Patrick McKenzie (patio11) on Japan Aid: Help for the Well-Prepared - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/03/15/what-aid-makes-sense-for-japan/prepared-but-still-in-need <comment><USER3> First comment in the article is disturbing:

 _One of my wife's relatives is working with those made homeless in her hometown of Ofunato, Iwate Prefecture, which was destroyed by the tsunami. She and many other workers along the coast would not agree with your assessment. The Western media have made the Fukushima nuclear plant the most salient aspect of this tragedy, not least because of the politics and economics of the King Kong vs Godzilla battle being waged by the US coal and nuclear power industries, and other sorts of political battles in Europe. The need for humanitarian aid remains huge. Moreover, this is something most Americans actually can provide -- unlike advice on stopping nuclear meltdowns._

<comment><USER4> This. This this this.

You know who's fleeing the 'impending nuclear holocaust'? The foreigners who get all of their news from English-language media.

One of my coworkers flew back to NYC because he was so worried about radiation exposure. You get exposed to more radiation by taking a twelve-hour flight than you would by camping in a pup tent in the mountains overlooking the reactor complex.

The Japanese news is full of experts, explanations, and zero panic. The foreign news is full of propaganda. Makes me sick.

<comment><USER5> I think the main point of the comment bad_user quoted is not the same you're making here.

That said, I do feel that the Japanese Tokyoites are calmer about the nuclear thing. Anecdotally, more than half of my foreign friends and acquaintances have fled or are planning to flee Tokyo (mostly to elsewhere in Japan, some abroad), but nearly all my Japanese friends have stay put.

It's not all about the news, though. While I share your perception that English-language media is being way more sensationalist about it, it's not the case that all my foreign friends get all their news from English-language media. Some of them speak Japanese, and some have Japanese spouses, but are still fleeing. Other possible factors: foreigners have less roots here, have more options to flee, and more incentive to leave (family is abroad, etc). So the total perceived "cost" to flee is lower.

<comment><USER4> I think what irritates me about the people booking it out of Tokyo is that (a) it helps to panic other people; and, (b) fuel and electricity are on the short side right now.

Long rail journeys and trans-ocean flights don't help conserve either of these.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How many people in the world are actually qualified to offer any useful help on the Japan nuclear situation? Does anyone really think that they're just sitting around doing nothing right now?

I don't care how organized and prepared the Japanese are - they need help right now. Even before the disaster, they relied on imports for food and fuel. Large portions of their economy are now offline, and hundreds of thousands of people are displaced. Even if Japan has the will and resources to deal with all of this on their own, if the rest of us are willing and eager to chip in to help, why should they?

It's not like your donation is going to a Real American Hero who will personally swoop down into Tokyo and start wrapping every Japanese person they come across in a blanket and dousing them with a bottle of water. That money is going to be spent how it was spent here in the US after Katrina: yes, it will help feed people who need feeding in the short term, but it will also keep people in temporary homes until they can rebuild or relocate, pay for school clothes and supplies for kids whose families lost everything, provide grant money to help kickstart businesses in the affected areas once cleanup is done, etc, etc, etc.

So, no, sorry. I'm still sending money.

<comment><USER4> Please don't send any Real American Heroes to Tokyo. We're fine. Send them up north where they're needed.

<comment><USER6> I think you missed my point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have great respect for Patrick, and usually agree with him, but in this case I think his conclusion is far off-mark.

 _Japanese citizens need our help_ , on a massive scale.

The government may not need any assistance, but the families and communities ravaged by the disaster have an unbounded need for aid.

I've lived in Uganda and Cambodia, two countries which get a disproportionate share of Western aid. Yet still, even with all those development dollars, a $50 gift can _completely transform_ an individual's life. I've seen it happen.

If your house, your church, your community, and much of your extended family has been annihilated, and you're rebuilding your life from scratch, then _you need our help_ , no matter how well-equipped your government is.

Please give, and give generously.

<comment><USER4> Japan is the third largest economy in the world.

Uganda and Cambodia don't even make it into the top hundred.

Most of those 'development dollars' never even make their way remotely close to the people in third-world countries; the graft and corruption sees to that.

I live in Tokyo, and it's pretty insulting to hear this kind of shit.

Japan can certainly use the short-term help, especially from trained rescue workers, as well as helicopter pilots (as long as they come with their own helicopter). Help is definitely appreciated.

But with or without 'our' help, Japan will recover.

The real problems here are the disruption in the supply chains. The oil refineries and stores along the east coast are all offline, and in the three hardest-hit areas, many roads are unusable. This makes it really hard to get supplies in, even though there's plenty flowing in from the rest of the country.

On the social side, Japan is a group-oriented culture, with deep ties stretching all over the country. The refugees have the entire nation behind them in rebuilding their lives, homes, and communities.

Speaking of communities, people here don't go to church. Shinto-buddhism doesn't really work that way. While there are Christians here, they're a small, and very tough, minority.

I'm probably going to eat a bunch of downvotes for this, but it's irritating as hell that everybody overseas thinks that we're either all dead, or that I'm living in a tent.

<comment><USER8> This is like saying that people in New Orleans didn't need help after Katrina just because I lived nowhere near Louisiana. Don't take your frustration at 'the West' for thinking that people in Tokyo are as hard hit as the areas to the north out on others. Just because life goes on in Tokyo _does not_ mean that there is no crisis to the north. Your entire post comes across to me as high arrogance.

If by Shinto-buddhism, you're referring to Shin Buddhism (aka Jōdo Shinshū), then yes. People go to Temple and celebrate different holidays than Christians, but to say "people here don't go to church" is quibbling over the terms "church" vs "temple," IMO. You probably see a different side in Tokyo, b/c as I understand it a lot of people move from the country to 'the city' and don't donate back to the temples that they originated from. In a lot of ways, they are probably like non-practicing Christians or Agnostics (i.e. not going to services regularly, but maybe going on holidays, or requesting last rites on their death bed). That comes across to me as less about the religion and more about urbanization.

<comment><USER4> I never said that the people up north don't need help; I have family and friends up there, and will be spending April and May helping people to rebuild.

What they don't need is a patronizing attitude. These people are tough, and they will overcome.

The reason that supplies aren't getting up to Sendai is not that there aren't any. The transportation network is broken, and fuel is in short supply.

Fukushima's got the double-problem of panic; there are hospitals 30km away from the plant that can't get supplies because the truck drivers are terrified that they'll get exposed to radiation, even though the equivalent dose of half a dental X-ray... if they spend the entire day.

Panic is the real problem here, and the rest of the world acting like the entire country has just been leveled by the fist of God is part of the problem.

I wouldn't be so frustrated if I didn't have to deal with daily phone calls from people back home asking whether or not I've grown a third head.

On the second bit, no. Religion works very differently here.

The temples and shrines play a vastly smaller role than churches do for Western religious groups, even in the countryside. There are no weekly gatherings, and most people don't identify with specific temples or shrines, at least not in any of the countryside I've spent time in.

Religion in Japan is national, not local.

You go to your local shrine for local festivals, and that's pretty much it. If you move, you go to a different one.

You've got a small shrine in your house for talking with your ancestors (called a kami-dana, or god-shelf), and people keep these to varying degrees, no matter where in the country they live.

Otherwise, social gatherings are defined by your school or work, or by whatever other organizations you might belong to. Youth groups, church football leagues, and all the other stuff you have in the US doesn't exist here.

So, no, they're not like agnostic christians. They're like Shinto-Buddhists, which refers not to the biggest sect (Jodo Shinshu), but to the religious blend that is most common in Japan (the Nichiren are also shinto-buddhists, for example).

<comment><USER8>
      > What they don't need is a patronizing attitude. These people are tough, and
      > they will overcome.

So the rest of the world should just ignore the tragedy that happened because it isn't really a tragedy and the people are tough enough to get through it?

      > Panic is the real problem here, and the rest of the world acting like the entire
      > country has just been leveled by the fist of God is part of the problem.

Is the reaction of the rest of the world really causing the Japanese people to panic? Is this what you are so frustrated with?

      > I wouldn't be so frustrated if I didn't have to deal with daily phone calls from
      > people back home asking whether or not I've grown a third head

Don't take that out on the rest of us.

      > Youth groups, church football leagues, and all the other
      > stuff you have in the US doesn't exist here.

      > So, no, they're not like agnostic christians.

I never meant to imply that Shinto-Buddhists and Agnostic Christians were exactly alike. I'm sorry if you took it that way. I was hinting towards that fact that they might not participate actively in the religion as much as older folks do (and generations past might have), while at the same time self- identifying with the religion. Much in the way many Agnostic Christians identify as Christian, but don't belong to any church or attend any regular services.

Personally I don't see how being an Agnostic Christian has anything to do with youth groups, church football games, etc. Are you claiming that all (or even most) Agnostic Christians participate actively in a church community? I was using the term to represent people that self-identify as being Christian (or maybe only sorta feel like there must be some god in a generic sense), but don't really participate in the religion. Am I using the term wrong?

      > most people don't identify with specific temples or shrines

_Now_ maybe, but it's my understanding that in the past the temple at which your family was formally registered meant something more than what you are implying. (Though this was really imposed by the government of the time)

I'll admit that my viewpoints may be skewed because Jodo Shinshu 'temples' in the US and Canada were modeled after Christian churches because the Japanese immigrants were trying to fit in, and going to a more traditional temple would have just been another way that they were different. On the other hand, I've met 'ministers' that grew up (and studied) in Japan, and they didn't really say that things were so much different here. So I don't know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> So, I know that the Japanese are well prepared for earthquakes - I watched documentaries on Discovery about it :)

But my God, this earthquake went off the charts. Then 500 other earthquakes of magnitude 5 to 7 happened. Every one of those earthquakes would have been a problem in my city, as we've got plenty of old buildings.

So it's really hard for me to believe that the Japanese are so well prepared. I also saw pictures of survivers and of various affected areas and the situation is rather not good.

The thing I admire Japanese for right now - they don't complain much and they don't go creating more mayhem on the streets.

But that doesn't mean they don't need help, and if I were in Patrick's shoes, I would be careful about stating such things - maybe because of this article, some poor neighborhood / city that has been badly affected won't receive help in due time, as public opinion does tend to have crazy effects like that.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm starting to get feed up about patio11 and the all's well attitude and "we'll manage, thank you very much". The last head-count is seventeen thousand dead and rising. It is obvious that all is _not_ well and that people in the affected areas need help and fast.

<comment><USER10> Japan has a population of ~ 300 million and is one of the most advanced and wealthiest nations on Earth.

I am sure those affected need help but what makes you think others can provide help better/faster then Japan itself can?

Perhaps the US navy has lifting capacity that Japan could use, but what else?

<comment><USER11> Actually, the population of Japan is about 127 million.

<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+japan>

<comment><USER10> Huh, where did I even get the 300 number? I was sure of it! Kids, don't trust your brain, check the facts you think you know!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> At your discretion, how did you land this Patrick? Perhaps this can be better answered on your blog, but did the NYT contact you after coming across your article?

Original article submission: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319629>

<comment><USER13> He commented earlier on HN that lots of people from the news media had been contacting him. Here's a link to what he said:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2330783>

<comment><USER12> Thank you. I still hope Patrick responds because I wanted to hear the specific story. In what you linked, I imagine he was referring to reporters in information-hunting mode.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Boy, the commenters there don't seem to agree with him much.

<comment><USER15> Neither does Yuhei Sato, who is the governor of Fukushima prefecture:

" _Mr Sato said centres already housing people who had been moved from their homes near the plant did not have enough hot meals and basic necessities such as fuel and medical supplies. "We're lacking everything," he said._ "

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12763273>

<comment><USER16> These are not necessarily contradictory. Fukushima can quite easily be lacking all of those things because they're stuck on the wrong side of Japan, where more people who don't know how to fix roads or speak Japanese won't help. Similarly, adding more supplies to the piles on the wrong side of the country won't help either.

The point here is that the bottleneck is distribution of things that already exist, not getting them to Japan in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'd like to see K-MAX unmanned helicopters dropping boric acid and seawater on the reactors - or whatever is best.

"Japan nuclear crisis: radiation levels stop helicopter from dumping water." [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8385559...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8385559/Japan- nuclear-crisis-radiation-levels-stop-helicopter-from-dumping-water.html)

Unmanned K-MAX helicopter achieves airdrop milestones [http://www.gizmag.com/k-max-unmanned-helicopter- milestones/1...](http://www.gizmag.com/k-max-unmanned-helicopter- milestones/17969/)

</comment><comment><USER12> _Many Americans are wondering what we can do to help. It's natural to want to send money, food, blankets and the like to the survivors. But for now, what may be most urgently needed is all possible assistance and expertise in bringing the situation at the nuclear facilities under control._

I don't know what benefit there is in prioritizing what is more-urgent and less-urgent. These efforts are not mutually-exclusive, let us provide both. What good is it to generalize the utility of an option to the entire scope of the disaster. Let's try to deal with each sub-problem individually.

</comment><comment><USER18> My consolidated response:

1) Shortages in Fukushima, etc, are not caused by lack of food or money. Japan has plenty of food and money. Japan has a temporary logistics problem with getting food to particular refugee sites, because of a number of issues, most critically that the infrastructure for delivering gas in the east got a severe monkey-wrench thrown into it and it is difficult to truck in enough to do distribution. With specific reference to Fukushima, the widening of the exclusion zone caused refugees to have to be moved twice is as many days, which also caused some issues.

The three closest ports for receiving refined gas got shut down by the tsunami (along with most local refinery capacity), so it has been getting transported by road from the other side of the country, and that has been hampered by damage to certain roads. One of those ports will be brought online today. As that situation gets better, the shortage of supplies for refugees will ease very rapidly. They're working very hard on that right now. Aid will not speed that process: any charity chosen at random is not better at doing gas delivery than Japanese gas companies, and no part of the relief efforts is blocking on lack of money.

2) Panic is not helping anyone, and foreign panic is feedback looping right now, particularly in the foreign communities. The only reason I have talked to the media at all is to stress the importance of them not panicking and not provoking panic.

3) I respect enormously people's desire to help, but satisfying desire to help is a very different thing from actually helping. The second is very important, the first not so much.

I was on a program on the BBC the other day. Another guest was a foreign aid worker from an organization I will not name. Host: "Where are you?" Him: "Not quite sure, north of Tokyo. The map is in Japanese." When asked about their plans for doing counseling, he said that they would find somebody locally who speaks English, because in his experience at X disasters across the world there is always somebody, and do counseling through the interpreter. One could be forgiven for difficulty in finding the value of his organization's assistance at the moment.

The US military's response has been invaluable -- choppers are very helpful right now, and have been saving lives. If you don't come packing your own distribution network designed to function parallel to the civilian ones, your ability to convert any amount of desire into hot meals at a school in eastern Japan is very limited right now.

After the immediate situation is addressed, Miyagi, Iwate, and the like will have large reconstruction efforts. Japan has the political will and resources to handle this.

A note: It is a very fluid situation. My blog post was written on Sunday, 3.5 days ago. The NYT asked me for a condensed version 2.5 days ago. Please keep in mind, when you're hearing from anybody (including me), you're hearing something which was true X amount of time ago in a situation evolving very rapidly.

<comment><USER6> Randomly jumping on a flight into Japan to wander around asking people in English if they need help is obviously stupid. But that's not just stupid for Japan, that's stupid for pretty much everywhere. Pointing out its stupidity isn't useful - people who would do that aren't listening to you anyways - <USER2> why conflate that sort of behavior with simple, non-disruptive, non-panic- inducing actions like donating money to the Red Cross? Or why contrast it with requests like "send nuclear expertise and helicopters", which everyone who meaningfully could and would is already doing?

After Katrina, Japan donated $200k to the US Red Cross, made $1m worth of supplies available, and private donations from Japanese companies and individuals went over $13m. The US certainly wasn't short of food or money, so why did they bother?

A $50 donation to the Red Cross _will_ potentially help. Earmark it for their general fund, and if they really don't need it for Japan, they'll spend it somewhere else. This is such a bizarre thing to have to defend.

<comment><USER18> _they'll spend it somewhere else_

"Spend it somewhere else" was exactly what I wrote in my blog post, but when the New York Times says "We can give you three hundred words" then Priority #1 is "Don't Panic" and Priority #Left_On_Cutting_Room_Floor is explaining to people how relief organizations actually operate.

<comment><USER6> "Everything you actually could do is worthless to us, but please send all possible help for this scary thing that you don't understand and can't possibly actually assist with" is the opposite of "Don't Panic". It conveys helplessness and disempowers your readers.

<comment><USER19> That's the opposite of how I read that. I take it as a comfort that they're doing their best, and they're the best at what they're doing. If they needed food or money, I would gladly send it, but he's saying they don't. Great!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Weird reading comments with 10 year old technology. All you can do is "Recommend", "Report as inappropriate", or add you own comment without knowing where it will fall in the thread. Replying to someone else is basically useless.

Maybe I'm spoiled by Hacker News, but without the give and take of healthy debate, it's hard to learn much.

But then again, maybe that's the point.

</comment><comment><USER21> If you're not aware, Japan's broadcaster NHK has an English-translated broadcast - <http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/> or <http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nhk-world-tv>

I would suggest watching it to get a Japanese view on things.

Watching it yesterday, people in the disaster area and around the power plant were pleading for help as they are running dangerously low on supplies. Many of the interviewees were criticizing the government on their inability to get supplies to them. People in the 30km radius were complaining that they couldn't get any truck drivers that were willing to enter the area. Also keep in mind that this is the north of Japan. It is below freezing and has been snowing.

</comment><comment><USER22> The thing I don't get about Patrick's opinion is that in his initial write-up he compares his personal danger and proximity to the disaster zone with "someone ringing up Mayor Daley [the mayor of Chicago] during Katrina and saying "My God man, that's terrible — how are you coping?""

Well, if his argument was that distance separates him from being able to relate to the problems on the ground, why should anybody look to him for guidance on how to provide aid?

</comment><comment><USER23> I always look forward to his blog posts, but I think he needs to stop talking about something he is not very aware about.

Yes, Japan is well prepared for disasters, but that does not mean it doesn't need help. The preparation for a disaster mainly involves saving lives, not helping people get back to their way of living.

What is the best way to help out? I wish I knew, but sending money for relief efforts seems to be a good way.

Honestly, I'm fuming about his remarks and believe he is causing more trouble the more he speaks.

</comment><comment><USER24> Crazy to put a face to the handle. It's what I love about old school forums like this. The identity is a token.

</comment><comment><USER25> Ignore anyone who says they don't need cash. It's nonsense. Just turn your TV on for two minutes. We should be opening our wallets as much for Japan right now as we've done for any country facing this sort of crisis in the past.

<comment><USER26> It's just not clear to me how more cash will help. It seems that the major problems involve the logistics of getting rescuers and supplies to people who need them, and money isn't the limiting factor there. GiveWell seems to agree: [http://blog.givewell.org/2011/03/15/update-on-how-to-help- ja...](http://blog.givewell.org/2011/03/15/update-on-how-to-help-japan- funding-is-not-needed-we-recommend-giving-to-doctors-without-borders-to- promote-better-disaster-relief-in-general/)</comment></comment>


Kippt Pro: Advanced Search, Folders and Imports - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kippt.com/2013/06/11/introducing-kippt-pro/ <comment><USER2> Kippt is generally great and I've been using it regularly since signing up, but the interface is just awful. I don't want to see my links as a weird Pinterest-inspired grid or a ridiculously low-density list. I want an actual list, with a reasonable amount of white space. I also want a way to go straight to the link and bypass the link's page within Kippt.

Basically, putting things in to Kippt is a pleasure. Using the information once it is in Kippt is a painful experience. I find myself dreading actually going into Kippt to get at a link I saved previously.

<comment><USER3> Pintrest-esq layouts only work for bookmarks when you add screenshots (which don't work 25% of the time must-be-logged-in content).

Made this last year: [http://folindux.com/popular](http://folindux.com/popular)

<comment><USER4> or check out amazd. Example:

[http://amazd.com/ahmad](http://amazd.com/ahmad)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Loving the new direction of Kippt. Congrats team Jorri and Karri.

</comment><comment><USER6> What's the best case usage for Kippt? What is it ideal for?

<comment><USER7> I would say that it's a personal digital web library. You can basically organize all of your information you collect online into a searchable, sharable, resource. It's advanced bookmarking. Here is how the site depicts it.

      > With Kippt you can save links, read articles, watch videos, share notes and much
      > more. Your collections can be private or public, or shared with the people you
      > work with.</comment></comment>


Palo Alto's Keeble and Shuchat Photography to Close in October - <AUTHOR> http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/09/15/palo-altos-keeble--shuchat-photography-to-close-in-october <comment><USER2> Kind of a shame and passing of an era. This store was the greatest brick and mortar photography store that I've ever been in. Pretty much everything you wanted was available, everything from small format 35mm to large format was available. Now that digital photography has taken over, this was inevitable.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea, simply sad- remember going there as a kid, inspired my love for photography.</comment></comment>


Projekktor Zwei - Free HTML5 video player - <AUTHOR> http://projekktor.com/ <comment><USER2> I can't get the theme to load on my site - going through the obfuscated/minified projekktor.js code reveals it may be loading things from hard-coded paths.

</comment><comment><USER3> this can be easily corrected by some config parameters. please take a look at <http://www.projekktor.com/docs.php#install></comment>


Top 5 collaboration problems and 5 solutions to them - <AUTHOR> http://www.eylean.com/blog/2014/08/top-5-collaboration-problems-and-5-solutions-to-them/?utm_source=blog&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=DM32

<comment><USER2> Having team members in separate locations is NOT solved by project management spreadsheets. That's preposterous. Its solved with collaboration tools. Many people arrange meetings using tools like Skype or GoToMeeting, but there are better integrated tools that promote continuous awareness of team member activities. Like Sococo. Disclaimer: I work there.</comment>


Exposed: YouPorn passwords in all their plain-text glory - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/02/hed-exposed-youporn-passwords-in-all-their-plain-text-glory.ars?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+Featured+Content%29&utm_content=Google+Reader <comment><USER2> Looking at the word cloud linked from the article (<http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3077/youporn_passwords.jpg>) I am brought to puzzlement over just why 'melinda' is such a popular password.

<comment><USER3> I saw this as well - there are a lot of strange passwords that occur frequently. I suspect that people make bots all with the same password, though I don't know what they're used for.</comment></comment>


The worsening journalistic disgrace at Wired - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/12/27/wired <comment><USER2> Also of note though not specifically enumerated in this article, if you read the linked biography [http://govsecinfo.com/events/govsec-2011/Speakers/Speaker%20...](http://govsecinfo.com/events/govsec-2011/Speakers/Speaker%20Window.aspx?SpeakerId={05691608-AB54-45B7-B0DE-7372D9F526F0}&ID={C18700A9-7318-4903-A591-761265B1D934}) of Mark Rasch, who Salon says facilitated this whole thing, you'll notice his title is, "Director of Cybersecurity and Privacy Consulting, Computer Science Corporation".

Computer Science Corporation aka, "CSC" is a major government contractor for IT services. What better way to sell more overpriced crap to the government than to foment a climate of panic around the Wikileaks issue. A problem that CSC no doubt has the perfect multi million dollar enterprise "solution" for.

In other words Mark Rasch has a likely significant and surely direct financial interest in making news coverage about Manning as sensationalistic as humanly possible.

<comment><USER3> It would also be interesting to see who won the DARPA CINDER: <http://www.darpa.mil/sto/solicitations/sn10-68/index.html> this year.

<comment><USER4> I don't follow. Why would this be interesting?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Glenn Greenwald has consistently delivered the best analysis of what has been going on with Wikileaks. He's appalled at the way most of the media has covered this story and I couldn't agree more.

<comment><USER6> I don't understand - I thought the media was (justly) all over WikiLeaks, with special features in Guardian, NY Times and others? Short of the 2008 elections, I can't think of stories that got similar attention in recent years.

I don't get Greenwald's issue with Wired. Journalists rarely provide complete records or transcripts of their communications with sources. Even interviews contain mutually agreed "off the record" sections. Maybe they ought to release the chat logs, maybe not, either way "journalistic disgrace" sounds a bit hyperbolic.

<comment><USER5> The media has been all over Assange (especially his personal life), but they've been minimally interested in the leaks themselves. In fact, many media outlets have gone so far as to condemn the Wikileaks organization or to dismiss them as "not containing anything we didn't already know".

The problem isn't when journalists agree to keep some information off the record to protect a source. It's when doing so fundamentally changes the character of a story or is actually part of the story itself.

What Greenwald outlines is a journalist who is thoroughly compromised. It's gone so far that he's actually part of the story.

Two other similar examples come to mind:

1\. When Judith Miller was given false information about Iraq that she used to write pro-Iraq invasion stories, she was using anonymous Bush administration sources. When it turned out that this information was incorrect, she decided to protect the identity of her sources. A real journalist would have realized that the story was: "Bush Official X leaked false information to journalists in order to sell the war to the American people." When a source makes you that much of a fool, you burn them, unless you were a helpful collaborator.

2\. When Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, he protected his source. At this time, Scooter Libby was peddling this information on behalf of Vice President Cheney's office. This was in retaliation for her husband, Joe Wilson's, release of information dismissing the Iraq/Niger Yellow Cake story that the US used as a reason to go to war. However, it turned out that it was Tim Russert (a longtime member of the DC press establishment) who had passed along the leaked Scooter Libby information to Novak. Tim Russert covered the Valerie Plame story for years before anyone knew he was the reason for her outing. And Russert failed for years to use his inside knowledge to report the true story to the American people. This led to Scooter Libby being able to take a minimal charge of obstruction of justice and ultimately a sentence commutation from George Bush.

So this isn't so much about keeping notes or a transcript. It's about a member of the press with the truth at their disposal, but choosing to hide it for some reason. My guess is he's writing a book and would like to keep some information proprietary, but considering the case that Greenwald levels, some sort of response is appropriate.

<comment><USER7> > The media has been all over Assange (especially his personal life), but > they've been minimally interested in the leaks themselves.

I disagree strongly with you. The NYT (as an example) has entire pages dedicated on their website for both the war logs and and diplomatic cables. Even several days ago their front page (print) story was from the leaks. The media is not dropping the ball on this, it's just that alternative media talking heads desperately _want_ them to drop the ball and so just keep saying that they have.

Like it or not, Julian is the face of Wikileaks and his eccentricities and the intrigue surrounding him is part of the story. A compelling part. One that gets more people reading about this than otherwise would have. Reporting isn't just about telling facts no matter how unbiased a reporter or news establishment might be. This is precisely why Wikileaks releases raw data to their media partners for analysis under an embargo in the first place; analysis which comes with some bias.

Would you consider it good reporting if the media were to never address the rape allegations when interviewing Assange? Even if they're fabricated?

> In fact, many media outlets have gone so far as to condemn the Wikileaks > organization or to dismiss them as "not containing anything we didn't > already know".

Which media outlets are those? Suggesting that outside of the context of an Op-Ed would be pretty unethical, but I haven't see that and I haven't read it anywhere.

<comment><USER5> \- Most people don't see a difference between an Op-Ed and actual news. Most cable news networks don't easily distinguish between news and opinion reporting since both are regularly done by the same people.

\- I've noted a few articles in the previous comment that make the assertion that nothing new was released by Wikileaks in the article headlines. Most people don't really read beyond those anyway.

\- Again we're focusing on Julian Assange. While there is a story to be written about him, that story is easy and lazy. The far harder story is to actually investigate the cables. Since the cables were transmitted to Wikileaks, vetted by select media partners, and released, no one has accused him of either fabricating or falsifying anything contained in these leaks. The rape accusations against him (while serious and perhaps true) do not change the information contained therein. The source doesn't actually taint the leaked information.

It'd be like me writing:

Former illegal cocaine and marijuana user, President Barack Obama, took a trip to Hawaii for Christmas break. Since he had been known to get a speeding ticket, it's interesting that he's asked to speed up the time table for implementing the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell".

True, but irrelevant.

<comment><USER7> > \- Most people don't see a difference between an Op-Ed and actual news. Most > cable news networks don't easily distinguish between news and opinion > reporting since both are regularly done by the same people.

So your argument is: "Most people don't realize that there's a difference between opinion and reporting, so there isn't one."? I don't accept that people can't distinguish, and even if true, I don't accept that it makes any difference in the truth.

There is also a difference between real new organizations -- viz. print -- and cable news. Even on Fox News, however (note: I don't watch cable news frequently, I'm assuming this is still the case), their opinion shows are clearly separate from their actual reporting. O'Reilly, Hannity, Fox and Friends all discuss the news but aren't reporting it.

> Again we're focusing on Julian Assange. While there is a story to be written > about him, that story is easy and lazy. The far harder story is to actually > investigate the cables.

Forgive me, but, It's a bit offensive to the reporters at the New Yorker, or the Times, or the NYT to imply that such a story is easy and lazy. You make it sound like the two stories are mutually exclusive and it's not as it the cables themselves are being ignored by anyone.

> The rape accusations against him (while serious and perhaps true) do not > change the information contained therein. The source doesn't actually taint > the leaked information.

I'm not sure how major media outlets are implying that it does tain the leaked information. If you can see that, what makes you think that others can't?

> Former illegal cocaine and marijuana user, President Barack Obama, took a > trip to Hawaii for Christmas break. Since he had been known to get a > speeding ticket, it's interesting that he's asked to speed up the time table > for implementing the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell".

I honestly don't know how you can't see that there's an ethical difference between what you said and the bias it contains and reporting that Julian Assange is accused of rape. If Obama were accused of rape and tried to pass DADT, you can bet it would be reported on too. Like it or not, the world doesn't organize itself into self-contained encapsulated segments of information. Humanity and human faces are a part of reporting, one that drives more people to know about things like the leaks than otherwise would have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wired has always been the worst kind of tabloid (The Web is Dead, push technology is the future, the dotcom bubble won't ever burst...), their lack of journalistic ethics doesn't surprise me in the least.

<comment><USER9> Still, It's not Poulsen's obligation to release the Lamo-Manning logs. If Greenwald wants them so much, he is free to contact Lamo himself. Also, don't forget Lamo could have edited the logs before giving them to Poulsen and it's only Lamo's word that assures their authenticity.

<comment><USER10> The article says that Lamo says he doesn't have them any more.

<comment><USER9> I suppose we can't prove he is telling the truth

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Whether by design or effect, Kevin Poulsen and Wired have played a critical role in concealing the truth from the public about the Manning arrest."

Manning is in a cell getting the worst possible treatment for God's sake.

The damage has been done, however, anyone who cares can sign this petition "Stop the Inhumane Treatment of Bradley Manning" (it's a blog post with a petition, to be more precise): [http://my.firedoglake.com/blog/2010/12/23/bradley-manning- sp...](http://my.firedoglake.com/blog/2010/12/23/bradley-manning-speaks-about- his-conditions/)

<comment><USER12> Inhumane? Please. He is a traitor and after reading that article is not being treated inhumanely.

<comment><USER13> Not much for due process, areya?

<comment><USER14> Due process in the military is not the same as due process for civilians. This is well-known and not sprung upon people after they join the armed forces.

<comment><USER13> I'm pretty sure the UCMJ doesn't allow for calling people traitors before they've been convicted.

<comment><USER13> As it turns out, treason isn't even _in_ the UCMJ.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Looks like someone needs to do some leaking down at the Wired office.

That would be interesting, particularly if the chat logs were "leaked" to Wikileaks. Would they still publish the logs, even if the logs meant life imprisonment for Bradley Manning? Would that then be a breach of trust between Wikileaks and Manning?

Anyway, besides all my ridiculous speculation and getting ahead of things; The title is in no way an exaggeration, and Poulson should think rather hard about what he's going to do about it.

<comment><USER16> Supposedly, Adrian Lamo had submitted the logs to Wikileaks to pose this conundrum before giving them over to Wired.

<comment><USER17> Source? It's interesting if true, but I think that would be hard to verify, as Lamo's honesty is suspect and Assange has no problem lying about what he does or does not have.

<comment><USER16> [http://adrianlamologs.blogspot.com/2010/06/adrian-lamo- outs-...](http://adrianlamologs.blogspot.com/2010/06/adrian-lamo-outs-self-as- wikileaks.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Greenwald doesn't seem to think that Lamos is a credible witness because statements he has made in the press aren't corroborated in the released sections of the chat log. But, (1) isn't it likely that the chat logs aren't the full extent of the communication between Manning and Lamos during this period, and (2) if Lamos is suspect, the chat logs are meaningless anyways, as they can easily be doctored.

How does the release of the full transcript solve either of these problems?

<comment><USER2> They don't, his argument revolves more around the fact that _not_ releasing them is exceedingly suspicious not that their release would be the savior of iron clad truth.

<comment><USER18> Suspicious, but if you don't trust Lamos, than it's also completely inconsequential to the truth.

Evidence is only valuable if, after confirm its existence, your beliefs shift in some direction.

<comment><USER19> One can not trust Lamos, but believe that he didn't have the foresight to work out a consistent story before sending the chat logs to Wire.

<comment><USER18> If Lamos's story were consistent, would you be any more likely to believe it? If not, then you already have sufficient evidence that Lamos can't be trusted and you can just point to that. Evidence can't be important if, after learning it, you believe the exact same things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> bad link, go to the full story straight away: [http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/27...](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/27/wired/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> Perhaps Wired is only releasing those parts of the logs that they are able to find some corroboration for. Considering the Salon author's prior poorly researched reporting on Manning, the idea of actually checking on things before publishing may be alien to him.

<comment><USER13> That's an awfully charitable attitude toward Wired, who has stonewalled without comment any inquiry regarding the logs since they got them.

Considering the amount of public pressure the US Government has exerted in prior restraint of the press and punishing those in their employ who might read Wikileaks, it seems reasonable to conclude that Wired is withholding them either under government duress or is saving them up for a different story (like a book or a post-conviction victory lap). In other words, power and/or money, not public benefit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Kevin Poulsen's response on Twitter:

Heard there's a measured, mature critique I should respond to. Will look for it tomorrow when I'm back from vacation.

</comment><comment><USER23> If the USG wants to charge Assange with aiding/abetting Manning, then it is in their interest to not have the chat logs released. As long as the chat logs are hidden, the USG can claim that Manning admitted to Lamo that he received some help from Assange, and bingo! Assange can be indicted.

<comment><USER22> If the chat logs say something different and the government lies about it to get an indictment, then it would be a disaster for the prosecution.

<comment><USER24> Yes, but this isn't about a trial, this is about the court of public opinion. Getting civilian charges filed and then thrown out on "technical grounds" is almost the best case scenario if you're Pentagon PR. You get to indicit Assange (with loads of press coverage of him in chains to drive home the idea that he's evil and to scare off other whistleblowers and/or journalists) and then you get to blast the inadequacy of civilian courts for national security trials when (a year later) they throw out the case of a guy "everybody knows is guilty" on technical grounds which are far to complex to fit in a sound bite.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> brown9-2 Can someone explain this part of the article to me?

 _But after that, The Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima quoted from the chat logs and included several parts that (a) Wired had withheld but (b) were not about personal matters or national security secrets; see this analysis here of what was disclosed by the Post, Wired and others. (Nakashima and the Post refuse even to say whether they possess all the chat logs. When I asked Nakashima several months ago, she referred my inquiry to a corporate spokeswoman, who then told me: "We don't discuss the details of our newsgathering." But I focus here on Poulsen because of his central role in these events, his long-standing relationships with the key parties, and the fact that -- unlike the Post, which obviously has nothing to do with journalism -- I actually expect better of Wired)._

Is Greenwald saying that the _Washington Post_ "has nothing to do with journalism"?

As in, what the WaPo does is not journalism?

<comment><USER25> Yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Does anybody but me find it sort of comic-booky that the head of Project Vigilant, a group surveilling the Internet so the government won't have to, is named "Uber"?

</comment><comment><USER22> It's interesting reading the email exchange between Greenwald and Poulsen. To me it looks like Glenn trying bullying trial lawyer tactics: "you have to admit there's something disturbing about all of this" etc. That approach isn't going to work well with Kevin.

<comment><USER24> There is something point-blank disturbing about it. A journalist has an exclusive on a major news story, and he's making no effort to publish it. In terms of suspiciousness, this is like cats not chasing mice - it's just so far outside normal behavior that you just have to assume something else is in play.

<comment><USER13> "The dog that didn't bark." --Sherlock Holmes

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Could it be that the information in the chat logs are sensitive and he/Wired is avoiding the legal nightmare that may be caused by publishing?

<comment><USER28> I'm sure the legal issue could be circumvented by having the logs 'leaked'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Okay I admit to skimming after the tenth paragraph or so, so if I screw up my response I apologize. The article just seemed very wordy, but not so substantive.

<snark>But am I to understand that the beef here is that wired is _not_ publishing something that others think they should? So now not only do we need a world with no secrets, we also need a world where the mob can demand that others publish whatever we ask?

I know the counter-response will be something like "but they made statements for which we have no support and the chat logs could either prove or refute those statements"

To that response, all I have to offer is that there is an active criminal investigation, not carried out in the press or the mob but by due process, and that news sources all the time say things from anonymous sources and such. I don't like it when they do, but I don't think demanding that every news source that uses an anonymous source release their name is very realistic either.

I understand that this is an emotionally-charged issue. And folks want to know. But you can rest assured that it will all eventually come out. If that's not fast enough for you, then perhaps a little more patience might help.

This whole thing -- the subsequent events to WL and Manning's arrest, including the title of the article here, has the air of a bunch of assholes kicking around folks just to keep their emotions stirred up and readership levels high. It's become the chatty, gossipy topic-of-the-week. If you can't find a juicy enough Wikileaks story, then run a story about the story that doesn't exist. What did they say about cable news during the Monica Lewinsky scandal? It's all Monica, all the time. Wikileaks makes folks crazy, and I have a feeling various news outlets are going to be yanking our chain with this for some time to come. There's money in it, no matter what angle you use.</snark>

Feel free to correct me if I've missed something.

<comment><USER13> As far as I know, Wired is not operating under a gag order and they are not a party to the case. It is not illegal or anything to evaluate independently- possessed evidence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Don't just complain about this. Show Wired how much interest there is in releasing the chat logs. I'm organizing response here: <http://kommons.com/questions/418>

<comment><USER13> Has there ever been an effective online poll?

<comment><USER31> <http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/turing/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm mildly surprised that a media outlet is actually calling this out at another organization.

In my opinion, _every_ media outlet has been complicit in helping the U.S. powers that be try to discredit Wikileaks and distract from the contents of the leaks. Not to mention hiding corruption.

Wikileaks has done a great job at showing the world how much those in power don't care about anything but their own power (and their "conspiracy network"). But all I'm seeing is the same apathetic and head-in-the-sand response from the general population to reality.

<comment><USER33> If this were on the New York Times editorial page, I'd agree with you, but I can't believe you're surprised that Glenn Greenwald is angry at another media outlet. He is angry about the same thing every week.

<comment><USER32> This is the first time I've heard of Greenwald. I don't read Salon regularly. However the occasional article I have read has been decent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> _I do not have a very high opinion of Glenn Greenwald in general. I mention this not to support my argument but to admit my bias up front. I have other biases as well - about whether this material was leaked, whether it should have been leaked, and whether it should have been published as it has been - but I'm trying to steer clear of such issues here and just address the specific topic of this article. The morality of these leaks is a political question; until there are changes in the law, responsibility for the leaks is a more narrow legal question.

For reference, where I talk about the contents of these chat logs I'm referring to the the same source Greenwald does, at <http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/> That seems like factual summary with zero editorial commentary; citing it is not meant to express any particular view on the site's editorial/political stance. However, it does have some sloppy copyediting (summary descriptions of following section appearing inline as if they were the final line of chat) and seem to be somewhat incomplete, per this BoingBoing story [http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/20/was-alleged- wikileak.ht...](http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/20/was-alleged- wikileak.html) \- likely an honest mistake, as BoingBoing's writer apparently edited the transcripts subsequently out a desire to avoid prejudice. Finally, I am not a lawyer, and so these are nothing more than the opinions of an amateur.

EDIT: downvoting doesn't bother me, but absent comment I have no idea what part of it you disagreed with..._

It seems to me that Greenwald is assuming his own conclusion here, that the chat logs provide evidence of Manning's innocence. They could, of course; and I imagine that Manning's Lawyer will subpoena them for just that reason: if he can not get them from Wired, then he can get them from Lamo or the FBI. (Lamo apparently says the FBI took his computer with the logs on them, but until he says so under oath that doesn't mean a thing.)

There are alternative possibilities, which Greenwald does not address, that could well justify Wired's withholding other parts of the chat logs and still maintaining a high standard of journalistic ethics.

First: the possibility that the logs contain more evidence of Manning's or Assange's guilt. Lamo makes statements to multiple journalistic sources such as the NYT and Washington Post as well as to Wired; so whether Poulsen reports his remarks first or not, the fact that such allegations are being made is a matter of public record. Poulsen neither confirms nor denies Lamo's allegations with reference to the chat logs. Greenwald argues that he should, as Lamo's accusations amount to prosecuting Manning and Assange in public. However, accusations without evidence are just talk. If Poulsen releases the transcripts, many will see the contents as conclusive evidence, whether they support or undermine Lamo's assertions, or even if they are ambiguous. That could make a fair trial for Assange impossible, if indeed he is charged. It could also amount to conducting Manning's (military) trial in public in a way that undermines his rights.

As yet, there's no proof that Bradley Manning was 'Bradass87' or that he was the one conducting those conversations (vs someone else using his login, say), or that the logs are a true and unedited copy of actual chats. But the logs that are public already are being treated as the indisputable truth. That they are public makes it very difficult for Manning's lawyer to attack their admissibility as evidence: if he does so, many people will dismiss his arguments as lies. Just the fact that the public logs have the 'feel' of a real conversation is enough for many people to decide they're authentic, for the same reason that people often remember movies better than they do real history. Even if it can be shown that the chat logs are authentic records of conversations between Manning and Lamo, they are only _evidence_ that Manning believed and said certain things to Lamo. As far as the logs talk about Assange, their legal value is that of hearsay evidence. But opponents of Assange will treat such hearsay remarks as proven facts (they're not even close), while his supporters will say none of it is admissible at all because it's hearsay (not true either). Regardless of which side Poulsen or anyone else is on, making that material public risks undermining justice.

Personally, I think it would have been better not to release any transcripts at all in order to avoid biasing a trial (either of Manning or of Assange, if he is charged later). Mind, that's very much a personal opinion. I'm also against police releasing mugshots or making people do perp walks because so many assume that criminal defendants must be guilty because they look bad. But suppose, for argument's sake, that there's so much evidence of Manning being the leaker that the facts are not really in question, and that's why Poulsen felt ethically justified in releasing partial transcripts.

This leads me towards the other possibility which might have led Poulsen to release only partial transcripts - the question of Manning's motivations. In the published logs he sounds like someone offended by the government's low ethical standards, unhappy in his job situation, and alternatively bragging and remorseful about the magnitude of the revelations. So his defense might go ahead on the basis of 'yes, he broke his oath and leaked all these documents, but he was young and idealistic and believed himself to be acting on a higher purpose, thus he's really only guilty of exercising very poor judgment.' But (in theory) if the unpublished logs include him having a bad day and going on an extended rant to the effect that 'bin Laden was right' or 'the American empire deserves to collapse' or something? Such sentiments are not unknown, and considering that members of Congress have already been calling for the kid's execution - although none of the charges against him carry the death penalty - if evidence of a 'bad' motivation comes before the public there's likely to be lynch mobs forming outside the camp where he's being held. More likely, there's an entirely different set of possible motivations.

 _[Quoting OP article] When I first wrote back in June about Wired's concealment of these chat logs, the excuses Poulsen gave were quickly proved to be false._

That's very much a matter of opinion. The parts that were not in Wired's original release which later appeared in the WaPo (orange and red text at the link above) all seem to me to have a bearing on these subjects. 'Sensitive information' could refer to the removal of Assange's name/identifying detail in some places, but mostly Wired's redactions seem to concern such personal matters as Manning's emotions, mental stability, and life situation, which might interpreted as damning or mitigating by different people. Greenwald says several parts are neither, but doesn't say which parts or (more importantly) why he thinks so.

The personal information here appears to show Manning as a troubled kid who turned to the army in search of the stability that was missing in his life, but became deeply disillusioned with the institution and country he served. It appears that the army had become disillusioned with Manning too, and that he was being discharged for an 'adjustment disorder.' What that means is uncertain, but there's been a lot of speculation to the effect that Manning was gay or had gender identity issues. That's a pretty contentious subject as far as it relates to the military (see the depth of feeling in the recent debate about repealing DADT) and the extent to which it could have affected Manning personally, and the extent to which any lack of stability on Manning's part would be his fault or that of the army's, are questions which could have a significant bearing on his sentence. And because the issue is very contentious, it tends to split opinion further among those already holding polarized opinions: if you think Manning's a bad person, then his personal hangups may compound his moral failings or be an unacceptable sympathy play; if you think he's a good person, then his personal hangups may be an additional justification for leaking the secrets of an unfairly discriminatory, or an unacceptable attempt to smear him as a sexual deviant.

It seems to me that Poulsen decided to publish those parts of the logs which showed Manning's access to, awareness of, and methods for leaking classified information. In other words, the published excerpts offer answers to the question of where multiple different leaks of military and diplomatic information came from (one single intelligence analyst tasked with cross- referencing army intel with that from other branches of government); whether the leaking was a deliberate act, or an accidental result of bureaucratic incompetence (deliberate, with understanding of content, likely publicity, and negative impact); and whether the allegations were credible (obviously the government intranet does not include a 'leak to public?' option, and the weak point was the CD-RW supposedly filled with Lady Gaga tunes (am I the only person who finds this detail bizarrely ironic?)). All this information is concerned with factual issues. Courts-martial have to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt as do civilian courts, but they differ in terms of things like jury requirements, which may make it easier to deal with the publication of factual evidence than would be the case for a civilian trial. But while it may be easy to prove the acts occurred, mental state, criminal responsibility, and would be an appropriate sentence are much trickier questions. Because such matters are inherently subjective, the standards for evaluating them are different from those for establishing material fact, and there are different risks of potential bias.

My guess is that Wired's legal department (rather than Poulsen as an individual) would have gone through the transcripts marking different sections as factual or subjective, with lesser or greater possibilities of bias and thus legal liability for publication.

<comment><USER25> My guess on why you're being downvoted is because this very long comment starts with the sentence: "It seems to me that Greenwald is assuming his own conclusion here, that the chat logs provide evidence of Manning's innocence."

I don't remember Greenwald ever claiming or even giving off a vibe that he didn't think that Manning was the leaker; this is a media critique, like most of his work. Doesn't bode well for the next 1400 words.

<comment><USER34> Ah, I guess that's my fault for using my terms too loosely. Greenwald certainly does seem to think Manning was the leaker. But he also seems to think that Manning is very possibly not guilty (or as I carelessly put it, 'innocent') on both factual and legal grounds. In the following link, for example, Greenwald both expresses skepticism about whether Manning is definitely responsible for all the leaking, as well as whether he had the state of mind required for criminal responsibility, remarking that '[..] Manning clearly believed that he was a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives, and probably was exactly that.' ([http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14...](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/index.html))

This reads to me - perhaps incorrectly - like Greenwald is saying that Manning may have a valid legal defense for his actions, as a military whistleblower. If so, I think - again, perhaps incorrectly - that Greenwald is wrong, and that the Supreme Court has put tighter limits on military whistleblowers than on the general public (Parker v. Levy 417 US 733 (1974) [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7171415278006906...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7171415278006906954)). Please note that I'm speculating on what the law actually is, not what it ought to be.

<comment><USER35> ". Greenwald certainly does seem to think Manning was the leaker. But he also seems to think that Manning is very possibly not guilty (or as I carelessly put it, 'innocent') on both factual and legal grounds. "

I've read every article Greenwald has ever written on Manning, and I've never seem him state that, or even imply that Manning is not guilty. About the furthest I've seen him go is imply that perhaps we should not presume him to be guilty before trial, and that we should treat him as a suspect, and not a convicted felon, until that point.

<comment><USER34> Do you mean that you don't agree with my reading of what he said in the example I gave? (It's about half way down the linked page, right after a ' * * * * * ' divider, or you could just search on the text I quoted.)

Greenwald does go into some detail about why he considers Manning to be a 'whistleblower' - a term with legal meaning, as used in _eg_ 'Military Whistleblower Protection Act.' It certainly sounds like he's suggesting it would be a valid defense (as in, 'yes, I did those things but I am not guilty because I was acting as a whistleblower'). If not, what do you think he means?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Speaking of disgrace, Salon is prominently featuring ads to scammy sites like hxxp://www.online8report.com/Acai-Berry/ right next to that article.

</comment><comment><USER37> This may be too far out there, but does anyone believe that perhaps Poulsen has some closeted sympathy for Manning given his black hat history and subsequent history with law enforcement? I'm not saying that is his motive, but I do wonder if it plays into his decision at all. He once did also actively pursue freedom of information through non-legal means.

</comment><comment><USER22> TL;DR summary: Glenn thinks Kevin Poulsen is a disgrace for not publishing the chat logs Adrian Lamo gave him involving Bradley Manning (or somebody claiming to be Bradley) (as potentially edited by Adrian).

<comment><USER38> Your summary misses the longest and most interesting part of the article: the discussion of the pre-existing relationship between Lamo, Mark Rasch, Poulsen, and Chet Uber (can the names in the saga get any better?), the fact that Rasch is the guy who sent Poulsen to prison before he was a writer for Wired, the fact that Rasch himself is a writer for Wired, and the fact that Lamo's claims about the contents of the log continue to shift in ways that seem beneficial to the prosecution.

<comment><USER22> Fair enough. None of this is news but the information about the relationships is useful for people who aren't familiar with the backstory.

As for Lamo's story continuing to shift, gee, what a surprise.

<comment><USER13> I'd say the information about pre-existing relationships among the players, as well as conflicts of interest within them, is indeed news.

<comment><USER22> News to Greenwald, apparently. It's well known in the security and civil liberties communities.

<comment><USER39> Regardless of how well known those relationships are in certain circles, Wired should still disclose them when publishing a story, given that they have a much wider target audience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I usually like Greenwald and in general agree with his argument here. But I sure as hell don't like the ad-homing of Lamo as a mental patient and convicted felon. Not relevant, Glenn.

<comment><USER41> I don't know that he's engaging in an _ad hominem_ so much as pointing out that it is unusual for someone who was just released from mental health supervision to be acting as a key witness in a federal prosecution. And Adrian lamo is a convicted felon so that's a factual detail relevant to the story.

The thing that makes this story confusing to many people is that there are multiple overlapping contexts in play here.

1\. Glenn Greenwald is attempting to hold Kevin Poulsen accountable as a journalist for holding back information relevant to the story and for failing to disclose his ties to other actors who are directly involved in the story.

2\. Greenwald is attempting to establish when Lamo began working for the government in this case, and is using parts of the transcript released so far to show that it was probably much earlier than Lamo claims.

3\. He's also attempting to show that it's quite likely that the inhumane treatment being afforded to Pfc. Manning is intended to coerce him into implicating others in his criminal activities whether the facts and the law support that implication or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> s/--/—/g

<comment><USER42> Out of interest am I being down-voted because this is off topic, too short, or because no-one is interested in typesetting and the humble em dash?

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> This is Wikileaks thesis that those who have influence are hiding facts to miss-lead public to a different conclusion..

Here we have 2 of the 4 and possibly 3 of the four being government informants driving a miss-leading conclusion of the media story and using Wired as government mouthpiece..

I submit that wikileaks will not be charged by the US government due to the corrupt miss-handling of both government informants in this case as well las the PR work the government embarked upon...there are simply too many skeletons that no-one wants to see the light of day..

And the US government has history of dropping prosecution if secrets are used as evidence in courts as they do not want them exposed...However, Manning is different case because he will be in the Military court system not the public US court system..which is unfortunate as he should be able to defend himself using whatever evidence Wired has..

</comment><comment><USER44> What's the problem? He has a right not to publish. This article screams "written because I'm mad at Wired." Get your own source and then we'll talk about who's a "journalistic disgrace."

</comment><comment><USER45> Great article. Flagged as not hacker relevant. Post it to Reddit.</comment>


MountainWest RubyConf 2012 Live Stream - <AUTHOR> http://mtnwestrubyconf.org/live

<comment><AUTHOR> We are really happy to be streaming MWRC live this year!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> <http://www.justin.tv/confreaks> if the MWRC site isn't available.

</comment><comment><USER2> Awesome. I wish all conferences had live streams. Will be tuning in throughout the day.

</comment><comment><USER3> What other hacker conference this quality has a free live stream? MWRC is so great.

</comment><comment><USER4> I love this conference. Won't live stream since I'm in the front row.

</comment><comment><USER5> Thanks for streaming @mwrc

</comment><comment><USER6> Loving this conference!

</comment><comment><USER7> Tune in, it's great!:wq</comment>


Create your own online notebook without any signup required - <AUTHOR> https://notepin.co <comment><USER2> Although it appears to require little time/energy overhead to try out your project...

The lack of _any_ information about privacy and security (not to mention evidence of commitment for the project to be around with my notes available to me for more than a few weeks) means I won't yet be trying it. Just FYI

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'll be sure to include that soon!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> How long will it last? Do they have any secure back-up?</comment>


Cutting user churn for world's fastest-growing bike-share startup - <AUTHOR> https://blog.locale.ai/how-indias-top-micro-mobility-player-used-locale-ai-to-reduce-user-churn-by-9/ <comment><USER2> Insightful post.Looking forward to see more industry leveraging location intelligence for better operational analytics</comment>


Ask HN: Good books on negotiation? - <AUTHOR>

(besides "Getting to Yes", discussed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=542186) <comment><USER2> I was interested in learning about negotiation a few months ago, so I bought all the best-reviewed books on Amazon. Here's the ones I especially liked: The Power of Nice (Shapiro), Bargaining for Advantage (Shell), 3D Negotiation (Lax), Negotiation Genius (Malhotra)

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> 'how to win friends and influence people' isn't specifically about negotiation, but its a classic and the principles found in there can easily be applied.

</comment><comment><USER4> The Secret of Power Persuasion is an old favorite.</comment>


Rendering 3D Haptic Shapes in Mid-Air using Ultrasound - <AUTHOR> http://3dprintingindustry.com/2014/12/08/rendering-3d-haptic-shapes-mid-air-using-ultrasound/ <comment><USER2> That's pretty crazy. Given certain applications, you're pretty much creating actual items out of thin air. Like for instance, if you can create a screwdriver-shaped thingy that is "feelable" enough that you can actually turn a screw with it, then... you don't really need an actual screwdriver. Plus you can just make it disappear into thin air when you're done with it.

<comment><USER3> It doesn't apply much force. The video shows it barely deforming the surface of some water.

<comment><USER4> More importantly, it presumably can't apply _any_ torque.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Would be really interesting to combine with creative activities like this VR sculpting demo:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnqFdSa5p7w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnqFdSa5p7w)

</comment><comment><USER6> this plus magic leap could be pretty awesome for AR/VR

</comment><comment><USER7> Url changed from [http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/09/researchers-create- shapes-i...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/09/researchers-create-shapes-in- the-air-using-ultrasound), which points to this.</comment>


All about XMBC - <AUTHOR> http://lifehacker.com/#!5768174/power-up-your-xbmc-installation-with-these-new-add+ons

<comment><USER2> Pretty sure you meant XBMC.</comment>


Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments - <AUTHOR> https://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employment-construction-and-cost-of-san.html <comment><USER2> > It will be very hard. If the (first) model is correct, it would take a _53% > increase_ in the housing supply (200,000 new units),

Doesn't seem that hard in a city full of three-story housing.

<comment><USER3> I'm thinking the same thing. Is it physical limitations of building (such as earthquake proofing) that makes it difficult? Or is it the suffocating amount of bureaucratic red tape imposed by short-sighted interest groups?

<comment><USER4> Definitely red tape.

I'm doing an expansion on my house in SF. 1 year in already, and at least another year to go before we get permits, if we even wind up getting them.

It will probably cost over $10,000 just in planning review / permitting costs when it's all done. That does not include the added time architectural costs of changing the plans as demanded by the various planning departments.

<comment><USER5> By way of comparison, out here on the East Coast, I went by my county office on a Friday, talked over what I wanted to do with the clerk, sketched out a basic plan on a blank sheet of paper, paid $75 in fees, taped the permit to my front window and started work on an expansion the next day.

<comment><USER4> Yes, SF's process is incredibly broken. It's not just that they are too expensive and time consuming (which they are!), it's also that the rules are arbitrary, and there are multiple departments, which often have the exact opposite requirements.

Additionally, any approval can be appealed by neighbors for any reason, at very little cost, but then the person applying for the permit will then have to spend thousands more, and potentially years more, to fight the appeal.

The uncertainty and lack of clear rules is actually worse than the cost (which is ridiculous).

I find it hard to imagine a more dysfunctional planning process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Building straight into the sky is easy. You'd be amazed at how earthquake- proof skyscrapers are with modern technology.

You want a challenge? Build in a city where you're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property.

<comment><USER6> _Build in a city where you 're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property._

That's because you're talking about one of the most beautiful cities in the world (despite the attempts of some people to decry otherwise) and, as expressed through the will of its electorate, intends to stay that way. It's also a city that's keenly aware of ecosystem dynamics and environmental issues generally, and the effect of removing that removing certain kinds of trees (for example, trees of significant age, size, and/or foliage) -- particularly if they're close to the street -- can have on the neighborhood well beyond the tiny confines of your own property.

If you want to live in a city that couldn't begin to give a flying F* about trees, or anything else green, for most of its history -- and has the corresponding development footprint and visual character to show for it -- try moving to San Jose.

<comment><USER7> HA! San Fransisco is a dirty, 2 fisted drinking town, full-stop. It is not 'one of the most beautiful cities in the world'. Try Hamburg or Vienna. It is a port of call for those looking to escape polite society, be they gays, Chicanos, drunk miners, Russian trappers, whores, Burners, or whatever else isn't talked about on 5th Ave. Do not delude yourself into thinking San Fransisco's people care about anything but the prices of their vices. That is what makes SF great, it just wants to get sloppy drunk. Do whatever else you want.

<comment><USER8> San Francisco's wooden victorian are very beautiful, it also has a lot of "western American port city" architecture in tact, as you say. Many of us find that beautiful compared to old European cities that have their own very different histories. "The most beautiful city in the world" is most definitely an exaggeration, but it definitely has its own charm.

<comment><USER9> IMO, San Francisco is an ugly city. It's got that smattering of high rises in a mostly low rise city that just screams slums in most of the world. I mean there is a reason most photos are of a bridge not the buildings.

I accept everyone has different aesthetics. But, the city just screams fake to me without any of the organic charm an old city or the brutal asthetic of say NY.

PS: I guess you can call it unique...

<comment><USER8> Not just bridges, I mean, SF has stuff like this:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_ladies#/media/File:Pai...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_ladies#/media/File:Painted_Ladies_San_Francisco_January_2013_panorama_2.jpg)

Linking into [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_ladies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_ladies):

> "Painted ladies" is a term in American architecture used for Victorian and > Edwardian houses and buildings painted in three or more colors that > embellish or enhance their architectural details. The term was first used > for San Francisco Victorian houses by writers Elizabeth Pomada and Michael > Larsen in their 1978 book Painted Ladies - San Francisco's Resplendent > Victorians.[1]

Such housing is virtually everywhere in SF if you bother walking out of the urban core. I used to lose myself for hours just wandering around SF neighborhoods.

I really wonder if you really know what slums really are. I live in Beijing, a high rise city by any definition, which has slums galore (though not the ones found in India). Even the tall buildings are dingy, lack character. I also lived in Lausanne for a couple of years...supposedly a nice city, but it definitely had its share of grit and urban fake-ness. Especially high rise social housing (say in Renens), which, while not bad, definitely had a feeling of sluminess to them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Obligatory reminder: If you care about housing in the Bay Area, register to vote now. Scott Wiener is a housing and transportation advocate running for State Senate in this election.

[http://registertovote.ca.gov/](http://registertovote.ca.gov/)

Show up to Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor meetings. Participate in public comment. We all talk about how NIMBYs rule SF, it's because they show up in full force at these gatherings.

<comment><USER11> Gentrification step 13: vote out the pre-existing population's preferred politicians and install new "free market" policies (since the "free market" works in favor of the people with the money the new policies will benefit the richer new comers).

<comment><USER12> Building is the one variable of the three he cites that is reasonable to encourage IMO. But the pre-existing population here has demonstrated a clear disdain for building. So who is really to blame then for the inflation and displacement and thereby the gentrification?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Answering a question, why the decline in rents 1950-1960? Far as I know during WWII the population of the city swelled due to war time industry. After the war people moved to newly created suburbs in Santa Clara and the Peninsula.

I'm unsure but I think my grandparents moved to SF during the 1939-1940 WWII preseason. And by the late forties had moved away.

<comment><USER14> People were leaving!

In 1950 the population of SF peaked (at the time) at 775,000, by 1960 it was down to 740,000, then by 1980 down to 678,000 (13% drop over 30 years!).

Hard to believe it living in SF today.

<comment><USER15> It's not hard to believe at all. White flight to suburbs after the war is a pretty well known phenomenon that happened in every major city in the US.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> SF should work on rezoning some hub areas higher density, and build (lots of) unit blocks. For comparison, I live in a suburb that has had the zoning rules changed to allow for transit-oriented development. Houses are being moved out and being replaced by 5 story apartment blocks. I live in one of those, a 3 minute walk from a busway station.

There will probably be 50000 units built in my the city in the near future. However, Brisbane, Australia has twice the population of SF, and a possibly irrational building boom happening though:

[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-27/brisbane-to- see-50,000...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-27/brisbane-to- see-50,000-new-apartments-added-to-skyline-expert/7117686)

</comment><comment><USER17> New housing doesn't even need to be right in San Francisco. Anywhere along the Peninsula, even Oakland would be good enough, as long as it's close enough to public transportation.

<comment><USER18> To a lot of people though, it does. And public transit is already stretched thin with a lot of problems. A second Transbay Tube is being discussed so you're not looking at anything soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Using a logarithmic scale seems kinda silly. It really detracts from my innate visual ability to understand the topic.

<comment><USER20> Inflation is exponential. It removes all the contrast in the the historical data, and trends are more difficult to spot if a linear scale is used on exponential data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Supply and demand.

Demand is higher than supply.

Everyone in SF knows that and actually seems to _not want_ to increase the supply.

Strike that, they want the property tax revenue but only from huge, high-brow luxury apartment build-outs. The City has no problem letting the supply at the high end of the market increase.

By stopping any growth in the supply of nominally affordable rentals, the City leadership is pushing people of limited means outside of the city.

Let's see then if the City's limitations to increasing Supply makes sense:

1) low-income people -- like it or not, the vast majority of crime is committed by this group -- are pushed out of the city. That reduces crime. Check, makes sense from the City leadership perspective.

2) Rent control fools the city's renters into voting for more of the same. Landlords cannot profit; take affordable units off the market. Again, the low income types are pushed out of the city. Check. (see #1)

3) Also, by putting these mom-and-pop landlords out of business, rent control eliminates a COMPETITOR for the Luxury Apartment developers -- if there are no low-cost apartments to rent, people have no choice but to pay up or get out. Rent control also pushes up rents at the low end as those units go offline/out of business/converted to condos/etc., leaving fewer units available for low income folks.

The City is acting in its own best interest to:

\- limit supply growth of apartments \- put mom and pop landlords with affordable units offline \- thus eliminating affordable units and the low socio-economic status people who create most of the crime problems from the city

And _all that_ pushes up rents to benefit high-property-tax-paying Luxury apartment developers.

The City needs as much property tax revenue as they can get.

"How do we attract luxury apartment developers to boost the City's property tax haul?

\- eliminate the low-priced competitors -- and even get the voters to approve it -- by imposing rent control

\- reduce crime so Luxury apartment developers will feel they can attract high-dollar customers

\- reduce/eliminate the creation of new affordable housing

SF wants property tax revenue. If you understand the above, you know everything.

It's not like the City leaders are going to announce their strategy to voters. Too many low-income/moderate-income renters here in SF.

But you can see the effects: \- high rents due to the gradual elimination of mom-and-pop low rent units (they go out of business or convert to condos) \- no more low-end Supply allowed to be created \- rent control is here to stay (at least until all the low-priced apartments are gone)

</comment><comment><USER22> Url changed from [https://medium.com/@andersem/a-guy-just- transcribed-30-years...](https://medium.com/@andersem/a-guy-just- transcribed-30-years-of-for-rent-ads-heres-what-it-taught-us-about-sf-housing- prices-bd61fd0e4ef9#.vpoetfkkv), which points to this.

<comment><USER23> Yeah. Keeping it classy with a tiny grey link at the bottom of the Medium article.

<comment><USER24> I really dislike this trend of "oh we totally credit our sources here is a tiny link at the bottom of the article, never mind that it isn't underlined like all the rest of our links and it is in the same color and font as the word 'Advertisement' just below."

The source should be clearly defined and easily accessible, especially with these just-rewriting-the-source articles. (Glaring at you, Gizmodo and TechCrunch.)</comment></comment></comment>


The only way to revoke Spotify API tokens is to delete your account - <AUTHOR> https://olav.it/post/spotify-third-party-access/ <comment><USER3> This could actually be the source of a bug I (and others) have been experiencing for a while. I'm listening to Spotify when all of a sudden, music pauses and I get a "your account is being used somewhere else". The first few times I actually though it was true, but since then I've tried to "log out from every device" and log in again on one device, only to find the bug happening again 2 minutes later.

Seeing that, my hypothesis is that I gave Spotify access to a 3rd party app way back (maybe a Sonos sound system at a rental house, maybe the Uber app) that has been using my token to play music without my explicit consent… and there is no way for me to revoke those tokens.

<comment><USER4> I did exactly that (use a Sonos system at a rental and specifically used the "log out of every device") to avoid an issue like this. It's been a couple months and I haven't been logged out yet, but maybe I'm just lucky.

This is really disappointing from the Spotify team, but if I'm being honest with myself that's fairly par for the course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Official Spotify Web API feature request ticket: [https://github.com/spotify/web- api/issues/126](https://github.com/spotify/web-api/issues/126)

<comment><USER6> Sometimes I really wonder what people who post stuff like this on issue comments aim to achieve:

      @thelinmichael Guys wake up!!!!!! How can you implement an OAuth 2.0 without the ability to revoke access? I mean HOW DARE YOU?

      Fix this ASAP

I understand the frustration, but they aren't exactly helping the situation.

<comment><USER7> Same kind of folks who end up yelling at customer service or wait staff for something that's gone wrong.

Yelling isn't productive and it's not going to solve anything. You can totally communicate your frustration without resorting to raising your voice. If anything, making people that distressed is only counterintuitive and counterproductive.

<comment><USER8> > Same kind of folks who end up yelling at customer service or wait staff for > something that's gone wrong. Yelling isn't productive and it's not going to > solve anything. You can totally communicate your frustration without > resorting to raising your voice. If anything, making people that distressed > is only counterintuitive and counterproductive.

I strongly disagree, I wish it weren't so, but as a matter of fact getting actively frustrated and asking to be escalated to a manager when on the phone with customer-service representative is the only way I've successfully gotten anything resolved as an insignificant customer of a large co. Personally, I detest the waste of emotional energy that involves and particularly abhor contacting customer service for exactly that reason.

edit: For the people down-voting: whether you like it or not is frankly irrelevant. This is in fact _my real experience_ when dealing with the customer-service for any number of banks, cable, mobile providers, flight/hotel booking sites, rental agencies etc.

<comment><USER9> What else have you tried? In my experience, a lot of people say that you have to get abusive to get results, but they only say that because that's all they ever do.

Kindness works _much_ better. You can get stern if the agent is screwing something up themselves (like if they're failing to understand your actual problem, or are giving you irrelevant advice), but even then it comes down to being assertive, not yelling. By all means ask to be escalated to a manager when it's needed, but you can always do so in a calm and professional way.

Being mean motivates them to get rid of you as quickly as possible. Being nice motivates them to reciprocate. The former can work to get problems solved, but the latter works more reliably and produces better results.

<comment><USER10> When I did customer service, the only people that got compensated were the complainers. The nice people just got their problem resolved but did not get compensated for their troubles. Complainers definitely came out ahead.

<comment><USER9> I've had plenty of unnecessary statement credits and such just being nice. You might have done it that way, but I don't think it's the norm.

<comment><USER10> Wasn't personal, was company policy. I've been doing customer service for 10 years at various companies. Complainers always win.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Spotify, in general, appears to consider accounts disposable. I think I saw something about this getting better recently, but a few months ago the only way to move my paid account to a family subscription was to delete the old account and create new accounts for everyone I wanted in the family plan.

<comment><USER12> I imagine this comes from the various trial offerings they've had for new customers, including student discounts and family discounts. I myself have gone through ~3 accounts taking advantage of this over the years and I imagine their metrics show a high account churn such that it is not an unreasonable conclusion to view accounts as disposable.

IMO it's certainly better then facebook's undisposable position where you are never deleting your account and every service that uses facebook serves as a mechanism for creating, reactivating, or connecting, with that one account. As a subscription service Spotify should probably make it easier to switch between subscription tiers, but I'm happy enough with the company to at least defend them a little bit :-P.

<comment> k-mcgrady As a user Facebook's approach seems much better. I can't remember specifically what it was but I recently wanted to make a change to my Spotify account (which I've had since it first launched in the UK in 2009). Support told me the only option was to create a new account. This would have meant losing all of the songs I'd saved over the years, all playlists I'd created, and all playlists I was following. I'd also have to make all of the necessary friend connections again to access playlists I was collaborating on. The worst part is that the 'profile' Spotify has built that makes it's recommendations decent for me would be lost so Discover Weekly and recommendations would suck until it had built a new profile. That's a horrible experience for the user.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I work at Stormpath (an Auth as a Service company) and see stuff like this all the time. It's actually really hard to do token revocation properly; People implement tokens and see revocation as a feature to be implemented "in the future".

I also noticed, for instance, that a LinkedIn app developer cannot rotate API Keys used to access LinkedIn's service. Again, the solution is to delete the app & restart. :/

<comment><USER14> Would you mind sharing a bit what makes you say it's really hard ?

<comment><USER13> No problem. It might not seem obvious when you build small-mid size backends, because in that scenario you might have an access token stored in your database that's checked each time someone makes a request. Token revocation is as easy as deleting that access token from your database.

Once you start building something at scale, it's harder to revoke tokens instantly. You still need to validate the token on each request, you need to build a highly available, fault tolerant system that can scale with the load of the rest of your application. Usually to reduce this load and improve performance, you'll see two strategies to deal with it:

Caching - check for the access token on the first request, and cache the access token for a certain period of time.

Signed / Encrypted tokens - JWTs are one example. The token contains the user ID, expiration, and other info, and is signed / encrypted. A server can read this, and knowing the signing key, verify the token.

However, if you revoke one of these tokens, it's not instant. A centralized store won't update any of the caches, and a Signed / Encrypted token lives on the client. So for token revocation, you now need to create a cache invalidation scheme, or maintain a blacklist of signed tokens.

While it's still not that hard, it'd hard enough that most teams would rather work on a new feature or something else that's on fire than figuring out token revocation.

<comment><USER15> > So for token revocation, you now need to create a cache invalidation scheme

To be a cache, it needs an invalidation scheme already.

Also, no one is asking for "instant" consistency on revoking a token, but at least "eventual consistency".

<comment><USER16> Yeah, this. I don't care if it takes 24 hours to revoke it across the board, just let me revoke it somehow. Sub-second revocation isn't something that I'm aware of anyone asking for in this instance, and global Cassandra quorum should be on the order of a few seconds for massive data stores. Even with aggressive caching and long TTLs, you could do something with event notification for the rare events in which someone invalidates a token, and get it propagated within seconds around the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Somewhat off-topic but the only way to revoke Spotify Connect access to a device is to change your password, then log out, and back in.

I found that until I did the above I could not remove my friend's Denon receiver from the list of devices.

</comment><comment><USER18> Actually contacted support on this asking them to revoke all tokens - <USER2> responded I'd have to create a new account to remove the facebook integration ...cause that's what I asked for, after another 2 emails back and forth I just gave up

</comment><comment><USER19> I really hope we move past a model where a company both needs good lawyers, to get the licensing deal with the record companies, and a good software team, to get the app right. I really hope an intermediate layer arises, such that talented app developers can write good streaming music apps without needing to talk to the RIAA first, but rather by just purchasing access to the content through some "music wholesale" service.

</comment><comment><USER20> Delete your account!

</comment><comment><USER21> Ok so the lesson here is be really careful where you allow API access using your keys.

<comment><USER22> I think the lesson is that you only have to trick people into authorizing your malicious app once.</comment></comment>