German murderer wins 'right to be forgotten' - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50579297 <comment><USER2> What always baffles me about the right to be forgotten is that the issue never is if something should truly be forgotten - it should not, it will stay on record, in news articles etc. - but always if the offending piece of information should be removed from search engine indexes.

I find this really troubling, because just making it harder to find does not remove it and shifts power to persons who can make better use of search/indexing tools or have the means to hire someone who does.

<comment><USER3> It's a reasonable, but imperfect analogue for the old obscurity by sheer quantity.

If you are a regular employee seeking a new job, it shields from idle searches turfing up minor offences from years or decades ago. Europe seems to embrace the possibility of rehabilitation, and I think it's fair that shoplifting or a suspended sentence eventually goes away. In this context, plenty of roles would be exempt from the expiry, e.g. joining the police, or working in the legal system, among many others.

Neither case will prevent some major politician, business leader or celeb being investigated if they come under enough of a cloud. Lack of search just makes it a little less trivial. If your journalist really thinks there is history to be found you send an intern or three to trawl through 30 years of press archives at the local reference library. How it used to be done.

To me, that seems a reasonable balance and sensibly protective of the general population being discriminated against for having done something minor and daft 25 years ago.

<comment><USER2> It just seems like a sloppy solution to do this at search engine level, especially when most of these search engines are outside of european jurisdiction.

I think it would be much more sensible to require the actual sources to anonymize their online content after a certain time or just whenever something like this goes to court instead of having private companies keep registers of "forbidden" links.

<comment><USER3> Hmm, given just about everything is found via search, that seems a reasonable place. Your alternative might have someone needing to request forgetting from dozens or hundreds of sources all over the place.

<comment><USER2> But there isn't just one search engine and you will still have to submit all the urls of these possible hundreds of places to all of them so they can be blocked.

It is a really hard or maybe impossible problem to de publicize something on the internet. Though I do think clear laws with due process would work much better then using middlemen like the search engine providers to police on their own merit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > [...] violated his rights and his "ability to develop his personality,"

That's a rather poor translation of "Recht zur freien Persönlichkeitsentfaltung". It's not really about developing your personality, it's the right to live freely and pursue your personal life goals; something more akin to "the pursuit of happiness".

<comment><AUTHOR> >> _it 's the right to live freely and pursue your personal life goals; something more akin to "the pursuit of happiness"._

I bet that the people already rotted due to his bullets will ask the court for the same rights.

<comment><USER4> He's served his term of 20 years. He has the same human rights as you or I do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm a bit torn in this case. I'm generally for the right to be forgotten, especially in cases like this one, after the criminal has served a lifetime in prison and has been re-integrated into society. However, the decision has some strange aspects to it and elicits the usual ignorance about the Internet.

From what I've read, the judges primarily bemoaned that it is so easy to search for his case by his name. Instead, the German magazine _Der Spiegel_ is supposed to kind of obfuscate the original articles in their online archive, making discovery harder, but not necessarily to delete them or alter his name in them. The idea is that the stories should be harder to find in searches by name. In my opinion that makes no sense, neither technically nor from the point of view of the 'right to be forgotten' \- and in a case like this, the stories are all over the net anyway.

<comment><USER6> Makes perfect sense to me. The aim is not to eradicate all evidence of the crime. The aim is just to allow him to lead a normal life where he doesn't have to worry that a single Google search of his name would lead to him getting fired.

<comment><USER7> From my reading of the 1982 Spiegel article (which you can still find if you google his name, Paul Termann) he was 44 when he committed his crime. He'd be 81 now. I don't think getting fired is his concern.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Link to original article: [http://magazin.spiegel.de/EpubDelivery/spiegel/pdf/14355425](http://magazin.spiegel.de/EpubDelivery/spiegel/pdf/14355425)

</comment><comment><USER9> Court ruling (in German, unsurprisingly): [https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheid...](https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2019/11/rs20191106_1bvr001613.html)

Interestingly, the ruling refers to the yacht as "A.", unlike the BBC article which uses the full name.

<comment><USER10> Because the BBC does not fall under German juristication.

<comment><USER9> That's not the point. The BBC was not forced to redact the name, yes. This still left the BBC free to redact it, or not hint at the name at all (like the Guardian). The BBC seems to have made a conscious decision to make the case easier to Google. They didn't need to do that.

<comment><USER11> In the UK people in criminal cases are always fully named (except minors).

In fact, at least in local news it is customary to publish name and residence location (to avoid confusion).

E.g. a newspaper article would say that "John Doe of Dodgy Street, London has been sentenced today at the Old Bailey to 10 years for drug trafficking", often with the police mugshot as illustration. My local news site runs an article every month with these details for all the people sentenced locally during the past month.

<comment><USER9> > In the UK people in criminal cases are always fully named (except minors).

If that were some sort of important guiding principle of all of the UK press in general, you'd think that the BBC would have dug up the person's name in this case. I don't have much data to go on, but I thought that the BBC might apply different standards than tabloids or the local news.

<comment><USER11> The interesting point here is that the BBC refrained from naming the person, not that they named the other details of the case.

As said, in the UK it is not viewed negatively to name people and specifics in criminal cases, quite the opposite: It is something the public expects and demands.

<comment><USER9> Again, the Guardian's readers don't seem to demand this. And the BBC's readers don't seem to demand it either. You might be confusing tabloids with all of the UK press.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Well that's disappointing. I've generally been in favour of right to be forgotten as in a UK context it aligns well with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

A minor offence would be legally forgotten quickly, a murder would carry a sentence of over 4 years which would never be eligible for forgetting. It seems odd to me to clear something quite so serious.

</comment><comment><USER12> So does "right to be forgotten" mean that people don't have a right to remember?

<comment><USER13> You are asking seemingly rhetorical and sarcastic question based on overly literal understanding of the 'right to be forgotten'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I find interesting that while the "right to be forgotten" does not prevent the person from being named, all the articles I have found on Google are careful not to name him (and I'm not talking about German articles, but articles in English from non-German sources).

This strikes me as self-censorship.

As an aside, it's also interesting that a person sentenced to life for murdering two people in 1982 was freed in 2002...

<comment><USER14> A life sentence is rarely truly a life sentence in western countries.

<comment><USER7> So why do courts keep lying to people? Why not just be honest about sentences?

<comment><USER15> Because it's not a lie.

Justice system in Europe is not a business, like it is in US, or a way to inflict a punishment, it is a rehabilitation process: if you prove you have changed, you can benefit from reduced sentences, furlough for good behavior and/or early releases.

If you haven't, you stay in jail.

Think about the U.S. system where people can be taken to custody for murder but can bail out, is that better in your opinion?

In Italy, for example, to keep mob affiliates in jail in solitary confinement, so they can't speak with the outside, they had to make a specific law, otherwise it would not be possible within the Italian prison system.

<comment><USER7> The justice system is, and should be, always primarily about punishment. Governments who forget that do so at their peril. Punishment isn't just why we have a justice system — there's a reasonable case that it's why we have government at all!

Humans have a strong natural instinct towards justice — when soneone wrongs us, we want to take revenge. In a state of nature this of course leads to endless and bloody feuds, so at some point it became more sensible to devolve the job of taking revenge to some kind of king or government, to ensure that revenge is taken exactly once instead of becoming a never-ending cycle.

This worked pretty well for thousands of years, but in the last century or so it has been falling apart. Soft-headed Government types have started to believe that the actual purpose of the justice system is rehabilitation, not justice, and as a result justice is rarely if ever served. Ask victims of crime if the sentence given to the perp is anywhere near what they'd choose, and they'll say no. And then, the sentence that is given rarely gets carried out, like this scumbag who was sentenced to life and released just twenty years later.

The right to revenge is one of the most important human rights of all, and it is utterly neglected in western societies these days. A proper justice system would have a lot more crooks dying in jail and a lot less crime being committed.

<comment><USER15> > The justice system is, and should be, always primarily about punishment

Not in Europe, since "Dei delitti e delle pene" (On Crimes and Punishments ) from Cesare Beccaria.

It was 1764, we were already aware of that.

Justice is not a way to __inflict __punishment, the sentence, as Beccaria put it _" should be in degree to the severity of the crime"_ and should work as deterrent, not as retribution (which is usually the case in US especially the death penalty, that have the purpose of giving "an eye for an eye" to the victim's family).

> Humans have a strong natural instinct towards justice

No, they don't.

Homō hominī lupus, men are very social animals, it doesn't mean they lean naturally towards justice, they just defend their communities against other communities.

> This worked pretty well for thousands of years

It didn't actually.

That's why we constantly reformed our justice system.

Think about the code of Ammurabi, does this work in your opinion?

 _" If the wife of a man has been caught lying with another man, they shall bind them and throw them into the waters. If the owner of the wife would save his wife then in turn the king could save his servant."_

It never really worked, especially for the regular folks, still today has a lot of flaws let alone thousands of years ago. In Italy it was legal to kill the wife that cheated (but not the husband who did the same), it was called "honor killing" and it was abolished only in 1981.

So, no.

> The right to revenge is one of the most important human rights of all

It is its greatest fault indeed.

And it is what makes USA a country where the risk of being killed by a stranger is 10 times higher than in Italy (5.63/100,000 vs 0.55/100.000), it is higher than many third world countries or countries that are at war like Sudan, Kenya, Niger, Libya, Syria or Iran.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> An Orwellian rectification that seems to be catching on.

"rectify — the Ministry of Truth euphemism for the alteration of the historical record:"

<comment><USER17> I don't know the details of this case, but, the guy was caught and served his time. He has been punished for what he did, and hopefully he's been rehabilitated and can reintegrate back into society.

That's a lot more difficult if any employer (for example) googles his name and decides to not hire him because he did something thirty years ago.

He's asking for a change in search results, that won't erase what he did and / or his conviction.

<comment><USER18> It's like the joke: but do they call me "McGregor the bridge builder"? No!

Point is in life there are things you can't walk back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> ga-vu Was there even an internet for someone to chronolog his murders back in 1982?

I don't get this article at all...

<comment><USER19> Newspapers have been digitizing their back archives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I find these discussions pretty boring, because virtually none of the commenters have ever even read the two or three short articles of our Grundgesetz that are at the center of this legal question.

I'm not talking about familiarizing yourself with standard legal doctrine or landmark constitutional court rulings. Just having a little respect for the fact that the US Constitution does not apply.

The right to be forgotten is not decided on a whim by a few judges, according to their personal preferences, there is legal text surrounding the issue.

We Europeans who criticize your Second Amendment may be shallow, as well, but we have usually at least read something about a "well-regulated militia" or the "right to keep and bear arms", so we understand where you're coming from, even if we think that's nuts.

<comment><USER9> Not disagreeing with you, but...

> none of the commenters have ever even read the two or three short articles > of our Grundgesetz

... referring to "two or three" specific articles without providing a link, or at least the numbers so we can look them up, is not as useful as it could be.

<comment><USER20> The Grundgesetz too is written the way it is for reasons, and IMO it's generally better to go back to them.

Someone (a chief of police somewhere, IIRC) once put it like this: "We have a tradition in this country that you're sentenced by a fair court, and once you've served your punishment, you have paid your dues. Adding extra sanctions afterwards threatens the fairness of that system." That's a poor misquote on my part, but good principle on his/her, and legible in a way that the Grundgesetz doesn't try to be.

<comment><USER21> Yes, but the question of how a society treats someone who is responsible for an action is orthogonal to whether or not a society records and remembers that an action happened.

The right to be forgotten tries to alleviate the symptoms of the first question by addressing the second question.

It's similar to addressing homelessness by banning the reporting of homelessness. There are complex questions that need to lead to major societal change that can't be solved by removing data from the public record.

<comment><USER22> No, it's about the individual. Once we try to reintegrate somebody into the society they deserve a chance to live without being discriminated against by their past action (after they have served their punishment).

So I think it's entirely different than banning the reporting of homelessness. It's similar to deleting your past status as homeless once you've made if back from the streets (assuming such a register exists and should exist...).

It's also entirely different than banning statistics about murders, past murders or the trend of murdering people. These statistics are not about the individual.

<comment><USER23> Shouldn't investors be able to keep little journals in their pockets about prior fraud, and to chat freely about it in their meetings?

Shouldn't a newspaper or public forum be able to discuss a wrongdoing in the context of a history of wrongdoings?

The public's clarity is what's being traded here. I would argue that the public and any relevant professional groups should never forget fraudsters such as the CEO of workriot or theranos.

Another very dubious aspect of the right to be forgotten is that so as long as outside parties exist in a complicated multipolar world, some very major and relevant parties such as landlords or investors will likely play with such knowledge and also be able to afford cover. Meanwhile everyone else has less clarity on the situation.

<comment><USER22> Of course it's a tradeoff and needs to be balanced. The right to be forgotten was never about censoring information itself, just making it less available (e.g. newspapers do not need to erase names etc.). The more publicity your case had, the less like it gets to be forgotten.

But I think you touch the issue. I don't think the answer to your questions is always an unconditional yes, the opposite question can also be agreed upon. There is no right or wrong. If our goal as society is rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders (and not punishment as an end to itself), then starting with a clean slate after serving your sentence is a fair solution. Shouldn't people have the chance to leave their past behind and not be followed by their mistakes for the end of their live? They only have one. But if we choose this path, we have to be realistic, since your question are certainly important consequences.

> The public's clarity is what's being traded here. I would argue that the > public and any relevant professional groups should never forget fraudsters > such as the CEO of workriot or theranos. I agree, but I think is on the > "should not be forgotten" part of the balance.

I think it may highlight cultural differences. In another comment "freedom of speech" in germany was brought up. It's a similar tradeoff there and we rely on a reasonable legal system to implement it correctly and balance the tradeoffs. I agree even stronger with our approach on "freedom of speech" and certainly do not want rights as phrased for example in the US constitution. In my point of view it's an important lesson from our history in germany. Its something I very, very strongly agree with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Well let's put the mans name here and references so that we don't forget...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> >> _...when he shot and killed two people and severely injured another during a row._

My two cents: maybe the memory should be longer for a few things, stealing a loaf of bread or smoking pot is quite different from murders. In many countries cold blooded murders give you a life sentence or death (either by the state--or victim's family members when the state does not act) so maybe this guy should have had the chance to file such an appeal.

<comment><USER25> From the sounds of this it wasn't actually murder, it was manslaughter. Murder requires being premeditated where this sounds like it was heat of the moment.

Personally I think we should either rehibilitate and then forget in order to give them a chance to contribute to society, or keep them in prison. The idea of releasing people but then villifying them will basically just channel them back into the criminal system again. Studies have shown the best way to prevent crime is with reintegrating them socially. The biggest risk factors are:

"prior criminal history, lifestyle instability (unemployment, frequent moves), and negative peer associations"

The right to be forgotten would reduce two out of three of those risks.

[https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/smrsk- fctrs...](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/smrsk-fctrs/index- en.aspx)

<comment><USER3> Wouldn't that make it second degree murder in US context?

<comment><USER25> It could be either depends a lot on the context that led to the altercation.

"Voluntary manslaughter Sometimes called a crime of passion murder, is any intentional killing that involves no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed". Both this and second-degree murder are committed on the spot under a spur-of-the-moment choice, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second- degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter."</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Messy Networks for the Internet of Things - <AUTHOR> http://blog.beepnetworks.com/2016/09/messy-networks-for-the-internet-of-things/ <comment><USER2> _" Daniel is co-founder of Beep Networks, a maker of location-aware sensors and systems for low-power wide-area networks."_

The article is not about self-organizing ad-hoc networks. No, all the organization is at Master Control in the "cloud". This seems to assume that all nodes have solid connectivity to the "cloud", and are just leaf connection points for nearby devices.

That's what WiFi does.

<comment><USER3> Good point. I meant ad hoc tower deployment, not ad hoc mesh networks. Our topology is (mostly) star. Will update to clarify.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Has anyone got any really life practices of LPWA? I'm not convinced there is a need for this kind of thing. Tiny sensors with batteries that last years. Most devices have a power source the sensor can tap into thus what are the applications for LP?

<comment><USER2> There are lots of things right now which talk over two-way paging networks. This is called "machine to machine communication". Most messages look something like "A/C 3152 fault 00 cp1 ON cp2 OFF inside temp 72 outside temp 81". It's common to send text rather than binary so that both humans and machines can read the messages.

Millions of boring but important devices such as pumps, chillers, and fans are sending boring but useful messages like that. Traffic is low, maybe every hour or even once a day when things are normal. A fault generates an immediate message.

Power isn't a problem. Most of the devices which do this are attached to something that has far more power than a radio needs.</comment></comment>


Cafe owners are pulling the plug on WiFi - <AUTHOR> https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-managing/we-dont-want-to-be-an-office-cafe-owners-are-pulling-the-plug-on-wifi/article34859828/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com& <comment><USER2> I think that's a fair choice for a number of reasons. The problem is, the need for an external workspace still isn't going away. This is a /huge/ market opportunity, and anybody who has gone to Workshop Cafe in San Francisco knows it. (Just try to find a seat there during business hours; it's impossible.)

The problem with the coffee shop is that the value they provide and their financial model are not aligned. Coffee shops make money by selling coffee. Workers go to coffee shops for the workspace, location, and ambiance of not working from home. Yes, people also go to coffee shops to buy coffee, but I'm not talking about those people. There is a class of person (freelancers, artists, even people just taking the day off from their normal office) who want a non-lonely place to work around people.

The only business I've seen who "gets it" is Workshop Cafe -- a coffee shop that makes its money by selling the workspace, not the coffee (but yes they do also serve coffee). They have power outlets at every seat, incredible Wi-Fi, and charge $2 / hour (at least last time I was there) for a seat, and even have phone booths for calls.

There should be a Workshop Cafe in every major city on Earth. There's already a WeWork for the more permanent class of co-working; why is there not a "coffee shop" that focuses its business catering toward laptop hobos, and actually provides amenities for that use -- no more scrounging for power outlets, crappy Wi-Fi, nowhere to take a call, et cetera. Workshop Cafe in SF will even deliver food from local restaurants to your table!

Then, finally, we will have two types of businesses for these two completely separate use cases: coffee shop-style drop-in co-working spaces, for people who want to get work done in a productive environment, and coffee shops. For you know, people who just want to drink a cup of coffee.

<comment><USER3> I think initially when a coffee shop starts out they want those who stick around for a long time in order to show they are a busy place and attract more customers. But once they grow to be busy enough they longer care about those customers who stick around for a long time.

Also how would the economics of a Workshop Cafe work? How much would the hourly cost be to get a table?

<comment><USER4> They've been growing with their current model ($2/hr/seat). I was in SF recently (used to live there, don't anymore..) but whenever I am in town I go there even when having a nice office to go to. Granted - I don't know all of their economics but they definitely charge a bit for food but I find the atmosphere great enough to pay for that.

<comment><USER5> I wonder how well that would work here in Japan. You don't see as many people working on laptops in a coffee shop here, but you do see an awful lot of English teaching and students studying

<comment><USER4> Being based in tokyo...I see that a lot at various starbucks. I don't know where you frequent but I see a _ton_ of people working on laptops in cafes.

Granted, there are folks who do the "talk to your friend" thing but I don't see much of a difference between SF and Tokyo in that respect.

I usually see this in the more typical local chains like Doutour, Pronto, and even excelsior (despite them usually lacking outlets) as well.

<comment><USER5> I'm in Totsuka near Yokohama, it's not a very tech area.

<comment><USER4> Yeah that makes sense then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've started having a coffee first and then working at my local public library - more outlets, more seating, more quiet, and faster wifi.

<comment><USER7> I don't know why this never occurred to me before now. I drive by a public library every time I go to a coffee shop or coworking space to work.

<comment><USER8> Biggest issue with libraries that you cannot hear people talking. This might be a good or a bad thing depending on you. I really like working from coffee shops especially because of the noise (and random eavesdropping).

<comment><USER7> That's the biggest reason I don't like working at coffee shops. I almost always work from home, but sometimes I realize I haven't left the house in days and need a change of scenery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Use your public library; the staff actually want you to be there.

Credit to 'tptacek for originally reminding me of that fact: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=758722](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=758722)

<comment><USER10> > Use your public library; the staff actually want you to be there.

Unfortunately for a public library more footfall doesn't equal more revenue. In fact it can increase running costs, which results in opening hours like my local library:

Mon: 13:00 - 20:00

Tue: 10:00 - 17:00

Wed: 10:00 - 17:00

Thu: 10:00 - 17:00

Fri: 10:00 - 16:00

Sat: 10:00 - 16:00

Sun: Closed

And that's regardless of the lack of amenities: my library has one table and no toilets.

<comment><USER11> > Unfortunately for a public library more footfall doesn't equal more revenue

That seems...backward. It would seem that with more footfall and circulation, the library should be able to justify a larger budget from the city. And unless the city is struggling financially, they should get it. Are there some other issues also?

<comment><USER12> I agree. Libraries are adapting to the modern times and needs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Four Barrel in San Francisco did this explicitly at their founding (no outlets either). Unfortunately, the rise of tethering and incredible battery life means it's completely defeated and you often see every table occupied with a person on a laptop.

<comment><USER14> I wonder if people would get the message if a "xx minute maximum time" not was posted. If one person does that, the store can absorb it, but not if 50% do. That $2 they made on the coffee doesn't go far enough.

Or have a section with mini-cubicles, like they have internet access by the minute in third world countries.

<comment><USER13> Disturbingly, the cafeteria in my _office_ has this problem. Despite signs saying "please don't camp here during service hours", you often find a person happily taking up a booth for four or table for six with their laptop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Coffee is practically free. Staff is somewhat expensive. Rent is extremely expensive. The rental rate for fully furnished ~25 square feet (table, chair, some personal space) is higher that two lattes per day.

<comment><USER16> > Coffee is practically free

I ran a cafe for three years (the slashRoot tech collective in New Paltz - maybe some NYC folk here came there?), and the cost of coffee (and milk) for us was non-negligible.

We were paying $8/pound for one locally roasted variety; $9 for another.

We also served entirely local or organic milk.

Our rent was $1950 plus utilities.

High-end coffee joints pay a fair bit for ingredients.

<comment><USER17> I never saw your place when I hung out in New Paltz (almost every weekend in 2009-2010), but it would have been cool to see a tech scene get established. I miss that city.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, New Paltz is a really special place.

We were open from 2010-2012.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Social side aside, what is the point, isn't 4g everywhere these days?

<comment><USER19> It is (or seems like it)... but it'd be pretty expensive to be tethered all day, every day.

<comment><USER20> $2/day ($0 if I don't use it on a particular day) for me in Australia (unlimited data but limited to 3g). Unfortunately, I don't think this plan is available anymore.

About to head to NZ and not looking forward to giving up this ideal (for me) prepaid plan.

<comment><USER21> As someone who moved from NZ to AU.. Oooh you're going to feel the hurt. You can still get 90GB/mo 3G plans in AU for $80/mo which I'm super happy with. Comparatively in NZ I paid $30/mo for 3GB.

The only thing I do I miss is NZ's speeds (in AKL/WEL at least). 4G there is usually 10x faster than what I get in Melbourne CBD.

<comment><USER22> Wow. I get 110+ megabits in Melbourne and 10+ in Canberra.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Well I guess it depends on how valuable your seating is. If you are in a dense area or your cafe is particularly busy, than having people sit around all day and only order a couple of drinks is costing you money. If the seating never fills up, then it is probably worth while, I feel that people are more likely to enter a store that already has customers in it than one without any.

<comment><USER24> If the seating never fills up then you're paying too much in rent.

<comment><USER25> Not necessarily, depends on the rent. However, there may be better things to do with the space. Take a look at Japan and their highly successful 7-11s. Don't confuse them with 7-11s in the US, they are quite a different league. Basically it's a question of "how many goods and services that cover people's everyday needs can I put per square meter". Banking, post office, travel agency, adapters, amenities, underwear, ready made food, food to be cooked, drinks, alcohol, movies, holiday gifts, nowadays even seating - it's all there, even in the smallest ones measuring 20m2.

Now, they have a similar problem to WiFi: People coming in and reading Manga or the occasional Soft porn magazine without buying anything. Why even sell that stuff - hardly anyone buys is anymore nowadays is my guess. However, they studied the effects and found that it's still worth it to have them there in the grad scheme of things: It reduces theft significantly, because robbers typically won't go in when the place isn't deserted. They then even started offering free parking spaces for taxi drivers so they can rest there, which again curbed theft.

In a cafe, there's even more reason why you want tables to be occupied even if people don't spend money: An almost full coffee shop with a handful of tables free is more attractive to potential customers than an empty one.

So yea, it really depends on the property - in very frequented city centers on the first floor WiFi doesn't make sense. But even there, have a look what Japan does on third or fourth floors and up - Net/Manga/Theme cafes where you pay per hour, offering infinite entertainment, computers, fast internet, sleeping compartments and even showers.

I often wonder what makes Japanese so much more innovative in those areas compared to Westerners, but I think it has to do with Japan having a comparatively very deregulated zoning and licensing system for these sorts of venues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "By not offering WiFi, they're hoping to create more of a community atmosphere where people talk to each other instead of silently typing on their computers."

I see as many singles as pairs or groups at coffee shops. It's not always a social exercise for people.

If the habit is going to a coffee shop solo, they may swap books for computers, or just tether. Can't ban everything.

</comment><comment><USER27> Here's an idea: For the big enough coffee shops, how about a WiFi section and a WiFi-free section? Like smoking sections back in the day.

<comment><USER7> The problem with smoking sections was the smoke would waft over to the non- smoking area. You'll have the same problem with wifi.

<comment><USER28> Call it "laptop-section" and "no-laptop-section" and enforce that? (since it seems to be the goal in the end anyways) I've been to places like that and it works.

<comment><USER29> When I was in Berlin last winter, I noticed a few coffee shops that had strict no-laptop policies at the front but often allowed laptops in back rooms or further away from the entrance. Seemed like a win-win.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Charging for wifi by the hour would be a good alternative. Give 30 minutes free with every coffee purchase, possibly dependent on price of beverage. The outlying issues are other open wifi spots that are close to the shop and people tethering their phones and just using the cafe for a spot to do work. Both of those will happen even if they "pull the plug".

<comment><USER31> Their purpose isn't to stop people mooching their wifi though. Their purpose is to have a totally different atmosphere by discouraging people from using their cafe as an office.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is actually something I'm super conscious about. I travel to visit my parents somewhat often, and I work a few days remotely when I do. I've had a bit of luck rotating through a few spots. If I feel like I've exhausted those, I'll post up in a larger chain like a Starbucks — I feel somewhat less guilty when I know I'm not taking up a seat in a locally owned business. Most places will pull decaf espresso shots or have pastries of some sort, so I'm not just drinking coffee all day.

Aside: If anyone wants to swap coffee shop recommendations in Pittsburgh, feel free to send me a message.

<comment><USER33> why not just find place which is not busy? no need to feel bad about being there occupying some spot if half of the cafe is empty anyway all day

<comment><USER32> It's partly because those can be hard to find (less so now that a lot of the campuses nearby are wrapping up their semesters), but it's mostly me being overly self-conscious. I don't really want to be known as that guy who posts up on his laptop all day, but I should probably get over that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I've always daydreamed about a cafe big enough to have two viable areas: one quiet and businesslike, where working on laptops is OK, and one buzzy and social, where working on laptops is forbidden. The idea that somehow it's completely wrong to do business in a cafe would come as a surprise to the coffeehouses that ultimately turned into Lloyd's of London and the London Stock Exchange, to name a couple.

In my daydream, there is somehow a way to make people pay for the space they are taking up, too. Perhaps what I'm thinking of is a co-working space with a cafe next door?

<comment><USER35> > I'm thinking of is a co-working space with a cafe next door?

The Dock and Dock St Café & Bar in London is exactly this.

[1] [http://www.thedocklondon.com/](http://www.thedocklondon.com/)

[2] [http://www.thedocklondon.com/the-dock-club-affiliate- members...](http://www.thedocklondon.com/the-dock-club-affiliate-membership/)

[3] [https://officesnapshots.com/2015/12/03/dock-london- coworking...](https://officesnapshots.com/2015/12/03/dock-london-coworking- offices/)

[4] [https://hubblehq.com/office-space/1313/the- dock](https://hubblehq.com/office-space/1313/the-dock)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I don't know if this is a trend. The major coffee shop in my small college hometown has mandated for as long as I can remember that the seating upfront be used for only conversation or newspaper-reading. In New York, it seems about as common to find coffee shops without WiFi and with it. Think Coffee only has it in some of their locations. In fact, I believe the Think Coffee in which the first scene of "Mr. Robot's" first episode was shot (12st, East Village) does not have wi-fi, in contrast to its fictional portrayal.

<comment><USER37> Think still has a problem with people (especially students) camping out with laptops. It seems impossible to get a seat even if you're patient.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'd happily pay $20/hr for a seat. That's what, 3 lattes in SF? I just literally can't drink that much coffee.

If you gave me an alternative way to pay for it, I'd be more than happy to oblige.

<comment><USER39> In SF? Check out [http://www.workshopcafe.com/](http://www.workshopcafe.com/). Cheaper than you proposed, and designed to allow you to pay for the space.

<comment><USER40> Workshop is amazing. I hope they're making money (they seem packed most days). Wish more locations would open.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Bad trend for international travellers subject to data roaming fees that still cost dollars per megabyte (megabyte not gigabyte because it's 1995 once you cross a border).

<comment><USER42> PSA: Google Fi works transparently in almost every country (Tahiti/French Polynesia is the only exception I've experienced so far), and charges the same $10/gig everywhere I've been. If you travel a lot, it's a godsend. Also apparently gets around the great firewall in China, so I usually tethered even when wifi was available. Wonderful service overall, I highly recommend it.

<comment><USER41> Fi is a nice option for for US residents. Beyond the roaming benefit, I don't think it achieves much in most of Europe and Asia anyway. That, combined with the history of Google Voice, means I don't see Fi going global anytime soon.)

I have Three in UK and it does have decent free internet roaming in a lot of countries. The roaming is slow with not a hope of streaming media, but seems to have certain types of content like maps and mail whitelisted for fast access. It's useful but still requires getting a local sim for anything serious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> This is a legit issue. In L.A. here you see it all over. Like 1 in 4 coffeeshops has removed plugs and wifi. It's especially pertinent here because homeless people will buy a coffee for a couple bucks and stay all day on their phone or cheap tablet just watching movies and surfing the web.

It's like what's the contract between the purchaser and the business owner. If I bought a coffee for 2 bucks am I entitled to take up a table all day?

</comment><comment><USER44> There's a need in the market, but we don't want to meet it." This is a perfect example of why small businesses stay small, if they last that long.

p.s. In the 90s, before ecomm and digital (music) hit, I had a music+clothing B&M store. If I had that store today it would have tables/desks, host events, etc. That's where thing are headed...

</comment><comment><USER45> Joke's on them, I bring a book.

</comment><comment><USER46> I think the wireless carriers may have just won, with 4G unlimited plans, who needs in-secure wide open wifi. Over the years in tech, I look for certain inflection points, and I think this could be one. Only time will tell, but it has that look to it for me.

</comment><comment><USER47> I agree with this. I've worked countless hours in cafes abusing the free wifi, and I completely understand their position. If cafes shut off their wifi then this will hopefully spur working spaces to open up.

</comment><comment><USER48> If there's a market good luck to them. I won't be a customer though.

</comment><comment><USER49> I have cultivated a good relationship with the owner of my local coffee spot. I work on a laptop there after work when its not busy. I have been a daily customer there since they opened in 2012.

</comment><comment><USER50> Oh. This problem is not strang for me. Thats is why I am working on Codemates.io. The first location we plan to open in Sacramento, CA. And move further.

</comment><comment><USER47> Also: Rather than get rid of the wifi why not remove power outlets? That will make most people leave after a couple of hours.

</comment><comment><USER51> Why not a rule that says you must order something every 20 minutes or so? This expectation is not uncommon in Arab cafes.

<comment><USER52> If you read the article this has nothing to do with their reasons for not offering wifi.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Clearly advertise it and I'll have no problem.

</comment><comment><USER54> > _While he says most people understand, "we still piss people off."_

No great loss. Those kinds of people are self-entitled bad customers. Let someone else cater to them.

</comment><comment><USER55> One day, in a distant utopian future, a journalist writing an article like this will actually have to get, you know, _data_ showing that anything is changing, and "I interviewed a few people" won't cut it.

<comment><USER43> This is a legit issue. In L.A. here you see it all over. Like 1 in 4 coffeeshops has removed plugs and wifi. It's especially pertinent here because homeless people will buy a coffee for a couple bucks and stay all day on their phone or cheap tablet just watching movies and surfing the web.

<comment><USER55> > Like 1 in 4 coffeeshops has removed plugs and wifi.

I'd say this was true for in Toronto and NYC for most of the past decade. How do we know anything is changing?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Maybe they just need to change their business model...

<comment><USER57> It sounds like they did change their business model to attract more of the clientele they want and less of what they don't.

I'm not sure what you're actually trying to imply.

<comment><USER56> I'm implying that if a business situated in a certain location is attracting people because of WiFi, then maybe there's something in it.

You can see it as a problem, or you could also see it as a potential opportunity.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: WWDC 2012 keynote live? - <AUTHOR>

Where can I see live the WWDC 2012 keynote ? If there is no way to see this live do you know where can I see the record of the keynote later today ? <comment><USER2> Apple is not streaming the keynote this time. There are a number of tech blogs doing live blogs from the event so you can read their text version and see some pictures in real time. Apple usually posts the keynote video on their website later in the day or the next day, it also might be on iTunes later.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks.</comment></comment>