skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ya know, honestly, I don't think this is really the place to get any deeper into that. I mean, I don't mind talking about it, but it's not really on-topic here at HN. And as soon as I give you an answer, somebody is going to fire back telling me I'm wrong, and why... and then somebody else is going to chime in, and we're going to be rehashing a debate about guns that's been argued over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again...

If you're really interested though, shoot me an email and I'll be happy to discuss it "out of band" w/ respect to Hacker News.
The list of publications is really impressive:

https://gnunet.org/bibliography?f%5Bkeyword%5D=2
That was my first thought. The prosecutor took it upon himself to manipulate two people. It should have been the police's job to probe the veracity of the alibis.
More importantly, it's an indication that the average citizen who he expects to hear about this wouldn't realize how superficial it is.

It got on Hacker News.
Gag orders and supplied public statements.
RailsGirls is a good thing.
The interplay of memory and skill is something that interests me a lot, even though I claim no expertise in the field.

Historical evidence implies that it is true that the people who are able to leverage the tools at their disposal (be that actual tools like cell phones or just applying recent scientific breakthroughs) tend to do well in their life.

On the other hand, we have the idea that the mind is a muscle and it works best if we train it hard. In this mindset, we see objects as crutches that are best to be avoided in order to improve the mind as efficiently as possible.

I and people around me tend to focus on the first paradigm, leaving the second one unexplored.

One of the reasons may be that it is still largely philosophical: if you wanted to improve your memory, what would you do? There are books on people that use tricks to remember large digits and other chunks of data (the brother of Jonathan Safran, Joshua Foer, wrote one).

However, most of us believe that this is not the same type of memorization that can enable us to do pattern matching in our memories faster (which is what mathematicians need the most, being able to see parallels to math they've done before).

And even if we had a trick to pattern-match faster, in order to raise it from the level of "it was described in popular literature, but has no scientific basis" like mind maps and such, we would have to conduct very large studies to verify its validity, which is something that is not done at all in this area.

As a side remark, this is the same problem I have with nootropics. What works and what doesn't? For memorization and focus, it seems ADD medicine works somewhat. For Paul Erdös it was amphetamines which boosted his creativity -- is that better for us mathematicians? And what do these drugs do with us in the long term? Almost all evidence is anecdotal, and I'm not willing to risk my health to be a smarter scientist.
Since you all have nothing to hide, please post the following:

Name
Address
Phone #
date of birth
SS #
credit card numbers+ expr dates+cvv
Routing and account numbers for relevant bank accounts
Logins/passwords to commonly used services
Your security question/answer combos
Pictures of all your keys on your keychain

Well, unless, you're a terrorist and don't want to volunteer this info.
These companies could write a 500 bullet point list of every possible denial variation, and people would still say there's weasel wording.

If they said not a single packet of customer data is sent to the NSA, they'd say that's because it is laundered through the FBI first. Or, they'd say it could be sent by sneakernet. Or they'd say that it is sent to GCHQ so that the UK can snoop domestically on US citizens to avoid the NSA legal restrictions.

It's simply not possible to construct a denial to which there is no "workround". At this point, no matter what the NSA or the companies say, or Congress says, no one will believe them.

If we can't even get nuts to stop calling the moon landing a hoax, or the 9/11 truthers who think the building was a controlled detonation, there's no way this conspiracy will ever end, even if it turns out to be something much more mundane than first leaked.
"we have not joined any program that would give the government for any country whose name begins with a vowel direct access to ports 81-49152 on any of our servers" -- so they're using FTP or just plain HTTP? On a more serious note, the big problem with PRISM and these new developments is that even if you were to participate, you could not tell us (without going to prison). So, all these "we don't do it, trust us" notices ring hollow since we can't really trust them; sorry...
Equador's ambassador recalled over Assange.
Or even a bit of paint, done nicely.
It's almost like a fundamentalist's abortion doctor hitlist. This is inviting everyone who cares about privacy to search through the retweeted's internet persona and expose any incongruity.
West-coast guy here, I'd never heard of Yuengling till I visited Virginia Beach. And I'll agree, for a "swill" beer, that's some pretty good stuff you've got going on there!
Here is a very interesting and cogent article from David Foster Wallace from 2007 about this very thing:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/just-ask...

The truth is that Obama may be correct: it might be a valid trade to give up some freedom for security. But in a democracy it would be better to have that debate openly and let everyone have input into it.

The main issue here, IMO, is the lack of democracy or accountability over this particular level of surveillance. Even those representatives who knew about it and wanted to have a public debate about it were kept quiet.
Privacy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more resources we waste fighting for it, the bigger the real problem (which exploits the lack of privacy) will grow.

The problem is not publicity. It's the government.
This is ridicules.
"So the prosecutor actually prevented two crimes from being committed."

Do we really know that? It caused the women to "go crazy", perhaps crazy enough to want to hurt the boyfriend, which they could do by withdrawing their alibi.

We simply can't know from the info in the article.
Currently it seems to be a meme more than anything.

For actual answer to your question, there was a comment about it yesterday:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5842769
"hey do look much more presentable after being boiled/steamed (color change) and presented on a plate with garnish, though."

Well, I guess that's valid for pretty much all food from dead animal origin
Investing Time to Create Time: A Simple Time Management Plan
What? Can you repeat that, but explain it more clearly?
I am in my early 40s, grew up in SEAsia and Australia. Although I enjoy relatively lack of surveillance in those area, I lived in a time where the cold war was occurring between East and West and just after the infamous FBI [1] surveillances. So surveillance has always been there.

I truly believe that our population were always under surveillance (either covertly or overtly), it just that in todays' technological landscape, the folks doing the surveying are easier to be caught out.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
You don't seem to understand how this works.

If you ask a nudist to get naked in a non-nudist environment, he's probably going to refuse. The same rules don't apply to every context.

The world post-privacy is going to be totally different from the one we currently live in.
How three pacifists were convicted as terrorists
I'd love to see digital privacy taught as part of the curriculum in public school computer classes. If every student learned their rights when they learned how to type, these fools with 'nothing to hide' would think a bit deeper about all the information (including the info that may be used against them in a court of law) they've posted online over the past 10-15 years.
Don't see the problem here. He did not intimidate, falsify evidence, or otherwise violate due process.

His job is (was) to uphold the law, not his boss' moral code.
I just read this http://danielsieradski.com/nothing-to-hide/14572 and understood the goal. So +1.
Sigh! This is almost a very predictable blog post. But, I find one part quite amusing.

Google - We are the first company to be open about data requests from governments.

Easy Post - We are the first company to be open about data requests from governments.

So who is the first after all? I guess this is turning out to be one of those commercial stints where each product claims itself to be the No.1 in the world.
Zoho can be a good substitute and might fit your needs.
Then why was it not published, acknowledged and made known?
I wonder how many people will miss the subtlety here...
It's pretty evident that people get the exact kind of government they want and deserve. I feel no sympathy for anyone in this whole fiasco.
JULinux
This is JULinux. A Linux distribution designed for existing Windows and Mac users looking to switch to Linux. There are two versions, JULinuXP and JULinOX OS for Windows and Mac users. the XP version is like Windows, and the OX OS version is like MAC OS X. Each version uses the MATE desktop and uses very little RAM. Recent reviews on the FB page, e-mail, and other sources say that it's either the fastest Linux distro (There are faster ones) or that it's faster and better than Ubuntu or Mint. JULinux has added many security features for online privacy. It comes with programs that users said they couldn't live without. It also has ClamAV so you can use it to scan a Windows system and remove viruses if you like. It works with the Steam game platform, Netflix, and other things Windows users and Mac users may want. The default formats for office are doc, xls, and ppt. The goal is to eliminate excuses not to Just Use Linux.
Validation in Android - Why did I 'scratch my itch' and how it saves our time?
For people who didn't get the (probably too subtle) joke, that's all this is -- a joke.

Not every relatively-unknown company can be as lucky as PalTalk.
Hey, that's great--but were they accused of anything?

From my perspective, this seems more like a grab for attention than anything else.

I work for a technology company too, and we also didn't provide data to the NSA. We're not releasing a statement, though, because no one accused us of doing so.

Forgive me if EasyPost was included somewhere and I missed it.
I also have no problem with those people willingly sending anyone any of their personal information. The problem is when people aren't given a choice whether their personal information is kept secret.
Agree totally. The word "terrorist" is useless. It's even less useful when used against anyone who hasn't yet been convicted, in order to justify bypassing normal judicial due process (as the parent was implying, and as many countries have done, including the UK and, shamelessly, France).

The only way for the terrorists to win is to transform modern democracies into paranoid, self-centered, hysteric societies.

Terrorists appear to be winning so far, but it's a long game. We should really not play their game.
Privacy has no intrinsic value whatsoever. All it does is slow down those who can use information against people. To win, we must fight the threat (government). Privacy only gives us time, which itself won't solve anything.
The background they chose is nice.
Exactly. The freedom of choice is a very important factor in democracy.
Ask HN: How to find a performance based "conversion" optimizer?
We run http://www.veodin.com/keyrocket and have some steady traffic and premium revenue. We're looking for somebody to optimize conversions because we are focused on B2B sales and new product development. The person should have webdesign(wordpress) & analytics experience.

Where would you look for somebody like that?
It would be the same as post-gun world. The ones who would retain privacy would rule the world.
How should we format relative dates for post times on Discourse?
All of this was totally expected. I fail to understand all the drama surrounding it. Just acknowledge reality and kill the monster before it's too late.
At the time of writing this comment, only 25 percent of people have realised that this is satirical.
What Is PRISM?
Given the number of people that missed it, I kinda think the government could flat out issue statements that "We are in fact watching everything you do" and just hide it in enough nuance that no one knows any better.

They likely already do this. Somewhere. In a drawer in a file cabinet in a closet with a sign that says beware the cheetah.
I often share that opinion, at least with regard to politics. But the problem with the privacy is that this is happening on the global stage. I'm not an American, but I do care about this. It's affecting everybody.

If I'd be pessimistic (and I am...) I'd say this is just a step in slow process that will have some drastic consequences for the freedom in the whole world.
Unknown startup, headline grabbing PR based on facetious response to trending scandal, thousands of hackers asking what on earth is EasyPost, well played.
When you walk in the street, do you choose whether I see your or not? Why shouldn't consent be necessary in that case, but should be in others?

EDIT: Who sets the limit between what is implicitly private and public? Let's say I made the decision to add thermal vision to my left eye, and happen to see what you do inside your house. Am I hurting your privacy?
Don't forget corporate secrets.

What are your profit margins?
What is the maximum/minimum you're willing to pay for all of your current negotiations?
What is the design/strategy for your latest products?
What is your exact security plan + policy?
Who are your best employees, and how much should they really be getting paid?

We probably won't share it with your competitors, promise, probably even if you're a foreign company, but regardless you won't know either way
I have plenty to hide. I'm only human.
The Guardian did a pretty good job at redacting the wikileaks stuff; I think they're trying to be responsible with the information.
Basic stuff: Stability, system of law, contrast available legal structures, different types of taxation, financial services, visa/immigration, shipping/logistics concerns, internal geographic breakdown, indicative service costings (utilities, advertising, etc.), nature of local human resources market, notable commercial events/tradeshows, trends over time with all of the above, etc.
No one stops you from getting information about them. I mean, beside all the pro-privacy drama kids in this circlejerk.
What is seldom mentioned is how information is processed and stored. Innocent personal data can be combined to create a false image of someone, which can then be used against them. You might find yourself, for example, on a no-fly because you bought a book about making bombs. The fact that you are working on your latest best-selling novel was ignored.
Since this isn't immediately clear to commenters - this is designed to be ironic. I don't know if all the people volunteering tweets know that, but it's clearly described in the website linked on this Twitter account[1].

I highly recommend you go there for further reading, it presents a lot of useful data about the FBI and the United States' breach of privacy and constitutional rights recently and historically.

The author is trying to send a message ironically and rally people against the NSA's abuses and the corollary fallacy of "If you have nothing to hide, why do you care?" which has also been debunked by Bruce Schneier[2].

Just wanted to put that out there.

[1]: http://danielsieradski.com/nothing-to-hide/14572

[2]: https://www.schneier.com/essay-114.html
Public/private situation, obviously. When I'm making a phone call from my home (or business!) to another persons' phone, I'm not in the public.
You don't have to hide anything. You simply choose to, which is sad.
It wouldn't surprise me if pigs are not allowed because in the middle east they were (and still are, sometimes) used to clean refuse (they eat it).
Global humanism of course is as destructive of human cultural diversity as global capitalism is of natural biodiversity, also.
Selenium - Web Browser Automation
Security vs. Privacy (2008)
Hotels in Ireland
oh New York Times, always a fine reading in the Sunday morning, in fact very interesting. Just to show what lobbyist and the private sector are willing to do, in order to stay in business.
> To win, we must fight the threat (government).

Yes, because governments are the only entities that want your private data.
False. All participants have admitted it in their statements (turning over specific user data in response to court orders). PRISM just turned out not to be as nefarious as initially reported.
Ahh, yes! The further we go from nature, the more problems we create for ourselves. The Taoists are right.
Don't forget nude pics and a list of fetishes and people you've slept with!
For once, an article that defends privacy while recognizing the non-obviousness of the issue. That makes it unusually convincing, but there is still one part I find weak:

Investigating the nothing-to-hide argument a little more deeply, we find that it looks for a singular and visceral kind of injury. Ironically, this underlying conception of injury is sometimes shared by those advocating for greater privacy protections. For example, the University of South Carolina law professor Ann Bartow argues that in order to have a real resonance, privacy problems must "negatively impact the lives of living, breathing human beings beyond simply provoking feelings of unease." She says that privacy needs more "dead bodies," and that privacy's "lack of blood and death, or at least of broken bones and buckets of money, distances privacy harms from other [types of harm]."

Bartow's objection is actually consistent with the nothing-to-hide argument. Those advancing the nothing-to-hide argument have in mind a particular kind of appalling privacy harm, one in which privacy is violated only when something deeply embarrassing or discrediting is revealed. Like Bartow, proponents of the nothing-to-hide argument demand a dead-bodies type of harm.

Bartow is certainly right that people respond much more strongly to blood and death than to more-abstract concerns. But if this is the standard to recognize a problem, then few privacy problems will be recognized. Privacy is not a horror movie, most privacy problems don't result in dead bodies, and demanding evidence of palpable harms will be difficult in many cases.

The author dismisses the "need for blood" as too extreme, but that is not convincing. For example, consider the most compelling argument in the article, which is that government data collection creates a Kafkaesque world in which the opacity of the procedures renders the individuals powerless:

Government information-gathering programs are problematic even if no information that people want to hide is uncovered. In The Trial, the problem is not inhibited behavior but rather a suffocating powerlessness and vulnerability created by the court system's use of personal data and its denial to the protagonist of any knowledge of or participation in the process. The harms are bureaucratic ones—indifference, error, abuse, frustration, and lack of transparency and accountability.

This is a powerful argument, but it is not going to convince a majority of people unless you can show real harm. Not blood or broken bones, but actual cases where good guys (as perceived by the majority) were harmed by government surveillance, e.g. harassed or put to jail. Why would people feel a "suffocating powerlessness and vulnerability" if the Kafkaesque bureaucracy does not eventually bring actual harm? (The case of Aaron Swartz is not an example: the problem lied with the CFAA rather than government surveillance).

I'm still optimistic: the process will work as usual. Government powers will be abused. There will be scandals. In the long term, laws will be improved and transparency will increase. What reasons do I have to think otherwise?
1. The Guardian article that leaked this program used that exact term.
2. This is a joke.

That's what we make out of this.
So ... What about port 22?
Amazon affiliate theme that spits out money like a spitting cobra
Amazon affiliate theme that spits out money like a spitting cobra.

This theme is red hot and is smarter than data from Star Trek ( It literally Thinks For Itself! )
Assume someone at the NSA has access to the data. Assume they have money problems or drugs or gambling. Assume a criminal or terrorist organization has money to buy access. Assume you're screwed.
Not to worry, citizen--great strides are being made in the pricing of medication and health services so even that opportunity for harm will elude you!
And please send credit card of Obama. But that would be terrorism.
Please don't post about WWDC tommorow
I don't think the WWDC with it's (as some other user said it) "shiny new devices" is relevant given the current situation. Just a thought.
> I don't know if all the people volunteering tweets know that

They're not volunteering tweets are they? Surely the retweeting is without their knowledge or approval.

> The author is trying to send a message ironically and rally people against the NSA's abuses

A worthy goal, but I wonder if it might be self-defeating. It portrays this data-gathering as something a huge amount of people simply do not mind.
So why is NSA hiding anything from public?
What's the URL for the live feed from your bedroom?
I really would like to have links to the studies mentioned, the most interesting one I could find is:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205797 — 2007, Cited by 1214

Treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E may increase mortality.
The potential roles of vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study

Who would have guessed eating too much of something could be bad for your health</sarcasm>
Read Ben Goldacre's Bad Pharma.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Pharma-companies-mislead-patient...
> Who sets the limit between what is implicitly private and public?

Common sense. In most cases, it resolves the issue. Yes - if you are snooping on me inside my house, you are hurting my privacy.
But the choice needs to be free, not coerced. Programs like Global Entry, TSA Pre, and CLEAR are examples of (minor) coercion, inconveniencing those who do not sign up.
I found another tweet by Glenn saying that we won't see the full redacted presentation because "it contains very specific technical NSA means for collection - we'd probably be prosecuted if we did."

I also found another tweet by him that says (in reply to someone) " There are all sorts of secrets I have I'm not publishing - it's public interest v. harm analysis at the heart of journalism."

[1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343454484917280770?p=v

[2] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343453682387542016?p=v

I hope he's making a good judgement call on not releasing the technical information. A lot of people are already writing this presentation off as fake and meaningless.
Prediksi Skor Togo vs Cameroon 09 Juni 2013
Prediksi Skor Togo vs Cameroon 09 Juni 2013. Prediksi Togo vs Cameroon. Prediksi Pertandingan Togo vs Cameroon.
If all of the privacy breaching done by your government isn't an issue then nobody should criticize Adolf Hitler for 'spying' on his citizens, either. Ever. What he did was - if we use the logic of whoever benefits from this practice - perfectly fine. Because nobody had nothing to hide, at least not the decent folks! Right?
So using this logic, Hitler was right. America is - by the way - far worse than Hitler's Germany ever was with regard to restrictiveness, control and breach of personal privacy. Yet Hitler is always the bad man and a poster boy for everything that is wrong with your country...funny.