skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Osama Bin Laden is dead, remember? Who is our enemy now? At what point is the war on terror over -- when do we declare victory?

The problem here is that there is no end to this. It will drag on and on, with more and more freedoms lost as long as people continue to cower in fear like this.
arrington needs friends in silicon valley a lot more than he needs your clicks. whatever you think of the man this is an honest and indignant post and it's an example of the courage he speaks of.

it is fascinating that this concept is so difficult for an otherwise intelligent community to grasp and a reminder of why we still need journalists.
Arrington is a drama queen IMHO, there are more important voices like the EFF, ACLU, et al to listen to on this issue. It's hard to trust where this indignation is clickbait fake, or real.
Like others have said, voice would be impractical over Tor or VPN. Text would be better. The thing that most comes to mind is DeadDrop http://deaddrop.github.io/.
You're mistaken. The victims of terrorism are not going to be ignored by their own government, nor should they. Further, countries that have adopted the approach you mention, such as the UK, eventually ended up negotiating with their antagonists as part of a managed settlement. While I certainly do not think there is much value in running about with one's hair on fire (so to speak) the notion that any country could or would ignore an event like 9-11 as you suggest is just laughably unrealistic. It seems not to have occurred o you that the Us had repeatedly been the target of lower level terrorism from the same source over the previous decade and made minimal responses to it, yet Al Qaeda actually escalated the intensity of its attacks instead. According to you, they should have given up in frustration and chosen another way to pursue their goals, so I'd say your theory doesn't match up very well with events in the real world.
Buy bitcoin for cash, preferably from someone you don't know.
Pres. Obama has dinner with the tech giants
JAX Conference 2013
Asking your government to change the laws when your government has shown you have no power over it is a waste of time.

There's a growing intellectual understanding that corporations control the governmental processes from start to finish. Therefore, asking the government to change is stupid.

If the King rules your country, petition the King for mercy.

If an oligarch rules your country, petition the oligarch for mercy.

If a corporate elite rules your country, petition the corporate elite.

Democracy is, quite simply, completely dead. Gone. Done. The government does not institute change based on democratic opinion. You have no control over your government. They aren't the real seat of power in this society.

Having said that, most of the power resides on Wall Street and in the Military-Industrial-Security complex rather than Silicon Valley corporations. But these Silicon Valley corporations are now rich enough to change the laws. They can crown themselves King with the right kind of manoeuvring, and Arrington here is trying to get them to do so.

Petitioning Larry Page or Paul Graham to have a conscience is far more fruitful than voting for the government you want.
Chrome has certificate pinning, see
http://blog.chromium.org/2011/06/new-chromium-security-featu...:

"In addition in Chromium 13, only a very small subset of CAs have the authority to vouch for Gmail (and the Google Accounts login page). This can protect against recent incidents where a CA has its authority abused, and generally protects against the proliferation of signing authority."

(disclaimer: I work for Chrome but not on these features.)
Guardian publishes third secret NSA document, on cyberwar
Oh come, why do you have to spoil the confirmation bias party?
This denial is fairly categorical. Any objection that centres on the idea that they're only saying this because they have to is in conspiracy theory territory. Nothing that Google says could possibly disprove that claim.
Hah, unbelievable. This is exactly what CISPA was for. How do you not see that.
At this point, we are just guessing.

* Backbone route

* SSL, MIM hack

* indirect access like real-time backups.

* sudo RO access via vpn

* Remote Access to BigTable queries

* Team inside the company

* What china does.

Gotto love lawyers. They harp on the most ambiguous term.

Cowardice is an accurate term to describe ferengi, not to mention unpatriotic.

Who wants to give up the Jacuzzi ?
We get 355ml cans here in New Zealand - I had no idea it related to anything at all. Thank you.
And nobody should live in a house, sitting there in plain clothes accessible to god knows how many people in their neighborhood.
But it's the principle of the thing, even though we evaluate the risk of terrorism in terms of incidental probabilities, rather than the principle that you should be able to go about your life without being randomly killed. This is different because it's destructive of liberty, unlike corporations doing the exact same thing for profit.
From the article:

> FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms, lawyers who work with the orders said.

Looks like personal data could be turned over (well, at least part of your search history) even if you're not being targeted individually.
Google: 'we cannot say this more clearly,' no government access to servers
A) Prohibition does not work. Not for alcohol, not for plants, not for drugs, and sure as hell not for long binary sequences. The most aggressive possible pursuit of cryptography will achieve just one thing; now it's steganographic to boot, congratulations.

B) I travel the world constantly primarily to avoid having to answer to any government, standing out because of a lack of social media profiles is somewhat laughable by comparison.

C, D, E and F) the harder you push the better we hide. Prohibition will never work. Bring it on.
Y'know, I'd like to believe I'd do that in this situation, too. But people are more generous in theory than in practice. You have to realize: Mark Zuckerberg isn't just looking out for Mark Zuckerberg by posting what he did. He has a family, a social life, and a whole lot of people at Facebook who depend on him. To whom, perhaps, it would not be fair for Zuck to martyr himself on the great gallows of the United States of Atrocity in futile protest of its horrifying surveillance subterfuge.

It's very easy to ignore this sort of thing when it's not your ass on the line. Bradley Manning had a different kind of freedom, the kind that comes with nobody around you who can get hurt. The feds turned Sabu, the infamous LulzSec hacker, by threatening his three-year-old daughter. The United States government is not above such tactics.

I don't, frankly, believe that Arrington himself would behave much differently in the same situation. Life is not that easy.

Or, in the timeless words of Robert Oppenheimer:

"I am become Death, destroyer of worlds."
You're confusing the two leaks (I did too, it's deliberately confusing). The PRISM project does not even require FISA approval. The reason it exists is to not require FISA approval. The analyst just has to check a box saying that they reasonably believe that there is a 51% chance that the target is foreign.
Yes! Go to Coit Tower, Twin Peaks, Marina Green, the Presidio, Japantown, North Beach, Alta Plaza park, The DeYoung museum and the SFMoma.
"What we have in our hands now is the first concrete proof of U.S.-based high-tech companies participating with the NSA in wholesale surveillance on us, the rest of the world, the non-American, you and me," he said.

- Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at Finnish software security firm F-Secure.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/07/europe-surveillanc...
People like you are the reason I would waive my right to a jury trial. You are so caught up in your own bias that it causes you to literally see things that aren't there, like your accusation that danso 'want[s] to lock a father who beats up a rapist for longer than the rapist.'
In a world without CSS...
> This results in actual information loss

The "History" subsection of the "Closed city" article acutally contains more information on such cities that the "Atomgrad" article did. The list of "atomgrads" in the original article were already included in the list of Russian closed cities.

If there are additional important details that you feel are missing from the "Closed city" article, please feel free to add them.

> now the original post makes no sense

I make edits on Wikipedia in order to make Wikipedia a better resource, not to make it more consistent with Hacker News posts. I am not a HN editor, so I cannot edit this post's title to "Closed Cities". I think the added information from the "Closed city" article more than makes up for any confusion that people who click on the link from HN but fail to read this comment thread, the notification at the top of the "Closed city" article that they have been redirected from the "Atomgrads" article, or the edit history of either article.
Djangocon Europe 2013 Videos are out
No, it's a way of handing it over without a court order.
Did you even read the NYT article? They said requests can be very broad, like logs for certain search terms and people staying in the company building for weeks with all the data being gathered in government laptops. That is pretty much realtime and "direct access".
Is Rovio In Trouble?
I find the idea that they listen to so much far more alarming than that they have the ability to break encryption.
Ex-Zynga Employees Tell All on Reddit
I was thinking the destruction would be more philosophical, an acute and immediate version of the slow burn that seems to be pulling it apart at the middle now.

If a city got nuked I think its possible that the US might split into two groups. Those that would literally accept a police state to prevent it from happening again and those (mostly who didn't live in cities like the one destroyed) who would not. I believe that this would end in two or more independent countries.
I think the point the OP is making is that if it were someone like Mark Zuckerberg, the protest wouldn't be futile. It would likely trigger a nationwide debate about the constitutionality of the program and it would possibly be overturned in court.
I think so. hardly an objective source on Google, but to quote Gruber:

Google Glass Banned From Google Shareholder Meeting ★

Matt Clinch, CNBC:

Tight security restrictions at Thursday’s Google shareholder meeting led even the company’s much-hyped Google Glass technology to be banned, infuriating a consumer watchdog group who accused the tech giant of hypocrisy.

Eric Schmidt, back in 2009:

“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”
That is the most terrifying thing to me. The US government can do anything with their people. It's their government after all and they are responsible for running it. But US government doing wholesale surveillance on everyone else? Fuck them if thats what is happening.
I don't think I can guess about how well whatever the search warrant APIs are scale to "look at everyone" without speculating overly much about the design of the system. I would argue that, regardless of the access method, if someone is looking at the terabytes or petabytes or yottabytes or however many bytes of emails there are, you're once again back to a huge amount of network or CPU or whatever utilization. Eg, even if the database access is allowed and off the record, the database admin should still be wondering why the load is so high, as if everyone in the world were reading all of their email simultaneously. And then you're back to gossip and everyone internally knowing about it.

The TLS keys are an interesting angle. Are TLS keys typically one (small set) per site, or would each server typically generate its own unique keys? Even with the latter the surface area might be small enough within Google that no one would accidentally stumble upon it.
Overlapping phrases used in Page and Zuckerberg's comments
> Be specific. Figure out exactly why each component is problematic. Understand that.

Totally agree.

> But it's better than belief.

As someone dealing with what might be called a mild epistemological crisis, I can sympathize with the advice to apply agnosticism liberally, but I'm not sure belief can be avoided. If you want to take action for or against something, you have to ask: what if your information about that thing is malformed or incomplete, due to human error (either your own or somewhere in your chosen network of cognitive authority) or even malice? The answer is that you'll never know for sure. You could always be the victim of your own or someone else's bias.

So I'm just saying, action requires a leap of faith, sometimes just a microscopic leap, but a leap nonetheless. Belief is, alas, inescapable.
I'm not even sure how "we're only spying on our friends" is supposed to make anything better. Like no one in any other country has a right to privacy.
See the people who are making these statements don't know. The only people who know are the ops teams, and they really can't tell, because they could fairly easily just disappear.
Ask HN: Is Surveillance without cooperation possible?
Google and Facebook has denied government access to servers and backdoors. What are all the possible ways for a Government with big pocket to obtain user data without co-operation of the service providers?

May be like, corrupting certificate authorities and being man in the middle.

Lets say I'm just curious.

So what are the Possible methods for mass surveillance without service provider cooperation?
If there's anyone to go after, it's the ranking members of the Special Committee on Intelligence, who wrote FISA and greenlighted this policy. Sadly, the ranking members are the near-80 Dianne Feinstein and lame-duck Saxby Chambliss; their successors are probably Jay Rockefeller and Susan Collins.

While I don't think single-issue voting is a good political strategy, in this particular case it seems prudent to consider that the reprehensibility of the whole affair and the complicity of those few most able to stop it calls into question their moral fiber. We can't -- and shouldn't -- hope to kick every pro-surveillance Congressman out of office, but when someone in a position of influence helps betray the country to this degree we should take notice.
This is classic Prisoner's Dilemma.

If all of them come out at the same time - everybody benefits.

But if 1 of them screws everybody over, the screwed will be royally screwed.
Fluff piece. You can make up a story for almost any change you envision. Good articles would think such stories through; this does not sufficiently do so (but of course, its conclusion would then be "we don't know")

For example, larger heads would eliminate all natural births, require changes to the female anatomy to let those heads pass the birth canal, or require huge changes to the way heads develop after birth. A serious attempt at predicting the future should have addressed this.

Similarly, why have so much bigger eyes that look like bieng in risk of dropping out of their sockets if we can fit cameras directly after birth? In 100 millennia, I would expect such cameras to be superior to natural eyes in every aspect, including the current main stumbling block light sensitivity range.

And of course, if we will conquer space, one can argue that legs would either atrophy or become additional hands.
VIVID SYDNEY - 2013 .. Last 2 nights
Without more details it's hard to say what exactly went wrong, but it is not at all clear that a ballpark estimate would be of any help here: The submarine weighs 2200 tons, and they think it's 70 tons too heavy.
> Will you do it, Marissa? Or you, Ballmer? Or you, Armstrong? Will anyone stand up and say the truth? Will anyone stand up to the secret organization with the secret courts and, simply, do what’s right? Despite the consequences? Despite what your lawyers tell you?

Silly man. Exactly how hard is it to ask someone else, with way more to lose than you, to be a martyr for a cause you feel strongly about?
The Warrant Canary
Great idea and product. I will gladly pay for it. One of the biggest issues I had when transitioning from pc to mac was the lack of meaningful shortcuts. This would have eased the pain greatly!

I could not figure out how to click an element when using . to highlight all elements.
WebRTC: Security and Confidentiality
A hidden/secret court order that can at times ask for broad thing like search term logs and

> In one recent instance, the National Security Agency sent an agent to a tech company’s headquarters to monitor a suspect in a cyberattack, a lawyer representing the company said. The agent installed government-developed software on the company’s server and remained at the site for several weeks to download data to an agency laptop.

> In other instances, the lawyer said, the agency seeks real-time transmission of data, which companies send digitally.

That is more than what they currently do.
To challenge immoral behavior in court may be much harder than you think, and TBH I don't think it's even needed here (though IANAL so this is me speculating). I think it's enough to claim that what NSA did is unconstitutional.
Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like an overreaction. The specific allegation is that companies have set up "digital version of the secure physical rooms that have long existed for classified information, in some instances on company servers." Why is this a problem? Do we honestly except companies to print out paper copies of digital data just to inconvenience government agents who ultimately have a legal right to that data?

I understand wanting to narrow the scope of the data available, but no one has put forth evidence yet that Facebook is periodically giving the government the equivalent of an SQL dump. Unlike Verizon, they appear to be producing limited information in response to a specific request on foreign nationals.. Streamlining this process doesn't raise the same issues for me as does the Verizon order.
1, They got same press release template.
2, they all give govt indirect access to the servers, e.g. ssh.
3, relax, we Chinese have had this since day 1. You think govt can really outsmart determined people?
Moreover, these people cannot speak the truth since they do not know it. The surgeries were done far away from the C-suite.
What's a 'Diffie-Hellman key'?
The problem with all the denials is that journalists say "Google is doing X" and Google responds "We aren't doing Y" and everyone debates whether Y = X, Y is a subset of X, or Y is something completely different.

I feel as if so much could be cleared up if they would simply respond line by line to the stories by the NYTimes and Washington Post.
Warrant Canary - Indirectly inform your users if you've been hit with a FISA gag
And GM got a $49 billion TARP bailout. Not specifically for making alt-fuel vehicles; just because they were a failure. But we should all be really incensed about those tesla guys getting a loan. Which they repaid already. Because that's not fair.
Weird pic. That seems to be an assistant's desk just outside the oval office (which you can see through the door).
> © 2013 AOL Inc. All rights reserved.

TechCrunch = AOL

AOL = Program Participant

I mean, okay, so at least the editor and the writer for this article can be sort of credited with promoting discussion of some paper thin lip service, but what about including AOL as part of their list of villains in this narrative.

...or at least offer a "full disclosure" disclaimer at the end of the article, right?

Obviously the same goes for huffington post articles, since they were absorbed by AOL too, after all.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onion-urges-barack-obam...
See http://trac.enlightenment.org/e/wiki/Wayland and the linked info on building a version of EFL that uses Wayland.
Yes, and murderers always insist that they're innocent. QED. We've got them now!
Even if it did, imagine how awfully damaging that would be for Google's image worldwide. So I could see why their immediate knee jerk reaction about it is to hide it as much as possible.

If he is telling the truth, at least about this very specific thing (not having access to "Google's servers"), then it's still possible they are giving them easy access in some other way, such as copying the data to other servers that are "not Google's servers".

So worse case scenario, he's blatantly lying about it. Probably best case scenario, they're still giving them the data wholesale in some way, and he's playing word games and semantics.

I have a very hard time believing none of this is happening, at this point. I hope I'm wrong though, but even then, the NSA probably has direct pipes into the carriers and ISP's, and at the very least have access to all the data going through US pipes that is unencrypted (and the encrypted data is stored for later - i.e. the 5 billion terrabyte Utah data center).
Glenn Greenwald audio interview
GitHub's CSS Performance (2012)
Weird, somehow extra characters are being added to the end of that url. Removing the trailing / fixes it.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onion-urges-barack-obam...
Maybe you and many others would be better off by paying attention to actions vs words, and notice which company was the first to push back on the government to provide transparency to national security letters when everyone else bowed down before the government. Being skeptical and not falling for feel good platitudes could help all of us.
I don't find this one very remarkable - it basically consists of 'identify targets that would be of strategic importance in any potential future conflict.' Many military powers, and certainly all those with nuclear capability, do that as a matter of course, which is why things like spy satellites exist. Taking into accounts all the caveats (see eg pages 8-10) this seems pretty inoffensive.
Why has this program been secret for more than a day, or a month? Are we to believe that the leaders of the most technologically advanced companies on Earth are so unsophisticated they can imagine the only way to let the world know a secret is to tell it directly?

Governments and companies know how to leak. The only logical conclusion is that these surveillance programs are not actually significantly upsetting to most of these folks.
Do you understand what a conscience is? Only if you do you can understand that post. Really.

"Legal" is worthless if it is inhuman. So one MUST stand against inhuman laws.