm sure you can convince them to amend the article with specific models that are believed to be better)

<comment><USER16> I'd second adding recommendations for specific models. There are a lot of BT keyboards on the market of varying quality.

<comment><USER2> (I don't in any way own this document).

I acknowledge that the situation with Bluetooth peripherals is complicated† and accept that there are probably a bunch of vendors that are unsafe to use. It might be reasonable to simply require Apple peripherals --- not because they're the best, but because Apple is more accountable to peripherals security than most other vendors are.

On the other hand, what we can't reasonably do is create a Bluetooth Keyboard Product Guide in a simple set of security recommendations. Not only will it not be effective, but it will discourage the audience, who will fall back to their previous insecure configurations.

So I'd ask to what extent we think Bluetooth sniffing attacks on journalists are a spy movie threat. No matter what device they use, simply by using a wireless device as an input, they're exposing those inputs to timing as well. But then, as well, Apple's software update could be targeted too.

The basic idea behind the "use a Bluetooth keyboard recommendation" is, I presume, to convince people who would otherwise use computers to do sensitive work to instead use an iDevice. That's a _very_ sound security principle; those iDevices are far more secure than the median fully-functional computer.

If I had to pick between telling a journalist to use a _random_ Bluetooth keyboard with an iPad, or use a Macbook or Thinkpad, I would have a hard time deciding, but I think I'd ultimately go with the random Bluetooth keyboard --- there are too many different ways the computer can be undetectably (to a typical user) owned up, and only one fairly elaborate scenario where the BT keyboard will screw them.

What I'm learning from working with at-risk normal users is that a lot of security steps we all take for granted are simply not on the table for the people who need security the most.

† _Way more complicated than the people claiming "Bluetooth keyboards are trivially sniffable" are letting on_

<comment><USER16> I completely agree with your ranking/preference and your logic here, but I don't think listing a bunch of models nor even listing your ranking is beyond the comprehension or ability of journalists, lawyers, or activists. I think we differ in how much faith we have in the abilities of those groups of people.

In my experience, people, especially people with budgets like most mainstream journalists and lawyers, want a list of specific things, best of all SKUs, they can buy that will give them the most security.

<comment><USER2> I don't think they're incapable of following advice; I think they have a lot of competing demands on their time. Any bullet on this list needs to earn its place, and the list itself needs to work without requiring constant updates, because most people who use the list will only see a single snapshot of it in time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Would be helpful to provide alternative to some of the Don'ts.

How does one transfer information if they can't transfer anything across the border?

Where _should_ one store sensitive information? An encrypted drive you're not supposed to transfer across the border?

I'm not really sure what a person is supposed to do with either of those two recommendations, especially if we're saying that person is not tech-savvy. I think these will just be ignored because they don't seem very viable and require a lot of background knowledge and planning.

Also, why is Chrome preferred to Firefox? I generally assume Chrome is listened to by Google across the board, and it still lacks something like NoScript. Chrome doesn't seem to do block XSS well, either.

Similarly, why Gmail as opposed to, I don't know, something like Protonmail or the like? Safety behind big company, reliability, viability?

Why Chromebook and not just a normal Linux?

The inherent trust in Google in this list confuses me.

And 1password over KeyPass. It seems every cloud-based password manager has been hacked in a round robin fashion, but I guess this solves the other cloud based problem.

<comment><USER18> I also have my doubts about 1Password – although I am still a 1Password users, at least of the old approach (pay once, cloud sync but no web-accessible storage with 1Password). I guess I will have to look for an alternative sooner or later! :(

<comment><USER19> I use 1Password + Resilio (formerly BTSync) in local sync only mode.

It's kind of a pain in the ass sometimes (I can only sync at home) but the upside is no cloud component and it syncs nicely and automatically between multiple machines.

For mobile devices, I use the Wifi sync mode.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Great list, I'm glad the crew in the comment threads put it together. 2 observations:

* These lists are often made but are never kept up to date as recommendations change. Will this list be any different?

* Use Gmail? We can't pick some other web based, 2FA capable non-US hosted service that doesn't specifically use machines to scan your content for ad serves? This recommendation was the only one that furrowed my brow.

<comment><USER2> A weakness in the way these guidelines are worded is that it's not clear enough how much security experts discourage people from using email. Email is the single largest risk most at-risk people have, and not just because only 2 email providers have a team capable of securing their infrastructure or because the protocol is weak, but also because of existing collection capabilities and because of its "archive-by-default" design.

Yes: if you are using email at all, you should use Google's email service. Virtually every concern you'll state about using Google Mail is better articulated as a concern about using email at all (especially because 90% of the people lawyers and activists communicate with _also use Google Mail_ ).

If you want, instead, to militate against using email at all, I'll agree and also tell you that I expect this guide will get clearer about that.

<comment><USER21> Why g-mail instead of a more security focused provider like proton-mail? It seems to me like the only downside of proton-mail is that it is less well- known, but I'd compare it to signal vs whatsapp. And you can get journalists to use signal.

Only other thing I can think of is google being more secure by virtue of being bigger.

<comment><USER22> There was a thread a few days ago talking about Google security looking at how protect against compromised shared GPUs. ([https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2017/02/fuzzing-PCI- Exp...](https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2017/02/fuzzing-PCI-Express- security-in-plaintext.html?m=1))

How many organizations globally are doing research like that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This should be updated to not just specify the US border. It should say any international border with border control.

In Canada you can be put in prison for 1 year if you don't give up your password at the border.

<comment><USER10> While I'm sure you are referring to the Alain Philippon case, your facts are wrong.

Firstly, the CBSA action was never tested in court. Failure to divulge information hasn't been defined as 'hindering' before. The case would probably have to go to the Supreme Court of Canada for it to be decided.

Secondly, even at the border you can choose to remain silent.

See linked page for advice from actual lawyers.

The most likely worst outcome is you get refused entry if you are not Canadian.

[https://bccla.org/2016/08/what-happens-if-you-dont- provide-y...](https://bccla.org/2016/08/what-happens-if-you-dont-provide-your- cellphone-password-to-border-agents/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm a bit confused about the don't backup to Google Drive but use Gmail.

are you trusting google or not?

<comment><USER2> There's virtually nothing in security that works this way. It's not the NFL. We don't pick teams and root for them. There are things that Google does that are superior to the alternatives, and there are things Apple does that are superior to the alternatives.

<comment><USER24> I understand and I agree with your point, however to me Gmail and google drive both fall into one bucket, Google's cloud offering. If any thing I would assume Drive is safer since it isnt forced to interact with an old unsecure protocol. They have full control of how it's implemented.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I pretty much follow most of these guidelines already, however I do use the Firefox browser and I wasn't aware it was so inseucre compared to Chrome. Is there a nice guide on hardening Firefox security or am I out of luck because of the sandbox situation?

<comment><USER26> FF does have a sandbox w/some versions [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Sandbox#Current_Status](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Sandbox#Current_Status)

Or try Firejail [https://firejail.wordpress.com/](https://firejail.wordpress.com/) (Linux) or possibly Sandboxie on Windows [https://www.sandboxie.com/](https://www.sandboxie.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great initiative.

>1\. Don't send any sensitive information by email.

>2\. Don't store sensitive information in cloud services like Evernote or Dropbox.

Both of these are good advice.

However, what I don't see is "how to share information securely". The intended audience surely needs a way to exchange information, e.g. documents but what are the recommendations on how they should do this?

>Carry a "USB data blocker" (either the whole cable or an adapter that plugs into your cable like this) to charge at airport or hotel chargers.

I would suggest that SyncStop[1][2] is recommended instead of the current device on the basis that SyncStop is created and sold by a security company that specialises in hardware security. It is also recommended by Mikko[3] from fsecure.

[1] [http://syncstop.com/](http://syncstop.com/)

[2] [https://www.amazon.com/Syncstop- Syncstop/dp/B00ZQAY23U](https://www.amazon.com/Syncstop- Syncstop/dp/B00ZQAY23U)

[3] [https://twitter.com/mikko/status/792980858340769792](https://twitter.com/mikko/status/792980858340769792)

</comment><comment><USER27> So... Use Google services on a modern iDevice and don't use the fingerprint scanner and you're good?

The contrast with Snowdens recommendations is quite stark: [https://theintercept.com/2015/11/12/edward-snowden- explains-...](https://theintercept.com/2015/11/12/edward-snowden-explains-how- to-reclaim-your-privacy/)

</comment><comment><USER28> Is iPhone actually fine replacement for Android in terms of security? I never owned an iPhone, but I was guessing that it is closed-source proprietary piece of hardware with closed-source proprietary piece of software running, which is perfectly able to be transferring all your data to the vendor and most likely does exactly that.

<comment><USER29> Security professionals tend to care about open source over closed source much less than many other factors.

Things that seem more important^:

\- Well known and vetted data structures/algorithms etc

\- Vulnerability history

\- Large install base

\- well regarded, well funded security team vetting the project

\- capacity and history of fighting expensive legal battles on behalf of its users.

Its possible that there are android phones that meet these criteria but there are many that do not. The iphone on the other hand does. So rather than having very specific android phone recommendations its generally easier to just say use iPhone. So much so that most of the security professionals I've talked to view it as the most secure, commonly available computing platform period.

^Not a security professional, but I drink with a couple.

<comment><USER28> I see. I think there might be some distinction in regards of what different people view as "secure". Say, your phone produced by my company may be completely transparent to me and completely impenetrable to, say, tptacek. As I understand, in that narrative it is considered secure as you (the user) are supposed to trust me (the manufacturer). That's why iPhone is considered secure in comparison to Android, which is similarly backdoored, but in addition more penetrable to tptacek (the 3rd party).

Correct?

<comment><USER29> No. Closed source binaries are not impenetrable to researchers. For a security audit you have to study the binary _in any case_ so open source is a bonus not a requirement.

<comment><USER28> I didn't imply otherwise. I'm just wondering how it is iPhone is considered secure when it is happily sharing your data with Apple. Or doesn't it?

<comment><USER22> It's only sharing stuff with Apple if you allow it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> _> Use Chrome as your browser_

This one breaks my heart a little.

I mean, I get it, I understand why it's there. But it still breaks my heart.

<comment><USER11> Agreed. Luckily Sandboxing, which is pretty much the big feature that sells Chrome for Security will get to FF, it will just take a bit longer. Plus with FF going crazy for Rust, I think FF has a bright future security wise.

<comment><USER2> An all-Rust browser would make a big difference. Sandboxing is good, but won't close the gap with Chromium, which just invests too much money into software security to lose much ground to other browsers.

<comment><USER11> Agreed for the most part. There is Servo[0] which is Mozilla's playground for a Rust Browser. It's not really usable for day-to-day browsing, but it's a neat proof of concept. They are actively moving stuff from it into FF, and FF now requires rust to build. Google definitely cares a lot about security. It's great to see them embrace U2F so heavily, that even Chrome supports it out of the box. I'm not sure FF will ever become Rust-only, but if it did, it would take quite a while I think.

[0] [https://servo.org/](https://servo.org/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> So, no Android phones is not very pragmatic... Any justifications?

(Especially without saying to use only FOSS OS)

<comment><USER32> I agree it's overly broad statement without justification, but it's not entirely unfounded either. iOS's extreme walled garden does protect you from many things that Android doesn't. As another commenter mentioned, security permissions are a mess, malware is a real thing, and the power and versatility of Android leaves you very vulnerable if you're in a high risk profession who _must_ keep secrets safe.

<comment><USER2> Very few of the items in here have justifications listed, because that's not productive for the intended audience. They don't want to know "why" any more than most patients want to know "why" their doctor prescribes one antibiotic versus another.

<comment><USER17> Even if your intended audience doesn't care about the why, you must necessarily provide justification so that another audience, which would want to make sure that you're not selling snake oil, could verify your why. Knowledge sharing only really works when there's a vetting process on some level.

<comment><USER2> No, that's not how it works. The guide itself doesn't need to be bulletproofed against zany accusations that the authors are selling snake oil; there are other ways to accomplish that without crudding the recommendations themselves up with verbiage to placate angry nerds.

<comment><USER17> I didn't say anything about bulletproofed, just explained. Right now, there's no explanation, and I'm asking for some justification, how are you getting "bulletproofing" from that?

I didn't say the authors are selling snake oil. But if a person doesn't know much about a subject, they may not be able to tell, and they should be suspicious. They might want to see a review or criticism of it. They might want to verify that it's well intentioned, especially on a sensitive subject such as this. There's nothing zany about that, it's common sense.

If I find some information source that presents itself as an arbiter of truth, but has no justification for its points, I cannot in good faith recommend it to anyone.

The only angry one here seems to be you, with many unnecessarily rude responses that do not at all inspire confidence.

<comment><USER2> Again: the audience for these instructions isn't asking for explanations or justifications. If you have a concern with any of these instructions, write a comment detailing it, and someone will respond.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Questions and suggestions:

1\. For "Do as much of your work as possible on an iPhone or iPad." \-- as opposed to what? Android and Windows? Would listing device options be a possibility?

2\. Possibly: add a set of suggestions for transporting device(s) across borders or acquiring them. I suspect mail or package delivery _might_ be an option -- or if it's not, then clarifying the risks would be of interest.

3\. Operating systems: A list of most to least secure might also be handy. E.g., WinCE, Windows, MacOS, iOS, Linux, TAILS, etc. Some indication of where "good enough" starts to apply.

4\. Out-of-scope for document to include a full set of terms and definitions, but a glossary with links to additional reading might be of interest.

5\. Providing "why" links might also be useful. E.g., Fingerprints (can be forced to divulge, fewer legal protections than passwords).

6\. Formatting: A bulleted list would be slightly easier to read. A numbered list can be specifically referenced (e.g., "'Don't' #4 ...").

7\. Define terms. E.g., "Long password" "At least 20 characters, 200 if possible", say. Tips on passphrase generation (e.g., xkcd passphrases, "correct battery horse staple".

Finally: thank you for setting this up.

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. As opposed to a laptop.

2\. Any concrete advice about crossing borders is hard to give right now. The goal in this document is just to alert people that it is not OK to travel with your work device.

3\. For the audience here (think someone providing legal aid at an airport) this is too technical.

4,5,6 Great idea, thank you!

7\. It's funny but the XKCD really seems to be the best thing to link.

<comment><USER33> Thanks.

1\. Windows laptop, I take it? Or _any_ laptop?

2\. Even if specifics are hard to provide, a pointer to best information, _a clear statement that "Any concrete advice about crossing borders is hard to give right now" (in fact that exact phrase strikes me as excellent),_ and perhaps a pointer to a larger document with laws pertaining to specific countries. Ranked, say, by interest and/or travel volume. World Bank has listings: [http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ST.INT.ARVL?year_high_de...](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ST.INT.ARVL?year_high_desc=true)

3\. Even people providing legal aid may have support teams who could assimilate the information. Out-of-document link here. Think staged information delivery.

7\. It's an effective format for communciation. There are several generators (caveat emptor) as well. For MacOS, it would be easy to create a local generator using wordlists (I've done same on Linux). The problem is actually that the system dictionaries are generally _too_ comprehensive and have really obscure words in them. A GUI wrapper around a Very Simple Shell Script would tend to give good outputs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> > If you are going to use email, use Gmail, with a physical security key on > your laptop and Google Authenticator on your phone.

I understand Google runs a tight ship security-wise, but what about the unintentional information leakage that occurs because they read all your mail to serve you ads?

<comment> shawn-furyan If you're using email to communicate with humans, you are using Gmail since your counterparty is almost always using Gmail. Gmail and their ad scanning is unavoidable in practice when using email so your only real recourse is to use a different communication protocol.

Gmail is reasonably secure in situations that actually occur frequently. No other providers are. But even Gmail is optimized for adoption and monitization over security, so it's security efforts only go so far, particularly when interacting with other email providers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> > Use a password manager and have it generate random passwords for every site > you use. A good password manager is 1password.

Be aware, that on Google's Android every app in the background has access to the clipboard. And Google refuses to fix that. It is fixed in CopperheadOS afaik.

</comment><comment><USER35> > If you are going to use email, use Gmail, with ...

Is Gmail really the most secure email provider? I am sure it is not for non US citizens. But is it for US citizens. Don't you have better?

</comment><comment><USER36> It would probably behoove someone to sell these laptops, iPads, and iPhones to journalists, lawyers, and other folks with these configurations. It's a lot easier to give them a pre-configured locked down device that they can't mess with than it is to ask them to actually buy a Yubikey.

It won't work for everyone - Slate's CMS is notorious for only working in Firefox, for example - but if Pro Publica is going to hire 30 journalists, then _be their vendor_.

<comment><USER37> Wouldn't this provide a great targt for spies and security services? I mean, maybe I'm being stupid here, but if I was in charge of the NSA and knew that people with sensitive information were buying this gear from a certain vendor, said vendor would be right at the top of the target list.

I don't think I'd be able to trust any individual or company selling 'secure devices' for journalists and activists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Hey everyone. Apologies for the blatant plug but seeing as we are talking about security precautions for non-profits and journalists, it's probably relevant...

We build a tool specifically to help non-profits and journalists learn about and manage their digital and physical security on the move. It's called Umbrella App. It's free, open source, on Android and contains tons of lessons on privacy related issues like digital and physical security. Umbrella has everything from how to do basic stuff like communicate with basic tools like Signal to sending a secure email with PGP. However, the unique bit is we also have stuff on the physical side, like how to plan travel, cross borders, set- up a secure physical meeting, deal with detecting surveillance, covering a protest, respond to a kidnapping etc. Basically we have tried to make it a bit of a one-stop-shop for security for regular people, activists, refugees and journalists. We also pull security feeds from places like the UN, Centres for Disease Control etc - which is obviously very important to folks in places like Syria or affected by Zika/Ebola.

There's tons of really relevant stuff in it, especially for those now mobilising for the first time on some issues. Loads of people are writing guides that solve small parts of the puzzle but we have tried to provide the whole picture in the one place.

Google Play Store: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.secfirst.u...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.secfirst.umbrella)

Amazon App Store: [https://www.amazon.com/Security-First-Umbrella-made- easy/dp/...](https://www.amazon.com/Security-First-Umbrella-made- easy/dp/B01AKN9M1Y)

F-Droid Repo: [https://secfirst.org/fdroid/repo](https://secfirst.org/fdroid/repo)

Github Repo: [https://github.com/securityfirst](https://github.com/securityfirst)

Code Audit: [https://secfirst.org/blog.html](https://secfirst.org/blog.html)

Hope some folks here find it useful/interesting!

 __ _Ends blatant plug_ __

<comment><AUTHOR> Please get this vetted by real security people. The fact that you mention PGP suggests to me you haven't.

<comment><USER38> How can a standard guide to installing and using PGP through various different methods be a security issue?

<comment><AUTHOR> Because people should not be using PGP for secure messaging.

<comment><USER39> PGP isn't user friendly, but from the Snowden leaks we learned it is one of the few encryption standards the NSA hasn't been able to break. TLS and most configs of VPN protocols were shown to be easily compromised. PGP was basically shown to be a show stopper.

1\. [http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-1010361.html](http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-1010361.html)

<comment><USER38> Agreed. It has many problems but it's still one of the only games in town.

<comment><USER40> > TLS and most configs of VPN protocols were shown to be easily compromised.

This is a major claim to be making, and it is false. It is not helpful to spread misinformation like this.

<comment><USER39> Easily was, perhaps, not the correct adverb, but the linked article above as well as this one below go into it more. It does not appear to be false.

[http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/28/7458159/encryption- standa...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/28/7458159/encryption-standards- the-nsa-cant-crack-pgp-tor-otr-snowden)

Bruce Schneier has said while large government actors may be able to exploit it, it's still recommended: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-how-to- rem...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-how-to-remain- secure-surveillance)

<comment><USER40> Perhaps older versions of SSL, but there is no evidence that anyone has compromised TLS.

There is evidence that encrypted traffic was stored and research was done on the metadata of these connections but that is no surprise. That may be what they were referring to.

<comment><USER38> Also, threat models are important here...not everyone includes needs to include the five eyes as your threat model.

<comment><USER39> Of course. I am just using it as a yardstick for security strength.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Also, why using fingerprint to unlock devices is not recommended?

<comment><USER41> US law enforcement is allowed to take fingerprints, which can then be used to unlock the device. Somewhere less friendly may just compel you to put your finger on the device

<comment><USER28> Is it that different from making you enter your password? I don't see any real issue here if it's the only problem.

<comment><USER42> Your password is, in a weird US Constitutional sense, speech, and your 5th Amendment right not to be forced to self-incriminate protects you. Your fingerprint is not speech, and not protected in the same fashion.

(Once more for the folks in the back: fingerprints are usernames. Passwords are things you can rotate.)

<comment><USER28> I see. Thanks. The first one seems relevant only for people in the USA, but inability to change fingerprints is something, I guess.

<comment><USER11> Most other countries probably feel similarly, or they don't have anything like the 5th amendment. In places without something like the 5th amendment, you can choose to lie about your password, do it enough times, the device will reset and erase everything(assuming you set that up). One can not lie about their fingerprints.

Of course in places without something like the 5th, and you lie a few times, your death may find you quite quickly, there is at the very least an option... With a fingerprint, no options. Have a picture of your finger and game over.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I prefer to use a live version of ubuntu on a flash drive on a laptop with no hard drive in it. A separate sd card, or thumb drive with an entire encrypted file partition. Writing in plain text only.

</comment><comment><USER44> _> Avoid installing spurious, unknown or unnecessary extensions._

This is wrong. You absolutely must use an ad blocker or noscript extension if you intend to browse the web securely.

<comment><USER2> The guide doesn't say not to install an ad blocker, but I dispute that claim nonetheless. Ad blockers are fine, and probably add marginally to security, but I don't think they a necessity --- if you're using Chrome/Chromium.

If I was using Firefox or IE, I would agree with you. But step one here is not to be using un-hardened browsers.

<comment><USER6> I generally make an exception for HTTPS Everywhere and Google Password Alert when I wrote things like this, but I agree that maybe it's worth it to cut them and simplify the guide.

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/password- alert/noo...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/password- alert/noondiphcddnnabmjcihcjfbhfklnnep?hl=en)

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/https- everywhere/g...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/https- everywhere/gcbommkclmclpchllfjekcdonpmejbdp)

<comment><USER2> HTTPS Everywhere would be a win (I'd have to think about whether it's enough of one to earn its place on the list, but if you added it, you could also suggest an ad-blocker --- another issue there though is suggesting ad blockers to journalists gets to a tricky place).

GPA is great, but the premise behind this guide is that if you're relying on passwords for Google you're already boned. It's a security win even with TOTP enabled, but I don't think it's enough to earn a spot.

These guidelines are being distributed to activists and journalists along with free U2F keys, for whatever that's worth.

<comment><USER45> > HTTPS Everywhere would be a win

IME, it breaks too many sites to give to all end-users; if the default configuration omitted sites listed as 'Partial'; maybe it would be passable. Maybe have a subcategory for intermediate users and put it there. Novice-level users (for lack of a better term) have no idea why the website is not working, and thus don't even know to consider disabling HTTPS Everywhere.

Also, it makes the user easier to identify.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> While iOS devices are generally more secure, its been proven that Apple has been a part of the various NSA programs (X-Keyscore, PRISM, etc).

Chromebooks are made by Google, who is also a known partner ni these programs.

It all comes down to who you trust, and recommending that Journalists use iOS Devices and Chromebooks made by Apple and Google who are known snoopers is a bad bet if the thing you're trying to avoid is the US Government.

Also, bluetooth keyboards are trivial to listen in on. Not a great recommendation.

This article is short but bogus.

<comment><USER2> The people these notes are targeted at are not going to use whatever the vanity "secure" non-Google-infected non-Apple-infected non-Microsoft-infected options you'll have in mind. It's not going to happen. If you want to write a separate set of recommendations for people who spend their lives on Tor, that's fine. These recommendations have to work for people who are barely willing to install software, let along switch to idiosyncratic hardware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Step 1: Wear a wig and dark sunglasses and buy a laptop (with cash while you still can) from a Walmart as far away from where you live as possible and never, never connect it to a network.

Step 2: The rest is easy.

 __ _Edit: You guys need to get a sense of humor_ __</comment>


Airlines Offer Vouchers, Credits for Canceled Flights. Customers Want Cash - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2020/04/21/839678851/airlines-offer-vouchers-credits-for-canceled-flights-customers-want-cash <comment><USER2> Sadly, only a government can 'print' the money to deal with this situation as part of an integrated rescue/pump-priming to re-establish the interripted cash flows that have been used to pay furloughed employees, pay plane leases, maintenance, storage etc - this across the broad economy. The airline simply does not have the money to refund you - the entire broad national economic process has been shattered. They will have to simply print the cash to make it run and deal with this later.</comment>


Blazing fast app development with formular database - <AUTHOR> http://blog.dataflows.io/vision/2015/08/25/blazing-fast-apps.html <comment><AUTHOR> Hi guys! I want to share with you what we've done during last several months.

Would love to hear your feedback!</comment>


Olark Review: 25% of our Customers Live Chatted with Us Before Buying - <AUTHOR> http://www.gethifi.com/blog/olark-review-25-of-our-customers-live-chatted-with-us-before-buying

<comment><USER2> Has anyone A/B tested the presence of the Olark widget on their site?

We're getting ready to roll out Olark on our site, but I'm kind of wondering if it will just increase the support workload without actually improving conversion rate much. When I was first checking out Olark, I'd pretty much decided to buy it, but because the widget was there (on olark.com), I spent some time chatting with one of the founders and asking questions. We'll probably start off with something like 20% of visitors getting the Olark widget.

<comment><USER3> sounds like a good experiment - conversion improvement certainly depends on the site as well. Mind sharing your results afterwards?

For us, we also get a lot of solid suggestions and feedback from chatting with customers, so the benefits are not always solely in the conversion improvement :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How many of those wouldn't have bought if there weren't a chat option? Who knows? Without that detail, however, this statistic is useless...

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here. Correlation/Causation is certainly something I wonder about.

I can say anecdotally that the conversations were worth having. Most started neutral and ended with excitement.

Given that this is so easy to try, I recommend doing it. You'll also learn what things your customers wonder most about prior to buying.

<comment><USER4> Oh, I agree about having a chat option on your website, I just don't agree that that statistic is very significant, and it certainly doesn't mean that Olark increased your sales by 25%, I just wonder if people will take it that way...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not sure about purchases but I can tell you that installing Olark on SyncPad's website saved us some bad reviews from people who didn't read the instructions.

</comment><comment><USER6> What percentage of people chatted with Olark before buying Olark service? I wouldn't be surprised if it was lower than 25%. :)</comment>


Validate your users aren't using disposable email addresses - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/whamilton42/throwaway

<comment><USER2> The one I use is not on the list. Good!

</comment><comment><USER3> Why bother? If they don't want to give you a real email address they'll find some way not to.

<comment><AUTHOR> If your business deals with a lot of fraud, it's very useful to add it to your metrics.</comment></comment>