NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls?CMP=twt_gu <comment><USER2> A note to say that the Stop Watching Us coalition rally is now just two days away. If you're on the east coast, it's not too late to attend. If you're interested, you can find out more here:

[https://rally.stopwatching.us/](https://rally.stopwatching.us/)

Privacy is one of the hardest things to get folks riled up about. It erodes slowly, and for "good" reasons, like defending the country against terrorism. But privacy is critical to a meaningful democracy. Strangely, many of the members of Congress fail to understand how important it is, and that compromising our privacy for security is a huge mistake. Particularly since those compromises are not necessary.

The fact that the NSA is monitoring the calls of world leaders is also worrying. But it's more of a foreign policy issue, damaging international relations and making it more difficult for countries to trust the US. I think it's foolish, and needs to stop, but it doesn't threaten our freedom directly.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for posting this - it's the most important political topic of this generation. If I was anywhere close I'd attend.

I started chatting with a guy at a local bar over lunch the other day. The topic turned to surveillance and Snowden. Turned out my conversational partner was an off-duty cop. He thought Snowden was a traitor, and that the surveillance was totally justified because, "It makes protecting the innocent easier." And I asked him: "well, wouldn't being able to enter any home or car without a warrant or even probable cause make protecting the innocent? Basically, wouldn't repealing the 4th amendment make it easier?"

He paused for a moment, looked me straight in the eye, and said, "Yes."

That's when I knew we are all in real danger. People grow up and join law enforcement, and it _changes_ them, and they don't even see it.

<comment><USER4> I'd say that's the Police having lowered the barrier-to-entry to the lowest possible point: high school drop-outs with no education and/or thinking skills whatsoever. Sad and dangerous.

<comment><USER5> Psh, it's not the police that are the flashpoint IMO it is the marines. Their entry requirements are so lax it is beyond scary.

<comment><USER6> Interesting. I'm currently stationed at MCRD San Diego (Navy, though), so I get to see some of how their recruitment and boot process works. Lax in what ways (assuming you're talking about the U.S., not the Royal Marines)?

<comment><USER5> I'm sorry I can't find the article I read (about 2 years ago and it may well have been from a HN link if anyone recognises it?).

In said article it explains how since the Iraq invasion the entry requirements for the U.S. Marines have slipped on almost every front. Mental health, criminal convictions, education and even physical fitness requirements have all been reduced significantly and the striking thing about the article was that it made the comparison between the Marines and the SS - most especially the Dirlewanger Brigade. It was a strained, but apt, comparison that stated the last time a military unit had so drastically augmented it's entry requirements was in putting together that infamous squad for the purposes of punishment and outright terror. Shock and awe indeed.

Now that is a hell of a comparison to make and a direct appeal to Godwin, but as other people are pointing out the gradual decline of the U.S. into a totalitarian police surveillance state and it's military deployments overseas can't help but make this commentator think of the U.S. as being the last bastion of fascism(c).

Good luck to you, Aaron. My brother is in the Military here in the U.K. so I've had to man up and put my ideologies to the test. I don't agree with what the Military Industrial Complex are doing, but I'm acutely aware how one should judge these things on the correct scale. Each individuals actions must be judged very differently from those of the unit, and in that way I think I justify being proud of my brother whilst simultaneously condemning the system as a whole.

Rainier Maria Rilke may have helped me a bit there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is the top comment on the Reddit thread:

"They went after _high ranking military officers_. They went after _members of congress_. The Senate and the House - especially on the intelligence committees, and on the armed services committees and judicial. But they went after other ones too. They went after _lawyers and law firms_. Heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after _judges_. One of the judges is now sitting on the supreme court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after _state department officials_. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House - their own people! They went after _anti-war groups_. They went after _US companies_ that do international business around the world. They went after US banking firms and financial firms that do international business. They went after _NGOs_ like the red cross and people like that that go overseas and do humanitarian work. They went after a few anti-war civil rights groups...

Now here's the big one. I haven't given you any names. This was in summer 2004. One of the papers that I held in my hand was to wiretap a bunch of numbers associated with a 40-something year old wanna-be Senator from Illinois. You wouldn't happen to know where that guy lives right now, would you? It's a big White House in Washington DC. That's who they went after. And that's the President of the United States now. And I could give you names of a bunch of different people they went after that I saw! _The names and the phone numbers of congress_. Not only the names but it looked like staff people too, and their staff. And not only their Washington office but back home in their congressional offices that they have in their home state offices and stuff like that. This thing is incredible what NSA has done. They've basically turned themselves - in my opinion - into _a rogue agency that has J Edgar Hoover capabilities on a monstrous scale on steroids._ "

\--former nsa officer Russ Tice...

June 20th interview on Boiling Frogs... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPyxeqcCjkc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPyxeqcCjkc) (full 1hr+ radio interview)

or watch 11 minute RT interview [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk)

<comment><USER8> The big question is, who controls this security state? The information is being collected, but who's the audience?

And what is their agenda?

<comment><USER4> Rule number 1: It's ALWAYS about the money.

The agenda is the protection of excessive money/wealth.

Which tells you where to look for "who's behind it": Rich people, _very_ rich people. Also: The military-industrial complex.

And I honestly don't know how one can take down such a power structure that's in such an advanced stage.

I think it's like terminal cancer: it will only die when the host dies.

<comment><USER9> The military industrial complex is the biggest pile of assignable loot in world history.

$5+ trillion over the last decade alone. Far more if you count everything connected to it.

They knew the wars couldn't go on perpetually forever, and they'll be damned if they're going to give up all that money. One way to dictate that is through control of the political process.

<comment><USER10> "They knew the wars couldn't go on perpetually forever" is very optimistic. Europe hadn't had a large scale war for decades before WW1.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11>
        Jay Carney issued a statement that said the US
        "is not monitoring and will not monitor" the
        German chancellor's communications.

This is probably the best tell the US government has for sniffing out the bullshit. If they don't explicitly deny the event occurring in the past, it happened.

Reminds me of a Spaceballs scene:

        Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now, sir.
        Everything that happens now, is happening now.

        Dark Helmet: What happened to then?

        Colonel Sandurz: We passed then.

        Dark Helmet: When?

        Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now.

I imagine this is probably about how the "Cover Your Ass" conversation goes before official comments are made to the press.

<comment><USER12> When I heard the "is not monitoring and will not monitor" I thougth "We didn't, and we will not do it again"

<comment><USER13> This is a classic non-denial denial:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non- denial_denial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-denial_denial)

In these cases, I think what is important is what is _not_ being said. For example, they aren't saying: we did not monitor the Chancellor's phone calls in the past. We didn't and won't record _other_ senior EU officials, etc. The problem is that journalists do not pry enough, because if they are too curious, they will eventually lose privileged access to these government sources.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is the understood and expected function of the NSA, isn't it? Collecting signals intelligence from foreign sources? Does anyone honestly believe the Germans aren't regularly trying to figure out ways to listen to American officials' communications?

I find the NSA's domestic spying to be appalling... but this is the sort of thing everyone knew the NSA was responsible for since its inception.

<comment><USER7> But we are not at war with everyone, and those countries involved (like Germany, France and Italy) are our partners, economical and military partners. I can accept doing SIGINT on non-friendly countries and organizations but is it correct to spy on your own people and partner countries?

<comment><USER15> >but is it correct to spy on your own people and partner countries?

It's rude, but I think to a degree it is acceptable, and probably expected. Friendly countries spy on each other all the time. For one thing, friendly countries might not remain friendly forever.

<comment><USER16> A great way to expedite that transition is to disrespect them, treating them like your enemy when they're still your ally.

<comment><USER17> You know what has millions of people and is entirely unlike an individual human being? _A country_.

The convenient narratives spun to explain international politics seem entirely lost on people and are being treated as literal relations of how countries behave rather then shorthand.

"China" doesn't act like a person. It doesn't have emotions, moods or opinions like a person does. When we talk about "China thinks this" or "China feels that" we are not describing the moods of a human being, we're not even describing necessarily the aggregate mood of it's government except in so far as we're using a shorthand because we want to talk about trends in policy making or the types of people being appointed as advisers/policy-makers on _whichever issue we are actually talking about specifically_.

<comment> grey-area Countries and the people who make them up also form alliances, hate betrayal, and hold grudges. If your country thinks it is acceptable to betray allies, you will soon have no allies. If you say one thing and do another and the gap is wide enough, eventually no other country will believe a word you say, even when you tell the truth.

Alliances between countries are not formed in a rational way just on a specific issue normally, but based on previous actions and previous issues, and old loyalties. To betray those loyalties just means no-one will feel any loyalty to you - that may work in the short-term if you are big enough but long-term it's a terrible strategy.

So in that sense countries are like people, though I agree in many senses they are not.

<comment><USER17> Alliances are not formed on a specific issue, which is also why they're not broken on intangible issues. This is theatre by Merkel because it plays well with her public. I don't imagine US diplomats are losing any sleep over this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> grey-area This has some interesting implications:

What would this information be useful for? Why was the NSA collecting this information and at whose request? Is the same being done to US politicians?

The most useful applications of this I can think of are betraying allies, manipulating negotiations with rival trade blocs, economic espionage, and of course protecting the power of the agencies who perform this surveillance and the lucky few who are given strictly limited access to it.

If the POTUS is given this intelligence and makes most of his decisions based on it, how does he know that he is being given the truth, rather than a carefully edited version of it?

It seems surveillance is no longer focussed on terrorism, if it ever was (indeed a few terrorist attacks have gone on the US without detection in spite of all this surveillance). It's telling that even the NSA have given up using that excuse as it becomes more and more clear where the focus of their intelligence gathering is directed.

Is the NSA (and the US by proxy) using the information it collects as a way of protecting and expanding its power? Is this inevitable if you give an organisation that much power over our lives and very little oversight?

Are all allies of the US mistrusted so much that they must be spied on? Should they in return shut down trust of the US and repudiate treaties they have with it like the one sharing SWIFT data or details of people visiting the US? Can the EU trust the products of American internet companies, or should they set up rivals?

It seems information has become more and more synonymous with power as our economies in the west become information economies, and the greatest power of all has been handed to an agency without significant legal limits and without any sort of public accountability, led by a member of the military.

<comment><USER18> In the 1970s it was well known that the CIA worked to pave the way for American business interests overseas, through everything from espionage to blackmail, murder and military interventions. I assume the NSA works much the same way today (but God knows what all the domestic spying is used for).

<comment> grey-area _In the 1970s it was well known that the CIA worked to pave the way for American business interests overseas, through everything from espionage to blackmail, murder and military interventions._

I don't think this is the way countries should conduct themselves, particularly not ones which trumpet their freedom and liberty. Either the US can employ cynical realpolitik while making hypocritical statements about fighting for civilisation and freedom and live with the consequences, or it can aspire to live up to the ideals it claims to stand for. There's only so much hypocrisy you can employ as an empire before the hollow nature of your statements undermines your authority with allies and citizens alike, and exposure like this is inevitable when the lie becomes big enough.

 _but God knows what all the domestic spying is used for_

I imagine for exactly the same ends, minus the military aspect, which is reserved for overseas at present (though also employed on US citizens abroad). If a politician wants to dismantle the extremely useful and effective spy apparatus, they are likely to find it turned against them first.

<comment><USER19> That's what I found remarkable about the Wikileaks embassy cables: Just how much of "diplomacy" amounts to leaning on our supposed friends in the world to accept our screwed up intellectual property laws and to otherwise compromise their standards for some pretty low, non-strategic commercial interests. At best it seems like diplomacy amounts to MPAA "spam" influence and at worst it is the spear-point of economic espionage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I quite frankly don't understand why anyone would condemn such acts of espionage. They are not only essential for a nation state to function successfully, but they are also a far superior way for the US to maintain its hegemony as compared to using acts of brute force.

Now I do not condone Orwellian spying on the citizens of your own republic, but this really is their job and it's quite impressive that they're this good at it. Especially given the fact that historically the US has not been completely invested in espionage and has favoured building up capacity after key events and quickly dismantling the apparatus once the emergency has passed. What these scandals are offering is a glimpse into a dramatic shift in the way the US conducts its affairs and that in of itself is quite noteworthy.

<comment><USER21> In which you assume far too much:

\- that espionage is required for a state to function successfully

\- that maintaining US hegemony is both a national good and good for the world

\- that brute force is the only other viable option to rampant surveillance

It is specifically because none of those things ought to be assumed, none of them are a given, and none are inherently good or desirable or required, that one ought to condemn these acts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> When ability is no longer a bottleneck on the actions of an individual or group, that is the time that the character of that individual or group is discovered.

The character of the US government in general, and the NSA in particular, is apparently that of a rotten, sneaking, dishonest liar.

I cannot say that I am surprised, human nature being what it is, but I am very disappointed.

On the bright side, it is in good international company.

</comment><comment><USER23> I don't understand the bulk of comments being about this not being important. Or... well yeah, I understand the perspective that any intelligence agency should be collecting intelligence, so this shouldn't be a surprise per se. But this certainly levels out the playing field in that now the world knows at which lengths the NSA has been keeping tabs on people, and at least the majority of world leaders (and a lot of more "insignificant" people) will start using encrypted communications and networks like Tor. Which they should've been doing from the start. So, in this light, I think this is an important Snowden revelation.

</comment><comment><USER24> After the crash of the Polish president's plane in Smolensk, it was widely known that the Americans have recordings of all conversations made with his satellite phone aboard the plane. I don't remember that sparking much controversy at the time, everyone was more like "yup, that's what Americans do" and there was pretty much no outrage over that.

</comment><comment><USER25> US Foreign Policy: How to turn friends into enemies and isolate yourself from the world

<comment><USER26> Well to be fair, the Germans did try to kill us all.

<comment><USER27> Yeah, and the Mongolians once sacked the world. Should we be afraid of them too?

<comment><USER28> Definitely. If it weren't for the Chinese and Russians having them effectively surrounded, Europe would be knee deep in blood and the wreckage of their onslaught.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I can understand why "world leaders" would be frustrated by this, but much better them than us. This activity is at least plausibly within NSA's purview. Also, _most_ of these leaders have less at risk to the NSA threat than do USA residents. It isn't as though NSA will sic the Drug Warriors, the IP Mafia, BATF, ICE, or EPA on leaders of other sovereign nations based on its observation of their communications. Whereas we're definitely in those crosshairs.

There are exceptions! If your nation could plausibly be on deck for the next military-industrial complex fundraising activity, you might want your leaders to secure their communications against NSA. Of course, if they're not doing anything wrong, they might want that fact to be observed, on the off chance it might make a difference.

</comment><comment><USER15> Yes. And the US is the only country whose intelligence service has ever done anything like this.

And newsflash ... we probably bug your embassies too.

<comment><USER21> I seem to have missed the part where it was suggested that only the US is guilty.

If there existed a solid body of evidence to disclose to the world that Germany, France, or Russia was carrying out such actions on a wide scale, that would dominate the press in under a minute.

This is the US receiving equal treatment given a preponderance of evidence.

This is how the press should be.

<comment><USER15> I'm not suggesting this isn't news, it certainly is. Just that it's not out of the ordinary for either the NSA or governments in general. It's news in that we got caught.

<comment><USER21> Not caught, exactly. Espionage is well understood and expected in international relations.

The news is the _depth_ and _breadth_ of the NSA's activities, and that it is being shown with _hard evidence_ , instead of the typical former-agent-speaks- vaguely-about-capabilities that typically show up in this area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I feel we are taking our eyes off the ball.

Domestic spying violates constitutional rights. More to the point, I don't want to support an institution with programs that violate my privacy, no matter what benefits such programs provide.

But isn't international spying is different? Honestly, I don't mind supporting an institution with an external espionage programs. Isn't in my best interest? Does it harm me? What are the concrete repercussions of spying on foreign officials? Are these officials really going to renege on international alliances because they have a chip on their shoulder? If they have anything to hide, it's by definition counter to US interests; if our allies are making plans behind our backs, I _want_ our government to find out. (And to be totally honest, if _our_ government is making secret plans behind our allies backs, I would want our allies to find out, as well.)

I'll repeat this, because it is a real question, and the answer could have a real effect on my opinion: _What are the concrete repercussions of spying on foreign officials?_

<comment> grey-area Possible concrete repercussions include:

Refusal of the EU bloc to cooperate over sharing banking and passenger data, and potentially other treaties down the line

Refusal of large South American nations to do trade deals or negotiate with the US, and a decline in US influence in the region

A move away from American dominance of the internet, and a reluctance to use companies with servers based in based in the US

The decline of the American empire, which is based on the tacit consent of the nations within their alliances like NATO (this one is more a long term potential outcome).

<comment><USER30> Okay. Thanks.

>Refusal of the EU bloc to cooperate...

Sharing of banking and passenger data is not something I know a lot about. Why do countries share this data now, and why would they stop because their prime minister is being spied upon? How the spying affect the pros and cons of sharing the data?

> Refusal of large South American nations to do trade deals...

Can you explain why a South American nation would not make a trade deal that made sense economically because of foreign espionage? How do the economics change as a result of the espionage?

> A move away from American dominance of the internet...

Who would avoid using servers based in the US as a result of espionage of 35 specific foreign officials? We're not talking about normal EU citizens in this particular article.

>The decline of the American empire...

Again, what decisions will countries make differently? Are countries going to make decisions that are not in their best interests in order to spite the US? Or are they already making decisions that are not in their best interests in order to be nice to the US, but won't anymore? Neither of these seems likely.

<comment> grey-area Well clearly these are partly predictions and speculation, but I do expect to see, and we have already seen, concrete repercussions from the exposure of spying on allies, because the actions of the US state have put its interests in clear conflict with those of its allies.

The excuse given for sharing banking and passenger data was fighting terrorism; as that's been shown to be far from the truth by these latest revelations, the EU parliament recently voted against sharing SWIFT data:

[http://www.dw.de/european-parliament-rejects-swift-deal- for-...](http://www.dw.de/european-parliament-rejects-swift-deal-for-sharing- bank-data-with-us/a-5239595-1)

 _Can you explain why a South American nation would not make a trade deal that made sense economically because of foreign espionage? How do the economics change as a result of the espionage?_

These decisions are not made on a purely economic basis. Rousseff cancelled a trade visit as a result of US spying:

[http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/17/brazilian...](http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/17/brazilian_president_snubs_white_house)

From the article: _Brazil is one of the wealthiest and most powerful countries in Latin America, so Rousseff 's decision to postpone her visit - and her obvious anger at the U.S. -- has potentially far-reaching implications for Washington's standing and influence in the region. It is extremely rare for a head of state to call off an already-scheduled state visit, so the move is also a profound embarrassment for the administration._

The administration tried to spin this in the US as a joint decision, but this was a significant snub (along with her damning UN speech) from the largest country in the region and a huge setback for US influence in SA.

 _Who would avoid using servers based in the US as a result of espionage of 35 specific foreign officials?_

The officials certainly have an incentive to move (in a way they didn't when they believed US gov assurances and thought only the little people were being spied on), and they may move the massive EU gov market away from any dependence on American owned servers. South American government have discussed doing the same (including Brazil, the biggest country). This will impact US internet companies long term, and I suspect just encourage an already emerging globalisation of the internet.

 _Are countries going to make decisions that are not in their best interests in order to spite the US?_

It has been fully exposed just how little respect and rewards being a US ally earns you, and therefore a lot of countries will rethink the relationship. This has nothing to do with spiting the US and everything to do with protecting their own interests, which are less and less seen as congruent with the US due to its bullying behaviour.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I genuinely fail to be outraged by this. The NSA has a job, which is the monitoring of the signals of foreign militaries and governments. That they were doing that is not surprising or necessarily bad since those entities should be more than capable of operating in such an environment.

The problem is the mass slurping of the data of everyone else.

<comment><USER32> That's like saying the DoD has a job, which is to go to war with foreign countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is honestly the revelation that I worry about least in these NSA leaks. Isn't foreign surveillance basically the raison d'etre for the NSA?

<comment><USER34> It may be one of the largest motivating factors in changing NSA practices, however. Pissed partners can lead to loss of trade, and the NSA suddenly becomes a campaign issue for the next round.

<comment><USER33> Hmm. That's a really good point, hadn't occurred to me. Good for us I guess, although I still don't think we can really lambaste them for doing something that's directly in their "charter". (As opposed to all the domestic surveillance, etc!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Quite expected. My disappointment with the US gov and its general attitude is reaching new levels. Really BAD.

</comment><comment><USER36> I really can't believe that there are so many comments that try to trivialize the actions.

It seems that the United States loses the reality and lapses in an egocentric / ethnocentric disease.

How would the U.S. react if they found out such a thing the other way around?

</comment><comment><USER37> Presumably this will soon be followed up by other ground-breaking journalism pieces such as "Army kills people", "Surgeons perform surgery", and "Garbage collectors stun world by collecting garbage".

Irrespective of what one thinks of it (and I do not think favourably of it), how is it surprising that an organisation that is established specifically to spy on people is in fact spying on people?

<comment><USER21> Perhaps because foreign leaders do not consider tapping the phone lines of our allies to be within the scope of NSA's stated mission "to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."[1]

Or maybe because SigInt is supposed to be working "for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations."[1] They might not get why tapping their phones supports America's military operations, or why the US wouldn't just schedule a meeting/call to for "intelligence and counterintelligence purposes".

Might be that some fail to see how this qualifies as "operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties."

There are wide-open channels for gaining intelligence from the leaders of allied countries. We've been using them for a while. They work pretty well.

The NSA is causing the US to look like it's the distrustful mate who is sneakily combing through his partner's texts, emails, messages, and other media to assure himself he can trust his partner.

The world is, perhaps, not liking the feeling of being spied on.

[1]: [http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/](http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/)

<comment><USER14> How on earth is knowing the internal dealings of foreign governments __not __ "gaining a decision advantage for the Nation"?!

<comment><USER21> Why on earth is it acceptable for the NSA--or any other foreign state's intelligence services--to know the _internal_ dealings of foreign governments?

You're acting as if that isn't something that should be questioned, and should just be accepted as a general good in both domestic and international policy.

Many of us do not think that such a position is tenable or acceptable, much less a proven and legitimate point of view.

The mission statement does not end with "the Nation". It ends " _and our allies under all circumstances_." America's allies have a legitimate reason to complain their interests are not being served, and might actually be undermined and trespassed by the NSA's actions--just as America would claim the same thing whenever news reports proliferated with a preponderance of evidence detailing how Germany's intelligence services were tapping the White House phones and slurping up all congressional emails, text messages, and voicemails.

All sovereign states--be they allies or rogues--have a legitimate claim to and expectation of privacy where their _internal_ dealings are concerned. This claim and expectation is even higher among allied nations, among whom it is expected that internal dealings concern other nations will be shared via _standard diplomatic channels_. And the determinations are left to the sovereign state itself regarding what, _if any_ , internal dealings are shared with allies. But the allies do not possess some automatic _right_ or _privilege_ to spy as widely and deeply as they technologically are able to.

That espionage occurs, that states spy on one another in accordance with their relative positions of power to achieve their own self-interests is not up for debate. Nobody in any of these revelations is suggesting it does not happen. Hell, in the purely functional domain of international relations, there are plenty of net positives that result from espionage being neither endorsed nor prohibited by international law, and mutually allowed and expected among foreign states--such as verifying compliance with international obligations, and confirming the veracity of and commitment behind assurances given by foreign states.

But that still misses the more subtle point--foreign states are well within their rights (and, it might be argued, their sovereign responsibilities) to loudly grandstand and object to details that leak out regarding another state's espionage activities. Why would we expect anything less? That's simply not sensible. There can be legitimate outrage expressed over leaks of espionage because _it could actually come as a surprise the depths to which a nation goes when spying on its allies_. There could be other cultural and sociopolitical shifts among allied countries in one area, such as the EU, who have in various other ways been engaged in a long process of protecting civilian privacies and, in such a setting, to not engage political theater by expressing contempt for the actions of a state such as America--who shows such blatant disregard for personal privacies and who is caught within their spy's nets--violate the publicly proclaimed principles that the citizens of foreign states hold dear. If the leaders do not object, they could face political backlash.

Nobody doubts that all states engage in espionage against their neighbors, friendly or not. But that does not mean that the release of details showing a much heavier spying apparatus is deployed by the power with the greatest hegemony and strongest power position isn't going to make its allies feel very uncomfortable.

Beyond that, what's most alarming is that Americans truly do not give a fuck. Citizens of other nations, however, do not think like Americans. They've been working on the alliance and diplomacy thing for centuries. They approach things differently, having long learned many lessons through the rise and fall of empires.

<comment><USER38> > All sovereign states--be they allies or rogues--have a legitimate claim to > and expectation of privacy where their internal dealings are concerned.

They're _governments_. They don't have any rights and as local monopolists of violence certainly don't have any expectation of laxity in others' vigilance.

<comment><USER39> There really aren't that many laws governing how nation-states should behave towards one another; and there certainly isn't any notion of rights to fall back on. The international arena is effectively a lawless "wild west" world, and it shows; particularly in the attitude and demeanour of those who have been exposed to its' vicissitudes for any significant length of time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> We have ended up with the same conversations on this spying lark far too often.

I appreciate the sentiment of those that want to protest against this and I can understand the spoon-fed arguments about how the NSA must go after the kiddie fiddlers, terrorists that want to blow up innocent kiddies (as in the ones that haven't been fiddled with, yet) and do all that mysterious national security stuff.

However, instead of same-old, same-old, can we work on a technological solution? Something that will work for you and I as well as Mrs Merkel?

We can let go the network analysis stuff, who is in contact with whom as right now there is no easy way to prevent the NSA slurping that stuff up. But, as for the content, can't that be encrypted properly, without the NSA having the key and without there being secret courts where keys get handed over in secret? It is just code we need, and with it we can get a reasonable compromise where our conversations are secure.

</comment><comment><USER41> No non-US government official can feel secure in giving just a business card to his US counterpart, because he has to assume his contact info will be given to the NSA.

Hell, _no one_ , regardless of nationality, in or out of government, can fell secure in any communication of _any_ kind with a US government person.

</comment><comment><USER42> It used to be spying on other people's governments would get people killed or start wars. In some way it will again. Maybe not so obvious this time.

</comment><comment><USER43> I think we need a bit of context here. US is the hegemon.

Therefore it's not reasonable to apply same expectations of how it acts as we do pleasant little countries like Norway or Netherlands (who are probably only independent because US defended them against Germans & Soviets).

<comment><USER21> And hegemony is a dangerous thing that must be watched closely.

It is entirely reasonable to apply expectations to all countries that they not operate in ways that encroach upon the sovereignty and privacy of other nations, especially their allies or even less friendly nations with whom a declared state of war does not exist.

The hegemon ought answer to a _much_ stricter standard than the "pleasant little countries" who do not wield such power.

Hegemony does not implicitly grant universal assent to be a total asshole.

<comment><USER17> You realize the first thing you do if you're going to attack someone is tell them one thing and then do another, right?

And that a country's leaders are replaceable components - the country doesn't have a personality, it has a government of thousands of individuals, all who subtly bias its aggregate behaviour in different ways, and whom the replacement of various members can fundamentally alter the country's goals, agenda and long-term interests against other countries?

How then, do you intend to maintain your own security if you've decided to simply take the word of one country's government - again, a shifting gestalt of thousands of individuals and millions of citizens goals - as naively true, when there is absolutely no reason or even motivation for that country not to simply lie to you - likely in many cases without even realizing it, as the messengers don't have the situational-awareness to understand the context of the message.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> What is the strategy here? Of releasing information about NSA activities with foreign nations? Seems like it is mixing a potentially illegal activity (domestic spying) with their designated job. Doesn't every country try to do this. The NSA personnel could very well have undergone considerable risk to get this sort of thing going on. On the other hand, Joe public sees Snowden fleeing and chilling out in Russia/China and other "despotic" regimes.

Definitely Snowden:0 and NSA:1 in this case.

<comment><USER45> You are wrong its a 1:0 for Snowden. Now it`s not only the "common" people and how Merkel reacted is atypical for her.

Lets hope we see some actions out of this event at least the EU parliament set the first sign with voting against SWIFT.

<comment><USER17> Merkel is reacting this way because it plays well with a group of people who don't realize that they're actually wildly outside of their field of expertise on an issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> On the "is not monitoring and will not monitor"... If they took the time to deny present and future monitoring, the obvious question then becomes why haven't they denied past/recent past monitoring? Oh that's right, because they can't in fact deny it as they WERE monitoring.

<comment><USER47> Personally, I think it is misdirection. Why should we assume they are not willing to lie? More likely, in my opinion, is that they deny the present and future to make us think it used to happen, but just maybe might have stopped. Is there really _any_ reason to assume they've stopped?

I mean, if they're not capable of lying convincingly, they'd make pretty shitty spies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I thought that the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement)) were the only nations the NSA was even pretending to not spy on.

It's my understanding that the British were thought to have stolen submarine detection technology from the French, and the French were widely accused of industrial espionage against US companies in the 1990s. I also vaguely remember a 60 Minutes piece in the 1990s about Germans fulfilling their military service obligations by committing industrial espionage against US companies.

It seems to me that politicians are playing to public opinion, while knowing full well that this is how the international relations game has been played for decades, if not forever.

</comment><comment><USER49> Watch as the flag-all-NSA-stories brigade pushes this relevant story off the front page...

<comment><USER19> The suppression of NSA stories on HN is an act of monumental stupidity. If we find 10-15 years from now that US technology, infrastructure, and services are shunned around the world it will come down to them cooperating with the NSA.

<comment><USER50> Australia and Canada have info sharing deals with the NSA but their citizens are not mad at their governments. Germans howl when a US military base might close. Serious cognitive dissonance does not deserve endless vapid repetition and HN users rightly flag such nonsense.

<comment><USER19> Each one of these stories brings new revelations, most of which have some impact on the trustworthiness of US technology businesses. So, while you may be right that countries that appear so far to be vassals with limited independence won't boycott US products, that's not most of the world.

<comment><USER50> Do you not see the hypocrisy of Australians and Canadians? Virtually all of the west? Is Europe going to side with Russia or China? They certainly aren't going to defend themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> If I were the leader of a major world power right now, I would push for a law in my country that decriminalizes the hacking of any government systems of countries that have proven hostile to my countries government. The only exception would be the hacking of public infrastructure like transportation systems and public utilities. Everything else would be fair game. Seems like this approach would introduce and element of M.A.D. into the mix that would mitigate the current hostile actions we are seeing from the US via the NSA and China via the PLA.

</comment><comment><USER52> One way to tell if they are still doing it. Give them honeypots, hook them and wheel them in.

</comment><comment><USER53> 'After Merkel's allegations became public, White House press secretary Jay Carney issued a statement that said the US "is not monitoring and will not monitor" the German chancellor's communications.'

Which, of course, was a blatant lie.

</comment><comment><USER54> Gee, I thought the government shutdown had succeeded in getting everyone to forget this whole spy hullabaloo. Well at least it worked in the good old USA.

</comment><comment><USER55> I might think everyone should have access to all communications of all politicians. If you want to be a leader of millions you should be transparent.

</comment><comment><USER56> I believe NSA is as much important as Android is to Google.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it possible for a third world country to have a Silicon Valley? - <AUTHOR>

Sorry if I'm linking to my downvoted AskReddit submission. I just thought you guys might want to get a sense of why I'm asking this question.
I actually don't know how to program but I really wanted to get a more neutral but detailed information on how much work it takes before reaching the promised land for local third world developers/start-ups.
As one commentor used as an example:
"So many times have I heard people here look down on pinoy artists and game developers and look up to Korean artists and game developers, but the irony here is that A LOT OF PINOY ARTISTS AND DEVELOPERS ARE WORKING FOR KOREAN GAME COMPANIES."
I hope you don't mind me morphing this issue into a tech-related subject. Aside from Reddit, HN and Metafilter are the only two other major social media sites I know of that are well known for their quality comments. I failed to generate Reddit's interests and I don't have a MetaFilter account and this is the last place I have of asking aside from local sites, many of whom I'm not familiar of and many more who might not have as grand a knowledge as to the pros and cons and history of the web 2.0 boom as a global audience.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/e9jmo/could_the_philippines_seriously_have_become_the/ <comment><USER2> 1\. Don't try cloning the silicon valley, if you're in that mentality you've already failed because that's not a leader mentality, it's a follower mentality.

2\. Start the change locally. Do a startup, try to hire people. Try to organize a small group of developers/hackers, bring books about programming (e.g. SICP), make them available and easily reachable, maybe translate them to your local language.

If the Japanese where trying to do mimic Disney exactly, there wouldn't have been Anime, and they wouldn't have caught up with Disney either.

Actually now that I think about it, studying the history of Japanese Anime might be very useful.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I haven't studied much about the history of Japanese Anime but I did some on Japanese manga and I was under the impression, Anime was merely a piggyback on Tezuka's dream of having a movie version of his mangas which coupled by the success of his pioneering designs and cheap printing allowed for the type of growth that would help Anime flourish.

Unfortunately for us here, this isn't quite the case from my little observation of our culture. Even start-ups work on a corporate mindset. Just a few days ago, I spotted someone selling a DVD of Ubuntu for higher than the average price of pirated DVDs. This doesn't even take into account the difficulty of establishing meet-ups here.

I apologize if these just sound like excuses. I'm just trying to put the problem into context from my perspective in case this allows for a better explanation of what type of non-government development that can be done to turn this concept into a reality.

<comment><USER2> Hey, I know what you mean, I'm also from a third world country. Though I've been living in Canada for years now so I might have forgotten what things are like.

Something that might help: Myers-Briggs personality indicator. SJ types tend to work on a corporate mind-set. Try to find NT or NF types; they might start with a corporate mindset (assuming that's the prevailing mindset around them) but they can easily change and adapt more lean strategies.

Actually, let me know how things go for you. I kinda wish I could do the same in my country.

Regarding Anime: I've heard that the father of Anime was greatly inspired by Disney. It would've been real easy to slip into a "let's try to clone Disney" mindset when you're in that position. It sure helped that the Japanese had manga before, so they had something of their own to build on, instead of just following another culture's model.

That's why I think it's best to just start with a small group of programmers, to build a solid base that could later grow into something bigger.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Good luck on your side, I'm just hoping on my side too. It all seems so far away but someone has to try and find answers to the question eventually.

From what little I know, Tezuka did want to clone Disney in a sense. Prior to this there were comics before that resembled gag manga and Tezuka, finding difficulty in amassing resources to clone a Disney movie, tried to convert Disney unto paper with the current popular drawing style of the time.

Where he became a pioneer was in the area where he saw more of Disney than the art style. This combined with other old movies he knew of made him want to "clone cinema unto paper". Thus began both the success of manga and anime. Manga in the sense of Tezuka's pioneering cinema-like over comic-style like of pacing (at the time) and Anime due to the combined work ethic plus consistent high quality works he made which made it impossible for producers to resist offering an "Anime" version of his works. (Unfortunately or fortunately, this was also what leads to the unfair and unequal salary of many manga artists today. In those early days, the manga creator literally gave away their works to allow for an animated version setting aside certain industry celebrities and the model continues up till today except nowadays it works closer to a start-up where the professional manga artist is supplied food and rooms and materials to polish their work and then having an anime of your work is more of an honor than a hand-out)

Anyways, if you don't mind, how do you envision a solid base to be? Even today it seems Silicon Valley isn't quite as solid as it is and there are talks of talent shortage and high costs of living - I'm curious what a solid base really is. Over here, from my understanding, programmers don't so much work together as they end up interning for whichever company is willing to accept them as on the job trainees. In the rare chance that there is a small group of programmers working together, they are almost immediately formed through university projects otherwise they become unknown freelancers working with their former classmates or past acquaintances.

I think the same holds true for Silicon Valley only guys like Zuckerberg comes from already elite schools and most people are dreamers and the ones that aren't but are overly skilled unless I'm mistaken get acquired by Google or Facebook and lured by certain luxuries. On our end, and again I could be mistaken, I don't think we even have a YCombinator type of start-up training and almost everyone is on the follower mindset with regards to web services because not only is the money hard to support your self with but the Philippines isn't as internet surfing as other countries. (If you were to take a web surfing pie, I would assume majority of the users are using Facebook or playing MMORPG games. I could be highly mistaken since I don't have access to professional analytics programs but lurking in net cafes these are what I spot)

There is probably a higher hierarchy of elite level programmers and designers though but not only am I hard pressed to imagine them not already working or moving elsewhere in another country but I myself don't have investor level cash to satisfy them.

<comment><USER2> I imagine a solid base starting with the right kind of "knowledge". From what I observed, and this is very subjective, but people who clump around MS technologies tend to produce lousy communities where not much innovation happens.

I would start with attempting to produce (or translate) good material that has the potential to produce programmers who understand their craft really well and have a really good understanding about systems (to the extent that they can manage a web server, for example, and ssh into it, and edit files with vim, and all that stuff).

Maybe also having a few projects that people can clump around, something that's open source, interesting enough for people to want to use it and contribute to it.

Again I don't really want to clone Silicon Valley per se, what I want to clone is online open source communities. And again, it's not really about cloning, but about using that model as something to aim for, at least initially.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Here's my 2 cents from having spent a considerable amount of time in Lima, Peru. I think primarily its a cultural thing. I don't see the same level of risk taking or entrepreneurship here that I do in the US. People are more focused on finding stable employment and it seems that being your own boss doesn't get the same level of respect as working for a good company.

People also don't seem to have the same level of confidence in themselves here. Kind of hard for me to understand as I am from what is considered the "greatest" country in the world. Hard to imagine what its like for someone growing up in the 3rd world. The only analogy I can draw is perhaps someone coming from a rich family vs someone coming from the ghetto.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree and I don't think they can be blamed. It's mostly the economy and the corruption. Easier to jump ship than to repair a sinking ship too damaged to be repaired.

I don't think the analogy is quite correct though. At least based only on the movie impressions of ghettos I've seen, I feel it's sort of an interesting ironic antonym of cultural personalities.

If many of the people in your ghetto had the same cultural identity as many of our poor people over here, you'd see a more unified poverty like the one I imagine exists in the Filipino groups in San Francisco. (I haven't been outside of my country except for HK and so I'm only guessing.)

In reverse, if we have more of a ghetto culture, it won't necessarily mean we will lift up ourselves better but certainly we'd be a lot more angrier and violent at the poverty level that in ways may further hurt our very unstable lifestyle but will be better breeding grounds for the type of entrepreneurs that mimic the US lifestyle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Man, living in Brazil i can attest to you that there are plenty of hackers around, but no nasdaq. Maybe it can't be done, and maybe _we wouldn't really like it_ if we got it.

In Raghuram Rajam's book (Fault Lines) there is something about half of what a country needs to develop is capital, and part is the human organization that can turn this capital into development. As in sane institutions and sane business procedures and people. I would say such a thing is mostly lacking in Brazil, for example: We do have lots of very very intelligent, educated people but it is not critical mass --- also, it is not enough to be seen by society as a driver of lifestyle enhancement (or something like it).

It's easy to see how Americans can buy more Snickers with their salaries and assume that their society is better, but technology has changed all the rules, maybe it changed the rule that "more money is better" too.

Which also turns out to be a derisive doubt: In wanting to "make a Philippine Silicon Valley" are you not really trying to get a better pay for the same job you currently get?" It is a totally valid goal, mind you, but also a goal that means you lack a socially contextual mode of analysis.

So i would say: Be very good at what you do, and then do something with it.

Which in turn means: I only think a "Silicon Valley" thing can happen with real people doing things that they are personally enthusiastic about. Like Woz was enthusiastic about circuits, or Leonardo was enthusiastic about anatomy... and in turn those created a context whereby everyone could see how (not only believe, but see how) this kind of activity could translate in better lives for themselves.

I guess i did digress some...

<comment><AUTHOR> No please continue digressing mrpsbrk. I was actually hoping you would expand more on "maybe we wouldn't really like it".

I do understand the context of your question but it's kind of a weird thing for me to answer. For you see, I don't have an "official" employed job currently and if I were to be given a choice of what to have - I would certainly choose one that is more of a freelance type of job than a static monthly salary type of task.

In that sense, it really feels weird trying to justify my "non-existant job" as a desire for better pay and one based on a socially contextual mode of analysis.

Although here I may be misunderstanding you too. What exactly is a socially contextual mode of analysis in a country who's majority core socially contextual mode of analysis as far as job goes is to lift themselves up from poverty and just have a stable life they can live on? Even if we would set aside start-ups and include those who would say analyze this with goals not relating to better pay, what is their incentive to not merely jump ship? ...and if they were to not jump ship, would they have goals to change what sounds impossible and make it not only possible but possible towards a more capitalistic friendly future and entrepreneurial minded culture or...be more of the same?

To your statement (and I do not disagree with your point mind you), I am always reminded by a section of Hamming's You and Your Research article:

"When your vision of what you want to do is what you can do single-handedly, then you should pursue it. The day your vision, what you think needs to be done, is bigger than what you can do single-handedly, then you have to move toward management."

Not that I'm saying mine is bound to have a happy ending like the person which Hamming is retelling but in a world where the likes of Woz or Leonardo are spearheading concepts to new heights, the mediocre may be the ones left to run most of the asylum and the weak (to which I include myself as being part of since I haven't succeeded in any area where I was very good) must decide how and where they would like to pursue themselves to failure. Although just to clarify, I cannot say my pursuit is necessarily Philippine Silicon Valley per se. It's just a question that I modified from my AskReddit topic.

<comment><USER4> >> I was actually hoping you would expand more on "maybe we wouldn't really like it".

I just meant that the whole culture, you know, the boom-and-sell and become a millionaire, that this just isn't the best thing in the world. That it makes all the sense there but that i think that a real grassroots "technology experimentation mecca" should better develop it's own culture and views about life and machines and stuff --- one better than this American-culture offshoot that i am guessing Silicon Valley is.

So technology is cool, hacking is cool, how does this affect our lives? It seems to me a bit too US-high-school thing that to prove you're cool you have to become a millionaire. Haven't you wondered why the cool guys like Woz depart and the pinpricks like Jobs stay? Too much macho display, i say. We are like Peacoks, instead using our brains as display?

For example, there is this TED talk about this one guy who leaves some internet-linked comps in the middle of nothing in India and then just comes back 6 months later to see what the children did with that, this guy is certainly not making as many millions, but i believe he is nurturing a certain "relationship with technology", and this, to me, is the one thing that is valuable about Silicon Valley.

By "socially contextual mode of analysis" i was trying to express something like "could the old lady living on a shack on the middle of nowhere share your dream of a Philippino Silicon Valley?" Is it possible to share this vision? Not that Old Ladies should code, obviously, but could you make a girl secretary that is likelly to become this old lady in 50 years, could you make her proud to be working for a high-tech fling? Proud enough to stick with you after being offered a better pay?

Could you have girl coders? And could they do it because they like it and not because it is "a right thing to do"? Because, you know, coding is fun.

I am deeply convinced that money is almost never the solution. And that when there is no "solution" to speak of, the simple injection of money will create pain. So what i am saying is that there must be a culture before there is a market, or something like it. That the idea must not be written in dollars, but in expectations and dreams, in enthusiasm, and, finally, in the good-old curious spirited hacking.

That said, have you seen "leadership lessons from dancing guy"? Do read the post too, after you see the video. Really worth your time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I've seen and read leadership lessons from the dancing guy although I haven't seen the Ted talk you are referring to. (Do you have a link?)

Thanks for clarifying what you mean by socially contextual mode of analysis. I think it's very possible in this country but it needs some stability which it will not get from the government soon. That's really where most of the money issue stems from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you wanted to create a hacker heartland in the Philippines you'd do well to look at what Silicon Valley _doesn't_ provide (easily obtainable visas, bootstrapper-friendly costs of living, wage levels which allow for multiple staff with minimal investment/income). You can't compete with the Valley's concentration of investors, but you have the advantage of not needing anything like the same level of investment to build a basic webapp in the first place.

I think it's feasible to create a tech hub there that is a bit more than offsourcing for multinationals, but you'd be looking at attracting a different class of entrepreneur.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. What do you mean by attracting a different class of entrepreneurs?

Could you also clarify how a wage level which allow for multiple staff with minimal investment/income would work?

<comment><USER5> Simply put, in a country where US$3000 is a decent annual wage, a company founder can hire more than one person to work with them on the kind of revenue they'd need to eat and pay rent in Silicon Valley.

On the other hand, it's still quite possible for a Philippines-based startup to generate most of its revenues from wealthier countries.

Silicon Valley is a mecca for entrepreneurs looking for funding to form fast- growing, high-risk companies, and startups that need elite developers to solve challenging technical problems. On the other hand, if you're looking to start a relatively low risk, medium-return business you're less likely to get investment in the Valley and less likely to run out of cash before you start making money in the Philippines.

<comment><AUTHOR> Could you set an example or parameter for what constitutes as low risk, medium-based business on the web?

Aside from local clones, I'm unable to think of anything that fits that bill. Especially if we're talking medium-return businesses internationally the likes which would be considered high-return in this country.

There's things like setting up your own online shops but that kind of setting is not conducive to forming a hub. Then there's the opposite spectrum of a cheap hub, places that as you describe makes it easy for any type of small businesses to form but it's certainly not the type of setting that could develop a culture of start-up support or hacker heartland.

<comment><USER5> Niche self-service SaaS, Phone/Facebook apps and games, affiliate-driven product/price comparison/finding/recommending services...basically anything with a medium term strategy to generate profit rather than aggressive growth to attract buyers/investors... provided it doesn't need a US-based sales team, rare engineering skills or high non-people costs like up-front marketing, licensing or datacentres.

The fact that medium-returns internationally would make you rich in the Philippines is part of the appeal.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for further clarifying. Unfortunately I feel these are very isolation- friendly types of concepts and indeed we have a growing culture of this but this tends to create "isolated" businesses not the type of culture that would need a tech hub. (It is also high-risk in this country)

Maybe I am mistaken since I haven't personally participated in a start-up but the appeal just often leads to our major businesses eating up the smaller businesses. If there are small businesses that do indeed grow from this without being bought, it becomes such a brand-centric concept that promotes copycats rather than idea inventors.

I hope I am able to convey myself clearly. It's not that I disagree with your idea, it's just that I feel we already have this already. It certainly could be faster or more aggressive but nothing that would develop an idea culture. Even in the money culture - I fear it would end up morphing too much like an online MLM type of educational/culture development - a concept who's offline variety is already very popular among the poor and even middle classes in this country.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Any place that wants to be successful really needs stable rules. If a country doesn't protect property or people's economic freedom (move jobs, invest, sell) then I don't think you can get a successful environment for development. In other words, the little guy needs to be able to beat the big guy or the friends of the government.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is true too but this is why I am asking this question. Maybe someone has found a way around this.

As much as I agree that economic freedom is important, it's not like in hindsight richer countries were able to shrug off corporations and the little guy managed to beat the big guy.

If anything it was merely the allowance afforded by being a richer country and the competitive culture backed by a competitive and often (at the time) unique society/political education movement that created the sort of economic illusion of being free which allowed for the little guys to rise/want to rise.

I am merely stereotyping though and even in my attempts at stereotyping I could be wrong but considering the current state of the world (or mainly America), it just appears to be the correct assumption.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> You maybe would like to read "Why Startup Condense in America" [1] is Paul Graham paper. I do not agree with all his points of view, but is a very interesting read.

[1] <http://www.paulgraham.com/america.html>

</comment><comment><USER8> "So many times have I heard people here look down on pinoy artists and game developers and look up to Korean artists and game developers, but the irony here is that A LOT OF PINOY ARTISTS AND DEVELOPERS ARE WORKING FOR KOREAN GAME COMPANIES."

Sure, when you have cheap labor to export, you end up doing a lot of work for other people.

Also, perhaps Koreans are simply better at running gaming companies, regardless of the nationalities of the employees.

As for Silicon Valley, there is only one Silicon Valley.

</comment><comment><USER9> Arguably Bangalore already has that status, it's certainly produced several multi-billion dollar tech companies which puts it ahead of most cities (both in the developing and developed world).

<comment><AUTHOR> Like the previous user requested, I would also like to know more about Bangalore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I would recommend you look into the history of Silicon Valley. As I understand it (and I don't know much about it), it was a lovely, inexpensive place, a very prestigious college decided to do some stuff to help develop local businesses and then some folks who really loved the place went there to start their business(es) because in part because it was so lovely. Do a bit more research and see if you can find a "formula". I'm sure that luck/happenstance plays a role but that doesn't mean you can't get clues for how to encourage something similar to sprout elsewhere.

<comment><USER11> Steve Blank has a nice series of posts on the history of Silicon Valley: [http://steveblank.com/category/secret-history-of-silicon- val...](http://steveblank.com/category/secret-history-of-silicon-valley/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much for this!</comment></comment></comment>


Somebody make this: A place for producers and consumers to connect to pay bills - <AUTHOR>

You'd have to get both groups to sign up for it, and I'm not going to claim to know how to go about doing that, but here's how I imagine it working in a nutshell:
When I sign up for a new service (ISP, apartment rent, water, electricity, etc.), I offer them my BillMan (the name of this hypothetical startup) account id. When my bill is due, it shows up on my account (with a list of other bills on the same page) with a button next to it I can click that immediately approves and makes payment for the due amount.
So it might look like this:

         ISP  60.40 [pay button]
        rent 848.67 [pay button]
 electricity 121.33 [pay button]
 Why not use autopay solutions, you might ask? They scare me. What if my ISP charges me $6,040 instead of $60.40? That would mean gruel for a month for this grad student. <comment><USER2> Quicken Bill Pay goes 99% of the way for you. It keeps track of all your bills, reminds you when the due dates are coming up, notifies you of unusually high charges, and connects to over 4400 financial institutions to pull in exact billing amounts and let you pay bills from up to 10 different bank accounts. They'll print and mail the checks for you if you don't want to or can't pay electronically.

The only thing it doesn't do is know the exact amount due for non- participating companies. Since you are afraid of automatic payments (and 100x mistake scenarios about as likely as winning the lottery), you'll be reviewing your bills manually anyway, so typing in a bill amount once or twice a month doesn't seem like such an inconvenience that it'd be valuable enough to get all the ISPs and utilities to participate.

That's about as good as you'll ever get. Getting every little landlord, every township/city water and sewer company, every trash collector, etc. to connect to some service to push customer bills to it is impossible. There are hundreds of thousands of them that aren't online at all and have no incentive to add extra work and cost to make their 3 tenants' or 10,000 residents' online bill pay software more complete. There's not even an IT department to try to sell the benefits to.

</comment><comment><USER3> Secretly, Pitney Bowes (the company that handles all of the hardcopy mail billing already) is working on this. I got an early look at their ipad and webapp and it is surprisingly sexy. Instead of waiting for a startup to try and cobble together a ton of hard to work with enterprises, PB already has everyone on board due to longstanding billing relationships which is awesome. SHHHHHH don't tell anyone...

</comment><comment><USER4> I suspect there are localized versions of these already out there.

As a Canadian, we have ePost.ca which is run by the government. Basically a digital mailbox for paying bills.

</comment><comment><USER5> My bank does do this. Has since before 2000. If the receiver wasn't modern enough to receive the amount electronically, the bank would print and mail a check. Seriously.</comment>


Do people post poems on here? - <AUTHOR> https://es.life/2019/09/07/remember-a-poem/ <comment><USER2> Usually not, and if they did, they would use the original title, not a random question.

<comment><AUTHOR> That makes sense haha! Thanks for the tip - will keep it in mind for next time.</comment></comment>


GitHub announces subversion support - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/blog/626-announcing-svn-support

<comment><USER2> This is absolutely not a joke, but we couldn't miss the opportunity to have a little fun with the announcement.

<comment><USER3> Didn't you guys do this as an actual April Fools joke the year you launched?

<comment><USER2> We didn't anticipate hiring someone as dangerously insane as Scott Chacon willing to actually build this for us :)

To answer the other question below, we will be rolling out write support in the future. The idea that millions of SVN users can start using GitHub with zero effort is a really big deal for us.

<comment><USER4> How do SVN clients deal with "git push --force"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Backwards-compatibility efforts like these are great. Some CVS/SVN users are (un?)surprisingly stubborn about trying new things, and they can halt upgrade efforts with their complaints. My company is converting our repositories from CVS to git as we speak, and the number within our ranks who prefer CVS is surprising. Without support for older programs like CVS, we wouldn't have the momentum to upgrade

Kudos to Github for providing one less excuse to holdouts!

<comment><USER6> I'd like to know how that transition is going for you. Are you having the expected difficulty of explaining a DVCS workflow? Any difficulties converting CVS modules to git repositories?

At work, I'm stuck on CVS. I'd love to use git, but the people I work with don't really know how to use any version control system properly. My commits are the only ones with commit messages. They don't use tags and haven't heard of branches.

I mentioned git to my boss, but he was hesitant because he couldn't get it running on his Windows 7 box at home (we don't use Windows 7 at work, mostly WinXP). I did a quick Google search and found that the problem is with a changed DLL in Windows 7, and that putting the old version of that DLL in git's bin directory should work, but I don't think my boss tried that.

<comment><USER5> It's going pretty well, but we're cheating: we give the other devs both the CVS and the git checkout commands, and let them use what they want. The early adopters tend to be those who already use it outside of work.

I agree that the tools on Windows aren't stable: I've had to help debug at least 3 or 4 git installs of TortoiseGit-esque tools. I personally just use it from the command line.

Moving forward, we'll train people to use git when they go offsite with other developers, or if they're curious. Part of our job involves spending days away from an Internet connection, so they'll suddenly be sink-or-swim and probably never turn back :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I thought they already did this a few years ago - <http://github.com/blog/31-back-to-subversion> ;)

Oh, but this time it actually works!

</comment><comment><USER8> You know, once you are logged into Github, you can never see the Github homepage ever again :(

<comment><USER9> You can, you just have to know the URL: <http://github.com/home>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> it will now just be known as "Hub"

</comment><comment><USER11> If this is a joke, it's a damn good one. Otherwise, it's a cool feature :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> No joke, try it out. `svn co <http://svn.github.com/jquery/jquery`>

<comment><USER12> It works from the command line, but not from the browser "headers incomplete".

However it's pretty annoying that there's no access control through svn. I just checked out my private repo without entering any credentials :(

<comment><USER13> There is, try checking out someone else's private repo. You can't :)

(For example, defunkt/github)

<comment><USER12> ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> april fool!

<comment><USER15> It seems that this is no joke. Which brings me to an interesting question: why would you release anything true on April 1st?

It just lends itself to be second guessed and it could miss a critical uptake period of the first day of release...

<comment><USER16> Not if your product has a too good to be true factor. For instance, the gmail release worked out really beautifully.

<comment><USER17> While surprising, I think GitHub's announcement today fails to meet that criteria.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Kegworth Air Disaster - brian-armstrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster <comment> brian-armstrong I thought this was interesting

"The dials on the two vibration gauges (one for each engine) were small and the LED needle went around the outside of the dial as opposed to the inside of the dial as in the previous 737 series aircraft. The pilots had received no simulator training on the new model, as no simulator for the 737-400 existed in the UK at that time."</comment>


The iPad's Dominance of the Tablet Market - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/2011/07/ipad_dominance <comment><USER2> Have we already moved on from _"The iPhone won't be like the Mac, it'll be like the iPod"_ , to _"The iPad won't be like the iPhone, it'll be like the iPod"_? Even Gruber doesn't sound so sure this time.

Personally I think the tablet market and the phone market are the same thing, despite strong attempts by Apple to separate the two. I'd rather be winning the phone market and leveraging that into tablets than vice versa.</comment>


Raspberry Pi sells out within hours - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2012/03/01/interest-explodes-as-humble-raspberry-pi-computer-sells-out-in-hours/

<comment><USER2> Actually it sold out within a few minutes. It took a few hours to figure that out apparently.</comment>


Don't Burn Bridges: A Guide to Networking in Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://www.giftrocket.com/blog/dont-burn-bridges <comment><USER3> Excellent points.

On a related note, I just read a good article on using small barriers to entry as filters for your time: [http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/blog/i-use- small-barrie...](http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/blog/i-use-small- barriers-to-avoid-kooks/)

Most of the folks that ask me for help aren't 'kooks' perse, but they usually want someone to make their dreams come true with little or no effort on their part.

Asking these people to do a small task as a precondition of your help is a great way to filter out those not really serious about the goal.

Here's how it typically goes:

"Hey Matt! I hear you do iPad apps! I have a great idea for one! I'm super passionate about this and really want to get it going!"

Me: "Great! Before we go any further, it's best to sketch the app out on paper first. Do that and then let's take a serious look at it!"

I've had many many conversations like this. Even requiring a simple sketch filters out about 98% of these people.

Another common variation is from folks who want to learn programming. Instead of asking for a sketch, I'll send them a link to an excellent beginners tutorial to work through. I very rarely hear back from anyone after that. However, those very few that do come back are typically great to work with.

I haven't always used these filters. I used to really try and help everyone that asked for it. Unfortunately that nearly always ended up with me putting in time and effort to help someone who I would later discover wasn't really all that serious about the goal.

Small barriers/filters have been great for saving my energy for those that are really serious about doing something. It's really been a sanity saver.

<comment><USER4> What is the beginner's tutorial if I may ask?

<comment><USER3> Sure, for ruby, I usually send them to something like this: <http://www.ruby- lang.org/en/documentation/quickstart/>

It's short and gives them quick wins. Having their hands dirty with code that works really builds the confidence they need to continue.

If someone is willing to even just _start_ the tutorial, that meets my filter- qualification and I'm very happy to help them with any stumbling points as they go through it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One of those things I learned early on is that a person's nature is not always under their conscious control and something I learned much later is to remind myself that people evolve based on their experiences.

The second bit is where you have to be careful because it will trip you up. I've known folks who came out of school truly arrogant bastards and then after a few years of exposure to the 'real' word mellowed like a good wine into something great. And have known folks who were great when I knew them, and then discovered on re-connecting that they had lost their way. The short of it is, holding a grudge against a person's past misdeeds isn't really very productive. As a manager you give your employees annual performance reviews and advice on what they should work on, so if I've not 'known' someone for a couple or three years or more I reset all my specific expectations to zero to get a sense of the person they are _now_ versus the person they were _then._

<comment><AUTHOR> Holding a grudge isn't healthy, and people change over even short amounts of time. And biggest of all, as someone who runs a startup this shouldn't take an iota of your mindshare.

The point of the article is separate though. Hold the behavior of everyone else in the valley constant. Given that, what are the things that you should do in order to network with people effectively? The four listed are probably some of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> So, I'll be a bit contrarian on this.

I get a lot of intros. I get a lot of mail. But my chief role is not a networker. My role is to make sure the company makes money.

It happens _a lot_ that I'll have some contact of a contact do an intro to someone that they think will be useful for us. We've done enough deals at this point that we can pretty quickly tell is an incoming intro passes the smell test or not.

Often I'll do an initial call out of courtesy to the person that did the intro, but I don't bother with a follow-up unless I smell blood in the water.

I end up dropping more intros that I'm happy with. It definitely bugs me at times that I can't stay on top of every intro that comes my way. But it's important to balance pure networking with actual business development and to not confuse the two.

<comment><USER7> "My role is to make sure the company makes money." Do you own the company? If not, you're a hired gun.

My unsolicited advice: be a professional, have integrity, make money for the company. One day, perhaps through no fault of your own, you might not make money, and the company will subsequently kick you out on your ass. Then, you'll see the value of those intros you made.

<comment><USER6> _Do you own the company?_

I am a co-founder. From my reading, this article was primarily targeted at founders, so I responded in kind.

Edit: As a side note, there's a hidden subtlety in your phrasing that's worth pointing out. When you're an employee, your interests are still primarily personal. When you're a founder, the line between personal and business interests are scant if they exist at all. As an employee you'll often be in contact with folks that (whether consciously or otherwise) you think may be useful for you at some point. As a founder, that extends out to the business, and the question of if they'll be useful to _you_ in that moment equivalent to if they'll be useful for the company. Now, there is life after the present company for founders as well, but psychologically, at least for me and I assume many others, that realm is far less in the foreground than it is for an employed person.

<comment><USER7> Makes sense...now I understand why you used "we" and "us."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think you'll find you're far happier if you can avoid thinking like this. Putting any thought towards these kind of minor "misdeeds" or even keeping track of them is a draining way to live.

<comment><USER9> I think the point is more about time management for the person offering their help to anyone who reaches out. There is an incredible sense of helpfulness in the startup community and a pay it forward/back attitude. When new entrepreneurs, or old alike, reach out for help, your first instinct is to help them because you know how hard it is to be an entrepreneur. This is despite being super busy and drained yourself. So, when you make time for someone, even though you may not have much time to give, it's quite a waste when they take it for granted. It's not about holding a grudge, more about making a decision to help the people who respect your time and value it, and not wasting your time helping people who seem not to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If someone introduces you to their contact, you should treat them with respect and not fuck up their reputation by being an arrogant bastard. (But maybe that's why I don't write blog posts).

<comment><USER11> I think it's best to treat that contact as you would a family friend - <USER2> wouldn't want to piss off a friend of your mom, right?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, your first sentence basically summarizes the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It can be surprising how helpful most people are willing to be if you just manage to show up and not waste their time.

</comment><comment><USER13> The people you meet on the way up, are the same people you'll meet on the way down. A cliché, but worth remembering.

Imo, if you're genuinely interested in what someone's doing / wants to do .. you won't need a networking crib-sheet. If you're not genuinely interested - what are you doing?

Also, good manners are free.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm always astonished how many people burn bridges when leaving a company. I'm not sure why this is.

</comment><comment><USER15> All these points can be summed up into two points. First, make sure you are committed to the interactions you are engaging in. Second, if you are not committed to those interactions, make it clear to the other party (apologize, etc.).

</comment><comment><USER16> So the main advice from the guy from giftrocket is to send out giftrockets. Got it.

<comment><USER17> Actually, I think he's saying be courteous to people that help you.

I agree with this advice, and I think the advice stands alone.

I think you should always err on the side of being overly generous to anyone who spends time trying to assist you. So, if he built a startup that makes this process easier, and then writes about it, I think thats great. Whats your beef?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think this can be boiled down to "have self confidence, don't flake, be nice". Reputations are built over a lifetime.

<comment><USER19> Be careful with that reasoning. You may find something which takes a lifetime to build but only seconds to destroy isn't worth your time to worry about.

Go out there, build a great company and let the PR people worry about your reputation when you drink margaritas on a nice beach in Thailand.

That doesn't mean that you should do things that you consider wrong or immoral. Just don't give a hoot what people say about you.

<comment><USER20> I think very few people can get away with not caring what others say about them. What people think of you DOES matter. We don't live in an isolated bubble and interactions matter. You seem to be proposing that PR people can handle things once you're successful, however, my impression is (and odds are) this advice is for startup founders before they are fuck you rich. If you're Bill Gates already, sure, do whatever the hell you want (Mind you I think he's doing amazing things for humanity at this point instead of being a dick on a beach in thailand). But if not, this attitude just won't help you or your company.

<comment><USER18> > What people think of you DOES matter.

If you believe that what you are doing is good for the world, should it matter what people think of you? I bet a lot of people think that Gregory Maxwell or Aaron Swartz are criminals.

I think that having strong beliefs/goals is much more important then bowing to the general social pressures of the day. If you have strong beliefs, and you think what you are doing is good/right for the world, then it should't matter what people think. The world might not agree with you, and your ideas might fail miserably. Fortunately, we are lucky enough to be part of a community and where failure is looked upon favourably.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The power of cool: Whatever became of Starlite? - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428641.700-the-power-of-cool-whatever-became-of-starlite.html <comment><USER2> _To continue reading this article, subscribe to receive access to all of newscientist.com, including 20 years of archive content._

Here's another article that says:

 _The formula was a tightly-guarded secret that was never written down – only Ward and a family member knew how Starlite was made.

...

Sadly, Maurice Ward died in 2011 and may very well have taken intimate knowledge of his astounding invention – and its eventual fate – to his grave._

[http://gajitz.com/the-miraculous-heatproof-material-youve- ne...](http://gajitz.com/the-miraculous-heatproof-material-youve-never-heard- of/)</comment>


Markovkeyboard: Keyboard layout that changes by Markov frequency - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/shapr/markovkeyboard <comment><USER2> This reminds me of Dasher:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasher_(software)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasher_\(software\))

[https://dasher.zone/](https://dasher.zone/)

A little dizzying to use but a great fusion of some nice concepts. And for its target audience probably a lot more possible than a traditional keyboard.

<comment><USER3> Dasher is such a novel concept of a keyboard it's almost alien. I love everything about it. You can install it on Ubuntu with:

apt-get install dasher ([https://packages.ubuntu.com/disco/dasher](https://packages.ubuntu.com/disco/dasher))

And here is Dasher's source code: [https://github.com/GNOME/dasher](https://github.com/GNOME/dasher)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Someone I studied with made a keyboard that changed the size of keys based on the probability that they are used next.

It was unusable. Because of the constant size changes you would hit the wrong keys and some were getting so small you couldn't hit them anymore.

<comment><USER5> anecdata: smartphone keyboards do this invisibly, no visual change but the most probable next keys get larger input geometry so that even if you don't hit it right, it will register.

<comment> Funes- Do you have a source for that? I'm quite interested in reading about it.

<comment><USER5> It was in a video about the early development of the iphone IIRC, they were discussing how much detail went into the keyboard. I don't have the url in mind right now sorry.

<comment><USER6> I believe the first version of the iPhone OS did this. It was terrible (often it was literally impossible to type the thing you wanted) and they quickly replaced it with autocorrect instead.

<comment><USER5> hm interesting, from memory it was a bit of glorifying the history of the iphone and its innovation, so maybe they hid how user felt. But to me it felt like real great work...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You can replace a whole keyboard with markovian 1D input. See Dasher project for that, it's an interesting input method. (Swiping keyboards use something of that, but work on word basis not letter.)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasher_(software)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasher_\(software\))

</comment><comment><USER8> > _The Big Idea: Static keyboard layouts are boring and predictable. Let 's > spice up the whole idea of keyboard layouts by having the layout CHANGE > WHILE YOU ARE TYPING!_

<comment><USER9> I giggled at;

> _how do I make it stop?_

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> >how do I make it stop?

That's the most frequent question I have when I try something new with my computer. Sign me "card-carrying TechnoDolt"

</comment><comment><USER11> Could be useful for hunt-and-peck typers, although I'm not sure there are many emacs users like that...

<comment><USER12> what a polite way to describe someones typing? :D i'm more of a wack-a-mole typer

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Next step: a car dashboard layout that changes by markov frequency.

<comment><USER9> Battle ready Gundam with full panoply of armaments and transdermal neural interface, that changes by markov frequency.

<comment><USER14> He he :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Colemak's 4 transitional learning layouts, called Tarmak, also bases its stepped changes on learned key use frequency.

[https://forum.colemak.com/topic/1858-learn-colemak-in- steps-...](https://forum.colemak.com/topic/1858-learn-colemak-in-steps-with- the-tarmak-layouts/)

[https://colemak.com/](https://colemak.com/)

</comment><comment> someone-knows This is very similar to my first foray into programming - a small script that outputs how likely each letter is to occur, given some input string: [https://github.com/jake-mason/probability_keyboard](https://github.com/jake- mason/probability_keyboard)

</comment><comment><USER16> It's in elisp? Of course it is. It's emacs!

</comment><comment><USER17> Could almost be usable with something like an Optimus keyboard [1]

[1] [https://www.artlebedev.com/optimus/popularis/](https://www.artlebedev.com/optimus/popularis/)

<comment><USER18> after a while the keyboard stabilises. they should share a pretrained keyboard for "regular" English, fixed. I wonder how different it would be to all the other keyboards currently available

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is a really fun idea!

I wonder if any research has been done since Colemak was released about the optimal keyboard layout for English. Because letter positioning is not the only concern - you also need to worry about how easy it is to type common sequences of letters - finding the optimal layout is probably a very hard problem, requiring sophisticated mathematical analysis.

I can vouch for the advantages of using Dvorak, but I would totally consider a switch if someone had a "provably optimal" layout.

<comment><USER20> There's a project called Carpalx [1] which is dedicated to trying to optimize keyboard layouts. The three layouts it offers as fully optimal according to their measurements (each with its own restrictions) seem to offer quite some improvement, though their names aren't quite as nice as some of the more popular alternatives (copied from [2] + some clarification):

\- QFMLWY - this is best layout obtained by relocating all QWERTY letters

\- QGMLWB - this optimized layout uses a Colemak-like character layout [ie. where the P and ; keys are swapped]

\- QGMLWY - this is similar to the layout above, but keeps ZXCV in place

It's an interesting project but the inconveniences of switching from QWERTY to an alternative already stops me from switching to Dvorak or Colemak, so I doubt I'll move to something even more obscure any time soon.

[1] [http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/](http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/)

[2] [http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?full_optimization](http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?full_optimization)

<comment><USER19> Thanks, I've been looking at this site. QGMLWB seems pretty decent and KDE actually has support for Carpalx layouts already, so switching would be easy.

It's surprising that the layout didn't move more punctuation and symbols around - the Qwerty default positions for the comma and period are surely not optimal (bottom row, ring finger for period). I wonder what results one would get running the same algorithm but allowing these changes as well.

<comment><USER19> Update for anyone who was curious about that last point: I figured out how to use the simulated annealing software on that website, which allows you to use a custom mask for the characters than can be swapped. On my very first run I got a result better than QGMLWB: in fact QGMLWB requires 2.5% more effort to type the training corpus than the one I generated.

I bet a huge win would be moving the exclamation point, but I haven't figured out how to allow the program to remap shifted keys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Neat. Although obviously not feasible, the overall idea isn't that far removed from the sentence prediction/completion that all mobile keyboards do today.

</comment><comment><USER22> Why predict the next letter when you can just predict the whole sentence? [https://youtu.be/9BnLbv6QYcA?t=62](https://youtu.be/9BnLbv6QYcA?t=62)

</comment><comment><USER14> Next goal: MLPkeyboard :)

</comment><comment><USER23> sounds like a doable third-party keyboard app on smartphones</comment>