Tech Companies and Government May Soon Go to War Over Surveillance - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/08/stop-clumping-tech-companies-in-with-government-in-the-surveillance-scandals-they-may-be-at-war/#! <comment><USER3> I figure that the NSA will simply subpoena the private SSL certs with a gag order. That gives the companies involved plausible deniability since XKeyScore (and XKeyScore whatever is next) can just record all the raw internet traffic. I don't see how large technology companies will be able to fight back. SSLv3 includes Perfect Forward Secrecy via ECC but it is not widely used.

<comment><USER4> Browser vendors (which seem to coincide with many of these tech companies involved) can also use certificate pinning:

[http://tack.io/](http://tack.io/)

Or we can all start to use something like this (both projects are from Moxie Marlinspike):

[http://convergence.io/](http://convergence.io/)

<comment><USER5> There's not much you can do to detect MITM by someone who has subpoenaed the private SSL certificates, is there?

I mean, there's no way to tell apart the certificate from the intermediary from the cert from the endpoint as they're the same.

<comment> a-priori No, if the private keys are compromised (such as via a subpoena) then a man- in-the-middle attack is trivial.

Worse, if a trusted certificate authority's private key is compromised, then the TLS public-key infrastructure as a whole is broken. An attacker who can also intercept traffic (e.g. by routing traffic through a data centre they control) can execute a MITM attack by issuing their own TLS certificate for any domain.

The only way to detect such an attack would be to notice that one time you connect to a site you see the legitimate key, and another time you see the attacker's key. That's what certificate pinning detects.

At this point it's probably safe to assume that the NSA has compromised at least one certificate authority's private keys via a subpoena and gag order and can therefore do MITM attacks on TLS traffic.

<comment><USER3> With SSLv3 you can prevent MITM attacks as well as replay attacks where the cert is compromised in the future. The SSL cert is used to verify the identity of the server. Once the handshake is completed a symmetric key is chosen for the session using Diffie-Hellman key exchange ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffie%E2%80%93Hellman_key_exch...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffie%E2%80%93Hellman_key_exchange)) to compromise the session the NSA would have to subpoena the data from the servers memory (a real possibility) but would be unable to attack any sessions that had been previously recorded. This is called Perfect Forward Secrecy ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_forward_secrecy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_forward_secrecy)). It is supported by OpenSSL using elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman. If this was adopted universally it would make conventional attacks on SSL impossible without compromising the servers memory. However there is still a risk that any government may compel a company to preserve the session keys under a gag order.

If a CA is compromised then we have much larger problems since it is impossible to verify the identity of the participants in the session. Since an attack was used to create valid certificates as part of the attack on Iran's nuclear program it is likely that other attacks exist and are in the hands of the same actors. We can't move to ECC based SSL fast enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Historically, the government has won every political fight about this (I guess nobody remembers CALEA, or it's predecessors), and been roundly supported by both law enforcement and the populace at large.

Outside of the tech community, i have yet to hear large amounts of actual outrage.

I thus predict the same outcome as say, patents:

Techies will complain on techie-friendly websites about how it sucks, rather than doing something productive like repeatedly contacting their congressfolks, requesting and having real live meetings with them.

People will propose technical solutions, apparently oblivious to the fact that the government will simply require you not to use them (as they have in the past).

Nothing will change.

Techies will then blame the tech companies for losing this war, or blame it on not spending enough money on lobbyists, or some bogeyman that does not require realizing the harsh truth: As a whole, techies refuse to actually get involved when it's something that actually requires doing something other than coding or writing comments on a website.

Instead, they rely on EFF and other orgs, which are simply not enough.

<comment><USER7> Contacting congressfolks is useless. I don't know where you guys get this idea that it actually works, but if you simply look at incentives (not expectations of how it's supposed to be) government officials have absolutely no incentives to change their policies even if a large enough group of people demands it. Whenever something is inconvenient to a government, this group of people can simply be ignored, because nothing else would follow. No uprisings, no media coverage, and, most importantly, no reduction in financing (taxation) - nothing. The people in government know this very well, but, of course, they are interested in perpetuating this myth, because it adds legitimacy to them.

<comment><USER8> > no reduction in financing (taxation)

If you look at the GDP to national debt map on wikipedia you will notice, that most (if not all) first world countries, the beacons of human rights and democracy, owe more that they can produce in the foreseeable future. It is not the tax money they are spending.

<comment><USER9> > If you look at the GDP to national debt map on wikipedia you will notice, > that most (if not all) first world countries, the beacons of human rights > and democracy, owe more that they can produce in the foreseeable future.

The highest debt:GDP ratio on the list under either measure is Japan's under the CIA measure, at a little over 200% of GDP. That's not more than it can produce in the forseeable future (its a little more than it produces in two years.)

It may be more than they can are likely to pay off in the forseeable future, but then, that's a completely different story.

> It is not the tax money they are spending.

That's not a question that is addressed by debt:GDP ratio, its a question that is addressed by deficit:budget ratio, which is a very different beast.

<comment><USER8> Well, there is a chart for that on wikipedia too, and it doesn't look good either. And I'm not talking about Japan.

There was a country just a little over 20 years ago that was in debt up to its neck and was trying to do global surveillance and project global power. Half of the world was screwed when it fell, and not everybody in the eastern block did recover yet. God help us all if this happens to the usa.

<comment><USER9> > Well, there is a chart for that on wikipedia too, and it doesn't look good > either.

After you misrepresented the last one without actually linking to it, I'm not really inclined to expend the effort to verify your characterization of this one.

> There was a country just a little over 20 years ago that was in debt up to > its neck and was trying to do global surveillance and project global power.

AFAICT, the Soviet Union, just before it fell, had an estimated $65-$100 billion in foreign debt with a GDP on the order of $2.5 trillion -- it wasn't really "in debt up to its neck".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think we are going to see a massive showdown over crypto backdoors, the likes of which we have not seen yet. I am further not sanguine about the tech companies coming out on top this time.

The problem, as the article points out, is that people are demanding greater security, and government abuse is driving this. That security comes at a cost for things like wiretaps. The choices are bleak and the showdowns are commencing. Dangerous times.....

<comment><USER11> "I am further not sanguine about the tech companies coming out on top this time."

Remember, though, this isn't just "government vs. the little guy". There are large interests that don't particularly care for the US government intercepting their every move. Some of these may sue, some may contribute to furthering encryption technology, who knows what else.

My personal feeling is that the NSA's surveillance is going to slowly but surely get much harder over the next few years. Centralization was convenient, but if there's enough push to decentralize, it can be done, and will be done. And further, the exact stuff that the NSA is most interested in is going to be the first to go.

We're overdue for another wave of decentralization anyhow.

<comment><USER12> >>> And further, the exact stuff that the NSA is most interested in is going to be the first to go.

It's already gone. That's what's so insidious about this whole NSA/CIA/FBI/DHS/DEA debacle: it's all a wasteful charade. They haven't caught __anyone__. They haven't stopped __anything__ of import. It's a bunch of bureaucrats playing cold war with real lives and money. They shouldn't have access to anything because they don't DO anything worthwhile with it.

The world is getting safer. Information/education (power) via technology is being shifted to the individual in a big way and they HATE it because it makes them irrelevant. The current state of the government three letter agencies is an ongoing FUD apparatus that exists for almost no other purpose than self sustenance.

The NSA has systematically and illegally shared information with the DEA and other domestic law enforcement[1]. It has done so while encouraging them to cover it up using "parallel construction" to establish probable cause for an arrest. The FBI entraps people into terror plots and then "busted" them[2]. The ATF sells guns to the Mexican drug cartels[3].

Look at the sources below. It's Forbes, The New York Times and The Washington Post. This isn't edge case conspiracy theory. This is systematic institutionalized corruption covered daily in the main stream press .

The military industrial complex and it's self-sustaining security theater is eating billions (trillions?) in real tax payer money and costing us god knows what via chilling effects and opportunity costs of human lives ruined or snuffed out. It makes me sick to think about the scale of the losses.

The only good news is we (as in we, the people) are winning, as of now. We can all still talk about this stuff without secret police showing up at our door. And, more importantly we ARE talking about it. Everyone is pissed, congress' approval rating is 11%. Pretty soon everybody will know everything. Obama, Holder, Clapper and co have a lot more to hide than we do. That's why the government and their financiers are so freaked out and paranoid.

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the- switch/wp/2013/08/05...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the- switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the- dea-is-covering-it-up/)

[2] [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-p...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist- plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

[3][http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/09/28/fast-and- fur...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/09/28/fast-and-furious-just- might-be-president-obamas-watergate/)

<comment><USER13> I really feel as if when Obama was elected someone walked into the Oval Office and said "Hey. Nice speeches. Now here's how the world works so try to keep the ball rolling as long as you can." and he probably just said "Fuck."

Once someone puts the whole picture together and the middle class continues to decline, and the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, and the safety net gets dismantled more and more (although Obama Care is at least a step forward I'd say), and the prisons keep expanding, and the endless drug war keeps going on, and the debts keep rising, and the population keeps expanding, and the costs of goods keep going up and up, and the whole myriad of other things that are going on in secret and out in the open, well... I'd imagine it's not going to be pretty at best. Hopefully things can change slowly and we can avoid all the whole house of cards collapsing, but who really knows?

<comment><USER14> Not to mention resource depletion and the peaking of flow rates in oil extraction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've always toyed with the idea of tech companies gearing up militarily. Let's see Google Hellfire Missile Drones defend their datacenters against Facebook Autonomous Cockroach Bots with kilograms of incendiaries embedded in them.

Just watch out for Apple's that's-no-office-building spaceship. (It's easier to disguise a launching platform as an office building rather than build an (undetected) assembly platform in LEO.)

<comment><USER16> They would lose this isn't CP2020 :-)

That's a nice little phone company you have their Mr Brinn it would be terrible if something happened to your telecoms licence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Makes a nice headline for a Friday afternoon. Unfortunately it will never happen. Tech company leaders don't have the stones while the government has guns and prisons.

</comment><comment><USER18> Ban crypto and then only criminals and governments would have it. Same as guns.

<comment><USER19> Pedophiles and terrorists use high-strength crypto to transmit dangerous and illegal information. There's no reason normal citizens need high-strength crypto. Besides, if it came down to it, do you really think your crypto would stand a chance against the government's three letter agencies? You can still protect yourself from passive script kiddies with ROT13.

<comment><USER20> For those that didn't catch it, Jay is using a mock version of the anti-gun argument in his response here. I'm pretty sure his views aren't that at all (but a part of me is terrified to think that someone will use his response as a defense for crypto to not be in normal users' hands, taking what he said completely out of context)

<comment><USER21> Wait until they start using words like "assault crypto" or military grade- crypto. Why does any citizen need the crypto that is used in warfare? They aren't in combat, why do they need more than 54-bit keys? Who are they so worried about anyway?

<comment><USER22> "There is no need in American civilian life for these weapons of war." ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine))

The next time they come for the gun owners (well, that would be yesterday: [http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/08/29/obama-issues- executive-o...](http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/08/29/obama-issues-executive- orders-to-screw-us/)) you might want to consider that this set of rights is indivisible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> "You want us to execute that warrant for you? Ok, sure, but the user will get a nice big popup warning telling them that their messages are likely being intercepted!"

I'm pretty sure that would be illegal in the case of an NSL.

<comment><USER24> Has the supreme court ever ruled on NSL secrecy vs the fourth amendment?

<comment><USER25> I don't think there's really any overlap there. The overlap with the 4th would be less about secrecy and more if someone demanded full content from an account, since NSLs are not warrants (legality of procuring "metadata" without a warrant is the much larger issue there, but so far courts have been ok with it).

The secrecy part _can_ be a violation of the 6th amendment (right to confront your accuser), but theoretically evidence procured under the NSL will be produced by trial time (except when shown to conflict with national security, which judges can sometimes accept too readily).

The real problem with secrecy is the first amendment, since you are forcing people to not divulge that they received an order to hand over information. Typically prior restraint like that is heavily circumscribed to protect an ongoing investigation but no further, which means that _indefinite_ gag orders should have correspondingly extraordinary justification. Considering the hundreds of thousands of NSLs that have been issued, this seems unlikely to be the norm.

The first amendment approach has been successfully[1] argued by the EFF at the district court level. This has opened the way for more lawsuits, including an appeal of that case, which will hopefully make their way higher in the court system.

(read the linked EFF article if you're interested in more. It lays the case and the judge's ruling out in great detail)

[1] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/depth-judge- illstons-r...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/depth-judge-illstons- remarkable-order-striking-down-nsl-statute)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If only, but I just don't see companies like Google, Microsoft or Facebook implementing end-to-end encryption like OTR, ZRTP and PGP for their services, and even if they do, I'm not even sure I'd trust them not to implement a backdoor to get that data before it's encrypted somehow, at the behest of the government.

Unfortunately, the alternatives will have to come from elsewhere - <USER2> _disruptive_ (in privacy) start-ups that will launch only services with security in mind from day one, as they try to steal customers away from those companies.

</comment><comment><USER26> Isn't the more important battle here between the government and the agencies that server as the 'backbone' of the internet (ISPs,etc?)

<comment><USER27> Indeed, the author seems to be clearly ignorant of that, be it willingly or otherwise:

> My guess is the de facto interception technique of the future will involve > targeting users' endpoints (phone, computer, tablet, whatever) instead of > trying to intercept communications in transit.

The data is still stored in the hands of tech companies, and as such outside the realm of control of the owners of the data. The article writer would do well to realize that it's not about national security, terrorists, or China -- but instead it's about control.

<comment><USER26> Yeah, I highly doubt they will target users' endpoints (mostly because the ease and largely unreported nature of fiddling/requesting data from ISPs)

No matter where the data ends up being stored, if it has to GO somewhere, and you are the man in the middle everywhere, things start getting a lot easier to track.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Have there been any examples of tech companies that have simply refused to provide access to governments?

<comment><USER22> Yes, it's a stark object lesson: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio#Qwest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio#Qwest)

ADDED: which helps explain the current behavior of other companies we'd like to think better of. I'm sure the people running them would to, but they and their families (who the Feds have targeted in other political prosecutions) would prefer they stay out of Federal prison.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I predict that more companies outside the US will start producing products and services that the US can't touch legally. As a result US tech firms would lose out.

It is their interest to band together now as one powerful lobby group and force a change to the legislation.

<comment><USER6> "I predict that more companies outside the US will start producing products and services that the US can't touch legally. As a result US tech firms would lose out. "

I guess I view this as highly naive. What makes you think the US won't get agreement from these places to share? They already have in a large number of cases.

<comment> bjelkeman-again I would only say somewhat naive. There is a lot of effort in the EU that points in this direction. Not everyone is a British poudle over here. We started our work in the direction a couple of years ago, where I work. It will take a while, but it will happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> That's a possibility. Google has made WebRTC encrypted by default. However, it uses RSA which still isn't the best of choices (15 years in the future, when the NSA builds a usable quantum computer).

<comment><USER31> We have nothing that would survive a quantum computer. RSA is even better than ECC, because it uses longer keys _.

But we are very far from a usable quantum computer. I doubt we'll get it in 15 years, and I doubt we'll get it before everything changes because of AI, nanotech, some other disruptive tech, or some kind of doom.

_ Yes, there is nothing stopping you from using ECC with a 2k bits key. Except that you aren't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Friends sue each other. That's a show for their enemy. I'm supprised some of us are still thinking tech companies and their government are against each other in this case.

</comment><comment><USER33> Sadly a majority of the American public is completely okay with being spied on. [1] Given that is the customer base for these tech companies, I don't see them fighting very valiantly, if at all. Especially when the government can put on pressure via political prosecutions. [2]

1: [http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa- ph...](http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone- tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/) 2: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio)

</comment><comment><USER34> Don't be too quick in supporting the Tech Companies in this war. The only thing that will happen if they win, is that the government will have to _pay_ to get your data.

In this war, the government should win, because the government is by extension the people. It is up to the people of the world to make sure that their governments implement the right laws to restrict surveillance.

<comment><USER35> What if your government is currently using chemical weapons on you, or imprisoning you for being gay?

<comment><USER34> Wat are tech companies going to do about that?

<comment><USER36> Not cooperate with warrantless data requests that might reveal that someone is gay?

<comment><USER34> I don't know. That sounds right in theory.. but in practice, would a country that prosecutes people on ethnical/cultural grounds even consider allowing companies to ignore their data requests?

History tells us no. History also tells us that tech companies often don't give a shit. Perhaps a highly visible company like Google or Twitter might, but a little visible company like IBM or Cisco? I wouldn't bet on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> We can hope.

</comment><comment><USER38> >Given X-Keyscore was a program primarily designed to intercept unencrypted internet traffic, you could be forgiven for interpreting Facebook's post as a middle finger pointed in NSA's direction. (Sources inside Facebook say it is a coincidence, and indeed the company had been in the process of enabling this across-the-board for years. But still. The timing.)

What journalistic integrity.</comment>


Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/theresa-may-wants-to-regulate-the-internet <comment><USER3> As much as I expect nanny-state behaviour from the Tory's this has blown me away. I thought the author may be exaggerating so I went and actually read the manifesto. It's only about one page near the end but it reads like something you'd expect from a dictatorial regime. It seems like after cutting us off from Europe via Brexit the government now wants to cut us off from the rest of the world. I just hope internet companies stand up the UK and refuse to do business here. I'm perfectly fine with losing access to the internet for a short period of time if it shows the government we won't let them interfere in this area. I perfectly understand prosecuting people for harassment online or requiring social media companies to work with the government to prevent that but regulating the entire internet and trying to get the rest of the world to do the same via an international treaty is terrifying. Particularly when the point of the regulation is controlling the people's access to information and enforcing Theresa May's backwards, old fashioned, morals.

If you care about this stuff you only have a few days left to register to vote. You can do it online in a few minutes I believe.

<comment><USER4> _" I just hope internet companies stand up the UK and refuse to do business here."_

I wouldn't bet my money on it, since UK ISP companies were quite happy following government's agenda (see porn filter and Internet history collection).

<comment><USER5> My current ISP (ask4) doesn't filter any of the sites that they're supposed to. I can't comment on the history collection, of course. This is not a recommendation of ask4 however - the connection is relatively unreliable and slow/oversubscribed.

<comment><USER6> There are others. Mine (idnet) doesn't filter and is very good. Andrews & Arnold is famously hacker-friendly and high quality and also doesn't.

Of course, when it becomes a legal requirement things might change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a British citizen, this makes me sick to my stomach.

However, I'm probably in the minority.

A few years ago I went to a debate about the Internet and how it affects families, and it was interesting and rather scary to hear people's attitudes.

It seemed that a lot of people didn't fully understand what the Internet was, asking why it didn't have a watershed [1] like TV does.

Despite good arguments being put forward for freedom and openness, the crowd voted overwhelmingly in favour for heavy censorship and controls.

And now, thanks to Theresa May's band of paternalistic fascists, they're going to get their wish.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watershed_(broadcasting)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watershed_\(broadcasting\))

<comment><USER8> I think this is a similar problem to that of net neutrality: a majority of people don't understand how the internet works (in any way, shape or form), and therefore are easily swayed by the loudest parties - often the ones trying to make a profit, not protect the internet.

<comment><USER9> It's worse. Way worse.

People don't want to know. Or they know and act anyway

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It does make me laugh as a British citizen when the government touts the use of evidence-based frameworks and its ' nudge' unit and then employs a blunt instrument such as this which is purely legislative and flies in the face of all available evidence.

Since the advent of the internet and the accompanying rise of internet porn, sexual irresponsibility, teen sex, rape and divorce have all been in decline. That's to say nothing of the arguments for encryption and against backdoors, which have been well trailed in these parts before.

Luckily, as the Chinese example shows, it just doesn't work, though I did find it amusing the time I caught a long haul China Air flight from Beijing with 'Free Wifi' where there was only one website available, and it was the website for China Air.

<comment><USER11> I'm curious as to which "Chinese example" do you have in mind that doesn't work?

Edit to reply to your wifi issue: you need to use that one website to login to access the "full" internet.

<comment><USER12> The Chinese example where they have tens of thousands of people monitoring internet content and spend millions per year on filtering and blocking technology - and it can all be circumvented with a VPN.

<comment><USER11> Interesting. So on one side people are bashing the the level of censorship by the government and how people are unable to exercise certain rights.

On the other side the same people are laughing at its ineffectiveness and how trivial it is to circumvent them and access information freely. One of them must surely be wrong?

Btw, censoring of keywords and blocking of websites are two different issues. VPN solves the latter, not the former.

<comment><USER13> No, both can be right. Censorship can be ineffective, but circumventing it may still put your name on some list. And once you do get charged with something, that fact can easily come up.

Also, VPNs are usually leaky. You can trivially identify many protocols, even under encryption. There was some researcher recently (sorry, can't find the link) identifying which movie is being streamed over encrypted link. Some networks are better at injecting noise than others - Tor has some benefits here for example.

<comment><USER11> So basically you are arguing that censorship is still effective in the sense that it serves as a deterrence and the base for other forms of tracking. And that would certainly harm freedom of speech in certain ways. So you are still supporting the idea that censorship is effective.

<comment><USER13> > in the sense that it serves as a deterrence

Absolutely not. I argue it's effective, as in, it provides an extra tool for the government to go against you if you cross some gov. defined line. I think it provides little deterrence. Same as the law against murder is more for definition of the crime and punishment than for deterring people from killing each other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> That insightful line from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri comes to mind, "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"

<comment><USER15> I find it necessary to make a distinction here; I would deny you access to my personal information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Heh, of course it can't go without "terrorists" trump card:

 _" the government will work even harder to ensure there is no "safe space for terrorists to be able to communicate online"."_

It's very sad to see UK becoming closed, police state.

<comment><USER16> But think of the children!

<comment><USER4> I guess they are saving this as a secret weapon for election next month.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > If elected, Theresa May will "take steps to protect the reliability and > objectivity of information that is essential to our democracy" – and crack > down on Facebook and Google to ensure that news companies get enough > advertising money.

The last agency that should decide what's reliable or objective is the government. Despite voting to remain within the EU, I was optimistic about Brexit. Change is good. I'm English/Irish. I never expected to say these words, but I think I'll go to Europe.

</comment><comment><USER18> > If elected, Theresa May will "take steps to protect the reliability and > objectivity of information that is essential to our democracy"

That's the kind of thing you usually hear from dictators. I hope she remembers to give citizens the same rights online and offline, not only the same restrictions.

</comment><comment><USER19> > "Our starting point is that online rules should reflect those that govern > our lives offline"

Of course they should, but if there are already those offline rules what prevents them to already enforce those rules online? Example. If hate speech is illegal offline in the UK, if somebody reports me for online hate speech I'm already in troubles. No special rules are needed.

What are they aiming to, automate the enforcement? What could possibly go wrong?

> The manifesto also proposes that internet companies will have to pay a levy, > like the one currently paid by gambling firms.

Business friendly ;-) The Brexit then this.

<comment><USER20> > Example. If hate speech is illegal offline in the UK, if somebody reports me > for online hate speech I'm already in troubles. No special rules are needed.

UK law enforcement is having trouble getting US court orders, because the crime in the UK isn't a crime in the US. Thus people commit crimes in the UK, using US companies, and are evading UK law enforcement.

Mostly this doesn't matter so much (certainly not enough for Conservative's measures to make sense), but there are a few people making credible death threats or organising vigorous campaigns of harassment, so it'd be useful if there was a way to stop it happening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> "The plans will allow Britain to become 'the global leader in the regulation of the use of personal data and the internet', the manifesto claims."

It is so sad that a government thinks this is something to be proud of.

</comment><comment><USER22> Every day there are news coming out of the U.K. that just makes me even happier that I left it. This is no exception.

<comment><USER5> Which country did you leave to? I'd like to get out of here ASAP.

<comment><USER23> Suggest you pick one in Europe while it's still easy to do :) I think most EU countries let you apply for full citizenship after being there a while (e.g. France lets you apply after 5 yrs, less if you're married to a French national).

<comment><USER24> What about Scotland? (I am serious!)

While we're veering OT fast, I really can't see Scotland staying in the Union once Brexit is complete.

There's still going to be strong ties with England, given all the toing and froing over the centuries - so I'd expect it to be quite easy for someone English to stay in Scotland almost regardless of what deal is eventually cut with the rest of the EU.

<comment><USER25> I would honestly hold off on Scotland until its known how things will work out. Scotland's budget deficit is now 10% of GDP which is larger than that of Greece. To be a member of the EU it requires a deficit of no more than 3% of GDP.

<comment><USER26> Worth noting though that the budget deficit of all countries varies a lot over time and that the budget deficit as % of GDP of Scotland now is actually less than that of the UK in 2009-2010 and I didn't hear much about the UK being evicted from the EU because of that.

<comment> k-mcgrady 2009-10 was still the middle of the worst global financial crisis in a century. The rules for being allowed to join the EU are strict - once you're in you don't have to keep following the entry requirements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Honestly, it's like Theresa May watched the first hours of _V for Vendetta_ and _Children of Men_ respectively, and mistook them for instructional films.

<comment><USER27> You forgot "Read everything Orwell wrote as a starter", specifically [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Langu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> .. while at the same time removing some of the few restrictions that exist on what can be posted in the newspapers (which are definitely neither reliable nor objective).

Remember which newspapers are cheering this stuff on. They're usually the same ones that brought us Brexit.

</comment><comment><USER29> I really don't like where these manifesto pledges are going, and there isn't really much we can do at the moment to stop a Tory majority, going on the current polling numbers (yes, I know polls can be deceiving).

I think the only way we can combat this in people's minds is to come up with concrete examples of how it will adversely affect their privacy or daily Internet routines.

</comment><comment><USER30> This is something else the UK could outsource to China - these guys have the state-of-the-art on monitoring and blocking technology. Something is very wrong here.

<comment><USER31> And even there it does not really work if you have the means to circumvent it. And guess what? The terrorists have, but the everyday man have not.

<comment><USER32> In fairness we all have access to the tools.

Understanding and implementing them right can be tough though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Absolutely disgusting. Even if, which I don't, I supported the Tories I could never vote for them with this policy.

</comment><comment><USER34> The British appear to be working hard on implementing a Putinesque information and media control policy. Just instead of acting openly totalitarian they attempt to play the role of mother that knows whats best for all the poor silly adult children. They are forcing their moral values on everyone whether they like it or not.

This is ironic coming from a state that is so loath to offend that they ignored Rotherham and similar incidents.

They are actively working on killing their financial industry via brexit and this policy if implemented will go a long way towards accomplishing the same in regards to their technology industry.

</comment><comment><USER8> The more and more Theresa May talks about the internet, the more and more I think I should start a VPN business, it's going to be a big sector in the UK once the great firewall of the UK goes live.

<comment><USER35> It is obvious to me that VPNs will also be declared illegal (for users and proprietors) in short order. This will be in addition to ISPs being asked to block VPN connections and log and report any VPN connection attempts along with the associated user account. If your organisation has a 'legitimate' requirement for using VPN, your VPN software will have to use some government- backed key escrow where they can decrypt the traffic, for "National security reasons".

<comment><USER32> This is a scarily realistic prospect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's the execution in particular of some of these things that annoys me as much as curbing freedom. All of the burden is typically put on companies, often without even understanding the challenges or considering their size. Anyone aware of the EU VAT rules for digital sales? The smallest of startups is tasked with herculean accounting and software requirements. To the point where some people just shut up shop. It's like some governments just want everyone to be poor and do nothing.

</comment><comment><USER37> I am as left wing and anti-authoritarian as they come. I read the digital bit in their manifesto and I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's simply stating the laws of the land should be respected and reflected in the online landscape. What's wrong with that?

Britain is a deeply divided, but pluralist country, where the majority are conservative. This is broadly in line with what I would expect that majority to suggest or want.

<comment><USER38> They challenge the long-held idea that people on the internet are capable of dealing with things they don't like or the government wouldn't like them to see. They also remove the need for there to be a victim of a crime.

I see a lot of discourse on the internet in the same way it happens in a pub. There are very little boundaries to the beliefs someone admits to sharing, and presence of a regulator to check that nothing illegal is being discussed doesn't sit right.

<comment><USER37> > They challenge the long-held idea that people on the internet are capable of > dealing with things they don't like...

However long-held those beliefs are, they pale into insignificance in the context of the nation state. The internet is not its own realm. It exists in the context of nation states. Nation states have laws that the people of the nation should obey or suffer the consequences.

> ...the government wouldn't like them to see

Britain has a long history of authoritarianism, enacted through its class system. Successive governments promote authoritarian policies because it appeals to the conservative majority.

> They also remove the need for there to be a victim of a crime.

Could you explain what you mean by this?

> I see a lot of discourse on the internet in the same way it happens in a > pub. There are very little boundaries to the beliefs someone admits to > sharing, and presence of a regulator to check that nothing illegal is being > discussed doesn't sit right.

I think a lot of people behave as though the discourse they engage in on social media is as if it is in the pub, but it is simply not the case. The existing laws regarding on-line communication encompass anything that is 'published' online and people do get prosecuted.

<comment><USER38> I think you're right to point out that the people in the UK deserve what their elected representatives bring upon them. As their manifesto points out, they want to be world leaders at bringing the internet into parity. As you say, prosecutions for publishing silly comments do happen as a consequence of this process.

I don't think anyone's surprised by the proposal, just part of the small minority who would rather not have the government intrude on their space. From a practical standpoint the legislation risks making social networks prohibitive to run, and will make it financially and/or legally intractable to do things like run forums or possibly any website that publishes news or has a comments section.

Any move by a government to regulate the internet will always be viewed through the lens of this minority as an infringement on a space where ideas should be free, controlled by an actor that shouldn't be trusted and can't be removed (i.e. no Second Amendment) if it's caught abusing its powers.

>> They also remove the need for there to be a victim of a crime. > Could you explain what you mean by this?

Online hate speech has been prosecuted when it was targeted at a dead person.

> I think a lot of people behave as though the discourse they engage in on > social media is as if it is in the pub, but it is simply not the case. The > existing laws regarding on-line communication encompass anything that is > 'published' online and people do get prosecuted.

While true, this is an example where the line isn't concrete. If a pub is full of people being unpleasant or talking about things one doesn't want to hear, one can simply leave. Targeted abuse is different to being uncomfortable about topics one is voluntarily eavesdropping on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Hmm, what would it take for the major "Internet companies"(which are primarily American) to "cut the cord" to Britain rather than complying with this kind of outrageous overreach?

Genuinely curious.

EDIT: Also,

> The laws would also force technology companies to delete anything that a > person posted when they were under 18.

sounds quite literally insane, censoring the speech of people just because they are minors?

<comment><USER40> > > The laws would also force technology companies to delete anything that a > person posted when they were under 18.

> sounds quite literally insane, censoring the speech of people just because > they are minors?

No, how I understood it, it means that _you_ can decide to have stuff deleted if you wrote it when you were a minor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I want to feel like the HN crowd are reading this wrong. That it's about things like going after market power of FB/Goog rather than suppressing speech. But then you remember that it's Mrs. May's Manifesto.

</comment><comment><USER42> I wonder if they've thought this through. That's one more reason the Scots will have to exit the union. Right now is not a good time to rock the boat like this.

</comment><comment><USER43> The end of freedom of speech, and freedom of thought.

And after the next terrorist attack, they'll say it wasn't enough of a lock- down.

Einstein was right: Human stupidity is infinite.

</comment><comment><USER44> Virtually all the parties in the UK have stupid big brother policies like this, and the ones which don't are complete jokes in most general policies.

<comment><USER45> The liberal democrats, the SNP and the Green parties (in England & Wales, and in Scotland) do not support policy such as this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> a) Tor/VPN b) A fake ID c) Bitcoin d) Mesh networks/Torrents Some tech. that aid in privacy/anonymity yet to be invented etc.

It's impossible to regulate the internet. The common people will be at disadvantage.

Running awareness campaigns are the best tool the govt. got which will be much more positive & effective than these non-nonsensical unethical monitoring and controls.

</comment><comment><USER47> This is preposterous. how on earth will they enforce what people post on the internet? Blocking access to sites via ISPs is one thing, but am I going to be fined for blogging with an unconservative/anticonservative inclination?

This is just going to push new business away, as if the UK wasn't already a sh*thole for startups...

</comment><comment><USER48> This _is_ the document (and page) you're looking for... <waves hand>

[https://s3.eu- west-2.amazonaws.com/manifesto2017/Manifesto20...](https://s3.eu- west-2.amazonaws.com/manifesto2017/Manifesto2017.pdf#page=84)

</comment><comment><USER49> I wonder what's her stance towards the Great Firewall? This seems like the first few steps towards building something similar to it. It's quite scary to think that governments are slowly becoming more like China recently.

<comment><USER50> 403 (Maydrian's Wall)

"FUD in channel - content cut off"

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I hate to repeat myself, but 1984 was not a how-to manual. At least in the US we have the pesky Constitution, which at least makes this sort of thing more difficult, but of course not impossible as we are seeing with the FCC.

<comment><USER52> Yes, thanks to heroes like Ajit Pai and the hilariously double-speak inspired "Restoring Internet Freedom Act", we are continuing to lay the foundations for serious, widespread censorship.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> And the UK falls further down the rabbit hole of totalitarianism

</comment><comment><USER54> Hm. Cost/benefit analysis anyone, ever? Cost of massive restrictions of what people can write and therefore think versus the comparatively tiny benefit?

<comment><USER28> Doesn't apply to right-wing parties.

I'm entirely serious - the press have a default frame that left-wing policies need to be costed but right-wing ones are assumed to be fiscally responsible. Rules only apply to progressives. The logical conclusion of this in the US is Trump, the man to whom no rules apply.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I really don't see my future in the UK. It's pretty depressing living here at the moment.

</comment><comment><USER56> Do brexiteers honestly endorse this?

</comment><comment><USER57> Hard to say. But we need more censoring to mainstream the usage of TOR

</comment><comment><USER58> I guess she wants to build New Oceania. Disgusting.

</comment><comment> gat-bitty the headline and article link for this post keeps changing and its comfusing me

</comment><comment><USER50> The very vaccine vs. versilimitudinous, vacuous vermin is voting.

</comment><comment><USER59> I'm not sure how long it's going to take for people to realise: the government is _not_ your friend. They don't want to help you. They want to control you. You are their property. You are registered and you are farmed. Like animals.

Ask them nicely to stop, and they well smile back and reply 'think of the children'. Behind their dead eyes are the schemes used to enrich themselves at your expense. Rule after rule applied. Each more insidious than the last.

Welcome to dystopia. Enjoy your stay.

<comment><USER60> > I'm not sure how long it's going to take for people to realise: the > government is not your friend

Slow your roll there m8. Government as an aggregate will of a people _can_ do good. (I say this because a libertarian utopia would basically endgame into gang leaders oppressing people in a similar manner.)

"The government" when it is just the people is probably the best way to collectivize problem-solving efforts. (Which is why people have not and will never "learn" that lesson you are hoping they will.) As with anything, it's going to extremes that fucks us.

<comment><USER15> Government as an aggregate will of the people is just a hivemind. There has to be push and pull; give and take. The 51% cannot completely neglect the wishes of the other 49%.

However, on the other hand, I agree with you. Who's to say that private conglomerates have our best interests in mind moreso than the people we elect to represent us?

In order to maximize personal freedoms, I believe that there can be no utopia. Debate and compromise and the messiness that comes with those two are essential.

<comment><USER60> > The 51% cannot completely neglect the wishes of the other 49%.

In these cases, the only non-gridlocked solution is fragmentation. It's the survivorship bias - the only issues that continue to paralyze a region are the ones that _couldn 't_ be decided one way or the other.

In the US' case, this would be granting certain issues to be within states' power to decide upon, and incentivizing people to move and live under the system that works for them. Ultimately, though, that won't happen - <USER2> the people who believe in these issues (be they taxation, abortion, LGBetc rights, etc) are in an all-or-nothing mentality whereupon changes have to be enforced federally.

America will never admit to itself that it's _too_ diverse and that its various extremes cannot be reconciled, so it's stuck moving at a glacial pace with the eventual hope that the 'average' will move in the direction of progress.

Which is all well and good as long as you don't mind the periodic risk of government shutdown or terrible policy precedents being set by lobbyism/financed-campaign promises in the interim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> > will work even harder to ensure there is no "safe space for terrorists to be > able to communicate online"

Why just online? Isn't it about time we stop letting car-makers and construction companies get away with helping terrorists? I say all cars and rooms in houses should be fitted with mandatory listening devices, constantly transmitting to government servers. Encrypted, of course, with a court warrant required for the police to decrypt the data. That should put those privacy extremists' fears to rest.

Edit: In case of misunderstanding - this was sarcasm, meant to illustrate where we'll get to if we pass laws solely using the metric of "might save a few lives".

<comment><USER62> It's interesting that there is a huge section of the UK population that this sort of thing appeals to. Out of touch with technology, terrified of change, disconnected with the younger generation.

So many people vote without knowing the party policies. "My dad voted Tory, I vote Tory."

<comment><USER63> So you're confident you know the minds of a 'huge section of the UK population'? Well done! Watch out because a lot of organizations will now snap you up in return for mouth watering sums.

<comment><USER62> What other explanation do you have to the Tories winning by a landslide? The majority of voters like them I.e. a huge section of the UK population)

A large percentage of people under 25 don't vote.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I've been saying this for sometime, but to me UK's role model has seemed obvious since David Cameron took over: China.

UK wants to become the West's "China" in terms of surveillance and censorship. Cameron has been very friendly towards China, he liked what he saw was happening there and wanted to bring it over to the UK.

This would be similar to when Nicolae Ceausescu visited North Korea, and then wanted to install the same kind of dictatorship in Romania, because such level of obedience from the populace looked very appealing to him.

Remember when Western countries used to decry the "Chinese/Iranian/etc model" ? Whatever happened to that idea? I think the U.S. hasn't even accused China of human rights abuses in recent years (that includes Obama's last term, too).

</comment><comment><USER65> It's good to see May's government is really focused on those all-encompassing Brexit talks it needs to do.

> _" We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even > unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm," > the Conservatives write._

Because they've done such a bang-up job with folks like UKIP and things like Page 3 girls? Is there any other English-speaking nation that has had such open pornography in a daily newspaper?

As for hate speech, the English make a sport of deriding the Scots, Irish, Welsh, French, Spanish, Polish, Pakistanis, Americans, and who knows how many others. Getting rid of hate speech _properly_ would take out a core part of the national character.

</comment><comment><USER66> > Internet companies would also be asked to help promote counter-extremism > narratives

Funny, from the party who promoted Leave for the Brexit, a position which is usually considered as "far right".

</comment><comment><USER67> What's the point of doing anything on the internet if governments can come at any time and destroy everything with a single click?

I feel depressed.

</comment><comment><USER68> I must admit I thought it was going to be about SJW types wanting to free us from harmful independent thought. I was surprised, but then I don't have a lot of context for British political parties.

<comment><USER69> Turns out that in the real world, conservatives are far more dangerous for your freedoms than "SJW types".

<comment><USER68> I guess I'm misinterpreting all these antifa videos. Here I thought it was just a human thing, and both sides have the capability of pulling dumb, dangerous ideas out. No it's just conservatives right?

<comment><USER70> One important difference is that Theresa May is leader of a major western country, while Berkeley students you saw in a video on the internet aren't. This makes one of them a much more pressing threat.

True among people on the same "side" of the political spectrum too. The Tories' brand of authoritarian conservatism is much more dangerous than Westboro Baptist Church, for example. You can find Westboro advocating plenty of outrageous things, but they aren't in charge of a country.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mike Rowe Shares His Wise Opinion on Voting - <AUTHOR> https://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2016/10/12/mike-rowe-shares-wise-opinion-voting/ <comment><USER2> This isn't wise. This is the same argument used to justify voter suppression laws. The myth of the unqualified vote. That _my_ vote is well reasoned and I have done my research but _you_ haven't.

<comment><USER3> Somewhat ironic considering he suggests "studying American history" \-- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test)

<comment><USER4> "to study" doesn't imply being able to read.

And no, it is not ironic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Voting is a shibboleth.

Any vote that doesn't ratify overwhelming existing social agreement or involve mere procedural questions is simple tyranny of the majority and, as we have seen, if the elites are unhappy with the current majority they are perfectly happy to replace it with another one.

Social consensus and trust are the key to ordered liberty, and secessionism is the way to devolve sovereignty enough to grant them to groups with different fundamental and unreconcilable values.

</comment><comment><USER6> Wow, I never thought I would see Mike Rowe encouraging people to go out and read Hazlett! That book was really important to me when I took my first Econ class.

The one problem with that book is that it's very easy to get swept up in the arguments and quickly turn into an asshole libertarian. It's a slippery slope to Friedman, Hayek, Rand, and finally Ron Paul waiting for you at the bottom of the philosophical barrel.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think the problem with our primaries was that too few people voted, not too many. The fewer people who vote, the easier it is for an extreme faction to take control.

And really, with voting, you're selecting from a finite list. Being educated is good, but at most you need to be educated enough to decide between your actual options, and sometimes the decision is pretty easy.

</comment><comment><USER8> Quick link to the book he recommends reading: _Economics In One Lesson_

[https://mises.org/system/tdf/Henry%20Hazlitt%20Economics%20i...](https://mises.org/system/tdf/Henry%20Hazlitt%20Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson.pdf?file=1&type=document)

</comment><comment><USER9> Not surprising that this is coming out as Clinton is surging in the polls.

</comment><comment><USER10> I read that as an endorsement of Trump. Course anytime I see a public figure not endorse Clinton, I assume they're pro Trump but worried of the public shaming and stigma associated with it.

<comment><USER11> Mike Rowe from what I can recall is very pro-union which doesn't typically vote republican. He's also a San Francisco resident, whom collectively also aren't typically republican.

<comment><USER12> Anyone who recommends an econ book from the Austrian school is not pro union.

<comment><USER4> He also listed 6 other names including Karl Marx...so maybe, just maybe, he isn't an ideologue. Who can tell.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


CES 18: The wrist band that lets you hear phone calls through your fingers - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/1/7/16861666/sgnl-innomdle-samsung-wrist-band-phone-call-ces-2018 <comment><AUTHOR> I haven't been convinced by any of the research purporting to show that cell phones can give you brain cancer. But why take a chance? I am not usually a fan of CES gadgets but I want one of these.

They were featured on KickStarter as well:

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sgnlstrap/sgnl-make- pho...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sgnlstrap/sgnl-make-phone-calls- with-your-fingertip)

<comment><USER2> Sure, and injecting vibrations in your bones and joints may also be beneficial for osteo- and rheumatoid arthritis and recovery after fractures.</comment></comment>


California Supreme Court: Transaction is not required to sue online providers - <AUTHOR> https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/04/white-v-square/ <comment><USER2> To require a transaction would mean you can discriminate based on anything and everything. Exclude black people from entering your store? no problem because they haven't bought anything.

That's so obviously wrong and exactly what civil rights legislation was created to address, that I feel like the lower courts made a big mistake and this should have never reached the SC. There's nothing surprising in the CA SC ruling.. I'm surprised Harvard Law Review decided to write an article on it.

<comment><USER3> Well, that seems to be the analogy the judge saw... and common law works by analogy.

Analogies and metaphors break though.. when stacked too high or precariously. Here we stack the segregation analogy _and_ the metaphor of "corporation are people, with rights." So, discriminating against a class of corporations is a violation of civil rights. In this case, the civil rights of bankruptcy attorneys & collection agencies... who probably do unsavoury things with square's service.

<comment><USER2> The CA SC didn't address that..

 _our opinion does not preclude Square from disputing White's factual allegations. ... Nor do we express any view on whether a defendant violates the Act by discriminating on the basis of occupation or on White's adequacy as a representative for a class of bankruptcy attorneys excluded from Square's services. The question of an individual plaintiff's standing under the Unruh Civil Rights Act is distinct from the question of that plaintiff's ability to serve as a representative for a class of allegedly aggrieved individuals._ [0]

White only won standing to bring his case. He's still prohibited from using Square; and he needs to win his case against Square before that'll change.

0\. [https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme- court/2019/s...](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme- court/2019/s249248.html)

<comment><USER4> Precisely. This is a "win" in terms of providing _standing_ to litigate issues that previously would have been precluded under arbitration clauses, or through lack of transaction per the _Surrey v. TrueBeginnings_ precedent, which is what was overturned.

It get's around the arbitration clause by overturning _Surrey_ , so plaintiffs who are not a party to the arbitration clause can be found that may (through class representation) act for those who _are_ subject to the arbitration clause.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is an interesting article, and one that is important for people who run a SMB in California to take note of.

> The court then noted that even if allowing plaintiffs to sue prior to > signing up could lead to abusive litigation, that issue should be left to > the legislature.

This was my concern, as well. I hope that the opening this allows for later lawsuits will be handled by the larger corporations who have deep pockets and can afford to fight these battles. My fear is that this would create a bunch of drive-by-lawsuits aimed at small businesses in the hopes that they will just settle (much the same as patent trolls).

I would love to hear from any lawyers on the board who have thoughts on this case.

<comment><USER6> I agree with you on the risk.

This seems to have tremendous implications for any digital business. I'm reading into this a bit, but it seems that part of Square's case rested on the fact that White didn't actually want to do business with him. He may have just heard about the Shierkatz case from his friends' firm and then saw an opening for a class action.

If that's the case, just the passing intention to do business - real or not - becomes grounds? Yikes. I feel like I agree with the decision to have business be open to all consumers, but I didn't see much in the way of proof-of-intent on the plaintiff's behalf.

<comment><USER7> This is the same nonsense discussion we are having with the unfiltered NSA data collection: you know it's happening, they say it's happening, but no one can have standing to sue because you know, you being spied on is secret.

 _Standing_ should never be the hurdle these kinds of claims fail on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I hope this title can be clarified, but that although a transaction is indeed not required, an intention to enter into a transaction seems to be required.

> Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Liu emphasized that "a person suffers > discrimination under the Act when the person presents himself or herself to > a business with an intent to use its services but encounters an exclusionary > policy or practice that prevents him or her from using those services," […]

And merely awareness is not enough.

<comment><USER9> How does that interact with understanding that some businesses carry a lot more risk than others?

<comment><USER10> Those business should price the risk into their fees?

<comment><USER4> In this case, the business with the risk is the bank lending the money through the credit card. And credit card purchases made just before declaring bankruptcy are _highly_ scrutinized as potential fraud. Paying the lawyer with additional debt you're attempting to get discharged would seem to fall under that category. As a result, in practice, you won't find bankruptcy lawyers accepting CC payments from their clients. If they accept CC payments, it must be from someone other than the client. (family, friend, etc.)

Given this, there is no reason to price the risk (a customer paying their lawyer with debt that will be discharged) into their pricing: it is already prohibited by statute.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The ruling seems reasonable, the law... Very surprising. Since when is line of work/business a protected class? And its also not clear whether the "person" applying needs to be a natural person or if it can be an llc etc. I wasn't aware LLCs could suffer discrimination (at least not directly)...

<comment><USER12> The 9th circuit discusses this briefly at the bottom of page 7 here:

[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/07/16...](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/07/16-17137.pdf)

> California Courts of Appeal have interpreted this reference to mean that the > Unruh Act prohibits arbitrary occupational discrimination. Sisemore v. > Master Fin., Inc.,151 Cal. App. 4th 1386,1405–06 (2007); Long v. Valentino, > 216 Cal. App. 3d 1287,1297 (1989).

<comment><USER11> It's interesting.

I always get frustrated when companies arbitrarily decide they don't want certain industries (alcohol or firearms or porn).

But forcing all companies to take every comer on the same terms seems a bit extreme. I freelance in IT. I would want more money or would downright refuse certain jobs on moral grounds (I wouldn't work with the Saudi government at any price). Am I being unreasonable in that?

<comment><USER13> Those industries you mentioned may be more likely to have fraudulent transactions. In that case it makes sense not work with them then.

You should have every right to deny service to them and the law supports you on that.

<comment><USER12> I'm not a lawyer, but it's not clear to me that the law does actually support you in that. Quoting the CA supreme court, in Marina Point v Wolfson:

> Indeed, the basic rights guaranteed by section 51 would be drastically > undermined if, as the landlord contends, a business enterprise could exclude > from its premises or services entire classes of the public simply because > the owner of the enterprise had some reason to believe that the class, taken > as a whole, might present greater problems than other groups. _Under such an > approach, for example, members of entire occupations or avocations, e.g., > sailors or motorcyclists, might find themselves excluded as a class from > some places of public accommodation simply because the proprietors could > show that, as a statistical matter, members of their occupation or avocation > were more likely than others to be involved in a disturbance._ (See, e.g., > Atwater v. Sawyer (1884) 76 Me. 539 [49 Am.Rep. 634] (innkeeper's exclusion > of all members of the militia, because of disorderly conduct of other > militiamen, held impermissible).) Similarly, members of a particular > nationality or ethnic group might be excluded from an apartment complex > simply because the landlord had found from his experience that members of > that nationality or ethnic group were more likely to play [30 Cal. 3d 740] > loud music or to damage the landlord's property than tenants of other > backgrounds.

> As these examples demonstrate, the exclusion of individuals from places of > public accommodation or other business enterprises covered by the Unruh Act > on the basis of class or group affiliation basically conflicts with the > individual nature of the right afforded by the act of access to such > enterprises.

(emphasis added)

[https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme- court/3d/30/...](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme- court/3d/30/721.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is this going to affect similar practices for all payment processors? I feel almost any payment processor refuses to deal with "vice" business (porn, gambling) due to high risk of fraud. This will be very interesting if they are no longer allowed to do that.

<comment><USER15> They'll just make the fees be 110% of the transaction or something similar. That's how credit card processors do it now.

They charge a variable rate based on the nature of the business and the risk it involves. Porn sites get charged 10-20% in credit card fees because of the high number of chargebacks.

<comment><USER16> Isn't that discrimination too if we go by this precedent?

IceCreme? We can't refuse you, but it's $4500 for you!

Where do you draw the line? Litigation is expensive!

<comment><USER17> I'm curious about this too. If your business has high risk than raising your fees for select people sounds like discrimination. Raising them for your whole platform could really hurt your business

<comment><USER18> The fees are raised due the riskier nature of the business, not due to "select people".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Square bans the use of its service for debt collection. The ruling says doing so is a violation of civil rights.

Does this actually strengthen rights for minorities or does it dilute those right by including bill collectors under the law?

Edit: as pointed out below, I am extrapolating from a ruling on standing an implication that has not explicitly been decided one way or another. I have done this so strongly that what I posted in the second sentence above is essentially false. I'll leave it as full disclosure of my error.

<comment><USER20> Was there a final ruling in the suit? Or was it simply decided that Square could not use this particular argument to get the suit dismissed.

<comment><USER21> The latter, I believe:

> Finally, the court declined to address whether _occupational discrimination > is covered by the Unruh Act_ or if White was an adequate representative to > support the class action

Emphasis mine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A few years ago Silicon Valley Bank wouldn't open an account for an entity with blockchain in the name, no matter what it actually did.

I can use this ruling, doesn't matter how skittish their compliance officer is nor the lack of clarity from their federal regulators. Should be a good time and accelerant!

<comment><USER23> Yes and no. This means you can sue despite not being a customer. It does not mean your suit will succeed.

<comment><USER22> I understand, it just won't be dismissed for "not having standing" on the plaintiff's side.

Progress!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > However, it is unclear whether a class containing members bound by > arbitration agreements can be certified. At the same time, the broad > conception of statutory standing under the Unruh Act would be much less > effective as a deterrent if class certification were denied based on the > inclusion of class members who have signed arbitration agreements. While the > White court declined to address the class certification issue, similar > classes containing members bound by arbitration agreements have been > certified in California federal district court cases against Uber and > Toyota.

This is very interesting to me. This case seems to (or at least might, once it's fully litigated) further open the door to class action led by a plaintiff who is not bound under an arbitration agreement, but with the class still representing members who are bound under arbitration agreements.

</comment><comment><USER24> When a panel of lawyers is asked if someone can be sued, the answer is always yes.

</comment><comment><USER25> & historical pre-transaction contexts should be available for online transactions. Ex: How to complain, if a transaction is cut and then the price raised automagically.

</comment><comment><USER26> Great ruling! Anything else would've been quite absurd or inconsistent as it would allow for e.g. a grocerer to pin a "whites only" sign onto the door and anyone deterred would not have standing.

I also want to laud the beautiful design of the webpage.</comment>


Did anyone else not notice that Hostess (Twinkies, etc.) went bankrupt today? - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/11/markets/brands_bankruptcy/?hpt=hp_c2

<comment><USER2> I've always wondered why you can't get Twinkies in places like Europe and Australia. Those things are mentioned in so many TV shows and films that the brand awareness is already there, and I know for a fact that lots of non- American's to whom I've spoken are intrigued to know what they're like.

<comment><USER3> They taste _terrible_. Try them once, never again.

To make it work they'd need to produce a segmented version.

<comment><USER4> They're for kids, who appreciate the bland taste and devour them. I don't think I've had one since I turned 10.

<comment><USER3> The parent was referring to adults trying them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Oh, I noticed. And I wonder how a company which caters to the growing obese population manages to fail!

This isn't the first time they've filed for bankruptcy so it's not too much of a surprise, they will undoubtedly sell their brands off and come out fine.

<comment><USER2> > _I wonder how a company which caters to the growing obese population manages > to fail!_

Over-generous pension plans.

<comment><USER6> This is management's claim, not objective fact, and probably open to dispute. From the comments on the New York Times article, I'd guess the unions have quite a different perspective.

[http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/hostess-files-for- ban...](http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/hostess-files-for-bankruptcy/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I walked past one of their factories today in Seattle and saluted.</comment>


Nuances of Replacing OpenSSL with Google's BoringSSL - <AUTHOR> https://www.cossacklabs.com/replacing-openssl-with-boringssl.html <comment><USER2> Having seen the experiment in it's beginning (hola E and team), I wonder: out of things you didn't use, have you found the changes to be 'for better good' as well?

<comment><USER3> Well, folks it's mostly about calling syntax, as it is mentioned in the post, and it's more about ensuring that shooting in the foot is hard.

However, given the change of codebase size, there must be more changes in domains we're not interested in, like implementation of legacy primitives and infrastructure around them.</comment></comment>


Press a button - <AUTHOR> http://www.fliciscoming.com/

<comment><USER2> Hey,

Marcus from Shortcut Labs (the company that created flic)

Feel free to ask any questions about flic :)</comment>


Unix V5, OpenBSD, Plan 9, FreeBSD, and GNU Coreutils Implementations of Echo.c - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/dchest/1091803 <comment><USER2> Looks like Plan 9 and FreeBSD are the only ones to correctly handle write errors. The others just silently ignore them. I guess the moral is "Don't rely on echo to save important data."

Also, the comment…

        /* This utility may NOT do getopt(3) option parsing. */

… which appears in two of them certainly cries out for an explanation. Was it true in NetBSD? Is it still true? Will people call us names if we do?

Update: bash does not handle errors. zsh might, it checks the result of fclose() or if stdout, fflush(). I'm not sure that is sufficient after ignoring all the fwrite() and fputc() errors. Plus it's in an 850 line function and my monitor is only 20" tall, so I'm not following all of it.

Update2: asveikau is correct. The only ones to attempt error handling miss short reads. FreeBSD also misses EAGAIN/EINTR handling. Plan9 doesn't need that, but its man page explicitly states that short writes should be considered errors by the caller.

I guess it's official. The unix read/write system calls are too complicated to be used by experts in the operating system. (I've rather thought that for some time now.)

<comment><USER3> > Looks like Plan 9 and FreeBSD are the only ones to correctly handle write > errors.

Both only check for negative return codes. If stdout were piped/redirected to something where write(2) may return a short byte count (let's say a socket) neither of them will detect it.

> /* This utility may NOT do getopt(3) option parsing. */

I noticed this too. My guess, totally not backed up by anything but by instinct, is getopt(3) tried to do too much which doesn't make sense for echo. For example if it tried to parse "echo -foobar" as anything other than "you spit out the string '-foobar'" I could see it being problematic.

<comment><USER4> as mentioned above, it's a POSIX thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is nothing wrong with complex code that is correct and readable. I imagine those who have a problem with the GNU version have not done a lot of shell scripting and therefore don't see a need for the complexity. The system V version would really suck in a lot of situations. Of course people love to criticize because it makes it sound like they know something.

<comment><USER6> Generally no, other than the fact that it is complex--complexity itself is a sin. Always has been, always will be, though it can be forgiven.

Anyways, what's the issue with the System V version, other than not handling newlines?

Also, what is the purpose with the Plan 9 loading the thing into a buffer first, other than perhaps to get the benefit of an all-or-nothing write? I suspect weirdness with the Plan 9 file handling but am not certain.

<comment><USER7> >complexity itself is a sin

Complexity is inherent to any task in some degree. That complexity must be expressed in full in any program which performs that task correctly, whether in terms of language/library constructions or the ways in which those are combined. When the tools with which you implement a task (here, C and the core Unix API) are structured substantially differently than the high-level concepts of which that task is composed, there is additional complexity inherent to mapping those concepts.

In light of that, I don't understand what you mean by, "complexity itself is a sin," unless you're referring specifically to the strictly unnecessary complexity introduced by a sub-optimal mapping of high-level semantics to core constructs. I don't think that's the kind of complexity we're seeing here. I think we're seeing the complexity inherent to mapping shell-level semantics to C semantics and the semantics of the Unix API, specifically error-handling semantics.

I agree with jws that what this code demonstrates is that the core Unix API is difficult to use for writing precisely correct high-level programs, even ones as simple as echo. I feel that this is exactly why it's important that _core_ high-level programs like echo encapsulate as much of the complexity of mapping to C as possible (that is, in the style of GNU rather than SysV): so that one can easily write reliable programs with high-level tools like the shell without worrying about that complexity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> what this fine list sorely misses is a true retelling of the "Plan 9 and the echo" story, as found here, on the Plan 9 mailing lists some millenia ago:

The Plan 9 and the Echo:

[http://9fans.net/archive/2001/09/54](http://9fans.net/archive/2001/09/54)

(for the history buffs: yes, that is dennis ritchie posting in that thread)

<comment><USER9> Excellent link; thank you.

It references _The Unix Programming Environment_, Kernighan & Pike (1984), pp. 77-79, "A digression on echo" which I found in PDF and is an immensely enjoyable and enlightening read :)

[1] [http://books.cat-v.org/computer-science/unix-programming- env...](http://books.cat-v.org/computer-science/unix-programming- environment/The.Unix.Programming.Environment.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Note that the plan9 version does some extra work so that it can send the entire buffer in one write() operation. This is because Plan 9 guarantees that messages smaller than the size of a pipe buffer are sent as an atomic write, given a sufficiently large recieve buffer on the other end.

This simplifies quite a bit of code that reads and writes commands into ctl files.

<comment><USER11> Why copy it all instead of writev()?

<comment><USER10> [http://plan9.bell- labs.com/sources/plan9/sys/src/libc/9sys/w...](http://plan9.bell- labs.com/sources/plan9/sys/src/libc/9sys/writev.c)

In other words, writev on plan9 isn't a system call -- it does the same copying that echo.c does. Also, echo.c probably predates writev.c.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Two months ago OpenBSD removed the unused stdlib.h include which was present since they forked from NetBSD in March 1995.

[http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi- bin/cvsweb/src/bin/echo/echo.c...](http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi- bin/cvsweb/src/bin/echo/echo.c.diff?r1=1.7&r2=1.8&f=h)

</comment><comment><USER13> Interestingly enough there's another implementation of echo on its wiki page, which is as succinct and simple as the Unix V5 version:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_(command)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_\(command\))

I wonder if, like a "Hello world" program, some of these simpler utilities might not even meet the minimum level of creativity to be eligible for copyright, so complexity was added - true.c and false.c are the other two examples I can think of; the "true" utility is basically generated by the default code template provided by many IDEs.

There's also a fun story floating around called "The UNIX and the Echo" about what it should do without any arguments, or whether or not it should accept options or escape sequences:

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3290683/bloated-echo- comm...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3290683/bloated-echo-command)

The official POSIX definition leaves it implementation-defined, with XSI forbidding options and requiring escape sequences:

[http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/ec...](http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/echo.html)

It's amazing how much variety can be present for functionality that seems so simple at first glance.

<comment><USER14> What's the minimum amount of creativity required to copyright software? Or is it really complexity, and not creativity?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It would be more worthwhile to show various shells implementations of echo, because most of the time you are going to be running your shell's builtin echo instead of /bin/echo.

<comment><USER16> Bash: [http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bash.git/tree/builtins/echo...](http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bash.git/tree/builtins/echo.def)

ZSH: [http://sourceforge.net/p/zsh/code/ci/a4ff8e69570cbdb8e7d5bf1...](http://sourceforge.net/p/zsh/code/ci/a4ff8e69570cbdb8e7d5bf1d5cc4000ffe63e15e/tree/Src/builtin.c#l3732)

<comment><USER17> Thanks for posting the bash source. It looked a _lot_ like the GNU source, then I noticed at the top of it:

        /* echo.c, derived from code echo.c in Bash.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wonderful to see the various flavours of the same simple command. Though GNU using a goto for what at quick glance is a non error situation does not sit well with me, but probably personal taste in code.

ALso surprised how many library's the FreeBSD and GNU flavours want to pull in.

<comment><USER19> Looking at the history of echo.c in the freebsd tree[1] is pretty interesting too. Seems before this [2] commit (apparently fixes for performance with many arguments) it was pretty simple.

[1]: [https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/bin/echo/echo...](https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/bin/echo/echo.c)

[2]: [https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/commit/cbf5708f4336b824b8...](https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/commit/cbf5708f4336b824b85366d55d42235852183b83?diff=split#diff- adbe8d3b33ea648fcf834ed6610325c6R114)

<comment><USER13> To me this feels like a classic case of "premature optimisation" \- by increasing the complexity of the code quite a bit (even adding dynamic allocation), they managed to save only 40 _milliseconds_ on a benchmark involving the echoing of _1000 arguments_.

Using 1000 arguments does not seem at all a typical use case for echo.

<comment><USER20> I'm not sure "premature" is the right word. I mean, they benchmarked, and maybe even profiled, and made it faster.

My guess is that somone had a weird use case for echo where the old version was slow. He benchmarked, profiled, made some changes, and submitted a patch. "The source code is too long," is a crappy argument, so might as well use the faster, longer code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The Rust version, from the coreutils rewrite project:

[https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/blob/master/src/echo/ech...](https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/blob/master/src/echo/echo.rs)

</comment><comment><USER22> Here's the 31 line (not sloc) echo in sbase [0].

[0] [http://git.suckless.org/sbase/tree/echo.c](http://git.suckless.org/sbase/tree/echo.c)

</comment><comment><USER23> Hehe I went in fully expecting GNU to have managed making something as simple as echo.c relatively complex and with inconceivable options. Was not disappointed. They probably even managed to include a GNUism or two.

<comment><USER24> What do you mean by GNUism?

<comment><USER25> Many young generations not touched by UNIX think way GNU tools behave == UNIX, when they usually offer more features than the real ones.

<comment><USER26> Then again, so do the BSD tools. And of course the options are often not compatible between the two e.g. bsd sed's -l enables line buffering, gnu sed's -l specifies line-wrapping length; bsd sed's -i requires an extension (empty for no backup) while gnu sed's does not.

POSIX sed supports exactly 3 options (-n, -e and -f), the latest FreeBSD sed supports 10 (adding -E, -a, -I, -i, -l, -r and -u — the last two being GNUism compatibility options not necessarily available on older versions, they are not on my OSX machine) and GNU sed supports 9 short and an additional 4 long options. And that's not counting the extensions to the sed command set.

<comment><USER25> True, which is why it is hard to keep up with multiple UNIX implementations and to know what is supported on a given box without having to reach for man first.

<comment><USER26> I long for a straight POSIX-and-absolutely-nothing-else version of the core binaries, but haven't seen one so far.

Definitely less convenient, but would make building cross-platform scripts much easier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord Previously on Hacker News: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2780661](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2780661)

<comment><USER27> I read this as a tv show introduction...

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> following one of the comment:

        @astro Yes. An XSI compliant echo actually supports no options at all. See here for how echo is supposed to work: POSIX. 2008 §echo

the link goes to [http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/ec...](http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/echo.html) ; here I read

         OPERANDS

         The following operands shall be supported:

         string
             A string to be written to standard output.
             [...]
             The following character sequences shall be recognized on XSI-conformant systems within any of the arguments:
             [...]
             \c
                 Suppress the <newline> that otherwise follows the final argument in the output. All characters following the '\c' in the arguments shall be ignored.

wait, what???

</comment><comment><USER29> For the curious, argv[0] can be null if exec* function didn't pass arguments to the program.

<comment><USER30> Although GCC issues the warning "null argument where non-null required" if -Wnonull is present.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> If you find this sort of thing interesting and are located in NYC there is a meetup devoted to it:

[http://www.meetup.com/Classical-Code-Reading-Group-of-New- Yo...](http://www.meetup.com/Classical-Code-Reading-Group-of-New- York/events/219962229/)

</comment><comment><USER32> Is there a good reason to do `argc--` and then `<=` in the if statement versus just using `<`?

I know those guys were pretty smart, so I'm legitimately curious.

<comment><USER33> I think the reason they used it was to make the

i==argc? '\n': ' '

part of the print statement cleaner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> A good example of how even simple commands like echo, behave across multiple UNIX implementations.

</comment><comment><USER34> What if argc == 1 in the OpenBSD version ? You evaluate *++argv which is not defined.

<comment><USER35> argv[argc] is defined to be a null pointer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I don't like 'nflag'. Something like noecho reads much more nicely.

<comment><USER37> Just noecho makes no sense. Passing -n suppresses printing the new line, noecho sounds like it suppresses all output

<comment><USER36> Ah yeah. Braino.

I meant --no-nl or similar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Is there any particular reason the busybox version is missing?

<comment><USER38> Well, if you're going to downvote me, at least explain why you disagree; don't hide behind the mouse-click. I was merely asking why another of the freely available versions of echo was missing from this list; what's wrong with that?

<comment><USER39> Are you honestly expecting the author of this 4 year old commit to respond? Maybe if you included a link to the other version (even though it's already in a github comment) your first comment would have been useful and not downvoted, but as it is it's just pointlessly shared wondering that if serious would be better done as a private message to the author... as for your second, complaining about downvotes generally results in more.

<comment><USER40> At least we can surmise who was responsible for the downvoting.

<comment><USER39> I downvoted the post complaining about downvotes, but not the first post, since it was already downvoted. (Few things need to be downvoted/flagged to oblivion.) Since my attempt at explaining why the first post was downvoted received upvotes, at least we can surmise it's not totally off the mark to what others may think.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you startup?  - <AUTHOR>

So, you got a team together, have your idea ready. What now? Do you incorporate or not (I know the YC prefers that you not incorporate, but what are the advantages/disadvantages?). And if you don't incorporate, how do you split the equity between co-founders? Do you sign contracts or do you just trust each other? And if you do, what sort of contract? What about building your product, do you set up an extensive design document? Do you just wing it? Something in between? What other issues need to be taken care of before you can focus on building your product? <comment><USER2> That's a lot of questions, and most of the answers are "it depends", or there's more than one right answer.

I'd suggest you consider reading _The Art of the Start_ [1] by Guy Kawasaki, _The Four Steps To The Epiphany_ [2] by Steve Blank, and _High Tech Startup_ [3] by John Nesheim. Between those, they cover a big chunk of the basic stuff you need to know.

 _The Founder 's Dilemmas: Anticipating and Avoiding the Pitfalls That Can Sink a Startup_[4] also has a good reputation, but I haven't had time to read it yet, so I can't give a personal endorsement. But it sounds like it might be worthwhile.

FWIW, though, I can tell you what we did at Fogbeam[5]: The company _is_ organized as a legal entity, but we are an LLC right now, not a Corporation. I would _not_ necessarily recommend doing that to anybody else though... while it is possible to build a big company as an LLC, practically speaking, if the intent is to build a scalable startup, the kind that's going to seek VC money and that you ultimately hope to IPO, you need to be a corporation. VC's essentially will never invest in an LLC (there are technical reasons why) and LLC's have serious limits if you need more than a hundred or so "shareholders" (I forget the exact number, but it's a pretty small number). The reason we are an LLC is a historical coincidence, rooted in weird shit that happened back when I was planning to start a consulting company, before deciding to do a product. Fortunately the prevailing wisdom is that it's fairly straightforward to convert from an LLC to a C Corporation. When they day comes that we need to do it, we'll switch.

As far as equity distribution, we have been operating on a handshake agreement between the founders. Technically speaking, I own 100% of the company "on paper" since I'm the only Member listed in the LLC operating papers. But that is, again, only a historical legacy. I created the company and worked alone for the first year before inviting the first co-founder onboard. It would be easy enough to amend the papers to update the equity split, but we've basically taken the approach that "well do that when we convert to a C corp, or there's a specific need to" (like, if we get an acquisition offer). So, yeah, we are operating on trust at the moment. A _lot_ of people will recommend against doing that sort of thing for various reasons (see: _The Social Network_ for example), and I have known friends who got screwed by co- founder disputes because things weren't put into writing up-front. If I had to advise somebody, I'd _probably_ advise you to decide on the equity splits, intellectual property assignments, etc. up-front, and formalize everything from the beginning just to be on the safe side. The downside to that is, it costs a little bit of money and time. _shrug_

As for YC... nothing against them, but I'd never make a decision based on "what YC wants". But I look at _all_ accelerators / incubators / etc. as "something that might be nice to do, but we'll succeed with or without them." Being that we are an East Coast startup with constraints that would limit out ability to move to CA in order to do YC, we've never even applied and probably never will. If doing YC is _super_ important to you, then maybe you should treat this a bit differently. It's up to you.

Design document? Meh... I mean, yeah, but no. Not exactly. You need to know _something_ about what you're building, but as a rule, you probably won't know exactly what you really need to build to achieve "product / market fit"[6] right away. So no sense spending months on an elaborate BDUF design doc. Sketch out the high level design, and IF you wind up subcontracting any work, then you'll have to formalize a spec for the contractor. But don't spend months and months designing something nobody wants. "Get out of the building" as they say, talk to customers, and iterate the design as you learn what people want/need.

[1]: [http://www.amazon.com/Art-Start-Time-Tested-Battle- Hardened-...](http://www.amazon.com/Art-Start-Time-Tested-Battle-Hardened- Starting-ebook/dp/B000QJLQY4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books)

[2]: [http://www.amazon.com/Four-Steps-Epiphany-Steve- Blank/dp/098...](http://www.amazon.com/Four-Steps-Epiphany-Steve- Blank/dp/0989200507/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-1&qid=1386997037)

[3]: [http://www.amazon.com/High-Tech-Start-Revised- Updated/dp/068...](http://www.amazon.com/High-Tech-Start-Revised- Updated/dp/068487170X)

[4]: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Founders-Dilemmas-Anticipating- Ent...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Founders-Dilemmas-Anticipating- Entrepreneurship/dp/0691149135/ref=pd_sim_b_27)

[5]: [http://www.fogbeam.com](http://www.fogbeam.com)

[6]: [http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee204/ProductMarketFit.html](http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee204/ProductMarketFit.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Just ordered Guy's book. Thanks!

<comment><USER2> No prob. I enjoyed that book a lot. It covers a lot of the "nuts and bolts" stuff, especially in terms of the equity stuff, and some of the stuff around raising VC money. If you think you'll be looking for outside investment eventually, it's a very good book.

I really can't recommend @sgblank's book highly enough either. If you haven't read it, or aren't already familiar with the "Customer Development" methodology, I would definitely suggest you put that on your reading list. When I read it, my reaction was something like Keanu Reeves' in _The Matrix_ \- "Whooah". I felt like I saw the matrix. While you can never reduce something as complex as building a business down to a "paint by the numbers" process, TFSTTE is about as close to a "paint by the numbers" guide as you can find. It really lays things out in excruciating detail.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh it's on my reading list. I'm just taking it one at a time. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Lean startup preaches finding customers or at least users first. doing some customer reseach. also equity should probably be vested. over the next year I'm going to do this and this I get x equity.

<comment><USER2> That's a good point, regarding equity vesting. If you're a solo founder, it's a moot point, since you own everything by definition and there's nobody to conflict with one way or the other. But if you have multiple founders, equity should vest over a period of time, so somebody doesn't come in, get assigned, say, 50% of the company, work two days, and then quit, still owning 50%.

On a related note, even if the founders have gone through a vesting period, if you _later_ take VC money the VCs will usually ask you to subject some or all of your equity to vesting _again_. It's understandable, since they want you to have a strong motivation to keep working as hard as possible to make the company a success, but I can see how founders could be annoyed by that. I suppose it's one more reason to debate the merits of taking VC money...

Now, where oh where is michaelochurch to chime in when you need him?!??</comment></comment>


Bing Shows Free Porn Videos - <AUTHOR> http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/search/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217800024

<comment><AUTHOR> "The fact that Bing displays video content without redirecting users to the original source could expose Microsoft to copyright suits. Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo have been sued in the past by publishers of adult-themed products over image search results that display still photos from their products."

P.S. The link came up on my default Google News main page.

<comment><USER2> Google video search works in this way too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> No publicity is bad publicity... Bing is killing it.</comment>