Australia's anti-encryption law will merely relocate the backdoors: Expert - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/australias-anti-encryption-law-will-merely-relocate-the-backdoors-expert/ <comment><USER2> There is a government consultation process open _RIGHT NOW_ for this bill. You have to get your submissions in by the end of today (6 hours time). Every Australian here needs to make a submission (please).

The page for the inquiry is:

[https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/consultations/assistanc...](https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/consultations/assistance- and-access-bill-2018)

The email address for submissions is:

firstname.lastname@example.com

A submission only has to be a few lines, so just bang out a few words. Whilst a well researched submission is the gold standard, even a rudimentary email will send the message that people care about this issue and counter whoever is whispering in politicians' ears. Anything is better than nothing.

Less time critically, you also need to write to or call your federal MP.

\--- Edit:

The committee might also be swayed by submissions from non-Australian experts? Australia first, your country next.

<comment><USER3> _> Australia first, your country next._

Absolutely, specifically if you're living in a country that is a member of the Five Eyes.

They've actually been surprisingly transparent that this is a coordinated effort. The Official Communiqué opens with:

 _> We, the Homeland Security, Public Safety, and Immigration Ministers of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States met on the Gold Coast, Australia, on August 28-29 2018, to discuss how we can better collaborate to meet our common security challenges._

Full read: [https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/national- security/five-...](https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/national- security/five-country-ministerial-2018)

<comment><USER4> The 5 eyes nations are a true New World Order. This is terrifying, and we should _not_ be allowing our sovereignty to be so easily usurped for the purpose of building this new order.

<comment><USER5> The others maybe, but new Zealand is no one's new world order :).

Aus + UK + US are the real drivers.

<comment><USER6> Aus the primary driver? A 25m population country with an economy smaller than California, and we're driving things.

Dutton is being fed from defense dollars, from the US.

<comment><USER4> 6th largest 'defence' budget in the world.

 _SIXTH_...

<comment><USER3> Reference please.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ranks Australia as 13th, at 2% of Australia's GDP[1][2].

Which is below the worldwide average of 2.2%, although given our geographic remoteness and relative security, I absolutely agree that it's too much.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies places Australia at 12th.

[1] [https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/1_Data%20for%20all...](https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/1_Data%20for%20all%20countries%20from%201988%E2%80%932017%20in%20constant%20%282016%29%20USD.pdf) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The key example justifying the need for this bill is as follows:

> A high risk Registered Sex Offender (RSO) was placed on the register for > raping a 16 year old female, served nine years imprisonment and is now > monitored by Corrections via two ankle bracelets whilst out on parole. > Victoria Police received intel that he was breaching his RSO and parole > conditions by contacting a number of females typically between 13 and 17 > years of age. Enquiries showed that he was contacting these females and > offering them drugs in return for sexual favours. The suspect was arrested > and his mobile phone was seized but despite legislative requirements he > refused to provide his passcode. Due to an inability to access his phone as > well as the fact that he used encrypted communication methods such as > Snapchat and Facebook Messenger, Victoria Police was unable to access > evidence which would have enabled them to secure a successful prosecution > and identify further victims and offences. These are high victim impact > crimes that are being hindered by the inability of law enforcement to access > encrypted communications.

The limited information reveals they identified some targets, which means they would know (some of) his Facebook and Snapchat account names.

While the content of messages can be encrypted, the connection graph is not, so why couldn't Victorian Police request details of accounts the suspect's account had communicated with and request the parents of those users provide endpoint access to the encrypted chat history?

<comment><USER8> Why must we all open our communication just because of a few sick individuals who are already imprissioned or under surveillance?

<comment><USER9> You'd be surprised at what "a few sick individuals" can do to _civilized_ society.

<comment><USER4> Especially when they are in power and can operate in unfettered secrecy, away from civil society - the only really truly effective governor of heinous human activities such as those enacted by the current mob of Australian politicos/oligarchs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From a different article referenced by this article:

Turnbul says:

> "A back door is typically a flaw in a software program that perhaps the -- > you know, the developer of the software program is not aware of and that > somebody who knows about it can exploit," he said. "And, you know, if there > are flaws in software programs, obviously, that's why you get updates on > your phone and your computer all the time."

>"So we're not talking about that. We're talking about lawful access."

And again, the warfare is linguistic dictionary wars all over again (like "collection" etc...)

He just redefines "back door" to denote 0-day in order to be able to define "lawful access" as the TrustZone root & automagical updates which is the backdoor they demand access to.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's frightening how politicians with such little knowledge and understanding of certain subjects have so much power to create legislation about those subjects. But apparently that's how we have built our civilization, through trial and error.

<comment><USER12> The problem is that we as a society already agreed that it's acceptable.

We allowed the government to open mail, open locks and tap phones with a warrant all of which were technically challenging.

Phone networks must be set up with specific dedicated access for law enforcement heck I remember crawling through the SNMP MIBs on my Motorola cable modem 15 years ago and discovering a whole class of them dedicated to lawful interception.

Most networking equipment providers even have guides on how to set these up: [https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios- xml/ios/sec_usr_cf...](https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios- xml/ios/sec_usr_cfg/configuration/xe-3s/sec-usr-cfg-xe-3s-book/sec-lawful- intercept.pdf)

And this is why the encryption battle is a bit odd to me as much as I would like encryption to be never tampered with we've already as a society agreed that the government in some cases should have access so what makes WhatsApp so different to a phone call?

If encryption isn't a way to backdoor ourselves out of the existing legal interception laws then as much as I hate to admit it we don't have a leg to stand on.

If it is then we should just publicly say that the government shouldn't be able to tap phones regardless of what technology they are using to communicate.

<comment><USER13> > If it is then we should just publicly say that the government shouldn't be > able to tap phones regardless of what technology they are using to > communicate.

They can tap phones, and should be able to tap phones, along with VoIP, video calls, and mail. But while privacy isn't absolute, their ability to wiretap communications with a court order has never been absolute either, merely opportunistic.

These are opportunities they don't have available to them, and it needs to stay that way.

They should not be permitted to set aside all other concerns just to keep that wiretap and search ability in the cases where it comes up, because it simply isn't that important compared to all of the problems they will cause in the process.

People, including whistleblowers and political dissidents, even in the U.S., will be harassed, threatened, blackmailed, or even killed as a result of their tampering, and the government itself will misuse those expanded access powers, just like all the others they've publicly or secretly obtained.

<comment><USER12> >They can tap phones, and should be able to tap phones, along with VoIP, video calls, and mail. But while privacy isn't absolute, their ability to wiretap communications with a court order has never been absolute either, merely opportunistic.

No it was never opportunistic, it was always by design and mandated by law as telecommunication providers must provide LEI capabilities this affects how they design and implement their networks and the equipment they use which is why LEI capabilities appear even in CPE equipment such as your modem and the FCC and other regulatory bodies enforce this as part of their certification process.

The case here is that that now the telecommunication providers aren't actually that useful for LEI or at least it's that WhatsApp/Facebook isn't classified as one because if it was it would be required to provide LEI capabilities by law.

>People, including whistleblowers and political dissidents, even in the U.S., will be harassed, threatened, blackmailed, or even killed as a result of their tampering, and the government itself will misuse those expanded access powers, just like all the others they've publicly or secretly obtained.

If we turn back the clock even only 5 years ago where essentially nothing was encrypted in a manner that would invalidate LEI this wasn't an issue, nor does it grant the government any new powers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm curious about the _principle_ of these laws. [Later Edit: not Australian specific, something that can be applied anywhere]

If the only way to convict a suspect would be for them to self incriminate during testimony should the 5th amendment be waived?

How many other rights should be cancelled because they prevent law enforcement from having an easier job?

Banning guns to make doctors' jobs easier is out of the question but banning privacy to make policemen's jobs easier isn't?

<comment><USER15> Bear in mind that this is an Australian law, so the 5th Amendment isn't involved. I don't know much about Australian law, so I don't know if they have an equivalent right within their legal system.

<comment><USER14> No, I'm fully aware it's not the US, I simply used a principle that's popular enough (from movies) that many people could relate. It's the principle that matters. I edited the original comment a little to highlight this.

I'm sure that there must be something in the Australian constitution that guarantees a right for the citizens. Should it be taken away just to make someone job a little easier?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > _" Furthermore, what is described remains a backdoor, albeit a keyed > backdoor. There is no requirement for backdoors to be universally > exploitable to be considered a backdoor, it merely needs to provide an > alternative entry point into the target system or protocol."_

If someone just looking for holes in the law already sees this, what would the supposed to be knowledgeable politician do/think they are doing.

Note: It's wrong because you are creating a universal access point in encryption to violate the original intent of the encryption (which is end to end most likely). This would mean you sell/show end to end encryption which has a man in the middle no matter what you do. And if it is poorly implemented, which is often the case with backdoors, it is probably universally accessible. Even if they say it's not. As already stated by the author.

</comment><comment><USER17> So basically since the vast majority of technology products are produced outside of Australia while one can imagine them forcing them to only sell hardware products with broken security just for australia however.

\- The population of australia is only 24 million less than 1/10th of the US and this would require expensive engineering just to sell to this market.

\- Caving to Australia makes this look like an attractive option to other more lucrative markets.

\- Some people would just import their own phones from overseas

\- Software products are unlikely to desire to compromise their networks/products for Australia and its 1000x easier to import software than hardware.

The best strategy would seem to be ignore Australia.

</comment><comment><USER18> Privacy vs. security... it's a complicated. Nobody cares that the police can tap a phone line... so by that logic, why can't they tap any other communication medium?

But... what I do know is that the Australian government is not the one to solve the problem. They're a small market, without a lot of technical expertise... having lived in Sydney for some time now... I know you don't want the Australian government involved in tech.

* Australian PM Calls for End-to-End Encryption Ban, Says the Laws of Mathematics Don't Apply Down Under | Electronic Frontier Foundation || [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/australian-pm-calls-en...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/australian-pm-calls-end-end-encryption-ban-says-laws-mathematics-dont-apply-down)

* 1,464 Western Australian government officials used 'Password123' as their password. Cool, cool. - The Washington Post || [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/08/22/western...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/08/22/western-australian-government-officials-used-password-their-password-cool-cool/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.35df184ee840)

* NBN regional connections to cost about $7000 per premise || [https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/nbn/nbn-regional-c...](https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/nbn/nbn-regional-connections-to-cost-about-7000-per-premise/news-story/a067409cc4c04fc946ceef54c8d89f54)

</comment><comment><USER19> If Australia was really concerned about encrypted communication as a threat to national security then they would outlaw end-to-end encrypted messaging. Terrorists and child abusers and wife beaters walking free because law enforcement can't read the private messages of "these people" due to this thing called encryption.

They should specify that any form of private communication cannot be encrypted end-to-end where the decryption keys are only accessible to the communication participants. Internet browsing, online shopping and banking transactions are allowed, as is communication which is encrypted by a service provider, and as such can be decrypted by said service provider upon request from law enforcement.

Anyone caught using end-to-end encrypted communications can AND WILL be fined.

The effect of this would be the same as what they're currently proposing, but they're currently hiding it behind words that most of the population don't comprehend, and therefore doesn't make the kind of mainstream headlines that it should.

By taking this weasel-worded approach the Australian Government is being intentionally ambiguous about their intentions and the effect of this legislation.

</comment><comment> sir-alien The problem is that with physical telecoms providers, you can mandate these LEI implementations. If the provider doesn't comply you ban the sale of the device. Yes, you can get a few black market devices to get around this but you can't head into your local shop to obtain it.

With the current scale of open source software, you can mandate a law for backdoors but countries that do not have such laws would be able to remove these backdoors from the open source software if they are ever put in. Simply banning OSS won't help either since many countries that have banned encryption still see widespread use of encryption software as the internet has no borders. Firewalls don't count because that is equivalent to trying to stop a million tunnel diggers from digging over the border all at the same time with a million more diggers ready to go. Ask China with their great firewall full of holes.

Backdooring or banning major providers like WhatsApp, etc will only push more and more people to an open solution that is globally distributed.

The only solution to gaining encryption access is the simple option. The option that if you are an interesting enough person, will get to play catch with a wrench while your hands are tied.

</comment><comment><USER20> Can anyone comment on how this is likely to affect multinational entities like Apple? Given the Australian market is so small, would it not more sense to leave the jurisdiction entirely rather than compromise security? Same goes for App makers like Signal. Why bother with Australia? (I'm Australian, and really don't want to see this happen FWIW, but it seems the rational decision)

<comment><USER21> Closed tools like Signal, Snapchat, Slack, Whatsapp, iMessage, Messenger, Hangouts etc will all make the promises about privacy you want to hear, but at the end of the day they are closed source and updates or commands can be sent to your handset to send plaintext to their servers at any time.

The question is under what criteria this will happen. Insider abuse? Government order? To make money?

Trying to make it illegal for companies to do this sort of thing on a country by country basis is worth pursuing, but it is not a real solution. We need to stop trying to use the law to enforce security.

The solution is to use tools that take court ordered backdoors off the table. Support open and federated communications networks where anyone can build their own clients or servers where pressuring of any entity can't put community built clients at risk.

There are a range of clients/protocols that meet this criteria such IRC with OTR, XMPP, IRCv3, Silence, Matrix.org.

Take your pick, and convince your contacts to use that instead of companies where you have to just take their word for it they won't backdoor you as it suits them.

<comment><USER22> Signal is free software[1] -- GPLv3 in fact. Don't get me wrong, it has its own issues with Moxie having very strange views of the threat model (and being anti-federation and anti-distribution), but it is definitely not proprietary. I also concur with the Matrix.org recommendation.

[1]: [https://github.com/signalapp/Signal- Android](https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android)

<comment><USER21> Signal likes to throw around that they are free software but really that is more marketing than fact.

The signal -client- is open source, but the server is closed. Yes partial server code is open, but running your own server is not allowed. The signal signed clients will only talk to the closed server and Moxie has made it clear he does not want forked clients or clients not built by his team connecting to his network. Open source f-droid builds are not permitted, and if you want updates you must use the play store builds. Those with open source phones must turn on unverified sources and risk man in the disk attacks to install the apk from the signal website.

Security you can't fully verify, is just called marketing.

<comment><USER22> > The signal -client- is open source, but the server is closed. Yes partial > server code is open, but running your own server is not allowed.

This is not true at all, the server is _entirely AGPLv3_ [1]. You can run your own server, but they don't _want_ to federate and don't _want_ people to distribute forks of their code (that connect to their servers). What they want is irrelevant because the license they've put the code under explicitly allows you to do these things -- though arguably they are allowed to restrict connections to their servers because that's a freedom under AGPLv3.

So while I agree (and I _explicitly_ said I agreed in an earlier comment) with the problems with Signal -- you are not helping explain why Signal has issues by spreading misinformation about it being proprietary. It isn't proprietary nor is it unverifiable, instead it is run by a company that has no interest in federation or solving much more important issues with their service. That is a serious enough problem that you don't need to make up issues that will just discredit legitimate complaints.

[1]: [https://github.com/signalapp/Signal- Server](https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server)

<comment><USER21> It does look like they have moved away from closed server components like RedPhone and claim all sources are published now. I appreciate that correction.

The source code for -a- signal server is a nice gesture for anyone that wants to build a signal fork but it does nothing to prove the signal server actually in use is fully open source and does not have last minute patches applied. Can't run my own for the real network so I must hope an employee won't be pressured into changing live systems or signing malicious client binaries at any time with no one noticing. Seems we both agree this is a real problem.

Verifiable security and centralized trust are incompatible.

I do still generally consider any code that can't be verified to be closed but I agree accuracy is important.

<comment><USER22> Again, the server code is AGPLv3 so it would copyright infringement (of the contributors to the code) on the part of WhisperSystems if they were to patch the server code and not provide the sources to users. There isn't a technical way to stop this problem (federation wouldn't solve it either -- it would allow you to switch to a host that you trust more but that's a different problem), you just sort of have to trust that WhisperSystems isn't breaking the law.

To reiterate -- I agree with you on the general point that federation and having a decentralised system is important for many reasons. But you're moving the goal-posts so that now, even if the server code is AGPLv3 (which requires giving source code access to network users) you still can't be sure that code is running in production, and thus it's still effectively proprietary. That's not a reasonable argument.

As an aside, WhisperSystems has remote attestation of parts of the server code using Intel SGX, which means that it actually has some degree of verifiability[1].

[1]: [https://signal.org/blog/private-contact- discovery/](https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/)

<comment><USER21> These goal posts are related.

Given the context of the five eyes backdoor discussions it is not unreasonable to expect that a government could pressure WhisperSystems to manipulate a client update or patch a server, GPL laws be damned. A single employee could also be bribed or blackmailed. Intel could also be compelled to falsely attest an SGX enclave.

When it comes to protecting privacy against highly motivated and sophisticated adversaries then centralized trust is just not an option to be taken seriously. It creates a Lavabit sized target.

A company that is as serious about privacy as their marketing indicates would, like TOR, encourage as many servers to run as possible to ensure there is no central pressure point to abuse.

Cards on the table: I find Moxies insistence on a walled garden while using Open Source and Privacy to market it simply unethical.

I do again appreciate the updates on the current status of their public source code though. I will strive for better accuracy in the future on this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Hello, I'm writing to oppose the 2018 Assistance & Access Bill. Although I recognize the difficulties encryption poses to law enforcement & counter- terrorism, it is not a strong enough reason to compromise the safety, security & privacy of 24 million Australian citizens. Every Australian has a right to reliable, mathematically guaranteed privacy & security, not compromised/undermined by oppressive legislature. Neither domestic nor international companies should be required to assist anyone in breaking privacy protections, nor should warrants allow access to protected devices, and nor should existing legislature be strengthened. Would these changes help law enforcement catch a few criminals? Probably. Will it weaken the safety, security & privacy of millions of respectable, law-abiding Australians? Definitely. Cheers, Louise

</comment><comment><USER24> If it is a success in Australia, it will be rolled out across the rest of the commonwealth

<comment><USER25> People are missing the entire point. This was never just about Australia doing it. It's a proposal by Australia AS PART OF THE 5 EYES to bring this in. They're absolutely planning for this to roll out to all the 5 Eyes countries.

If we really want to quash this, we need to start making that clear to everyone in the UK, US, CA, NZ, and AU, that this effects ALL of us.

They're just using Australia to launch it for this exact reason, 95% of the population of the 5 Eyes will think they're not effected, not fight it, and it'll pass. Then good luck stopping their momentum.

<comment><USER22> It's my understanding that once Australia passes it there's no need for the other 5 Eyes countries to pass it, since they have agreements to be able to send data they've collected to other 5 Eyes countries. Which means that they could just send all of the data to Australia and have the encryption broken (as-a-Service you might say).

Unfortunately I was out of the country when this whole shitshow went down. I sent an email, but I'm going to go see my Federal MP in person tomorrow.

<comment><USER4> It works in other ways too - for example, the ADF can do things that the American military can't. Thus, the Americans come calling to their Australia partners in crime when they want some nefarious deed done on the battlefield... and Australians just roll over and let it happen - as long as there are avocado's to smash, Australians just don't care what their government is up to.

<comment><USER22> And even shit that the ADF is not allowed to do, they do anyway because there's almost no chance anyone will find out about it (especially with the new 10-year mandatory minimum punishments for leaking government information) and even if they did find out about it they can always hold an inquiry that provides weak recommendations that nobody ends up following. The whole fucking thing is a farce.

<comment><USER4> It is such a travesty of democratic principles I have personally decided to not have anything to do with the place, and abandoned the continent.

"I probably won't go back, at least not before I switch citizenships in protest."- __

Oops, I just broke the Australian sedition law. Not allowed to talk about _that_ , either.

 __-note:quotes

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "it could affect 'every website that is accessible from Australia'"

It won't matter to any of my websites, I will ignore their law. Just like I ignore GDPR. I don't do anything egregious, but those laws simply are/would not be relevant to me.

<comment><USER27> Your view includes only a fraction of the real world.

From a european ISP standpoint: the introduction of a systemic weakness is a violation of Art. 32 GDPR. We just can't do it.

Classic double-bind. GDPR is more important than Australia to us, so we just block all access from and to austrialia. We have 195.000 affected webhosting customers (domain, email, website, servers), btw.

<comment><USER28> > so we just block all access from and to austrialia

Please don't do this. The internet does not respect borders, and there's absolutely nothing positive that can come from changing that.

By blocking Australia you're just screwing over ordinary Australian people who probably don't agree with what their politicians have decided.

<comment><USER29> Maybe that's necessary to push some resistance among the common Australian.

<comment><USER28> It's not OK to make ordinary people's lives difficult just to further your own political interests, regardless of how noble those interests might be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> this is just icing on the cake. we need to urgently dismantle Heimat and Interior

</comment><comment><USER31> China passed a similar law last year[1] forcing citizens and companies to provide assistance with state intelligence matters.

Are these laws just a public acknowledgement and formalisation of what has been going on since early civilisation?

In the cold war it was bugged typewriters[2] and sabotaged chips and industrial components. Ten years ago it was counterfeit chips from China causing early failures in US military equipment[3] and US backdooring of cryptography standards[4]. More recently, Chinese companies have been factory backdooring hundreds of millions mobile phones[5] and Western countries have been vacuuming up the Internet[6]. How many integrated circuits purchased from factories abroad today can be trusted when hardware backdoors have been shown to be almost undetectable even to the best resourced labs?[7][8]

Instead of manufacturers around the world being coerced into backdooring technology[9][10] without regulation, at least there may now be some formality. These laws don't change how much trust can be placed in foreign technology (answer: not much at all). It shouldn't be a shock that Australia has banned Chinese equipment from the likes of Huawei and ZTE from broadband and 5G mobile network rollouts[11]. And it shouldn't be a surprise to Australian companies if China bans the import of Australian technology.

[1] [https://www.lawfareblog.com/beijings-new-national- intelligen...](https://www.lawfareblog.com/beijings-new-national-intelligence- law-defense-offense)

[2] [http://www.cryptomuseum.com/covert/bugs/selectric/](http://www.cryptomuseum.com/covert/bugs/selectric/)

[3] [https://web.archive.org/web/20081011075757/http://www.busine...](https://web.archive.org/web/20081011075757/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_41/b4103034193886.htm?chan=magazine+channel_top+stories)

[4] [https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government- announc...](https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces- steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards/)

[5] [http://www.kryptowire.com/adups_security_analysis.html](http://www.kryptowire.com/adups_security_analysis.html)

[6] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_\(2013%E2%80%93present\))

[7] [http://www.emsec.rub.de/media/crypto/veroeffentlichungen/201...](http://www.emsec.rub.de/media/crypto/veroeffentlichungen/2014/07/03/BeckerChes13.pdf)

[8] [https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~taustin/papers/OAKLAND16-a2attac...](https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~taustin/papers/OAKLAND16-a2attack.pdf)

[9] [https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/27/nsa- snowde...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/27/nsa-snowden- russia-obama-column/2702461/)

[10] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute)

[11] [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-23/huawei-banned-from- pro...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-23/huawei-banned-from- providing-5g-mobile-technology-australia/10155438)

<comment><USER31> Also on the front page of HN, France declaring a desire for additional technology independence from the US:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17950155](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17950155)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I have spent the last ~2 hours reading the 100 page explanatory document [1], these are some of my thoughts.

The bill pretty explicitely talks about ASIO. I don't think these laws will be used for much less than espionage, or possibly deep corruption cases. For example, right now ASIO dont have the power to remove a computer to inspect it. That actually surprised me (what would not surprise me is that they routinely do this anyway). In many cases I dont see why physical access is required though, I am sure ASIO are capable of hacking most routers/IoT devices, possibly even laptops, just using known methods (are drug-lords really that up to date on L1TF?). The biggest issue I have is that the granting of warrants always comes down to whether some judge or minister thinks its all good. Although, in one of the sub-sections they say the Attorney-General can delegate their powers to a senior ASIO officer, so this is a C-suite level person inside ASIO likely to have these powers (note that they explicitely point out that this person can not further delegate that power, so these decision makers are direct reports to the Attorney General presumably).

On the topic of getting people to give up passwords and/or keys, it says that agencies have "the ability to compel persons" to hand them over... whatever that means. Does "compel" mean, breaking fingers compel? I am pretty sure this is with a warrant.

There are provisioms for situations where evidence may be lost, or other dire circunstances, where they can request things orally and immediately, but they do have reporting requirements around such circumstances.

Probably the most alarming thing is the technical notices. With these, they can basically ask first, but if required - demand - tech companies to add in back-doors. They try to deny it but thats what they are. It is pretty explicit that they cant compel companies to introduce 'systemic weaknesses', so its not about making product wide easter eggs that give you root permissions. I think they mean more like "put a clause in your code that when Dr Evil logs into WhatsApp, and only Dr Evil, it forwards all comms to us." Thats pretty strong power, and not really a systemic weakness is WhatsApp, but most definitely fits the definition of a back door to me. They say companies will be compensated on a 'no loss, no profit' basis. One kind of nice limitation on this is that it will definitely be expensive for ASIO to do this. Companies are in some ways incentivized to restrict their acts to single customers, because if ASIO want to monitor 10 people, well that requires 10x the budget doesnt it.

This was my first time trying to read law. If you read law as code, then law is TERRIBLY written. This amendment is the worlds most ancient pull-request system, putting this into VC would make it much clearer for all involved. There is no concept of a dependency tree, instead other acts are referenced at will and with no version lock to say whether that definition is still current. I suspect there are a lot of regression fails when they write new legislation, unless someone is pouring over all other acts looking for things which reference the act we want to change.

TL:DR; I'm gonna let this go through to the keeper. Writing law is complex. Ultimately it always comes down to, can we trust our government and public institutions, as well as our companies, to do the right thing? How much must we bind ourselves as a society, to ensure that they cannot abuse us? Its tough. I tend to think that the 99% of the people writing these laws, and the officers enforcing them, aren't monsters or evil people - they are my fellow Australians.

[1] [https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/consultations/Documents/expla...](https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/consultations/Documents/explanatory- document.pdf)

<comment><USER33> I have been reading through the proposed law (see my posts elsewhere in this thread) and I have to say that I disagree with your assessment that the law implies or requires targetting of specific individuals or groups rather than dragnet-style operations. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anything in the bill to limit the scope of a TCN/TAN so that the government agencies can't use a single request to cover a wide range of unrelated cases/investigations. As it is written, it seems that a TCN/TAN could require that a company builds and signs arbitrary code that is handed to them by a government agency. [1] This code would be the backdoor (or Remote Access Tool or whatever they choose to they call it) and likely would be distributed as a software update (possibly also by the company although there might be some legal wrangling about whether the government might be required to host the backdoored software themselves).

What this all means is that a single TCN could theoretically be issued to cover a specific case (say a reasonable investigation into some potential terrorist activity) but the signed backdoor/remote access tool that comes out of it could be used arbitrarily by the agencies involved with little to no oversight.

I know that this is a difficult area for law-enforcement to operate in and I understand that part of the problem that they have at the moment is that they sometimes have no certainty about whether they can get access to specific pieces of electronic evidence (even with a warrant) but the intelligence community (including here in Australia) has a lot of bridges to build if they want to actually have this discussion in a rational manner.

There are probably some reading this who think that I am being hysterical or paranoid about ASIO/ASIS/ASD and that they are rational and ethical actors, but I suspect that anyone who thinks that is likely under informed about their historical activities.

There is currently some international investigation into evidence of recent (in the last 15 years) potential wrongdoing [2] that the current Attorney General (who would be the individual responsible for approving these TCN/TANs) is attempting to frustrate. [3] These moves by the current federal AG are so extraordinary that a former NSW DPP (Director of Public Prosecution) and a former Victorian Appeals Court judge have stated that "[...] unlawful activity was undertaken on our behalf to improve the government's negotiating position" and that "there is a genuine question about whether the general interests of Australians would be served by the prosecution of either person." (the whistle-blower or their lawyer). [4]

Given the evidence of poor behavior by these agencies and their apparent disregard for due process, it seems extraordinary to think that these extensive new powers could not be abused as they are currently proposed.

[1] See section 317E of the law which states that providers are required to "facilitate or assist access to software that is capable of being installed on a computer, or other equipment, that is, or is likely to be, connected to a telecommunications network" and, crucially, paragraph (f) which states that providers must "assist with the testing, modification, development or maintenance of a technology or capability"

[2] In Australia bugging East Timor during negotiations over a $40-56 billion oil deal. See [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-04/icj-orders- australia-t...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-04/icj-orders-australia-to- keep-east-timor-files-sealed/5296444)

[3] [https://theconversation.com/the-shaky-case-for- prosecuting-w...](https://theconversation.com/the-shaky-case-for-prosecuting- witness-k-and-his-lawyer-in-the-timor-leste-spying-scandal-100446)

[4] [https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/top-lawyers-jump- to-...](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/top-lawyers-jump-to-the- defence-of-former-australian-spy-witness-k-20180629-p4zojl.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Non-AMP link:

[https://www.zdnet.com/article/australias-anti-encryption- law...](https://www.zdnet.com/article/australias-anti-encryption-law-will- merely-relocate-the-backdoors-expert/)

<comment><USER35> Thanks. Changed to that from [https://www-zdnet- com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.zdnet.com/g...](https://www-zdnet- com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/australias-anti- encryption-law-will-merely-relocate-the-backdoors- expert/?amp_js_v=0.1#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s).</comment></comment>


Show HN: Milvus – An open-source vector similarity search engine - <AUTHOR> https://milvus.io/ <comment><USER2> Seen on HN 7 months ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012300](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012300) (152 points/28 comments)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Powered by Faiss, NMSLIB and Annoy</comment>


Ask HN: Is GRE useful outside graduate school? - <AUTHOR>

Having finished Bachelor's degree in CS and subsequently worked as a professional programmer for 3 years,  I am finally considering going to the graduate school. As part of the preparations I will be sitting for the GRE general test sometime in  next few months. Upon reviewing and practicing the test material  I realized that something is bugging me really bad.
I have heard many people disparage GRE. Their grudge is that, among a few others,  much of what your study for  the GRE test is not really useful in the graduate school, nor is it helpful later in your career. Now that has really started to worry me because I think I am spending more time on it then what I probably ought to.
Take vocabulary. Memorizing hundreds of abstruse words was no fun when I started. I was merely cramming . However, things started getting interesting when I actually began writing down the words, looking the meaning up in a dictionary, analyzing the usage, and applying the words in my own sentences. Of course it's taking inordinate length of time but the experience is really enthralling and edifying.
Practicing  for 'Reading Comprehension'  lead me to the world of critical reading and writing. I began to critically read newspaper op-ed , keep an eye on the techniques that author uses to  constructs the passages, and find flaws or strength in every  argument he or she makes. Again it is slowing me down but I am getting engrossed. So much so that I bought an entire text book on Logic; one that teaches how to make arguments, identify fallacies, and do deductive and inductive reasoning. My interest only seems to be growing by leaps and the bounds.
Now I am worried that the amount of effort I am putting into it is just not worth it. Everything on the test preparation books too is focused only on maximizing the score on the actual GRE test day (quick tricks and tactics without deeper learning).
Can some of the things I learn for GRE can be carried over to the graduate school and the career that follows it?  Should I be putting as much effort into it as I am doing now? <comment><USER2> GRE is completely inapplicable to grad school, I'm pretty sure it's used with a cutoff to thin out the applicant pool.

I didn't study for mine one iota and did pretty well (got into Yale) -- I think if I'd spent some time preparing I could've had close to straight 800s, but I don't see that alone getting me into the schools I was rejected from.

Honestly I think "GRE scores" are about 19th on the list of things most university departments look for when they're seriously considering applicants. You'd be much better off putting that effort into preparing material for publishing.

<comment><AUTHOR> To clarify, I am eying an elite CS school.

Would you mind explaining what do you mean by preparing material for publishing, please?</comment></comment>


How can I make my shell prompt look like a cheeseburger? - <AUTHOR> http://askubuntu.com/questions/625021/how-can-i-make-my-shell-prompt-look-like-a-cheeseburger

<comment><USER2> This is why open source was born. Finally someone who takes advantage of it.</comment>


Ask HN: Where can I find a summer internship? - <AUTHOR>

Hey everyone, My name is Dan Shipper and I'm a freshman in college. I would consider myself a fairly competent programmer - I started in fifth grade - and I've worked in a variety of languages on a lot of different projects.
The biggest hole that I would say I have in my experience is that I've never worked in a professional coding environment with other programmers. I've hacked together projects with my friends and alone, but I really want to hone my skills by experiencing a production environment at a startup.
My problem is that I don't really know where to start looking. Is there a website that lists internships for students at startups? I'm based in the New York area but it probably wouldn't be a problem to relocate to the West Coast for the summer.
I'm not looking to work for Facebook or anything. Just a place that has talented, motivated people that can show me how a real startup works and give me more real world experience building something that people really use. Where do I start looking? <comment><USER2> Hey Dan!

The first internship I had at a startup I found on craigslist.

If that doesn't cut it for you, you can always check out YouTern (<http://www.youtern.com/>) and InternMatch (<http://www.internmatch.com/>).

Lastly, and possibly the most effective would be just going to local start up events and networking and asking around. The startup community (at least here in Montreal) is really friendly and are always up for helping others.

Good luck!!

<comment><AUTHOR> thank you i will definitely look into these

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> We are a bit north of you (Montreal) but always looking for strong interns: <http://bit.ly/eCb7FU>

I would echo the comments about www.youtern.com and www.internmatch.com though. We get about 1/3 of our intern applications from these websites (the rest comes from direct referals and on-campus recruiting).

Finally, don't underestimate the value knocking on doors. I have hired a bunch of great interns and employees over the years who just "showed up" and pitched themselves into the organisation.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am in the process of filling out your application - thanks for the tips

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hey Dan,

HN is a great place, right now we are in the middle of a pilot internship program in the spring and are putting one together for the summer (announcing next month). We are based in NYC.

<http://blog.onswipe.com/jobs> fill one of the job applications and put (internship) in the last question.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks a lot application submitted!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> My startup helps college students find internships.

<http://www.onedayoneinternship.com/>

Here's everything that we have in web development: <http://www.onedayoneinternship.com/tag/web-development/>

</comment><comment><USER6> Strongly encourage you to check out YouTern (www.YouTern.com) -- great mentor- based internships at small-team environments... start-ups, smallbiz and non- profits.</comment>


Features are like having Sex - <AUTHOR> http://vospe.com/2010/09/15/features-are-like-having-sex/

<comment><USER2> It all depends on nesting.</comment>


What3words: 'Life-saving app' divides opinion - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49754820 <comment><AUTHOR> Dividing opinion because of _" people questioning whether a mapping system which public services are increasingly relying on, should be in the hands of a technology firm"._

That's an interesting problem, despite the worthless headline as so commonly with BBC.

<comment><USER2> I don't appreciate English words being used as a standard. How many people around the world do not speak English as their native tongue? It is just another form Western digital imperialism. I'm getting behind Plus Codes ([https://plus.codes/](https://plus.codes/)) instead.</comment></comment>


Reversing Mental Age with Psychedelics - <AUTHOR> https://mad.science.blog/2020/08/16/the-phoenix-effect-reversing-mental-age-with-psychedelics/ <comment><USER2> All I get from the article is that they gave some people psilocybin (20mg/kg) and then did some fMRIs. Lovely but I don't see any evidence for reversing mental age here.

<comment><USER3> The article seems to suggest that the study hasn't actually been executed yet. This seems to be about hypotheses and study design.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really hate that I get dumber and dumber with age and that the laws of my country do not let me stop this slow mental dulling. It feels like a group of people physically attacking and overpowering me and I am confused by why I should follow these obviously evil laws.

I like the way this article is written, with all the references plainly accessible.

<comment><USER5> Are you really dumber or just slower ?

I'm not 20yo quick but with all my newfound limits I don't feel dumber.. actually somehow more efficient (forced economies)

<comment><USER4> You're right, slower is the right word. I'm very accurate and precise but feel like I am embarrassingly slow. Recollection in particular feels slower, and I don't know if that is because I have much more knowledge to draw upon or because of aging.

What is more definite is that the 'aha-moments' are much less rewarding and because of that I am less attentive in my intellectual pursuits. I have more effective learning strategies but less interest in applying them.

<comment><USER5> I had a funny experience recently. Gave math lesson to a 15yo. I could sense the higher thoughts frequency in his words and ideas. The kid couldn't think deep, got confused regularly on simple matter, but I could feel how vibrant his spirit was compared to mine. Strange feeling :)

I too feel that intellectual challenges are less rewarding. But average life amongst peers is so dull, I'd rather keep doing that rather than stop. Also I tend to blend this with more altruistic pragmatic goals. Getting old makes your ego less important and so this is a workable compromise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> FMRI metastudies: for when you really hate reproducibility

</comment><comment><USER7> I always wondered why kids could learn a handful of languages and adults struggle to learn anything past one.

Language is an interesting one. Maybe it's my personal bias but it seems a lot easier to learn other things than language as an adult. Instruments, skills, etc.

<comment><USER8> I tried to learn spanish as a kid in around middle school. It was an extracurricular class and it was the first thing I'd really ever failed at.

Now at 30ish, I find I can learn languages MUCH easier. I speak fluent french and am reasonably conversant in Spanish. (I can read it pretty well though.)

<comment><USER9> Any tips on language learning? I have struggled with and ultimately failed at learning two languages (German and Thai).

<comment><USER10> Emphasise speaking.

We tend to focus on reading, oral understanding & writing. Those fit easily into " _sit down and study for 45m_ " format. Speaking doesn't, and can feel uncomfortable or contrived in classroom settings. One of the big reasons "immersion" often leads to fast breakthroughs is because it comes with a lot of natural speaking. That's often the bottleneck.

You don't stop and think of the correct grammar, words or whatnot when speaking. You just try to make yourself understood as best as you can, with whatever language skills you have. Even 200 words is something. Engaging that intuitive improvisation can be really helpful.

<comment><USER11> I have a different take. I would say don't worry about speaking at all, at least not in the first several months. It will come when you are ready. Focus on understanding messages from comprehensible input (be it from books, movies, whatever). Speaking is hard, and the anxiety caused by forced speaking (for example, the type you find in a lot of high-school language classes) can be a barrier towards language acquisition. In a nutshell, I subscribe to the Input Hypothesis that Stephen Krashen writes a lot about on his site sdkrashen.com. (Under that hypothesis, the gains from immersion, when they arise, are because of the higher amount of interesting, comprehensible input that is directed at the learner, rather than an increase in the learner's output)

Yes, at some point you'll need to work on pronunciation but that is something different than the type of extemporaneous speaking we are discussing here.

But this probably only goes to show what another commenter pointed out, which is that there is a lot of conflicting advice out there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> We're seeing a lot of articles starting to praise the use of psychedelics. This seems a bit dangerous - these are serious drugs that can potentially mess you up - I'm not saying that they shouldn't be used, but it would be nice if interested people (people who are going to try them anyway) could go somewhere and have some medical/therapeutic guidance through their experience. It would be so much safer.

<comment><USER13> I don't feel that it should be required to have "authoritative" guidance in order to have psychedelic experiences. I feel that's better served by a more shamanistic role, as medical settings are the _last_ place I'd ever want to trip. People need to be taught about tolerance, and about the paramount important of mindset (and to a slightly lesser extent setting) when it comes to psychedelics.

</comment></comment><comment> GuB-42 It looks like one of these "let's show how cool psychedelics are" study, or study proposal.

I have nothing against psychedelics, and I am sure that they helped many people, but I am also sure they wrecked many others. They are very unstable drugs, and unless we find some way to tame them, I don't expect any kind of progress in therapeutic use of psychedelics.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem the proposed study will do anything to help here. Basically, they are going to give adults a shroom trip, have them watch a cartoon, and scan their brain using a fMRI machine to see if their brain look more like infants or more like sober adults doing the same thing.

It is just a way to confirm if what everyone who at some point has been in contact with psychedelics noticed, that is that tripping makes you feel like a child, also shows on fMRI scans. But the thing is: so what if it does? How will it help turn a notoriously unstable drug into something that a doctor can prescribe? Not only that but fMRI scans are notoriously hard to interpret. There is a famous igNobel study that analyzed the thoughts of a dead salmon.

I am not saying I am not interested in the potential results of such a study, but if the goal is to find medical use for psychedelics (and therefore get them out of Schedule I), I don't know how it will help.

</comment><comment><USER14> "Grow Up" and that millennial nugget adulting take on whole new inflections.

</comment><comment><USER15> "Some people who've taken a lot of psychedelics tend to all too easily believe in conspiracy theories and to reject mainstream science. Thus I know too many people who believe in chemtrails, 9/11 as a conspiracy, are anti-vaccination, anti-fluoridation, etc." [1]

Coincedence that some people who took a lot of psychedelics end up as gullible as children?

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5r2wn7/im_filmmaker_c...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5r2wn7/im_filmmaker_cosmo_feilding_mellen_i_made_the/dd45sxm/)

<comment><USER16> I for the contrary can say otherwise: most of people I've met who's taken a lot of beer and religion tend to believe more in conspiracy theories and reject science - psychedelic users are the contrary.

<comment><USER15> I think the key words in the quote from Scully are "some people" and "a lot of psychedelics".

Of course it's also purely anecdotal, but within the Psychedelic Trance scene I see far more people than I am comfortable with who took a _lot_ of acid and end up deep in the rabbit hole of conspiracy nonsense.</comment></comment></comment>


Kickstarter's official response on handling accountability - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/accountability-on-kickstarter

<comment><USER2> There are many seemingly-abandoned projects such as [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/832784035/orbit-a- swivel...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/832784035/orbit-a-swiveling- smartphone-suction-mount) and the response does nothing to indicate that kickstarter cares about abandonment.</comment>


On the time lags of the LIGO signals - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04191 <comment><USER2> There has been a reply from Ian Harry - a postdoc within LIGO who was involved in the data analysis for the discovery - on Sean Carroll's blog. To quote the blog:

"In Creswell et al. the authors take LIGO data made available through the LIGO Open Science Data from the Hanford and Livingston observatories and perform a simple Fourier analysis on that data. They find the noise to be correlated as a function of frequency. They also perform a time-domain analysis and claim that there are correlations between the noise in the two observatories, which is present after removing the GW150914 signal from the data. These results are used to cast doubt on the reliability of the GW150914 observation. There are a number of reasons why this conclusion is incorrect: 1. The frequency-domain correlations they are seeing arise from the way they do their FFT on the filtered data. We have managed to demonstrate the same effect with simulated Gaussian noise. 2. LIGO analyses use whitened data when searching for compact binary mergers such as GW150914. When repeating the analysis of Creswell et al. on whitened data these effects are completely absent. 3. Our 5-sigma significance comes from a procedure of repeatedly time-shifting the data, which is not invalidated if correlations of the type described in Creswell et al. are present."

[http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2017/06/18/a-respon...](http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2017/06/18/a-response- to-on-the-time-lags-of-the-ligo-signals-guest-post/)

<comment><USER3> Point #3 is important. Time-shifting significance estimation is powerful in this context.

As the event rate is expected to be very low, almost all the data acquired are noise. Any true gravitational-wave signal must match within ~10 milliseconds of lag between LIGO Hanford and LIGO Livingston.

One can shift the clocks of one detector with respect to the other over _months_ of data to look for a matching non-coincident detection. The rate at which those occur allows the straightforward determination of a data-driven false-alarm rate, independent of the analysis technique used.

Figure 4 is the relevant one: [https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061...](https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think it's important to remember that this isn't a personal attack on LIGO. This is just science doing it's thing.

It is always critical to try your damnedest to disprove the results you get that are what you want to get. Let your friends try, let your enemies try, and thank them whether they succeed or not.

Otherwise, you're using science to prove yourself right rather than using it to _become_ right.

<comment><USER5> No, but it's not far off that: it feels like self-promotion by fabricating criticisms of an immensely popular project. IMO the core suggestion of the paper--that _noise_ is somehow correlated across different sensors separated by thousands of miles--is substantially more extraordinary than the LIGO experiments themselves (whose findings are well supported by decades of theory), so the possibility that this paper's results stem from anything other than flawed methodology seems vanishingly small.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> A bit less technical explanation of the criticisms by Sabine Hossenfelder in Forbes:

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/16/was-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/16/was- it-all-just-noise-independent-analysis-casts-doubt-on-ligos-detections/amp/)

Andrew D. Jackson, one of the authors if this paper, recently held a presentation at the LMU:

[http://www.physik.uni- muenchen.de/aus_der_fakultaet/kolloqui...](http://www.physik.uni- muenchen.de/aus_der_fakultaet/kolloquien/asc_kolloquium/archiv_sose17/jackson/video_jackson/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> I learned a lot from this thread. Thanks HN.</comment>


Building a semantic search engine using open-source components - <AUTHOR> https://blog.onebar.io/building-a-semantic-search-engine-using-open-source-components-e15af5ed7885 <comment><AUTHOR> Components used:

        Tensorflow and Simple Tensorflow Serving

        Pre-trained Universal Sentence Encoder

        Docker

        Python 3

        FAISS by Facebook

        ElasticSearch

        gRPC</comment>


Chrome app launcher developer preview - <AUTHOR> http://blog.chromium.org/2013/02/chrome-app-launcher-developer-preview.html

<comment><USER2> I'm a Chrome OS user so I've had some time with this launcher. I'm not sure why, but for me having a launcher versus a bookmarks bar is a huge psychological difference. I really do feel like these are "apps" not websites, even when I could just as easily navigate to them in the URL bar. It makes Chrome OS feel like any other operating system when my brain SHOULD say "hey, this is just a browser".

<comment><USER3> Mind if I ask what you are running Chrome OS on? I have been interested in picking up a Chromebook, but the reviews for them are very bad. It seems that locking up, crashing and even flat out dying after a couple of months is surprisingly common.

<comment><USER4> I had Chrome OS running pretty smoothly on a Sylvania G Meso (a cheap netbook). I got a bootable disk image here: <http://chromeos.hexxeh.net/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I really, really _want_ to write my application as a Chrome packaged app--I love all the advantages that come from developing for the web, and I love appearing like a native app to my users--but most of my users _don't use Chrome_ , and I can't really force them to switch. They want to keep using what they're using. What should I do about this?

I think this feature might be a good start, but it would be great if you could install the App Launcher _without installing Chrome_. That is to say: Chrome team, have you ever considered converting Chrome into a platform runtime ala the JVM, and then making your browser just one of the "packaged apps" that runs atop it? :)

<comment><USER6> This is remarkably similar to what you described: <https://github.com/rogerwang/node-webkit>

<comment><USER5> Ah! I had heard of several similar things (Chromium Embedded, etc.) but this one is new to me. So _that's_ what Light Table is written in!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am kind of sure that Google will ditch Java and go for native web apps for it's operation systems. They will unify ChromeOS and Android experience by getting rid of Java on Android and making web apps running natively on the OS.

I see a lot of signs from Google that they want to do this. The "X-Phone" project, this effort for pushing packaged Chrome web apps and even that new Android status in Google campus are all signs of it.

I am very happy that this is happening!

<comment><USER8> One point, much to Oracle's dismay, Android is not Java. Java is used to do dev, but the phones themselves run a completely different VM (Dalvik).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is the problem: Omnibox is so powerful that I don't even use app launcher on my chromebook.

<comment><USER10> I'm the same way. But I've also really wanted to be able to run web pages as their own Windows app. Like have them occupy a space in the windows task bar, which it looks like this may provide for. I don't really know why I want this, my brain just has a strong urge to have certain app-like pages have app-like prominence, and have their own focus outside of being another tab in Chrome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why the need to package apps like this? Going to a web app with HTML5 caching will automatically make your app work offline. The installation IS going to the URL. With the added benefit that you can easily update the app by invalidating the cache. Just give web apps more localStorage, more caching space and indexedDb and viola!

<comment><USER12> The real reason is that the packaged apps have access to a privileged API. That let you make things that you can't do in webpages.

As a web dev, that's what you get.

As Google, you get a non-standard API that, if it picks up, will ensure you get 100% platform control (and marketshare too, but really, its about platform control)

<comment><USER13> I would do some research before spouting this claptrap about 100% platform control. There is huge effort going on in the W3C and Sysapps groups to get this whole priviledged access and installable apps standardised.

The biggest thing about Chrome Apps is not the new API's, it is that we are getting developers to think about building good offline installable apps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Annoyingly windows only.

Windows already was able to turn apps into desktop shortcuts, osx/linux still has none of that.

<comment><USER15> It works on Linux. It's only Mac that lacks that feature.

<comment><USER13> We are working on it. Mac has some interesting things that we need to do to get it working.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A somewhat unrelated conceptual question: if Chrome is putting web apps alongside desktop apps, what does that do for usability of apps on a platform in general? If a web app was created to emulate a native OS UI, wouldn't that be taking a bit of a step backwards (in terms of recreating all the widgets) compared to just coding in the native toolkit in the first place?

I guess what I'm really asking is, what's Google's plan for unifying the Web Store apps visually the way Android and iOS do with their UI kits?

</comment><comment><USER12> I'd rather have a standard API than "chrome.*" to be honest.

<comment><USER13> everyone would, but standards take a long time, and lead with experience based of existing implementations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Until Google encrypts there .crx file that holds the source code I don't think anyone can use this to sell apps. Right now the only protection Google offers is a signed .crx file and that can easily be by passed. <http://stackoverflow.com/a/4493712/1231>

Google needs to encrypt all .crx that come from the Web Store.

</comment><comment><USER18> I find it interesting to see the differential in response to posts like this vs posts on the firefox phone OS threads.

Here they seem to be: "Why would I want a website as an app???"

In the firefox phone OS threads they seem to be: "This is how all apps should be build, pure web apps!!!"</comment>


You Can Look -- But Don't Touch - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090107134535.htm

<comment><USER2>
      "many retailers have been using the try-then-buy tactic for years"

Many sites also try to do this - allow the user to perform an action (rating, create a playlist, post a comment, ...) without having to commit to creating an account.

It would have been interesting if there was a study with how time between handling and bidding, as it might help with the problem of maintaining engagement of new users.

Keeping in front of the user's eyes using email or inserting themselves into their current interactions can help remind the users to use the new service, but there is a fine line (different for every user) between informing and annoying.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's interesting reading this right after coming home from and Apple store. Rows and rows of shiny new technology ready for you to play with, priced just at the top end of what you may be willing to spend.

<comment><USER4> ...and ironically named the iTouch. guess that means iBuy. haha.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder how this lines up with Ebay. As soon as someone has put a meager bid in they feel a sense of ownership. This might explain some of the bidding wars as people fight not just to win, but also not to loose something they now see as theirs.</comment>


The Myth of Sisyphus - <AUTHOR> http://www.instapaper.com/text?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.instapaper.com%2Ftext%3Fu%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.sccs.swarthmore.edu%252Fusers%252F00%252Fpwillen1%252Flit%252Fmsysip.htm

<comment><AUTHOR> Whether an open source project, struggling with a startup, or leading a profitable corporate giant, you need to pick up and do it again tomorrow no matter how good your vacation is.</comment>


Vale Carroll Shelby: father of the muscle car  - <AUTHOR> http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-news/vale-carroll-shelby-father-of-the-muscle-car-20120514-1ylq1.html

<comment><USER2> I know nothing about cars, but I found this article on the Cobra vs. Ferrari rivalry from The Selvedge Yard very interesting. [http://theselvedgeyard.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-snake- th...](http://theselvedgeyard.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-snake-the-stallion- the-carroll-shelby-ford-cobra-that-kicked-ferraris-ass/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I read an interview once where Shelby said he'd produced 165 different cars of which only 8 every made him any money. But a few of those were very special. I've ridden in a Cobra and the article is true you will never forget the experience.

</comment><comment><USER4> As a teenager I lusted over the Shelby Cobra, and also the Mustang Fastbacks. I still think the Cobra is one of the most gorgeous muscle cars ever.

</comment><comment><USER5> It says something about the car when even the Shelby replicas of are almost as desirable as the original.

</comment><comment><USER6> RIP my friend. Cheers from a fellow gear head.</comment>


AI Research Is in Desperate Need of an Ethical Watchdog - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/ai-research-is-in-desperate-need-of-an-ethical-watchdog/?mbid=social_twitter_onsiteshare <comment><USER2> I expected more Musk-style fearmongering but the article is actually quite reasonable. Ethical concerns in machine learning are real. It's hard to see a solution here though. What kind of watchdog could stop me from building an algorithm that predicts sexual orientation? It's not that hard to get the necessary data, and that's basically all I need.

The only feasible solution is social, cultural. ML is probably just the latest scapegoat.

</comment><comment><USER3> We should call them the Turing Police, like they were in Neuromancer</comment>


On Firefox moving DNS to a third party - <AUTHOR> https://blog.powerdns.com/2018/09/04/on-firefox-moving-dns-to-a-third-party/ <comment><AUTHOR> An update is that on Reddit a Firefox employee has responded on my crosspost to reddit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/9cx8hk/on_firefox_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/9cx8hk/on_firefox_moving_dns_to_a_third_party/)

Clarifying that this is just an A/B test and there are no plans to continue using CloudFlare for all users.

<comment><USER2> To clarify, only in nightly and previously disclosed [0] (results at [1]).

The article is right to be fearful that FF is pondering a default change, but until that is even on the table, I'm not worried. Now if they wanted to make it really really easy for regular users to change from your default ISP DNS to CloudFlare, I'd actually be OK with that, but I'd expect it to be implemented like search engine providers where anyone could just as easily be the DNS provider chosen (ideally without any CloudFlare favoritism). And it would be clear who your DNS provider is maybe via an icon (if there is real estate for it).

0 - [https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2018/06/01/improving-dns- pr...](https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2018/06/01/improving-dns-privacy-in- firefox/)

1 - [https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2018/08/28/firefox- nightly-...](https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2018/08/28/firefox-nightly- secure-dns-experimental-results/)

<comment><USER3> They have a contract with CloudFlare with stronger privacy protections for FF users. This goes beyond the normal CloudFlare privacy policy. [https://developers.cloudflare.com/184.108.40.206/commitment-to- priv...](https://developers.cloudflare.com/18.104.22.168/commitment-to- privacy/privacy-policy/firefox/) They're not just picking providers at random.

<comment><USER2> I am a bit naive. Who is paying who in this contract? What is either side getting out of it? Why can it not just be a pluggable DNS provider situation and let CloudFlare compete with anyone else for opt-in (including extra privacy features if so desired)? Also curious, why would CloudFlare offer stronger privacy protections for one type of user and not another...what is CloudFlare getting out of the lesser-protected users since it is clear everyone is not given the same treatment?

<comment><USER3> It will almost certainly be configurable. My point is that you'd have to evaluate the privacy policy of each provider for yourself which is more work than just picking from a drop-down menu. And even if you put in the normal CF endpoint, you would only be covered by the normal CF ToS and not by Firefox's special deal. The "favoritism" has a material impact on privacy.

<comment><USER2> Surely it can be seen why this comes off as shady. Browser vendor inks deal w/ third party company. Deal includes special provisions company will not otherwise provide users of its service. Browser vendor promises to give preference to third party company. Details of deal, at least to me, are not very transparent.

In general I agree that using other DNS providers besides the ISPs has benefits. But not sure I think it should funnel to a single, preferred company. Nor do I think that they should collect anything at all, reduced compared to their original or not. I think some transparency is deserved here about the contract if/when a regular FF release is shipped encouraging users to use Cloudflare, specifically around the motives of wanting this data. Granted, I am a bit more paranoid than most.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This seems well-intentioned but incredibly dangerous. There's no promise CF can make that justifies trusting them to receive a stream of every request from every FF browser, with all this trackable metadata.

In particular, I think it would be unsurprising if CF's lines were tapped upstream. CF and Mozilla staff have a history of treating TLS as if it protects all content, rather than as a tool for keeping narrowly defined secrets. I explain further at [https://weblog.evenmere.org/posts/2014-05-16-tls-is-not- for-...](https://weblog.evenmere.org/posts/2014-05-16-tls-is-not-for- privacy.html) .

<comment><USER3> But since there's already a high risk of ISPs sniffing or even redirecting this traffic, you'd have to show that the risk for the average user is higher with CF.

<comment><USER5> It funnels all _firefox_ requests through CF, as opposed to all _$ISP_ requests. Which one is worse for the user I find hard to say, but they'd definetely generate two completely different datasets. (for example, CF's set would be international).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is just like when Facebook wanted to handle all of your iOS traffic via a VPN app for "secure Internet" reasons. "Trust us, you have nothing to worry about, your traffic is safe with us" and then they were caught analyzing traffic data of all apps other than Messenger or Facebook. Yeah. "Trust"

<comment><USER7> > they were caught analyzing traffic data of all apps

Source?

<comment><USER8> Onavo has been a critical part of Facebook's recent startup acquisitions, and the data they had was very powerful.

"The tool shaped Facebook's decision to buy WhatsApp and informed its live- video strategy, they say. Facebook used Onavo to build its early-bird tool that tips it off to promising services and that helped Facebook home in on Houseparty."

[https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/13/facebook-knew-about- snap...](https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/13/facebook-knew-about-snap- struggles-through-app-tracking/)

[https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/the-new-copycats-how- fa...](https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/the-new-copycats-how-facebook- squashes-2)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Given that my ISP currently tracks DNS and blocks whatever they feel like at that level, I actually think this is a good move.

The measure I'm looking at is that of sensible defaults: is this default more sensible for a majority of the user base than the existing default? For anyone outside the rule of GDPR using a regular ISP, this option is far better. The joint privacy policy Mozilla + Cloudflare is much better than a regular ISP.

And given that we all go and change the DNS of every computer we and our extended families own to 220.127.116.11, 184.108.40.206 or 188.8.131.52, I don't see why we'd think Mozilla doing it by default is a bad thing.

</comment><comment><USER10> A friend of mine has a simple static hobby website on his own .net domain. It isn't reachable through CloudFlare DNS. This has been true for over two months. Google DNS can see it, as can my ISP's.

I recently noticed that his self-hosted email is sometimes being flagged as spam because it lacks spf.

Is CloudFlare filtering their DNS results, maybe against a spam blacklist?

<comment><USER11> Can you share the domain name so we can investigate?

<comment><USER10> I can't share the domain name but its DNS servers are:

      ns3.cisws.nl
      ns6.cis-websolutions.nl

<comment><USER12> Sharing the domain is usually critical.

Picking a random domain hosted on those nameservers, mdfs.net, it looks like, of the 4 IPs, 2 are down and 1 of the remaining ones doesn't support TCP.

[http://dnsviz.net/d/mdfs.net/W48OcQ/dnssec/](http://dnsviz.net/d/mdfs.net/W48OcQ/dnssec/) [https://ednscomp.isc.org/ednscomp/4040283963](https://ednscomp.isc.org/ednscomp/4040283963)

18.104.22.168 is less tolerant than some resolvers of that level of breakage.

[https://community.cloudflare.com/t/ipv6-timeouts-appear- to-b...](https://community.cloudflare.com/t/ipv6-timeouts-appear-to-be- racey/30682)

<comment><USER10> Thanks for having a look. If I understand that correctly the DNS servers are returning IPv6 addresses for themselves, which aren't functioning. So he needs to get his host to stop returning the IPv6 addresses (or to fix IPv6).

<comment><USER12> Yup. And also one of the IPv4 IPs isn't doing TCP.

I'm not sure nothing else is wrong, but the IPv6 issue is likely why 188.8.131.52 is having trouble resolving it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is there any easy way to change/update the DNS lookup server? I do not trust Cloudflare or Google or anyone for that matter.

</comment><comment><USER14> Have Mozilla figured out how they are going to handle corp users enabling this and not breaking corporate DNS?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's likely that the assumption is that in 'enterprise' or large organizations software installation and configuration is managed or that they fall back if they can't (but as the blog post says; DNS over HTTPS is hard to block).

<comment><USER14> I've not seen many orgs manage FF settings. Typically AD policies apply to MSIE/Edge. Has this changed?

<comment><USER15> As a single data point, my current and quite large company manages firefox settings. I discovered this when they turned off the search in address bar feature...

<comment><USER16> If anyone wonders why anyone would do that it might be because the autocomplete in search bar leaks metadata not only about what you search but also about what sites you visit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> That title is a hell of a lot misleading considering this is for an early A/B test and there are no plans to enable this for all users.

</comment><comment><USER18> Cloudflare's 22.214.171.124 DNS already censors torrent/piracy focused domains, for example rarbg and thepiratebay.

On the other hand, they resolve websites which are considered illegal in my country, which would normally be censored by my ISP (e.g. not approved betting websites).

<comment><USER19> This is absolutely false.

<comment><USER18> I state my results for when I tested your DNS (related [1])

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/8aa0ba/cloudflare_d...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/8aa0ba/cloudflare_dns_blocking_scihub/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The big issue with Mozilla, is that they are dependent on outside revenue (which for the most part ultimately comes from advertising). A big chunk of their revenue comes from Google. If CloudFlare were to offer Mozilla a lot of money to use CloudFlare DNS, they would likely do it.

<comment><USER16> > The big issue with Mozilla, is that they are dependent on outside revenue

While this is technically true it is kind of misleading to single Mozilla out as depending on a certain large sponsor given who owns Chrome (and who owns Edge, IE and possibly less problematic, Safari).</comment></comment>


Supreme Court: Pre-Miranda silence can be used as evidence of guilt - <AUTHOR> http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2021208775_apussupremecourtsilence.html

<comment><USER2> _Prosecutors argued that since Salinas was answering some questions - therefore not invoking his right to silence - and since he wasn 't under arrest and wasn't compelled to speak, his silence on the incriminating question doesn't get constitutional protection._

This judgement sends a very strong message to _never_ talk to the police. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik) explains why its a monumentally stupid idea to talk to the cops.

<comment><USER3> Hypothetical: you are visiting a zoo. You see a bear get out of its enclosure, grab a baby human, and run away. You are the only witness who saw which direction the bear ran.

A police officer comes running up and asks where the bear went.

Question: Do you tell him, or do you say that you will not talk without a lawyer present?

I've asked people on Reddit similar questions when this video has come up there, and a lot of them say they would not talk without a lawyer, based on the video.

I'm curious how many here feel that way.

<comment><USER4> If you re-word that to say "dingo" instead of "bear", I think you'll realize that reddit was probably right.

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

<comment><USER5> I have no words. That's just ... altogether incredible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Isn't the idea that the Miranda _warning_ does not grant rights, but merely serves to inform the recipient of rights that they already have? Well, I thought that _was_ the idea, it clearly is not the case anymore...

<comment><USER7> Another tragedy of positively defined law. As soon as you give someone a "bill of rights" you can then do everything up to the prohibited limit.

<comment><USER8> Indeed, and that was an argument the Federalists made against the Bill of Rights.

But then again, does negatively defined law ever work in practice? Sure doesn't seem to in a whole bunch of areas that don't touch on the 1st through 8th Amendments.

<comment><USER9> Why would the Federalists make that argument against a Bill of Rights that contained the Ninth Amendment?

<comment><USER8> " _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people._ "

Well, for one thing the 9th Amendment doesn't address the problems with the positive rights that most of the other ones establish or acknowledge.

<comment><USER9> What's problems are those? (No snark, just honest confusion)

<comment><USER8> Well, to take the area of Constitutional jurisprudence I'm most familiar with, look at all the effort that was put into claiming the 2nd Amendment created a "collective" right instead of acknowledging an individual right. This interpretation caused more than a little mischief, especially in state courts against their own versions of the 2nd Amendment, but also in at least one lower level Federal court decision, but a bottom line was that it was rejected 9-0 in _Heller_ (this is a good article on all that: [http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective- Right.html](http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html)).

The Federalists' argument was that a government of limited powers could never even do such things. Unfortunately, the subsequent history of "a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce [us to] absolute Despotism...."

<comment><USER9> Well, the Federalists didn't think far enough ahead. We have CPUs that are Turing complete with only a single instruction, so in retrospect simply limiting the number of abilities the government had wouldn't have been sufficient in the long term. It's easier to say that in retrospect but I'm glad that the debate process for the Constitutional ratification led to the Bill of Rights being drafted in a compromise.

I'm not sure how to take the last sentence though. I know who the Continental Congress felt the despot was; who is the despot now?

<comment><USER8> A "Despotism" can be run by an oligarchy, which is what our ruling class has become. And "absolute Despotism" is a reasonably accurate description of where we seem to be headed, given a minimal allowance for rhetorical flourishes.

Quite seriously, re-read the Declaration if you haven't lately, history does tend to repeat itself, for people remain people.

<comment><USER9> I've actually read the Declaration recently enough to have linked a good part of it into one of the innumerable HN discussion threads around here.

And if this is an absolute despotism then I'll need to know what word to use for what despotism meant when Jefferson wrote those words, so that I can keep my thoughts straight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From the article: Salinas' "Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question," Justice Samuel Alito said. "It has long been settled that the privilege `generally is not self-executing' and that a witness who desires its protection `must claim it.'"

Does this mean one must actually say "I plead the fifth" to 'claim' one's rights under the fifth amendment?

<comment><USER11> That's not what the constitution says, but let's be honest: does it really matter what it says?

<comment><USER12> The 5th amendment says, in relevant portion: "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

I don't think it's a great decision, but it's misleading to say "that's not what the constitution says." The constitution doesn't say anything, one way or the other, about the proper way to invoke the right against self- incrimination. It just says that people shall not be "compelled."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Think about this, the people most affected by this decision will, by definition, never know about it.

If you're ignorant of the basic right, you are definitely ignorant of the case law.

The supreme court just said two things 1. The state has no responsibility to inform people of their rights and thus 2. The ignorant have no rights.

This both sickens and terrifies me.

</comment><comment><USER14> IANAL, but wouldn't this incentivize the police to just question suspects before they are under arrest?

<comment><USER15> My reading here (and IANAL, too) is that Salinas' trouble came from the fact that he was answering _some_ questions, and then stopped when they got relevant. That is to say, his _selective_ silence was the damning thing, not his silence, period. If you say nothing all along, or only say, "Lawyer.", your silence isn't so inculpatory.

<comment> jack-r-abbit IANAL either but that is also how I read it. I don't really find this all that disturbing. He chose to talk and then chose to not answer that specific question. Plus, as was pointed out in the article and by another poster here, the ballistics confirmed a match to the gun. So there was more at play in the court room than just his silence.

<comment><USER14> He probably would have been convicted anyway, but Supreme Court rulings set precedent for future cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The shotgun ballistic evidence is what got him the guilty verdict (and I'm sure quite a bit of other things). Not being able to answer a reasonable question was just the icing on the cake.

<comment><USER17> Unless you are reading a different story:

 _Ballistic reports showed the shells matched the shotgun, but police declined to prosecute Salinas._

Maybe I don't understand shotgun forensics very well, but as I understand the only ballistics that they could match it the gauge of the shotgun and possibly match gunpowder residue. Other than that, shotguns don't have riflings, which make them very difficult to pinpoint as a weapon.

As an example, if I were to fire 5 different shotguns of the same gauge but use the same shells and you either had the expended shell or the result of the shot (buckshot or slug), you most likely wouldn't be able to tell which rifle shot which shell.

While the jury may still have had plenty to convict on with other circumstantial evidence (motive, means, opportunity), I will say that this is a bad decision.

<comment><USER8> If the report is accurate, shells are what's left behind, the assembly of brass and plastic that you reload and all that. And for those on the brass base there will be extractor and ejector markings, and as jlgreco reminds me, maybe the firing pin, although how good they will be as evidence I don't know. I.e. sufficiently unique, then again a lot of this science isn't really anything resembling science as it's used outside the judicial world, excepting DNA matching.

BTW, some shotgun barrels do have rifling for shooting unrifled slugs for deer hunting (e.g. [http://www.brownells.com/items/rifled-shotgun- barrels.aspx](http://www.brownells.com/items/rifled-shotgun-barrels.aspx)), but I'll bet that's not the case here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The ACLU's "Bust card" has a good set of guidelines for what to do if you are stopped by the police to best protect yourself.

[http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bustcard_eng_20100630.pdf](http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bustcard_eng_20100630.pdf)

#1 on the list of your rights:

"You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to exercise that right, say so out loud."

</comment><comment><USER19> Wow this case is just so weird:

\- convicted based on weapon only? Isn't that just an indirect proof?

\- 2nd trial after the first one was a mistrial - I thought you can only be tried once?!

\- convicted 15 years after it happened - isn't there a time bar?

\- the whole miranda business - when they arrested Tsarnaev, they didn't read him his rights and people just assumed he had them anyway. This guy apparently didn't have them until they read it. So, if they don't read them you either have them if they won't read them to you ever or don't have them if they will read them in some unspecified point in the future?

I think I'll just stay out of Texas for a while.

EDIT: also "did not answer when asked if a shotgun he had access to would match up with the murder weapon" what kind of idiotic question is that?! "Excuse me sir, does your weapon match with the murder weapon?" "Yes, it does, officer!"

<comment><USER8> Sufficiently strong circumstantial evidence has long been enough to convict.

You can only be tried once, by both a state or subdivision, _and_ the feds, "on the same set of facts", _if_ a verdict of innocence is rendered. In a mistrial, the trial is ended for whatever reason without a verdict of any sort being rendered, generally the judge prematurely ends it because of a procedural issue or the jury deadlocks.

The prohibition against double jeopardy (which the courts have determined does not extend to both a state and a federal prosecution each, e.g. see the Rodney King debacle) is to prevent the authorities from trying you again and again until they get a jury to come to the "right" decision, and this decreases the problem of "the process is the punishment". Also protects you from a better prosecution after you reveal your (successful) defense the first time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Are there any questions that a suspect is required to answer? Like their name, where they live etc?

I think if you are driving a car you are required to produce your driver license on request, but other than that you don't have to answer any questions.

<comment><USER8> In some states you have to provide your name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> A lot of developments lately make me think of this wonderful letter Emily Haines sent fans of Metric last fall.

> _The thing we have to get our heads around on a daily basis is that even a > small step in the wrong direction is too far when attempting to prevent a > slide backwards._

Full letter here: [http://peg.gd/3eN](http://peg.gd/3eN) (short URL is not a redirect, but in fact a mirror of the email content itself).

</comment><comment><USER21> More and more I'm giving up on this government.

</comment><comment><USER22> Wait... So is it a right or a privilege?

<comment><USER12> You have a right to a lawyer in a criminal trial, but that doesn't mean one magically appears if you don't ask for one.

<comment><USER22> Seeing as a lawyer is a tangible thing that doesn't really strike me as a fair analogy. Also, isn't Salito quoted as stating it as a privilege in the article?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is one more of a creeping unbalancing of the checks and balances of modern government and it causes me great unease

In the UK we lost the "right to silence" twenty years ago - I remember campaigning to stop the bill. (Don't hire me as a lobbyist)

I think only the PACE reforms which focused police back on real evidence and away from confession and go policing has kept us from an explosion in the courts system.

Bein arrested and interviewed is a massively intimidating thing and just shutting up is almost always the best advice. But if that advice can add years to your sentence you are asking people to make a fine risk assessment at the point most people are just in a head spin.

Not good. Aaron Schwartz had time to think about his fine balancing act. Look how that played out.

Keep the courts a long way away from inferences about _why_ you shut up - write your congressman now. Seriously

.</comment>


Ask HN: Instapaper for audio? - <AUTHOR>

Has anyone seen something like Instapaper for audio?  As a DJ, I'm always listening to new music and mixes from a range of sources.  Direct mp3 link, Soundcloud, YouTube, 8tracks, mixcloud, etc.
I'd love to click 'Listen later' and build an audio queue that I could stream to my mobile (which is key).
The closest thing I could find was huffduffer.com, but that is not what I'm looking for.  Do I just have to build the thing? <comment><USER2> Good idea. I agree it would be nice not having to download audio files (a la Huffduffer) since mobile devices have limited storage capacity. I know of no service that streams personalized queues of video either.

<comment><USER2> Another audio service I'd like to see: human powered text-to-speech...that scales.

Quick mockup: <http://audiothink.com>

Concept: User provides prose and a narrator reads it. User pays based on the number of words. Narrator posts audio files to user's private podcast. User subscribes to podcast or dials a (Twilio-powered) phone line. Service uses Mechanical Turk workers to do the narrating. But that introduces hard quality control issues. How does one automate the outsourcing of...art? I thought maybe if I set up a good qualification and reward system the service could have quality safeguards - but that's hardly a solid foundation on which to devote months of hacking. So that's where I stopped.</comment></comment>


As coronavirus spreads, UC Berkeley suspends in-person instruction - <AUTHOR> https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/03/09/as-coronavirus-spreads-uc-berkeley-suspends-in-person-instruction/ <comment><USER2> In terms of HN discussion, this is the same story as [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22539789](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22539789), so it'd be best to post this link in the comments there.</comment>


A selfish Silicon Valley must learn from history - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2013/08/09/thanks_for_nothing_1_percent_a_selfish_silicon_valley_must_learn_from_history/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm in disagreement with Bill Gates on the quote... Personally, I think getting us off of this rock is one of the most important things we'll ever do to improve the living conditions of humanity. There are only so many resources, and so much space here on Earth. Being able to spread beyond, find new resources, new places to live will reduce competition for the Earth's limited resources.</comment>


Google challenges US government's private data demand in court - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/5/4185732/google-fights-national-security-letter?login=1365139667

<comment><USER2> Jack boot gov thuggery</comment>