SF blasts Uber, Lyft for downtown traffic congestion - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-blasts-uber-lyft-downtown-traffic-congestion/ <comment><USER2> Do we have supporting data? Or is the taxi lobby just smarting up?

In New York, the taxis made the same case--that Uber _et al_ increased traffic. This claim was found wanting [1].

In God we trust; all else bring data.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/nyregion/uber-not-to- blame...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/nyregion/uber-not-to-blame-for- rise-in-manhattan-traffic-congestion-report-says.html)

<comment><USER3> As a downtown sf commute cyclist, my anecdotal experience is that traffic now is much worse than the same time last year. And almost all the bad actors in traffic who are causing slowdowns and jams have uber and lyft stickers in their windows.

I don't believe in God, but I do believe that if I get hit on my bike uber/lyft will be responsible.

<comment><USER4> The population of SF has been growing, it makes sense that traffic is worse. Until there is evidence of a causal link between ride sharing and traffic I'd be hesitant to believe any of it.

<comment><USER3> So your initial assumption (population growth increases traffic) without evidence is true, but my experience is unbelievable? Seems like a weird way to reply if you want to have a meaningful conversation.

<comment><USER4> [https://www.google.com/search?q=population+density+and+traff...](https://www.google.com/search?q=population+density+and+traffic&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS722&oq=population+density+and+traffic&aqs=chrome..69i57.9218j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

2 seconds to search for this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We should at least start by taking this with a grain of salt, because according to the article:

> Notably, no study has been completed to study Uber or Lyft's effects on San > Francisco traffic

However, similar to what others have said, anecdotally I definitely agree. In the last four years, particularly Gough and Franklin have gone from a viable alternative to Van Ness to completely unusable -- particularly because Google Maps and Waze (what 99% of drivers use) route them down there instead of other streets. I have a habit of asking where drivers are from, and the vast majority of them are from out of town and commute to SF to drive for Uber / Lyft. Again, it's still anecdotal, but ask drivers next time you get in a ride and I think it'll become pretty clear where all the traffic is coming from.

But you know what? I blame the SFMTA. This isn't User's fault, this is SF's fault for not building a functional transit system (and the voters for not funding it) 30 years ago. Uber began because Travis couldn't catch a cab. If Travis lived in Madrid, he would have taken the subway, he would have got there on time, and Uber never would have existed. SF's transit mismanagement created an environment that could only be solved by something like Uber (or Scoot, which I now almost use exclusively).

If San Francisco wants to fix its traffic problems, it needs to stop prioritizing private cars driving faster, and needs to focus on more subways, more bus only lanes, more cycling lanes, and more pedestrian-only streets. Private automobiles are not the way most of the developed world (outside of America) gets around, and if Tokyo, a city of 31 million people can get around efficiency without traffic, so can paltry San Francisco.

We should be building 10 subway lines at a time, and if that means tripling our taxes to pay for it, count me in. But so far all the willpower I've seen is to run busses faster down Van Ness and one new subway that goes a bit over a mile. I'm pretty sure the folks in the Richmond have been saying this ever since BART pulled out in the 70s.

Maybe self-driving cars will fix it all, but I'm still skeptical. So far I haven't seen a permanent solution to traffic past a proper heavy-rail, grade- separated train.

<comment><USER6> >and more pedestrian-only streets.

Where in SF is this an actual problem? The only inadequate sidewalks I've ever encountered were due to construction encroachments, not actual design.

<comment><USER5> Powell Street. Sweet lord. Private automobiles should /never/ be allowed to drive on Powell south of at minimum Post. All vehicles other than cable cars should be banned from driving down Powell, and the sidewalk should be doubled in size to take over the current automobile lanes. Nearly every major city in Europe has pedestrianized its central shopping backbone, and the fact that SF hasn't yet (with the amount of pedestrian traffic down there) is encroaching on dangerous.

EDIT: And to add, to see what a pedestrian downtown San Fransisco could look like, check out the Winter Walk on Stockton over the Central Subway construction. It's amazing, and I'm so terrified that when the construction is finished they're going to let automobiles drive down there again. It's ridiculous that people are second-class citizens to cars in the downtown of a major world city.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This seems very silly. You're trying to minimize the amount of cars on the road. The amount of people-miles of passengers is roughly constant. The only thing that reduces car-miles is ride sharing. Uber (and Lyft and possibly Waze) is much more efficient at this than Taxis. And Uber drivers have every incentive to not be idle.

The issue isn't too many cars. It's too many solo drivers or single passengers.

<comment><USER8> Why is Uber more efficient than taxis? Friendlier, faster to dispatch, no discrimination, no tipping, sure Uber/Lyft wins those hands down. But at the end of the day what stops a cab from having the same load as a TNC vehicle?

<comment><USER9> Cab doesn't pick up more passengers during a ride (a la Uber Pool/Lyft line).

Also, dropping off a passenger in a uber/lyft is much less disruptive to traffic flow than a traditional cab which has to process a payment.

<comment><USER10> Now, if we could only institute/implement a tuck and roll deployment system.

Tuck and roll, grandma!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I was just in SF for the first time and couldn't believe that the public transit was painfully loud.

We switched to Uber because of how uncomfortable the transit ride was. For all the hand-wringing over too many cars, they might consider quieting the metro.

<comment><USER12> Where are you comparing it to? In my experience the quietest subways are from the past 20 years or so. BART first started running in ~1970.

<comment><USER13> Well bart is famous for having super loud screeching wheels[0], but they will be replaced by around 2021..

The screeching is absolutely loud for a subway, though I think the noise all together isn't so bad relative to other subways.

[0]: [https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/08/02/why-are-bart-trains- so-...](https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/08/02/why-are-bart-trains-so-loud/)

[1]: [https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2016/news20160831](https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2016/news20160831)

<comment><USER14> Yes, it is awful. I've spent significant time in Japan and can't believe how quiet the trains are - including the high-speed bullet trains - compared to the awful screeching of the train I grew up riding: BART.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What precisely is SF's theory here re: congestion? Previously taxis would circle streets much less efficiently than a smartphone-hailed pickup. Also they wouldn't pool rides anywhere nearly as effectively. So if they're seeing more traffic on the road, what's the cause?

Has there been population growth of riders? That wouldn't be Uber/Lyft's fault. In fact they may have handled the growth more efficiently than just putting more traditional taxis on the road.

Are riders shifting from public transit to rideshares? That would be Uber/Lyft's fault. But also public transit's.

Is it that more availability has lowered the wait times vs taxis? That would definitely be Uber/Lyft's fault. But it also makes riding a much nicer experience, saves riders a lot of time, etc.

<comment><USER3> Have you actually been in sf traffic in the uber/lyft world? My observations from my life:

-Double parking everywhere waiting for pickup / dropoff /routing. Blocking car and bike lanes.

-riders getting out into traffic

-erratic drivers (new to SF, easily lost)

Its pretty terrible.

If they painted their cars yellow, and made them pickup and drop off at corners / out if the flow of traffic things would be way better (imho).

<comment><USER16> They double parking everywhere needs to be dealt with by Uber / Lyft immediately. It's everywhere, all the time, and it's going to end up getting their services regulated more heavily than they should be.

<comment><USER6> What do you think they could actually do? I doubt either could exist if restricted to pick up and drop off in actual loading zones + available parking spaces. Bus stops are drastically more abundant than either of those.

<comment><USER15> They actually do steer riders to designated pick up zones. But it's optional and most people probably just stick with their exact address. They could make it mandatory, but it wouldn't be competitive. I'd hope regulators look at this before more drastic restrictions, as there are many environmental benefits to ride sharing vs how things used to be.

<comment><USER6> The nearest white/yellow curb is usually 10+ blocks away, AFAIK. In SF they are only outside major buildings.

<comment><USER3> Doesn't have to be a white/yellow curb. Put your location to a spot that has a place where the cab can easily pull over eg, driveway, fire hydrant, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> That's great SF - get some functioning, not-shitty, well funded public transport and people won't feel the need to use Uber..

... what's that? Not a chance in hell? Well then.

(But seriously - BART is chronically underfunded, Muni trains are unreliably scheduled, Muni busses are the most dangerous and shady public busses I've used in the western world... and very little of it actually serves anywhere other than the busses which have to fight the same traffic...)

<comment><USER18> Extending BART is very expensive ($billions), esp. in a city that is already "built out", like SF is. On the other hand, we managed to fund High Speed Rail at over $60 billion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> SFMTA should remove parking and replace it with passenger loading zones. That way, they wouldn't be blocking traffic, including public transportation. It's well known that free and subsidized parking encourages driving. Currently, passenger loading zones must be requested and paid for by businesses that want it, to the tune of thousands of dollars a year. [1] They don't, so rideshare and taxi drivers just block traffic lanes. There is no mechanism for passenger loading zones to be requested by citizens or designated by the city for public benefit.

[1] [https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/parking/curb- colors](https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/parking/curb-colors)

</comment><comment><USER20> I've not cycled in SF for commute reasons since the pre uber days.

That said, other cyclists -- bike messengers -- were the largest danger to other cyclist, second was other cyclists, third was Muni.

From a damage perspective, Muni would be number one in the injury case.

Drivers, cyclists, and Muni, to this day, are selfish assholes.

Blaming it purely on Uber, no. SF transit policies have lead to this.

Drive mission, you used to go straight most of the route... now only muni, taxis and assholes ignoring the law.

The problems aren't just due to muni/Lyft

<comment><USER3> Try cycling in SF again. Things have changed a lot in the last year or so.

I've been bike commuting in SF for 10 years, and the last year has been by far the worst. And most bad actors are uber and lyft cars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I was recently in SF and I was surprised to find that Uber Pool cost was very similar to Bart cost going to and from SFO. Uber is certainly preferable to having everyone drive their own car. Talk about congestion. Why doesn't SF do what Paris just did: Make public transit free. If they did that I would definitely use Bart more.

<comment><USER22> I don't think BART could handle the extra load.

[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-can-t-keep- pace-w...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-can-t-keep-pace-with- rising-crush-loads-6192950.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> SF needs to worry about its own transit issues. MUNI stops at rush hour are poorly serviced. I can't get on most of the trains that pass through Civic Center, so I usually end up going inbound to Montgomery or Embarcadero so I can actually board.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm pretty sure that a lot more people are using ride sharing services in the SF Bay Area because all of the public transit systems are overcrowded during peak hours and most have additional major issues. BART is too expensive. Muni is prone to unexpectedly large time gaps between buses/trains and doesn't have sufficient subway coverage. Caltrain runs too infrequently. The ferries also seem to run pretty infrequently (though I have less experience with them than the other modes of transit).

I don't have any direct evidence for this but it feels pretty obvious: when your public transit systems are already running at full capacity during peak hours and you have people moving into your area, the roads are going to end up completely congested. It certainly isn't the fault of whatever entity is putting cars on the road that the roads are full. After all, people are going to try to live their lives and there really isn't another reasonable way to make more-than-a-few-blocks trips during these hours.

I only see a few ways to improve things: a) Increase public transit capacity and then make it more desirable to take public transit (and continually repeat because now your public transit is overcrowded again) and b) Spread out the "peak hours" time over more of the day.

Unfortunately, improving public transit can take years or even decades. So we won't get much mileage out of this for a while, but we should still be investing a lot more heavily than we are because this is the only "scalable" fix.

It can only be done a limited number of times, but I think we could do a lot better at improving the situation on a shorter timescale with the other option: spreading "peak hours" over more of the day. This can be accomplished by incentivizing companies to shift their workdays so that they start before or after 9 (with a corresponding change at the end of the day).

PS: I haven't lived in the peninsula for a couple years at this point, but when I left, Caltrain had just started running a "ridership campaign" while all of its commute-hour trains were standing-room-only. This is _ridiculous_. The problem is not that not enough people _want_ to take public transit, the problem is that there's not enough capacity!

</comment><comment><USER25> Public transport is a joke, the city is unable to adequately engineer traffic well or plan for it, and when something comes in to meet actual demand -- that's the problem?

Travel around other cities and it's apparently which city cares about advancing its transport: Berlin, Paris, Shanghai, Tokyo, Kyoto, Barcelona, Nyc, even Boston, DC and Beijing are better. If subways aren't possible, use light rail or BRT. But don't blend them with equal priority on the traffic lights -- it defeats the point.

I hate MUNI so much!!!

<comment><USER22> The subway in DC is a diaster, with antiquated cabling causing a constant risk of fires. The agency is prevented from running all-eight-car trains because the power system wouldn't be able to handle it.

[http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press- releases/Pages/PR20150608.asp...](http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press- releases/Pages/PR20150608.aspx)

<comment><USER25> That was the "or even" part ;)

Honestly I'd rather have the option than no option at all. It got me around D.C. last time I was there...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'd love to see some real data from San Francisco as well, but I'm almost certain San Francisco is well above capacity. The following article points out some interesting facts about vehicles in motion in relation to gridlock. Unregulated ride sharing is definitely having an impact, how much is the question.

[http://thepenngazette.com/uber-gridlock/](http://thepenngazette.com/uber- gridlock/)

</comment><comment><USER27> San Francisco really needs to get rid of a bunch of curbside car storage to make room for loading zones.

</comment><comment><USER28> This makes no sense what do they think would happen if Uber and Lyft went away????

<comment><USER29> Perhaps they think people would switch to public transit like buses or Caltrain.

<comment><USER30> Precisely. Although, they're a little naïve if they think that's a realistic alternative. The transit system is horrific, having used it for 3.5 years. We're largely in this mess because the transit system is such a mess.

I'm surprised the article didn't also mention the congestion issues at SFO. The departures deck is a mess now that all Lyft/Uber riders are directed there for pick-up.</comment></comment></comment>


TSA gave my MacBook Pro to another passenger at LAX, and now it's gone - <AUTHOR> http://www.echeng.com/journal/2016/5/23/tsa-gave-my-macbook-pro-to-another-passenger-at-lax-and-now-its-gone <comment><USER3> I don't get why this was deemed an accident. If you have me a random laptop, I'll ask you what the hell you're doing. I won't take it, walk away and then board another flight. That isn't an accident, that's theft.

Unless of course they've got a spare Macbook that actually did belong to the woman, which she left thinking she was taking her own Macbook, but there's nothing indicating that this is the case.

So you've got two very clear issues. One is a passenger who stole $3k on broad daylight, who is on footage and can easily be traced to a particular flight, which can easily be traced to a passenger list, which can easily trace back to her.

The other is that you've got a custodial relationship for a few minutes. You give objects away to be inspected, at which point the TSA becomes a temporary custodian. They ought to return it.

I can imagine that the TSA restricts their liability to e.g. $5k per item, and that its liabilities are covered if and when it has a proper safe-keeping procedure in place that's followed, such they're not held accountable for 'acts of god' (which is a legal concept). This would provide sufficient incentives to create very simple procedures that'd prevent 99% of such issues, like described earlier in this thread in India. You have a box with two tags, you get one, the employee at the end gets one, you put stuff in box, you give tag, you take stuff from box, that's it.

But the notion that they're taking your stuff without any liability, responsibility, insurance, procedures or just in general, recourse, is ridiculous.

<comment><USER4> >> I don't get why this was deemed an accident. <<

Reading the story, there is this little voice saying in the back of my head, "They don't want to treat it as a crime because they know who has it and they're in cahoots."

<comment><USER5> I would really, really doubt this. My assumption is that they either:

1\. They have statistics that they have to keep up, and having a ding like "a crime was committed on your watch" isn't a good thing, so they try to avoid it, or 2\. Classifying it as a crime versus an accident comes with a load of paperwork and hassle for everybody involved that no one wants to do.

I really don't think this was malicious in the manner you describe.

<comment> matt-attack > I would really, really doubt this.

Just curious, do you say that with knowledge of the fact that is on record happening multiple times? Or are you just unaware?

<comment><USER5> Yes, but I also know government workers. For every recorded instance of some theft ring, there are undoubtedly thousands of unrecorded instances of a TSA agents (or, really, any non-SES government worker) downplaying things or subtle manipulating situations to get out of paperwork.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How this works in India.

When you put your laptop in a bin, the security person puts one of two identical tags (pieces of plastic with identical numbers on them) into the bin, on top of your computer and gives you the other one.

When you finish your patdown/metal detector etc screening and want to take your computer back, you give the security person at the other end of the line your tag, she looks around for the bin with the identical tag, and hands you the contents of the bin and takes your tag back.

Not foolproof/fraudproof, but it seems to work in practice.

<comment><USER7> Great idea--simple, inexpensive, highly effective when considered relative to its small cost.

Therefore I never expect to see this in a US airport.

<comment><USER8> "inexpensive"

Just wait until TSA vendors out the development of it :)

<comment><USER9> Case in point, TSA paid $47,000 for an app that randomly chose for a passenger to go left or right.

<comment><USER10> $1.4M

[http://www.geek.com/apps/tsa-paid-1-4-million-for- randomizer...](http://www.geek.com/apps/tsa-paid-1-4-million-for-randomizer- app-that-chooses-left-or-right-1651337/)

<comment><USER11> $47,400

[http://mashable.com/2016/04/04/tsa-ibm-randomizer- app/?utm_c...](http://mashable.com/2016/04/04/tsa-ibm-randomizer- app/?utm_cid=hp-hh-pri#dxlIVGqIePqc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In a way, it's not the TSA's fault, it's ours for tolerating this insanity. Sometimes I almost wish someone smuggles a bomb through the TSA security line, and successfully storms a plane so we can finally have concrete evidence that those processes only provide _annoyance_ , not _security_.

The most successful terrorist of all times was Richard Reid, the dude who tried to embark in a plane with explosive material in his shoes. The dude totally failed to storm anything and was busted, now he was successful because since he did this, billions people have been removing their shoes in USian airports.

PS: Richard, if you read HN from your cell, thanks for not smuggling C4 in your butt!

<comment><USER13> I don't wish for anything like that to happen, but sometimes I wonder what if a terrorist would just detonate a bomb _before_ the security lines, between the waiting people... didn't something similar happen in Belgium?

It's great that we reduced the risk of a highjacking so much in the last decades, with security checkpoints and hardened cockpit doors. But in sum, I don't really feel safer while flying.

<comment><USER14> > what if a terrorist would just detonate a bomb before the security lines

I gather the idea is that, while a bomb in the security cattle chute might kill hundreds, it's still preferable to a hijacked aircraft which can be used to kill thousands.

Of course the dichotomy is false for all manner of reasons. But that seems to be the underlying concept.

<comment><USER15> > it's still preferable to a hijacked aircraft which can be used to kill > thousands

Not anymore. That ship sailed with 9/11\. Passengers aren't going to sit quietly and wait for SWAT to negotiate/rescue at an airport these days.

<comment><USER16> What actually happened on 9/11 really doesn't help us draw forward conclusions, because the people on these flights had less scope of the big picture. Each operated in a vacuum, it'd be difficult for them to know they were 4 planes.

After that we have a much more reliable track record. The "shoe bomber" was subdued with the assistance of passengers. The "underwear bomber" was subdued with the assistance of passengers.

imho, two things have have genuinely contributed to airbourne security since. One is reinforced cockpit doors. The other is that our collective understanding has changed - it used to be "keep quiet, sweat it out while they negotiate somewhere, and go home safe - just don't draw attention to yourself". Now the 'understanding' is that we fight back or we die.

(And no, the TSA don't really contribute to either of these)

<comment><USER17> ceejayoz isn't saying the 9/11 flights proved that passengers won't sit quietly anymore. He's saying that, as a result of 9/11, passengers won't sit quietly anymore, which seems to be exactly what you're saying.

<comment><USER16> You're right. I was trying to reply to a_c_s. Not sure how I managed to fluff that up. But yes, total agreement that the ratio of flights that fought back _on_ 9/11 is a whole lot less relevant than on flights _since_. Or rather, how we handled the unprecedented vs what we learnt from it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Two weeks ago I traveled in the US and after the scan they first handed me my own computer and then a minute later someone else's MacBook Pro. I said that the Mac isn't mine, and you know what, they didn't believe me. I had to tell them several times that I don't own a Mac and I had to show them that I had already received my own computer. I think they didn't want to look for the owner and just wanted to get rid of the damn thing. I wouldn't be surprised if some people were tempted to give in and say "ok, yes, I admit it, this expensive-looking MacBook is mine". Very careless of the TSA to handle people's belongings this way.

<comment><USER19> _ouch_

I know airport personnel are very sensitive to unclaimed bags, etc., so they may look with suspicion on a "that's not my bag" claim, though presumably the TSA has just verified that this item is "safe".

<comment><USER18> Good point but if there is a suspicion that an unclaimed item may pose a security risk, the solution cannot be to push random strangers to take the item.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Having recently flown from the UK to Hong Kong and then on to Manila, I am suddenly struck by how much of an honesty policy we are expected to follow. The idea of tagging the laptop as in India is a step in the right direction, but at no point in my journey was my laptop tagged. It was placed in a bin with all my other valuable possessions (phone, wallet, camera) and it's only through practise that I manage to get through the scanners at the same time as my possessions. At any point after I gave my laptop over to security, someone could have stepped up and claimed it as their own. Security provides exactly zero defense for this, and it's only through vigilence that I've never lost anything yet.

I do understand the need to scan the laptop separately to its bag, but this honesty policy just failed hard. It's a stupid system. The only workaround is to keep everything in sight until you're 100% ready to step through the scanner, and then watch the other side of the belt for all your stuff.

The fact that the TSA _handed_ the laptop to someone other than its rightful owner lands them straight in the blame for this. At the risk of increasing the time required to clear security, a big fuss was made last year that all electronics must have charged batteries so that it can be demonstrated they work (not that this solves the key problem). If the TSA want to personally pick up someone's laptop, they should ask the owner to power it on and enter the password to prove it's theirs before they hand it back. Yes, this also incurs a privacy issue (intentionally defeating your own security system), but as repeatedly demonstrated, border controls have some quite far-reaching powers and can force this anyway.

Edit: also, shame on the security people and the police for dismissing the idea of a crime being committed. Intentional or not, this is theft. As others have commented, it's possible the two women were working together to steal a laptop, but even if it was an honest mistake, it should be investigated as if it were intentional. And the reluctance of the people involved to give case numbers, log it etc. just reeks of 'we lost your bag, thank you for flying Delta Airlines'. I sincerely hope this guy gets at least a check for a new laptop and an apology.

<comment><USER21> As a "tulip" (opt-out), the forced trust is even worse. You're not even allowed to _ask_ for a pat-down before your things are on the conveyor. I've tried. Usually the timing works out OK, but sometimes it doesn't.

My most infuriating TSA experience was at MIA. I told them I was opting out, and they instructed me to put my things on the conveyor. I did so, then proceeded to wait. And wait. And wait. After 10 minutes, during which I _repeatedly_ asked for a "male assist", I had to cave and go through the back- scatter machine because my possessions (laptop, wallet, phone) was sitting unattended on the other side.

I'm very polite to TSA. That was an instance of blatant targeting, and you better believe my the end of those 10 minutes I was _not_ polite. I did some consulting for TSA, and I'm pretty sure I was loudly speaking about "violating the agency's core strategic goal to facilitate legitimate trade and travel" while flipping the double-bird in the backscatter machine.

True story. Surprised I wasn't pulled into a back room.

<comment><USER22> > Surprised I wasn't pulled into a back room.

For the most part, TSA aren't actual security or law enforcement personnel, they are closer in training and function to low-wage service employees that you would find in the hospitality and retail industries. I'd imagine they meet with this type of hostility with a mix of amusement, annoyance, and general "oh man I can't wait for my shift to be over". As long as the hostility isn't directed at them personally - and sometimes probably if it is- it's just another aspect of the job.

The problem, of course, comes in when under-trained, undereducated TSA employees are expected to perform the actual functions of law enforcement. 99% of their security function is pulling bottles of water, toothpaste, and sunscreen from customers' bags, the other 1% is a crap shoot in terms of a competent reaction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Interestingly (to me) the author used the phrase "on accident". I googled it and found this: [http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/215/is-it- correct...](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/215/is-it-correct-to- say-on-accident-instead-of-by-accident)

As a British English speaker, this stopped me in my tracks. I'm wondering if it had the same effect on the American English readers of this article.

<comment><USER24> I'm American and it drives me _crazy_ to hear this, but it is regretfully not terribly uncommon.

<comment><USER25> Heh. Muphry's law ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law)) demands that you use 'regretfully' instead of 'regrettably' ([http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/275034](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/275034)) when chastising someone's language.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> My guess is that the person who took it was acting with an accomplice, possible the one who caused the distraction.

They would make an exchange in a place where there are no cameras.

The person who took it would have a story ready in case she was challenged.

As for the TSA - they want to pretend that the incident never happened, because it would make them them look bad.

<comment><USER27> Seems a little unlikely that criminals are organising to buy plane tickets or obtain security clearances to steal things on security camera in a place crowded with security personnel when they could steal MacBooks just as easily by, say, wandering into a shared workspace.

<comment><USER28> If they happen to be flying somewhere, and there's a laptop free for the taking, why not?

<comment><USER27> Vastly increased chance of being caught?

Especially since if they "happen to be flying somewhere", they're not exactly desperately short of cash.

<comment><USER29> You can fly 'somewhere' for $29 - airports aren't just for the rich...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm surprised that everyone is focusing on the TSA for giving his computer away (awful), but to me, the even more objectionable thing is that THE WOMAN TOOK A RANDOM COMPUTER and just left with it. Any reasonable person would say "that is not mine", or am I being too naive? And, since she didn't do that, there was clearly malice involved, so the police were also clearly in the wrong, saying that it was an accident and not a crime.

<comment><USER31> To be fair, MacBook Pros pretty much all look the same on the outside. She probabaly just thought it was hers, stuffed it in her bag, and went to catch her flight.

<comment><USER30> That is a fair point, however, in that case, there would be a computer left over on the belt, that the author would've seen when he got out of the scanner.

On a side note: do people not keep their laptops in sleeves (even when in backpacks)?

<comment><USER32> Are you not required to remove laptops from sleeves while sending through the scanner?

<comment><USER33> No you don't. As a nomad I fly a lot, and I always leave my laptop in its waterproof bag.

<comment><USER34> As a settler that travels ocassionaly I am often required to open or even turn on my laptop at the security check.

<comment><USER29> Where is this? I'ma frequent flyer, and have never once been sled to open my laptop nor have I ever seen anyone asked to do so (outside a short period after 9/11)

<comment><USER34> Europe, mostly flying to/from Slovenia.

<comment><USER35> To/from UK I've been asked "back then" when the craze started; in the last 4 years, never once. Which is correct: they are not scanning the laptop but rather _the bag_ which the laptop would obstruct. Once it's out it doesn't really matter how it's packaged.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Amazingly ignorant police.

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

<comment><USER37> I suppose they should be a little more suspicious but it's not at all ignorant to not know about "theft by finding." The article you linked to describes legal precedents in the 19th and 18th centuries.

<comment><USER16> Perhaps not by name (I didn't), but I believe it's common knowledge that "finders keepers" isn't law? You're meant to hand things in, or make a reasonable attempt to find the owner, or something along those lines.

It seems common sense that "oh look, it's not nailed down, it must be mine now" isn't kosher - even if we can't name the legal framework behind it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> One time I was in a hurry and had forgotten that I had a very valuable foldable knife in my backpack when leaving for a flight, and with no time to spare I had to let them just take it.

At the destination curiosity took over and I had to ask a security guard if it was possible to get it back when I returned, something he confirmed. They handed valuables like that over to lost and found.

This naturally made my day a little better and I didn't think much about it until a few days later when my return flight was. I went to the lost and found, no dice. I asked some security personell on site, and they confirmed the practice, all valuables, including knives, was sent to lost and found, where they logged it and kept it for a month or so.

So the guy who was going to protect us all from terrorist attacks had just stolen it. Reassuring!

<comment><USER39> In Switzerland's airports they give you a receipt where you can collect it for $10 when you get back. They once confiscated a bike tool of mine. Why they only picked the adjustable wrench out of total 3 potential weapons is beyond me, though.

<comment><USER40> You could have then gone to the duty free shop and purchased two glass bottles of vodka. Smashed together they would likely make much better weapons.

<comment><USER41> If you smash two bottles together, do they both break? I would have expected that you'd always end up with one broken bottle, one whole bottle, and (optionally) a fair amount of your own blood.

<comment><USER42> When two cars collide head-on, does only one of them crumple?

I figure the same effect would apply to two similar glass bottles colliding.

<comment><USER41> Except a car can crumple almost any amount from zero to tiny cube, while a bottle can only be perfect or shattered. Plus, bottles have strong and weak points, and it seems less likely that you'd bang two equally strong portions of each bottle together; more likely you'd be hitting a strong corner with a weak wall.

This is SO off topic, and SO unimportant.... :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> 1\. Standard rule for traveling: Your bags move along with you. In other words, you only step up to the x-ray machine as your bags are about to pass through. You never, ever, take your eyes off your stuff. It irritates the hell out of the TSA people, but who cares? In this particular case I think he was trying to do this, but forgot to take off his belt. I would have walked through and got patted down next to my bags.

2\. Why we continue to put up with this nonsense is beyond me.

<comment><USER44> I always try to do this, but I also opt-out of the scanning machines. Any way to make them work together? When I opt out I am required to wait outside an undetermined amount of time until they decide I am not going to change my mind and just get me through the x-ray and pat me down. I always try to keep an eye on my stuff, but it's impossible at times. No problem so far, but I worry something _will_ happen.

<comment><USER43> When I opt out, I keep my stuff next to me, or take it off the machine and wait for the TSA drone to show up. It doesn't go in until I'm going with the drone who's going to assault me.

<comment><USER45> I've tried this both ways: putting my bags on the belt before opting out, and holding my bags, opting out, and only placing them on the belt when an agent comes to escort me.

Both approaches have gotten me yelled at.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I have noticed that in Indian airports passengers are given a numbered token and a duplicate placed in the bin with the laptop before it passes through the x-ray machine. After passing through the security scan the passenger has to present the token to the agents who will then match it with the one in the bin and only then hand it to him/her.

I can't understand why TSA won't follow such a simple scheme that greatly improves the incidents like OP's.

<comment><USER47> I've seen videos of security screening lines hundreds of meters long at one of Chicago's airports, this process would only make them longer.

<comment><USER46> I am not sure about that. The long lines are due to more fundamental problems with the TSA in general. Shaving a few extra seconds for each passenger with a laptop is not going to solve the problem.

<comment><USER47> Ya I agree, I was just making a comment that implementing this token process would make things even worse

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> For me, there is a crime. Even if it is in good faith, TSA took the MacBook, then lost it. It is the same as if they broke it by accident. If they can not recover it quickly, they should reimburse it because what happened is their full responsability.

</comment><comment><USER49> Man, I am going to be paranoid as f%!# from now on, when going through security. If my laptop disappeared, it would screw me over pretty good. I mean, not in the sense that I'd lose anything that is literally irreplaceable, (well, not irreplaceable AND particularly valuable) but it would be a huge time and energy sink to recover from that.

Last time I lost a laptop, was when somebody stole my laptop bag out of my truck (I forgot to lock it one night while I Was in Barnes & Noble having a coffee). That was a double-whammy, because the USB drive with my backups was in the same bag. :-(

The only saving grace then was that most of my _really_ important data is actually in "the cloud" somewhere (eg, code at GitHub) and that I had an older backup of most of my files on another computer that I bought and used temporarily after I spilled coffee on my old laptop (it started working again after it had a few days to dry out, so I switched back to it).

Anyway, after reading this, I think I'm going to go get another 1TB USB drive, and start keeping a set of backups that I leave at home, instead of carrying around in my laptop bag. That or start pushing stuff to S3 or something. Code is already in GitHub, but there's a lot of other stuff I'd hate to lose.

<comment><USER50> Crashplan. $99 per year.

<comment><USER51> It's actually just $59/year. Seems totally worth it to me.

<comment><USER52> Except if you have a bit of data you'll spend a few years uploading it. Their servers are _slow_. Only getting like 5-20Mbit/s, mostly slower here in Europe.

<comment><USER53> I use Arq - I can choose where I upload it and I can have multiple destinations.

<comment><USER51> Arq does not offer storage on the cheapest plan(I have no idea what you are paying for then), and even the $120/year plan only includes 250GB of storage. If I signed up with Crashplan I would upload literally all of my data to it - so 4TB of personal backups then.

<comment><USER53> Arq is actually a standalone (incremental encrypted) backup tool, though they are now also offering their own storage. Arq can be used with Amazon S3, Dropbox, OneDrive, sftp, Google Cloud Storage, etc.

E.g. I use Arq with my Office 365 subscription that costs me Euro 1.38 per month (four year academic discount) for 1TB.

<comment><USER52> Arq only runs on Windows and OS X though. I would prefer to use something open-source, that runs on Linux. I won't be renewing my Crashplan subscription when it expires.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I'm sure they will tell us that this never would have happened if only their budget was tripled.

</comment><comment><USER55> It's odd how the TSA escapes primary blame in the OP and these comments. This blending-into-the-environment is part of what makes these half-baked authorituhs so insidious.

The author had an agreement that the TSA would borrow his laptop for a few minutes and then return it in identical condition. The TSA failed to live up to their duties. Regardless of _what_ happened to the laptop while in their care, the straightforward way to make this right is for TSA to reimburse this person for a new laptop. This is not a new concept - it's called civil liability.

If the TSA would like, they can try to reform their operating procedures so this happens less. But that doesn't change the fact that they're still responsible for _this instance_. We don't let a thief keep his bounty by promising to not steal in the future.

</comment><comment><USER56> TSA should keep a link between face & scanned ticket. They should have been able to easily contact that gate & stop the "gift" receiver from boarding their plane.

If there is no connection between face & scanned ticket, then this is a pretty serious gap of the TSA security system.

Without it, how can they look at recorded video & make connections to certain passengers?

<comment><USER57> I'm sure they have one. But they're probably not using it to find lost laptops.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Whilst the TSA agents should be taking more care to ensure valuables are returned to the correct person, there are several agents working on a single line. The person who saw him place the computer into the x-ray would be different from the person handing items back so it's not all that surprising that didn't know who it belonged to and was just assuming people were being honest.

Any frequent flyer will know return of items from security lines effectively operates on a honesty policy. Things are free for the taking after the x-ray and if they take your bag aside they frequently call out 'who's bag is this?' or similar. It's important you keep an eye on things.

In this case he totally forgot his computer and lost it. If the situation was immediately after security the TSA refused to give it back to him as someone else claimed it was theirs then it would clearly be the TSA's fault but in this situation I feel he should share some of the blame.

<comment><USER59> If the government decides they need to take my stuff away from me to check it, they better make sure that I get it back correctly. In this case the TSA _handed_ the laptop to someone other than the owner.

If this happens, clearly the process has a defect, and needs to be corrected, or, even better in this case, abandoned completely.

Don't blame the victim.

<comment><USER60> >Don't blame the victim.

Ugh.

>If the government decides they need to take my stuff away from me to check it, they better make sure that I get it back correctly.

Absolutely! But if you keep expecting them to do that without being careful and paying attention to your own stuff guess who foots the bill? This could've been all mitigated by OP being slightly more careful. Why do I say this? Because it's easier to ask someone to pay attention to their stuff than it is to ask the government to change its practices (bureaucracy etc). It's not victim blaming, it's about finding the most practical solution to prevent this problem from happening again.

<comment><USER59> Obviously being careful with your belongings, as with your personal safety, makes a lot of sense to avoid harm.

However, clearly, if someone steals your things, or attacks you, it is irrelevant if you did or did not take care of your stuff: The blame lies with the perpetrator of this action, not with the victim.

That they forgot their laptop at the x-ray machine, does not entitle anyone else to just take it.

Therefore:

> I feel he should share some of the blame.

is wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> tushar-r Temporary work around - get a TSA compliant laptop bag. Yes, it means doing something different to accommodate them, but in the longer term it saves you this pain.

And convince the TSA to do what we do at Indian airports:

plinkplonk 9 minutes ago

How this works in India. When you put your laptop in a bin, the security person puts one of two identical tags (pieces of plastic with identical numbers on them) into the bin, on top of your computer and gives you the other one. When you finish your patdown/metal detector etc screening and want to take your computer back, you give the security person at the other end of the line your tag, she looks around for the bin with the identical tag, and hands you the contents of the bin and takes your tag back. Not foolproof/fraudproof, but it seems to work in practice. reply

<comment><USER61> _get a TSA compliant laptop bag_

No good. TSOs essentially reserve the right to void or override any policy, at any time, for any reason, with no warning in advance. Many will simply tell you that no such policy exists or ever has existed. And there is no appeal of the decisions made by the people at the checkpoint: either you do what they tell you right there, even if it contradicts policy (even if it contradicts federal law -- the TSA is being sued over that very point by a guy who claims they routinely violate disability-accommodation laws), or you don't fly.

Which means there is no such thing as "a TSA compliant laptop bag", only "a laptop bag that a TSO might, a majority of the time, if you're lucky and they're in a good mood, let you send through the x-ray without removing your laptop".

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I have mixed feelings about TSA: the people who work for TSA at the checkpoints have always been polite, which is good. The bad thing is that I feel like security is really weak in the USA. In comparison, in India, everyone was searched on the flights I took, and a personal search seems much more effective.

Re: stolen MacBook Pro: ouch! I have several older Linux laptops, so when I travel I grab a laptop that is old and expendable. Since I always encrypt my disk and most of what I do is in bitbucket, or on a cloud service, losing a laptop would just be an inconvenience. I find it more relaxing to not have things of high value with me when I travel.

</comment><comment><USER63> I don't really understand the importance of this story. Sure it's annoying and a huge inconvenience for the OP and I'm genuinely sorry for him. But it's a lost laptop.

How often does this happen? Can you think of a way of changing the process that would result in a net benefit for everyone?

If this story was "TSA gave away my diamond necklace" or "Nightclub cloakroom hands bag to wrong customer" we would recognise this story for what it is - one of those things. Backup your files, kids, keep an eye on your possessions at all times, get insurance, and don't get too attached to a piece of metal.

<comment><USER59> > Can you think of a way of changing the process that would result in a net > benefit for everyone?

That one's easy: Getting rid of the TSA alltogether.

<comment><USER64> No screening at all? That'd certainly be interesting.

<comment><USER59> For starters it wouldn't lower overall security by all that much[0]

[0] [http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation- breaches-u...](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us- airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851)

<comment><USER63> So if JFK Airport removed TSA and just let people walk on to the plane, would you board one? I sure as hell wouldn't.

I don't know what I don't know about international security. I don't have access to the NSA and CIA files about international terrorism. Sure, some of it is overplayed for certain people's agendas, but it's very clearly an actual risk that needs actual solutions. The TSA may not be the best one, but if it was removed, it would need to be replaced by something that would probably end up looking very similar.

<comment><USER65> > So if JFK Airport removed TSA and just let people walk on to the plane, > would you board one?

Yes.

<comment><USER63> Do you think people aren't trying to attack planes, or that the TSA has zero effectiveness in stopping those people?

<comment><USER66> The latter. The TSA screening process (a recent report had them pegged at 5% effectiveness[0]) is next to worthless and itself creates a security hazard/potential attack vector. The TSA screening process is also entirely reactionary -- shoe removal only became a thing after an attacker tried to hide explosives in their shoes.

If the TSA was pro-active and had a reasonable degree of effectiveness, then I'd be more willing to put up with it. As it stands, the $85 pre-check fee is more of a "pay us money and we won't actively put you at risk for no benefit" fee.

[0] [http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation- breaches-u...](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us- airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851)

<comment><USER63> How would you make it more effective?

<comment><USER67> You could remove the TSA and let airlines do their own security checks at the gate. Airlines _really_ don't want their planes hi-jacked.

<comment><USER63> Surely that would just defer the problem? Plus, the airlines now have to buy all their own equipment, train their own staff. At the moment, they are 'outsourcing' their airport security to the TSA.

I suppose they could each choose which security checks they are going to carry out, but how would they choose? Based on recommendations from something that looks like the TSA?

It's not clear to me that the airlines would want this responsibility, or would do a better job at it than the TSA.

<comment><USER67> The airlines actually care about the safety of their planes, because failures have a significant impact in the marketplace. TSA staff don't care to anything like the same extent. If they screw up, they probably get more money and more power, not less.

I suspect you'd get better results if you moved the responsibility to people who care more, and away from people who care less.

Some US airports have opted out of TSA screening, including San Francisco. You could let airlines opt out or work with airport authorities instead. The best solution will probably depend to a large extent on airport layouts.

<comment><USER63> They would have a serious conflict of interest between getting people on the plane ASAP and checking safety. I already see this when staff are lenient with checking passports and boarding passes.

On top of this, most airlines have terrible customer service, so there's no reason to believe they would provide a better service than the TSA.

The TSA clearly has many faults, and nor can it take all the credit for the lack of terrorist attacks on US flights. However, it has to get some of the credit. It's wishful thinking to imagine this is a simple problem with a simple fix. If you're going to get rid of the TSA, you're going to have to convince the majority of travellers that the extra convenience is not going to come at the expense of safety.

<comment><USER67> It would be interesting to know how the TSA-free airports are doing. How many passengers is San Francisco losing, or gaining? Given the widespread view of the TSA's lack of competence (which has been easily demonstrated by tests), I suspect it's not losing any.

 _> most airlines have terrible customer service_

It varies. I've been through lots of airline-run security checks outside the USA and they've all been fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> The one odd assertion is that they "gave" his laptop to some random person. I've never seen a TSA person even touch people's stuff except to do a manual inspection and even then they ask permission.

Assuming this story is on the up-and-up and isn't some kind of prank, the writer should call the police and report a theft. Secondly, call a lawyer and pursue a quest to recover property cost and associated damages--business losses, legal fees, time lost, etc. Also, he should report the loss to his insurance company.

</comment><comment><USER69> Steal something from an airport store and I'd imagine they'll find you

</comment><comment><USER70> Someone in the comments there just created this clever script that causes your laptop to make a racket if it hasn't been returned to you by some number of seconds:

[https://gist.github.com/anonymous/5bf92b9d14b8c529919c602750...](https://gist.github.com/anonymous/5bf92b9d14b8c529919c6027502fbd09)

</comment><comment><USER71> I don't like how the author fusses about someone else who was arguable also similarly being abused by the TSA:

"Behind me, I could hear a woman making a big scene because her "flight [was] at 4:15," and her gigantic bag was clearly never going to fit on the airplane. She claimed multiple times that "the lady" told her she could bring it through security."

<comment><USER26> There is a good chance that the person who took the laptop was acting with an accomplice, and that the woman making the scene was involved.

<comment><USER72> So you actually think there are gangs that take flights just to steal stuff during baggage check?

<comment><USER73> Why wouldn't there be? Flights can be cheap, and security requires you to show up hours in advance, but there's no limit to the number of times you can cycle through security lines looking for targets.

<comment><USER74> Hmmmmm?

Every time I've ever flown, my boarding pass is marked up by a TSA agent before I go through the metal detector/body scanner/X-ray belt area. I think it'd be incredibly suspicious if you left and then back through, multiple times even more so.

<comment><USER75> I've been through security multiple times before (my daughter left her book in one of the groundside restaurants) and nobody cared. Anecdotal I know, but n=1 is better than n=0

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> This sucks, but I can totally seeing it happen. Surprised it doesn't happen more often.

I'm not one for snarky comments, but when it comes to the TSA there are so many to make.

Maybe the TSA director will help you out with his $90k in bonuses he got (for who knows what) - [http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/05/23/479242102/...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/05/23/479242102/tsas-head-of-security-removed-from-office-says-house- panel)

Or, maybe it's part of their broader effort to boost their pre-check enrollment ([http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tsas-precheck- conundrum-1412...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tsas-precheck- conundrum-1412789364)) - pay us $85 and we won't steal your stuff - promise!

<comment><USER76> That guy got fired yesterday - [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tsa- security_us_5743a892...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tsa- security_us_5743a892e4b045cc9a71ccec)

<comment><USER57> I know - that's what my link story was about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> Let's be clear: The TSA was an active facilitator in the theft of this person's private property and failed to provide a remedy for their actions. It wasn't an accident, it wasn't innocent and it was not made right. That's the bottom line.

</comment><comment><USER78> Never knew guest mode would allow access to Safari only. Probably worth enabling for incidents like these.

[http://apple.stackexchange.com/a/82707/145499](http://apple.stackexchange.com/a/82707/145499)

Done!

</comment><comment><USER79> Well, maybe it's a new idea for a song like "United Breaks Guitars"? :) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo)

</comment><comment><USER80> Things used to be a lot worse when people without tickets were allowed all the way through to the boarding gates. This, of course, was pre-9-11. Laptops would get stolen all the time by criminals just going through security, sometimes in pairs and one would slow down the line while the person in front would take a random laptop and gtfo.

In some senses, the security is better by disallowed non-passengers from going through security checkpoints. I feel bad for the owner, and I hope he/she gets back his/her laptop, but I doubt the TSA will just write a check unfortunately. They simply don't care.

</comment><comment><USER81> > Luckily, I am meticulous about encryption and about backing up, so I don't > think I lost any data nor gave anyone else access.

What is the OP's setup (and what are some alternatives), that he is so sure this was the case?

<comment><USER82> Here is what I do:

1) Enable disk encryption (System Preferences -> Security and Privacy -> FileVault)

2) Regular backups with TimeMachine to a USB drive. It your machine is lost you can use this to restore everything back to how it was pretty quickly. By default TimeMachine backups aren't encrypted, so make sure you check the "Encrypt backups" option when enabling it.

3) As well as using "Find my iPhone" (which requires the device to be connected to a network), I have a message with my contact details on the Lock and Login screens (System Preferences -> Security and Privacy -> General -> Show a message when the screen is locked).

4) Even if the disk is encrypted it can still be wiped, reinstalled and sold on to unsuspecting buyers. You can set a firmware password which will prevent that: [https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204455](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT204455)

(I had a Mac stolen a couple of years ago and as soon as I got a new device and got home I was back up and running as if nothing had happened. A few months later I even recovered the device - the police carried out a raid and found a number of devices, and contacted Apple for the owners based upon the serial numbers)

<comment><USER83> Something I've never tested -- how does TimeMachine handle things like a locally installed Apache instance somewhere on the primary disk? If I lose my laptop and do a restore to a new machine does it set things back as-if nothing had changed?

<comment><USER84> You can have TimeMachine either recover the user data, programs, or the whole system. It's not a full system image, but so far it's been working fine. Migrated across 4 or 5 machines using TM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Sounds like the distraction was on purpose so that the theft of the laptop could occur. Perhaps TSA agent was in on the issue & the reason they're saying it's not a crime.

</comment><comment><USER86> I have a "TSA Friendly" laptop bag (it even has a stitched on label). The laptop pocket unzips to the bottom of the compartment and folds along the bottom, so the laptop is still in its pocket, but there is nothing but fabric and foam between it and the belt. The metal parts of the bag as well as anything else metal I might be carrying are all folded to he other side and don't shield (electromagnetically) the laptop.

</comment><comment><USER87> They did this to me at LAX once about 12-13 years ago. Oddly enough, the man they handed my computer to was Johnny Cochrane (the lawyer that got OJ out of a murder conviction). They were so starstruck (telling him "Here's your computer Mr. Cochrane!"). Thankfully, he said, "Oh, that's not mine," just as I walked up and I was able to get it unlike the OP.

</comment><comment><USER88> Just an fyi, even if you don't book the ticket yourself, you can still go on the airline's website or call in and have your known traveler number added to your reservation to receive your pre-check status. (laptop never leaves your bag which probably would have prevented the author's issue in the first place as he was used to using pre-check)

</comment><comment><USER89> My take away from this... Put your name and number on your valuables just in case someone picks them up by accident.

<comment><USER84> You can put any message you want on your macbooks login/lock screen. Mine contains contact information just in case I loose it. Might actually pay off to put a sticker on it as well.

<comment><USER90> Two sided sword. If the person that took the laptop is actually a thief he/she conveniently knows you're currently not at home upon boot. Since this theft requires at least some criminal energy (I guess there's an outside shot of just being a grab and run) I wouldn't put it past the thief to immediately loot your home or have an accomplice do so.

<comment><USER91> Use a work address, email address, and a cell phone number. Agreed that home address is a bad idea, just like on luggage tags.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> What's the problem? Everyone acted nice, gave all the info needed / incident number. 2.5 days is way, way not enough time to wait for action / response.

If author is worked up cause incompetence exists and accidents happen (or crimes/scams happen) then life is going to be disappointing to them.

</comment><comment><USER93> I made a TurboTax like website to help make a claim against the TSA in this situation: [http://TSAClaim.com](http://TSAClaim.com), it will render a completed SF-95 form that you email to the TSA.

</comment><comment><USER94> How can they single out his computer without immediately singling out him too? There is simply no point in treating the device suspicious and letting the owner potentially leave the place.

</comment><comment><USER95> No mention of insurance. The laptop may be covered under homeowners or renters insurance. These cover personal property even when they are outside your residence.

</comment><comment><USER96> My biggest fear of flying. Do those TSA approved bags really "work"? Meaning that you don't have to remove your laptop

</comment><comment><USER97> It is possible not to remove your laptop from backpack on TSA. Some backpacks open like a clamshell so xray has no obstructions.

<comment><USER98> What would stop the officer to give the backpack to 'some random woman'?

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> Next time, tell them there's a bomb in the laptop and the person who took it is your accomplice. They'll find it.

</comment><comment><USER100> If you truly hate security theatre in the USA, boycott travel. Tell your boss, your family, your friends that you can't travel because you refused to be treated poorly by a parasitic and incompetent organization.

But, if your paycheck is more important to you than restoring diginity, the (governmental) terrorists have won :)

<comment><USER101> I think the opposite. Terrorists and the Government have won if you prevent yourself from doing/saying something because of what they do/did. Another example would be if you stop talking about some things online because you think that they scan everything you post and can link it to your personal identity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER102>
        > It's been 2.5 days

meh. Government moves slowly.

<comment><USER103> Also it happened on a Friday evening and he posted this on a Monday afternoon, so it's basically only been half a day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> Typo: not -> now

</comment><comment><USER105> My laptop went missing when I sent it for servicing for several days and no one seemed to know where it was including FedEx and the company I sent it to. Turns out, it was the intelligence community and specifically Tailored Access Operations (TAO) hacking my laptop and preparing to ruin/sabotage my life. If you happen to mysteriously get your laptop back, make sure you look for potential evidence of tampering.

</comment><comment><USER106> Alternative title: Guy forgets laptop at security checkout and blames TSA for his stupidity.

 _> I emerged from the scanner without any problems, collected my 2 bags and incidentals, and proceeded into Terminal 5. After awhile, I looked into my backpack and realized that I didn't have my computer. My heart skipped a beat! I turned around and rushed to the security area._

<comment><USER107> Further down the article:

> _After a few minutes, he found me coming through the security line, and sure > enough, my computer was not with my bags when I retrieved my belongings. > Moving further back in time, we watched as a TSA agent pulled my computer > off of the belt as soon as it came out of the machine—there is an area where > agents can remove things from the belt before passengers have access to > belongings. He moved my computer to a holding area immediately behind the > x-ray machine. And then, we watched as the computer was inspected, after > which it was handed back… to a random woman. The woman took my computer and > left the security area._

<comment><USER106> He completely forgot his laptop, moved away from the security check and only later figured out he was missing his laptop.

With hundreds of people moving through those checkpoints, I do not blame the TSA agents for handing stuff out to completely random people.

<comment><USER30> He forgot his laptop, because it wasn't on the belt when he came out of the scanner. They gave it away before he had a chance to forget it. The couple of minutes it took him to realise that he didn't actually all of his stuff off the belt (even though, he did, since the laptop wasn't there any more) wouldn't have made a difference since somebody else has taken it beforehand anyway.

<comment><USER16> Especially if you're used to being able to leave your laptop in your bag - <USER2> fall back to routine very easily. I want to fault him for walking off and leaving it, but I can also imagine myself easily doing the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER108> 2 million screenings per day, stuff happens. PayPal does 13 million transactions a day, I bet somebody somewhere got ripped off. Before ranting, please consider that you may not be a snowflake and that even the finest systems occasionally harm people.

Systems are imperfect and we should always try to add nines but there's a "how can this happen to me?" bias to this stuff that is really, really uninteresting. These posts are no different than BuzzFeed -- pushing buttons, attaching yourself to a brand (in this case the TSA), desperate to get heard.

Like the Google couple who couldn't believe that their car dealership wanted a fingerprint when they tried to buy a $80,000 BMW with cash, not everything has to generate an emotion and attention-seeking essay. As in that case, once the smoke clears these posts usually do little but make the author look foolish.

I don't know about you but "couldn't manage to travel with a laptop" isn't something I want permanently attached to my name in Google results.

</comment><comment><USER109> Wow, I'm actually surprised that you would blame TSA or the woman instead of yourself (I'm even more surprised that no other comment mention this). It is you who did not care to ensure your laptop go back to you. There is some bias against TSA, but you cannot blame them for everything (disclaimer: never been to States, never had anything in common with TSA).

Sure, it is a pity that you lost a computer; it is probably some kind of TSA fault for handling the laptop to the woman (probably a common thief), but you should remember that you left your computer for a scan and you should receive it back. No computer back? Ask TSA for your computer - 10-15 minutes, most probably everything would turn out ok.

<comment><USER109> Can someone argument why this is being downvoted? I've read the article twice, just using logical and safe unbiased thinking here.

<comment><USER61> The author of the article appears to have done everything he legally could do. TSA does not generally give you a choice of customizing their screening procedures to suit your desire to keep an eye on your belongings. So you appear to just be bashing on the author for no reason -- there's simply not much more he could have done.</comment></comment></comment>


Apple is about to do something their programmers definitely don't want - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/make-better-software/apple-is-about-to-do-something-their-programmers-definitely-dont-want-fc19f5f4487 <comment><USER3> Can we change the title to a non clickbaity one?

</comment><comment><USER4> An opinion piece written as recruiting/marketing at the same time.

I've never found open layouts distracting. I don't even use headphones - <USER2> focus on the work hard enough that everything else blurs into the background.

</comment><comment><USER5> Is there any evidence this is the case? All I see is a quote from the WSJ about people being concerned about it. Also, why would Apple, a company that loves keeping projects under tight wrap, use an open office plan?

</comment><comment><USER6> The bench style layout is awful in general.</comment>


Ask HN: How can I contribute to cure aging/death research being a developer? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Most type of research require all sorts of supporting activities, some of which can be facilitated by software or websites.

For instance, modern scientific research requires a lot of data processing, and as discussed here a few weeks ago that's currently mostly done very incompetently by non-programmers.

For another, they need to recruit and manage study participants. There's room for software and websites in that process.

Undoubtedly there are several more that are just not coming to mind right now.

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you point me to that discussion you mention? Would be nice to read.

<comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17407634](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17407634)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> If people live longer than at present, either more food is needed to feed the larger population that arises from a reduced global death rate, or more young people are made reproductively sterile to reduce the global birth rate to maintain global population levels. You can also help by contributing to those as well.

</comment><comment><USER4> Interesting question</comment>


Show HN: Build custom P2P messaging protocol over BitTorrent in 10 minutes - <AUTHOR> http://atomashpolskiy.github.io/bt/extension-protocol/ <comment><AUTHOR> In this simple tutorial I show how to utilize BitTorrent extension protocol to create custom peer-to-peer messenger, with the help of Bt library. Hope you find it interesting, and I'll be happy to try to answer all of your questions. Cheers!</comment>


Nominative determinism - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism <comment><USER2> I am a software engineer because my last name is Rader.

My paternal ancestors had the occupational surname Radermacher (wheel-wright / cart-wright.) Over time, that became shortened to Rader. When my father went to the US Air Force recruitment office to enlist, the recruiter thought it appropriate for William Rader to become a Radar technician.

My father learned electronics and went on to become an electrical engineer. He learned industrial automation technologies, including microprocessor design and programming. When microcomputers became small and affordable, he had them at home.

I grew up with those computers and was rather fond of them. I went on to earn a CS degree and become a software engineer.

</comment><comment><USER3> > a person's name can have a significant role in determining key aspects of > job, profession or even character. It was a commonly held notion in the > ancient world.

\--> [http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873](http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873)

"Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination"

"We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list Equal Opportunity Employer' in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market."

Turns out names DO have an impact on your life.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you haven't read or seen Freakonomics, I should begin by saying that it is quite entertaining, and you should check it out, but it actually looks into this very issue. It turns out that names, while they may not directly cause a person to turn out a certain way in life, are strongly correlated because different social groups have different naming patterns. Low income African American communities have children with distinctly sounding unique names like Darnel or Ladayna. Lower class children often wind up with outdated older names like Scooter or Candy. Upper class children usually wind up with more hip names.

Names often become something of a self fulfilling prophecy. If you were raised in an environment where it seemed reasonable for your parents to name you something unfortunate, your life will probably be just as unfortunate as your name.

The thing is, people know this. If you are dealing with a Laquicha or a Brandi, more likely than not, you will assume that she is from a lower class upbringing. This might influence the way you think about her.

<comment><USER5> "Upper class children usually wind up with more hip names" \- not sure about that. Look at billionaires and royals. The more boring and safe - the better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Reminds me of my odds-on favorite candidate for name of the year: Dr. Electron Kebebew

"His father, an Ethiopean electrical engineer, worried that his children would not follow in his footsteps as people of science. To make their career paths clear from birth, he named them after subatomic particles"

I thought this idea of parents using one of their earliest parental acts to influence the destiny of a child to be a fascinating facet of human nature.

[http://www.nameoftheyear.com/2015/03/we-need-to-talkabout- dr...](http://www.nameoftheyear.com/2015/03/we-need-to-talkabout-dr.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> Classic fun Asimov story: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spell_My_Name_with_an_S](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spell_My_Name_with_an_S)

</comment><comment><USER8> The British philosopher John Wisdom comes to mind.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wisdom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wisdom)

</comment><comment><USER9> This one flipped my wig.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Judge,_Baron_Judge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Judge,_Baron_Judge)

</comment><comment><USER10> The weather guy on one of our TV stations in Los Angeles is Dallas Raines. I guess he is working in the wrong city, though.</comment>


Ask HN: What are some biz examples based primarily on new metric, like Pagerank? - <AUTHOR> What are some business examples that were/are based primarily on a new metric or algorithm, like Pagerank and Google? <comment><USER2> This sounds like a homework question, but I'll bite.

App store rankings based on downloads or ratings? [http://dd508hmafkqws.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/B8z3...](http://dd508hmafkqws.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/B8z3CahCQAALsU8.jpg)

Yelp ratings? [http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/every-person-here-thinks- about-...](http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/every-person-here-thinks-about- them-226886)

Basically anything with a rating or ranking system where individuals contribute to an aggregate score and the highest scores get more attention, and if you get more attention you get more revenue/exposure/even more attention.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not a homework question. I am developing a new metric for reproducibility in scholarly publishing and trying to understand previous examples of successful models.

<comment><USER2> Oh, well, pagerank is based off ranking published papers anyway: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_analysis)

<comment><AUTHOR> the idea is here: [https://thewinnower.com/papers/the-r-factor-a-measure-of- sci...](https://thewinnower.com/papers/the-r-factor-a-measure-of-scientific- veracity)

<comment><USER3> There are two questions you should be asking yourself:

1\. Will a person in your target market, when cherry-picking a couple examples they care about, say "Wow, these results are way better than what I would've found myself!"?

2\. Are there enough people in your target market to justify the economics of your system?

Answer #2 first, and then put all your effort into making #1 come true.

Google worked because everybody searches the web, and Google was clearly better than rival search engines. Many metric-based businesses fail because not enough people care about the metrics to make enough money; the remainder fail because they're not a noticeable-enough improvement on the status quo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Genome_Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Genome_Project)</comment>


Stop Exploiting LGBT Issues to Demonize Islam and Justify Anti-Muslim Policies - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2016/06/13/stop-exploiting-lgbt-issues-to-demonize-islam-and-justify-anti-muslim-policies <comment><USER2> True, but it is part of a process where the range of respectable opinions on social issues is moving to the left. It's really something to see a Republican presidential candidate coming out in favor of gays at all.</comment>


Show HN: Declarative Threejs in React and RN, react-three-fiber 3 released - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/0xca0a/status/1179329637236838401 <comment><USER2> I want to see someone do some game development with this.</comment>


Don't do the wrong thing better - <AUTHOR> http://diginomica.com/2016/04/19/dont-do-the-wrong-thing-better/ <comment><USER2> The post doesn't live up to its title. The title is profound.

<comment><USER3> Hmmm, agreed; the title went into my "Quotations.txt" file; the article is not quite as memorable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Title reminds me of: [http://dilbert.com/strip/2014-07-13](http://dilbert.com/strip/2014-07-13)

Specifically, "It seems we're very good at automating things that we shouldn't be doing in the first place."

</comment><comment><USER5> The title instantly remind me of the ad:tech industry. Not sure why :/

</comment><comment><USER6> I felt this brief blog posting was disorganized but still full of good advice in many domains.</comment>


What thing does a Mac can do, others can't? - <AUTHOR> Been used Linux/GNU for decades. Recently got a MacBook Pro. And want to know some benifits which Mac can give us.   Some tips? <comment><USER2> I continue to use Linux/GNU on servers and MBP for my notebook. Compared to Linux on a notebook a MacBook Pro :

\- allows me to work for longer on the battery

\- has a far better touchpad

\- is almost instantly back on when I open the case

\- WiFi connects to different A/Ps without any drama

I don't use Photoshop, MS Office, iLife / iWork apps - so having access to them is a non-issue for me. I have switched to an Android phone some time ago, so I no longer use iTunes either.</comment>


Ask HN: What weapons could we create to fight a war against killer robots? - <AUTHOR> Imagine a hypothetical situation like the terminator movies. Could we construct a viable soldier's weapon to disable a robot?<p>Maybe spray paint the cameras or something... <comment><USER2> I'm suspicious that it's a killer robot asking this question. :|

</comment><comment><USER3> EMP bombs

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

</comment><comment><USER4> Sounds like a question for [https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Don't worry about it too much, in 4000 A.D., 1A will train Magnus, into a Robot Fighter and he'll be there to save Humanity from the Evil Robots. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus%2C_Robot_Fighter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus%2C_Robot_Fighter)

</comment><comment><USER6> Use a turtle

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/2/16597276/google-ai- image-...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/2/16597276/google-ai-image- attacks-adversarial-turtle-rifle-3d-printed)</comment>


The corporate poo patrol is coming after your precious toilet time - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.co.uk/article/battle-toilet-workplace <comment><USER2> Everything about this is a bad idea.

This will put you in a position that actually makes it more difficult to poo.

$deity forbid you get food poisoning.

And it's setting employers up for lawsuits from people with disabilities or injuries who don't have the leg strength to hold that squat long enough for normal elimination.

Plus you might notice that this penalizes women worse than men.

Companies these days really just don't want to accept that their employees are still humans with messy human biological needs and, you know emotions. Yeah, they want robots to replace us all, but that's not an option yet. We're still humans.

<comment><USER3> I don't think they will touch handicapped toilets.

So of course everyone is going to form lines to use that toilet. Maybe they constantly prop the toilet seats back up to the correct angle until the seats break.

This reminds me of the hostile designed public benches and seating to prevent people sleeping on it. It just ends up making everyone hate it.

<comment><USER4> without cameras in the stalls the uncomfortable toilets will be vandalized and intentionally broken until they are replaced

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A fellow I knew had been a supervisor in printing plants. I heard from somebody who knew him that a printer had once caught him outside the restroom door, clearly timing the break. The printer said, "Next time, if you want to time it, you have to come in and watch."

I doubt he reformed his ways, but he might have become better at not getting caught.

HNers should remember that people punching time clocks have it worse.

</comment><comment><USER6> Many companies monitor room usage via smart BMS/BAS. Usually they stop at the bathroom door. I have to wonder if they will breach that modicum and ID people entering and exiting to time them and not just for occupancy metrics.

<comment><USER7> One office building I worked at required scanning ID badges to access the toilets - supposedly because of an incident in the past with a male employee hanging out in the female toilets.

I never even considered them using the data from us scanning in, but I guess it's possible? You didn't have to scan out so it's not like they would get any information on duration in the bathrooms, just who entered which bathroom, and how many times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> if i'm getting my shit done at work, then im going to get my shit done at work.

</comment><comment><USER9> > Squatty Potty are offering us revolutionary new ways to sit on the toilet.

revolutionary? new?

<comment><USER10> They are disrupting the gastrointestinal sector

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What if you sit backwards? I do that at home sometimes so I don't let my legs fall asleep by leaning my elbows on them to hold a book.

</comment><comment><USER12> That does it, I'll bring my own toilet to work.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is a hilariously bad idea. I agree with gshdg on this...</comment>


No Shit Study: Scientists Show Conspiracy Theorists Will Believe Anything - <AUTHOR> http://skepchick.org/2015/05/no-shit-study-scientists-show-conspiracy-theorists-will-believe-anything/

<comment><USER2> Most people will believe anything if it's surrounded by the correct cultural signifiers and dog whistles. We use that stuff as a proxy for direct investigation because, quite frankly, we have neither the time nor the energy to investigate more than a tiny percentage of the stuff we choose to believe. To actually investigate something often takes _years_.

Put something in a correctly-formatted scientific paper and put the 'peer review' stamp on it, and most scientists will believe it.</comment>


All servers at OVH North American datacenters offline due to fiber cut - <AUTHOR> http://status.ovh.net/?do=details&id=11304 <comment><USER2> Constructing a brand new dark fiber network over long distance requires an insane amount of work, plus a ton of legal and administrative issues to deal with.

OVH had started working on the construction of a second dark fiber network a long time ago, with at least the capacity of the previous one. Due to a strange quirk of fate, they had planned to complete the construction within the next few days.

After the fiber cut, they not only tried to locate and repair the cut pairs of cable, but also simultaneously rushed to finish the construction of the new network. They made in hours what was initially planned to require at least another week.

The services are now back online at full speed, because they managed to finish installing the new cables, test them and connect the whole data center right away to the new network. And it worked.

<comment><USER3> That's a story to tell your kids and grandkids.

I have such great respect for network admins. I have no idea what it takes to get a network to route properly worldwide on multiple trunks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Long time OVH customer here, they had a similar issue on May 2015 for the same DC in Canada where a car hit one of the poles along the BHS/MTL via the North route, damaging the optical fiber cable: 2 of the 3 pairs of cables where down.

[http://status.ovh.co.uk/?do=details&id=9603](http://status.ovh.co.uk/?do=details&id=9603)

At the time, they told customers they were adding new fiber providers and cables.

<comment><USER5> Laying new fiber takes years. They turned it on today, so it must have been in the works then too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is why you have fiber leaving your datacenter in two different direction and to two backbone providers. Once you do your due diligence, it's really hard to guarantee your providers never share infrastructure. Good luck guys!

<comment><USER7> Also, be aware that fiber sabotage is a thing that happens. It's rare, but it's bad, and in my experience even top-notch providers take days to recover from it.

Even if you aren't the target, it doesn't matter how many redundant links your single uplink provider has if the threat model is hostile actors with their infrastructure mapped out vs. wayward backhoes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The effect on the weathermap is "clear cut": [http://weathermap.ovh.net/#usa](http://weathermap.ovh.net/#usa)

It looks like they still have one link running, but a small saturated one.

<comment> ju-st Yes, technically the DC is not down... I can still ping forum.ovh.us and the webpage loads, but very slowly (as excpected).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> 800gbps of connectivity cut! yikes, that would put all hands on deck... I'm hearing issues with Verizon/Terremark and Wellpoint networks from clients, wonder if it has anything to do with... godspeed OVH

</comment><comment><USER10> Multihome your edge, folks.

<comment><USER11> Glad to see this instead of bashing on OVH. This can happen anywhere. Every data center is at the end of one or maybe a few very thin little cables that can be cut very easily.

<comment><USER12> Reminds me of the joke: Traveller to ops guy, "Why do you have a piece of fiber optic cable in your rescue kit?", ops guy, "That way if I ever get stranded I just bury this cable nearby and wait for a back hoe to show up and cut it!"

On a weird note, when evaluating data centers I had one tell me they had redundant connections to the Internet but what they really had were two lambdas on the same fiber. Sure its great that you have two providers but _it is only one fiber_ didn't seem to sink in. Pass.

The problem is very real of course, when a disgruntled AT&T engineer cut lines in South San Jose they did a huge amount of damage. Looking at their impact and the time it takes to resplice a fiber, a group of us calculated it would take no more than a 100 people to take California completely off the cabled Internet (satellite is really hard to disable from the ground). That seems pretty risky.

<comment><AUTHOR> There are actually reports of people being spotted testing major connection points for fiber and power at various places (I think in California).

Not sure if it is real or trumped up, but if real, it would be domestic terrorism for sure.

<comment><USER13> Maybe this what you're referring to: [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023048511045793591...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304851104579359141941621778)

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This will certainly mean a temporary drop on botnet activity!!!

</comment><comment><USER15> For customers of dedicated servers, remember to open a support ticket so you can get compensated accordingly. (default SLA = 5% per hour of downtime)

[https://twitter.com/rpurinton/status/661255883582775298](https://twitter.com/rpurinton/status/661255883582775298)

</comment><comment><USER16> Now lets correlate this with "bad" TOR sites downtimes to narrow down their origins...

</comment><comment><USER17> The OVH is great. A really good solution for many use cases. Of course you must know exactly what they are. Isn't a good idea trust a single DC setup, even worst if they are totally dirt-cheap. Unfortunately people misuse them.

</comment><comment><USER2> Up!

[http://status.ovh.co.uk/?do=details&id=9603](http://status.ovh.co.uk/?do=details&id=9603)

<comment><USER18> You're looking at the wrong one. The downtime today is this one:

[http://status.ovh.co.uk/?do=details&id=11304](http://status.ovh.co.uk/?do=details&id=11304)

And as of right now (4:17 PM CST), it says it's still being worked on:

> We still don't have an ETA regarding the repairs on the existing fiber.

> However, it's been confirmed that 2 out the 3 new pairs of the Eastern route > (which were being setup) are now usable. We are working with our providers > in order to get a full connection as quickly as possible: the only cross- > connect linking OVH to our provider (in Montreal) is currently missing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's back up as of 16:50 EST (UTC-5)!

<comment><USER15> Actually, as you can see at their network map[1], the cables are still out. Only the three new ones, upgraded today, are working.

[1] [http://weathermap.ovh.net/#usa](http://weathermap.ovh.net/#usa)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wonder, is this (still) common these days? Having a datacenter on a single physical cable?

<comment><USER21> At Google -- no. At OVH -- yes, apparently. Google have it's own outages, caused mostly by a network config change or software update, but not from fiber cuts.

<comment><USER22> Plus Google has a shit ton of redundancy. I remember watching a video about their site reliability team. Their job is to test worst case scenarios and they can/will cut an entire datacenter out of a service's (gmail, drive, etc) pool to see what happens.

<comment><USER23> Their exercises are also excellent at including the full organization in DiRT, not just engineering.

eg, Just because someone is "authorized" to spend six-figures for scheduling a diesel delivery doesn't mean they will.

_Weathering the Unexpected_ [https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2371516](https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2371516)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Disruptive Innovation Explained [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDrMAzCHFUU

<comment><USER2> great overview of his book "The Innovator's Dilemma"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator's_Dilemma](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator's_Dilemma)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_M._Christensen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_M._Christensen)

and at the end of the video is a great little vignette about how you drive home the necessity of change in large organizations (Professor Christensen demands to explain the theory, and not simply "what it means for Intel").</comment>