LucasFilm Tells Darth Vader that Return of the Jedi Hasn't Made a Profit - <AUTHOR> http://www.slashfilm.com/lucasfilm-tells-darth-vader-that-return-of-the-jedi-hasnt-made-a-profit/ <comment><USER2> Less than 5% of movies actually show a net income (or net profit as the article calls it). It's called Hollywood Accounting:

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

Summary:

-Studios create a subsidiary corporation for each movie and they almost never show a profit.

-The studios charge the subsidiary service fees for services performed like distribution, which lowers net income to zero or less.

-They do this to avoid taxation and paying royalties to actors.

Quote from wikipedia: "Because of this, net points are sometimes referred to as "monkey points," a term attributed to Eddie Murphy, who is said to have also stated that only a fool would accept net points in his or her contract."

There are many more cases like this involving high profile people including Peter Jackson:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting#Examples>

<comment><USER3> The effects of this accounting practice looks a lot like the claimed effect of piracy...

<comment><USER4> This is a very good insight. I wonder how often the figures that get flashed around about how much money Hollywood is losing due to piracy are drawn directly from these fictionalizations created for an entirely separate purpose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why isn't there an enterprising law firm going through the credits of all the Star Wars (and similar-vintage films with ongoing commercial potential), contacting every person on the list, and telling all the retired ones "There is a pot o' money with your name on it if you sign these papers which let us sue them for residuals on your behalf."?

I have to imagine that the legal strategy required there is a for loop with half-dozen templated documents: "Settle with $CLIENT regarding the residuals from the production of $FILM or in discovery we will subpoena all of $FILM's books and hand them to the forensic accounting department of $BIG_FIVE who will describe in vivid detail how they are an utter fiction, resulting in $DISTRICT_JUDGE issuing a judgement in excess of $GUESS against $YOUR_COMPANY."

<comment><USER6> Look at how hard it is to get traction on investigations into the current foreclosure/securitization boondoggle - it's taken 3 years for judges to actually start looking, the federal regulators are completely uninterested, and maybe 4 state AGs out of 50 have even started looking. And these are obvious and clearcut violations of pretty straightforward laws. Their reputations and legal teams have been a buffer against all sorts of suits and investigations.

A Hollywood investigation would be worse politics, since you've have every TV station screaming about the government intrusion in investigating their parent companies. Look at things like the just failed Attorney General settlement with the banks - the worst case here is the company makes a one-time payment of a few pennies on every dollar of profit to some fund nominally targeted towards the victims. Then you throw in all the indemnification offered by corporate structuring and the fact that there probably aren't technical violations of the law here and good luck selling some accounting irregularities as a prosecution.

Maybe in a few years that stuff will change, but right now the environment is such that nobody really buys the idea of government actually smacking someone with TR's Big Stick.

<comment><USER7> Except that it isn't the government suing these companies, it's the people named in the credits.

<comment><USER6> Right (I blame 1AM posting for my error), but counting on $DISTRICT_JUDGE to bring down the hammer is equally over-optimistic. If one can barely get a judge to wade in on "a clearly fraudulent document was submitted to your court" when it undermines a foreclosure, I'm pessimistic about the idea that $GUESS is going to be show-stopping.

<comment><USER8> The hope is that Hollywood would settle rather than take that risk. It's happened at least once before. Perhaps with higher stakes they would change strategies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One of my intellectual property law professors, with fifty years experience in just about every kind of I.P. licensing scenario possible, all over the world, recommended it's almost always best in an I.P. license to ask for a flat fee first, and a small percentage of gross revenue with a short, hard reckoning date second. The more bargaining power you have, the higher you should bump up your position for upfront flat fee first and percentage of gross revenue second. Agreeing to a percentage of "net profits" is almost always a commitment to sue the other party down the road or get nothing. Whatever I've learned since then has left his recommendation intact.

<comment><USER9> Just to add, there are a million different possible situations, and "almost always" is a big exaggeration here, and I don't know anything about the particular case in the post. But the point remains; there is often virtue in simplicity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm always fascinated by the way institutionalized dishonesty creeps into entire industries. From used car salesmen to film moguls, once a certain practice has ossified over the years into "everyone in the biz does it", practices that would result in jail time in other industries are simply accepted as business as usual. Even more curious, _everyone_ to the man knows its wrong, but no one moves to change it. The emperor has no clothes and we just like him better naked.

<comment><USER11> You can't be the 1st to change; you'd get run over.

<comment><USER12> Only if you were unable to actually turn a net profit.

What would happen instead is that more actors and writers would be willing to work with you because they knew they'd get a fair share of the whole deal.

<comment><USER13> The problem there, is that the talent that would truly help you succeed can already demand gross participation from any studio. And the rest, while they would undoubtedly _prefer_ to work for an honest studio, would climb over one another to land almost _any_ work regardless of accounting policy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Geez, Lucas. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

I mean, really. I can see being a greedy fuck for a couple decades, while you're still unsure if you are, in fact, going to become and remain wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice. But once you have the fuck-you money put away for you, your entire family and everyone you've ever met who was halfway interesting, can't you toss Lord Vader some coin for his trouble?

Shameful.

<comment><USER15> I hate citing Reddit, but this un-sourced imgur link makes it seem like he's not such a bad guy, no?

<http://i.imgur.com/lTvOg.jpg>

<comment><USER16> Donating 5% of your net worth to charity is praiseworthy, but it's not really anything special, particularly for people in that range of disposable income. He could probably release another boxed set of the original trilogy and make the entire amount back. Every active Mormon donates twice that much to their church.

<comment><USER17> The Mormon church is hardly a laudable "non-profit" charity.

<comment><USER18> The point wasn't the amount of good being done with the money, it was the size of the sacrifice being made as it affects the life of the donor.

Likewise, suppose I donate 5% of my income to charity A which is 100 times as effective at saving lives as charity B. My neighbor, of similar means, donates 50% of his income to charity B because of his mistaken belief that charity B is just as good. Now, I may know he's making a mistake, and there's no way I would choose to send my money to charity B, but my neighbor is still more _honorable_ for making such a large sacrifice for something he thinks is right.

<comment><USER17> That's a truly bizarre definition of honorable. If that's actually what being honorable actually means to people, then I no longer want to be there.

In my book, you don't get any points for merely thinking you're right. You only get points for actually being right.

<comment><USER16> It makes no sense to judge people or award "points" for things wholly outside their control. As human beings, we aren't capable of perfect knowledge, and we don't have total control over most situations. So judging people on "actually being right" has limited utility. You may as well decide to slap a random stranger in retaliation for the weather being inclement.

For example: If Gandhi had been assassinated earlier, would that have made him a worse man?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't know why this is such a surprise to everyone. Outside of the startup scene, showing net profit is a Bad Thing. It increases liability to taxes and to employees[1], etc.

Maybe public companies are different (though since, movie studios are just about all subsidiaries of public companies, maybe not), but in my dealings with many multi-million dollar companies (especially those with union contracts to deal with), they find any way possible to show a loss on the balance sheet.

Between accounting tricks and taking money off the table through reinvesting (real or imagined) and executive salaries, profit is basically a made up number based on whatever management wants it to be.

Taking any percentage of net profit, in plenty of industries, is basically the same as taking nothing.

On a side note: the article and the one from the other day that mentioned this story as well only seemed to consider box office gross as the movie's revenue. I mean how many of us just on HN have more bought or gotten than one copy of the Star Wars movies over the years? I know I have at least 3 hanging around, to say nothing of TV airings and the like.

[1]Liability to employees: Through profit-sharing programs, raise discussions, union contract talks, etc., publicly showing a "profit" can cost the company money.

</comment><comment><USER20> I seem to remember Alec Guinness hit the jackpot on the SW franchise by demanding a % of the profit (gross?), so I assume this guy had a different contract. I suppose Guinness had a lot more pull and negotiating leverage than a dude whose primary contribution to the films was to be tall.

<comment><USER21> Alec Guinness was a Serious Actor with plenty of impressive film appearances under his belt. Of course he had more pull.

<comment><USER22> Maybe the fact that people would have noticed if they had replaced him in the sequels also strengthened his bargaining position.

<comment><USER23> I don't think Sir Alec ever thought there would be sequels. Especially since he dies in the first movie.

I think it's just a matter of good bargaining. At the time, Guinness had been in the movies for three-plus decades. Prowse's career hovered just above the "extra" category. Prowse probably signed whatever contract they gave him; Guinness probably dictated terms.

<comment><USER24> _> Prowse's career hovered just above the "extra" category._

At the time, Prowse was most famous as the Green Cross Code Man, from the UK's pedestrian safety public service films of the time.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRUBMBi_lp4>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Even shares on "gross profit" can fail: it can be beneficial for the publisher to give away the product for free. I've had this happen to a J2ME app, which the publisher gave away for free in exchange for advertising (they were building presence and reputation by this).

Another trick seems to be bundling - "buy this collection of things and you get thing x for free". So profits for selling thing x would be zero.

I am sure there are many more tricks like this...

<comment><USER26> If there was an exchange, there was consideration, and this seems more like a barter, not a free give-away.

I bet a good lawyer could have made a case for you.

I believe the IRS would consider the advertising to have some monetary value, which is what your gross profit fee would be based on.

 _The fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide must be included in income in the year received._

<http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I never cease to be amazed at how honest and forthright everyone in the (top tier) of the startup industry is, vs. the entertainment, government contracting, small business, etc. space. To say nothing of finance or politics.

That silicon valley and tech is taking over the world might be a result of this, but in any case, it's better for humanity.

<comment><USER28> Are you _really_ suggesting that it's rare for employees to get hosed on options because they don't understand the terms in their contract? Because that's about the closest parallel I can think of. Net points sound like the showbiz equivalent of liquidation preferences. "Oh, no, you don't actually get a percentage of the $50 million sale because there are these investors that have a different kind of stock that says that they get at least a 5x return before you get anything..."

<comment><USER27> Tech contracts are pretty transparent by comparison.

Aside from value of options (which most people consider to be $0-$20k for the average $100-150k/yr job), all the other benefits of working in tech are straightforward and employee-favorable.

In an early stage startup, you're not likely to see worse than 2x participating, and 1x non is the standard for Series A financings now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Wouldn't it be nice if Lodsys got out of the patent troll game, and into using it's lawyers to fight for net-profit-residuals for people who worked on films that earned huge profits over time?

Wouldn't it be nice.

</comment><comment><USER30> I remember reading something similar in the music industry, written by courtney love. Anyone have a link?

<comment><USER5> Google [Courney Love RIAA], first result:

[http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love/prin...](http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html)

<comment><USER30> I should have guessed that it would be RIAA that would point me to the article :P

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> it's a link from an article which was here yesterday <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2981442> [http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/6-things-the- film-...](http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/6-things-the-film- industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about.php/all/1)

</comment><comment><USER32> Possible this is due to the kind of "creative accounting" detailed here: [http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry- pott...](http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry-potter-pic- loses-money-because-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting/)

</comment><comment><USER33> Its an interesting perspective that seems to suggest the opposite view from the 'other' article on the front page about contracts: Just Sue Me

<comment><USER34> I disagree that it is the opposite. In fact I think it is more like LucasFilm is saying Just Sue Me. From the article Seth (I am assuming he is a reliable source as I know nothing about the film industry) seems to think that if LucasFilms was sued that they would lose (or settle), but luckily people, specifically Darth, are either to lazy or the amount they would win wouldn't cover the legal expenses of suing. So in effect LucasFilms is pretending like the risk of litigation isn't there and it is working out OK for them so far. Just like the experiences of PUD.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I wonder if you add in the marketing and distribution cost for bit torrent & associated search sites you can find that the movie companies should be paying them?

</comment><comment><USER36> TL;DR: He finds their lack of profit disturbing

</comment><comment><USER26> Best quote from article:

"Can you imagine the hedlines if Darth Vader sued George Lucas?"

</comment><comment><USER37> I was expecting a video: 'nooooo!'

</comment><comment><USER38> olllld article from 2009 rehashing longtime complaints of bitter Vader suit wearing actor. He didn't get a cut of the only-named-in-merchandise Ewoks toys. Boohoo.</comment>


The Keybase Filesystem - <AUTHOR> https://keybase.io/docs/kbfs <comment><AUTHOR> There really should be some way to accomplish this with IPFS, which imho is better suited for it given that it's multi-purpose, cloudflare has a gateway, and you can register EthDNS names for IPFS hosted content.</comment>


America knows everything - <AUTHOR> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vice.com%2Fde%2Fread%2Famerica-knows-everything <comment><USER4> Welcome to America, where we read your private mail, track all your movements online, shoot your dogs, abuse you at the borders, put antibiotics in your food, bankrupt you when you get sick, throw you in jail with hardened criminals if you smoke a spliff, and drone-execute you with no warrant if the president doesn't like you. Would you like fries with that?

<comment><USER5> I suspect soon enough (unless it's already a trend) Americans may be afraid to even speak of this in public as with mass surveillance you never know how and when your unfavorable words of the regime may affect you.

<comment><USER6> I suspect you don't know any Americans.

<comment><USER7> It is one of the bright spots of this: Americans are stubbornly stupid enough to be completely willing to damn the consequences.

(That is, in some respect, how we got into the social media surveillance state: brazen willingness to damn the consequences of oversharing, for quite superficial reasons.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> While I agree that this person was probably treated very poorly, I also want to point out that they were traveling for work purposes.

In the United States, non-US citizens entering the country for work purposes are generally required to get a visa. There are a few (and very few at that) business exceptions to this process, as listed here: [http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html](http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html)

He stated that he was: Trying to work several unpaid shows, he would receive meals and tips as compensation at one or more shows, and then he was going to write articles for Noisey ([http://noisey.vice.com/](http://noisey.vice.com/)) about it.

Bringing musical instruments with you (and admitting you are a musician - <USER2> if just as a 'hobby') on a supposed tourism visit and going to one or more cities where you did not have relatives or explicit non-business reasons to be there probably immediately triggered an investigation as to why he did not have a visa / whether he required a visa for his visit.

Yes - our border control system is horrible. I totally grant that. But this person was also explicitly not playing by the work visa rules either.

<comment><USER9> I don't have knowledge about the US border and visa requirements and procedures.

But even if he did made a mistake wouldn't it be easier to inform him before he enters the plane? And avoid interrogating him without letting him know what the problem was? The process he got ranks pretty high on the crazy paranoid side. I'm sure there are ways to solve the security and visa issues in a way that does not leave traumatic memories in every casual traveller that maybe or maybe not misunderstood the rules.

It's obvious that the border control knew what the problem was. Why not tell him the problem in a polite way? Or why is there no process that avoids that the person has to fly overseas in order to be scared and not allowed entry? I'm sure there are legitimate security related cases where such a behaviour would not catch a few illegal immigrants but all these stories read like they tuned their ROC curve to maximize the true positives and forget about false positives at all. It's the same idea behind the NSA spying an the no fly lists. A huge false positive rate no matter what the costs are.

Looks like this decisions are not the result reason and careful consideration but instead full paranoia mode. But it's easy to say that from the outside. We don't know.

<comment><USER10> _But even if he did made a mistake wouldn 't it be easier to inform him before he enters the plane?_

Some airports in EU countries (eg Shannon in Ireland) have pre-clearance for passengers to the US at the departure end, ie you go through US passport control first and when you get on the plane it is legally a domestic US flight. This is unusual however, just as Americans typically deal with EU passport control at the EU end rather than before leaving the US.

If you want to avoid dealing with these problems in the airport, the solution is to apply for a visa from the US embassy before departure.

<comment><USER11> There is a big thing with US travel: ESTA, advanced passenger information, and the airline thing whose name I don't know (when you check in, they already ask nosy questions about your travel and your girlfriend). So they had a lot of opportunities to stop him before he got in the plane without putting up with the burden of a US visa. They chose to let him come knowing they would refuse him.

When you try to go to the US, you have to get in some kind of trap (there are those stupid questions which I guess are a framework to make you a liar to a federal agent if you get caught later), drop all your privacy (that was probably gone anyways with facebook and gmail), and they have ample means to close it on you without being an asshole.

<comment><USER10> I haven't looked at the ESTA thing in a long time, but from what I remember it does ask explicitly whether you plan to work in the US etc. etc. If you tell a border inspector that you're planning to play at a music festival then naturally he's going to assume you mean ot engage in commercial activity. It is up to the individual to read up on the requirements and exercise some basic common sense (ie customs/immigration officials tend to be pedantic bureaucrats wherever you go, so be circumspect).

Sorry, but I think you're projecting your biases here with comments like 'they chose to let him come, knowing they would refuse him.' My reading is that he probably answered 'no' to all the ESTA questions and then confused the CBP agent by giving contradictory answers to his questions. I'm European myself so I'm not carrying a particular torch for US border agents here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This seems like a good place to leave a quick plug for the recent computer game "Papers, Please", which perfectly simulates the experience of being a clerk inspecting prospective entrants at the border of a dystopian republic and approving/denying visas.

As the game progressed I found myself "just following orders", even as they got increasingly creepy, and now I think I have a much better understanding of what life is like for these people. There are rules, and you follow them because your job is to carry out the rules. You may occasionally think hard about whether what you're doing is wrong, but you don't stop doing it because you've got a family to feed.

Spooky stuff. I felt like I had a much better understanding, after 30 minutes in the game, of what border agents are actually doing when I give them my passport.

<comment><USER13> You might find the essay, 'The Checkpoint' interesting (and thoroughly bleak). It is by an Israel Defense Force conscriptee who started working those internal checkpoints between israel proper and the occupied territories.

It is an account of how an even more extreme situation is utterly soul- destroying for the people working those jobs, no matter how good their initial intentions are.

[http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.4/oded_naaman_israeli_defen...](http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.4/oded_naaman_israeli_defense_forces_palestinians_occupation.php)

<comment><USER14> Wow, that was a powerful read.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's very hard to extrapolate from stories like this to know if the actual instance and intensity of abuses is increasing, or if reportage is increasing (i.e. landing on HN front page) because of folk's irritation with other aspects of the US government.

For my money, TSA is right after HSA as far as FUBAR government agencies go. Seems like quality control is right in the shitter. As for solutions, I'd like to see a customer satisfaction survey implemented across the board. You might actually be able to implement something like this in a favorable political environment (there's no law saying that TSA has to attempt to piss off every person that comes through our borders). I've noticed that some of these completely dysfunctional agencies seem to attract the worst sort of bad eggs, so with something like that you could at least weed out some of the most underperforming TSA mob squads.

<comment><USER16> The TSA has nothing to do with this interrogation, as bad as they are; Customs and Border Patrol are the offenders, here. And this guy made a critical mistake: He announced his intent to "work" in the United States; i.e. he was going to play shows. This requires a Visa, even for nonprofit purposes, which is a silly law, but it is the law.

<comment><USER17> You don't think its weird to be strip searched, and kept from contacting worried parties, because you decided to play a non-profit show without a visa?

Law or not, I don't think that makes sense.

<comment><USER18> And how is CBP supposed to know his entire intention was just to play a couple of non-profit shows? He admits he will be compensated (tips and food) for the shows. Maybe after that he's planning on getting paid shows, or something.

As I understand the law, he could have stayed and appealed the decision. Not that they're going to tell you that or help you out - they're allowed to lie to you and so on.

Strip searching seems very excessive, as does the entire handling. But fundamentally, interrogating someone that appears to be going to violate their visa is one of the reasons for having CBP at all.

<comment><USER17> Fair point. We have CBP for many reasons.

The mishandling is the primary issue at hand.

I wish there were honest statistics available, so that people could know for a fact that yes, there are or are not actually a lot of extreme cases like this.

<comment><USER18> The only "extreme" part is that we're deciding this guy is "innocent" and not worthy of the level of scrutiny. Being interrogated and searched is very commonplace. So you'd need stats that somehow report how many people they interrogated and searched _that they didn 't consider to be suspicious_. I doubt they'll report a very high number, of course.

Best stat I can think of is "how many strip searches resulted in allowing the person to enter the country", which is also probably fairly low. By that time, they've probably decided to deny you entry.

Neither shows or prevents mistreatment that the CBP deems OK, which seems to be the case here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> To play devil's advocate, he traveled to the U.S. with a guitar, had 5 shows booked in advance before his arrival, uses a pseudonym to perform and didn't declare any of this to the border officials. I think the article can also say he has a CD coming out soon. I can actually see why he was turned away. He's a musician, hoping to travel and do some shows in the U.S. for fun.

You can't work in the U.S. without a work visa. The rules are pretty clear about that.

And performing for free is still work.

<comment><USER20> According to their rules, performing for free is acceptable:

"participation by amateurs in musical, sports, or similar events or contests, if not being paid for participating"

[http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html](http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html)

<comment><USER19> Specifically denied is "paid performances, or any professional performance before a paying audience". If there was a cover charge to get in, it counts as work.

[http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1262.html](http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1262.html)

<comment><USER20> I think they vagueness of this points to part of the problem. There is no real specification of what makes an amateur performer in a musical event. I would assume since he was not contracted to receive a payment for his performance, it would be acceptable.

And just because there is a cover charge does not count as work. The cover charge is collected by the venue and does not mean he will get paid, which was specifically the case here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm not sure what exactly happened, but this is what I gather from the translation.

John was visiting the United States from London. He was planning on traveling through California with his girlfriend, then traveling through the south on his own, eventually meeting up with his aunt in Alabama.

After landing, he had a problem in customs. He had a guitar with him and told the agent that he would be playing some shows in the US.

He was then sent away from the US because he didn't have a work visa and he was here doing work.

It sounds like this was a perfect storm of shitty situations. Take an overworked/stupid/bad (take your pick) security agent, someone who doesn't speak native english and may have had some trouble explaining his situation, an expired student visa (adds to confusion) and a weird "working" on vacation situation and you have a recipe for a bad time.

It sucks.

<comment><USER9> We don't know how good the translation is but I've read the article in German and there it clear that he studied in the US and presented a paper at a conference: [http://www.euce.org/eusa/2011/papers/9d_farneti.pdf](http://www.euce.org/eusa/2011/papers/9d_farneti.pdf). I'd say it was not a communication problem.

Also: How did they know about his musician alias and his concert dates? From the article it looks like they read his emails. He could also have posted the dates for all to see on Facebook.

<comment><USER22> My bet is Facebook, or other web content promoting his performances. Easily found with a routine google search.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This sort of thing has happened a number of times recently to people I know. I'm a musician and have lots friends who play in bands and book shows, so this hits close to home.

Last month a band from Canada I was scheduled to play with was stopped at the border and told to turn around because they didn't have work visas. This group of four women in their late teens and early twenties -- day jobs at bars and restaurants, driving a shitty 1980s chevy van -- _might_ get some gas money at the gig -- which is basically a party in a warehouse -- and free PBRs from a cooler that the bands all share. This is not the sort of commerce that threatens jobs or the US economy.

A musician I know just tried to go the legit route but failed to meet the artistic reputation standards of the Artist (o-1) Visa. US Immigration wanted newspaper and magazine reviews and proof of past shows at recognizable venues. If you're a small artist on a small label, you're not going to have those. You'll have chatter about you on blogs and twitter and facebook, you will have played at house parties, warehouses and bars, and you're on a small label website which, honestly, anyone could spoof to look legit. Nevertheless this guy is a real artist with a great record that a thousand people have bought. The shows he was going to play probably would have drawn capacity crowds at a handful of punk rock venues in the SF Bay and elsewhere. But he can't play or even come to the US because he's not "exceptional" enough.

I have a friend who is on a student visa from a middle eastern country and presently doing the exact same thing as the OP: traveling around the US with a guitar and making friends. I sent this to him immediately with the instructions: "do not ever say you are playing a show. do not ever say you are a musician. if they ask you about the guitar, tell them you're learning how to play."

As for the OP, he's just a student. He's not getting paid. Someone's cooking him dinner and giving him tips because that's what hospitable people do.

Our immigration policies treat harmless people harshly and are absurd.

<comment><USER24> Absolutely. There really needs to be a treaty between all friendly countries that says artists are allowed as tourists as long as they don't make more than X amount of profit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Even if you were born and raised in America, you're not truly American unless you're white. Until then, prepare to be accosted at immigration.

<comment><USER25> Maybe, but the events in this article are bad enough on their own, there is no need to inject a racial element into the discussion.

<comment><USER17> No, I think there is a need.

If the definition of what it is to be American is warped, specifically, that it takes more than citizenship to be welcomed home, then that should come into the discussion of these cases of mistreated foreigners.

<comment><USER25> OK, but I read this as "oh that's nothing, we even mistreat our own."

I think you're effectively minimizing this man's experience with an unfounded (?? maybe just my ignorance) comment about racial profiling.

<comment><USER17> Ah, that makes sense. You're right, I'm probably bringing in the wrong points relative to his experience.

However, I just feel that his experience opens up a higher level discussion of America's (poor?) implementation of border patrol.

Also, in terms of unfounded comments. There is a chance you haven't read this: [http://varnull.adityamukerjee.net/post/59021412512/dont- fly-...](http://varnull.adityamukerjee.net/post/59021412512/dont-fly-during- ramadan)

Race is always complex, especially because racism illegal. It becomes a subtle and hard to describe thing. Maybe "random search" is a good way to describe it. Ultimately, it makes me feel like I'm being delusional. I hope I am.

<comment><USER18> That story is about the TSA and local police, not the CBP. Very different.

Also, a US Citizen returning to the US does not have to answer any questions (apart from the written customs declaration) and cannot be denied re-entry to the US. (Although, as always, agents may abuse people.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> It seems that every day new reports are published talking about victims that are denied to enter the USA because of the wildest reasons - even with legal papers.

But it's not only the arbitrariness that every report seems to claim. It's more than that the behaviour of the officials towards citizens of other countrys and nations.

"America knows everything" \- and you're not welcome any more.

</comment><comment><USER26> I feel helpless each time I read an account like this.

I used to get angry.

<comment><USER27> So they've won...

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Why can't the police / border guards just treat these humans as humans. Ok, do what you must, return them to the originating country if they break some law.

It's unfortunate when it is a cool thing for some to be "tough" like this?

</comment><comment><USER5> Any person visiting the US today should be expecting this

<comment><USER29> That seems slightly hyperbolic. 50 million people visit the US every year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Key point:

"The result was that I was denied entry because I was on a business trip unannounced. The payment in the form of a warm meal at one of the shows in Nashville at a restaurant with ten tables is apparently illegal."

Well, yeah, sorta. If you come to perform a task and be compensated they might construe that as work. I'm not sure what he means by privacy violations - <USER3> his name is Googled, are there no results for his stage name? Did he have nothing in his items with his stage name? It seems odd to just assume CBP agents are doing something secret when this seems like public data.

I'm Canadian, and I was detained at the border as one CBP agent felt I needed a work visa (not just stating I'm there for business reasons) to represent my company at a tradeshow. (OTOH the unions at conference centers also agree that lifting a box or plugging in cables is work so...) Fortunately his supervisor disagreed.

</comment><comment><USER30> America's border control system is so broken that it saddens me to see posts like this that reek of sensationalism (I mean, it's _Vice_ ) and hide the fact that, you know, he didn't have a valid visa.

I'm having trouble understanding what was so deplorable about this story _besides_ the reprehensible treatment by the officials (which, again, seems exaggerated)? Am I misreading the story or is refusal to enter the country not the proper response to not having the correct documentation?

<comment><USER31> > I'm having trouble understanding what was so deplorable about this story > besides the reprehensible treatment by the officials (which, again, seems > exaggerated)?

"Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

<comment><USER30> Right, but Abraham Lincoln did nothing wrong by going to the play and the author did something wrong (I don't mean in a moral sense, but in a sense of 'incorrect') by going to the United States without the proper visa.

<comment><USER31> Well that's a tortured analogy if I've ever seen one.

<comment><USER30> Yeah, my point is that the two are in no way analogous.

<comment><USER31> It's a common expression. [1] In this context it means: this guy's treatment by the customs & border officials was so reprehensible and abusive that his legal right to enter the US is beside the point, just like how the actual merits of the play were beside the point for Mrs. Lincoln.

[1] [https://www.google.com/#q=other%20than%20that%20mrs.%20linco...](https://www.google.com/#q=other%20than%20that%20mrs.%20lincoln%20how%20was%20the%20play)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I wonder if they are using some of the tools developed by Palantir.

</comment><comment><USER33> Anyone else reminded of the Solzhenitsyn book, "We never make mistakes"?

</comment><comment><USER34> Well I'm glad this didn't happen to me. I travelled to the US in very similar circumstances a few weeks ago: European, carrying a guitar, visiting the South, previously stayed in the US on a J-1 intern visa. The only difference being that I had a one-way ticket.

I didn't even go through secondary at customs. No issues.

<comment><USER19> The fact that it's arbitrary doesn't make it any better.

<comment><USER34> Not defending these immigration officials by any means. It's just a timely and mildly interesting anecdote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> "I noticed an Indian boy in his early twenties at the end of the room." anyone else think of aditya? [http://varnull.adityamukerjee.net/post/59021412512/dont- fly-...](http://varnull.adityamukerjee.net/post/59021412512/dont-fly-during- ramadan)

</comment><comment><USER36> I'm interested in the fact that it seems that low level border flunkies have access to the email of anyone they're interested in for _work_ violations.

Not terrorism or anything. Another example of security state mission creep. Download all your emails now.

</comment><comment><USER37> So much wasted time, money and energy and much freedom lost.

Welcome to the land of cops and lawyers.

</comment><comment><USER38> How many of these do I have to read ... this is my government and _I DEMAND_ more from it. (Of course right now they've closed every office that might accomplish something visible).

In the mean-time, I'd like to apologize to the citizens of earth for the horrible behavior of those performing in our security theater.

EDIT: My trips to Germany were very pleasant ... with the exception of having to take goods through customs (for expediency's sake), everyone was pleasant, courteous and relatively efficient.

</comment><comment><USER39> I feel bad for the guy, but having been across the US border a few times it's important that if you're travelling for anything but spending money in the US you'd better phone and find out if you need a work visa.

      Volunteering? VISA.
      Working for free? VISA.
      Might ask someone for change? VISA.
      Speaking at a conference? VISA.
      Having coffee with someone and may discuss business? VISA.
      Friend might buy you a beer? VISA.
      You plan on bringing your bags to your hotel room yourself? VISA.

Exceptions: If you are going straight to your hotel, then going to disneyland, going back to your hotel and back to the airport then you might not need a VISA, as long as you also know the flight number, airport, airline and seat number you'll be leaving the US on, then you _might_ not need a VISA but should probably phone the consulate and find out anyway.

<comment><USER40> I bet the tourism companies inside the USA are over the moon with where this is going.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> As a Chinese citizen you can come into the US ridiculously pregnant and have your kid in the US on a tourist visa via a flight and never get hassled. You can walk across the southern border and create a human fence around ICE vans and get a slap on the wrist.

The problem: This guy doesn't serve a political interest so he gets hassled. Face it, this country is backwards and caters only to the elite.

<comment><USER42> I'm just a bit confused: How are an expectant Chinese mother and a Mexican migrant worker examples of the elite?

<comment><USER41> They are not the elite, they cater to the elite and special interests goals. China has 60 per cent of its $3.5tn foreign currency reserves invested in US assets. A housing program that offers green cards to foreigners who buy $500,000+ houses. How about the money going to US universities from 194,000 Chinese students. The $8.2 billion Chinese buyers spent in the 12 months to March 2013 of $70 billion on real estate. China will biggest economy in the world and we (USA) needs access. Migrant workers expand the population, provide cheap labor, and consumption A.K.A. grow the economy. They also vote.

<comment><USER41> The Chinese elite/the ones making the rules that you refer of, are the ones buying the houses. Who can buy a 10th house a 7,900 miles away that costs 2.5 million in cash? Mark Z Yes. If your argument were true, we would see relaxed immigration/TSA because of Obama. But, this article leads me to believe that it has gotten worse, not because of Obama, but because of the system. The birth factor might be considered a thank you in a simplistic sense. The Chinese are buying up houses that wouldn't be bought/proping up the market. The National Association of Realtors does happen to be the largest lobby group.

But, the point is, in such an extreme sense as mentioned above. Someone so visibly pregnant that a blind person could figure it out isn't given the slight of day. While a German dude with a guitar is practically thrown in prison. All I am pointing out is the irony/hypocrisy. And since it is so ridiculous and happens all the time there must be an explanation. Do you have one?

<comment><USER42> As a matter of fact I do have an explanation:

The US is a huge country with a ridiculous mess of overlapping laws and massive bureaucracy. It's a legalistic nation, one in which the laws are typically followed to a 'T' regardless of how much sense it makes. This leads to all manner of weird stuff happening.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Ive been at the border several times, non us citizen, and i've always been treated with respect. In fact, the guys at the border were always nice to me, sometimes dared a joke or asked me for help to translate something to someone else.

So yeah, i'm sure there's horrible ones and troubles happen, but i wouldn't make that a generality just like that.

<comment><USER44> I am one of the lucky ones as well and have been treated with respect every time. Sometimes I even had insightful conversations with border control.

However, along the increasing rejections of visa for highly talented people + more and more stories like this one are signaling a very very bad trend.

I have noticed both among my peers: visa rejections for founders with funding from US investors, befriended founders who are being pulled into second screening every time they enter the country, my co-founder being rejected to enter the country once and now also being pulled into second screening every time (despite having an O1 visa). It's degrading and simply horrifying. And most definitely not a good trend for the US.

This is a very emotional topic. I get sad and angry every time I read or hear a similar story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I suppose it might be google translate, but this seems like a guy lying on his visa application, being rudely called out on it, and letting his fierce sense of entitlement take over.

</comment><comment><USER46> It's kind of neat the way that google translate includes the german accent.

</comment><comment><USER47> this site sucks so bad from a phone. every time i scroll i get some sort of context ad that covers half my screen. not you Vice.. not you :(

</comment><comment><USER42> This is what happens when soccer moms and helicopter dads run your country. Selfishness and paranoia rule the day, all behind the guise of good intentions, fairness, and security.

</comment><comment><USER48> When you hire vastly too many enforcement employees (I'm lumping HS/TSA/etc all together here), what ends up happening is they find things to do. The reality is, TSA and Homeland Security have very little to do. The threat is not greater today than it was 20 years ago, but we've acquired tens of thousands of new personnel with absolutely nothing meaningful to do (and the tens of billions of dollars in costs to go with them).

You see the same exact effect in traditional police, SWAT teams, and so on. All that ends up happening is they terrorize good people.

</comment><comment><USER49> Even as a U.S. citizen, every time I've traveled to other countries in the past few years, it's always jarring going from the hospitable, friendly customs people in the other countries, to the literally rude awakening of getting practically accosted by the agents in the U.S. upon returning.

<comment><USER50> Try Russia or Germany - neither country has border officials that could be described as "hospitable" or "friendly." They make US border guards look like teddy bears.

<comment><USER44> I cannot speak for Russia, but Germany cultivates a fundamental mentality of liberalism and respect, for any kind. It will be very difficult to find someone in Germany that wears a badge who has less than 13 years of school education or acts unreasonably, disrespectful or doesn't play by the rules.

<comment><USER50> I didn't say they weren't respectful. I said they cannot be described as hospitable or friendly, which is true. German border guards are very professional and respectful -- they follow the rules exactly -- but they're not friendly. They're rather cold.

<comment><USER44> Fair enough. They are cold or better 'neutral'. I'd take cold and neutral any time over judgmental and degrading.

<comment><USER50> I've come into the US many times, and personally witnessed thousands of people being granted entry into the US with nothing but professionalism. Cases such as this are certainly rare.

There will always be a few people in any large group who treat others badly, and US border guards are no exception. I'm sure we could find rare similar cases in Germany or anywhere else, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> tl;dr</comment>


Uber employees used the platform to stalk celebrities and their exes - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-employees-stalked-celebrities-ex-employee-claims-2016-12 <comment><USER4> A few days ago (on the discussion of the Uber app tracking users' movements after the end of their ride) an Uber employee commented on their data handling: [0]

> Individual users' data is very closely guarded internally. It's immensely > difficult to look at user data without specific access. Overwhelmingly, this > data is queried in aggregate and fed into machine learning systems. The risk > of abuse is exceptionally low.

Obviously this doesn't add up. What gives?

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13085775](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13085775)

<comment><USER5> I don't know about Uber, but I've worked at a lot of places that had sensitive data. A common patterns is to fail to treat employees like attackers, and protect data in ways that are very beatable by a motivated employee. Some examples that hopefully have been fixed:

-A company had a specific dataset that would be worth millions: The kind of things that a wikileaks might want to publish, and would make the papers. I was supposedly unable to access the app that displayed it, but I had access to the tables. For legitimate business reasons, I took the data out, put it in my company laptop, and stuck a search engine on top. There were no logs of my activity, and nobody came to ask why in the world I was doing something like this.

-At another place, they were saving credit cards, encrypted, but their idea of saving encryption keys was to put them in a file that only root could access. Well, everyone had access to create batch jobs (yes, even phone reps), and batch jobs ran as root, so anyone could walk out with the lot. I had to do a lot of work to convince them that yes, this was not PCI compliant.

-Another system had relatively well protected data, only available to people with access. Except they had single sign on, and some of they systems that took credentials did so in the clear. Peek at network traffic, steal credentials, and then do whatever you want as anyone you want! They had a process where you were never supposed to leave your computer unattended, and if you did, team members would go into your computer and send an email to the team promising cake, and you'd have to bring it as punishment for your security problems. Imagine their surprise when people were sending emails promising cake while they were using their computers.

-A phone company having cell call metadata in the clear, in a DB any developer could query. There was another system with billing information, equally accessible. So search for your favorite person in one, and go to the other and see who they call, when they call, and from where. Isn't that convenient?

So I don't believe anyone's claims about their data security unless they come from someone that has some security knowledge and has tried to evaluate the security pretending to be a real attacker. And even in that case, I'll probably want a team of them. Otherwise, I'll assume there are major flaws that nobody has found, just because nobody has cared enough. I have yet to find an employer where this was not the case.

<comment><USER6> > Otherwise, I'll assume there are major flaws that nobody has found, just > because nobody has cared enough

Unfortunately, this is the state of 99% of all software, everywhere, it would appear. And I'm dubious about that extra 1%.

[Edit] and lets not forget, you can _care a lot_ and still have this be the case

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Uber would not give more details on its technical controls. In practice, the > security sources said, Uber's policy basically relies on the honor system. > Employees must agree not to abuse their access. But the company doesn't > actually prevent employees from getting and misusing the private information > in the first place, the security sources said.

If true, that is fantastically ludicrous.

It seems I wasn't paying attention, in 2014 - as this "God view" news passed me by. I will be keeping a closer eye on this as it plays out.

Uber obviously seems to be in a strong position, but going only by this article, Uber might fare poorly in a multi-region privacy-legislation legal battle (war?).

<comment><USER8> It's exactly what an employee writes in another comment here:

> every time I access production systems, I have a ton of messages telling me > that our access is being completely tracked and we are prohibited from doing > anything that was mentioned in the article.

There is probably a small department doing random checks on data access. But with several thousand people (including support staff) accessing data, the chance of being noticed is extremely low.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This seems like a good place to tell Uber users that the only way of removing your credit card details from your Uber account is to either:

a) plead with Uber's customer service to do so

or

b) add another payment method (like another credit card)

This, of course, is horribly bad practice. I can only imagine that they arrived at this very peculiar arrangement after extensive A/B testing - <USER2> has hired plenty of FB folks and those people tend to be really into that kind of thing. I haven't seen this kind of outright customer-hostility from a large Internet company.. well, ever, before.

So, no, I'm not surprised that this company is doing other unethical things - it sort of seems interwoven into their DNA.

<comment><USER10> When you lose your credit card and you call your credit card company and them them that you lost it, they issue you a new card with new numbers; this way anybody that had the information on the card would not be able to make further transactions. I would consider the card lost when a company would not delete the credit card information on my request to delete the information.

<comment><USER11> A new number doesn't necessarily prevent charges from vendors who had the old one. _For your convenience_ the banks actually allow new charges on the old cards after they are cancelled. I assume they whitelist vendors that have good reputations or filter based on patterns of charges against your account which you have not disputed.

Verizon was able to charge against my old account for over a year. I kept getting snail mail letters from my bank telling me that the card I was using had been cancelled and that I needed to update it, but I kind of just wanted to see how long they would let it go.

In other cases, the bank will actually update the vendor with your new card number so that subscriptions are not interrupted.

<comment><USER12> >In other cases, the bank will actually update the vendor with your new card number so that subscriptions are not interrupted.

That's apparently a feature: [https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/visa- accoun...](https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/visa-account- updater-product-information-fact-sheet-for-merchants.pdf)

<comment><USER13> Even if it is stolen? This thing is massively dangerous. It ensures your credit card details are stored all over the place for them to be leaked or stolen, with no way for the consumer to clean this up.

<comment><USER14> In theory they would make sure it was an account you used before the theft.

<comment><USER13> Yeah but letting services expire with the credit card unless you still use them is not a bad way to get rid of all the services you subscribed thinking it could be useful but never used.

Reminds me of what was done in the military (I think it was in a European country). Officers were spending their time writing reports that were never read. They introduced a policy under which for a given time everyone should stop writing reports until someone complained that they were not receiving it. And if that didn't happen this type of report would be scrapped.

<comment><USER15> Hmm, I feel like in my job I write a lot of things that no one ever reads (issue notes, extra commit information, comments) with the expectation that it'll be helpful information if I or someone else ever does need to look to figure out why I did something.

And it has been helpful. I mean maybe about 1% of it is read later at some point and helps clarify a situation. 99% of it is never seen again. That 1% of the time it's really helpful to have it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Don't forget that Uber now requires you allow them to access your location, even when you aren't using their app [1].

Side note: consider the value to foreign (or domestic) intelligence agencies of this weakly-guarded pot of gold.

[1] [http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/30/13763714/uber-location- da...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/30/13763714/uber-location-data- tracking-app-privacy-ios-android)

<comment><USER17> Disclaimer: I work for Uber. However, my opinions are mine. I am also not defending nor attacking in any way Uber gathering location data.

With that out of the way - you know your cell phone carrier already has this data right? They have way better data than Uber ever will about all your habits, including establishing relationships based on who you call, which sites you visit, who you are signed up on a plan with, etc etc. A much more weakly guarded pot of gold, I would say.

<comment><USER18> I'll agree with your point as soon as Uber signs up to the same level of regulatory restrictions as every phone carrier enjoys. The fact is that there are laws that strictly prohibit my phone carrier doing certain things with data about my usage. Case in point, the stalking that the article mentions - <USER3> don't think employees of my phone carrier can do the same thing. _Technically_ they could because they have the necessary data, but they don't because regulations have been put in place to stop them.

Uber has _demonstrated_ that they can't be trusted with personal data, so I'm quite sure the government will be considering implementing some regulation in their industry too. That's a shame really, because I'm sure most of us would prefer companies weren't restricted by regulation and were just sensible and ethical _by default_ , so laws weren't necessary.

<comment><USER19> _Uber has demonstrated that they can 't be trusted with personal data_

And the telecom carriers haven't? Please.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A)

<comment><USER20> The NSA using the power of the state to persuade a telco to intercept some stuff for them is somewhat different from having random employees of a private company just deciding to arbitrarily browse through their corporate databases.

<comment><USER19> True. The State has a lot more power on its side, making the former scenario much more of a threat.

<comment><USER21> Except the NSA is an arm of a democratically elected government. Tell me when the public Uber elections start.

<comment><USER19> _Except the NSA is an arm of a democratically elected government._

Yes, and look what that's gotten us so far.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've begun to ditch apps that I've perceived as going downhill regularly, and its been working out pretty well. Uber, Youtube, Facebook/Instagram, and Twitter have decent mobile sites.

I can even silo whatever service I want into its own browser to limit tracking, and all location/permissions/etc are all sandboxed by the browser.

A huge bonus is battery life + ad blocking.

<comment><USER23> Agreed 100%. I don't get it why anybody would need dozens of apps to spam you ads, drain battery life and collect your contacts, location data and whatnot when you can easily access the same services via a browser without all these mentioned drawbacks. An anecdote, but after cleaning my girlfriend's phone (she's asked for it), its battery life increased nearly _twice_ and cell data usage was reduced by ~30%.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This article merely re-reports this source: [https://www.revealnews.org/article/uber-said-it-protects- you...](https://www.revealnews.org/article/uber-said-it-protects-you-from- spying-security-sources-say-otherwise/)

Mods should probably change the OP to link there.

</comment><comment><USER25> Let me ask a question of everyone complaining: why not use Lyft? I switched.

Yeah, their prices are a little more than uber's, and their wait times are a bit higher, but these are functions of scale.

<comment><USER23> _" Let me ask a question of everyone complaining: why not use Lyft? I switched."_

Because Lyft is not so widely available. For example, only Uber is available where I live, though I still prefer traditional taxi because of (usually) better price, more reliable service, availability for short rides and privacy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I seriously don't understand why the updated Uber app asks to access my location all the time -- as opposed to only when I'm using the app. Not only is it not required but it's a huge drain on the phone's battery, potentially decreasing the battery's life.

Now I'm from a third-world country and can't afford to buy a $1000 phone every year, so I have to be careful with the life of my phone.

The turnaround this, I found, is to disallow location to the Uber app when not using the app and allowing access only when I use the app. This, however, is a pain and the Uber app behaves weird if I do so (the previous trip does not end after hours of it actually ending).

Very poor UX from Uber, potentially dangerous, definitely unethical. This is definitely a trend -- startups start with being caring of its customers, but once they grow big, they become callous and even malicious when it comes to users (I don't ask of them to give every customer personal support, but not mis-using customers is the least I can expect).

<comment><USER27> I'm with you on this. I don't get why Apple can't mandate a "Only when in app" option. The description for why they require it says they use the location while in app or for a few minutes after the trip is over.

When I was getting ready to leave for work today, I got out of the shower and grabbed my phone and saw a alert saying Uber has been using my location in the background. I hadn't opened the app since last week, last time I needed a ride. I'm sure it could've just been an errant push notification coming in late and waking the app up in the background, but I'm spooked.

<comment><USER28> That popup is standard for any app that is approved to potentially use location in background and you don't use often. I think it's meant to discourage apps to ask location in background altogether

<comment><USER29> When they migrated to this style of permission it seemed like a bit of a missed opportunity to give the user the option of choosing "no, only when the app is open"

<comment><USER30> Uber removed the "only when open" ability unfortunately, so that would not be relevant here.

<comment><USER29> No, I mean Apple shouldnt have given app developers the option to not allow "only when open". So app developers request the highest amount of permission, and either that (or less) would be granted:

        Uber would like to access your location at all times

                  [Yes, allow in the background]
                       [Yes, only when open]

                      [No, deny all together]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Operationally, "God Mode" doesn't need to show who the passenger is. It's reasonable to have info about where all the cars are and their status and destination available to everyone involved with dispatching, but passenger identity? Sloppy.

Do they still have "Ride of Glory" detection?

</comment><comment><USER32> I think it's time for the government to give you as many names as you want to give out to companies, and there's no reason for anyone who isn't suing you for it to know which of your aliases go together. Also aliases should be shared, to further conflate things. (nothing should stop my friends and i from sharing an alias and persona - companies should be legally forced to bend over backwards and enable this, for everyone. For example Google should be legally forced to allow you to create a new gmail inbox with a new name in a single click and not have it tied on any way to the old name.) Also credit card companies should be forced to give you as many cards in whatever names that you ask for. Nobody who isn't suing you should have a right to know your true name. They shouldn't even have it on record. If they wanna know something about you, they should ask you.

It works for writers, celebrities, etc - why not the rest of us.

EDIT to clarify: this is a serious comment, you can read it literally.

<comment><USER33> You don't need the government to give you a new name to start using a new name. You pick one and start using it.

<comment><USER16> Register an LLC (using your real name). Get a domain for the LLC and register a pseudonymous email address. Get a debit card and have the issuing bank give you a John Doe card. You sign as your LLC from now on, no government intervention needed.

<comment><USER32> Pretty much my point is that this should take me 17.5 seconds, starting right now.

1) go to my online banking and sign in

2) pick a name and request a card for it.

They should be legally forced to send me one.

The point is I can use that for amazon dildo purchases, and no creep at amazon would get to see that I'm (whoever.)

I get that this is possible: it needs to be simple.

<comment><USER34> But it is that simple. In my case, I got a card for a family member. But there is no verification done so you can literally get a card with any name on it. It is still tied to your identity through the bank.

<comment><USER32> But they may not like it when you have 73 active cards/names - so making this a mandatory thing would affect banks' processes. Also even if you're being literal and can do it in 17 seconds (i.e. after opening a new tab, 30 seconds from now you can have a card in the name of Mary Smith on its way to you) I and I think most people using online banking don't have it so smooth.

<comment><USER34> I timed it and it took about 25 seconds to go from the Chase login prompt to the "Add authorized user" page where you can get another credit card added to an existing account. So, I admit its not quite as fast as you would like. There is a caveat if you pay an annual fee: you pay the fee for each card. My accounts have no annual fee.

I also checked US Bank and American Express and you are correct, the process is not smooth at all. US Bank wants me to print, sign, and mail it! American Express wants to verify identity of the additional user using an SSN. That makes no sense of course, because they might not even have an SSN and the main account holder is still contractually obliged to pay the account balance.

<comment><USER32> I was very impressed with your report of Chase's behavior (and while 25 seconds might be an inconvenience of course it's acceptable.) It sounds like a gold standard. Of course, it's not practical to do that 72 times (for example every time you want to order a dildo from Amazon), due to the wait to get the card (it's not instant), but practically today people could use Chase fine to make companies not follow them. Do you think you can choose a name such as Donttrackme McSpammer? I realize this is pretty much the opposite of the term "John Smith" as for example the Uber driver would see that you went out of your way to call yourseld Donttrackme (there is zero chance it's an actual first name) but the adcantage is that it would not appear fraudulent.

Since you don't have an annual fee, can you order a card in the name of Donttrackme McSpammer (or any other similar name that couldn't be mistaken for a real name) and see if you get it?

Thanks for having taken the time to check the other two sites as well. I appreciate it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Uber seems to be company founded by sociopaths with a hiring process that stacks the company with sociopaths.

<comment><USER36> Tell us how you really feel

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Creating an audit system and locking down "God" mode seems like something that would save Uber a lot of major headaches down the road. How often do Uber employees need to legitimately track someone's information other than in response to a customer request? I'm guessing about as often as the average Google employee needs access to a specific user's search history, which is to say, fairly rarely.

Without locking down such access, you get incidents like these (and this was even when Google purportedly had strong auditing): [http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369188,00.asp](http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369188,00.asp)

> _Google this week confirmed that it fired an engineer who accessed the Gmail > and Google Voice accounts of several minors and taunted those children with > the information he uncovered._

The public sector has its fair share of these too: [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-01-22/news/os- law-e...](http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-01-22/news/os-law- enforcement-access-databases-20130119_1_law-enforcement-officers-law- enforcers-misuse)

Here's a URL to the plaintiff's declaration: [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3227535-Spangenberg-...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3227535-Spangenberg- Declaration.html)

Lots of tidbits there...including how all payroll information is apparently contained in an "unsecure Google spreadsheet"

<comment><USER8> I guess the audit system is there, it's just a lot of log files. That's a point where they could use simple rules or ML to flag up possible misuse. E.g. support staff accessing profiles that aren't related to a ticket they were working on. Or a developer tracking a single rider/driver with same last name or address (or really any developer getting data for one rider only).

Won't have a 100% success rate but I guess it could prevent most cases of abuse. It's not that different from what banks do to detect internal fraud.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Vote with your fingers and delete the app

<comment><USER39> I would also request an account deletion

      Menu -> Help -> Account And Payment -> Account Settings and Ratings -> Delete my Uber Account -> Fill in the form.

Oh on iOS you will need to turn on location tracking otherwise the nag screen about how wonderful enabling location services is seems to prevent the app showing the menu button...

EDIT: Oh you can still press the Menu Button, its just the nag screen has a strong tint to it and I had my brightness low. Doh.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Can't wait for a class-action lawsuit.

This is precisely why it makes sense to keep database data encrypted even to admins and why it makes sense for ride-sharing companies to be co-operatives or non-profits.

Profit-seeking companies engage in bad behaviours all the time.

<comment><USER21> > Can't wait for a class-action lawsuit.

Except Uber now has arbitration clauses in both it's driver and passenger service agreements. It remains to be seen how well it will hold up in court [1], but I wouldn't count my chickens yet.

[1] [https://consumerist.com/2016/08/02/judge-shreds-uber-says- co...](https://consumerist.com/2016/08/02/judge-shreds-uber-says-company-cant- prove-riders-are-giving-up-right-to-sue/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Everything I hear about this company is sickening. Bros with toys and no morals.

</comment><comment><USER42> "stalk celebrities and their exes" sounds to me like it could mean:

\- stalk celebrities, as well as the exes of said celebrities

\- employees stalk their exes and also some celebrities

It's obviously the latter but couldn't the same sentence imply the former as well? Is their a better way to formulate this sentence in a non-ambiguous way?

<comment><USER43> I think it's unambiguous if you switch the order: "Employees stalk their exes and celebrities"

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I've switched to using the mobile site[0] now Uber wants to track my location 'Always' on iOS.

[0] [https://m.uber.com](https://m.uber.com)

<comment><USER45> Thanks for this, I deleted the app and this is a good backup when Lyft is nowhere to be found

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I think there is a need to regulate how data is used in internet companies. I mean there is the same need for NSA and surveillance, but I'm much more anxious about how a company can be irresponsible compared to a federal agency.

Every time you have customer's information, the people responsible for giving access to that data should be held responsible...

</comment><comment><USER47> Please don't change the original title. The article is quoting an accusation. No claims have been proved yet.

</comment><comment><USER48> I wonder what it's like working for Uber and hearing this story. I imagine people form into two camps, with one doubling down their loyalty to the company (which could be properly placed for all we know), and another that becomes a little more suspicious walking into work next time.

</comment><comment><USER49> In my experience, every private company does this and every public company does not, due to sox compliance.

</comment><comment><USER50> The internet can really blow things out of proportion.

1980's: long distance company has employee(s) poking around messaging system and sells to newspaper. Few know. All voice over network is stored "searched" for "key" phrases. Very few know. Moreover there are no blogs or places to tell ones story.

Now one little confessional outing becomes widespread and thus assumed to be happening all the time.

I am sure (without facts) that uber is no worse than AT&T back in the day but now so so so many people can read and tell their stories.

Does anyone really think or expect communication via electricity is truly protected?

</comment><comment><USER51> Why would beyonce take an uber tho?

<comment><USER52> I had same question. Thought these people had person drivers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Can we make the rule that it's not OK to post negative stories about YCombinator companies on this site?

There are a million places to talk negative about everyhing. Here, we're trying to build things. We know no one is perfect. Lets make this place a bastion of positivity instead of negativity.

<comment><USER54> You really should not be being downvoted as your opinion is shared (in my experience) by the majority of struggling startup founders. The founders want to get big and successful and view negativity by techies as at best needless pessimism and at worse as symptomatic of a kind of anti-capitalism.

Capitalists who value the free market who are also the bosses and entrepreneurs see opposition to their money making efforts as an affront to their very core values.

In my opinion it's the wrong way to think - and the root cause is unchecked free market capitalism. However, I think it's true that many people think that to succeed as a startup, money comes before morals. We shouldn't hide that, but criticise it and voice our concerns.

<comment><USER55> Who cares what struggling startup founders believe? This forum isn't specifically for startup founders and their perspective isn't favored over anyone else's here.

It just happens to be hosted on a subdomain of a startup accelerator but the overwhelming majority of people who read it are not involved with startups.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Did I need another reason to loathe Uber? No, but reasons keep showing up.

</comment><comment><USER57> > Reveal reports that Uber also changed the name of that tool [from "God > View"] to "Heaven View."

What a useless change just for the sake of being politically correct. Are companies going to start removing "God Mode" from video games and calling it "super mode"? Seems crazy they would muck with naming to be PC even for internal tools

<comment><USER58> calm down. how is this being "politically correct"?

the name was most likely changed because the connotation of a "god view" means its omnipotent or at the very least omniscient. aka, it knows everything about you.

so it was most likely changed because of the backlash of the name being associated with invading your privacy and seeing what you were doing in uber. this again is why everyone is upset about uber forcing their app to be always on.</comment></comment>


VR painting with TiltBrush - <AUTHOR> https://virtualart.chromeexperiments.com/#/artists <comment><AUTHOR> Here's a technical write-up by Michael Chang, who wrote the WebGL portion of the site: [https://developers.google.com/web/showcase/case-study/art- se...](https://developers.google.com/web/showcase/case-study/art-sessions)</comment>


Let's Encrypt: An Automated Certificate Authority to Encrypt the Entire Web - <AUTHOR> https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3363192 <comment><AUTHOR> This is our new academic paper at ACM CCS '19 presenting the history, organization, technology, and impact of the Let's Encrypt CA.</comment>


Why Hurricane Florence is so intense for a storm this far north - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/10/17844258/hurricane-florence-atlantic-storm-category-four-intensity-unusual <comment><USER2> What really concerns me about the track of this hurricane is that North Carolina has so many hog farms. Even ordinary heavy rain can cause hog waste lagoons (more or less the filthiest thing on the planet) to overflow. A hurricane is going to wash all of that hog waste downstream. Think of that when you see pictures of people wading through floodwaters.</comment>


The Creators of Pegasus Have Access to the Cloud of Facebook,Google,Apple,Amazon - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/95b91412-a946-11e9-b6ee-3cdf3174eb89 <comment><AUTHOR> [https://gizmodo.com/report-nso-groups-pegasus-spyware-can- br...](https://gizmodo.com/report-nso-groups-pegasus-spyware-can-break-into- cloud-1836560630)

</comment><comment><USER2> They have access to anything when Pegasus is installed in the phone. The rootkit is fairly advanced.</comment>


Overheard on the Goldman Sachs elevator - <AUTHOR> http://totalfratmove.com/769302

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow... I previously worked in finance, and the sad part is that every one of those comments sounds right at home for a Wall St bank. Happy I got out when I did.</comment>


Approaches to Natural Language Processing and Understanding - <AUTHOR> http://www.topbots.com/4-different-approaches-natural-language-processing-understanding <comment><USER2> I think if you want something _really_ general then the interactive learning is the right way, but maybe it can't really be model-based, because those models are usually actually pretty specific to the domain like in the example with the blocks.

So if its based on a model it might be a very general type of model like a physics simulation, or maybe to get completely general you just have to break things down into granular (perhaps virtual) sense inputs, motor outputs, time and series. And then to handle real-world complexity you might need something like a neural network.

<comment><USER3> interactive learning is Science Fiction.

<comment><USER2> But there are many examples of interactive learning systems, starting with the specific one from the article..

<comment><USER3> A description of a system doesn't make it real. Without (open) implementation I will keep saying it's SF. Concept search is SF too.

Have a look at [https://www.general-ai-challenge.org/](https://www.general-ai- challenge.org/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Star architect Zaha Hadid dies aged 65 - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/mar/31/star-architect-zaha-hadid-dies-aged-65 <comment><USER2> Always loved how aggressive her stuff was: I occasionally spend time near [https://thebeautyoftransport.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/vau...](https://thebeautyoftransport.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/vauxhall- bus-station-from-the-north-end-3-april-2014.jpg) and love looking at it. If you're into architecture, get a copy of [https://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/architecture/all/...](https://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/architecture/all/03402/facts.hadid_updated_version.htm)

Hadid was picked on by other working architects as a 'paper architect' until into her thirties: she'd win comps, but they'd never actually build her designs. These day's she is/was the #1 architect in the world. Persist, visionary people!

<comment><USER3> NB: The bus station in Vauxhall (linked) wasn't designed by Zaha, but by Arup's architecture dept

<comment><USER2> You're right. Too late to edit but +1.</comment></comment></comment>


A visual history of abortion and birth control - <AUTHOR> Hey there, thought you'd be interested in this story. It's a fascinating photo essay by Laia Abril on centuries of birth control and abortion methods, some of which are surprisingly still in use today.
Here's a direct link: http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/now/politics/216773-abortion-contraception-birth-control-visual-history
The project pictures a history in "gadgets" - from lemon rinds and fish bladder condoms, to soap and enema syringes, to illegal surgical instruments disguised as something else, to, finally, methods "women could use to protect themselves regardless of the partner's cooperation."
Thanks, Kelsey <comment><USER2> This is not the way to post an article to HN. Instead, enter the URL from the submit page and the story will appear normally.

A note about your site:

By posting many articles from your magazine and zero from anywhere else, you guys are breaking the spirit of the law here. We want HN users to post stories that they personally find intellectually interesting, not because they have content to promote.

Since hopesandfears.com has many good articles that are a good fit for HN, it would be in your interest to get this right. If you don't, users will eventually complain that you are spamming HN. We contacted one of your submitters already about this, but please email firstname.lastname@example.com if you would like help in using this site appropriately. It would be a win for our readers, so we'd be happy to advise.</comment>


Rystad Energy: US to export more oil, liquids than Saudis by yearend - <AUTHOR> https://www.ogj.com/articles/2019/03/rystad-energy-us-to-export-more-oil-liquids-than-saudis-by-yearend.html <comment><AUTHOR> Note that the US is basically break-even on oil/liquid consumption.

Either way, this is pretty extra-ordinary.</comment>


5 (Inexpensive) Ways to Buy a More Productive Life. - <AUTHOR> https://nootrobox.com/blog/5-ways-to-buy-a-more-productive-life/

<comment><USER2> I wouldn't actually recommend getting the kind of whiteboard marker pictured in the article. They're generic and easily mixed up in the sea of crappy markers you're trying to get away from in the first place, so you'll inevitably spend a few minutes at the end of every meeting scribbling a line on the whiteboard with each marker in the room to make sure you're taking _your_ marker (because ostensibly yours is the one that writes well). Not to mention that losing the cap is frustrating.

I got a whiteboard marker with a "retractable tip" and I really recommend it. It basically looks like a slightly blown up pen, fits in most of the same places (e.g. in your bag), and fits in your hand a little better (ie more like a real pen).

I know it seems trivial, but those pens were a real game changer for me. And yes, I know how sad that sounds now.

edit: I thought about _not_ linking to an item since it'd look like I was trying to sell them, but the item the author linked to was a single dry erase marker (for close to $20, currently), which is either hilarious or outrageous depending on your sense of humor. I got some Expo markers[0]. Cheaper, more pens, more colors (although if you want just black pens I think there's a cheaper 3-pack out there).

0: [http://www.amazon.com/Expo-Retractable-Markers- Fashion-17516...](http://www.amazon.com/Expo-Retractable-Markers- Fashion-1751667/dp/B002JG23PS/)

<comment><USER3> Get a whiteboard marker form Montblanc. You're worth it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can vouch for numbers 3 and four. I even had one of two power cables burn out on a month long trip, in a country where I couldn't buy another. Redundancy to the rescue.

Meanwhile, a very small USB drive on my keychain has proved it's worth time and again. There are times and places when Dropbox won't solve your problem.

<comment><USER5> I just carry a USB cable in my jacket pocket - for charging my phone, and for using the phone as an external disk

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I have #1 (compact power strip) and it's saved my butt a couple times on long layovers. And usually I make friends with someone else who also needs to charge. Cool life hack.

<comment><USER6> 1 is clever. I need #5. Sucks to be hungry and running out and about between meetings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ditch your cellphone entirely. Stop watching TV. Automate something. Delegate. Start saying no.

</comment><comment><USER8> as your income goes up, you will find that buying multiples of things you like, and buying consumable products in bulk has a very high return on investment from a convenience and marginal cost savings point of view:

* device chargers for home, office, car, and backpack/briefcase

* several pairs of the shoes or sunglasses you really like

* bottled beverages and non-perishable snacks in bulk (JERKY!)

* cheaper versions of things you use at home, for when you're traveling (in case you lose them)

* multiple monitors for your workstation

etc.</comment>