Internet in a Box - <AUTHOR> https://www.revk.uk/2020/02/internet-in-box.html <comment><USER2> I thought this was going to be an article about the Internet-in-a-Box project (which downloads resources such as OSM, wikis, media for free, private, offline use)

[http://internet-in-a-box.org/](http://internet-in-a-box.org/)

Still a nice build, though.

<comment><USER3> The first image is of the "Internet in a Box" from the IT Crowd.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A cell signal booster is also another useful travel companion. Further, if you have the budget, consider a network bonding device such as [https://teradek.com/collections/link-pro- family](https://teradek.com/collections/link-pro-family). I use these at trade shows (not this device but something similar) and it's really quite incredible how good service you can get and not have to pay through the nose to the trade show service provider for an ethernet connection.

<comment><USER5> Any particular reason you linked to Teradek instead of the one that you use? I'm very interested in something like this for trade shows and on-site demos.

<comment><USER4> We made our own, it's not something we have public but it's similar in concept to the Teradek or Viprinet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Cute. I've resorted to taking a tiny OpenWRT router with me on trips to do pretty much the same (intend to switch to WireGuard on the next trip).

<comment><USER7> Can you provide more info about your setup?

<comment><USER8> These travel routers [0] [1] support OpenWRT and/or Wireguard, as client and server. They also support connectng to captive portal WiFi networks so they're perfect for travel.

[0] [https://www.gl-inet.com/products/gl-ar750s/](https://www.gl- inet.com/products/gl-ar750s/)

[https://openwrt.org/toh/gl.inet/gl-ar750](https://openwrt.org/toh/gl.inet/gl- ar750)

[1] [https://www.gl-inet.com/products/gl-ar300m/](https://www.gl- inet.com/products/gl-ar300m/)

[https://openwrt.org/toh/gl.inet/gl.inet_gl- ar300m](https://openwrt.org/toh/gl.inet/gl.inet_gl-ar300m)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I write code on the internet every day, and I understood 0% of that article. Abstraction is a powerful thing.

<comment><USER10> One of the purposes appears to be to connect to the cruise ship's (expensive) wifi as client, as a single fixed MAC address, and rebroadcast a local wifi signal you control to more than 1 device. Because the cruise company wants you to pay per device.

Also to have a small router you control to monitor the data usage per device, and cumulative data usage on the wifi-WAN-uplink interface. And to establish a whole-router VPN tunnel if you want.

<comment><USER8> > mostly holiday, but also some work

> This is obviously somewhat overkill, so worth some explanation...

The author doesn't make it immediately obvious why they chose the particular components and why the overkill, especially for something that is so rarely used and is not aimed at enterprise scenarios. It comes at quite the cost. The FireBrick alone is £500+VAT and as far as I can tell the 3 Aruba boxes together easily cost even more. That's at least $1500 worth of equipment in the Internet Box. Couldn't the same result (within reason) be achieved with something substantially cheaper? Like a travel router, maybe combined with a RPi if needed? Of course you wouldn't really get anything close to "enterprise" but then again the occasional vacation cruise doesn't seem to beg for such features.

<comment><USER11> His company makes the FireBrick. Having one along on the cruise allows him to develop for it as well.

<comment><USER8> For him I understand, I read the comment above that made this clear. I was wondering how much sense it makes for the rest of the readers. And it's not just the FireBrick but the entire setup that is vastly overspecced for the purpose, which would be "internet on vacation cruise" rather than "product development".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm finding it a little hard to discern to purpose of this. Is it to circumvent wifi restrictions on a cruise ship?

<comment><USER13> Flight and plane wifi generally charge per device, block things like UDP and ICMP that break the internet, filter and MITM websites, including MITMing HTTPS, only allowing port 80/443, all sorts of horrendous malicious/hostile things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Kept thinking about that old software bundle by Spry, "Internet in a Box" ([https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2014/10/openi...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2014/10/opening-an-internet-time-capsule-internet-in-a-box-for- win95/))

</comment><comment><USER15> For those that don't know, Royal Caribbean charges approx. $20/device/day for their all-out streaming package. They claim it's faster than normal land based Ethernet but I'd say that's a BIG LIE. It's more like having an ISDN...aka 4x faster than a standard dialup modem. Such a sham!

</comment><comment><USER16> The power injectors seem superfluous, the 330H and 501 both have standard AC adapters available. Also the 303H isn't directional (page 7 [https://www.arubanetworks.com/assets/ds/DS_AP303H.pdf](https://www.arubanetworks.com/assets/ds/DS_AP303H.pdf)) so having one at each end of the case wouldn't be needed if you rearranged things so both sides of the AP had a clear path.

Would be interesting to see the configuration of the FB2900, sounds like there is a lot going on in there!

<comment><USER10> Having PoE powered devices often lets you place things in more creative locations, than the need to put things near an AC wall outlet. In certain cruise ship cabins I imagine that optimal placement for wifi signal may not be near where the wall outlets are located.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Off-topic, but I can't stand cookie banners that link to Google policy documents.

Ironically it's the only way I end up leaking info to Google

</comment><comment><USER18> Can't you preload the content you want to watch on Netflix and similar?

<comment><USER19> I agree that we are getting closer to archived data consumption (vs requiring Internet access) and we'll pack a "data suitcase" prior to extended trips or errands.

I guess it could be considered brown-bagging your Internet diet when you're on the go.</comment></comment>


If you want collective smarts, include women in your group  - <AUTHOR> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/if-you-want-collective-smarts-include-women-in-your-group/article1736571/

<comment><USER2> 'It is a lesson for everyone from corporate Canada to community halls: The key to "smart" groups may have less to do with brains and more to do with social sensitivity – a trait typically found in women.'

Yet another article that is cool with making broad statements about a large group of people because the generalization is favorable.

<comment><USER3> s/found in women/correlated with gender/</comment></comment>


You Really Can't Get Something For Nothing - <AUTHOR> http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2008/09/you-really-cant-get-something-for.html

<comment><USER2> His best post yet, IMO. Computer scientists/programmers have experience with dealing with complexity, and that experience could well be applied to other fields as well. As a side note, I wonder if with the complex mortgage backed securities which they say "are so complex no one understands them" if what happened was the people making these complex deals inadvertently created a one way function: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_function> (Something from cryptography theory where a complex computation can be computed forwards easily but reversing the math is like trying to unscramble an egg.) A computer scientist would have been able to spot that kind of problem.</comment>


Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/04/anthony-levandowski-ordered-to-pay-179-million-to-google/ <comment><USER3> It feels perverse that when Uber's stolen technology killed a pedestrian, nobody was held liable and in fact no charges were pressed and no civil lawsuits were filed. But the person who stole that technology was indicted and is getting financially destroyed.

<comment><USER4> According to Wikipedia, the daughter and husband "quickly reached an undisclosed settlement" with Uber. Uber very likely paid out a large sum.

<comment><USER5> That covers the civil side of things, but GPs point about criminal charges still applies. Yeah, they might have signed an NDA but I don't think those can restrict what can be uncovered during discovery (but I could be wrong -- IANAL).

<comment><USER6> Sure, but I'm sure some prosecutor took a look at it and decided it wasn't worthwhile. People get killed in accidents all the time, and frequently nobody gets charged with anything. A person being killed in a car accident while jaywalking at night because the driver wasn't paying attention particularly well is a story as old as cars, and usually doesn't result in jail time. Turns out, people are legally allowed to drive while being really shitty drivers, and you mostly can't prosecute people criminally just for being bad at driving. If anyone was going to face criminal charges it would be the driver, and I suppose the relevant prosecutor didn't like the odds.

<comment><USER7> _> Turns out, people are legally allowed to drive while being really shitty drivers_

The UK actually has a law against this, see "Causing Death by Careless or Inconsiderate Driving (Section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988, amended by the Road Safety Act 2006, s. 20)" here: [http://www.brake.org.uk/news/15-facts-a- resources/facts/497-...](http://www.brake.org.uk/news/15-facts-a- resources/facts/497-inadequate-criminal-charges-for-drivers-who-kill-and-maim- through-bad-driving-in-the-uk)

It means you can be prosecuted for causing a death in a moment of inattention. It's a bad law from both sides: As you can see from the link above it doesn't satisfy the charity (who want stronger penalties), while at the same time being a catch-all law which could catch anyone out who drives, even if they are generally very cautious drivers.

By the way I should add there was already a separate law for causing death by _dangerous_ driving.

One more reason why we need self-driving cars I suppose.

<comment><USER8> It's illegal to run people over by accident in the US too (if it was feasibly avoidable). The parent's point was that prosecutors usually exercise their discretion not to charge them.

<comment><USER9> ...because we have no solid public transportation in most parts, and driving has become a right instead of the privilege it should be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Levandowski just filed for bankruptcy saying he has less than $100M in assets . Does anyone know if he will only pay a percentage or is only delaying this by kicking the can down the road to another court ? I would be highly surprised if his employer (Uber) shouldered any of the this

<comment><USER11> I wonder how he doesn't have more assets after he sold his company to Uber for $680 millions

<comment><USER12> Or maybe he off-shored the rest of his money? This < $100mil are the assets that are under his name and the rest are in tax havens/under different shell companies? Not sure whether that is possible. But it seems like rich people always have multiple ways of hiding their money.

<comment><USER13> This is a mid-century Hollywood myth that just won't die. Even when it was still possible to do so, a tiny, tiny minority of Rich Americans were actually evading taxes by hiding money overseas.

Today, it's virtually impossible to hide money overseas as an American after FATCA and various other crackdowns unless you are willing to entirely give up your US citizenship. Since the $USD is the reserve currency of the world, the US government has enormous leverage in mandating foreign banks to report on the assets of every single US citizen with money abroad.

In fact, foreign banks are so scared right now, many will refuse to even deal with Americans outright. It's a huge draconian nightmare for expats--99% of whom are not rich by any means.

Ironically, if you're looking to do something nefarious, the best place to do so is actually right here in the US! Numerous states allow you to create anonymous corporations and trusts.

<comment><USER14> Have you ever heard of the Panama Papers?

<comment><USER15> The above is the reason why there were very few Americans in those papers. They're not worth the risk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> One previous fraud man once told me when you acquire money through fraud, spend it all on powerful people who can reciprocate those favours later when all your assets are seized.

They can confiscate the money/assets, can they stop the barters who of which they've no records?

<comment><USER17> Don't coach people on criminal behaviour??

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Outline link for anyone who is not willing to fight with techcrunchs cookie monster.

[https://outline.com/Lpu8GE](https://outline.com/Lpu8GE)

<comment><USER19> Failing to load for me on iOS...?

Can't stand the TechCrunch Cookie Monster.

<comment><USER18> Hm, sorry, works on my Desktop with Firefox.

Ah, take the text, it's not that long:

\---

Anthony Levandowski, the engineer and autonomous vehicle startup founder who was at the center of a trade secrets lawsuit between Uber and Waymo, has been ordered to pay $179 million to end a contract dispute over his departure from Google.

Reuters was the first to report the court order.

An arbitration panel ruled in December that Levandowski and Lior Ron had engaged in unfair competition and breached their contract with Google when they left the company to start a rival autonomous vehicle company focused on trucking, called Otto. Uber acquired Otto in 2017. A San Francisco County court confirmed Wednesday the panel's decision.

Ron settled last month with Google for $9.7 million. However, Levandowski, had disputed the ruling. The San Francisco County Superior Court denied his petition today, granting Google's petition to hold Levandowski to the arbitration agreement under which he was liable.

Levandowski himself may not have to pay the money personally, as this sort of liability may fall to his employer depending on his contract or other legal quirks. However, Levandowski personally filed today for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, stating that the presumptive $179M debt quite exceeds his assets, which he estimates at somewhere between $50M and $100M.

A representative for Levandowski declined comment for this story.

Devin Coldewey contributed to this story.

<comment><USER19> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm not a Levandowski fan (although he was a brilliant engineer) but Travis Kalanick should probably write half that check.

<comment><USER21> I am not sure I would call him a brilliant engineer if he had to steal designs from Google.

<comment><USER22> It was his team at Google that made the designs in the first place...

<comment><USER21> Meh. What commercial product has the guy ever released? I've been involved in many and I can tell you that with each one of them I knew exactly what I would do differently the next time. I didn't need an old design because I knew what we needed to do without having to refer to the old design. If this guy was so brilliant he wouldn't have stolen because he'd have known how to make the design better.

Rather I think he stole the designs for expediency out of greed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> >"However, Levandowski personally filed today for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, stating that the presumptive $179M debt quite exceeds his assets, which he estimates at somewhere between $50M and $100M."

Could someone with a legal background say what this means in practical terms? Stating you have assets worth "between $50M and $100M" while declaring bankruptcy obviously looks absurd on it's face but I'm guessing there's much more to this?

<comment><USER15> Well, $100M is a lot less than $197M. Bankruptcy doesn't mean "out of money" it means that you have debts that you have no way of paying. I would expect a bankruptcy court to force him to liquidate almost all of that $100M to pay the judgement. I don't know if an arbitration judgement like this can be discharged through bankruptcy, some judgements and penalties cannot.

<comment><USER24> Also, he probably has other debts, and this process will sort out who gets what (since not everyone can get the full amount they are owed).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Glad to know you can't steal work from your employer and get away with it

</comment><comment><USER26> A friend of mine heard his personal attorney speak at a law school class. Even his attorney thought Anthony was a "jackass" for stealing the IP; his defense fell on him being an engineer who, at the end of the day, just wanted to build cool shit and wasn't malicious.

<comment><USER27> Just a regular guy with assets somewhere between 50 and 100 million dollars.

<comment><USER28> well, multiples of that before this settlement was announced.

<comment><USER29> No, those are pre-settlement. He's now insolvent. The article touches on this at the end.

<comment><USER30> Not if he bought a mansion in Florida early on.

<comment><USER31> That's an asset, right? So it would be part of the $50-100M

<comment><USER32> Primary residence in Florida is shielded from bankruptcy and creditors. Also retirement accounts (both IRAs and 401ks). Lease your expensive ride and you're mostly judgement proof.

<comment><USER33> Can you shield additional liquid assets by installing solid gold toilets in your Florida mansion?

<comment><USER34> Probably, it is not uncommon for people to dump large sums of money into renovations to their property before a bankruptcy.

Although I would imagine if it was very egregious, like $1m toilets when essentially no one else has anything reasonably close to that, that a judge would probably strike that down and require you to liquidate it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> > Ron settled last month with Google for $9.7 million.

Smart guy.

<comment><USER36> He works for Uber. They paid his bill.

<comment><USER34> So did lewendowski when the event in question took place.

They are technically on the hook for his too but they will definitely try to argue that since an actual crime took place, their indemnity only goes so far. And I'm sure there is some language to that effect in their policies as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> What the case was about is employee mobility, competition, and the onerous employee agreements with secretive and punitive arbitration clauses that Big Tech forces their employees to sign. So yes, Anthony may have lost his case but that's because all employees - especially high prized ones like him - <USER2> forced into these agreements and play on an uneven playing field. Thankfully there have been recent improvements in easing these when it comes to sexual harrasment, of which Google is a major violator and leading example, but don't kid yourself the problem is not solved. In all other respects all tech workers are subject to these super stringent employment terms and secretive arbitrations controlled by the tech giants. And if they can try and destroy a big deal employee like Anthony like this, what hope is there for the average tech worker.

<comment><USER37> What?

This has nothing to do with arbitration. Levandowski was sued for IP theft (and faces criminal charges for the same)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Some backstory (2018)

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/22/did-uber- steal...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/22/did-uber-steal- googles-intellectual-property)

<comment><USER39> Good read. This made me chuckle

"Even the Levandowskis' nanny assumed a minor role in the drama, when she filed a multimillion-dollar suit of her own, claiming that Anthony had been emotionally abusive to her, and that he had a drawer that was filled with sex toys. (The lawsuit, which offered no evidence of her claims and contained multiple factual errors, was eventually dropped.)"

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I obviously can do the math, but is there anyway this guy is not financially completely ruined now? I kinda always assume when you get into the 100M+ range, you can fuck up but still not go to zero (aka you have houses, cars, land etc that google can claw back)

</comment><comment><USER41> He can easily get a job that pays 10M a year

</comment><comment><USER41> Peanuts

<comment><USER42> I'd happily take some peanuts if you have any to spare

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Oof.

</comment><comment><USER44> Bit unrelated, but could somebody highlight the comma splices mentioned in the comments section? As a non-native english speaker, I can't notice anything out of the ordinary.

<comment><USER45> " However, Levandowski personally filed today for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, stating that the presumptive $179M debt quite exceeds his assets, which he estimates at somewhere between $50M and $100M."

I'm not an English expert, but I am a native speaker. Although the above sentence is understandable, when you look at it closer the sentence structure is a bit wonky. Anecdotally, I don't like starting a sentence with "However,", and this article has that twice. I think it is that kind of style where the author is making a statement and then forcing you to hold it in memory, so to speak, is what the commenter is referring to. It gets mentally taxing to keep track of all of the threads.

<comment><USER46> While that style might not be to everyone's taste, that sentence definitely is grammatically correct and does not have any comma splices. Personally I don't find it that awkward either.

<comment><USER47> Is is really meaningful, as a defence, to say a sentence is grammatically correct, if the meaning is unclear or the style is wretched?

Instead we should ask, if a sentence is unclear and wretchedly wrought, what purpose is served in pointing out its grammatical correctness? That is like admiring a two legged horse.

The author was no doubt under a tight deadline and just bashing it out with even less thought than I give to this post, but nevertheless has an MSc in Journalism (how is that an MSc?) and a BA, and can surely do better.

<comment><USER48> Misquoting Futurama, "they are technically correct, the best kind of correct."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I call this justice well served.

<comment><USER50> Only if he actually has to pay.

<comment><USER51> ..."Levandowski himself may not have to pay the money personally, as this sort of liability may fall to his employer depending on his contract or other legal quirks."

<comment><USER52> You can see immediately below that he personally filed for bankruptcy. Now when rich people do this it doesn't always mean the same thing as when ordinary people do it, but it seems unlikely that he would need to take that step if he had no liability.

<comment><USER51> Chapter 11 buys more time.

Don't forget he still has criminal charges pending: [https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-uber-self- drivin...](https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-uber-self-driving-car- executive-indicted-alleged-theft-trade-secrets-google?mod=article_inline)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I can't believe he made that much as an individual contributor at Google. #goals.

</comment><comment><USER54> Seems out of proportion given 1) Google was willing to settle for <$10M with Ron and 2) Equifax only paid ~2x for leaking pretty much 50% of the SSNs in the country[1]...

[1]:[https://threatpost.com/equifax-settles-class-action- lawsuit/...](https://threatpost.com/equifax-settles-class-action- lawsuit/151873/)

<comment><USER55> The difference is that Lewandowski realized the value of the IP with the sale of the company. If the jury decides trade secrets made up x% of the company, he owes that percent of his proceeds. IMO, IANAL.

<comment><USER52> Arbitration panel, in this case. The real answer is that the legal system is not set up to keep a globally consistent harm_done->liability map. For one thing, the contents of employment contracts may lead to different damages in otherwise identical circumstances. For another thing, even if the circumstances were identical, it would be inefficient for justices to have to search every other possible case to make sure they are consistent with each other one. The law is a fuzzy rule system, not a perfect logical construct.

<comment><USER55> True, it shows that even highly valuable employees are Davids (or Sauls) against a corporate Goliath.

<comment><USER52> Not sure the relevance of the metaphor. In this case it seems like Goliath ended up stepping o David's head.

<comment><USER55> The winner isn't predetermined.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Are ML model parameters copyrightable? Should it be? To me, it looks like that is the only claim google has - rest of the algorithms are all open sourced already.

Honestly, I don't see much difference between this and the oracle java case. Google can't have it both ways.

<comment><USER57> This case involved technology that even hardcore critics of intellectual property rights would presumably consider "classic" patents. The LIDAR hardware was one of the major items, IIRC.

I don't remember anything about ML and especially not model parameters. But, yes, I'm somewhat sure those would meet the criteria for copyright.

What's far more interesting is the copyright status of the _output_ of ML models: does it meet the required "creativity" when it's just the product of a computation you set up once, a long time ago? And is the ML model's creator still close enough to the product to be considered its author? If your text generator was trained on Wikipedia data, are the wikipedia authors co- creators? This stuff is going to be fun...

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> It's been amusing to hear his story. Starting a church/religion was my favorite part.

I bet Google and a bunch of other companies are excited about the message this sends to other arrogant engineers who might be considering leaving and building new companies with ideas developed at their prior places of employment. That precedent is worth billions if not trillions.

<comment><USER59> This is harmful to innovation in the Bay Area. Big Tech eats up all the talent and now sends the signal that they can't leave. The trial hasn't even begun for this case - I think they're still debating what constitutes a trade secret. This seems personal. Google got angry that one of their "own" went to a competitor.

I bet this will make companies think twice about acquiring startups founded by Google employees.

<comment><USER6> > This seems personal. Google got angry that one of their "own" went to a > competitor.

He literally copied gigabytes of work onto hard drives and stole them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Google's SDC efforts are rooted in Anthony's work: he helped kickstart the entire industry. Mark Harris broke the story here: [https://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/artificial- intelligence/t...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/artificial- intelligence/the-unknown-startup-that-built-googles-first-selfdriving-car)

I don't know what IP is in question, but it seems to me that he had been working in AVs longer than almost anyone in the industry, so it's believable that Uber was valuing the Otto team's accumulated experience, rather than any stolen ideas.

<comment><USER61> This is completely misleading. Even if his first company was the first self driving vehicle project ever (which was not) or the only piece in the puzzle (which it wasn't either), there were other cofounders of that startup. This is glorifying one person using other people's work.

<comment><USER60> It was the first self-driving car project to cause established companies to take notice and start investing heavily, kickstarting the industry, which was my point.

Other co-founders, yes, but Anthony was overall product lead. The article goes into detail.</comment></comment></comment>


Moving Away from Cloudflare[2017] - <AUTHOR> https://serverfault.com/questions/831145/moving-away-from-cloudflare <comment><AUTHOR> it seems to be a very easy thing to do. Im thinking anybody that has been kicked out of cloudflare, will not be gone permanently,but will at least linger in shadow for sometime.</comment>


9th Circuit: It's a crime to visit a website after being told not to visit it - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/12/9th-circuit-its-a-federal-crime-to-visit-a-website-after-being-told-not-to-visit-it/ <comment><USER2> This opinion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the internet works.

A client which is on the same network as a server can _request_ data from the server, and the server chooses how to reply. The internet is just a really big network, so for an internet-facing computer the assumption is that anyone can _request_ data. The analogy of the request-response process to physical space isn't--as the judge claimed--someone entering a building, but rather someone asking permission to enter the building. Asking permission to enter a bank with a shotgun is very different from actually entering and is not itself a crime (as far as I'm aware).

 _Every_ interaction between the client and server begins as a _request_ from the client. If the server replies "yes, have some data" it's nonsensical that this could be construed as gaining unauthorized access, as Facebook claims. Ultimately, Facebook still controls access to its servers; it just hasn't figured out a good policy for denying certain requests. This is a technical problem which should be solved through technical means (e.g. blocking IP addresses) or by changing its terms of service with its users.

Unfortunately, rather than solving the problem itself, Facebook has convinced the federal government to work on its behalf through an especially blunt weapon known as the CFAA. This risks changing the entire legal framework in which everyone else is required to operate. Technology moves much faster than the laws governing it, so we may not appreciate the full impact of this decision until later. That should give even proponents some pause.

<comment><USER3> Someone raises this argument in every thread about the concept of unauthorized access. I have yet to obtain from those threads a satisfactory answer to this question:

If what you say about "requests" and "responses" is both true and dispositive of the issue of authorization, then you're saying that virtually every SQL injection vulnerability on the Internet is also an "authorized" form of access to people's backend databases. Nobody should be prosecuted for those either. After all, most of those attacks take the form of simple HTTP requests --- in fact, many of them are triggerable simply from GET URLs.

How does this definition of "authorization" make sense?

<comment><USER4> > If what you say about "requests" and "responses" is both true and > dispositive of the issue of authorization, then you're saying that virtually > every SQL injection vulnerability on the Internet is also an "authorized" > form of access to people's backend databases.

I would say that the SQL/HTTP equest with the SQL injection is _per se_ legal. The damage that it has intentionally caused is what the law should punish.

"You are free to tell me whatever you want, but beware: if you catch me offguard and make a damage, then you will be punished for it."

<comment><USER5> So you think only _success_ is punishable? So if someone takes a swing at you, it's only assault if they connect? If someone takes a shot, it's only illegal if the bullet hits you? If someone tries to break into your house, it's legal until they get inside?

Or are computers special for some reason?

<comment><USER6> Computers are special for some reason.

I can't punch you in the face over the computer, but I can take a swing at you in front of my monitor even I don't know where you are afk. Is that alright under the law?

That was rhetorical; of course it's alright. I'm doing it right now, for all you know.

And yeah, it's not possible B&E until you('re caught) B&E. You might have to commit trespass to get that close, but that's a different law.

The perversion is when you get charged with B&E for walking into a building open to the public just because security didn't stop you from going inside.

<comment><USER5> > _Computers are special for some reason._

And what reason is that?

> _I can 't punch you in the face over the computer, but I can take a swing at > you in front of my monitor even I don't know where you are afk. Is that > alright under the law?_

That's not taking a swing at me. That's you swinging wildly in the air in front of your monitor. Yes, that's legal, if pointless.

> _And yeah, it 's not possible B&E until you('re caught) B&E. You might have > to commit trespass to get that close, but that's a different law._

As Thomas noted, attempted breaking and entering is a crime as well.

> _The perversion is when you get charged with B &E for walking into a > building open to the public just because security didn't stop you from going > inside._

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that unauthorized access is like breaking and entering? A better analog for the case here is trespass. You won't be guilty of breaking and entering if you enter a mall after being asked to stay out, but you will be guilty of trespass. No one is required to post guards to keep you out. Simply tell you is enough to legally obligate you to stay out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The court seems to have it right, while the article author doesn't see the court's reasoning. The issue is whether accessing a web site after being sent a cease and desist letter telling you to stop is an act for which the accessor can be assessed damages. (Despite the title, this was a civil case, not a criminal case.)

A previous case established that accessing a web site in violation of its terms of use is not a offense under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. That's just a contractual issue.

Here, though, the site operator (Facebook) explicitly sent a cease and desist letter to the accessing service, telling them to stop doing what they were doing (which apparently involved some kind of message sending on behalf of Facebook users). That put the accessing service on notice that they were accessing the site without authorization. After that, access was considered unauthorized. Seems reasonable enough.

<comment><USER8> This gets into the whole debate over who owns, or should own, your data

IMO I should have the right to access, and authorize 3rd parties to access, data stored about me even if it is on a 3rd party platform like facebook. If Facebook does not want to allow Me or my authorized agents to access this data then facebook;s only recurse should be to prevent me from using their platform AND delete any and all they have collected about me.

Here Facebook wants to control how my data is used, stored, and disseminated. they want the ability to Prevent me or my Authorized Agents from access my data, but they do not want to be forced to delete said data.

I am a strong advocate of strong Data protection, access, and Right to Know laws.

Authorization is the key question, for me Power Partners was authorized, by the USER, that should be all the Authorization they need. Facebook should be sending notices and cancelling the accounts of the USERS that authorized Power Partners, not be going after power partners directly.

<comment><USER9> I disagree. That is, I agree that you should ultimately own your data and have the right to decide what Facebook is allowed to do with it, to have them tell you what data they have, and to have them delete it. I don't agree that you should have the right to force them to provide data-related services to you or anyone else simply because they have your data. If you want another third party to have access to your data, you can provide it to them directly. Don't have a server set up with a popular API for that? That doesn't mean you get to force someone who does to do it for you.

<comment><USER8> I do not believe I advocated for anything like that.

In this case The data was either Scraped via downloading the HTML pages, or used Facebooks API with the users permission. I believe that should be all that is required is the user permission, if the USER does something that is a violation facebook policy then the recourse should be banning of the User, and removal of all data for that user. Facebook does not want that however. So you see Facebook does not have to provide anything, but they can not pick and choose what a person does with the data they are storing about them.

That said there is one Data Service I do believe should be required, I should be able to request my data from any company to be delivered to me in some kind of Machine Readable format. XML, JSON, some other structured format. This could be only on Condition of Closing my account, or some other string attached, but I should be able to get access to this data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> With Facebook buttons being on many websites now, wouldn't Power technically breach the cease-and-desist by visiting any web site that has a Facebook button? That's what troubles me about this, websites aren't fixed to a single location like physical locations are. You can 'access a computer' without really being aware of it.

<comment><USER11> Playing devil's advocate, shouldn't this work in reverse? Providing their IP address, shouldn't someone be able to send Facebook a cease and desist order to stop trespassing on their system by running Facebook javascript in their browser (via like buttons) when visiting non-Facebook domains?

<comment><USER12> I'd recommend you put that devil back in it's bag otherwise we're going to end up with another annoying law like that EU one that gives rise to the cookie permission notification, which everyone just clicks to make the stupid banner go away, thereby granting permission.

<comment><USER13> > which everyone just clicks to make the stupid banner go away, thereby > granting permission.

I don't use Facebook and would be happy to have all their like buttons (which are tracking me across sites) wiped out from all the sites I visit. Mmatrix mostly catches them but I wouldn't mind having it on a legal basis.

<comment><USER14> Websites would then just set up proxies to do the same thing. Rather than adding a JS call on a page, you'd get some sort of FB-provided box that makes it look like all scripts originate from your domain. This would only hit small operations without the time or inclination to add extra infrastructure to support social sharing, everyone else would carry on as before. Maybe an industry-standard proxy format for shared hosts would emerge at some point, giving the same power to small actors, and you'd be back to square 1.

<comment><USER13> Is that a legal way to avoid a cease and desist? If PowerVentures which was asked to cease and desist and lost, now outsourced their Facebook API use to a third-party (still performing the same function) - would the court really not find against them?

<comment> gm-conspiracy Based on the judge's reasoning, I would say yes.

Until the 3rd party received its own cease-and-desist, then Power would switch to another 3rd party provider.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The physical space analogies in the comments seem reasonable:

"If I am given a formal trespass warning by Wal-Mart which covers the property of Wal-Mart, going back is a criminal offense. Going into the store is an offense. Driving in the parking lot, if it is owned by them is an offense. The different norms of public spaces vs private spaces vs semi-public space goes out the window when you have been formally trespassed from a place. I don't see why the exact same rules shouldn't be applied in the context of computer trespass."

It doesn't quite feel right and my intuition says that the same rules should NOT be applied in the context of a computer trespass, but I haven't yet thought of a satisfying counterargument.

<comment><USER16> To me, a website feels more like a newspaper than a physical space. Can the WaPo legally ban me from reading a copy I find whether its in a news-stand or on the metro?

We don't try to apply trespass laws to my eyeballs, instead we have copyright to prevent actions like reselling WaPo content.

<comment><USER17> Let's say you start harassing the newspaper delivery boy and WaPo decides to cut off service to your house after he reports it. Also, WaPo sends you a letter saying that you are prohibited from seeking delivery in the future. You decide to start living at your neighbor's house and set up a new delivery service there instead. That's not okay.

With your newsstand example, let's say you go to a newsstand and tear up all the newspapers while laughing maniacally -- banned for life! Now you can't get WaPo from the newsstand either. You're not banned by WaPo, and, yes, if you find a copy on the sidewalk, you're still free to read it, but you're further limited in your legal options for obtaining it.

Facebook isn't the "eyeball police" but it can refuse to deliver content to you for violating their terms of service, after notifying you. Because they own the data and the only way to access it is through their servers, they can ban you from accessing their servers. Theoretically, if someone prints out their data and sends it to you, yes, you can read it. But if you initiate the request/delivery, that's not allowed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> vertex-four To intentionally access a computer system after being told not to by its owner is, by definition, unauthorized access of a computer system - the core of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. That should be pretty clear.

However, the law in question is old and probably doesn't make much sense any more. Claiming that the courts made the wrong decision is nonsense - the law needs to be rewritten.

</comment><comment><USER18> The law is not good, but the court's ruling seems correct and following the law.

The law says, "Unauthorized access to computer systems is a crime." Facebook sent them a cease-and-desist letter saying not to access their system anymore. The court agreed that at that point, they were no longer authorized to access the system, and that they knew they were not authorized.

So unless the law is unconstitutional, them the only way to solve the problem is by getting congress to change the law. Maybe that sucks but welcome to America.

</comment><comment><USER19> Late to the party, but my 2 cents.

If I'm ordered to avoid a certain house or small non-social website, I can do that easily.

Facebook on the other hand, goes out of it's way to make contact with me. I have to use special browser add-ons to keep it from tracking my web behavior across other sites. Is this contact? What happens if 3rd party sends me something that is Facebook related and I accidentally click on it?

The order to not contact Facebook reminds me a little of an order to stay away from any physical location where post or shipping activities are conducted or offered. Potentially so broad an order that would preclude me from visiting any location in my community (grocery stores with post offices) or any website online (www.momandpopwebsite.com with integrated FB social media stuff).

<comment><USER20> The real-life metaphor doesn't seem to follow. This would be like being banned from a store and then arguing that their marketing flyer constitutes permission to reenter.

The courts aren't so black and white that they would prosecute someone for accidental requests.

But the more important point is that is a 'website' property that you get the legal right of exclusion on? Is the land metaphor even meaningful?

<comment><USER19> My concern with a court ordering non-contact with Facebook is that Facebook's omnipresence on the internet would make complying with that order quite difficult in practice. Simply going online, with intent to go online, would be sufficient to violate a non-contact order.

In my (perhaps bad) example, the grocery store with an in-store post office, was to try to extend the blurring of lines between two independent parties in the physical world. Post office may wish to exclude you from all their places of operations, but you still gotta eat and get food from somewhere.

To function in this world, you need the ability to get online and if you are online long enough, you will touch Facebook systems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I assume this is the same Power Ventures Facebook previously won an important judgement against: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Power_Ventur...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Power_Ventures,_Inc).

In that case Facebook asserted that it was a copyright violation when Power Ventures copied data to it's servers, parsed out the pieces they cared about (for contact aggregation), and dropping the rest. The court agreed, ruling that making even a temporary copy in computer memory was indeed a copy.

This appears to be another part of that same case, this piece dealing with the promotional campaign Power Ventures ran. These two have a long history of litigation.

</comment><comment><USER22> What if Zuckerberg had received a cease and desist letter when he was accessing computers without authorization at Harvard?

Before any student willingly sent him personal information, he had to exfiltrate such information i.e. photos of other students so other students would be compelled to look at websites he created using said photos.

He did eventually receive a cease and desist letter, and he ignored it. But of course it was not from the people charged with protecting students' personal information nor the students themselves. You know the story.

As with Google, under today's culture it's acceptable for Facebook to aggressively collect personal information in bulk and pay little attention to obtaining permissions, but it is not acceptable for anyone to attempt to collect information in bulk from Google or Facebook. This make no sense to me, but I gues I am just obtuse.

Maybe what Kerr is wondering is when the necessity of sending costly snail mail cease and desist letters will give way to some less expensive digital form of notice. When that happens, the _threat_ of the CFAA can be used on a mass scale. Perhaps then we would see it in every Terms of Service. Maybe we could create a new HTTP response code: HTTP/1.1 606 CFAA Notice.

</comment><comment><USER23> How would you know that the link was requested deliberately by a user and not by JavaScript or some other autonomous network client? You cannot, unless there's a tamper-proof and indisputable (aka we know how to interpret brain waves) 24/7 audit log of a person's brain activities. Clients prefetching resources or even looking up DNS is fully automatic and already happens today. If this becomes law, a random website need only insert URLs on an otherwise innocuous page, for someone to get into trouble.

<comment><USER24> This is the kind of logic that programmer types often apply erroneously to the legal system.

The answer to your question of how one would determine is the same as it generally is: humans would examine the available admissible information and draw a conclusion based on the preponderance of the evidence.

A huge difference between the two rules-based systems is that the legal system contains judges and juries, who routinely can and do just jump into the middle of a situation such as you describe and declare that's not what the rules meant.

Which seems like a good context with which to view this case. Many here are saying "well in this case it was deliberate but what if..." while others point out that noting the actions of the defendant as deliberate and purposeful is not an observation that's exogenous to the system.

<comment><USER25> In response to common programmer thinking like this I like to make my students read "What colour are your bits?"[0].

[0] [http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23](http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Does this apply to google bots and other spiders/crawlers?

<comment><USER7> It would if you sent Google a cease and desist notice. But Google seems to obey "robots.txt", so you usually don't have to.

<comment><USER27> 1\. register lots of domains

2\. send Google cryptic cease and desist for each domain

3\. wait for Google to accidently violate cease and desist

4\. profit

What can possibly go wrong?

<comment><USER28> The judge, _a human who possesses common sense_ , sees you've registered lots of domains and spammed C&D letters to Google, calls you out on your BS, and orders you to pay Google's legal fees?

<comment><USER29> So, find a Judge in east texas?

<comment><USER28> Wrong issue. That's for patent lawsuits.

<comment><USER29> Well, it was more in jest, but the argument I wanted to make was that there will be a judge allowing that.

Remember Scientology's SeaOrg suing thousands of IRS employees and the IRS? Those weren't thrown out either.

<comment><USER30> > the argument I wanted to make was that there will be a judge allowing that.

This argument only works if the system doesn't have the ability to appeal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I wonder if the ruling would be different if Power had done the scraping client-side instead of using its servers. For example, if they had distributed a tweaked Facebook app for jailbroken devices that allowed users to "log into" Facebook and scrape data using their own device and Internet connection.

Or, more simply, a third party app that users install on their phone and calls the "private" Facebook API directly.

Would the same arguments hold?

<comment><USER32> I have the same question. In this case Facebook was able to identify Power acting on behalf of users because requests came from a common set of IP addresses.

If Power had instead provided users with software to run from their own devices would that change anything?

In both situations this is user authorized behavior and the ability of Facebook to identify an involved service as assisting users should be irrelevant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Could this insane logic be applied in reverse? Suppose I just announce that I don't allow Facebook to "invade" my computer and to track me while I visit websites (FB now does this even with logged off users). Could I then sue FB when those scripts appear inside of pages I visit?

</comment><comment><USER34> The article badly misunderstands the court's ruling

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm usually very wary of slippery slopes but this a business-to-business dispute. Based on the description, it appears that Facebook has a legitimate beef because Power's monetization depends on using users' accounts for Power's gain, and not simply to provide a useful tool for Facebook users. Facebook has a reasonable case that Power was underhanded. Building contact management tools that spam your contacts is, sadly, a pretty common dark pattern and Facebook should want to prevent that happening to Facebook users.

</comment><comment><USER36> So then am I able to put an alert() on my page demanding that all law enforcement personnel _not_ visit my site? And is this now enforceable? What about if I demand that black people not visit my page?

In my mind, it's a distant cousin of Sony telling people they can't mess with their Playstations even though they bought them. This puts _so_ much power into the hands of the site owner. And it's for a _criminal offense_!

<comment><USER37> This case is civil, so I believe that Law Enforcement would have some sort of indemnity. As for discrimination, I believe certain civil rights laws prevent U.S. businesses from enforcing a suite like that.

</comment></comment><comment> gm-conspiracy Can somebody please clarify, Facebook initiated a civil suit base on the CFAA violation, after the cease-and-desists?

 _Facebook then sued, claiming that Power's conduct violated the CFAA_

So, was there a government initiated prosecution for this criminal violation?

How can you use CFAA violations in civil court without a criminal conviction of the violation?

By using preponderance of evidence in lieu of reasonable doubt seems troubling for a criminal violation, or is this not the situation?

<comment><USER38> > So, was there a government initiated prosecution for this criminal > violation?

There was no alleged criminal violation. CFAA provides both civil and criminal causes of action; the interpretation that this sets a standard for criminal law is not that this was a criminal violation, but that the requirement which was being applied applies both to civil and criminal CFAA provisions.

> How can you use CFAA violations in civil court without a criminal conviction > of the violation?

You can do so because the CFAA explicitly creates a civil cause of action not dependent on a criminal conviction,

> By using preponderance of evidence in lieu of reasonable doubt seems > troubling for a criminal violation, or is this not the situation?

There is (in general) no "criminal violation" involved in a civil CFAA action.

<comment> gm-conspiracy Thank you for the clarification.

I was not aware CFAA provided civil causes of action.

 _but that the requirement which was being applied applies both to civil and criminal CFAA provisions_

Since it applies to both, the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding, would still be higher, no?

<comment><USER38> > Since it applies to both, the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding, > would still be higher, no?

Yes, even where the same fact question applies to establish criminal liability as exists to establish civil liability, in a criminal case the prosecution will be obliged to prove the fact beyond a reasonable doubt, while in a civil action it will only need to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> If I understood the ruling right, then I send FB a "cease and desist" letter prohibiting FB from accessing _my_ computers, et voilà, all carte blanche privacy violations by FB will go poof because they would be committing a federal crime if they so much as showed their icon in another website I visit?

<comment><USER38> > If I understood the ruling right

You don't understand the ruling right. Or, possibly, you don't understand how the web works right -- Facebook doesn't actively reach out to your computer to show an icon, your computer sends a request to Facebook for the icon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40>
        > when it continued to access Facebook's computers

Isn't this the crux of the problem? Viewing it as "accessing" a company's "computer", rather than making use of a service in any truer "analogue world" manner?

</comment><comment><USER41> Regardless of how you feel about the opinion. The one thing that stood out for me was the walled garden. If you really want more and more of these cases to happen, keep using these giant walled gardens like Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER42> Disappointing! Especially since the data in question is technically the ownership of the individual (regardless of what Facebook and it's BS lawyer- speak makes you believe).

</comment><comment><USER43> Previous submission 11 days ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12089068](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12089068)

</comment><comment><USER44> I misread the title as "It's a crime NOT to visit a website after being told not to visit it" at first and it made a lot more sense that way.

</comment><comment><USER45> So, I suggest a few prominent web presences communicate to the judge and prosecution that they are no longer welcome at those sites.

</comment><comment><USER46> ...This is why we have a SCOTUS.

<comment><USER30> SCOTUS are just as capable of bad decisions as other federal judges. They're not magical, and we get stuff like Citizens United and Dred Scott.

<comment><USER38> > They're not magical, and we get stuff like Citizens United and Dred Scott.

Leaving aside CU right now, I'm less convinced that Dred Scott was a bad judicial decision than I am that it reflected the fundamentally irreconcilably bad state of the Constitutional order when you have entities that, depending on which subordinate jurisdictions law applies to them, may be either chattel or persons with all the rights and privileges attendant thereto.

As much as the founders tried to make it work to cover up the deep divisions that existed in the early US, the basic structure of government set up under the Constitution just doesn't work well when the basic definition of "what is a person vs. what is property" isn't consistent across the states.

That's not to say that there isn't an argument that Dred Scott was wrongly decided, just that the usual argument (which focuses on the immorality, from a modern viewpoint, of the result) sort of ignores the fact that _any_ system in which slavery is part of the law will _necessarily_ produce results abhorrent to modern morality.

<comment><USER47> The problem with Dred Scott wasn't the ruling that SCOTUS was asked to rule on, namely, what the status of a slave was when an owner moved from a slave state to a free state. That aspect of the decision is fairly defensible under the given law (basically, you can argue that automatically emancipating the slave equated to an illegal, uncompensated taking of property). Odious, but defensible.

The problem of Dred Scott was that SCOTUS basically went on to argue that blacks, even freed slaves, weren't citizens and could never be citizens, and also argued that slavery could not be banned in any manner whatsoever by any level of government. It was a pretty naked attempt to tell the abolitionists "Slavery exists, and there's nothing you can do about it. Deal with it."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I'm not convinced that the article is entirely on point with the reading of the case. From the summary, Power Ventures, Inc (Powers) wasn't just visiting Facebook, they were interacting and removing userdata via a method that was not through the Facebook Connect program at the time:

>"Facebook has tried to limit and control access to its website. A non- Facebook user generally may not use the website to send messages, post photographs, or otherwise contact Facebook users through their profiles. Instead, Facebook requires third-party developers or websites that wish to contact its users through its site to enroll in a program called Facebook Connect."

[...]

>"In many instances, Power caused a message to be transmitted to the user's friends within the Facebook system. In other instances, depending on a Facebook user's settings, Facebook generated an e-mail message. If, for example, a Power user shared the promotion through an event, Facebook generated an e-mail message to an external e-mail account from the user to friends. The e-mail message gave the name and time of the event, listed Power as the host, and stated that the Power user was inviting the recipient to this event. The external e-mails were form e-mails, generated each time that a Facebook user invited others to an event. The "from" line in the e-mail stated that the message came from Facebook; the body was signed, "The Facebook Team."

>"On December 1, 2008, Facebook first became aware of Power's promotional campaign and, on that same date, Facebook sent a "cease and desist" letter to Power instructing Power to terminate its activities. Facebook tried to get Power to sign its Developer Terms of Use Agreement and enroll in Facebook Connect; Power resisted. " [1]

It's not made clear from the summary exactly what technical means Powers was using, but it seems like they were using functionality intended to be only available to developers via the Connect program and through access of the API through some other means.

That is, the access that is being described by the judge isn't just visiting a page, it's doing things like sending messages or photos or creating events as the user.

I don't really use Facebook and most definitely have not read the ToS for either developers or users, but it seems to me like the contention is that Powers was performing actions that should have been done through the Facebook Connect platform, not via the links they made on their page to have users post, and the users likely are not permitted within the TOS to grant someone developer access like this.

I'm not able to comment intelligently on how that should be handled, but I think that this is very different from the author's position of "it is a crime to visit a website you're not told to". Powers was very clearly not just visiting, they were interacting with data and exfiltraing data. Facebook said "as a dev, you need to access this data this way", Facebook blocked their method, and Powers circumvented these blocks. That is the contention, not that Powers "visited".

The rest I will leave for more intelligent people to argue.

[1] - [https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/12/1...](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/12/13-17102.pdf)

<comment><USER49> What about where it says "Facebook explicitly revoked authorization for _any_ access"? Doesn't that imply that the exact actions they made don't matter?

<comment><USER48> That phrase doesn't actually appear in the summary, and not sure what was actually in the C&D since it was not linked (and I haven't bothered to look for it).

My point was more that the Author did not really give a clear picture of what Powers was doing, which grants a bit more insight as to why FB even started the suit. I'm not sure that the summary or the article are very clear on what was forbidden and are using some lay person terms. (e.g., while the machines being accessed when you get at facebook are computers, we'd likely use a more precise term, like server, page, API, platform, etc.)

The summary misses a few key elements to make sense to us by and large, and the use of lay person teminology is causing confusion, and the article exacerbates this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Just stop using Facebook

</comment><comment><USER51> goto supremeCourt;</comment>


NameCheap Down for Maintenance [2014-08-15] - <AUTHOR> http://maintenance.namecheap.com/maintenance.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Cache Version: [https://archive.today/3HtaO](https://archive.today/3HtaO)</comment>


Ask HN: Who is looking for a co-founder? - <AUTHOR> There have been a few of these threads over the years, and now that we are moving into the YC-2018 application cycle, it's time for matchmaking.
Please indicate what you are building and what you are looking for.
Maybe someone should build a Tinder for finding cofounders <comment><USER2> I would be much more interest in finding people to work on small indie projects together than a startup that was hastily planned at the last minute.

<comment><USER2> I have mining rig with 3 1080s I was looking to do something with GANs on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I am potentially looking for a co-founder but am not entirely sure if it would be a good idea. I own a fledgling revenue-oriented transactional SaaS startup in a niche. Volume is low, margins are high, acquisition prospects are good if we can get rolling. Bootstrapped, started as a side project a couple years ago. Have a web app in production but finding good talent and financing the development has been challenging. Most contractors either price out of my budget or get cold feet about learning their way around the somewhat complex code base. Right now operating without a developer at all. Have some customers and a highly lucrative partnership in the final stages of negotiation (worth as much as $40K/week) but it's unlikely I'll be able to close on the deal if I can't line up some ongoing dev help. On one hand, I'm committed to seeing this through by whatever means necessary. On the other hand I have a bit of a sunk cost problem and am not sure, given the amount of work and money that has gone into the product thus far (and modest angel investment), that I could reasonably part with enough equity to interest a "co-founder." About me: tons of domain experience and contacts, highly product-focused, self-taught developer (have written reasonably large portions of the code base for tasks that I'm capable of coding well).

<comment><USER4> It sounds like maybe you need an employee not a cofounder.

<comment><USER3> All things being equal I would certainly prefer to just hire, but beggars can't be choosers. Ironically, I ended up bootstrapping the business because I could not find a technical co-founder in the early days. As a "non-technical founder" in the Bay Area without an educational or product management pedigree it's damn near impossible to find a technical co-founder because no one trusts that you aren't a slave-driving leech. And if you can't assemble a founding team it becomes almost impossible to raise more than 5 figures or be accepted to an incubator.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I built an open source real estate website builder:

[https://github.com/etewiah/property_web_builder](https://github.com/etewiah/property_web_builder)

This year I'm planning on adding some premium features to monetise. Would prefer to do this with a co-founder.

</comment><comment><USER6> Not my project, but a guy on Twitch streams while he's making this (which is kinda like the Tinder for entrepreneurs you're asking for) - [https://kaem.io/](https://kaem.io/)

</comment><comment><USER7> >Maybe someone should build a Tinder for finding cofounders

The best way to do this now is to attend tech and business Meetups in your area. In a big city, there are a lot of them.

</comment><comment><USER8> Potentially looking for a co-founder in SF/LA area. We have a working MVP with initial traction (paying customers coming soon) in the sales enablement SaaS field.

</comment><comment><USER9> Any Scotland based members looking for a project?</comment>


Ubuntu Font Family released. - <AUTHOR> http://font.ubuntu.com/

<comment><USER2> The "regular" and I think the "italic" have been released, but the rest are still in beta and under heavy development. The "regular monospace" only got hinting a few weeks ago, and it still needs some work.</comment>


Community Curated Unity Resources - <AUTHOR> https://hackr.io/tutorials/learn-unity <comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing this:)</comment>


Exiv2: multiple memory safety issues - <AUTHOR> http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2017/06/30/1 <comment><USER2> Download a maliciously crafted image from the internet, any tool with metadata parsing capabilities looks at it (file browser, pictures organizer, etc), boom!

They should fix the library.

The discussion of the issue is polite and interesting. The link in the post didn't work for me, this is the webcache [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oTsf77H...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oTsf77HvvlEJ:dev.exiv2.org/issues/1248+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=en)</comment>


Mobile Providers' Coverage Maps Investigation [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-361165A1.pdf <comment><USER2> Now if they could only come to the conclusion that most physical ISPs are also lying and or misleading consumers about broadband speed. I don't think that will happen under Ajit Pai though...

<comment><USER3> That's an issue for Joseph Simons.

<comment><USER4> or the Attorney General, or a consumer protection agency. Or in some states there are specific Utility Commissions, under which telephone should fall.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The four recommendations contained within the report are a great starting point but it can be expected that lobbying from various industry players will result in only cosmetic change. Practically, the only solution is a cause of action (beyond false advertising) relating to claimed coverage that cannot be disclaimed and can be litigated by private citizens individually and collectively. Once the lawsuits start piling up, honesty in coverage reporting will start to prevail.

</comment><comment><USER6> And it only took 15 years of Verizon lying about coverage in Vermont for anyone to start to care.

Verizon is (or at least was) the best option there, but like any big company operating in Vermont they forget anything outside Chittenden county exists.

</comment><comment><USER7> One thing that might solve this is to require that providers provide the service they say they can to the customers location for their standard charged install cost.

If they have to actually provide service to these locations I bet their coverage maps will better reflect reality. In the case of penetration into homes one can make allowances for that.

</comment><comment><USER8> Its outright fraud, as if you're a big enough customer, carriers will show you under NDA their real coverage estimates over a broad geography, give you quality projections at any geographic point, or even do a drive and get real time metrics in specific conditions.

So they know what's real.

<comment><USER9> _So they know what's real._

They know what's real because the company I used to work for (RootMetrics) did those drives, and sold the data to Verizon, et. al.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> So, a carrier lies to a consumer about network coverage to lock them into a contract, with no way out? Sounds like everyday, corporate America.

<comment><USER11> i'm not sure that's true, at least that wasn't true about 8 years ago when we moved accross the country and had verizon. it barely worked at our house, verizon actually sent out a truck and they measured signal strength on our street and did say that it was sub par and that they would let us out of our contracts. about a month later they must have added towers in the area because the speeds increased dramatically and we never ended up switching.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Recently I was doing some research on the 5G roll-out. I found an interesting stat regarding LTE in the US: LTE performance in the US is lower than most places, but LTE coverage (supposedly) is generally good. I wonder if fudging the coverage numbers accounts for this oddity.

This could have an influence on 5G roll-out since US carriers are heavily indebted. If that's inhibiting capex _and_ if the US network is already behind other nations' carriers' LTE networks because it was starved of capex, US carriers might be extra cautious about spending on 5G, which is supposed to raise opex, too.</comment>


First full-disk images of Earth from GOES-15 NASA/Boeing satellite - <AUTHOR> http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/MediaDetail.php?MediaID=904&MediaTypeID=1#.Tt5y-DtntM8.twitter

<comment><AUTHOR> More about the satellite here:

>GOES-P was built by Boeing for NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. Twelve days after a flawless launch, NASA and NOAA's Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-P (GOES-P) reached its proper orbit and was renamed GOES-15. GOES-15, is the latest in a series of meteorological satellites designed to watch for storm development and weather conditions on Earth. From its location in Earth orbit, GOES-15's state-of-the- art instrumentation will supply data used in weather monitoring, forecasting and warnings. It also will detect ocean and land temperatures, monitor space weather, relay communications and provide search-and-rescue support.</comment>


Another major Rackspace outage. (I'm moving my servers) - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/search?q=rackspace+status

<comment><USER2> I just chatted Rackspace (the Sales Dept to see what they would say), they said to me that all new accounts will be in the VA-DC facility, and not in the Dallas facility.

They never seem to have these problems in the San Antonio HQ facility. I wonder what the problem is with this particular Dallas facility. What could be the difference between the Dallas and San Antonio facilities? San Antonio seems to run like a clock, and the Dallas center seems to be starting to look like the Corvair--unsafe at any speed.

</comment><comment><USER3> When Rackspace has an outage does that generally mean Slicehost does as well? I ask because I was looking at using Slicehost but being a Rackspace company has me leery.

<comment><USER4> I believe most Slicehost slices are still hosted in St. Louis and would not be subject to the DFW data center downtime. Not sure if new ones are being created their or not.

<comment><USER5> From what I've heard new slices are automatically created in DFW, but you can request that they be moved to an STL datacenter by contacting support.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Realtime twitter updates in search, cool: <http://www.google.com/search?q=twitter+rackspace>

</comment><comment><USER6> I was able to ssh into my server on one IP, but not another, which also meant some sites worked and others didn't. Seems like a network connectivity issue.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> "Network issue, not power, you can remote desktop into device. Not sure what the problem is yet." According to phone support.

<comment><USER7> I couldn't remote desktop into my servers during the outage

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> philip: when is rackspace going to be back up?

Anarka F: looks like we just lost connection to a server in Dallas I do not have details since it just happened can I have your name and email address and I will send you details as soon as everything is back up

Anarka F: our engineers are on top of things! hang tight!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> <http://status.apps.rackspace.com/>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Rackspace is down, support not answering phone.</comment>


How to know who un-friended you on Facebook? - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsflap.com/2012/01/31/un-friended-facebook/

<comment><USER2> I still like that there is no un-friended application in facebook because I can still remove the people who are not really my friends but a mere acquaintance and they will not see that I have un-friended them.</comment>