Facial recognition will soon end anonymity - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/facial-recognition-will-soon-end-your-anonymity-2016-06-02 <comment><USER2> One way to look at this is that people won't feel embarrassed by things they do in public.

See Bob Gale's view on privacy here:

[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/21/how-back- to...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/21/how-back-to-the- future-predicted-trump.html)

Facial obfuscation can and will be a thing. Choosing coverings that provide some anonymity but don't scare people will be interesting.

Movement gait can also be analyzed but harder to collect and analyze so it will come later.

Edit: You might enjoy The Private Eye, a graphic novel that has some facial recognition / obfuscation leanings: [http://panelsyndicate.com/comics/tpeye](http://panelsyndicate.com/comics/tpeye)

<comment><USER3> > One way to look at this is that people won't feel embarrassed by things they > do in public.

I've heard this theory before, that once there are no more secrets, we won't be embarrassed by our social missteps anymore, or able to use them to attack others because the attacking party will be equally guilty. I think it's a load of BS. Humans are nasty, shitty little hypocrites: if they have dirt on someone else they'll shout it from the rooftops without caring one whit if they're just as bad. Similarly, the people consuming the gossip won't care one bit if they have equally embarrassing stuff in public, before using that data to pass unalterable moral judgment.

Have you ever seen an internet comment section filled with Screaming Moral Outrage at some faux pas, even though most of those commenters are probably worse people? That's what the future is going to be like. Picture a shame mob stamping on a human face, forever.

<comment><USER4> Maybe. I dunno. I do know the "next" big problem is access asymmetry. You can see where i've been all day, but i don't have the same level of access to these specialized systems, so i'm kinda screwed.

My favorite local example is red light cameras racking up 100k in fines against police cars without their lights on. They were all forgiven.

On the flip side, that stuff will only work for a little while. President Bush came just shy of admitting use of cocaine. Obama flat out admitted it, and it was no big deal. Clinton more or less ended the pot stigma. Drug use (in the past) has been more or less eliminated as a shaming tactic. I'm not saying some people won't scream moral outrage, it's just that no one else will really care.

So maybe i get caught picking my nose. Me and 300 million other people. _shrug_.

<comment><USER5> Sure it's easy to think that you basically anonymous when 300 million others are doing it, but when a potential date looks you up and sees a lot of vids of you picking your nose, maybe you're not so attractive anymore.

<comment><USER6> > _but when a potential date looks you up and sees a lot of vids of you > picking your nose, maybe you 're not so attractive anymore._

Congratulations. An unreasonable person that you wouldn't like anyway has self-selected themselves out of your dating pool. I'd personally call it a win.

Outrage is mostly a sign of immature character. People get away with it today because it's not easy to call them out on their hypocrisy.

<comment><USER5> That's just the thing, maybe nose-picking isn't a big issue _after_ you get to know each other. Many people are very risk-averse when it comes to romantic relationships and the tiniest thing may cause someone to pass on you if they haven't had the time to see your other qualities.

IMHO this doesn't necessarily make a person unreasonable, just cautious or someone with other options.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> On a less serious note, maybe mask culture will re-emerge, in response to constant identification. Personally I would love to break out my decorative gas mask, I'd love to see a computer ID me wearing that!

<comment><USER8> Facial temporary tattoo that throws off machine learning?

<comment><USER9> Then the tattoos would have to be generated in a truly random way as well. Otherwise, an AI like AlphaGo would quickly "learn" which are the tattoos on people's faces, especially if there's a limited selection of designs of say a few hundred or thousand.

<comment><USER10> ...or, you know... Tattoo detection software. Since you, you know, just permanently put some uniquely identifying paint on your face.

<comment><USER11> > "Facial _temporary_ tattoo"

<comment><USER6> E-ink tattoo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Reminds me of the somewhat heated debates in the halls of Sun Microsystems back in the 90s when Caller ID was just being introduced. It was seen largely as an erosion of privacy since you'd not want the person you are calling to be able to screen your call so easily. Of course, over time, it became standard to the point that I am no longer surprised when services I am calling have my records up without asking who I am.

Those arguments seem quaint today, scarcely 20 years later. So it makes me think that 20 years from now, facial recognition in public places will be similarly integrated and we'll just stop noticing.

<comment><USER13> The difference with caller ID is, of course, that you need to deliberately initiate an action (calling someone you don't trust) for it to "erode" your privacy. Facial recognition can be done to you on the street by anybody, without you being able to opt out or even know it's happening. It's not even remotely the same thing.

<comment><USER14> I think sunglasses will become the standard opt-out, and perhaps the legal one at some point.

<comment><USER15> Clearly it will lead to new fashion trends, as society adapts to the widespread use of "computer vision dazzle" makeup.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/makeup...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/makeup/374929/)

/s (I think)

<comment><USER16> Or we'll all wear goggles, steampunk or otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Those apps rely on data harvested from social networks. Or outright exported through their APIs.

A solution is to not make that kind of data publicly available. Either by not using a social network account at all or by using one that respects your privacy settings, e.g. by not tagging your face on other people's image uploads.

<comment><USER18> If all my social media pics are me with a shaved head, face, and glasses, will I be safe if I grow long hair and facial hair and start wearing contacts?

<comment><USER19> Probably not. From what I understand facial recognition software relies heavily on things you can't change, like the distance between your pupils and the ratio of your facial features to each other. You can certainly obscure your face, but if you were forced to remove sunglasses and such, say, at a security checkpoint you'd probably get ID'd.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> IMHO: Facial recognition, along with other software and analysis techniques, have already ended anonymity. We're just waiting for the world to catch up. Anonymity may still exist in this world, but those are outliers, no longer the rule.

</comment><comment><USER21> I have this funny vision in my head where people start practicing strange contortions of their faces in photos designed to counter current facial recognition algorithms. Then the software writers adjust their algorithms to compensate. Then new silly faces are invented. Rinse and repeat. Although I suppose in the end the algorithms win because they can easily just try each past variation and choose the best one.

<comment><USER20> This assumes you are only photographed willingly or knowingly. I think that case is an exception, and not a rule. I'm not afraid of Facebook, Mastercard probably has a more intimate database on more people. Think CCTV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Relevant article on what it's like to wear anti-surveillance camouflage makeup, aka "the dazzle":

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/makeup...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/makeup/374929/)

</comment><comment><USER23> I am nearsighted, but for a long time I did not wear glasses. I could recognize _a lot_ of my friends by gait and posture from a huge(for me) distance, long before I could see their faces. My cat knows who's coming before the door opens - she can tell the steps. I don't think privacy will last, given how data collection improve.

I suggest a compromise: all data can be collected, but it has to be locked up until a court order is issued to unlock it. A real court, not one of _those_ courts. A fourth branch of the government will be in charge of safekeeping, to avoid the pressure from executive. Kind of like BBC in the UK.

<comment><USER20> So the algorithms for this kind of recognition already exist in your head (and your cat's). How do you propose we lock that kind of information down? Do you really believe we can lock that kind of information down? How would a Fourth branch of government fall into the checks and balances of the current system?

Also, your system assumes some kind of World Government? I would really love to be wrong here...

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> In the article it mentions Microsoft patented advertising based on facial recognition here: [https://www.google.com/patents/US20080004951?dq=facial+recog...](https://www.google.com/patents/US20080004951?dq=facial+recognition+advertising&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WcJoVamnOsmTsQTDtYOQDQ&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCQ)

I don't understand how they could patent this when it's basically what's in Minority report which was released in 2002.

<comment><USER25> FYI, the targeted advertising in Minority Report used retinal scanning, not face recognition. Automated face recognition would have totally changed the movie, as fooling such tech requires more than swapping eyeballs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I am actually quite worried about this development ([http://buff.ly/1ZhvE9c](http://buff.ly/1ZhvE9c)).

With facial recognition, the ultimate people database, and location-patterns we are well on the way end-to-end surveillance.

*not too serious : Maybe conservative Muslims are way ahead of their time?

<comment><USER27> Maybe you should be serious. But, like cryptography, it only works if many people (majority?) use it.

<comment><USER20> An addition, not a correction: _But, like cryptography, it only works for as long as isn 't broken and does not break._

<comment><USER6> And, like cryptography, only works for as long as someone doesn't bother to pwn you via a side channel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> >> Soon anybody with a high-resolution camera and the right software will be able to determine your identity.

No. Software cannot do that. You need software PLUS access to some data set.

>> Tracking people in the real world might start to look more like it does online, causing changes to our behavior.

Ok. Stopped reading there. There is no comparison to online. I've got my VPN on atm and my user-agent spoofer just notified me that it was changing to some other random fib. I'll believe such statements when someone explains to me how Tor can be implemented in meatspace. Online and realworld are not the same.

(When we all have google glass nailed to our faces, will adblockers be a thing? I hate billboards.)

<comment><USER6> > _No. Software cannot do that. You need software PLUS access to some data > set._

Exactly. Sadly, as an individual, I don't have access to such dataset.

> _(When we all have google glass nailed to our faces, will adblockers be a > thing? I hate billboards.)_

Real-life adblock would IMO be the killer feature for AR :). Though _much_ harder to implement than its web counterpart.

<comment><USER29> Brand Killer [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDPn7MGxPjs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDPn7MGxPjs)

<comment><USER28> It's cool in VR goggles, but logo-detection has been a thing in the film/tv industry for a long time. For instance, up until a couple years ago US shows had to edit out corporate logos when broadcast into the UK due to advertising rules.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> CV Dazzle becomes more and more relevant. [https://cvdazzle.com](https://cvdazzle.com)

Edit: Changed link to one that doesn't hate HN.

<comment><USER31> Classy site, redirects to a pic of balls when referer is HN.

<comment><USER32> Another practical example of why the referer header needs to be removed entirely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Time to buy a Niqāb.

Or better: Lobby for laws that make it illegal to store the data necessary for facial recognition unless absolutely required e.g. for security.

</comment><comment><USER34> Great. A lesson in individuality and it's importance to self, and the whole.</comment>


The History of Spices Is the History of Trade (1998) - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/179810 <comment><USER2> _He who controls the spice controls the universe_ \- Dune

<comment> saiya-jin not sure if black pepper is that addictive or allows your to see the future

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> More good reading about the spice trade and how it shaped geopolitics:

www.goodreads.com/book/show/29386.Nathaniel_s_Nutmeg

<comment><USER4> I really enjoyed this book, it unexpectedly drew me in.

A narrative look at the disputes between the Dutch East India Company, the British and Portuguese mainly. It's a more in-depth and focussed look at the spice trade raging in Europe in 16th & 17th centuries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Thoroughly fun read.

</comment><comment><USER6> The spice must flow, man.</comment>


FarmVille's Secret: Making You Anxious - <AUTHOR> http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/09/farmvilles-secret-ma.html

<comment><USER2> Blogspam. Original link - [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6224/catching_up_with_...](http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6224/catching_up_with_jonathan_blow.php?print=1)

<comment><USER3> I've always considered it to be "blogspam", too, but I was just thinking -- isn't this how the internet is supposed to work? Incoming links and all that?

<comment><USER2> It's ok for blogs to share content from other sites with their own target audience. But it doesn't make sense to post such blog posts to a site like Hacker News, especially when they add no commentary or other value to the original content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's not that hard to figure out. I started it one day and went back a few days later to see that I had missed the harvest. The fact that the game takes fucking attendance made me realize that Zynga has no respect for players. A game should be there when the player wants it, not the inverse.

<comment><USER5> I think that I read this in the New Yorker but I could be wrong, but anyways, this writer said that one of Zynga's innovations was being able to attract women to gaming. And it is true. Girls I know who would have never touched an xbox with their stiletto are now on farmville planting crops. So this writer conjectured that it appealed to their nurturing instinct.

So yeah... some gamers would rather have the game take attendance because they have been evolutionarily primed for feeding times.</comment></comment>


Congress Will Create a Commission on Encryption, Tech, and Terrorism - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/congress-will-create-a-commission-on-encryption-tech-and-terrorism <comment><USER2> "companies, technologists, and law enforcement haven't been willing to sit at a table at solve the encryption problem"

hurdurdur... How about the true "encryption problem" is the state sponsored progress in undermining current encryption solutions. Please let me know when dinner's on, I will be there to see how we can find some "common ground" on that area.</comment>


ACM Classic Computer Science Books Series - <AUTHOR> https://dl.acm.org/classics.cfm <comment><USER2> Several major classics are oddly omitted from that list:

\- "The Art of Computer Programming" (TAOCP)

\- "The C Programming Language" (K&R)

\- "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" (SICP)

\- "Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach" (AIMA)

<comment><USER3> I agree and good ones. Bill Gates reportedly said he'd hire anyone who really got TAOCP volumes through and through. K&R is self-evident given dominant language. SICP is given it and LISP's contributions esp in academia. AIMA is only one debatable for field overall although I _really_ enjoyed it and it's indisputably the landmark AI text. :)

<comment><USER4> I've heard that Bill Gates comment before but I recently bought the books and looked at random pages. I concluded that the kind of person you become after having gone through TAOCP, especially doing exercises and not just reading, you'd be way overqualified, to the point of being useless, for Microsoft or any other 'business-oriented' software company. Microsoft research might hire you, but, they have to look at your publications and you might need to have a PhD degree, so that's also a toss up.

Therefore, if you decide to go through TAOCP cover to cover, know that it's either for your own interest, and that you're willing to become academic/research minded instead of s/w-development minded. After that you might wanna join a PhD program (if you don't have it already) and do research or something.

<comment><USER5> are you really saying that from going through TAOCP someone would be overqualified and useless for working at a company that builds operating systems, dbms, programming languages, virtual machines and compilers?

<comment><USER4> In a way, yes. (I assume 'going through the book' includes doing exercises, not just reading).

Think of it this way. Is a PhD in combinatorics from the math department, with exposure to programming, the most suitable candidate for the job of building OS, DBMS, PL, VM, Compilers? I don't think so. If (s)he is interested in such a role, (s)he can definitely do a good job. But (s)he would have to be aware that roughly 90% of what (s)he learned and enjoyed while doing combinatorics research would not be relevant to the job. The hiring would depend on a combination of how much of that lifestyle (s)he is willing to give up for this job, as opposed to trying to find a tenure track faculty position where (s)he could continue pursuing research, and how much the software company thinks about the enthusiasm of the candidate (to switch from research to software development).

Going through TAOCP and doing exercises and learning relevant math is a close approximation to that, IMO. Keep in mind that a significant number of exercises in TAOCP are about proving theorems.

<comment><USER3> If Bill (a) has the position(s) and (b) says TAOCP master is best candidate, then yes the person is "the most suitable candidate" for whatever job he has in mind. The End.

Besides, I can teach anyone software development. Kids do it with Scratch, average people did it with BASIC in school, and lay business people used COBOL, Excel, and Visual Basic. I'm sure someone who can learn everything from algorithm optimization to assembler coding can handle C++ with some on-the-job learning. In all likelihood, they already were programming in various languages if they tried to get such a job.

Nonetheless, Bill says they're a good hire for stuff at Microsoft. That's where it went from "I wonder" to "Yes they are." No need to speculate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What I find both fascinating and at least a little frustrating is that many recent advances in CS are retreads in concept (though not context) of 1970s work.

If this was the year 2050, what would you guys consider adding to the Classics? If it's not there, what do you think should be done? What's really fundamentally changed the way we think about computing? Is this even possible?

To give an example, for me, I think one thing that's worth having a more fundamental understanding of is the extent to which psychology influences the design space of programming languages. E.g, minimizing the amount of things to hold,in your mental stack already influences natural language, so why not PLs as well? We can then automatically design DSLs/GUIs for end users, select people you'd work well with based on how they conceptualize problems, solve the problem of teaching programming, etc.

</comment><comment><USER7> In the list is "Anatomy of LISP" ... they go for around 800$ used on Amazon ... why?

[http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-McGraw-Hill-computer- science-H...](http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-McGraw-Hill-computer-science- Hardcover/dp/B00YDJ7T3U/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1439747105&sr=8-2&keywords=Anatomy+of+LISP)

<comment><USER8> People are demanding crazy prices for some tech books. ANATOMY OF LISP is one of those. I've seen on Amazon $8000+ for a 'new' version. I wonder if that's real. There are some rare Lisp books which are often sold for high prices.

Note that it is available a bit cheaper, too:

[http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Lisp-McGraw-Hill-computer- scie...](http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Lisp-McGraw-Hill-computer- science/dp/007001115X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439752522&sr=1-1&keywords=anatomy+of+lisp)

This particular book was always rare. It was basically the bible of ancient LISP implementation techniques (70s and earlier). Though, it did not use standard Lisp s-expressions for code, but an algebraic notation that's sometimes used in older books. Generally the content is of high quality. It was published in 1978. Generally if you wanted to know how to implement LISP way back then, you've surely looked at this book.

The book became less important in the 80s, when Lisp started to use lexical binding (Common Lisp in 1984), object-oriented subsystems (Flavors, CLOS), new machine architectures (Lisp Machines, RISC, parallel/concurrent systems, ...).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hopefully in a few more years they add a few more books to that list, the 90s and 00s are over. Unfortunately it's hard to think of a particular book that should go into the series.

ACM is awesome.

<comment><USER10> Favorite = enjoyable, not the best textbook award, but the most fun in the sense of I wish I were sitting on the patio reading this book.

Classic = worth reading multiple times at multiple stages of your life and implies its a couple decades old.

The various anthologies of A. K. Dewdney of Computer Recreations columns from the 80s are still enjoyable very light reading. This brings up the issue of nostalgia, when I was a noob those were awesome noob books, today they're probably OK noob books, but maybe there are better current noob books. However in 2015 they are definitely very nostalgic and confuses the issue of favorite / current.

An example of nostalgia in the book selection is Ullman's older automata book (from '69) made the cut and its very nostalgic but personally I prefer Hopcroft Motwani and Ullman's "Introduction to automata theory, languages, computation" from about a decade ago. The new book probably isn't old enough to be a classic yet and the ancient one is probably there via nostalgia.

I think the "7 whatevers in 7 weeks" book series is light fun entertainment. I have no idea if the comparison/contrast style will hold entertainment value in 2035, so its hard to predict if the series will become a classic. Perhaps every IT/language book in 2035 will be comparison/contrast format, or perhaps that style will be considered hopelessly dated. Or beyond mere style issues, maybe people will never advance beyond fad of the month and neophilia.

A predictive list of '00 and '10 books that may become favorite classics in 2020s, 2030s is difficult but could be interesting.</comment></comment>


GPS tracking device found on an activist's car - <AUTHOR> https://people.torproject.org/~ioerror/skunkworks/forensics/valencia-tracking-device/ <comment><USER3> Very few companies produce GPS chips. Most devices that include GPS capability do not bother to reinvent the wheel, but instead elect to integrate an existing GPS processing chip. It's unlikely the GPS module is integrated with the processor core of this thing. Since it is likely separate, it would be fun to probe the PCB with a logic analyzer to see if there are any exposed serial (or possibly I2C, SPI) traces relaying the NMEA sentences[1] from the GPS module to the processor. If so, false locations could presented by severing the traces and soldering on a synthetic serial (or I2C, SPI) feed at the right logic level (probably 3.3V), from a microcontroller or computer. The hacked feed could even read a real-time clock to "play back" a stored path of locations every day. Attaching an external data feed is likely as simple as dragging a box cutter over the right traces (data, ground) to disrupt them, and then soldering on some 30 gauge wire to the same traces (after sanding off the soldermask and silkscreen). Since most GPS modules output constantly without any control lines, so there may not even be a control scheme to reverse engineer.

Note to those designing trackers: if you want to make it difficult, use a board with internal layers and keep the GPS nets on the interior of the board. Doesn't make splicing impossible[2], but it would up the difficulty.

1\. [http://aprs.gids.nl/nmea/](http://aprs.gids.nl/nmea/) 2\. [http://www.circuitrework.com/guides/4-2-6.shtml](http://www.circuitrework.com/guides/4-2-6.shtml)

<comment><USER4> The enterprising hacker could always use a LabSat[1] device to play back a bogus GPS trace. No physical connection to the board is required.

[1] [http://www.labsat.co.uk](http://www.labsat.co.uk)

<comment><USER5> It's so much easier to just keep passing it around to your friends so they can attach it to as many different cars (or other kinds of vehicle) as possible.

Imagine what your fans in government would think if the logs of your car included long periods over water or a trip to the stratosphere or a trek through the woods. Or they decided to find you once you decided to seemingly leave civilization behind to discover you turned into a bear. An angry bear with a GPS collar.

<comment><USER6> I think I'd try to pop it into the wheel well of the nearest police car.

<comment><USER5> That would probably give the police enough reason to arrest you. I prefer feeding a disjoint set of movements made by random people.

<comment><USER6> Arrest you for what?

The other option would be to find a long-haul truck.

<comment><USER5> I'm sure tampering with a police car is illegal and that police forces are famous for their lack of sense of humour. They won't take this lightly.

<comment><USER6> This is one of those instances where if you get caught they'll arrest you but you probably won't get charged. At least where I live, if it went to court your attorney could spend all kinds of time exploring where it came from, which is something the government would rather not talk about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> [http://imgur.com/a/Z1hyd](http://imgur.com/a/Z1hyd) has a few parts labeled

theres a main processor which is way overpowered (the big TQFP part) which is covered by a plug-in 2G GSM/GPRS modem. You can 'sniff' the modem control pins, its almost certainly the standard plain 'AT' command set used for these modems, at 9600 or 57600 baud, 3.3V logic

The plug in module looks a lot like a SIM300 or Spreadtrum 5100b. It probably had an IMEI sticker that was pulled off. Theres probably a dozen makers of nearly identical modems during that time period. This one looks fairly old since its a plug-in type. I'd guess the GSM module is at least 5 yrs old

On the other side is a standard 32-pin NAND flash, you could desolder and then use a NAND-reader kit (google etc) to suck the data off. its probably just the GPS coordinates stored between modem data uploads.

SIM holder, some crystals, power circuitry, and a (95% sure) uBlox GPS - <USER2> uBlox have that funny shape and pinout. uBlox have high sensitivity so a good choice! unclear which generation this us, they're up to Neo-8. You could decap it to find out.

probably the most fun could be had by first figuring out the RX/TX pins from the microcontroller to the GSM/GPRS module, then soldering thin wires to that and listening with a UART TTL cable. Put in a new SIM, wait a few seconds for the GSM module to get onto the cell network, then quickly faraday it up and see what website, IP address or phone number the micro is trying to connect to. ymmv tho, might just be a random drop point.

(theres a bunch of chips with no clear markings, could be motion/accel/gyro or other sensors - @ioerror if you post up the #s on each chip it'll be easier to tell! :)

edit: i thought about the huge coin cell battery backup. its a bit odd, quite large sized! if its well designed, the microcontroller will detect that the battery has been disconnected, and while on backup coin cell power quickly erase the NAND flash and microcontroller memory :(

<comment><USER8> If the coin battery is used as a RC circuit switch to wipe memory what are the chances that it has already been wiped? It's been 7 days off power.

The large power drain of the CPU could indicate this off-shelf product is meant to be installed, rather than attached with battery? Which could indicate a product as someone else linked to: [http://www.miniinthebox.com/es/gps-v103b-sms-gprs-gps- sistem...](http://www.miniinthebox.com/es/gps-v103b-sms-gprs-gps-sistema-de- seguimiento-de-vehiculo-tracker_p1034847.html)

I'd be curious if any code were installed on the GSM module since many of these provide jvm's or python interpretors. Then again, what they heck is this 120 pin CPU for.

If the thing still has power it is worth keeping it alive without the SIM.

PS. Azul=Blue Negro=Black Marron=Brown Blanco=White in spanish

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> A friend of mine hired someone to gather data on his cheating wife. A device that looked similar to this was used on her car. $400 for a month of real-time location data. Maybe this has nothing to do with conference this person was attending.

<comment><USER10> I agree, there is a company in my city that will hook a device up to the car battery and place it in a discrete location. They mostly deal with fleet management but some of their business is from spouses tracking each other. There a "funny" story about a wife bringing in a vehicle that her husband had brought in earlier.

<comment><USER9> A family member works for a large chain of car dealerships. They regularly buy vehicles at auction. It's not uncommon that they find trackers on the vehicles. Here's a picture of one he sent me to play with a couple years ago.

The battery pack on the left, and the tracker on the right were in a magnetic Pelican case attached to the underside of a black Escalade. The sim in the tracker was from some US MVNO that I didn't recognize.

[https://i.imgur.com/VLzTPt4.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/VLzTPt4.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I guess it's a sad world when I breathe a sigh of relief upon seeing that this didn't take place in the US.

I like how the agency gummed over the chip silkscreens so you can't see what chips they're using. Even though it's obvious that one is flash, another is a GPS module, and the third is the micro. And it appears that some scraping will show you the part numbers anyway. Amateur hour.

<comment><USER12> This has already happened in the US. Pretty galling that the FBI requested one to be returned:

[http://www.wired.com/2011/11/gps-tracker-times- two/](http://www.wired.com/2011/11/gps-tracker-times-two/) [http://www.wired.com/2010/10/fbi-tracking- device/](http://www.wired.com/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/)

Would be interesting if they could lift any prints from the tape on this newest one and publish them. I can't imagine it's easy to apply duct tape with gloves on.

<comment><USER13> The first article mentions a Supreme Court case in 2011 to "determine if authorities can track U.S. citizens with GPS vehicle trackers without a warrant" \- anyone know what that case was or how it was decided?

<comment><USER14> 9-0 unanimous that the police must have a warrant prior to using a GPS vehicle tracker. The reasonings differ among the justices but the vote was unanimous.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%29)

<comment><USER15> The split in reasons did lead to the fundamental question being sort of dodged. The majority opinion decided the case on quite narrow grounds: that the physical installation of the GPS device violated the 4th amendment, because installing it involved tampering with someone's personal property (the car) without a warrant. Four justices would have gone further and argued it would require a warrant to operate such a GPS tracker regardless of how it was installed, but the majority left that question unanswered.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> During the ' Troubles' in Northern Ireland, chassis inspection mirrors were a common sight.

These were large convex mirrors mounted horizontally on castors and with a long handle. They were slid under the car to look for suspicious packages that may have been attached covertly with malicious intent.

Very quick to use and were widely issued to individuals who might have been at risk. So it was common to see people using them each morning before heading off to work ( by a different route each day of course ).

Sounds like there might be a new market for them.... I should have bought a few hundred when they were being sold as surplus!

<comment><USER17> Are they not still needed? Considering the most recent car bomb in Northern Ireland was in November...

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Continuity_Irish_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Continuity_Irish_Republican_Army_actions#2014)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Real_Irish_Republic...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Real_Irish_Republican_Army_actions#2014)

<comment><USER16> I assume they are still in use, but much less obviously than when I was growing-up and about half the folk on our road had one!

If you go along narrow country roads in NI you can find many of the mirrors re-purposed in a vertical orientation opposite blind-exits, as they give a fisheye-type view of the road either side of the junction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think one of the first things I'd try when finding such a device on my premises would be to try and login to the self-service portal of the mobile carrier that issued the SIM card. At least in the case of my phone-service provider (I'm also located in the EU) this uses the phone number, and a password which can be requested by SMS...

In the case of my provider, the permission to use the self-service portal which include the possibility to view/change billing addresses and shows all the numbers active on a contract, can, of course, be enabled/disabled per telephone number. But it will be worth a try...

<comment><USER19> A very good idea. Although someone intelligent enough to rig this up almost certainly bought a pre-paid SIM with cash.

<comment><USER20> Really? It is much more likely that it was bought with an offical police purchasing department credit card directly from the carrier. For them, it isn't illegal, and governments control cash pretty tightly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Reddit thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/gadgets/comments/2y5q5g/help_us_ide...](https://www.reddit.com/r/gadgets/comments/2y5q5g/help_us_identify_this_found_gsmgps_tracking_device/)

</comment><comment><USER21> looks like Private Investigator catalog equipment in the states. Big, clunky, and built to suit a million different uses. Dev board + sensors + 3g = a million different reconfigurable spy toys.

Although I hope it's a three-letter agency, because that'd make me a bit less frightened of them.

Also, I don't know why everyone is up-in-arms about the solder job quality. Rip apart a Chinese Futaba-knockoff RC transmitter, dash cam, or counterfeit Lenovo/Apple power-brick for similar quality (and that stuff is _everywhere_ ). All that anyone cares about is that it passed the bench test. (who cares if it burns up later?)

<comment><USER22> According to the media article linked on the submission, the activist was stopped for a "routine search" of the car for more than one hour on the frontier with France by spanish national police (CNP). One week ago she was stopped again near the city were this convention took place.

So yeah, even if this is private investigator grade hardware, according to the info available it would not surprise me if this was either CNP (police) or CNI (our joke version of the CIA).

<comment><USER6> Why pay extra if you don't have to? Looks perfectly serviceable to me.

<comment><USER22> Was pointing out we should not rule out any government agency just for the quality of the setup. I find it hard to believe that an activist would be targeted by a private investigator.

<comment><USER6> I agree, however "activist" is only part of her identity. This could easily be a jealous lover.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It would be interesting to figure out where the data is being sent. It could probably be done in a variety of ways (JTAG? Replace the SIM card and setup a fake GSM base station? Check your local laws...).

It would be pretty ironic if they routed through Tor...

<comment><USER24> It should be relatively easy to pop the SIM card out and use an off the shelf forensics tool. Those things have like 64kb of storage. At the least you'd get the phone's number and IMEI.

<comment><USER3> Not sure forensics tools are needed; getting the phone number and IMEI should be a Hayes command[1] away. Throw the SIM into something like a Telit GM862 (which runs Python) and you have a full scriptable phone. I played with that module seven years ago and there are bound to be better ones now.

1\. [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayes_command_set](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayes_command_set)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'd second a motion for scraping off the big chips to get some part numbers, to make it easier to get pinouts to hook up probes and other ways to get it to give up its electronic secrets. Though I am rather unplussed with the soldering job there, and personally would disavow soldering such a mess. Big blobs of solder, real crappy joints, and even a few spots that look heat damaged. More than a bit of me is surprised it even worked in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER26> Uh, any smart phone? Many/most of us are being tracked.

<comment><USER27> All the more evidence that this was some sort of "PI" or other private party, not a government agency (on top of the very amateurish construction from hacked together parts).

<comment><USER28> I thought the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This looks pretty amateur. I'd be asking if there is a specific private sector company that takes an interest in this activist, and has hired a cheap, shady private investigator.

The device was probably SMS'ing location data. There might still be log data in the device that could be extracted via a serial port.

</comment><comment><USER30> Cool! Free SIM card with data!

<comment><USER31> No pin number required?

<comment><USER32> Even if there's PIN on SIM, tracker must be able to unlock it, and given that GSM module is a pretty common one operated via AT commands over serial line you can easily get it from there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Based on the way it's laid out and all the unpopulated headers I'm almost wondering if this is a GSM dev board that someone makes that's paired with a GPS daughter card they make. It doesn't look quite as purpose built for a tracking application as I would expect, if it was i'd expect it to be far more compact and have very few test points and headers for the controller. In fact I'd expect they'd probably use a smaller controller too to help cut down on power usage, since they've got the large flash chip they can probably store all the data and send it in burst rather than keep the GSM modem powered up all the time which would let it last far longer in the field.

In fact even the soldering for the power wires to the strange battery array board looks rather amaturish. I'm not sure I'd chalk this up to any agency that's got much of a budget for this kind of thing. I think it's likely to be some other activist group that's in disagreement with this one and wants to dig up dirt (Private Eye maybe?)

Edit: correction, what I thought was a bunch of batteries on a board looks like it's actually the magnets that held it in place on the car. D'oh. Either way it still looks odd that it's built like a set of development boards by a chip manufacturer.

<comment><USER34> I have similar thoughts, it really seems rather like overkill. Either an old device or not a purpose-built tracker. Very large, and holy cow is that a TQFP-144? I've built local-storage trackers before with DIP-8 chips. I've not implemented GSM, but I'd be pretty surprised if a modern GPS+GSM tracker required this much horsepower.

Not to mention the board layout is pretty good, and because the GPS & GSM are integrated the layout engineer probably had to know a thing or two about routing antennas- while as you point out the solder job is quite amateur.

<comment><USER35> That appears to be a TQFP-120, and there aren't that many MCUs available in that package; I'm almost willing to bet it's a Renesas/Fujitsu part.

GPS + GSM modules are available (now - maybe not when this thing was designed) which would shrink the whole tracker down to one module, a few voltage regulators and related passives, and a battery:

[http://wm.sim.com/producten.aspx?id=1058](http://wm.sim.com/producten.aspx?id=1058)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Seriously, these things can be bought COTS in WAY better shape for 35€ ( [http://www.pearl.de/a-PX3490-1511.shtml](http://www.pearl.de/a-PX3490-1511.shtml) ). If you want to hide it, just wrap it in black tape. I wonder who chose to self-build this thing with cheap-ass kits being available...

<comment><USER37> Your link is not based on GPS, is not waterproof, only has 1 week of battery (if it doesn't transmit any locations).

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I want to write some code that will take these systems and send bogus GPS data the spells out FUCK YOU.

<comment><USER39> Or Dickbutt...

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> They missed a golden opportunity to attach the device to a politician, high ranking official, or executive's car.

<comment><USER41> Or more simply, just throw it in the back of a passing pickup truck (like in "Short Circuit", when Number 5 realizes he's being tracked by a beacon in his vehicle. Unfortunately I can't find the clip on youtube.)

<comment><USER42> Good luck finding a pickup in Valencia, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Shouldn't it be possible to open that thing up and see where/who it's reporting the data to?

</comment><comment><USER44> An article in Spanish: [http://www.eldiario.es/turing/vigilancia_y_privacidad/dispos...](http://www.eldiario.es/turing/vigilancia_y_privacidad/dispositivo- rastreador-pusieron-activista-privacidad_0_363964058.html)

</comment><comment><USER45> Looks different than the FBI one iFixit tore down at least: [https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Tracking+Device+Teardown/525...](https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Tracking+Device+Teardown/5250)

</comment><comment><USER46> Any words on the IMEI in use? Maybe some nice folks can then leak some info.

</comment><comment><USER47> Forget Tesla, _that_ is what a real hacker's car looks like.

</comment><comment><USER48> Better call Saul

</comment><comment><USER49> soon these will be built in, a great win for humanity.

<comment><USER49> i guess all the downvotes mean gps transponders won't be built in then!

that's how it works isn't it?

<comment><USER16> What do you mean by "GPS transponders"?

A transponder replies to an interrogation with a squitter response.

Navstar satellites zip along merrily broadcasting to anyone who will listen ( regardless of the receiver's ability to process the signal ). You as an intending user don't communicate with them at all.

In the receiver there is no transmission capability related to GPS. Why would there be? The only uplink to which Navstar sats will listen is that from Boeing's system control center ( or presumably a spoof thereof ).</comment></comment></comment>


Rawgig – your personal music magazine - <AUTHOR> http://rawgig.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> New app in town! We just launched, would be great to have your feedback on it.

In a snap:

Rawgig collects news from hundreds of the best music magazines in the world to give you a curated digest that suits your tastes. Even better, the tickets from the major tickets sellers in Europe are all available to buy in one click.

You can stop drowning in zillions of websites.

Download Rawgig and discover everything you like to know about your favourite bands:

• Effortlessly, get your personalised news feed: just what interests you, no time wasted • Get the most interesting articles from the best blogs and websites in the world • No missing out: always know what music events happen in your city in the next 7 days • Book every ticket instantly • Update your artists list to get new news and events • Share what excites you with your friends</comment>


SpaceX loses the center core of its Falcon Heavy rocket due to choppy seas - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/15/18311945/spacex-falcon-heavy-center-core-drone-ship-rough-ocean <comment><USER2> I can't believe they didn't tie them down.

<comment><USER3> It explains in the article. The waves were too high to get crew on the droneship to tie it down, and they only got worse.

<comment><USER4> Developing a robot which can tie down the rocket in very heavy seas would be very, very hard. (A "walker" which has grasping feet?) Not only is the coordination and basic locomotion difficult in very heavy seas, just dealing with salt water is hard in itself.

<comment><USER5> Nah. There are multiple options:

View the problem of reaching the rocket as similar to locating the head of a CNC or 3D printer. You need XY positioning. Put the gripper on a bridge that spans the ship. The gripper moves along that bridge for movement in one direction. The bridge itself moves along tracks in the sides of the ship, providing the other dimension of movement. The mechanism can be doubled up to grab from both sides simultaneously, possibly eliminating the need for an active gripper.

Another way is an arm. An ordinary heavy-equipment arm, as used for digging up roads, could reach out and pin down a leg of the rocket. It need not be automatic; a human could remotely operate it. The vertical dimension isn't really needed, so sliding the arm is also an option.

Another way is to flood the deck with adhesive, possibly something like molten solder or polyurethane foam.

Another way is to pre-place grippers all over the deck. Make a deck of grippers. They just grip; they do not need to move around on the deck. It can be mechanical, electromagnetic, or vacuum.

<comment><USER4> _Nah. There are multiple options:_

None of which are trivial in terms of expense or engineering.

 _View the problem of reaching the rocket as similar to locating the head of a CNC or 3D printer. You need XY positioning._

To reach all the legs, you'd need two. As these are the dimension of the entire landing pad, they'd cost more. They're essentially gantries. Also, they'd still need to be engineered to withstand and remain operational in heavy seas. Would they be running on hydraulics? What of the effects of the rocket blast. What happens if there is a hydraulic oil leak?

 _Another way is an arm. An ordinary heavy-equipment arm, as used for digging up roads, could reach out and pin down a leg of the rocket._

Those would certainly be hydraulic, so the same objections above apply. This is a good use of existing commodity equipment -- except that it would have to be hardened against the sea and the rocket blast as well, so it would still be an expensive specialty item.

 _It need not be automatic; a human could remotely operate it._

Keeping telemetry going while the rocket is landing is still something they haven't solved.

 _Another way is to flood the deck with adhesive, possibly something like molten solder or polyurethane foam._

It's thinking outside the box, but this isn't going to work 100% in heavy seas. I suspect that any adhesive that would work in heavy seas in the necessary time frames would be expensive to remove afterwards.

 _Another way is to pre-place grippers all over the deck. Make a deck of grippers._

How about make the deck out of slotted rails? Make gripper robots which are designed to move on these rails or between rails? Also the slotted rail system can be made into a 2D grid.

<comment><USER5> You don't need to reach all the legs, although that is best. Grabbing the body is also an option; the launch crawler/pad thing does this. That first example would probably not be hydraulic. If it were though, and it leaked, that isn't any worse than the total-loss (intentional leak) hydraulic system that operates the grid fins on the Falcon 9.

The rocket blast isn't anything special for heavy equipment that is some distance away. Note the containers sitting on the ship. They are fine.

Grabbing can happen a minute after the engines stop, so telemetry isn't a problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder if stabilization tech is worth their time and trouble.

<comment><USER4> Didn't crew just weld the booster feet to the deck after earlier landings?

<comment><USER7> That's a pretty common method of attaching large metal objects with cargo ships too. Fast and a very strong connection.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Where's the Roomba when they needed it ?</comment>


Art's Sale Value? Zero. The Tax Bill? $29 Million. - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/arts/design/a-catch-22-of-art-and-taxes-starring-a-stuffed-eagle.html?pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> Unusual for the New York Times to criticize the IRS so pointedly. Most private citizens cannot publicly attack the IRS for justified fear of raising their profile and triggering an audit (see: Plumber, Joe The or Snipes, Wesley).

But it sure would be useful to have a blog dedicated to exposing the abuses of the IRS and other agencies. Given how big the agency is, and how infrequent these articles are, we can be sure this is just the tip of an iceberg of bureaucratic malfeasance.

EDIT: this is apparently the eyesore that the IRS values at $65 million:

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Robert_Rausche...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Robert_Rauschenberg%27s_%27Canyon%27%2C_1959.jpg)

<comment><USER3> the IRS is the modern version of the Corsair

And of course, it's always a balance, which ends up with Saverin giving up citizenship because of their fury and at the same time big companies Doubling/Tripling Irish everything and being in the clear with them. (not saying what they did was wrong though)

<comment><USER4> So the IRS are pirates now? Are copyright Pirates still pirates? What about(Somali) pirates pirates?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 471 million in estate taxes on a $1 billion collection? That's depressing. Tax collectors being able to declare arbitrary valuations? That's terrifying.

The more common situation is extremely high valuations, and thus taxes, on real estate which is listed and not selling at half the valuation. I know many people who have gotten burned by that.

<comment><USER6> The fix for this is to give people the option to sell the items to the government at some high fraction (eg 75%) of the valuation, instead of paying the taxes.

<comment><USER7> I think Nascar uses this system to discourage undervaluing entries: owners declare a value for their car, and Nascar has the right to buy the car at that valuation. They would only do this if the car was under by a significant margin, so there's a huge incentive to give a fair estimate for the car.

Its also a little similar to a system used to resolve splitting a 50/50 owned company: the person who wants to buy out the other partner must first give the price they'll pay, and then the second partner must choose between buying them out at that price, or selling their share.

<comment><USER8> Pretty much the same as the "one splits, the other chooses which half they want" that my brother and I would use to guarantee fair splits of cookies or cake.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you are more curious about the contemporary art world market and why $29M is not that expensive[1], I recommend "The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art".

In general, brand (in this case Christie's and Sotheby's) ranks supreme above all else. Once you are branded, you can pretty much sell _anything_ as expensive art.

Also, an interesting factoid - when we hear of Far East/Middle East buyers bidding tens of millions (or more) for a painting, we naturally tend to think - who buys that without seeing it - but as the book points out - the painting has most likely gone to see the buyer already (e.g. Dubai/Hong Kong pre- auction private tour).

Excerpts from the book:

"Money itself has little meaning in the upper echelons of the art world -- everyone has it. What impresses is ownership of a rare and treasured work such as Jasper Johns' 1958 _White Flag_. The person who owns it (currently Michael Ovitz in Los Angeles) is above the art crowd, untouchable. What the rich seem to want to acquire is what economists call positional good; things that prove to the rest of the world that they really are rich."

Jasper Johns' White Flag

[http://michaelovitz.blogspot.com/2011/04/weve-featured- this-...](http://michaelovitz.blogspot.com/2011/04/weve-featured-this-l.html)

<http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1998.329>

Estimates on the artist economy:

"40k artists resident in London (about same number in NYC)

For London and NYC each:

75 superstar artists (>$1M/yr income)

300 mature, successful artists (>$100k/yr income)

5,000 part time artists (need to supplement their income)"

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Million-Stuffed-Shark- Contemporary...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Million-Stuffed-Shark- Contemporary/dp/0230620590)

[1] "If a great apartment costs $30 million, than a Rothko [big deal famous contemporary artist] that hangs in the featured spot in the living room can also be worth $30 million - as much as the value of the apartment. But no one could envision a $72.8 million apartment to use for comparison..."

</comment><comment><USER10> It does not matter how rich the parents or how much the family is worth, this is just plain criminal. If the object cannot be sold or donated because of the Eagle- then it has 0 value. I hope that the courts find in favor of this family. The idea that there is a 50% estate tax in this country is BS. Why not make it 100% and we can just become Marxist...and be done with it.

<comment><USER11> The point of estate tax laws is the prevention of the formation of generational aristocracies. I really have absolutely zero sympathy for someone receiving $500 million for nothing.

<comment><USER12> If they wanted to be an aristocracy they would pull strings so the children are given power and make their own money. I don't see how an estate tax helps here.

<comment><USER11> It's slightly less effective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Those poor poor (inherited) billionaires.

They'll have to make up for it with their 15% tax rate for the rest of their lives on their derivative income.

Let me know when this practice is making people homeless or preventing them from getting healthcare.

<comment><USER12> You seem to be implying that the rich don't deserve to be able to have income. It sounds very sour grapes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The taxation rate seems just wrong to me - 471 million for a 1 billion heritage is almost 50%. Imagine that going on for three generations and suddenly you've payed more than the heritage's value in taxes!

I'm not sure why they inherited it at all - wouldn't it be way more sensible to create a foundation who posses all the art? That way, they wouldn't have to pay any taxes at all.

<comment><USER15> Assuming generation lengths of a conservative 20 years, earning 2% interest after inflation and capital gains tax on the money would result in the real value of the estate staying constant after taxes.

<comment><USER14> How can you earn interest on Art?

<comment><USER16> Inflation and the art market?

If a painting was valued 1 million dollars 100 years ago, it would probably be worth a bit more in pure numbers today.

(I'm really just guessing here)

<comment><USER17> Which means you'll have to pay even more taxes, too, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> According to the article, the Rauschenberg piece in question is on long-term loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Aren't museums exempt from many kinds of purchase limitations? At least they seem to be able to buy cultural treasures that would be illegal for an individual to acquire.

The solution would be for Metropolitan to buy the piece for $29 million, the amount of taxes owed by the current owners. They don't make a profit, but no actual loss either (except the ownership of a piece that they can't legally own and which is already in the museum).

<comment><USER19> Even if we assumed the Met could legally purchase the art, it is another matter to determine whether or not the owners could legally sell it to them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> 'James Joseph, a tax lawyer with Arnold & Porter in Washington, noted that the I.R.S. has taxed illegal contraband at its market value, but added: "I don't know of any instance where the I.R.S. has assumed taxpayers will engage in an illegal activity in order to value their assets at a higher amount."'

This seems uncontroversial to me - drugs are taxed at market value because it's illegal to own and sell them, surely the same should apply to bald eagles.

<comment><USER21> The key issue here is that the artwork was created prior to the law illegalizing private possession of bald eagle remains. It was on those grounds that the family received special dispensation from FWS to maintain legal ownership (but not physical possession) of the artwork. (And b/c they do not possess the eagle artwork, they do not violate the law.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This article got a whole lot less interesting with the sentence: "In this instance, the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act make it a crime to possess, sell, purchase, barter, transport, import or export any bald eagle — alive or dead. Indeed, the only reason Mrs. Sonnabend was able to hold onto "Canyon," Mr. Lerner said, was due to an informal nod from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in 1981."

This is a piece of artwork it's apparently "just as illegal" merely to own. (i.e. illegal under the same clause of federal law.)

Suddenly it sounds like they found some obscure law to value it at $0, and that they would not get in trouble for actually selling it. Rather than appraisers in on the heist, perhaps they should have written to the Fish and Wildlife Service to ask if they can sell the thing to pay the taxes on it. The reason they didn't do that is they didn't want to hear the answer, yes. They want their cake and to eat it, too. (Keep the work but not pay taxes).

I'm not sure I agree with the existence of this kind of tax, but the case isn't as clear as the title and first half of the article make it sound.

 _Even then, the government revisited the issue in 1998. Rauschenberg himself had to send a notarized statement attesting that the eagle had been killed and stuffed by one of Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders long before the 1940 law went into effect. Mrs. Sonnabend was then able to retain ownership as long as the work continued to be exhibited at a public museum. The piece is on a long-term loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, which Mr. Lerner said insures it, but the policy details are confidential._

this is respected art with a high market value. They should not have put $0 as its value.

take-home lesson: don't do that.

<comment><USER23> > _Suddenly it sounds like they found some obscure law to value it at $0, and > that they would not get in trouble for actually selling it._

It's valued at $0 _because_ they cannot sell it. It does not have "a high market value" because it is not, and has no expectation of ever being, able to be sold.

The Fish & Wildlife Service didn't say they could sell it - it said they could continue to possess it.

<comment><USER22> It's simply not true that it has no expectation of ever being able to be sold. The piece is already on loan to a museum and displayed there - the sale to a museum (perhaps the one displaying it) for its permanent collection is something they should fully expect to be approved. They are trying to skirt the law on a technicality.

A letter from the Fish & Wildlife Service stating they can't sell it to a museum - even though it's already on display in one - is what would show this; but if they asked, they would not get that letter - they would be told they could, for the same reason that they could keep it. (Because this is a famous, exceptional, well-known piece that is attested as being produced before the law that made it illegal.) The conditions would be the same - it would have to go in a museum.

You have to realize that under the law you're quoting it's illegal to POSSESS as well. This is what changed my opinion of the case.

So the family is saying "it's illegal to own or sell", so we'll just do the former since we already got approval but we'll say we can't do the latter, and won't even try to get approval.

Personally, I think they should put the price that a museum would pay (and not a recluse billionaire) and which they would expect the Fish & Wildlife Service to approve. Or they can ask for that approval, which the article doesn't show them doing. If they asked and the Fish & Wildlife Service said, weirdly, "you can keep it - as long as it is on display in a museum - but you can't sell it to that museum" then the article, and you, would have a case.

<comment><USER24> The piece is on loan to the museum but they aren't making any money from the loan. They also can't sell it as the previous poster said because it's illegal. Why should they pay tax on something that wont provide monetary benefit unless it is done through illegal means?

<comment><USER22> You miss that the article says it is a crime to possess or even transport the piece. This is like arguing that if you can't sell it without double parking, it's worth $0 and you don't owe taxes.

<comment><USER24> Your analogy wasn't very clear. What I'm saying is if they have no way of making money off it what taxes do they owe? If you buy shares in a company that goes bust but you still have the paper should you pay taxes on that if the IRS decides its worth something?

<comment><USER22> I thought like you until the middle of the article, in the place I quoted. It's not that they have no way of making money off of it - they are only saying that. I would believe it if they got a letter from the wildlife agency saying, oh, no, we are only exempting your possession: we can't extend it to your selling to a museum. But that's clearly not the situation. They obviously have every ability to sell to, e.g. the museum currently displaying it, and it will be approved.

they're trying to use a technicality - that it's "technically" illegal. don't do that. if they were serious they wouldn't even possess it, since that's "illegal" too. read the article carefully to see what I mean.

<comment><USER25> You're missing two key understandings of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act: First, the Act allows museums and similar institutions to own and transport bald eagles. Second, the article states that the bird was acquired prior to the Act taking effect in 1940. That means that current possession is legal, provided that it doesn't change ownership. For a similar situation, look at zoning laws. A property can be "legal nonconforming" because it was, at one time, in compliance with zoning laws but is not any longer. Why? Because both types of laws carry criminal penalties and it is unconstitutional to retroactively make something a crime. The artist can keep the bird, will it to his heirs (generally, passage to one's heirs doesn't trigger "change in ownership" laws), and do the other trappings of ownership but No One Else Can who isn't able to comply with the law, like a museum. Ergo, his heirs can't sell it except to the museum. The museum isn't willing or able to buy it--the piece is already on loan to them for free--so there is no market and, therefore, no value.

<comment><USER22> Where do you get the idea that museums wouldn't or couldn't purchase the work, assuming this purchase is OK'd by the government first - which given the history here and the work in question the family can easily count on?

Your comment doesn't make sense in light of the fact that the family was forced to put the work on display, which doesn't sound like they "can do the other trappings of ownership but No One Else Can".

The article says: "Indeed, the only reason Mrs. Sonnabend was able to hold onto 'Canyon', Mr. Lerner said, was due to an informal nod from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in 1981. {P} Even then, the government revisited the issue in 1998. Rauschenberg himself had to send a notarized statement attesting that the eagle had been killed...before the 1940 law went into effect. Mrs. Sonnabend was then able to retain ownership as long as the work continued to be exhibited at a public museum. The piece is on a long-term loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, which Mr. Lerner said insures it, but the policy details are confidential."

This does not sound to me like it matches what you are saying at all. Quite to the contrary, it sounds like this work is quite special and important and for this reason was given these exemptions - this makes it quite likely for a sale to a museum to be approved, and the family has every reason to believe this.

So we must return to why you would say that a museum wouldn't or couldn't buy it (after saying earlier in your comment that museums were allowed to own such works, though the article does not make this blanket statement.)

<comment><USER21> Your arguments have no basis in the law *as it exists in this reality. The law makes it a felony to sell or possess bald eagle remains. The only reason that family still "has" this art piece is because actual possession of the art piece lies with the museum; the family retains "legal" ownership but cannot ever actually exercise possession without violating the law.

The family does not have a reason to believe that a sale to a museum would be approved since that would be a clear exception to the explicit text of the law. The prior "exception" does not change this because it does not actually conflict with the terms of the law.

You need to either (1) learn the law or (2) stop pretending like you know what you are talking about. Armchair lawyers like you ruin the discussion of legal articles on HN.

<comment><USER22> Maybe you're right.

I will just say that if it were me in this situation, I would never in a million years go on an art appraiser's word that I 'can't' sell it, without even asking the appropriate agency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> another question. If the IRS values it at so far above its true price, can't they simply donate it and write off the inflated price - which come straight from the IRS - off of the taxes they owe on real-value, non-contraband works they also inherited? (they're not even allowed to "possess" this work under the law.)

Likewise if in an inheritance I got a stone that the IRS decided was an anti- tiger stone worth $100m, couldn't I just donate it to a non-profit tiger research institute, write it off of things I got with real non-baloney market value, and the IRS simply loses out due to their inflated price on the baloney good?

Doesn't the IRS acting like a joke with overvaluations cut both ways? (assuming there's real value somewhere that's worth keeping if you write off the taxes on it.)

i.e. if the irs's valuation on something happened to be inflated by vast multiples - as people in this thread are saying happens from time to time - then can't you donate that and write it off of things that they aren't inflating?

<comment><USER26> "Mr. Lerner said that since the children assert the Rauschenberg has no dollar value for estate purposes, they could not claim a charitable deduction by donating "Canyon" to a museum."

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Ya, that's some ugly sh*t. Also, that's not a bald eagle. It does look like a vulture.</comment>


Ask HN: Why are submissions staying on the front page for longer? - <AUTHOR> I've noticed over the last few months that things submitted to HN that reach the front page have been staying there for a day or two. It seems (maybe it is just my perception) that a year ago a submission would only stay on the front page for a few hours and at max a day. Am I imagining things? If I'm not imagining it, what is causing things to stay on the front page? An influx of users, maybe? <comment><USER2> Honestly I prefer this system.

There's definitely some pseudo curation happening, which I like.

Some interesting things I've picked up:

\- If a submission is interesting but doesn't get picked up for whatever reason (posted at the wrong time or there was other big news at the time) mods will get in contact with you and ask you to repost.

\- More comments than votes seems to sink the article quickly. It's generally a controversial topic which isn't engaging and inspiring in the right way.

\- there are a number of mod specific flags other than the above that affect the position of articles. From what I remember reading there's 6 such flags. Would love to know what they are

I'm guessing the algorithm is a sort based on time * points then modifying it based on hidden flags

<comment><USER3> Seems like the antithesis of what a "hacker" news site should be. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

<comment><USER4> Maybe a new tab of results would be useful, like "discussed" or something.

I usually find the posts that generate more comments than votes to be the most valuable and interesting.

<comment><USER5> [https://news.ycombinator.com/active](https://news.ycombinator.com/active)

More options can be found at [https://news.ycombinator.com/lists](https://news.ycombinator.com/lists)

<comment><USER4> I'm curious why 'active' (and 'lists' itself) is not in the default tab of options across the top of the page.

<comment><USER5> "Lists" is in the footer, together with a bunch of other important links like the site guidelines. Why they're not in the header as well, I have no idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Relatedly, submissions have been making the front page with only a few points (3-4), and from what I can tell, it's at random (I've seen a lot of _bad_ posts fit this criteria, then quickly fall off once they are flagged). It's a bit of an unstable equilibrium and I'm not fond of it.

Placement on the front page is a very finite resource.

<comment><USER7> Submissions have always made the front page with three votes, depending on how new they are vs. how stale the front page is. That hasn't changed in years.

There's also the second-chance pool that we put stories into, which get randomly placed on the front page (this is described at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380) and links back from there), and the repost invites we occasionally send out when we notice a great post that's more than a few days old.

<comment><USER6> That's true, although I've noticed it occur much more recently (admittingly that's a selection bias)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have noticed something similar - I just put it down to a "slow news day". Frankly it means I am getting some work done :-)

</comment><comment><USER9> Algolia's "Last 24h" view is often a nice alternative to the HN front page. It's more stable and it's also a good way to find articles/discussions that drew a lot of attention and then got flagged.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=last24h&type=story) (it's not working at the moment for some reason)

The "Past Week" view is still working: [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=pastWeek&type=story)

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h Also [https://hckrnews.com/](https://hckrnews.com/) is nice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Meanwhile, "Demand for Ruby on Rails is Still Huge" is about the hit the 3rd page with 157 comments and only 3 hours old...

I guess anything Ruby is old news on HN

<comment><USER11> That post has more comments than votes, which seems to be a factor that HN's ranking system uses to push posts off the front page faster. I think that's a terrible decision that punishes posts that generate a lot of discussion, but it seems to be how it works.

<comment><USER5> Discussion without corresponding upvotes usually indicates that people didn't like the original article that much and are mostly commenting to complain or rebut.

<comment><USER12> But... doesn't more votes with few comments just mean people like or agree with the idea/title, but might not even have read it and it doesn't generate meaningful discussion? :-/

I find that trivially true statement, or those that seeming to appeal to our values / beliefs, get a lot of upvotes without people even following the link, let alone contributing thoughtful comments. Whereas I come to HN to read insightful comments almost more than underlying articles - I find it fascinating when an Apollo engineer or a ML researcher or a physicist etc contribute their perspective on a topic :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If this is here tomorrow, your summation is verified.

</comment><comment><USER14> Because the YC alumni moved to their internal social network, BookFace.

HN is for rubes now.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've noticed that as well. Just a guess, but certain news organizations are given "special treatment" lately.

Almost everyday, I see a post from select news sources with 1 or 2 upvotes and no comments very high on the frontpage.

Also, is it just me or has hacker news slowly shifted from being about technology to more politics?

And a final observation, what's with the neverending submissions about facebook?

<comment><USER7> > Also, is it just me or has hacker news slowly shifted from being about > technology to more politics?

People have been saying this for about as long as HN has existed, but it isn't true. HN is a mix, it's always been a mix, and the proportion of politics in the mix has gone down somewhat. Why do people perceive the opposite? Because of the cognitive bias where whatever you dislike stands out more. The users who wish HN would have more politics believe that the trend is just the opposite way (a la 'political stories are being increasingly suppressed' and so on).

For anyone who wants details, I wrote a detailed post about this a few weeks ago with tons of examples, so I could link back to it when this issue inevitably comes up again. It's here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869).

p.s. There's no special favorable treatment of any publication on HN. We do penalize sites that have been the source of too many off topic or lightweight submissions in the past.

<comment><USER15> Although the political/technical balance may have stayed the same, I expect that the recent trend to keep old posts on the front page longer would heighten any perception of bias.

I for one have been finding coming to HN much less rewarding lately. I have to search more pages to find interesting posts.

<comment><USER7> It would be helpful if you'd include the newest page in your search routine and vote for interesting things.

<comment><USER16> Just the one (first) page of newest articles? Is that enough?

<comment><USER7> The more the better!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I am so sorry. I am totally new HN platform.I can not submit posts HN. Please Help me.

</comment><comment><USER18> You can just mail the mods and ask instead of asking a zillion people who almost certainly can't possibly know.

<comment><USER19> If something changed, it's nice for everyone else to be made aware as well. I had noticed the same thing.

<comment><USER18> Not really. It's pointless meta, imagine if every change, real or imagined, clogged up the site. And there's a good chance mods who can answer it won't even see it, they can't see everything but they read all their email.

This got sensibly flagged off. If you want to know, ask the mods. If something super-interesting has changed, you can always write a thing about it and post it and see how it fares.</comment></comment></comment>


What Do We Now Know, after Nokia's Latest Profit Warning & Layoffs - <AUTHOR> http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/06/what-do-we-now-know-after-nokias-latest-profit-warning-layoffs-the-titanic-deck-chairs-moment.html The takeaway ...<p>"Yesterday the Nokia share price fell 18% in one day, the biggest fall it has ever had. The share price had climbed 11% in the first 5 months when Elop was in charge, when he executed the previous strategy. After his magnificent new strategy unveilled in February 2011, Nokia share price has fallen by 74%. Today we heard that Moody's has joined the two other ratings agencies downgrading Nokia to junk. All three ratings agencies rated Nokia one notch below perfect when Elop took charge. I think we can see the pattern here. The Captain sees the iceberg. He knows he could save his ship. But he would rather go fire 10,000 engineers and buy a Swedish company. He's rather rearrange the deck chairs. Full Steam Ahead!" <comment><AUTHOR> The takeaway ...

"Yesterday the Nokia share price fell 18% in one day, the biggest fall it has ever had. The share price had climbed 11% in the first 5 months when Elop was in charge, when he executed the previous strategy. After his magnificent new strategy unveilled in February 2011, Nokia share price has fallen by 74%. Today we heard that Moody's has joined the two other ratings agencies downgrading Nokia to junk. All three ratings agencies rated Nokia one notch below perfect when Elop took charge. I think we can see the pattern here. The Captain sees the iceberg. He knows he could save his ship. But he would rather go fire 10,000 engineers and buy a Swedish company. He's rather rearrange the deck chairs. Full Steam Ahead!"</comment>


Advice for the man who is all dressed up and getting nowhere (1988) - <AUTHOR> http://www.csmonitor.com/1988/0209/fmoll.html <comment><USER2> Well, I think bosses should look and act like bosses instead of pretending like they're my friend, like just another schmoe on the production line.

Also notice how the ultimate point of this is trying to get workers to work harder and be more loyal to the company. The company which will lay them off, decrease their hours, reduce benefits, etc, as the board and executive staff see fit.

So let's cut the shit. Management and labor aren't the same and we're not friends. If you want workers to be happier then offer them a better workplace and do right by them instead of wasting money on stupid consultants to talk about your clothes. I mean, shit, that in itself says so much.</comment>