White House weighs encryption crackdown - <AUTHOR> https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/27/trump-officials-weigh-encryption-crackdown-1385306?cid=apn <comment><USER2> There's quite a bit of fallout from banning end-to-end encryption. First, it means snooping communication channels to ensure that they're either unencrypted, or encrypted with the officially approved backdoored algorithm. That's the obvious first step, remember the Clipper Chip's LEAF field, and the LEAF blower attack? Once some heinous crime is committed using encrypted-via- another-algorithm data carried in the officially encryption algorithm, you've got to start occasionally decrypting a communication channel to ensure that a 2nd level of encryption isn't present. The logic of official encryption algorithms almost inevitably leads to all comms channels being checked for decryptability.

The second major side effect will be essentially making writing software into a completely corporate thing. Either the official algorithm is a secret (Remember the Clipper Chip and/or Skipjack?), or writing implementations becomes work that only a very trusted few are allowed to do (see inevitability of snooping above). Currently it's very difficult for medium to small companies to do the paperwork for security clearances. It's not going to be any easier to get programmers certified or bonded or whatever to work on official algorithm implementations. This means slower introduction of any innovations, and any buggy implementations will be in use for a long time before getting fixed.

<comment><USER3> Is there stenographic encoding for binary sort of like Base64 that outputs full human-readable sentences?

So much bad prose on the internet, it seems feasible to make this hard to distinguish from human-written text. Plus you could have multiple codings for values, allowing non-deterministic encoding but deterministic decoding.

How do you prove that the giant integer which represents this text is a random result of my thoughts rather than encoded information?

<comment><USER2> Well, the US has handled other difficult issues with super-vague laws, like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) of 1984, which appears to have been used at least as recently as 2011. If you have a weird law like the CFAA, a nation can also do the Chinese Government's "One eye open, one eye shut" vaguely vague policy, where unpredictably, the CFAA is enforced very harshly, usually on someone totally unlikeable. This makes everyone else very wary of stepping over some boundary, never mind that nobody knows where that boundary is, so everyone is very conservative in approaching issues with the law. By applying such a law infrequently, and on unlikeable defendants, the government makes it very difficult to challenge the law itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is precisely one of the reasons why OpenBSD was developed in Canada (crypto). No such regulations barring import/export of crypto.

In the end, it's impossible to police the use of strong encryption. Things like Waste and many others saw this coming back in the "Clipper chip" and PGP trouble days. What would end up happening is people just start appealing to OTP. Well-designed OTP is very resistant to attack.

This all reminds me of Neal Stephenson's seminal book, Cryptonomicon, one of the best IT fiction books ever written. If you have an interest in encryption, coding, data havens, currency, etc., this is the book for you. It's a veritable tome.

* Editing to say that despite Cryptonomicon being written in 1999, I still think it holds its own even now. Kind of a timeless classic as far as IT goes.

<comment><USER5> There is no country on the planet that stands for individual freedom more than the US; we were founded on the idea. The idea that Canada has stronger free speech protection is laughable. There is zero chance this idea goes anywhere. Look at the sources for the article, that should give some indication of its credibility.

<comment><USER6> There is no country on the planet that pays more blind unthinking lip-service to the concept of freedom I'll give you that but if you think the average US citizen has more freedom by any objective international standard measure than the average Canadian citizen you may want to put down that KoolAid you've been drinking and reconsider because you would find few knowledgeable people who would agree with your assertion.

<comment><USER5> Only by some absurd idea of freedom you are able to summon. We have the freedom to be assholes yet. Sure, we lost battles against the totalitarians on several fronts, but we are still more free in the sense that one would be free as a sole occupant on a Caribbean island.

People are allowed to freely associate in corporations and pursue their economic goals. Canada is smaller than California, population wise and GDP, and most of your income comes from natural resources like copper, coal, oil, and gold.

Non-Americans can't stop visiting American websites. Hmm.

<comment><USER5> The negativity on this comment is amazing. These Euro ideas would die so fast. I will pay for your flights to Denver. please come to CO.

<comment><USER7> uh the us sucks please fly me to Denver

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

<comment><USER9> That's an interesting hypothetical for a law school exam, but I don't think any of the Supreme Court would find it very compelling, as it doesn't materially abridge any of those things. People not feeling comfortable with saying things is materially different than actually restricting them from saying them.

EDIT: I wholeheartedly disagree with restricting E2E and believe in freedom of speech as strongly as one can believe in any explicitly enumerated right, I just don't agree the text of the First Amendment covers this, and it's hard for me to imagine any of SCOTUS coming up with an argument supporting it.

<comment><USER10> I would argue that freedom of speech includes the freedom to say things that look like absolute gibberish to the surveillance apparatus. Whether they contain a coded message is irrelevant.

<comment><USER11> You could argue that, but does US constitutional jurisprudence support that argument?

<comment><USER12> If US constitutional jurisprudence, in the eyes of our highest officials, supports the argument that corporate money spent politically is speech, then I hope they'd agree that a random-looking sequence of on and off states transmitted through some physical medium with the intention of one or more recipients gleaning meaning from the output is also a kind of speech. I'm definitely not a lawyer, though.

<comment><USER11> I don't understand how the two are related, can you clarify? What does corporate spending on political campaigns have to do with encryption?

<comment><USER12> I just mean if they use a broad definition of "speech", including a corporation spending money, I subjectively feel like that definition should also encompass sending text or symbols which appear to be random or encrypted. There is no relation between the two other than that I think if money is speech, pure information, in any form, should also be considered protected speech, unless there's a copyright on the information. Similarly, I think things like burning a flag, or sending someone a painting, also should be (and are?) considered speech.

<comment><USER11> Yep, my point when asking you to clarify was to see whether you were making this argument: "the Supreme Court will let basically anything crazy count as free speech, so why not this?" It seems like indeed you were.

But Citizens United doesn't rely on a broad interpretation of freedom of speech at all. It relies on a broad interpretation of freedom of _association_. Supporting various political views is "speech" by any possible understanding -- that's not broad at all. The main "innovation" of Citizens United is that when people form associations (like corporations) they retain certain rights, such as freedom of speech.

A better analogy would be if we already all agreed that individuals have the right to send encrypted messages, and we were discussing whether corporations retained the same rights. Then you'd have a point, bringing up Citizens United. But when discussing whether people have some underlying right at all, it doesn't seem relevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > A ban on end-to-end-encryption would make it easier for law enforcement and > intelligence agents to access suspects' data. But such a measure would also > make it easier for hackers and spies to steal Americans' private data, by > creating loopholes in encryption that are designed for the government but > accessible to anyone who reverse-engineers them. Watering down encryption > would also endanger people who rely on scrambled communications to hide from > stalkers and abusive ex-spouses.

It does increase the chances that your communications will get out to third parties besides the government, but not for the reasons given in that paragraph.

The way you would actually implement this is not by putting a "loophole" in or "watering down" the encryption between the parties. You'd do it by adding the government as another party. E.g., two party end-to-end encrypted messaging channels become three party end-to-end encrypted chats. N party end-to-end encrypted chat channels becomes N+1 party end-to-end encrypted chat channels.

To a third party, such as a stalker or abusive ex-spouse, who is trying to eavesdrop on your messages these N+1 party systems are as secure as the previous N party version.

The increased risk comes from the risk that the government won't be able to keep its copies of your messages secure after it securely receives them. Presumably they will go into a database somewhere, from with they will be made available to law enforcement and intelligence services. That means that there will be a bureaucracy around operating and accessing the database, and given the number of different jurisdictions involved and the likely frequency of access requests my guess is that this would need to be a large bureaucracy. A large bureaucracy dealing with a large amount of sensitive data is just asking for trouble.

<comment><USER14> > The increased risk comes from the risk that the government won't be able to > keep its copies of your messages secure after it securely receives them.

Or how about simply not wanting the government, a third party, to be able to scrutinize your private conversations?

<comment><USER4> Or we'll all end up making Gorky Park-esque dead drops under the cover of darkness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I recently finished "Information Doesn't want to be Free" and would highly recommend it as informed and well reasoned commentary on topics like this. Cory Doctrow puts into words the vague hand wavy feelings I have when we start talking about encryption, copyright, and freedom of speech on the internet.

The ebook is free (with suggested donation) on his website.

<comment><USER15> To elaborate more and provide some substance, the existential threat posed by regulations like this is really hard to get across to the broader public. The more good analogies we can acquire for explaining why every day people doing every day things should be able to do so privately, is important.

<comment><USER16> Maciej Ceglowski recently wrote about this: [https://idlewords.com/2019/06/the_new_wilderness.htm](https://idlewords.com/2019/06/the_new_wilderness.htm) \- he calls it "ambient privacy."

> For the purposes of this essay, I'll call it 'ambient privacy'—the > understanding that there is value in having our everyday interactions with > one another remain outside the reach of monitoring, and that the small > details of our daily lives should pass by unremembered. What we do at home, > work, church, school, or in our leisure time does not belong in a permanent > record. Not every conversation needs to be a deposition.

The article is presented more in terms of JS/app trackers, but I believe the analogy still applies.

<comment><USER17> Reminds me much of the philosopher Fredric Jameson's notion that modern culture basically exemplifies the end of temporality. There is much less forgetting, including forgetting of inconsequential minutiae, nowadays.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If communications had to be decryptable, could I go to jail for emailing the output of /dev/urandom and then not being able to prove that it wasnt an encrypted message? Is it garbage, or is it clever encryption?

<comment><USER19> They'd put you in a cell with the 8-year old who was smart enough to understand one time pads and thus also had access to unbreakable encryption.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> God forbid the authorities have to do some old school actual investigation. The "we need need to fight terror and child porn" never seems to grow old

<comment><USER13> Wasn't a big part of "old school actual investigation" looking at the communications of suspects?

<comment><USER21> Yes, by doing things like putting "bugs" in their homes or workplaces to listen in on them.

There's nothing stopping the authorities from doing this now, and in fact, it's even easier now with the level of miniaturization we have now.

<comment><USER22> Bugging peoples' homes without their consent seems like an equally egregious privacy violation

<comment><USER23> That sounds like a job for Alexa!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I am not sure if this opinion is permitted here, but I would suggest that people just implement their own E2E and ignore any rules that suggest you must not do so.

Obviously a business can not survive by this logic. Rather, implement systems that permit end users send whatever text they wish, potentially including obfuscated text.

An example of business that have done this for decades would be all the amateur radio manufacturers. It is illegal to make a HAM radio that operates outside of the HAM bands. But... clip one diode, or hold down two buttons and power on the radio, presto, all frequencies unlocked, radio in "debug mode". Certainly similar logic could be implemented by clever people here.

 _" One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."_ \--Martin Luther King, Jr.

</comment><comment><USER24> They will have to pull encryption from my cold, dead hands. And I'll strongly consider making a 80% lower legally-unregistered gun if things get any more insane, because stuff is going off a cliff 1930's-style.

<comment><USER25> I'd print one, but my state AG made it illegal for people in my state to download the blueprints for one.

I've been tempted to get on a proxy, download the file, print out a few copies of the source in book form, and slip it in our local libraries.

<comment><USER26> 3D printing a firearm isn't practical. They are dangerous and only fire a few times. You're better off with an 80%.

<comment><USER27> An AR-15 lower doesn't have that much strain

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I don't understand what this would mean in practice.

"End-to-end encryption" isn't really some fancy new technology. It's just the combination of communication plus encryption. If you and I share a password, I encrypt some data, email you that data, and you decrypt it, that's end-to-end encryption.

So what would be banned? Would you not be allowed to email encrypted files to someone? That seems implausible. Would it be legal to email encrypted text files to your friends, but illegal to build software that automatically did both encryption plus email?

That seems pretty weird, making it legal to do a thing but making it illegal to build software that made that thing easier.

<comment><USER29> IMO this points more to having probable cause than actually criminalizing encryption itself. If privacy or hiding something by itself is probable cause you can essentially justify any form of search.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Are we in China? Its always about terrorism, but NSA/FBI/CIA/3-LETTER-AGENCY fails to do anything when there is terrorism or about to be. They have allowed things to happen. This should fall under the 4A for those of us in America imho.

<comment><USER31> Intel is a thankless job; if you keep people safe, nobody knows you are doing anything, but if something happens, you're the first to get blamed. Just because you're ignorant about what people working in various intelligence agencies are doing, doesn't mean they aren't doing anything. I worked in various intel fields for most of my adult life, and it gets tiring to hear that intel agencies don't do anything.

<comment><USER32> That isn't blaming the Intel agencies for doing nothing, it's blaming them for abridging our freedoms in trade for purported safety.

<comment><USER33> Isn't this analogous to IT security policies in pretty much any company?

They get blamed for abridging worker productivity in trade for purported safety.

<comment><USER34> Contrary to what you may have been told, productivity and freedom are not the same things.

<comment><USER33> Is not the freedom to be productive not one of the unwritten tenets of capitalism?

<comment><USER34> Can you think of no other freedoms?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> What would this mean for personal web servers running HTTPS? Being forced to use a specific (NSA-breakable) algorithm? Forced obtain TLS cert from a government-controlled source?

</comment><comment><USER36> I would be really interested in the legal format that they put such a restriction in.

<comment><USER37> My guess, based on recent history:

It will be an executive order that requires companies with a communications product and over 500k users to implement lawful intercept protocols for communications between any two users.

Most likely companies will repurpose their GDPR tools to provide standardized exports to authorities with legal intercept requests. The regulation will be written in such a way that it precludes end to end encryption as an option, rather than forbidding it specifically. Failure to comply with lawful intercept requests will result in a fine with high interest.

<comment><USER38> What about foreign companies from countries like China or Russia? How will they make them comply?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The success of intelligence and code breaking during WW II apparently convinced the elites that a small elite intelligence and criminal investigation force could effectively control terrorism, criminality and excessive dissent in society. Thus, the emphasis on electronic surveillance for national security and law enforcement.

It doesn't actually work very well, since terrorists can hide, gangs can organize, drug cartels can flourish, and society is becoming more disorderly.

Weak or broken encryption privacy in order to continue a failed approach is not the answer. More physical security, more local law enforcement, and more local human intelligence to prevent terrorism and crime is a better alternative. It is better to be physically protected from bad actors than to have a technologically sophisticated process for apprehending perpetrators.

</comment><comment><USER40> Constitutional considerations aside (since all implementations seem to run up against one or two amendments), the most likely route is probably to force compliance by tech workers/companies when presented with a warrant (see: the law rushed through late last year in Australia).

One basic implementation is that after some closed-door conversations, your specific instance of WhatsApp receives an update which either compromises your keys or performs some background E2E of your plaintext conversations (as stored on your device) with whichever government/law enforcement agency made the request.

Rather than adding the government as a third party to all communications at once, this is a nice easy first step for them to take.

</comment><comment><USER41> So ill be honest here, im not a STEM person...but how exactly do you "crack down" on something thats essentially just really great math?

What, if anything, is the government hoping to do to stop people from using GPG/PGP? I mean i guess you could force companies in the US to not ship phones encrypted by default, but they could just sneak a menu asking if you _want_ it encrypted before the first power on.

How does the cat go back in the bag after 2015? Snowden has basically put the word "encryption" in the mouth and ears of every American. We know the government spies on us. We know it uses this information to hold theater trials of people it just doesnt like.

How do you crack down on math?

<comment><USER42> > How do you crack down on math?

Same way you crack down on anything else. Round up people and throw them in prison if they break the law.

Sure you cannot stop people from using encryption but if it's a criminal offense to incorporate it into a consumer application then you could easily go after the company, it's executives, developers, or even users. The first three of those is already enough to have a chilling effect on the rest of the industry.

<comment><USER38> It won't stop foreign developers in countries that don't extradite people to US like China, Iran, North Korea or Russia. You will have to find an excuse to cut those countries from Internet or implement a border firewall.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> You fall in one of two groups here:

1\. The NSA probably has the ability, one way or another, to break E2E encryption. This is a symbolic move attempting to soothe the masses into thinking their communication is still secure.

2\. This is vast government overreach trying to stifle personal privacy. Such a bill is idiotic not only because it runs counter to the US Constitution, but also because enforcing such a bill would be virtually impossible.

<comment><USER44> Even if the NSA could break E2E encryption (a very big if), that doesn't automatically imply that local, county, and state level law enforcement agencies would be able to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Just to take a moment and remind everybody that your encryption is pointless anyway because of ME[1] and its ilk.

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

</comment><comment><USER46> The boat has sailed on this, strong encryption is everywhere, the algorithms are widely known and understood, anyone who wants encryption will have it. Back when encryption was considered a weapon in the US it did absolutely nothing to stop everyone else in the world from having it, I don't see it working any better in reverse.

As far as law enforcement goes, it reminds me of a favorite Futurama bit - Some cops can read minds... Some cops can see the past... And some cops get help from angels... But there's still one cop with no special abilities whatsoever. To solve this crime he'll have to FIND OUT.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JjpxSdM6fY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JjpxSdM6fY)

</comment><comment><USER47> I can't wait for the mass hacks that come from this, with millions of people's payment and other information getting snooped. People would stop using the internet for serious things again and our industry would die after enough of them

</comment><comment><USER48> Not this shit again.

* Honest Government Ad | Anti Encryption Law - YouTube || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-OMR-iWOE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-OMR-iWOE)

</comment><comment><USER49> Another article. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/06/29/u-s- may-o...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/06/29/u-s-may-outlaw- uncrackable-end-to-end-encrypted-messaging-report-claims/)

(Not okay).

</comment><comment><USER38> It is interesting that Russia already has a similar law (IM apps are required to retain and provide the content at request; they are required to ask a phone number for registration; websites having a specific amount of visitors must do the same). Luckily, some foreign companies like Telegram openly ignore it and decentralized messaging apps like Tox are unable to comply with the law.

It would be difficult to enforce such a law without implementing network filters.

</comment><comment><USER50> The article mentions "tech companies." But isn't SSL end to end encrypted? And doesn't nearly every business that makes transactions online use SSL?

<comment><USER51> I assume they'd come up with a new encryption standard where you use an additional (government) public key to encrypt with, allowing the government to decrypt it later?

Or maybe they'll only enforce the rules on "chat applications" or things the general public uses?

I guess they're talking about this right now.

<comment><USER50> I'm sure you're right. And I guess I'm saying something obvious when I say they haven't thought this through. So they're going to get every bank, every e-commerce website, every server and every client to upgrade their SSL packages? That's daunting. (that's ignoring the challenge of never leaking the government's golden key)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I sincerely recommend reading the book Crypto if this topic interests you. This isn't the first time we've been here, and it won't be the last, but Crypto does an excellent job going through some of the history and the absurdity of the idea.

[https://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/books/crypto](https://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/books/crypto)

</comment><comment><USER53> A Canadian prosecutor tried to force someone this year to provide a password to decrypt the contents of their cell phone via the court system. She failed [0].

[0] [https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2019/2019oncj54/2019on...](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2019/2019oncj54/2019oncj54.html)

</comment><comment> Digit-Al Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Strong encryption was illegal for years. It didn't stop people having strong encryption. If they make it illegal for American companies to make software with unbreakable encryption then that will leave the door open for companies in other countries to fill the gap. The best algorithms are all public so it's not like it would be that difficult.

</comment><comment><USER54> That's what happens when un-educated people legislate about stuff they don't have any clue of. Same in Europe with the Article 13 copyright reform.

Problem is I do not see any reasonable way to get around this as a large chonk of the voter base is old, un-educated, tech-illiterate people... and politicians tend to cater to whatever they want (which is mostly law-and-order crap such as this).

<comment><USER55> > That's what happens when un-educated people legislate about stuff they don't > have any clue of

This is becoming an increasing problem as legislators get older and technology becomes more important to society.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Not going to happen. We've been through this before.

What I do think we might see is some kind of corporate incentive (secretive or not so secretive) to effectively push normal (non-computery) people into using non-E2E services. Google is already doing a fantastic job of this.

</comment><comment><USER57> It's difficult to see how any restrictions on encryption can be deemed constitutional, especially by a conservative majority court. In my view the 1st and 4th amendments deem encryption constitutional, "corporate personhood" reaffirms this.

</comment><comment><USER58> > the Secret Service regularly run into encryption roadblocks during their > investigations

Maybe it's time we change the language and stop letting government officials label individual rights which are working as intended as "roadblocks" into government investigations.

> experts generally agree that Congress is unlikely to pass a bill requiring > warrant-compatible encryption

 _Boo hoo_. That's the system working as intended. Do your job correctly and stop making an enemy out of the People and you'll find requiring a warrant isn't a "roadblock".

<comment><USER59> Warrants don't work, that's the problem. There have been many instances now where a judge issued a legal warrant that was impossible to enforce, because of encryption. Should that be the case? It's not a simple question.

<comment><USER60> Just because the ability to hide information has reached unprecedented levels does not suddenly make the principles hard to grasp. Warrants have never been a guarantee of getting evidence. They are only permission to look.

Finding the answer to law enforcement being able to make these warrants useful while also maintaining rights is complex. Seeing a terrible solution as terrible is simple.

<comment><USER59> Ok, so warrants fail. There are cases where people are held in contempt of court, essentially for life. Is that a good resolution to warrants being broadly, commonly enforceable? Those people aren't convicted of the crime they were accused for, in some cases they may have even forgotten the encryption key.

<comment><USER61> Indefinite contempt charges are why forcing someone to hand over a password, encryption key, submit to biometrics, etc. needs to be banned.

The current state of affairs is a clear violation of one of the US's founding principles: "innocent until proven guilty" (and also the 5th amendment).

<comment><USER59> Remember, the Bill of Rights were tagged on after the Constitution. The Constitution establishes what powers the Government could and couldn't have, purely in its relationship with the constituent states. The Bill of Rights filter out what it doesn't. And in its vagueness, the Constitution claimed quite a lot.

The ability, power, and right to investigate crimes is certainly reserved to both the states and the Fed. Government in the Constitution.

<comment><USER62> The ability to not be forced to participation in one's own prosecution is one of those rights the Constitution guarantees.

The fact that modern life typically entails recording and documenting almost every single thing you do during the day, and yet law enforcement complains about "going dark"? Utter nonsense.

People have never been more widely tracked, or more widely accountable. The absolute last thing we have is a _privacy_ epidemic.

The government has the right to investigate crimes. They do not have a specific right for defendants to keep records of what they did wrong or to be provided that evidence, outside the context of business regulations which require specific paperwork be maintained.

And by the way, the Constitution specifically enumerates what powers the Federal government has. _All Else_ is reserved to the States, or to the People.

Which is why we weren't supposed to need a Bill of Rights in the first place. The Constitution doesn't enumerate Speech or Assembly as something the government can control, therefore it is not. However the Framers didn't all agree we shouldn't go and list a bunch of things just in case, except that it might make people think if it's _not_ listed then maybe it's not a Right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> The government is doing everything they can to insulate the US from the rest of the world while continuing the war against their own citizens. Whoever needs real encryption won't be able to let their business touch US jurisdiction.

</comment><comment><USER64> This would utterly break the internet, how are government officials so idiotic to continue their magical thinking that somehow you can get rid of privacy and keep security. This is a dead horse that is becoming a perennial zombie.

</comment><comment><USER65> I hope for future generations that there are enough free thinkers that will practice civil disobedience in such a case.

I can't imagine anyone with any degree of tech understanding and intelligence supporting such a big brother policy.

</comment><comment><USER66> Mmm. Seems this leads to a level of encryption where we decrypt with one algorithm to a clear text that can be seen by the government and another algorithm that becomes a hidden text different from the other one.

</comment><comment><USER67> In three years, Congress will ban the largest source of trust in internet computer systems. All financial insitutions are downgraded from end to end encryption, becoming fully exposed. Afterwards, criminals steal all bank assets with a perfect operational record. The Internet Security Bill is passed. The system goes online on August 4th, 2023. Cryptographers are removed from corporate defense. The ban catalyzes attacks on infastructure at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 AM, Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.

</comment><comment><USER68> i don't think this will stop those that are truely motivated to have end to end encryption. Any agents working for state sponsored stuff or criminals with means, can easily hire some programmers to create encrypted communication. setting up a basic messaging platform that kinda works is trivial, adding encryption to it, isn't too hard.

</comment><comment><USER69> Perhaps if cryptography were regulated like guns again, the 2nd amendment zealots would come out in defense of it?

</comment><comment><USER70> Sure, once you require these I can hack the politicians who want this and run them out of their gravy train.

</comment><comment><USER17> Pretty incredible difference in policy between Obama and Trump administrations (not that Obama's was particularly respectful of privacy to begin with); from the 2011 WH "International Strategy for Cyberspace" [0]. Remember, the Snowden revelations took place June 2013.

> Ensure the end-to-end interoperability of an Internet accessible to all.

> _Users should have confidence that the information they transmit over the > Internet will be received as it was intended, anywhere in the world. Equally > important is the expectation that under normal circumstances, data will flow > across borders without regard for its national origin or destination. > Ensuring the integrity of information as it flows over the Internet gives > users confidence in the network and keeps the Internet open as a reliable > platform for innovation that drives growth in the global economy and > encourages the exchange of ideas among people around the world. The United > States will continue to make clear the benefits of an Internet that is > global in nature, while opposing efforts to splinter this network into > national intranets that deprive individuals of content from abroad._

[0] [https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/rss...](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/international_strategy_for_cyberspace.pdf)

<comment><USER71> Oh yeah such a difference in policy. First of all your quote makes no mention of encryption second of all: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_\(decryption_program\)) which debued during the Obama administration for those who don't feel like checking dates.

<comment><USER17> I misspoke in my first comment; I meant 'stated policy' \- we all know both of them aren't really in favor of privacy. Also, while there is no mention of encryption or cryptography, you might find the bits on the necessity of guaranteeing military network security interesting. This policy paper, of course, came out near the time of Stuxnet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Suggestion: if everyone big player who takes credit cards online put a little banner on their site saying, "Due to possible action by the Trump administration (insert link), in the near future your credit card transactions will no longer be secure. If you wish to continue to have secure credit card transactions, please click here and inform the white house."

If Amazon alone did it, there would probably be a pretty big push back.

</comment><comment><USER73> If the government removes your right to privacy, we're seeing 1984 come to life.

</comment><comment><USER74> Math is not a crime.

</comment><comment><USER75> From TFA . . .

> Tech companies like Apple, Google and Facebook have ncreasingly

> built end-to-end encryption into their products and software

> in recent years — billing it as a privacy and security feature

Because Facebook and Google are known for being so concerned about your privacy.

<comment><USER51> They are actually concerned about your privacy, except in the cases where they can sell it for profit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Privacy advocates always just say screw the feds but come on... if police work becomes effectively impossible, what's the point of having detectives? Is having absolute privacy worth an irreversible increase in unsolved murders/human trafficking/etc.?

Why is it so hard to create a cryptographic solution that would allow E2E that works 99.9% of the time, is resistant to malicious actors, but is breakable with a warrant? Have people really even tried?

For example, consider the following system:

1\. E2E decryption keys are encrypted with vendor's device-specific asynchronous key

2\. Keys are then stored in write-only non-volatile storage

3\. Only way to read key is with expensive hardware that is difficult for civilians to obtain/replicate (scanning electron microscope, etc.)

4\. Thus, only way to decrypt key is by a) physically obtaining device, b) using expensive hardware to extract encrypted key(s), c) serving encrypted key along with legal warrant to vendor who would then comply with the law (or not, if it is unlawful)

Wouldn't such a system allow privacy yet also be resistant to attacks?

<comment><USER76> You left out b) vendor has the keys stolen or leaked by a disgruntled employee and now the encryption is useless.

That's the problem with all these systems, you're increasing the size of the attack surface enormously.

<comment><USER22> > You left out b) vendor has the keys stolen or leaked by a disgruntled > employee and now the encryption is useless.

e) If the keys are stolen, issue new keys to all devices

The leaked keys are only good for physically compromised devices in the hands of people with access to the scanning electron microscopes, which I daresay is an extremely small attack surface.

There is only a small window after the leak in which a device can be stolen, powered down, and compromised.

On the other hand, you could mandate that such keys aren't allowed to be stored in databases (physical access only)

<comment><USER9> You don't always know that keys have been stolen. And an electron scanning microscope is hard to get now, but what about state-sponsored actors spending half a decade developing a pocket-sized tool? The whole point of E2E is that all of these scenarios are literally not possible.

<comment><USER22> Well, periodically reissue keys then regardless of if you think they've been compromised. Or don't store the private key in a database, store on physical media in a vault that is airgapped and hard to access. Make the read-only- ability of the storage chip more difficult and onerous with each generation like paper currency security.

My point it that you could make it so difficult to break E2E for even the most elite hackers that the only realistic way to do it is with a warrant.

<comment><USER9> Not if you're sponsored by a hostile actor with functionally limitless resources. E2E isn't just about stopping legitimate law enforcement from conducting investigations.

<comment><USER22> > Not if you're sponsored by a hostile actor with functionally limitless > resources

Like who? Russia? China?

Here's how they can compromise my device:

1\. Locate me within the USA (easy)

2\. Send a spy onto US soil to find me and steal my phone (hard)

3\. Send another spy to work for Apple (easy)

4\. Spy needs to break into Apple's vault and retrieve airgapped media containing my device's private key without a warrant (super hard)

5\. Send both back to the motherland and use scanning electron microscope to complete the process (easy)

You really think that is viable? Seems extremely far fetched to me. Can you provide a more realistic scenario?

<comment><USER77> The more realistic scenario is already possible today, and doesn't need to involve so much technical mumbo-jumbo: at step #2, instead of stealing your phone, they kidnap you, and torture you until you give up your password. Done, and no need for steps 3-5.

(And I suspect, for a sufficiently-motivated state-level actor, that actually falls under "easy", or at most "medium".)

<comment><USER22> Right, so why are we so worried about this? If the government is malevolent they will just kidnap and torture you like the PRC.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Jeremy Corbyn target practice film 'unacceptable' - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47798717 <comment><USER2> Did they not hit the target?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This video is very obviously fake.</comment>


Tesla Motors Announces a New Home Battery - <AUTHOR> http://offgridquest.com/news/tesla-motors-announces-a-new-home-batter <comment><USER2> _So, where does lithium come from? It comes from the Earth, of course, but it doesn 't require strip mining or blowing the tops off mountains like other resources do...most often, lithium is found in briny underground ponds. The liquid is pumped out and left to dry in the sun._

TANSTAAFL

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lithium+pond+photos&iax=1&ia=image...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lithium+pond+photos&iax=1&ia=images&iai=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencephoto.com%2Fimage%2F438264%2Flarge%2FC0115790-Lithium_evaporation_pond- SPL.jpg)

Mining is mining. There isn't a "green" form. Tearing holes in the earth is not the worst ecological damage or the great health risk. The big problem is the water...and it will run downhill from the Andes and wherever else Lithium is mined and into the Ocean.

The house off the grid is built on industrial infrastructure.

<comment><USER3> Also many municipalities don't allow battery 'grid-tie' with the option of 'off the grid' living. For example, Connecticut has laws which don't allow houses to have batteries that would allow a house to be self sustaining and have a connection to the grid. This is because if you have batteries which cause a back flow during a power outage to the power station, an electrical worker could get shocked down the road.

The fact that lithium batteries aren't the greenest combined with the fact that you can't even live 'off the grid' in a grid tied system is a big uphill for these batteries.

<comment><USER4> A properly wired transfer switch fully cures that risk.

<comment><USER5> And even though the solution is right there, power line worker remains the ninth deadliest job in America.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-jobs-in- americ...](http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-jobs-in- america-2014-12#9-electrical-power-line-installers-and-repairers-2)

<comment><USER6> On trip through Minnesota, I watched a helicopter ferry guys up onto the towers to work (they dangled from the helicopter and then transferred over to the tower: [http://www.capx2020.com/](http://www.capx2020.com/) ). They were building the type of infrastructure the news says America doesn't know how to build anymore.

I wonder if energized lines are the big problem.

<comment><USER7> Workers can safely work on _live_ high voltage lines, if they're wearing a Faraday cage "hot suit" and not grounded: [http://youtu.be/LIjC7DjoVe8](http://youtu.be/LIjC7DjoVe8)

<comment><USER8> That video is awesome. I've seen a version with much better quality that really gets my acrophobia going... ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's very hard to beat lead-acid on:

\- $/Wh

\- number of cycles

\- ability to be recycled at eol

\- loss of capacity over the lifetime of the battery (or beyond!)

\- safety

It is easy to beat on

\- power density

\- weight

\- maintenance

\- mechanical stability (especially for fluid based cells)

\- installation cost (lead/acid requires a sealed enclosure venting to the outside to get rid of free oxygen and hydrogen)

The same batteries that work well for automotive applications will not do that well when you're building a storage cell for a house.

Lithium-ion does not have a whole lot of edge over lead-acid deep cycle gel cells when it comes to stationary applications.

The biggest issue with Lead-acid is that if you don't water them (if you use fluid based cells rather than gel based cells) that sulfur bridges can grow between the plates causing a cell to be shorted out. Gel based cells don't have that problem and are common in deep discharge setups.

<comment><USER10> Energy density is a big one. To store 5 kW * 24 hours (barely enough to power my house's essentials), I would need 286 of these ([http://www.amazon.com/VMAX857-Battery-Performance- minnkota-t...](http://www.amazon.com/VMAX857-Battery-Performance-minnkota- trolling/dp/B008974VFG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1424184394&sr=8-1&keywords=deep+cycle+marine+battery)). They are not small. Also, that would cost me nearly $32,000 in just batteries.

My ideal setup for this would be something like 20 kW * 7 days. That would fill my basement pretty easily.

<comment><USER9> That's a _very_ expensive battery for the given capacity. If you want to be efficient check out the gel batteries used to power golf carts and forklifts. You'll need 24 2V cells if you want to do this efficiently both from a cost perspective as well as to reduce line losses between batteries and inverters. (24 and 12V are really not adequate for larger power installations).

<comment><USER10> Such as these? [http://www.batterystuff.com/batteries/golf-cart- products/](http://www.batterystuff.com/batteries/golf-cart-products/)

I don't really see orders of magnitude jumps in power/$. Or am I looking for the wrong thing?

<comment><USER9> No, more like these:

[http://pics.camarades.com/v/jacques/renewables/batteries/IM0...](http://pics.camarades.com/v/jacques/renewables/batteries/IM000329.JPG.html)

Sold in bulk. That's a 48KWh bank and it cost about $US 5K

<comment><USER10> This is roughly 2.5 times cheaper than the marine battery I found first, definitely not orders of magnitude.

This is $5k for 2 kW * 24 hours. So 3 of these at $15k total would roughly replace my $700 generator + $10 worth of gasoline for emergency situations.

To truly run my house where it would be adequate at 20 kW or 24 hours or so, I'd need 10 of these at $50k. To run my house of for a week (where I live, the last major power outage lasted three weeks), I'd need $350k. For that amount of money, I can just buy a very nice house in Florida and go down there when the power goes out.

Now, if I go top of the line, I can get a 22kW generator ([http://www.homedepot.com/p/Generac-22-000-Watt-Air-Cooled- Au...](http://www.homedepot.com/p/Generac-22-000-Watt-Air-Cooled-Automatic- Standby-Generator-with-200-Amp-SE-Rated-Transfer- Switch-6551/205398231?N=5yc1vZbx9s)) for $4,700 + gasoline at $2.30/gallon where I live. This will not even require me to go out and start the thing as it kicks on automatically, much like a battery backup does.

Battery powered houses just don't make sense cost-wise, and at this price disparity it's not a question of spending a little more: $350,000 vs $4,700. That's two orders of magnitude. It's not the clean option, but given that it's standby power, I'd rather see us invest in more efficient power plants (nuclear and wind) than home batteries.

<comment><USER9> I think you're more than a bit power hungry. My house consumed < 5 KWh _max_ per day, so even running to 50% discharge that bank would power the house for up to 5 days.

It's much easier to save on consumption than to create capacity, especially stored capacity. You don't really realize just how much energy goes into AC, heating, washing and so on until you've lived off the grid for a bit. And then you'll quickly learn how to conserve energy. I'm currently living in an on- grid house, the old habits die hard, my computers are probably the biggest consumers here.

Anyway, if 22KW is your power budget then don't bother going off-grid without a generator.

Battery powered houses make perfect sense if you're able to conserve power, if you can't then of course it does not make sense.

<comment><USER10> That I suppose is the line for me. I am unwilling to go to a point where I cannot use my washer/dryer, dishwasher, AC, etc. I believe the majority of the developed world is with me on this, though of course there is a minority that have other priorities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It looks like Elon wants to ramp up production in the new Gigafactory right away, and create home batteries from the excess capacity. A Gigafactory running at full capacity should bring the cost of lithium ion batteries way down. Electric cars haven't hit the mainstream yet, so he has to do _something_ with the excess capacity, and this looks pretty straightforward.

So even if he sells these batteries at the break even point, he'll still get much closer to an economically viable Model 3, because the battery is such an expensive part in an electric car and this will bring the price of batteries down.

(I'm not sure if my reasoning makes sense though, because the Gigafactory isn't anywhere near finished yet, and according to wikipedia it won't hit full capacity until 2020.)

<comment><USER12> Home batteries have arguably fewer cycle times than a battery in a Tesla. By selling these, Tesla is essentially selling beta models to figure out kinks in the factory, in the batteries, etc, before putting them into their mainstream vehicles that have to suffer huge temperature gradients, lots of recharge cycles, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have home back-up power based on an inverter charging a lead-acid battery (located in a sheltered area outside the home), which costs about $100/kWh. Usage is about 1-2 hours discharge per day. No matter how well serviced, I've found these batteries don't last beyond four years. Hence I'd pay even $400/kWh for a well-engineered deep-cycle battery that is safe, maintenance- free, and will last at least 10 years. Excluding balance of system, even.

<comment><USER9> > No matter how well serviced, I've found these batteries don't last beyond > four years.

Wow, that's _really_ short, especially with such a shallow discharge pattern.

<comment><USER14> Not necessarily! We don't know how deep the battery is being discharged. But we can make a guess. 4 * 365 = 1400 cycles.

[http://www.mpoweruk.com/images/dod.gif](http://www.mpoweruk.com/images/dod.gif)

According to that chart (which is an approximation of course) 1400 cycles corresponds to about a 40% depth of discharge. Which isn't terribly shallow.

The other variable is the discharge rate, and the higher it is relative to battery capacity the worse the efficiency and also the propensity to fail early. A lot of times doubling the pack size can extend the pack life by more than two because the increased efficiency (the internal resistance is lower) reduces the depth of discharge by more than half.

[http://batteryuniversity.com/_img/content/crate1.jpg](http://batteryuniversity.com/_img/content/crate1.jpg)

Of course it feels totally ridiculous to only use 20% of the nameplate capacity of the system, and much worse than using 40% which you can sort-of rationalize as "half" but if it decreases your dollars per joule, it might be worth it.

EDIT:

I should also mention that if you're constantly charging and discharging and you don't mind a little energy loss you should look at nickel-iron batteries. They're not terribly efficient nor are they cheap in absolute terms but they're basically bulletproof.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93iron_battery](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93iron_battery)

[http://ironedison.com/](http://ironedison.com/)

<comment><USER15> I've wondered for years why people always gravitate towards Li-Ion cells when talking about a home storage battery. Li-Ion's advantages are far, far less important for a dwelling. Weight doesn't matter... you won't be moving them. Size doesn't matter nearly as much as it does in a vehicle... losing a few inches off an entire wall in a garage won't really be an issue for most people. Edison cells are incredibly durable and much, much more environmentally friendly than any other battery tech I know of. The lifespan is nothing short of incredible too... you won't need to change them out.

Thank you very much for the 2nd link. I was unaware any company was still manufacturing them. The last time I looked, the last company I could find that made them stopped a few years prior. I'm glad someone is making them still/again and marketing for an appropriate use.

The one odd thing is the price... for something as low-tech (relatively speaking) as an Edison cell, I'd expect them to be much cheaper. Must be the lack of competition.

<comment><USER9> They may _seem_ to be low tech but the electrodes are works of art and manufacturing them is a lot more expensive than a lead-acid battery of comparable capacity. They charge slower too, but they'll stand up to abuse better than every other rechargeable battery tech. I looked at them for a long time before settling on regular lead-acid, cost and finding an inverter that would charge these properly were the major factors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What would be the advantage of these LiPo batteries over traditional lead- based batteries? In car's, I understand weight (and volume) are really important, but for stationary usage these seem way more expensive / Wh stored?

<comment><USER17> I'm also curious about their lifetime. My laptop batteries are pretty weak after three or four years. It's much easier to justify $thousands as a one- time purchase than $thousands/year. For many of its applications, this is going to have to beat a generator. Which, come to think of it, probably means that if they're pitching this as a way off the grid it is precisely because it won't be even remotely competitive with a generator.

<comment><USER18> You charge your laptop everyday. So it depends on how often you recharge them, which means it will depend on how big of a battery you'll buy. If you buy a 100 KWh battery (probably around $10,000-$15,000), I think that should last most Americans at least several nights to a week? So it might approach 10 years before it starts degrading, and then probably a few more years of charging it every day. I assume's Tesla's batteries will be relatively high- quality as well.

<comment><USER19> Isn't the idea that you keep it topped of and use it when grid power is expensive or missing? That usage pattern would involve multiple charge cycles, perhaps even 365 in a year. I guess it would actually follow the Tesla charging patterns fairly close as well. What is the estimated lifetime of a Tesla's battery?

<comment><USER20> If the battery has sufficient excess capacity, you can split it into multiple banks of smaller batteries, and cycle which ones you charge and which ones you use. Add a small computer and you can use whatever logic gives you optimal charging/discharge patterns to optimise for lifetime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The 'living off the grid' angle is a red herring. The main application of this would be solving the peak load problem, ie smoothing out the load on power stations throughout the day. It is not clear to me how a LiPo batter is better suited for this than other battery types though, especially since weight is not a concern for a stationary battery in your home.

<comment> alex-g I wonder if this even needs to be something in the home. Wouldn't it also make sense to install these things, in bulk, in a place where they could service several homes? Say, at the block level. If it is part of power distribution infrastructure as opposed to a consumer product, then that simplifies some of the safety and maintenance issues; concerns like weight or volume are even less important if they are housed in a dedicated structure.

<comment><USER21> This is being done. Power companies have shipping containers full of batteries hooked up to their grids. I have read better stories but the first thing I found googling just now is this [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-07/ausnet- trialling-new-s...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-07/ausnet-trialling- new-system-to-curb-power-outages-on-hot-days/6004454)

<comment><USER22> That's still a pilot program, though. The Wikipedia article has a good summary of various tech and installed systems: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage#Batteries](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage#Batteries)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Can someone explain to me why being able to build off the electrical grid is worth all this effort since you're still going to need running water, sewage, bins collecting, broadband and a number of other things?

<comment><USER24> From the research I've done on solar power systems (for powering homes) the market does not have an obvious pre-packaged solution that is made for storage of excess capacity generated by your solar panels.

One commonly suggested (and substantially cheaper) option is to just set things up so you don't have local battery storage and just redirect all excess power back to the utility company.

The problem with that has already been mentioned. You're giving power back to the utility company at a fraction of what you purchase electricity for.

But beyond that, as power requirements in appliances / computers / electronic gadgets continues to decrease, and efficiency and capacity of alternative energy solutions continues to increase, there will likely come a time (in the not-too-distant-future) when there will [at least in theory] no longer be a need for utility companies.

In fact, from varied sources online I've gotten the impression that many countries (besides US) have substantially reduced power requirements per household where even today it's feasible (for those with sufficient roof space) to move all of their power usage off grid, and rely strictly on power generated by solar.

<comment><USER25> > The problem with that has already been mentioned. You're giving power back > to the utility company at a fraction of what you purchase electricity for.

That's not a problem, that's how the markets work. When electricity is abundant (i.e. sun is shining, wind is blowing), it's cheap; when it's in demand (in the evening, after the sun and wind stop but people want to cook and watch TV), it's expensive.

The problem with energy storage isn't just a home-problem, it's a network-wide issue. AFAIK, current batteries aren't really able to solve this issue, in the long-term (i.e. considering the lifetime and replacement of the battery).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've always been wondering why there have never been affordable local power storage solutions on the market.

I'd love to have a battery like this to store excess power from solar panels. Returning power to the grid is a waste in both efficiency and money (you just make the power company richer).

Unless you live in Germany (where there are laws forcing power companies to buy excess energy back against peak price), a battery should be the way to go.

<comment><USER27> I guess the big questions are,

\- How do battery charge/store/discharge efficiencies compare to transmission losses?

\- How do capital investments to support returning power to the grid compare to the cost of batteries?

One thing I'm fairly confident of is that just having batteries (without solar panels) to do peak-flattening temporal "arbitrage" can't make economic sense. If it did, power companies would do it themselves and keep the profit.

<comment><USER28> > One thing I'm fairly confident of is that just having batteries (without > solar panels) to do peak-flattening temporal "arbitrage" can't make economic > sense. If it did, power companies would do it themselves and keep the > profit.

They're trialling that right now in the UK: [http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2014-12-15/power-boost-as- big...](http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2014-12-15/power-boost-as-biggest- battery-in-europe-is-tried-out/) [http://www.edie.net/news/6/Smarter-Network- Storage-Energy-ba...](http://www.edie.net/news/6/Smarter-Network-Storage- Energy-battery-project-Leighton-Buzzard/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'd love to have a self-contained electrical system for my house. I'd preferentially wire my home with a DC grid alongside the AC, but there's no standard. Do I run 120v, 240v, 5v, 12v? Which interface do I use? Barrel connectors, USB, cigarette lighter? If we have a large-scale movement to household DC, we'd have these things hammered out without me rewiring every appliance.

If these obstacles were overcome, almost everything in my house could run on DC. Most stuff either converts to DC internally, or doesn't care.

<comment><USER30> There are standards, many of them, just as there are many different standards for AC power worldwide. Your DC system design will be governed by practical technical considerations in concert with economics. The physics of low-voltage systems are such that they are viable only when current is low; otherwise, a 5V or even 12V system will require prohibitively expensive heavy-gauge wire in order to provide the proper voltage at the point of use. So modern DC systems are typically all 48V or even higher now (people are building solar systems with system voltages of 600VDC!). That does not mean you need to run those higher voltages within your home, but from a practical perspective you probably want either 24V or 48V unless your house and/or current needs are very small. To figure this out, you need to consider the following:

\- What devices do you need to supply? Often this is the true governing factor although switching regulators are very efficient and inexpensive up to a few amps. \- How much current do you need to supply to a particular location (this depends on the power consumption of what you're running)? \- What is the distance from the panel to the point of use? The longer the distance, the greater the voltage drop across a wire of a given size (and the higher the cost of larger wire).

As for connectors, there are only a couple of sensible answers. USB is fine for 5V/1A needs, but you're not going to want to run a bunch of 5V wiring separately from the higher-voltage wiring you're going to need anyway. The proper approach here is something like [http://www.powerwerx.com/adapter- cables/usbbuddy-powerpole-1...](http://www.powerwerx.com/adapter- cables/usbbuddy-powerpole-12v-usb-5v-device-charger.html), which will happily work in either a 12V or 24V nominal system. You can of course make other power supplies from all-in-one ICs like [http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/RECOM- Power/R-78W90-05/?...](http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/RECOM- Power/R-78W90-05/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMsc0tfZmXiUnUkNRh%2feR2rThZf2%252bPpU02Tot4ByAEAirQ%3d%3d) and a small project box; larger currents and other voltages are available too, of course. These make good replacements for wall warts.

But you don't want to be wiring any of that in your house; instead, you want to use Anderson Powerpoles in a single-voltage (probably 24V or 48V) system. They are properly rated for DC use at these voltages and plenty of current (up to 350A if you need it, which you won't). They can be installed in blocks of 4 2-blade connectors in standard wall boxes, with neat, professional plates. They can be easily crimped onto appropriate-gauge wire by amateurs. They are code-compatible and safe, unlike the dangerous practice of using receptacles designed for 120VAC or some other existing local/regional standard. They provide a reliable connection and reliable disconnection, and if crimped properly they will not fray, crack, or loosen within a very large number of connect/disconnect cycles. The other low-voltage DC "standard" that is popular, the barrel-type "cigarette lighter" connector, provides only 7A at 12V, is bulky, and does not offer a reliable connection. While it is popular in automotive applications, more serious users of DC power -- the Powerpole is very popular among amateur radio enthusiasts -- avoid the barrel type connectors for these reasons.

The only real decision to make is whether to use 24V or 48V, which will depend primarily on the questions I noted above. Higher voltages are certainly possible, but watch out! Switches rated for higher DC voltages (especially at currents much more than 1 or 2A) are hard to find and expensive. Your standard "AC quiet switch" that you can buy for $2 at the local hardware store is rated for 125V AC ONLY. It is not safe to use with any DC system, although in practice it's probably acceptable for 12V systems at a hundred milliamps or so. For more practical applications, you will need to be sure that your equipment is equipped with proper switches, or no switches at all; you will also need to make sure that any hard-wired DC circuits (such as for lighting) are properly switched. Where you have flexibility in the voltage accepted by your equipment, you will need to trade off the higher cost of switches and other passive components at higher voltages against the higher cost (or voltage drop) associated with wiring at lower voltages. You will quickly learn to read spec sheets and rating stamps carefully when you work with DC.

The last thing I'll mention is that you may not really want to do this. At my location, there are often several months with extremely limited power; even the inverter's 25W base consumption dictates that it be on an hour a day or less if at all possible. For that reason, anything I have that needs smallish amounts of power continuously (such as a freezer, reading lamp, phone charger, etc.) gets DC. But in general, it's simply more convenient to use off-the- shelf devices. I can and do make my own power supplies, but I don't really want to go re-power my laser printer or table saw (which by the way has an AC- only induction motor in it). For higher-power devices, off-the-shelf is the way to go; it's much cheaper and the inverter's overhead is amortized over a lot of consumption anyway. If you have a larger system that can easily supply 100W or more on an indefinite basis, you probably don't need to bother much with DC; it'll be easier to just leave the inverter running all the time. A DC-powered well pump or freezer might be worthwhile, but I wouldn't go converting anything else. Most people are putting in enormous (to me) solar systems now; 10kW is common. With a system that large, you'll probably be fine even if it's overcast. For reference, I have 700 watts, and with endless stretches of 6-hour overcast days in winter, DC is the only way to fly. But your needs are likely to be very different indeed, especially if you have (as we're discussing here) adequate storage. The days of custom-wired 12VDC off- grid living are basically over unless your budget is extremely limited.

<comment><USER29> My budget isn't limited, so that's not a problem. I'm an electrician, so this would be a project for fun. But I know if residential DC became a thing, this would be so easy. I think we'd all be better off with residential DC and solar panels.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Sure, Musk makes it sound sexy, but do we really need to use Lithium in a stationary application? I'd probably be happier with a battery that weighs twice as much but costs half as much. Those might not be the exact tradeoffs, but that's the general idea.

However, I don't know much about the details of battery technology, so I could be completely wrong. If traditional technologies such as lead-acid were up to the task, then someone would have already made a big business out of using them. Does that make sense?

<comment><USER32> Lithium batteries are not only lighter, but smaller. The typical home today to go off grid in the U.S. is a tiny house or a motorhome. The reason is, it's very cost prohibitive for the amount of power you need. Batteries are the most expensive part of that equation. If you live in a 3000 sq foot house and run a $250 per month electric bill, it might take 50 $130 golf cart batteries to power your house for a day or two, and you replace them every 4-5 years. Or you could go with Iron Edison batteries that should last a lifetime. They are equivalent to about 4 golf cart batteries, and the only requirement is to re- fill them with liquid. They cost about $4,000 each, and are yet still very heavy. The lithium batteries will take up about 1/5 the size and even less weight, and should last much longer than the golf cart batteries, but not as long as the Iron Edison. But space and weight requirements down so much will bring down costs with overseas shipping and trucking bills to a minimum compared with the alternatives. Think what great success in small batteries has done for cell phones. Not that your home needs to be mobile, but I see cars with solar panels and homes with solar shingles... both always charging.... as a great use of the sun as an energy source.

<comment><USER33> Is that $4000 figure for the 12V battery made out of 800Ah 1.2V cells, rated at "400Ah @ 5hr, 450Ah @ 20hr" shown on their web site for $3880? I've always wondered why more fixed site solar PV systems do not use iron nickel technology; it it is initial cost, I wonder what makes this technology so expensive.

Some day I want to look into the feasibility/advisability of a continuous automatic feed of distilled water to keep iron nickel batteries constantly topped off, and a hydrogen outgas capture mechanism (preferably passive) which takes that output of the iron nickel batteries and feeds it as the input into a hydrogen cell.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The question is: Will it be new battery just for homes or will it be a recycled/repurposed battery from 'old' Teslas?

It think it will be the later one. Elon is just thinking ahead. There is nothing really new in this story. Everything is just made up. It is quite accepted within the industry, that when the car battery has a capacity of less than 70% to 80% it needs to be replaced. But what should the car company, in this case Tesla, should do with battery? Of course, it will be re-packaged and as such repurposed for other use. What other use case is there? The other use case is Solar, especially as his friend runs a Solar company. What in incident.

</comment><comment><USER35> Could someone please fix the truncated title? My editorial advice would be to just cut from the semicolon.

</comment><comment><USER36> Have Tesla solved any of the problems that have prevented people from selling large storage batteries in the past?

A big issue is that you don't get that many charge cycles, especially with lithium-based batteries. So, filling up the battery with solar power during the day, then running your house from the battery in the evening, will soon fall to pieces if the battery doesn't last a decent number of years.

</comment><comment><USER37> Awesome! and great news for the renewables.

Right now, if there's a storm or what have you you can lose your heat, your power, your water - everything. Its a bit like the mainfraime/terminal days - everything is centralized, and represent single points of failure for the citizens it serves.

But with energy you create yourself, and things like water recycling or indoor farms, we could go fairly far in self-sustaining units. And instead of the grid, there could be local community sharing so if your power/water goes out you can pull from a local grid. It doesn't need to be in every home, but something more distributed means more resiliency in the system overall, and thats handy in a lot of scenarios.

All that's a ways away though - but making the energy storage better / cheaper is an important step.

But I'm curious of the environmental factors in battery production / lifetime / recycling, can anyone comment on the impact these batteries represent?

</comment><comment> m-i-l In addition to doing things like storing any excess solar power you might have, it could also be used to charge up at night on off-peak rates ("Economy 7" in the UK) and release during the day to reduce your peak rate electricity consumption - whether it would be financially worthwhile to do so would depend on a number of factors.

</comment><comment><USER38> When will homes be built with sensible electricity distribution? So often they put the breaker panel in the basement. I want a small utility room or closet where I can install inverters or this battery. I want to be able to run 220V to my stove, laundry, garage (car charging), battery storage, and AC relatively easily - none of these is in the basement (except the laundry in some home I've lived in). Also, if a basement floods, how is one supposed to go down there to access the panel without risk? And it's darkest down there too. It just seems to be the stupidest place to put it. What's up with that?

<comment><USER39> What's up is that most people don't want a big breaker panel in a room they spend time in. It's ugly.

Sticking the panel in a closet doesn't work, because it generally violates codes twice, once for the fact that all the clothes/random junk in the closet blocks access to the panel, and a second time for the fact that even empty, most closets don't provide sufficient clearance all around the panel to meet code requirements.

If I were building a new house, I'd consider putting the panel on the main floor and just hanging a big painting to hide it (which still violates code, but it's pretty trivial to take down a painting).

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Seems like just yesterday [1] I was saying they could do this if they wanted to. :-)

The first challenge is to make the operational cost of a solar + battery system less than the cost of buying your power straight from the grid. The second is to include capital costs in that calculation and still come out at break even or ahead.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9055177](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9055177)

</comment><comment><USER41> It will be interesting to see the market reaction to this regarding the value of electricity generation companies.

Governments that lean too heavily on taxes or state run monopolies for energy generation should also be concerned. There are places that tax generation from sources like the wind (for example, Nova Scotia), so I wouldn't be surprised if we see solar tax appear.

<comment><USER19> Thinking about it, why wouldn't utilities jump at this and make it a standard part of every install? It would allow them to lower the demand-based generation due to every house having a local buffer of storage. They could easily monitor the levels on all the packs in a sector and know ahead of time when they are going to need more capacity which they can fill with better generators like gas turbine or nuclear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I disagree that the long term storage stationary storage is extraordinary, at least from the individual home standpoint, it does have great utility application (for windfarms/hydro/etc) and likely would help some businesses offset day time surcharges by charging storage at night.

Still for home use, I would prefer a large lithium pack to be outside my home.

</comment><comment><USER43> This still doesn't solve the essential problem with these batteries:

They're about $20k each, and they only last about 4 years.

<comment><USER44> The Model S 85kW battery pack is estimated to cost $12,000 and is estimated to last 10+ years.

The SolarCity Battery field-test uses 10kW Tesla batteries and is leased for $1,500 upfront and $15 per month. So, if the batteries degrade, it's Tesla/SolarCities responsibility to fix or replace them.

The Gigafactory will likely reduce costs significantly.

[http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/13/8033691/why-teslas- battery...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/13/8033691/why-teslas-battery-for- your-home-should-terrify-utilities)

Essential problem solved?

<comment><USER43> The list price for that pack according to these people is 44k.

[http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096801_tesla-model-s- ba...](http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096801_tesla-model-s-battery-life- how-much-range-loss-for-electric-car-over-time)

It looks like you drank the tesla dealers coolaid:

[http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/tesla-model-s-85kw- ba...](http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/tesla-model-s-85kw-battery- replacement-cost)

Bad luck.

<comment><USER44> This clearly states that the cost for a replacement 85kW battery will be $12,000.

[http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/2013-model-s-price- increase](http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/2013-model-s-price-increase)

"We have received many requests for a Battery Replacement Option. We are happy to now offer this option for all three battery variants. This option will provide you a new battery anytime after the end of the eighth year at a fixed price. Prices are as follows: $8,000 for the 40 kWh battery, $10,000 for the 60 kWh battery, and $12,000 for the 85 kWh battery. You will be able to purchase this additional option through your MyTesla page in the near future."

I can't imagine that they would raise the price by 4 times. Where is the source for the $44,000 listed on the article you mentioned?

If there are 7,000 18650 batteries in a Tesla S battery pack and it's reasonable to assume that Tesla can produce (Gigafactory) these for $1 then the $12,000 seems perfectly reasonable. The current estimate for the cost of 18650s for Tesla is less than $2.

It's already been stated that the cost of a battery pack is less than a quarter the cost of the car, so the $44,000 is nothing but false. [http://www.technologyreview.com/news/516961/how-tesla-is- dri...](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/516961/how-tesla-is-driving- electric-car-innovation/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Yawn. I've been following this concept, and a wide array of very talented scientists working on it, for years now.

Any of the below projects, should they ever see the light of day (you'd think out of this many, at least one will make it eventually), stands a good chance of being quite superior for this application in just about every way:

[http://www.eosenergystorage.com/technology-and- products/](http://www.eosenergystorage.com/technology-and-products/)

[http://www.ambri.com/technology/](http://www.ambri.com/technology/)

[http://www.ultrabattery.com/technology/](http://www.ultrabattery.com/technology/)

[http://www.axionpower.com/Technology](http://www.axionpower.com/Technology)

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

[http://www.drexel.edu/now/archive/2014/November/MXene- clay/](http://www.drexel.edu/now/archive/2014/November/MXene-clay/)

<comment><USER46> Very rarely the best solution wins.

<comment><USER47> Agreed. Also, which definition of 'win' is agreed upon here. Win by efficiency? Win by market cap?

Edit: hint, look out for the very talented marketers

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Source Bloomberg article [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-12/tesla- plan...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-12/tesla-planning- battery-for-emerging-home-energy-storage-market)

</comment><comment><USER49> Today I went to pick up two 100AH lead-crystal batteries for a long-run UPS (we now have regular load-shedding here in South Africa). If I believe all what I have read about them online, they are amazing, compared to lead-acid. Crazy heavy though (33kg each).

</comment><comment><USER50> I see 'em audiophiles drooling over this.

just look at this homemade battery in some audiophiles basement:

[http://6moons.com/industryfeatures/roadtourlivingvoice/3.htm...](http://6moons.com/industryfeatures/roadtourlivingvoice/3.html)

</comment><comment><USER51> Tesla could offer an "attachment" to their cars that let them serve as a home battery when parked.

You'd have to let it charge up before going driving, but for home owners who don't drive much, that could be very cost effective.

Unless I'm missing some complication?

<comment><USER52> Batteries have a limited number of charge/discharge cycles. If you use your car to power your home you'll have to replace the batteries that much sooner, at a cost of $thousands. Electric car buyers are paying a premium to have the batteries be mobile, better to use them for that application.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Wonder how this would compare with Bloom Energy Server[1]

I recall Apple made some purchases or investments in these products.

[1][http://www.bloomenergy.com/fuel-cell/energy- server/](http://www.bloomenergy.com/fuel-cell/energy-server/)

</comment><comment><USER54> Why is living off the grid the main objective here? I live in a suburban area that occasionally has power outages. Right now I'm considering the purchase of whole house generator but if I could have a battery instead I'd do it.

<comment><USER55> You can have a battery instead. You can get a battery right now; lead-acid will work just fine, if we're talking power outages of an hour or less.

House-sized UPS systems are a thing. An expensive thing, mind you, though I don't know how expensive.

<comment><USER54> Yeah, I looked into that and last I checked it is prohibitively expensive. If this is a viable alternative I can see two great uses.

1.) Whole house UPS 2.) A way to take advantage of significantly lower night time electric rates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Maybe having a battery pack like this at home would mean you could recharge your Tesla car much faster as you're not limited by the grid supply to your home? A bit like having your own Supercharger station at home?

</comment><comment><USER57> We could have used this last week. A pole was damaged (I don't know how, just that it was damaged) and in the middle of a sunny day we lost power for 1.5 hours. Really looking forward to this technology.

</comment><comment><USER58> What puzzles me is the timeframe presented. What is the point of starting production in 6 months if the gigafactory is not up yet, and TSLA is production constrained just making the car batteries?

</comment><comment><USER59> The last piece for a wind-solar future. Ok, if this really comes to the market and can store 12-24 hours of a typical household consumption, we may be able to live off solar and wind.

</comment><comment><USER60> Are orange and red terminals confusing to users? (I'm an electronics noob, maybe this is a convention)

</comment><comment><USER61> Does anyone know if these could be a feasible energy store for people living on the Moon or Mars?

</comment><comment><USER62> If we were able to create individual or community power grids; imagine how much infrastructure could just be removed. Maintained by the individuals owning it, instead of these stupid power companies and the way they work now.

</comment><comment><USER32> We have all lived through the improvements in construction with tools that don't need to be plugged in and phones that are unplugged. The next logical step is homes that are unplugged and self power generating. There is an incredible gap in society in the U.S. created by the tax code whereby if you make $25,000 and are a family of 5, you receive enough tax and food benefits and medical insurance to be equal to the person that makes $65,000 per year. And if your income increases to $45,000, you will be losing money, so there is no motivation to reach that point. The Living Off The Grid topic has gone viral because those stuck in the gap seek a way up without increasing income, because it's hard to increase income without hurting oneself. But the idea of downsizing and saving up has become popular with it. Getting a little plat of land and a trailer or a tiny house for a time while saving up.... growing food, having chickens, all are ways to save up and gain without actual cash income increase. Adding solar power to the mix helps prevent power bills. It is also a terrific way to fire the local monopoly power company, who may or may not in your area have any decency of customer service. Without competition, why would they have to care. But the off grid movement is pulling the carpet out from under these government allowed monopolies and forcing competition. In the same stroke, it removes the tax burden from the homeowner that was included in the electric bill. If you have a solar or wind power system and charge your Tesla car too, then you have a completely tax free energy system. It sounds like it's taking away from the government, but the neat thing is, this can also be used to alleviate financial strain on the government. If you can provide a self powered mobile home with rain-water collection to section 8 housing, then the government is also saving on those utility expenses. And land is cheaper a little further out. I recently bought 10 acres in Creek county Oklahoma. The power company wanted $10,000 to add one pole into the land and connection. I opted that it was better to spend that money on a solar power system. The same was true of water with huge expense, so I opted for rainwater and later to add a well. The up front costs associated with being on the grid for many rural areas, or adding more power poles is really more than costs will continue to be as they come down down down for self power generation. This is all exciting to me. We have to consider total impact. Hydro power is still a hugely terrific producer of energy. Rain that fills the lake.... the lake is a battery.... stored to produce energy. So rain makes our energy. This is still a much better solution than building batteries for large power needs. Yet the infrastructure and labor required to put in poles and wires is too high for homes in light of these modern developements. I look forward to an exciting and bright future. ~David Webster Offgridquest.com and Facebook's Living off the Grid

</comment><comment><USER63> Go go Musk you bloody champion. If we can harness the sun, waves and wind and store it in batteries, and perhaps making those batteries is bad, it's a better solution than continually burning fossil fuels that are destroying our forests, species, economies, and faith in humanity. I say keep doing what you're doing (unless I'm proved wrong).</comment>


When large crowds assemble, is there a way to keep them safe? (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/02/07/crush-point

<comment><USER2> Video monitors visible to the crowd at key points, showing what is happening in the crowd at different points, also available by app would help to create the "social awareness" that the article says protects ants together in large groups.

And I would think that churches and other groups that generate volunteers might work with retailers to help avoid deaths and injuries.

<comment><USER3> For retail, structuring sales so they do not involve crowds waiting to burst in when the doors open would suffice. The retailer would trade human safety for the shared sense of urgency of the "blitz" style sale.

Synchronous events, like concerts and sporting events, could rely on structuring events so that arrival and queuing is less contention-driven - both early and late arrivals get their reserved seats. Again, the urgency and excitement of queuing for festival seating is lost.

For people who structure events with the intent of attracting crowds to pretend that human safety is not put at risk by the retailer's or event organizer's choices is disingenuous at best, lethal at worst.</comment></comment>


When was the last time you visited Reddit? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I was a Redditict since the earliest days until recently. I've gone from checking it ~20 times a day to once or twice a day. It's been totally overrun and is almost completely useless to me now. The programming subreddit is still somewhat interesting, but not especially great.

It is very good to know that PG will try and keep this site focused on startups. That's what I always enjoyed on Reddit in the early days. But Reddit never really had any official focus. I think that's probably a big part of why it has been overrun with links to anything shiny.

</comment><comment><USER3> ...roughly 30 seconds ago.

But yeah, I'm finding myself spending less time on Reddit and more on news.YC. Also spending less time on both and more time programming, which I guess is an encouraging sign.

</comment><comment><USER4> For Reddit to save itself, it needs to put a major effort into the 'recommended page'. Iff the recommended page delivered a tailored experience to each user, then it would not matter (nearly so much) how many 'Digg refugees' arrived on the site. If your interest is programming, your recommended page would show you a programming site with articles that interested you.

The social media site that gets this right will solve the issue of the constant migration of thought leaders - slashdot - Digg - Reddit - ?Y Combinator? -?? If the recommended page really worked, it would become the user's default page, and thought leaders wouldn't have noticed a change in demographic.

Someone will turn these nomads into sticky participants, and then they've constructed a durable competitive advantage.

(edit typo)

<comment><USER4> To answer the original question, my last visit was about 10 minutes ago. These days, I find I downmod or hide 90% of my recommended stories.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> It has nearly been a week for me. I used to visit multiple times a day, but I prefer the strong focus of news.yc. Just wondering if anyone else has found news.yc as addictive.

<comment><USER5> It is addictive; the best articles are posted and voted up here --- less time on the blogsphere ---- more time programming :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I guess about 2 minutes ago, give or take. Waiting for my partner to discuss something with me, so I've got a few minutes to check my feedreader. ;)

</comment><comment><USER7> Its been a month for me. I still have their feed, but I am just not interested in it anymore

</comment><comment><USER8> I am reading it through an rss reader, and the cross posts are really annoying :(.

</comment><comment><USER9> I've never visited reddit except when linked to it from other sites.

</comment><comment><USER10> 7 months, went downhill after the posts deviated from tech.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there success for back-end developers?  - <AUTHOR> I consider myself a back-end developer.  I work on server apps mostly in c++, parsers, etc... systems that usually run on cron jobs, and not generally consumer facing.  I don't do front end-design well, or even at all.  Most of my ideas are very technical, and would not apply to anyone but a small subset of developers.
I believe that developers with ideas such as mine, are usually doing work for someone else, full time.
I've written several systems, that are pretty cool, but usually are the type to be open-sourced.  A recent example is a memcache like server I created, that stores the expiring data in the background on cloud storage, and can later be retrieved and reloaded into the memcache like server.  Stuff like this is really great, but a lot of sites don't get to be the size where they'd need to use it, and when coming up to needing something like this, its usually created by some big company out of need (like memcache) and then open sourced.  This is not something I'd go with for a start-up, and merely an example.  But this is mostly the kind of programs I write.
Are there any back-end developers here that have done a start-up, and become reasonably satisfied with their success (with a back-end idea?) or should I be looking into Objective-C for a Mobile game?  Creating the next remote-control my MacBookPro app, or even looking at some SAAS?  In the end, my web design skills are poor, I don't want to be forced into a web niche, I want to do back-end development, but for myself, or in a start-up. <comment><USER2> Personally I like doing "back-end" development a lot -- you can be more productive that way, because a lot of the BS in software development comes from the requirements and testing issues that come from UI work.

That said, success at web apps requires somebody have a holistic understanding of "how it all works". The most common antipattern I've seen in commercial web software is that some guys who wrote

* mainframe apps * command like UNIX apps * applications people telnet into, or * Windows GUI apps

want to "move a product to the web" and end up copying the way they did things before -- and not understanding the holistic properties of the environment (for instance, don't bind a cookie-based 'session' to a long-running process in the background if you can at all help it) they make products that suck.

Now, there are a lot of companies out there doing exciting things that involve exciting back-end work, so I say go out and find it.

There certainly are products that need making: personally I know I'll need to get off Mysql at some point because it doesn't have a future, but the current "NoSQL" products are a joke. I could really use something that's like an RDF store on heavy doses of steroids, written by people who don't believe in the RDF religion... Kind of CycL for the next generation.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sure -- there's plenty of stuff you can do. I'm a developer similar to you, the majority of my work is in C++ and C oriented languages.

Some things to consider

\- Mobile apps and games (Iphone, Android, etc) -- Anything that doesnt require UI can be wrapped in C++; OpenGL Es Games can be done with minimal Obj-C usage (< 100lines).

\- Databases

\- Games and game streaming

\- Building some sort of api for anything that requires high performance or computation such as image recognition, sound recognition etc

\- Bridging certain things that are very low level and connecting them to a web interface (Might not be for you). For example: Connecting a home automation system with a web interface or mobile app.

\- Anything so technical that it requires a huge amount of domain expertise to build properly.

Alternatively, something else you could do is teaming up with a front end web developer. It's something I'm doing now and we make a great team. He does everything front end, builds the html/css pages and I basically make them work with PHP and do anything that requires 'technical' expertise.

</comment><comment><USER4> There are some developer-oriented startups that are doing well, like the one that sends emails for your service (can't remember the name, anyone), it's basically just an API. Dropbox as well is mostly backend and code and algorythms, very little UI. Stuff like that.

If you can do something that's hard and high-value for developers with their own startups, and expose an API, that might be a good startup. How about a face-identification/recognition startup?

Database startups (nosql stuff) are hard, but also being done (again, can't think of the exact name, anyone?). But then you're likely gonna be in the consulting business, apart from building a kick-ass database.

Another example: janrain's RPX, again, it's mostly just an API and code to mangle all the social services' api's, very little frontend, although there is definitely sales/consulting involved..

<comment><USER5> I suppose you're talking about <http://www.mailchimp.com/> for email service

As for database startup there are plenty of them too: cloudera.com, percona, schoonerinfotech.com , ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hey, thats an interesting topic for me. So my 2c:

Most of ppl calling themselves "backend developers" simply overvalue themselves. Not talking about you here, so plz dont get it personal. But i spend way too much time on hiring and thats usually the case: "Hey, i am backend guy. Stuff like HTML is too stupid for my super-brain!". And when you actually start asking them what are their main achievements with back-end dev its turns out that in 99% its simply:

1) Running some bg scripts that are faily OBVIOUS, like sending emails. (Seriously many ppl think its still a rocket science backend stuff!!) 2) Connecting to existing APIs or writing own api 3) Scrapping some content, sending emails etc. 4) Re-writing some existing open source system from scratch instead of configuring existing one "just for fun" 5) Coding simple mobile apps, or some backend algorithm for web apps 5) And so on!

I have tons of such stories when smart guys waste their time and keep thinking they are doing some rocket science simply because they are NOT doing front end out of principle!

So in fact, no rocket-science, no achievements to value, just some sort of ego and unwilling to work on certain front end tasks(Where design!=front ent). At the same time i know many good front end guys who rock at ajax, jquerry, html etc and still able to do 98% of the same back-end stuff !

All these not to say that there no real backend Gods. There are many. These guys usually work on DBs, compilers, operation systems, low level programming for specific devices, drivers, protocols, etc. There are a lot of work and potential success for such guys!

In most of other areas good hacker(at least in my company) must combine his backend skill with certain willingness to work on user interface. Otherwise its getting too expensive (esp for smaller startup) to hire another frontend guy for him, simply because backend guy is to smart(/lazy) to work with UI

DISC: All above is just my experience of course.

</comment><comment><USER7> One word: mogoDB, rethinkDB

(Yeah, that's two words. Off by one errors suck)</comment>