Violation of Heisenberg's Measurement-Disturbance Relationship - <AUTHOR> http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v109/i10/e100404

<comment><USER2> This is a really well written paper. I especially like their review of Heisenberg's original uncertainty relation, which had already been shown to be incorrect in theory under certain conditions, and the modern uncertainty principle that still holds. (They then experimentally violate the former, not the latter.)

Why should anyone care? Well, some security proofs for quantum cryptographical systems out there could conceivably assume the original relation holds, and would therefore require correction. Not to go into too much detail, this might have an impact on the bit-rate that some quantum crypto systems can securely run at.

<comment><USER3> I don't have free access to the paper. Could you tell me if the measurement- disturbance violation they show is a version of the quantum nondemolition measurement approach?

<comment><USER4> Here's the preprint: <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.0034.pdf>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> (I posted this in another thread, but nobody read that person's submission so I'm reproducing it here. The BBC article made this much more sensationalistic than it was, implying the Uncertainty Principle had been overthrown):

Nobody has cast doubt on anything in modern quantum mechanics. The abstract makes this much clearer than the BBC article does:

"While there is a rigorously proven relationship about uncertainties intrinsic to any quantum system, often referred to as "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle," Heisenberg originally formulated his ideas in terms of a relationship between the precision of a measurement and the disturbance it must create. Although this latter relationship is not rigorously proven, it is commonly believed (and taught) as an aspect of the broader uncertainty principle. Here, we experimentally observe a violation of Heisenberg's "measurement-disturbance relationship", using weak measurements to characterize a quantum system before and after it interacts with a measurement apparatus. Our experiment implements a 2010 proposal of Lund and Wiseman to confirm a revised measurement-disturbance relationship derived by Ozawa in 2003. Its results have broad implications for the foundations of quantum mechanics and for practical issues in quantum measurement."

In other words, Heisenberg originally thought that the inability to measure two incompatible observables (like momentum and position) was because of something that is now called the "observer effect": <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)> The observer effect applies even to classical systems without quantum mechanics! You just can't measure something without affecting it in some way [1].

The modern version of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says nothing about measurement disturbing the system. It instead says that there is an inherent uncertainty to the system. I've been seeking clarification on what exactly this means for a long time and have never really gotten a satisfactory answer. I've tried Physics Stack Exchange, my QM professor, even Hacker News and most people either confuse HUP with the observer effect or they reply in illy- defined terms that don't help me any.

The best that I can figure out on my own -- the true HUP -- is thus: You can prepare a system in a certain state. You then take a position measurement and a momentum measurement at the same time. You get two real numbers. Now, you repeat the experiment. Create a system just like you did before and take measurements of r and p. After multiple repetitions of the same experiment over and over, you'll get two long lists of position and momentum measurements. Take the standard deviation of the position measurements, multiply that value by the standard deviation of the momentum measurements, and HUP guarantees that the resulting real number will be ≥ ħ/2 (reduced Planck's constant over 2).

[1] Well, there's a few loopholes if anyone is curious.

<comment><USER6> The general HUP has to do with the eigenstates of noncommuting operators. I feel like you've probably seen this before, but one more hand waving try! :)

In QM the state of a system will be a solution to Schroedingers equation for that system. The system is characterized by a Hamiltonian H.

If an operator commutes with H, then we can find a basis for the solution space such that every basis state is an eigenstate of that operator. (i.e. it has a definite eigenvalue for that operator; applying the operator to an eigenstate gives back the state times a constant.)

If two operators commute, we can even find a basis such that that each basis state is an eigenstates of both operators.

But if they _don't_ commute, this is impossible.[1] That means that if a basis state has a definite eigenvalue for one operator, it cannot for the other.

What does it mean for a particle to have a well defined momentum? That means it is an eigenstate of the momentum operator. Likewise for position, _and the position and momentum operators don't commute._ This shows that if a particle is in a state of well-defined momentum, it must be a _mixture_ of states in the basis for position.

With more work you can translate this into a well-defined lower bound on the product of the uncertainties of the two operators.

>HUP guarantees that the resulting real number will be ≥ ħ/2 (reduced Planck's constant over 2).

Well, not quite. You're making an observation of the standard deviation, and it might not accurately measure the actual standard deviation.

So we know that if enough measurements are taken, the measured value will converge to a number greater than /hbar / 2. That's different than guaranteeing that any particular such measurement will obey this.

1\. If a state |n> is an eigenstate of two operators A and B, such that A|n> = _a_ |n> and B|n> = _b_ |n> ( _a_ and _b_ are eigenvalues), then necessarily AB|n> = BA|n> = ab|n>. This implies that [A, B]|n> = 0 which generally contradicts the idea that A and B don't commute; certainly when the commutator is just a constant.

<comment><USER5> You know, I think this is the best explanation I've seen yet. I've done plenty of calculations for my classes on which operators commute and which don't. And if [A, B] ≠ 0, then the two are incompatible observables. And I already knew the mathematics behind the eigenstates/eigenfunctions.

But I think the key insight you provided to me is what most people _mean_ when they say "well-defined" -- that the definition for "certainty" implies multiple measurements.

In other words, I was thinking: okay, you can measure a particle's position and momentum. You'll get real numbers for both to as much precision as your equipment allows. And I assumed that this was the definition of position and momentum -- the instantaneous values you get for the two measurements _are defined to be_ the particle's position and momentum at time t. So I didn't understand why everyone was saying you can't find both simultaneously -- from my definition, of course you can find them both!

But from the definition you've given me, I am guessing most other people define position and momentum as consistent quantities, meaning they have to have the same values upon each new measurement of the system in order to be called "position" or "momentum". Is this what you're saying? If so, that makes a lot of sense.

But I would think textbooks would clarify that more, because there are a lot of people who, like me, get confused by this type of wording. You can measure a car's instantaneous speed and that is THE speed at time t. Not "let's measure an identically prepared car multiple times and call the average of its dx/dt measurements 'speed".

With regard to your last point about the standard deviations product always being greater than h_bar / 2, I realized my fallacy after I posted it, but didn't think anyone would catch it. Good eye for subtlety!</comment></comment></comment>


React-express boilerplate - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/obiwankenoobi/react-express-boilerplate <comment><AUTHOR> with built-in auth , user activation using email, and reset password included (:</comment>


In 2005 Motorola Tried to Sue Me For Unlocking Phones - <AUTHOR> http://sina.is/unlocking-phones/ <comment><USER2> Today, now more than before, it is illegal to modify a device you have bought with your own money.

Worse, even if you find a fault in your device that threatens your personal safety, your are still not allowed to fix that fault. On top of that and thus _even worse_ , if that fault actually causes a problem, the entity that is active preventing your from fixing the problem is still not liable for any damages caused by that fault. All risk is on the consumer who owns the device, while all rights belonging to the company. The owner of the device is left with no rights, and has no effective power over the device.

Its absurd.

<comment><USER3> Playing the devil's advocate here, but who says you actually bought the device, and not only the right to use it under certain circumstances?

<comment><USER4> I wonder if paying Sales Tax makes it a sale of device instead of right-to-use license.

<comment><USER5> Hmm ... when you explicitly and specifically pay for a license, is there sales tax? Like, seats for enterprise software?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I really find the idea of our hardware not belonging to us to the fullest extent somewhat revolting. And not only hardware, but a lot of other things as well (looking at Monsanto for example).

Sorry, to say that, but imagine your car-maker of choice. Imagine during the last 50 or more years nobody would have been allowed to tune, to bodykit, to play with the car. What a interesting culture we would have lost.

Or imagine two guys named Steve would not have been allowed to tinker with hardware in 1976 (because the makers of the parts would not allow "unlocking" the hardware).

Where will we be, if our younglings will only see something with a display as a device for consuming, not for creating? What would a world look like, if it is ruled by "panem et circenses" (bread and circuses/games) like in ancient rome?

Is this really a world, to be a maker? Do we really wanna give our basic rights of possession and control (be it hardware or food) to some companies?

<comment><USER7> > Or imagine two guys named Steve would not have been allowed to tinker with > hardware in 1976 (because the makers of the parts would not allow > "unlocking" the hardware).

This example kinda goes against your argument since the Steves faced exactly the situation you're claiming might have stopped them.

The Steves who later founded Apple got their start with phone phreaking which was illegal at the time, despite being something you do with your own phone. But making it illegal didn't stop them -- it was more of a motivating factor.

[http://www.uproxx.com/gammasquad/2010/09/jobs-and-woz- were-p...](http://www.uproxx.com/gammasquad/2010/09/jobs-and-woz-were- phreaks/)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_box>

<comment><USER8> > _phone phreaking which was illegal at the time, despite being something you > do with your own phone_

No. The important part of phone phreaking is the public telephone network. (Although modifying a phone was probably not legal at that time).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This isn't the first time we've had this debate. In the 20th century, automakers tried to make it illegal for people to service their own cars (or hire third party mechanics to do it). The "right to repair" movement had to fight to have that right of ownership enshrined in law.

This time around, citizens/consumers are losing the computing device edition of the right to repair campaign.

<comment><USER6> Do you (or anyone else) have any links for me, as this might just be one more egg in my argumentative basket?

Thanks a lot in advance...

<comment><USER10> Going through something like it in MA now. Car dealers are locking out third party repairs by obfuscating the diagnostics. People are attempting to make them share.

I hope you guys can see this- not sure how the Boston Globe's paywall works

[http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/11/07/voters- leaning-t...](http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/11/07/voters-leaning- toward-passing-right-repair-ballot-question/MnQvUcjV5zgJ71AxGdZnZK/story.html)

<comment><USER11> >Massachusetts voters resoundingly passed the "Right to Repair" ballot question, meaning the new law requiring automakers to provide independent repair shops as well as dealers with easy access to the computer codes needed to diagnose complex car problems will need to be reconciled with compromise legislation passed after the ballots were approved.

Legislators could also decide to reapprove the compromise. The regulations are the first of their kind in the nation.

Under the ballot legislation, automakers are required to make diagnostic and repair information available to independent shops and dealers through a universal system by 2015. The compromise legislation, passed in July, gives automakers until 2018 to comply with new regulations.

Following that compromise, voters were initially urged to skip Question 1. But in recent weeks, AAA of Southern New England and other supporters began encouraging residents to cast a yes vote to ensure that Massachusetts consumers would have more choice when choosing who repairs their cars.

"We considered telling people to skip the question," said Arthur Kinsman, a spokesman for the Right to Repair Committee, which backed the original effort to get the issue on Tuesday's ballot. "The resounding response we got was that people still wanted to vote for this."

''

Still, he recognized that passage of the ballot question creates issues, including what types of vehicles will be regulated by the law, what kind of penalties manufacturers will face if they do not comply, and what the deadline will be.

"We promised the Legislature we would work with them on any reconciliation that may take place," Kinsman said. Still he said, the margin of victory proves similar bills should be passed in other states.

Opponents of the "Right to Repair" ballot question decried passage of the issue, saying it "creates confusion and uncertainty for automakers, repairers, and consumers."

They say that complying with the new regulation by 2015 would be too onerous for most manufacturers and would probably result in higher sticker prices for cars. On Tuesday night, Daniel Gage, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, one of the industry groups opposing the original Right to Repair bill, said they would ask legislators to reapprove the compromise.

"Automakers continue to support the negotiated Right to Repair compromise — previously agreed to by all parties — that became law prior to the election," Gage said in a statement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _...a crime that's punishable by up to 5 years in prison and half a million dollars in fines per incident._

It's time for some common sense sentencing caps if this is a possibility for merely tampering with an inanimate object. If it can't be proven that you actually harmed someone (and physical harm should carry _far_ more weight than financial harm), the threat of any jail time at all should be easy to laugh off. Laws with such harsh potential sentences indicate an abuse of power by a privileged class.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey everyone, author here.

The petition to the White House still needs 40k more signatures to get a response. If you haven't done so, please sign it:

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking- cel...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones- legal/1g9KhZG7)

<comment><USER13> I signed it, and called my parents and asked them to, but unfortunately, they said, "It doesn't affect me, why should I sign it? Besides, if it's illegal, it should stay illegal."

This kind of apathy is exactly what got us here in the first place. Ridiculous how everyone will simply bend over backwards to get their rights taken away from them.

No wonder real reformers like Gary Johnson never get a chance.

<comment><USER14> >if it's illegal, it should stay illegal

This is the worst kind of authoritarian-enabling apathy around. It's not even a justification for the law, just an excuse to never question it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If you are reading this and haven't signed the petition yet please do so:

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking- cel...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones- legal/1g9KhZG7)

At the current rate of signatures it's going to _just_ fail to get to the 100k. It's a really great petition because it's both popular with the public, as well as being an easy thing for the administration to change. Has there ever been a Whitehouse petition that was successful? Perhaps this could be the first.

<comment><USER16> So one the one side we have a bunch of people willing to... click a button on a web site. On the other we have companies willing to spend millions of dollars. Hard to decide who we should be listening to.

<comment><USER17> Assuming 100,000 signatures represents even 5,000 votes it's is not an obvious choice.

<comment><USER16> I think we have enough evidence at this point to conclude that simply spending lots of money will produce an outcome. There's no need to really worry about the small minority who will actually be clued in and care about the issue because they won't be enough to overcome everyone else who will simply do what the ads tell them to.

<comment><USER17> Money helps, but you hit diminishing returns so votes become really expensive as in 100-1000+$ per vote.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have DMCA, record companies and movie studios that make me feel like a criminal despite having paid full price. I hate them with a passion. HATE THEM!

However, in this case I can totally see Motorola's argument. Not sure in your case, but most people don't pay full price for their phones, they buy it subsidized. The reason you're locked on AT&T (in your example) is that you buy a highly subsidized device in exchange for staying with them for x years. That's precisely why I buy unlocked phones and never sign contracts. But if you signed a contract then you should honour that contract.

<comment><USER19> Irrelevant, the phone should not be in question. If you break the contract, you will pay the contract breakage fee, the phone is not even considered. It doesn't have anything to do with the contract, it's just yet another way for the company to lock down the slaves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> For what it's worth, the DMCA was definitely intended to include circumvention protections well beyond what was needed for copyright protection. It was commonly understood to extend into device locking, commsec and nontraditional drm - this is why you have exceptions to the anti-circumvention elements for security researchers for example. This doesn't make it right at all - but in no way was motorola "misusing" the DMCA as far as the drafters (lobbyists) were concerned.

<comment><USER13> Motorola may not have been misusing the DMCA, but the DMCA is a misuse of the law and a bloody embarrassment to the tech enthusiasts, programmers, and power users of the United States.

Remember that. The DMCA should be rewritten from the ground up, with new, innovative laws that effectively combat piracy without restricting freedom. And as far as I know, the only group qualified to do that, and who have the proper knowledge to do that, are _us_. _All of us, in this forum._ We _know_ technology. And we _know_ how to revise it.

Not some old Librarian of Congress. You know, I go onto any specialized forum for hobbying: car forums, technology forums, sports forums, to name a few, and I invariably, ALWAYS see at least one post about how the government is trying to prevent them from doing what they enjoy.

It's not right. And we shouldn't let law get abused by other laws, that get abused by other people.

<comment><USER14> It's not the federal government's job to "effectively combat piracy." Private companies should not be able to outsource the protection of their archaic business model to the government.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> No doubt that carriers are behind Motorola's actions, even going back to 2005. It is easy to imagine AT&T requiring that manufacturers prosecute end-users who unlock phones to the full extent of the law, as a condition for certifying a device on their network. This new dictum from the Library of Congress[1] actually extends the law and most likely the obligations of device manufacturers.

During the days of the Bell monopoly, consumers faced similar restrictions on what they could connect to the network... I'm not that old, but I remember being stunned as a kid when I saw what could be accomplished simply by connecting my computer to the phone network.

At a time when the nation needs new engines of economic growth, it's a real shame to see communications policy that continues to protect the entrenched incumbents while shying away from promoting innovation.

P.S. There is also a White House petition to appoint Susan Crawford as chair of the FCC and she seems to be very in touch with these issues.

[1] [http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-01-25/unlocking- phone-...](http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-01-25/unlocking-phone-to- change-wireless-carrier-curbed-by-u-dot-s-dot)

</comment><comment><USER22> I would personally love to hear more about what the conclusion of this situation with Motorola was, and whether it ended up going any further. It honestly sounds from this description like Motorola decided to "reach" with the law, and got stubbed quickly enough that it decided this kind of argument wouldn't work.

I say that, because it simply isn't clear that the DMCA actually applies to the case of unlocking cell phones. It wasn't clear six years ago, it wasn't clear three years ago, and it is even less clear now after the exemption for unlocking cell phones has expired. Yet, we have all of this rhetoric about "legal vs. illegal".

To be clear, I find the DMCA really bothersome. I also run into it constantly with the things that I do (which all involve jailbroken devices, specifically such as the iPhone). However, I think we all need to be really careful as we approach these matters to not be part of the misinformation about these laws.

In this case, what has happened is that after six years of having a specific exemption for unlocking cell phones from the DMCA, the Copyright Office at the Library of Congress did not see it fit to renew the exemption under the rules that were established for them by Congress regarding what should be exempted.

Honestly, given those rules (which I, of course, disagree with! ;P), the Library of Congress seems to have made a pretty good argument, and seems to have given the situation a good deal of thought. Yet, there have now been articles blaming, in specific, the guy in charge of the Library of Congress for this, like it is somehow personally his fault. Shameful.

Now there's this petition. This petition is asking the White House to force the Library of Congress to do something that they do not have the right to do under the rules given them by Congress. Yes: they can reconsider the matter in another three years, but they cannot just "rescind this decision".

Given that this simply isn't going to happen (and it would be a horrible violation of our government's power separation if it somehow did), it then asks for the White House to champion a bill to make unlocking "legal". This is simply not going to help us against the DMCA, and is thereby a waste of time.

Why? Because the most efficient and "battle-tested" way of accomplishing that goal is to enact something similar to the Cell Phone Freedom Act that they have in Canada, and the way that is worded is "carriers must unlock devices if asked", not "users are allowed to circumvent digital locks to unlock their own handsets". This will be seen as "the same effect, but less conflict with our beloved DMCA".

Thereby, if we actually go down this route, and attempt to get this law, a lot of effort is going to be expended, a lot of lawmakers are going to feel like they satisfied the goals of the people responding to this petition, a lot of news will be printed about how they did just that, and in the end only one use case will benefit. (Ironically, not even the company of the guy who made this petition ;P.)

This petition also is based on some wording that has been going around which confuses people about what actually happened: the DMCA exemption actually still applies if you purchased your device before January 26th (or even if you purchase a used device after January 26th that was originally purchased before January 26th); it isn't the act of unlocking that is no longer exempt, it is devices purchased (new) after that date that are not exempt.

I want to return, however, for a second to this "does the DMCA even apply in this case" question, as I believe it to be of key important here. Four years ago, when the EFF first attempted to get the exemption on "jailbreaking" (not unlocking) cell phones, the opposition included Apple. Last year, for video game consoles, the opposition included Sony.

Seven years ago, when the Wireless Alliance managed to win their requested exemption on unlocking cell phones, there were no companies that had a stake in the matter who bothered to take part. In fact, this was specifically highlighted by the Library of Congress in their finalized recommendation. Motorola? They really just didn't seem to care.

> Objections to the proposed exemption were expressed by owners of copyrighted > works other than the firmware to which the proponents desired access: The > Joint Reply Commenters expressed concern about the potential effect of an > exemption on separate copyrighted works that are downloaded and stored on > handsets, such as ringtones, games, applications, photos and videos.

Yes: the people who actually had a problem with this were concerned with software piracy, not cell phone unlocking at all. These same "Joint Reply Commenters" simply tend to argue against _all_ DMCA exemptions, and thereby their arguments seem to always be taken with the proverbial "grain of salt" as to whether their issues even apply in these matters.

These Join Reply Commenters did not lead with that argument, though; no: their "killer argument" was that the DMCA didn't apply to these matters, and that while they seemed to even agree that the business models of carriers was troublesome, that the correct forum to address these issues was not the DMCA exemption process, but maybe the FCC.

> At the outset, submitters have not demonstrated a causal link between § > 1201(a)(1)(A) and the substantial adverse impact on access to copyrighted > material which they allege. The threshold question, of course, is whether it > would violate that provision for mobile phone users to do what the > submitters advocate, and even whether anyone other than themselves has > claimed that it is or might be a violation of § 1201(a)(1)(A). A close > review of the submission itself does not dispel doubts on this issue, but > rather reinforces them.

That's right: the only group in opposition of an exemption from the DMCA for the unlocking of cell phones didn't believe that if you attempted to use the DMCA in this matter, you would actually have an argument or be able to make a case. And, in fact, according to the OP, Motorola tried this argument in 2005, _and gave up_ when presented with minimal resistance.

Meanwhile, the argument is even less clear today. A couple years ago, there was a case MGE vs. GE (yes, with General Electric as the defendant) wherein GE had come to own a company that had been doing unauthorized field service on a number of backup power units constructed by MGE, and in so doing was bypassing the devices' software protections.

This seems to be one of the few really big cases to go remotely high up that actually tests just how much power the DMCA has to keep you from doing things that are quite largely unrelated to copyright, such as unlocking a cell phone, and no less with GE as the defendant on "our side" (yay!). The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology published a digest.

> The Fifth Circuit held that the DMCA's provisions apply to protections > designed to prevent infringement of copyrighted material and not protection > from mere access to that material.

> In so holding, the court limits the DMCA to those cases where a defendant > circumvents a protection that is designed to prevent infringement of > copyrighted material.

(Note: I have yet to go through all of the actual court opinion from that case; I have it on my todo list, but as I tend to have my hands full with other things, I haven't had the time to do so yet. That is why I am citing the Journal summary, rather than the actual opinion.)

Yes: this means that in this court's opinion, the DMCA couldn't actually apply in this situation anyway, not that we really expected it to at this point ;P. (Sadly, it is my understanding that the Fifth Circuit doesn't set a very far- reaching precedent; it is still valuable to at least part of our country, though. I would love to hear more about that from those "in the know".)

What I would really love to see, then, is a petition brought forward not by a company (or generally any non-law-trained citizen), and worded in a way that causes more confusion, but one brought forward by a law student, lawyer, etc.. I would love to see this petition ask for something the White House could theoretically do, and which would actually have an effect on the DMCA ;P.

However, as it stands, while you are more than welcome to sign this petition, I must maintain that it 1) overstates the facts of the situation, 2) incorrectly states the ramifications of the situation, 3) directly asks the White House to do something it doesn't have the power to do, and 4) falls back to an ask that wouldn't help us if we got it :(.

(Also, and really this should just be assumed: I do know that these petitions are mostly for show, and that it is unlikely for these petitions to actually do anything even if they were well done. However, I feel it is appropriate to analyze the potential results of these kinds of things given the assumption "what if they mattered".)

<comment><USER23> I'm not quite so cynical as to think these petitions couldn't possibly matter -- though I admit, evidence that they do is rather hard to come by -- but I think that if the Administration responds to one at all, they'll ask themselves "what is this petition actually trying to accomplish, and what can we do to further its goal?" I.e. even if they do feel prompted to do something, they won't feel bound at all by the specific policy proposal. This is Government 101; I don't think we need to worry about it.

The point of the petition, then, is simply to establish how many people care about the issue in the first place, at least enough to click on a web page.

(Helpful analysis, though; thanks.)

<comment><USER22> Right; and in this case, I believe that "man, people really care about cell phone unlocking, maybe we should as well!" is more likely to cause the legislation similar the Canadian act ("carriers must unlock if asked", "carriers must be very clear about unlocks", etc.) than anything related tithe DMCA ;P. That's the problem with such a narrow focus: there are more direct solutions to this particular problem that are more likely than DMCA changes that seem to pacify the petition.

(You may have just been demonstrating the efficacy of a petition in the abstract, though, and not about this one in particular. I will then just say "noted", and point out that if this had been "dismantle the DMCA" or something, I would have lent my support to it, despite it being a White House petition ;P.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Is it the "Don't Be Evil" Google that now owns Motorola Mobility, or am I thinking of the wrong Google?

<comment><USER25> This was before Google bought them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> While I agree that OWNERS of the hardware shouldn't be bound by arbitrary rules laid out by the service providers, you can still get your phone unlocked, but only from the carrier...At least with T-Mobile, it's free (to my knowledge) as long as your account is in good standing. The law still sucks though...

<comment><USER27> I don't believe carriers are in any way required to do that. They could stop doing it at any point.

<comment><USER26> True, but the opportunity still exists at this point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Another way people can fight this is to not buy locked phones with such restrictions placed on them.

<comment><USER29> I was recently informed that it's not that easy to do this in the US.

<comment><USER30> Funny, it's extremely easy to do outside of US. I can walk into most cell companies up here get a 3 year contract with a new phone, pay some fee ($10-75 or so depending on the carrier) and walk out with a fully unlocked phone on a 3 year contract.

<comment><USER29> Similar here in the UK. I bought an unlocked Nokia Lumia 710 for £99 new and am on a £20 a month giffgaff pay as you go service. 800 mins to any number, free calls to other giffgaff users, free texts to any network and unlimited data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> How do these rules get enacted with no public discussion and no public debate. The effect of this ruling is to make criminals of thousands or tens of thousands of US citizens who purchased a phone. This should not happen without transparency. Here is another petition asking for an investigation.

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/investigate- librar...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/investigate-library- congress-decison-remove-unlocking-cell-phones-exception-dmca/05gr5vQK)

</comment><comment> at-fates-hands Pretty sure the only real solution to this is going to be getting a congressman to support an amendment to the bill which would allow for cases where people would have the option of unlocking their phone. The other huge hurdle would be to have the carriers on board so they would be responsible for unlocking the phone.</comment>


Fastmail Labels Beta - <AUTHOR> https://beta.fastmail.com/help/receive/labels-beta.html <comment><USER2> When I transitioned from Gmail to FastMail, I had to get used to using folders again instead of labels. While it was painful, I am glad I am no longer using labels, and I have no intention to start using them again. I vastly prefer being able to rely on the basic email client functionality in any given mail app, and using goofy nonstandard parts like snooze and labels makes that difficult.

I appreciate that with JMAP, FastMail has essentially become the first entity to do labels correctly, with a freaking standard behind it, but client support isn't going to be there for many years so I will avoid it. The big upside for me is it'll take away one reason people say they can't leave Gmail.

<comment><USER3> Is there any reason for why IMAP keywords cannot be used for labels by e.g. having some prefix for the keyword which indicates that it should be interpreted as a label? Client support is of course needed but to me it seems like the IMAP protocol already supports labels. Maybe IMAP lacks the ability to enumerate all labels?

<comment><USER2> Gmail already has a bad hack for this: It reports labels as folders and that duplicate copies of emails are in them.

So the issue is that any other solution would work improperly for Gmail. Client support is a huge part of the problem: If it's outside the standard, clients aren't going to handle it the same way.

JMAP, of course, fixes this.

<comment><USER3> IMAP keywords are in the standard.

<comment><USER2> Yes, but how to use them to emulate labels support is not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It wasn't super obvious to me, but you have to use beta.fastmail.com for this to work.

Confused me for a moment as you can complete the first step of enabling this (changing to New Rules) using the stable client.

\---

Oh, no, it's even more confusing than that. You enable the labels beta function on the beta website, but then it applies even on the main website.

<comment><USER5> you are right, does this mean that labels will work on the main site?

<comment><USER4> Yep, seems to have the same functionality.

I've submitted beta feedback indicating my concerns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Might as well put it here since Fastmail doesn't come up often. Does anyone find Fastmail's spam detection to be pretty mediocre? I usually get a few obviously spam emails a week in my inbox. The volume is low so I don't mind it but that's really the one thing I miss from Gmail.

<comment><USER7> The problem I frequently encounter is with emails incorrectly classified as spam. Once a month I go to spam folder and find few emails that were not spam. Even though I click "not spam" on each, I don't feel algorithm is getting any better with time.

<comment><USER2> Once the personalized filter is activated (requires marking 200 as spam and 200 as not-spam), this problem should go away entirely. It did for me anyways.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One reason I switched to Fastmail is it's just folders, not labels. I _HATED_ labels in Gmail. It never works right with external clients, even if you use plugins in Thunderbird or try to use labels like they are folders.

I gave up and basically used the web interface until I switched to FastMail.

Will folders ever become mandatory? If so, maybe I should finally give in and host emails myself. It can't be more painful than being forced to use labels.

<comment><USER9> I can't find the blog post, but I read one once that said, basically: you don't need labels or folders. You need your inbox, the archive, and trash. Once you've tended to an email, either archive it (and just use your search function later), or delete it.

I've tried unsuccessfully to maintain folder/label systems over the years, and I always end up having to search my emails anyway. So why bother with trying to make a consistent folder/label structure? I'm much more likely to remember some key words from an invoice than remember which labels I would've applied.

<comment><USER10> Folders aren't for filing emails after you've read them. Used well, they're for filing incoming messages automatically. I have a _heavily_ email-driven workflow, and I am active on dozens of mailing lists. My email servers filter incoming messages and deliver them directly into folders based on which list they're coming into. Another filter has a list of commerce-associated domains that get filed into folders based on which accounts they're associated with. As a result, the only mail that hits my inbox proper is mail from friends and family (plus the occasional not-filtered-yet work/list mail). Everything else lands in folders, and I prioritize opening those folders and dealing with those messages.

As you mentioned, once a message is 'consumed,' it just gets archived. But the folder system (combined with sieve filters) is what makes dealing with a ton of incoming email extremely pleasant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's not quite clear to me: Can these rules be applied to already existing mails at creation time?

This is convenient in Gmail and when I last looked at fastmail in 2014 this wasn't possible.

This was the support answer: "I am sorry, but our filters only work at email delivery time. You can't really use them on emails already delivered to your account.

However, to work on already delivered emails, I would suggest you use our 'Search' feature. You can search for emails matching specific criteria, and then select them and move them en masse to a different folder, or even delete them."

This works but makes migration/reorganizing a bit annoying

<comment><USER12> Since about a month ago, yes: [https://fastmail.blog/2020/03/23/email- organization-filters/](https://fastmail.blog/2020/03/23/email-organization- filters/)

<comment><USER11> Excellent, thank you for the link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a longtime Fastmail user, it's taken a long time to get to this point -- a labels beta. At this point, I'd like to see some truly unique native analytics on my storage rather than somewhat late attempts at market feature parity. I'd like to see a unique suite of management tools, like, say, an intelligent bulk unsubscriber. But sure, I'll test labels out.

<comment><USER14> I also would have loved this earlier but serious question: who else, besides Google/gmail and Microsoft/Outlook, is even trying this stuff? I've periodically looked pretty hard and been unable to find anyone.

Fastmail is the clear market leader for people who don't want to use gmail or outlook, and I'm pretty excited to try their labels. I would love to see them implement answers to some of the questions the basecamp (hey) folks raised here [1], but I'm pretty confident they'll implement some of them. I also suspect that many of the things basecamp/hey want to do break interop with other email clients for editing. That is, you can read them, but not use the hey features from other clients; Fastmail may not be willing to make that trade. Super excited to see what hey do though!

Either way, building a super-reliable email service that can handle 10s of gigs of emails and hundreds of thousands of messages is not easy and Fastmail does a good job.

[1] [https://hey.com/problems-with-email/](https://hey.com/problems-with- email/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is quite a leap forward in organising emails. I believe emails need to be organised into concise groups in order for you to become your most productive.

One thing I would suggest is to allow the organisation of labels according to when the last email was received. Today, Yesterday, This week, Last week, This month, Last month etc.

I actually run a similar product called DarwinMail [1], which was built shortly after GoogleInbox announced it would shut down in 2018.

We have supported bundles (labels in Fastmail) for about 12 months now. Through consistent iterative updates (thanks to feedback from our users) we have made huge progress.

Apart from the core (built-in) bundles: travel, finance, purchases, forums, promotions, social, updates you can also create a bundle from any label you wish.

[1] [https://www.darwinmail.app](https://www.darwinmail.app)

</comment><comment><USER16> Interesting. Is there an IMAP attribute similar to Gmail's X-GM-LABELS?

<comment><USER17> Label support comes via JMAP. As for how this is exposed in imap.fastmail.com I'm not aware somebody checked yet. Here [https://www.emaildiscussions.com/showthread.php?t=76159](https://www.emaildiscussions.com/showthread.php?t=76159) is a feature discussion around this feature. It's bound to appear there at some point.

<comment><USER18> (I work for Fastmail, but am not _really_ involved with the teams that have done most of the work on labels.)

In the backend, there is no difference between labels mode and folders mode; all of the changes are in the UI. There are no IMAP attributes or keywords (they're poorly supported by third-party clients); any email message can appear in more than one mailbox, where "mailbox" means "folder" or "label".

On disk, mailboxes are stored as UNIX directories: all copies of the message (i.e., in all folders/labels) are hard links to the same inode. Over IMAP, each can have its own metadata (\Seen and \Flagged, for example), and they'll probably appear as separate copies (depending on how your client decides to do things).

As you say, JMAP has this built in: each Email object has a MailboxIds property. When the web client (or your own bespoke JMAP client!) fetches emails for one folder/label, and then you click to a different folder/label, the client doesn't have to download that message again, because it already has it in its local cache.

<comment><USER19> Would be good to do what Gmail does over IMAP because many email clients already know how to handle it.

A feature that only works in the web UI isn't useful for me and while I'm excited about JMAP, it doesn't have support in any of the email clients I can use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> While I sympathize with a company providing a good service and being paid accordingly, $5 a month still seems too high for email.

<comment><USER21> $5 / month is still pretty close to $0 / month for many people. I transitioned from Gmail -> Fastmail a year ago, and I'm very happy with all aspects (reliability, features etc). Would be fine with paying > $5 month if that's what it took.

<comment><USER22> It's quite disappointing how skewed our perspective on software pricing is. I grew up in an era when compilers cost $1000; now people complain about $3 for an iPhone game.

Given that a burger cost $5, I'm more than fine with sacrificing a burger each month for private email.

<comment><USER23> where are you getting a $5 burger??

<comment><USER24> Culver's in the east, In-n-Out in the west.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is there a standards for labels in IMAP protocol? Or this another Gmail like proprietary protocol? Does this sync all emails multiple times if they have multiple labels in a regular email client?

<comment><USER26> IMAP keywords are basically labels. IIRC they even have Thunderbird integration. You can "tag" messages in TB with a variety of hard-coded tags (like "Work" or "Todo") and they will be saved as IMAP keywords on the server.

The problem is that it's hard to create custom ones in Thunderbird. It involves editing about:config, and when custom ones are saved to the server, other instances of TB won't recognize them unless you edit the about:config of those instances too. Basically, it's possible but too much pain in the TB UI to be useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've been a Fastmail user for my personal email for several years now, however I still miss labels. Therefore I love seeing this.

It is unclear to me how this works with IMAP clients. Are these labels still exposed as folders over IMAP?

If so, I assume messages get duplicated, just as with Gmail, therefore the client will need special hacks to deal with it, just as with Gmail.

</comment><comment><USER27> So it looks like labels are like "multi-folders", and unlike gmail, there is no mix of labels and folders. It's either or.

<comment><USER19> Gmail does not have a mix of labels and folders. It's all labels in Gmail.

<comment><USER27> You're right. The "move message" icon is, however, of a folder[1], so I guess over time I came to the misunderstanding that I was working with folders!

[1] [https://it.stonybrook.edu/sites/default/files/kb/8618/images...](https://it.stonybrook.edu/sites/default/files/kb/8618/images/new- gmail-move-out-of-trash.png)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> If you have a spouse and/or kids, and you want them to use FastMail for the same reason you do, consider putting pressure on FastMail to offer a (reasonable) family plan. I've been a happy customer for a decade but they've raised their prices (which would affect new accounts) and do not offer a family plan so this year be my last year with them.

Edit: typo

<comment><USER29> This is a big reason why I list cheaper alternatives to Fastmail whenever the topic of emails comes here. If your needs are more than one mailbox (not aliases), then Fastmail soon becomes prohibitively expensive. A few years ago, when asked about cheaper pricing plans, Fastmail replied that it has no plans (no pun intended) to go cheaper or offer cheaper plans.

There are other alternatives that are cheaper and focus on privacy, reliability, etc. They may not be as famous as the Fastmail brand. Posteo (no custom domain support), Mailbox.org, Runbox, Migadu, Mailfence and Mxroute are just some of the providers out there that give Fastmail a run for the money. Vote with your wallet.

<comment><USER30> Basecamp is launching their email service soon — Hey.com — as well.

<comment><USER31> Just speculating here, but it is likely not going to be much cheaper than Fastmail, knowing basecamp's pricing history. I hope they do launch a family plan though

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Does it work with Spark?

<comment><USER33> Does Spark implement the JMAP protocol (successor to IMAP)?

<comment><USER32> Doesn't look like it.

But searching for "spark + jmap" return interesting results, haha

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> So Mailmate should be compatible with those, can anyone confirm?

<comment><USER35> I was wondering the same. And other mail clients as well.

<comment><USER34> Just tried it, it seems to only work one-way and tags behave like regular folders. So Mailmate shows your web-created tags as folders, but if you apply an existing tag in Mailmate nothing happens in the web version.

Edit: found that discussion on JMAP support in Mailmate: [https://lists.freron.com/mailmate/2019-January/010799.html](https://lists.freron.com/mailmate/2019-January/010799.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> >Add colors to your Labels ...

>Switching back to Folders mode: ... Your labels will be converted into Folders.

Upon converting back to Folder mode, what happens to our painstakingly entered per-label color assignments?

As a Fastmail user, this worries me, as on its face suggesting a destructive bulk state change to all metadata of the account.

<comment><USER12> In the backend, there's no difference between labels and mailboxes. This switch is purely a boolean that instructs the the webmail client which set of behaviours to use.

Your colours will remain intact if you switch between the two. Mailboxes can have colours too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> what about zoho? i use it for business but is it viable and friendly for non- tech literate families? I simply connect zoho to thunderbird.

</comment><comment><USER38> Curious to hear how people use these!

<comment><USER39> As a fastmail user I was waiting for them, but now knowing its either labels OR folders, I will stick with folders. Labels tend to be much more disorganized for me. I consider them an extra on top, not essential

<comment><USER40> I have been looking for alternatives to gmail for quite some time but without luck so far aslabels are absolutely essential to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> How many users does fastmail have?

</comment><comment><USER42> Too expensive.

<comment><USER24> That they don't chase free users is an advantage to those of us who pay. For about $50 per year, I get rock solid, feature-rich email as well as fast support from real people who are informed and empowered.

It's not for everyone, but it's worth it if you value your mail and time.

<comment><USER43> Ya, been a user since 2009. I've been really happy in those nearly 11 years. The price has gone up, I originally paid $35/yr, it is now $45 (less if you pay several years in advance) but still generally worth it.

My only complaint is that the more they extend JMAP the more I want a dedicated email client that supports it, and none do as far as I am aware.</comment></comment></comment>


Pareto Principle-Based User Research - <AUTHOR> https://uxmag.com/articles/pareto-principle-based-user-research <comment><USER2> Anyone operating any business should be aware of the importance of this principle. It's also relevant to those of us merely trying to survive `normal' life.</comment>


Ask HN: How to get closer to the money. - <AUTHOR>

Hey everyone,<p>I was wondering how to get closer to users directly.  I'm a pretty solid programmer and graphic designer but I've never directly interacted with customers - I've only worked corporate jobs.  I feel like I need to break out of this loop or else I'll be trapped under this glass ceiling.  I can create something, but I just don't know how to turn that into money - or fearing that I won't be able to sell it properly.  Any suggestions on steps to take to break out of this mindset? <comment><USER2> If you want to interact with customers find a way to spend some time as a customer support agent. It's an enlightening experience and can often be a good way to grasp how different people are when it comes to how they use computers.

As for fearing that you can't sell something the only way to deal with the fear is to attack it head on. Build something simple that solves a problem that you and your close network (friends and family) have. Do it as a side project so you can fail without too much pain. Wash, rinse, repeat. On each cycle try to expand beyond your network into places where your customers might be. Trade groups, conferences, user groups, etc. Just keep doing until you succeed or decide it's just not what you want to do right now.

</comment><comment><USER3> I second aeden's comment. It wasn't until I had the customer service email inbox routed to me that I realized how certain things we were doing could make a difference in customer experience. They were easy things to fix as well. Not to mention all the great ideas these customers gave me.

As far as the - how to make money part - that is very broad question. Try finding a few businesses or consumers that have a problem. Think of a solution. It would be great if you could speak with them before you start building. Partly because it will help you know what to build. And partly because they will feel like they helped build it and are likely to become customers and potentially evangelists. Many designers and programmers are afraid of selling. Don't think if this as selling though. Think of it as R&D as it truly is at this point.

</comment><comment><USER4> You have to build something fun, something people can use with no compromise. People need to be looking at your skills, and once you get their attention they'll ask you for your services, this will now be a great opportunity to interact and figure out what they need. Find a solution for a small problem and gradually start offering that to people alike.

I found this article to be very helpful, [http://www.smartcompany.com.au/the- digital-bottom-line/20100...](http://www.smartcompany.com.au/the-digital- bottom-line/20100728-how-to-monetise-anything.html).</comment>


Snooping: It's not a crime, it's a feature - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9215853/Snooping_It_s_not_a_crime_it_s_a_feature <comment><USER3> This was disturbing. I'm fairly sure that there must be tacit agreement for a party to "snoop" in certain states. Could this lead to law suits?

I'm already creeped out with GPS. Sound analysis is just going too far. Cool or not, I really don't want to share that much. And even for the most open of us, can you imagine the information gathered? i.e. seems like you are having sex. want to know which of your friends is having sex right now too? creepy.

Considering that I work at one of the world's largest independent creative / marketing firms, I know this will be abused. It always is. We push. You push back.

</comment><comment><USER4> People recording their own conversations is fine with me, but people being tricked into sending recordings of their conversations to random untrustworthy corporations is emphatically not okay. Those may also be _my_ conversations, which I may not want to be shared.

In my home state of Massachusetts, all parties in a conversation must consent to recording, which makes this illegal.

<comment><USER5> The audio data's almost certainly being processed by the application itself and only a tiny bit of information sent back to the company's servers - <USER2> due to the privacy issues and the implications of having an internet connection open continuously (battery drain, high data usage bills, etc.)

This wouldn't be the first time fear and partial information damaged adoption of a promising technology.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> FTA:

"Of course, the use of your microphone with these apps is well understood by users, because that's the main purpose of the app.

The new apps are often sneakier about it. The vast majority of people who use the Color app, for example, have no idea that their microphones are being activated to gather sounds.

Welcome to the future."

With all due respect those users are morons. Color is, rightly, proud of their "snooping" technology. People who use Color will probably know it records audio through the microphone.

The proper question is: to what extent may people be permitted to degrade their privacy? For example, if both parties in a two-way call agreed to have the call recorded for advertising purposes, and to have ads interjected once every two minutes into the media stream, in exchange for the call being free, should that be allowed?

The Libertarian in me says yes. But sometimes people need to be protected from their own stupidity. Or do they? Hmm.

<comment><USER6> _With all due respect those users are morons. Color is, rightly, proud of their "snooping" technology. People who use Color will probably know it records audio through the microphone._

I guess that makes me a moron, because I had no clue it was doing this.

It also makes me glad I uninstalled it. Not that it actually worked anyways.

But your arrogance isn't unique I guess. I just hope you know pretending to be better than others doesn't actually make it true.

<comment><AUTHOR> I take my comment back, I apologise. I've just realised that the Apple App Store does not clearly tell users what permissions a given application requires.

Go to any application on the Android Market, e.g.

[https://market.android.com/details?id=com.groceryking&fe...](https://market.android.com/details?id=com.groceryking&feature=search_result)

and then click on "Permissions". Before installing anything on an Android you can immediately and clearly tell what it's going to do. Do I want my shopping list application to be able to directly make phone calls? I don't think so, hence I won't install this app.

Does this exist on the Apple App Store? Honest question, I've never used it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't own an iPhone or an Android (yet), so I was wondering: is there any way for the user to control permissions the app will have to access the hardware?

Say, for example, that I like an app because it does several cool things and only one not-so-cool thing that involves using the mic to "snoop" on me. Would I be able to download the app and then set up the permissions so it doesn't have access to the mic?

<comment><AUTHOR> I can only speak for Android, but no you cannot deny the application access to certain aspects of the hardware. You must instead refuse to use the application as a whole.

On the plus side, Android is very clear about what parts of your phone the application is requesting access to when you install it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I cant wait to see that 'feature' on WP7 too. Just imagine good old paperclip poping up on your phone:

"It looks like you are arguing with your spouse. Would you like me to put you in relation with a counselor?"

</comment><comment><USER9> With that technology, no wonder Color got so much funding. The list of stuff that they can find out about you is amazing. That would produce some very targeted ads.

</comment><comment><USER10> It would be nice if there was some kind of hardware or OS-level indicator to let you know when certain components are active (mic, camera, GPS).

</comment><comment><USER11> Do firmwares like cyanogenmod offer the ability to revoke privileges to certain apps by just providing them with garbage data? If they don't already, I think it would be an interesting area to explore.</comment>


StateFace - FOSS Typeface for when you need tiny states in your web app - <AUTHOR> http://propublica.github.com/stateface/ <comment><USER2> I don't really understand the order. Why is Alaska "A", Alabama "B", and Washington D.C. "y"?

<comment><AUTHOR> It looks like it was assigned last (after Wyoming - 'x') but they used the 'D.C.' for the alphabetized list. Same with "U.S." = z.

Minor quirks in the face of how useful this is, though.</comment></comment>


Secret – Share anonymously with your friends. Speak freely - <AUTHOR> https://www.secret.ly <comment><USER2> "This information is solely used by us for debugging and analytical purposes (e.g., to enhance the Service) .... We log information about your use of the Service, including the type of browser you use, access times, pages viewed, your IP address and the page you visited before navigating to our Service. .... We collect information about the mobile device you use to access our Service, including the hardware model, operating system and version, unique device identifiers and mobile network information. .... We may collect information about the location of your device each time you access or use one of our mobile applications or otherwise consent to the collection of this information. ...."

From: [https://www.secret.ly/privacy](https://www.secret.ly/privacy)

<comment><USER3> > unique device identifiers and mobile network information

I always wonder _why_. Can't you just attach any retargeting/personalization/whatever to the logged-in account? There's no need to know exactly _which_ device I'm using, aside maybe from model and OS version.

<comment><USER4> Hi, I'm one of the founders. We use unique device identifiers, which you can reset yourself on iOS, to help ensure account security. For example, when you log in from a new device.

<comment><USER5> If the whole point is being anonymous, is account security important since I'd just rather make a new account instead?

Is this the real reason you need device ids?

> Secret's concept looks fairly simple at first: Based on the contacts in your > mobile phonebook, you're plugged into a network without establishing an > identity or even a static username up front, and asked to share any and > everything to that network. While initially you're only communicating with > friends, those secrets slowly trickle out to others depending on whether or > not your friends have interacted with your posts.

I'm not sure what to think about this. It sounds more like your app is game of "guess who this secret belongs to". While this is interesting (especially for everyone in college and younger), I feel that you guys need to change your marketing to better reflect reality. of course I could be completely wrong since hn is no longer the demographic for this type of app

<comment><USER4> We think it's important to notify users when someone from a different device tries to log into your account. We will, to the best of our ability, make secrets untraceable. I can promise you that.

<comment><USER6> So are you saying that if it was a regular website accessible from a desktop pc you would check against MAC address or some other hardware id to "notify users when someone from a different device tries to log into their account" ?

<comment><USER4> Most high-security sites do this (including banks, and even Facebook) to let you know when there's unusual activity. In order to recognize the anomalies, you need data. The meta point in our privacy policy is to be transparent about what data we retain and why.

We appreciate the probing questions, as we want to be as clear as possible about what, why, and how we're building Secret.

<comment><USER6> Your kinda biting your own tail here, and this is soo revealing..

Facebook and banks do that because they are built with everything but anonymity in their mind, while instead your primary objective as your slogan says is "Share anonymously with your friends. Speak freely."

You care not about real anonymity, you just care about selling the concept behind it, giving a false sense of safety, just to profit from that, riding on the wings of the need from IT uneducated people to protect themselves now that the alarmism is very high given to what we understood about NSA.

Or, is it just profit? Maybe it would be a smart move from NSA to affileate with enterprises creating such fakely anonymous services..

But really? I just guess it's all about profiting on the need for anonymity gone wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For an app that has anonymity as its big feature, it lost me at "give me your phone number".

<comment><USER4> Hi, I'm one of the founders. We ask for your phone number to connect you with your friends. We also encrypt unique identifiers so that your friends, nor us, can ever read your content.

Read about our stance on using address books here: [https://medium.com/tech- talk/4791cf1fcf0e](https://medium.com/tech-talk/4791cf1fcf0e)

<comment><USER8> Interesting. How do you compare salted hashed email addresses?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Imagine how misleading advertisements can be on this platform: since your friends won't be explicitly attaching their names to their posts, you would never know if something was inserted by an advertiser.

<comment><USER4> We annotate each post with "Friend" when it comes from someone in your contacts. We will NEVER misrepresent that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> "My cat only eats cuts of Wagyu beef. It is costing me a fortune. What do I do?"

This is satire of course, but for a brief moment it made me reverse my stance on the SF Google shuttles/rent price thing. And you know—sometimes behind satire there's the memory of someone who actually said something to that effect.

(If anyone actually has this question: feed a homeless person. Oh, I don't mean give food to a homeless person, I mean, cut a homeless person into thin slices and season it to your cat's taste. Dickens would recommend using the children of the homeless. Who ever said humans shouldn't be eaten? Disruption!)

<comment><USER10> Jonathon Swift would also recommend children: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> As soon as I rant about Obama, all my friends will know exactly who I am.

</comment><comment><USER12> Interesting. I came up with precisely this during a "social app for the masses" thought experiment. Inspirations were the positives I've observed with anonymous commenting systems and the "secrets" pages I think I first saw in the local City Paper.

Follow-up thoughts were:

\- What percentage of users would simply take it as an opportunity to be anonymously nasty to each other?

\- In larger sharing circles, would users take to using "tripcode" type images or signatures in their shares to actually fight anonymity.

\- How do you actually monetize such a service? As a deeper source of sentiment? A window into the things people want/think, but won't demonstrate publicly?

\- If sharing user produced text, how anonymous could it actually be? Speech patterns, capitalization, punctuation and whatnot is all very telling. It would be an interesting application of NLP to anonymize those tidbits without changing their meaning.

</comment><comment><USER13> How is this different from Whisper?

<comment><USER4> Hi, I'm one of the founders. The key differentiator is that you're sharing with the people you know. Secret allows you to have interesting conversations, anonymously, with your friends. On Whisper, you're doing this with strangers. They both have their own benefits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > it's about sharing, free of judgment.

And i'll bet you most of the things shared are judgmental.

</comment><comment><USER15> Been using this for a while. I love the app, the idea, the community - I feel like it's somewhere online where I can actually be myself, instead of worrying about managing my public profile (Facebook/Twitter).

<comment><USER16> This sounds like a marketing message from the company that created the app.

<comment><USER17> or a nice supportive message from a startup founder.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Quick tip: I really wanted to try this app, but I didn't trust it to "find my friends", i.e., read my contacts. At first it seems you can't skip that step, but I force quit the app when it showed me the "find my friends" screen, and when I started it back up, it didn't show me the screen again.

Does anyone know if it spams your address book?

<comment><USER19> I signed up this morning with my phone number, and it didn't spam anyone (that I'm aware of).

The way it forms its 'secret' networks is similar to LinkedIn's degree system. Your phone contacts are your 'First Degree' connections, their contacts are your 'Second Degree' connections, etc.

Most posts from 2nd or 3rd tier connections never appear on your feed, it's only the popular ones that show up. It's interesting since you really have no idea who you're interacting with.

Disclaimer: I really have no idea how it all works, that's just my impression after a few hours of use.

<comment><USER4> Hi, I'm one of the founders. Your description is just about spot on. :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Interesting idea! I don't see a direct analogy with how we communicate in the real world. So I wonder what use will emerge for that medium. Network sentiments?

Anonymity will be relative to how unique your behavior is among your address book contacts. Might become an awesome tool to educate people about the difficulty of anonymizing content...

</comment><comment><USER21> Definitely an interesting trend emerging here, with lots of different players entering the space. [http://whisper.sh/](http://whisper.sh/) raised a $21M series B, and [http://www.500strangers.com](http://www.500strangers.com) also recently launched.

<comment><USER3> This will come off very elitist, but these popular image-based self-expression venues like Reddit image macros, the pictures on whisper.sh and the inspirational/life lesson pictures people share on Facebook all the way back to MySpace blingee have a weird kitschy thing going. I should coin a neologism for it.

Whisper is like PostSecret without the irony and users over the age of 22. Part of me wants to get all haughty and say there's no way they need 21M, and the other part wants to get all haughty and say they need 1B, because people will get all over this stuff for this faux-honest emo 2.0 is how people really feel behind the layers of irony and spectacle.

I cringed when corporations started adopting sarcasm and slang to fit in on Twitter and FB, but now I cringe when I see companies using this kitschy- intimate-bitchy-tumblr style.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Not available on the Belgian iTunes store. That's stupid as there is no good reason for the omission.

<comment><USER23> Don't feel singled out, it is not just the Belgian store. If you dont allow JS by default you see some text that says: "Enter a valid US phone number"

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> So anonymous vaguebooking? Not for me, I get enough of that on Facebook where there's actually an identity to semi restrain people.

(May totally be for you, of course, I'm not value judging here. Just... I am absolutely not the target market here, I think.)

</comment><comment><USER25> Anonymous, free speak and freedom. While supporting Libya government buying .ly domains.

Congratulations.

<comment><USER19> What an irrelevant post. I'm sure the $75 they spent on their domain name is critical to the Muslim Brotherhood's attempts to brainwash the west. Or something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've been using it all morning and I'm a big fan. It's proven to be very therapeutic with work complaints / fears. I just hope it doesn't get overrun with trolls and attention-whores.

</comment><comment><USER26> I like this idea so much that I built something very similar for the web two months ago. It's out there, but I never officially launched it.

App looks great, and the idea is great. Good stuff.

<comment><USER4> Thanks scrabble. Glad you like it :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> So, a site that shows alerts on it's home page with regard to SSL certs that talks about being secret, anonymous, isn't really encouraging.

<comment><USER28> That was caused by a bad link in the recode article. The journalist fixed it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> cool idea. looks well done. i can't keep thinking that the only thing i would read on here would be confession bear quotes, though.

</comment><comment><USER30> looks really cool, hope that it doesnt turn into the "anonymous confessions fb pages" where people submit posts through a google survey thing, and the get reposted by the admin. those are all fake...

</comment><comment><USER31> Something wrent wrong saying on sign up... Is it down?

<comment><USER4> Is this still happening to you?

<comment><USER31> yes...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Or I could just text them.

</comment><comment><USER33> So you guys do realize that all the data that goes across the AT&T network and other carriers are all monitored and that packets are tagged with info that goes back to your GSM or CDMA network entrypoint with a new ID.

This isnt how to make an anonymous secure network for sharing. It only obscufates it for those who are poor at tracking you or companies that mine your public data for sale - although technically that anonymous nature still doesnt work unless everyone uses the network. If your sister is still on a public social network and posts photos of you , or references to your job - you will still be mined.

So that said. Whats up?

<comment><USER34> I don't think this is the place that you would send your criminal plans and ideas, I think that it is a place where you can discuss things that might be embarrassing or get more objective opinions. There is still the potential problem that one of your contacts has no other contacts and can therefore guess pretty accurately whether it is you or not. There is also quite a bit of research on de-anonymizing social networks that might make this less private than some might think.

<comment><USER4> Hi, I'm one of the founders. You said it exactly right – this is a place to share openly and honestly with your friends about day to day things and sentiments, and not for crime or other illegal activity.

That being said, we also have implemented a number of measures to prevent triangulation. For example, your friends' secrets will remain hidden until you have enough friends on the network. You can't just sign up with one contact, that won't work.</comment></comment></comment>


The Case for the Fat Startup (2010) - <AUTHOR> https://a16z.com/2010/03/17/the-case-for-the-fat-startup/ <comment><USER2> Going out an raising an initial metric boat load of capital seems to fly in the face of modern convention for pure digital services. Notable exceptions seem to be businesses where a high capez model is repeatable geographic basis (ride sharing, scooters, food deliver, rental spaces). Considering how quickly the competition in those spaces need to scale, and the winner-take-all dynamics, it seems natural that that path would exist.

For the majority of us though, purgatory might also be "I raised too much to be a billion but I have a nice 100M company" and thats just dandy.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ben's book "Tge hard things about hard things" gives a more detailed account of this story through a series of lessons learnt. It is a phenomenal story and leadership guide.</comment>


Apple vs. Government: How they make their money - <AUTHOR> http://sausman.whipups.com/2013/05/23/apple-vs-government-how-they-make-their-money

<comment><USER2> I'm in favor of Apple. The government are being very selfish. Without Apple, the multi-billion dollar business would not belong in the US. I can't begin to imagine how many people they help by providing jobs, not only technical, but retail too.

I would rather let apple control its own money then let the US government control its money. The US government would spend it on going to war on shaky grounds, whereas Apple would use the money to invest into new and exciting technology to improve our lives in one way or another.</comment>


Show HN: I hacked up a hybrid android / iphone app in a week... - <AUTHOR>

Last week I decided to have a go at building a location based app, using native APIs for both android and iphone, but using a webview to display the content. It came together pretty well I think, still waiting for the ios app store to approve or reject the app. The app sends messages to anyone within 100 metres of you:
http://herenow.nolanconsul.com/
I blogged a bit about it here:
http://bennolan.com/2014/05/27/herenow-retrospective.html <comment><USER2> This reminds me of MessageParty, a location-based chat app that was a YC company.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great Work Ben.</comment>


Let's fix up Notre Dame with concrete and steel, but let the sun shine into it - <AUTHOR> https://stainedglassattitudes.wordpress.com/2019/05/21/lets-fix-up-notre-dame-with-concrete-and-steel-but-let-the-sun-shine-into-it/ <comment><USER2> A lot of the comments here are assuming that the author is proposing something that he is not (perhaps making this assumption from reading the title not the article itself). So I'll summarize.

He's arguing that rebuilding the internal structure of the roof with wood beams would inevitably lead to another fire. Concrete and steel would last longer and be more structurally stable and resilient to fires.

What he's not arguing for is changing the visual character of the building. The steel and concrete he proposes would be in internal areas that people don't see. The _ceiling_ which is what people see from the inside would remain visually the same. So would the exterior. The part that would use concrete and steel would be the interior section of the roof which is only seen by maintenance crews.

Separately, he makes the argument that much of the stained glass installed during the 19th century was "severe and flat" rather than "delicate and jewel- like like genuine medieval glass". He's arguing that we should install glass more closely resembling the original medieval glass, which would allow more light into the structure.

I think all of this is very much in line with trying to keep the character of the building the same.

EDIT: Reading the end of the article again, it's actually not clear to me whether he is proposing to put in clear glass or a stained glass that's a bit lighter than what was there before the fire. I think I initially misinterpreted and the former is what he's getting at.

<comment><USER3> Wood and a sprinkler system will be far better than concrete in this instance for aesthetics, cultural homage and many reasons. Rebuilding it in concrete would see the French in uproar.

But one long standing issue we keep running across is how to fight fires in high buildings is an area that could do with some financial and invitation. Until then - sprinkler systems for such buildings should be a priority.

<comment><USER4> >Rebuilding it in concrete would see the French in uproar.

i somehow expect and hope that the French will intentionally rebuild it in some very new, "into the 3rd millenium", style which definitely would put half the country and the world into uproar, yet will become a great cultural icon 50-100 years down the road - ie. a story similar to Eiffel tower.

<comment><USER5> Though I don't expect it to happen in this case, I wonder if some kind of wood and metal composite structure couldn't be implemented?

I'm certainly not an architect or engineer; maybe that suggestion is currently impossible.

Ideally it would be interesting if you could do something almost akin to 3D printing, or maybe closer to how plywood is made, but using wood fiber. I'm imagining something like long fibers of wood, intermixed with stainless steel or aluminum "wire", and molded using resin binders in the forms and shapes needed for the trusses and beams, etc.

From the outside, it should look almost like regular wood, but with some of the strength characteristics of the metal (though now that I think about it, it probably wouldn't work in sheer or compression; tensile strength might be ok).

What would be even more amazing, though I can't think of a way to do it, would be a wood/metal composite where the metal was a 3D organic-like lattice with the wood in between; I can imagine such a thing, but not a way to manufacture it (at least not with today's technology).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The question is moot. France signed the Venice Convention in the 70s, that forbids any significant modification of protected monuments. Therefore the roof must be reconstructed absolutely identically from a visual point of view, using techniques as similar as possible as the previous one.

Rebuilding in metal or concrete like Reims, Nantes etc. couldn't be done nowadays.

Building a timber structure like the one that burned being out of the question (because we lack the necessary stock of century-old oak wood that have been dipped into brine for 20 years before construction, as was the original), but most probably laminated wood will be use in its stead.

<comment><USER7> From what I can tell, nothing in the Venice Charter says the reconstruction must be identical. On the contrary:

 _Article 12. Replacements of missing parts must integrate harmoniously with the whole, but at the same time must be distinguishable from the original so that restoration does not falsify the artistic or historic evidence._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Charter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Charter)

<comment><USER8> The standard interpretation of this is something like the following:

If you replace an element (e.g. a brick) with a new brick, you should aim for it to blend in discreetly and convincingly with the existing structure BUT you should not try to conceal the fact that it is a repair (by distressing it, for example).

<comment><USER9> I think it would suffice to place a block somewhere in the reconstruction engraved with the date of the fire and the fact that the fire collapsed a portion of the structure, which was then rebuilt with modern techniques and materials appropriate for preserving the building as a public monument.

The danger is that more ephemeral records of the fire are eventually lost, and then a future archaeologist uses evidence from the structure to make conclusions about construction materials and methods of a particular era.

Besides that, the flying buttresses were not an original feature of the cathedral. If those could be added later, and become part of the historic character of the building, why not steel structural beams and reinforced concrete supports now?

<comment><USER10> > Besides that, the flying buttresses were not an original feature of the > cathedral.

Do you have a source for that? I thought a gothic cathedral without flying buttresses was like a skyskraper without a steel skeleton. The load-bearing structure isn't generally added to a building after the fact.

<comment><USER11> [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/world/europe/notre- dame-c...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/world/europe/notre-dame- cathedral-facts.html)

> After construction had begun, flying buttresses were added to the design of > the cathedral.

IIRC, they also upgraded the first set with sturdier ones in the 14th Century.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Roger Scruton recently wrote about where he suspects the plans for the repair will go:

> It would be wrong to assume that a gang of modernists set fire to Notre Dame > – it could perhaps have been an accident. But there was no better way to > advance the great project, shared by all forward-looking architects from Le > Corbusier to Richard Rogers, of razing Paris to the ground and rebuilding it > in concrete, steel and glass. An international competition of the kind > proposed by President Macron will in all probability result in a replica of > Norman Foster's Sage Gateshead, expectorated onto the walls of the > cathedral, to cling trembling above them like a gob of shiny snot.

</comment><comment><USER13> This quote reflects my sentiments exactly, and expands on them:

 _What's been more depressing than the Notre Dame fire itself is the aftermath. The alt-right hate crew roll in to blame the Muslims (for, um, sneaking inside the roof space to start a fire that hardly damaged the structure at all ah yes, much more likely than an electrical fault: like and subscribe). Floundering President Macron seizes on it to try and rally his gilet-jaune agitators into some sort of patriotic common cause by promising it'll all be fine in five years. Billionaires donate a bit of pocket change at a 95% tax deductible rate to get themselves on the golden wall of donors when they should simply be paying more tax on their obscene wealth. Saddest of all, a load of spreadsheet architectural firms get free publicity by doing stupid renders where they put a swimming pool on top of the cathedral, or a glass roof to let light in, revealing that they don't even seem to understand the concept of a vault. The hack journos lap all this up, and don't try to talk to the people hard at work consolidating and assessing the structure._

<comment><USER14> > to get themselves on the golden wall of donors

In their defense, that's how it was financed in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Am I the only one _actively disliking_ this light fetish? Dunno about others, but the semi-darkness was crucial to the _awe_ and _spiritual depth & mystery_ that NDC made me feel when visiting it.

Otoh it's probably in line with over-lighting that I saw common at least in Paris lately - restaurants and caffees used so powerful lights that I wanted to wear sunshades inside. I mean... wtf?!

I get it that LED light allow you to flood everything with light at nighttime without spending too much electricity, and that glass and polycarbonate are cheap and easy to use, but... some of us love _shade_ and _semi-darkness_ and even actual _darkness!_ Even phones and laptop screens are luminous now that you need to keep them at 50% or smth if you're not using them while sunbathing on the beach.

 _I almost wish I lived in a time where candle light was the only available source of illumination, and glass windows were too expensive to worth having them too big!_

<comment><USER16> >Dunno about others, but the semi-darkness was crucial to the awe and spiritual depth & mystery that NDC made me feel when visiting it.

Absolutely. It being a giant dark gothic cathedral was the whole point. It would have been something else entirely if it was bright.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> No, let's not.

Let's keep the original style so that future generations can experience it the way it was originally intended.

Modernization is not always the best idea, especially with historical architecture.

<comment><USER18> Cathedrals are alive. At the scale of centuries, change is a constant for them. A great deal of Notre Dame is not "original" anyway. For instance, those famous gargoyles, I was surprised to read are actually pretty recent additions (relatively).

All that said, I do agree with you for the most part. Let's not have some arrogant hotshot architect do his flavor of the day on and add the "nosql" of architecture on there.

<comment><USER19> NoSQL has its use, but architects do ugly things to advance their personal brand and market themselves; old buildings that can't protect themselves are wonderful hosts for their agendas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is a great informative article. When I tour historical structures I realize I'm never upset at renovations or reconstructions from long ago that changed the building. The changes become a part of the building's history. After all, these are not museum pieces preserved behind glass, they're functioning structures and still in use.

</comment><comment><USER21> I don't think replacing the windows or letting in sunlight would work. I agree that the lighting system should go, but the design and use of stained glass in the middle ages had several purposes, one of which was that the light was a visual representation of God's glory. In the Medieval period there were long- running discussions among theologians about light's divine significance ([https://books.google.com/books?id=eXbDBwAAQBAJ&printsec=fron...](https://books.google.com/books?id=eXbDBwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=species+of+light+medieval&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAlv6b_MXiAhUSRqwKHW6ID8kQ6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q=species%20of%20light%20medieval&f=false)).

Natural light might be beautiful, but it is transposed through the use of the glass into a wholly religious artifact. You can even "touch" this visual representation of divine beauty by running your hands under the reflection of colored light. And anyway, it's much easier to examine the stories embedded in stained glass motifs with light coming from the outside in.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's a really unique occasion to try to improve a worldwide-known monument with a very strong identity: every one expects getting a certain gothic experience when they come to visit it. Deviating too much from that is both a risk and an opportunity.

Out of the multitude of kitschy ridiculous high-concept pool-on-roof design sketches, a few will emerge as timeless and delivering what people expect. I bet it's easy to deliver the expected gothic experience when they step inside, and take bold bets on the outside appearance.

<comment><USER23> In this case I'm a conservative. Imagine the Parthenon, GP of Giza or Kyoto Golden Temple being modernized. It would ruin the character and further make into Disney-esque tourist attractions.

<comment><USER24> The Parthenon was mostly destroyed in an explosion more than a century ago. Restoring it in a respectful manner would be culturally (and yes, touristically too) valuable.

<comment><USER25> The Parthenon wasn't even destroyed all that long ago --- 1687. Prior to that, it had survived largely intact. Restoring it now to its intact state would be okay by me.

That said, if you want to see what the thing would have looked like intact, you can always go to Nashville [1].

[1] [https://www.nashville.gov/Parks-and- Recreation/Parthenon.asp...](https://www.nashville.gov/Parks-and- Recreation/Parthenon.aspx)

<comment><USER26> Who would have thought Nashville is where the replica would be. It's not on my list of things to see.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I find myself wondering if going half and half for lighting styles (original radiant and the darker version of later) would be a good approach. It certainly would be an educational contrast like showing bleached and restored original bright flat color Greeco-Roman statues side by side and highlighting both the "true original" and the "traditional" depiction from its wear. Perhaps a bit gaudy in some ways so I can see why that contrast approach wouldn't be favored for aesthetic reasons.

</comment><comment><USER28> I was curious about the comment about flat modern glass vs the "medieval version" and found a nice writeup that explains in some detail.

[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-colors- you-s...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-colors-you-see-art- museum-cant-be-replicated-today-180953332/)

</comment><comment><USER29> That interior lighting did look bad, and his suggestion for using concrete and steel seem reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER30> I.e: "Let's destroy a beautiful thing of the past, with our modern crudeness".

</comment><comment><USER31> And make it look like the Temple of Time from the Zelda series?

</comment><comment><USER32> It's obviously both a huge safety hazard and a money pit. Let's raze it and build a modern structure to proper building codes.

<comment><USER11> The tourism benefits of things like Notre Dame likely _far_ outweigh the costs of maintaining them.</comment></comment>


An Ambassador Who Worked from a Nairobi Bathroom to Avoid State Dept. IT - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/the-ambassador-who-worked-from-nairobi-bathroom-to-avoid-state-dept-it/

<comment><USER2> The real lesson missed by the author is much simpler.

Security software and networks should be easy to use. If not, normal human beings would not use them. They'll rather use an "insecure" but easy to use software.

This is the reason pgp and it's equivalent have languished in obscurity.

<comment><USER3> If you see a diplomat as a passive subject then I do agree. It's in human behavior to bypass complex procedures just to get the task done.

But if you can't expect an US diplomat to follow his country regulations and security requirements, maybe he is not qualified for the task.

<comment><USER4> I don't think that holds much water. Users obviously have some concern for security, but you can't expect them to care as much as the security people. Furthermore, that goodwill only gets you so far - they have their own jobs, which are unconnected to security.

He's obviously far beyond what's acceptable, but if he finds doing his job difficult because of poor IT, it's exactly what you'd expect.

If requirements are far too onerous, you expect people to work around them.

<comment><USER3> I do agree in most of what's been said. Poor knowledge, an understaffed IT department and no support from Washington sounds like a recipe for disaster, even more if the guy just wanted to get his job done.

Do note however that being a diplomat is hardly unconnected to security. I would root for anyone that goes against procedures because they know better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's telling that the US embassies and State dept. are using Microsoft products. Aged ones.

Shows that they must not really handle any particularly sensitive information.

<comment><USER4> Microsoft's desktop software only gained a reputation for insecurity because until relatively recently (early 2000s), the rational move for them was to not secure it. Their software designed for governments etc - that doesn't have the same motivations. Also, you'd expect the classified stuff to run on an airgapped network (or equivalent), so that there's no real attack vector anyway.

<comment><USER5> Well, stuxnet showed us that the vector is real and does exist.</comment></comment></comment>