skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Why wouldn't it affect Chrome if the Root CA is trusted by Chrome? According to http://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/root-ca-polic... they use the underlying OS list except in the case of Linux in which they use Mozilla's list.
I don't think they are. I think ISP's allow government equipment on their networks to capture traffic as they see fit. If every ISP participates, then they have Google data, Facebook data, Yahoo data, and on and on.
Anyone can guess/know why?
Two Questions for the Software Craftsman
But in the end the Palantiri were corrupted for evil ends were they not? It is interesting how myths are relived in cyclic time is it not? The stories become patterns in life and when we bind ourselves to stories we seem to bind ourselves to their endings.
There's a meme on Reddit that revolves around 'so brave': basically calling people/posts/comments out for obvious pandering.

This reads like a pastiche of Keith Olbermann, all bravado and empty gusto. Arrington writes:

What has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth?

and then acknowledges that doing so, if it meant breaking FISA, is illegal.

Because their lawyers might be telling them what they are required to do. But their soul should be telling them what they must do.

What the hell does this even mean?

Listen, I completely agree with the central premise that we need to have an actual conversation both about privacy in the age of Facebook and the Kafka-esque way the U.S. government has engineered these catch-22 gag orders. But given Arrington's experience both with AOL and with the overall notion of privacy, I'd expect something with a little more substance and perspective.
while you're waiting, you can remap the caps lock key to ctrl (type cmd-space, then "caps lock" and open the Keyboard preferences item that comes up).
Digital Due Process Coalition
I like this quote, but Ben Franklin didn't live in a world where a device the size of a beer cooler could instantly turn Philadelphia into a parking lot.
It works like this:

User -> Interface -> X Server -> Network -> X Client

The huge functional difference (in terms of what you describe - no idea if that's how Wayland intermediary whatever will actually work) is that with X you do not need an X server running or even configured or even installed on the system the client application is running on - only on the system it is displaying to. This may or may not be significant, depending on how lightweight and portable and easily (and flexibly) configurable the Wayland server winds up being.
Huh?

"Each of the nine companies said it had no knowledge of a government program providing officials with access to its servers, and drew a bright line between giving the government wholesale access to its servers to collect user data and giving them specific data in response to individual court orders. Each said it did not provide the government with full, indiscriminate access to its servers."

Tech companies do not allow widespread open access to their data. They respond to legal requests that come from FISA for records on individual users. Huge difference.
If they are indeed aware of PRISM, I have a feeling that both Mark and Larry are avoiding legal action (or threats of legal action) made by the NSA. To me, that is the most likely reason for not "standing up" and coming out about the truth. To the best of my knowledge, they do fight heavily to keep their data out of government hands because these exact kind of situations are horrible for their companies' reputations.
You should look into how perfect forward secrecy works in TLS before you make these kinds of claims.

[1] http://vincent.bernat.im/en/blog/2011-ssl-perfect-forward-se...
Bradley Mannings own statement, day 1 of trial, with audio
Good thing they found the problem before the sub's first voyage underwater.
Huh? Could not a rogue nation smuggle a nuclear device into a city? How would this not fall under the umbrella of a "foreign" individual posing a threat to US national security?
Just mix it up with OJ post-security. Also, can finish before boarding, the drink of choice will still be cheaper that airport bars.
Spell of the Albino
Huh? Even with WebRTC you need signaling. Unless you know your peer IP address AND neither end are behind a NAT.
Haven't had a landline since 1997, the year I got my first cell phone.

EDIT: Not sure if this counts however. Had a "landline" for my previous startup powered by Ooma (VoIP) so by definition that probably semi-counts
Rolling Stone article : 'ChumpBait' news stories missing the point :

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/as-bradl...
I fail to see how the concept of sexual orientation "is so simplistic that it is useless in any practical situation".

Okay, so you are straight and I'm gay. I can give you a very practical situation: I want to meet someone to have a relationship or just some casual sex with. So I go to a gay bar. Okay, not everyone there will be to my taste, some won't be attractive to me, others won't find me attractive. But we're all on the same page about the wanting-to-have-sex-with-other-dudes thing (except, of course, the straight dudes who go to gay bars to seduce the women who go to gay bars because they aren't filled with douchebags, except they now are because word got out... oh god, kill me now). Without that shared property, any potential sexual or romantic endeavour would be rather fruitless. That's a fairly practical situation which a shared concept of sexual orientation rather helps with.

Hell, if someone made an app that led you voluntarily share your sexual orientation via Google Glass so that others could see you marked as straight or gay or bi... killer app right there. ;)
FP Complete Launches Haskell in Real World Competition
Assange comments on the Trial day 1 :

http://wikileaks.org/Assange-Statement-on-the-First-Day.html
True but obvious. What interesting implications do you think this has for the argument around either sexual orientation or discrimination? Because I can't really see one.

Nutters who leave nail bombs in gay bars are still going to do so regardless of whether I choose to have sex or not. If I have a non-sexual romantic relationship with someone, and we walk through the park holding hands, I still have to worry about some crazy person coming along and being a shitbag about it. If I disclose my sexual orientation, I still have to worry about discrimination in the workplace and housing provision and so on. The issues don't go away just because one is not actively having sex.
Please stop spreading misinformation.

* Google scans email, not other documents in Drive:
http://support.google.com/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=60762

* Just as the NSA claims that collecting data doesn't count until a person reads it, Google affirms that humans do not read user data without permission.

* Documents are are encrypted in transit, not uploaded in clear text.

Google Drive is very much like a safe deposit box in a bank, in terms of user expectation of privacy, and vendor promises.

If my secretary holds my briefcase, is the government allowed to seize it without any warrant or judicial approval?

Email is slightly more complicated, due to automated ads scanning.
Even though this is an actual conspiracy between the government and several large Internet companies?
Mostly because of the inefficiency. I'm concerned about who's going to pay for the servers. I'm concerned that a monopoly walled garden business model might win out and one company would take control of the servers as a strategic choke point. (I'm also concerned about who's paying for our IP routers, since we had a business model that worked fine but ISPs are starting to get greedy.)
Following the arrest, torture (often followed by extra-judicial executions) of numerous FLN members in Algiers and civilian collaborators, the FLN organization in the area was destroyed, and its bombing campaign ended.
This is my thoughts exactly. I cannot imagine any hugely sophisticated data collection infrastructure costing a mere $20m a year.

More likely this is software written to take in structured data obtained by subpoena -- as it's generated by targeted users. This "ultimate user data liberation" API may have even been the system at Google that was attacked by the Chinese: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/chines...
Ok so they split and copy all the packets, nobody else is concerned with the complexity of tagging, filtering, rebuilding and contextualizing this conceptual volume of packet data?

Beam splitters are not enough, they would need something to interpret this traffic.

Something is missing here.
Tearing down America with Orwellian surveillance is one thing, losing NYC to mushroom cloud is something entirely different. The mushroom cloud issue is a very real problem and many (everyone?) would say we would do whatever it takes to prevent such a thing.
Show HN: Open source Snapchat keeper for Android
Alex, what's your email. I can try to help best I can.
It survived Hurricane Katrina, which created devastation similar to a nuclear weapon, albeit with a somewhat lower (though still very significant) death toll.

I think it would matter a lot which city. A nuke in Manhattan? Forget it - there goes the stock exchange, most financial firms, Madison Avenue, 11 million Americans, and the most recognizable city on earth. DC? There goes the government. Cleveland? We'd probably be okay.

Something like Boston or SF would be borderline - it'd be a tragedy, but the country would survive. I wonder what a nuke in Silicon Valley would be like though: a large one well-placed near Sunnyvale would take out Google, Apple, Facebook, EBay, Adobe, and Yahoo.
It is literally impossible for you to know for certain if Larry Page is telling the truth or lying about PRISM. So, now what?

Are you asking Larry to violate the law on National Security Letters, by publicly posting their content?
Many Finnish prepaids are activated from first outbound call. So actually you can use SIM and receive calls, without starting the day counter. Only annoying thing is that SIM must be in home network before it's getting activated. So I can't send Phones & cards all over europe to only receive calls & SMS without starting the timer. In many countries you can get anonymous SIMs direclty from any SIM card automat.
You cannot trust any electronic system.
You demand answers from Google leaders. A Google leader gives you answers. This upsets you?
You must be referring to this:

?- member(what, X).
X = [what|_G2122] ;
X = [_G2121, what|_G2125] ...

If what you have isn't a variable, it is totally reasonable:

?- member(what, []).
false.

This is because, lacking other evidence about what X might be, it can't distinguish between making an assertion about a new quantity ("there is a list X which 'what' is a member of") and a query ("is 'what' in the list?"). Making an assertion like that, however, is pretty normal. It's a perfectly reasonable declarative way to understand this behavior, it's just that this thinking is unusual, so it's weird.

Maybe this little demonstration will give the flavor of why you might want this:

?- length(X, 3), member(what, X).
X = [what, _G942, _G945] ;
X = [_G939, what, _G945] ;
X = [_G939, _G942, what].
Can someone sum up the actual evidence for the claim that PRISM, or something like it, exists? What do we have besides a PowerPoint presentation?

And what are the sources for the claims in this article?

> 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.

I would like to know the source of this information, and to be presented with evidence that it is true.
Another Onion fake news became real.

http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatic...;
The leaked document reads: “Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.” [1]

Its been reported that Facebook set up a secure server where the [NSA|FBI] could retrieve data that had been collected as legally required. [2]

A Google Chief Architect has claimed that no special systems have been built internally to support this. [3]

In summation, the likely setup is that someone (legal) vets the ordered request, oks the internal use of OAuth to spoof access to the data, & dumps it in a secure FTP server for the government to collect. To achieve "near real time", just look how they handle Google Product Feed's - every 30 minutes a "diff" of product data is updated.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-...

[3] https://plus.google.com/u/0/+YonatanZunger/posts/huwQsphBron

edit: corrected Chief Architect title
I think the diatribe is sort of right, though - if they really wanted to end these kind of problems for good all they've got to do is come clean and go public. The second they get 'disappeared' the outcry will force something to actually be done. Likewise, if they really cared about their companies, they'd realize the huge PR advantage to not telling half-truths and going along with whoever's compelling them to cooperate like sheep.
> They respond to legal requests that come from FISA for records on individual users.

We were reassured about the 'individual users' part by the tech companies yesterday. And yet:

> 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.

What's the truth here?
Tech Companies Responses to PRISM Are All the same?
I came to check the latest news on the government's latest attempt to restrict our Internet privacy. and What do I see?That every tech company's response when accused of being part of Prism is the same.Maybe they have the same legal adviser? Perhaps they are sending us a message in plain sight that they're being forced into PRISM? or they coincidentally have the same thought patterns?Does anyone have a opinion they don't mind sharing. It could help my paranoid soul. or make it worse?

Github

http://colingourlay.github.io/deny-prism/

Google

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html

Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10100828955847631

Thanks for posting company responses to PRISIM, ...

raldi

cbrsch

soleimc
Somebody probably puts the census in their inbox, then.
Not only is it pedantic, you are a terrible human for wanting to lock a father who beats up a rapist for longer than the rapist.

These men were old enough to rape, they should be old enough to do the time and if your excuse was that they were juveniles, then just remember that they could (and should have been) charged as adults. Alas the bastards weren't, but that is prosecutal misconduct, not justice.
Yes, the government wrote or approved the statements put out by Page and Zuckerberg.
It's unclear, but the language in the statements is intended to misinform.
> So your point is that since 2.9% of US population are not single-race (estimate of mixed race in the US [1]) the other 97% aren't either?

From a biological perspective, I am not sure you can biologically define "single race" vs "mixed race" to the point where such a categorization makes sense.

I think what you can do is specify identifiable populations which share some identifiable genetic markers (say, Chinese vs Mongolians, or Scandinavians vs Mediterraneans).

So what I am saying is that 2.9% of Americans are socially of "mixed race" but population groups are much more porous than that, and that does not match the biological realities.

This doesn't mean one cannot come up with a biological definition of race, but I don't think it will match our social definitions very closely.
That complicated? Really? The original Google blog post have a feel of being written by a lawyer. I guess a pass through an authorship identification tool can confirm it. So I guess the story of that post on Google blog was actually a pretty simple one and close to the following: "David Drummond wrote the text, Larry got it as an e-mail, added the subject "What the ...?" ;) and published it".
Multiple towers is worse than one. It allows pinpointing the user much more accurately. With three towers with signal strength and timing information you'll get exact location.
> but a test of whether they can imitate a person.

Seems more that he didn't want to argue about definitions, but wanted to phrase it in such a way that anyone denying it would be no different than a solipsist: I think, therefore I am, but I don't know about the rest of you guys.

There are problems with the test (possibly like the very large lookup table argument), but it was a good approach overall.
For obvious reasons, it is illegal for CEOs to sell stock on short notice.
Give me a break. Every other country is spying on every other country. Nobody gives a shit if your torrented a movie.
Want to be the company that people flock to for storing their information? Want to gain the trust to win the coming market conflict over digital wallets and online payments? Defect, call the government's bluff. You will be aided and rewarded.
> What the hell does this even mean?

It means that if telling the truth is illegal, they should have the courage to break the law.
Schneier is a smart guy, but he provides no evidence, links, or conjecture of what this backdoor may be.

Maybe those hackers just used the regular tech support "back door", as in "SELECT * FROM gmail where email = 'target@gmail.com'
Zunger is chief architect of Google+, not of Google as a whole. So he has deep knowledge of a single G product, not all G systems.
It means that people should at least be willing to challenge immoral behavior in a court, even if it's legal.

We don't need to have a "conversation". We need to challenge this behavior in courts, and win.
We trust the same elected officials with weapons capable of making our species extinct and suddenly when we discover the same people have an "information bomb" which can query your porn history, it's time to get upset?
Subarctic launches a simple file sharing service. Seriously no backdoors.
Ok, let's read this closely. It doesn't seem to me like Larry and David are really denying much of anything.

"Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers."

Sure, that's fine. But the fact that the initial PPT gives a specific date on which Google cooperation began already suggests that Google may be handing over data, not that the gov't is sucking it all down automatically.

Also, they say "data centers" in particular. Data travels over lots of other pipes.

"We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday."

Not surprising the NSA wouldn't tell them the secret code name of the project in their discussions.

"we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process."

This is an enormous loophole. "in accordance to the law" could mean anything, and with automated review systems the volume of data passing through could be massive.

"Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period."

Not providing "open-ended acces" does not mean not providing any access.

"We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist."

But not surprised to learn that other not-so-broad orders exist. How broad is too broad?

"Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false."

Not "on such a scale", but on a slightly smaller scale, sure.

"there needs to be a more transparent approach"

In other words, we wish we could tell you about everything we're doing with the NSA, but we aren't allowed to.

Really this doesn't read like any sort of denial at all.
Ask HN: Student visiting San Francisco any places/events I should visit?
Hi, I'm a student that'll be working as an intern very close to the San Francisco area for the summer. I wanted to know if there are any events or places that would be good to see. I'm very interested in networking with people and get to know Silicon Valley. Thanks in advance.
We need to start thinking of lying as "attempting to deceive" instead of "making a knowingly false statement".
PRISM Stopped Najibullah Zazi From Blowing Up Backpacks in the Subway
There's another reason why though it ought not to matter whether being gay is a choice, it does matter to assert that it isn't. That it isn't a choice isn't a knockdown argument for it being okay... but understanding that it isn't a choice is important because unless we have strong evidence to the contrary, we should actually give some consideration to the real-life experience of actual gay people.

(I know, radical suggestion. What possible benefit could listening to actual real-life experience bring to this discussion? Debates about whether or not I ought to have equal rights are so much more enjoyable when they are about the interpretation of passages of ancient books I don't believe in.)

Memories are volatile, sure. But I never thought during my youth "yeah, you know what, I'd rather be in a persecuted minority and be made fun of by my peers, that sounds like an absolute blast, sign me up". If it were a choice, it wouldn't have taken so fucking long to come to terms with it. If it were a choice, my teenage years would have been quite different than they were.

The "it's a choice" thing requires a pathologising or criminalising—or just stupefying—explanation for the cause of that choice. Pathologising was the usual way: we're mentally ill, therefore we chose to be gay. Then there was the criminalising: we were "recruited" into the "gay lifestyle" by some devious gay elder to boost numbers, a sort of queer pyramid scheme where if you recruit 50 newbies to the gang, you get a new car. Or, as I said, stupefying: the idea that teenage boys would willingly subject themselves to the humiliating taunts of their peers for being gay in a small micro-society (schools) that aren't big fans of people being gay.
You can learn a lot by doing an internship at a place like Google (which is quite different from Fujitsu and has an office in Sydney). Interning at a resource-poor startups may not teach you much about good software engineering practices (code reviews, etc.).
What if companies that do not wish to do evil adopted unspoken signaling mechanism for silent protests? What if every time n NSLs were fulfilled since start of year, they donated to EFF? What if $1 was donated to EFF for every 1 GB of data they shared? Would that be illegal?
If anyone's not familiar, information about that began to leak in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
You may stand out, but that isn't necessarily bad, so long as what they remember about you isn't enought to identify you and might even misdirect them into thinking muslim terrorist.
I can't believe that people are getting mad these private enterprises. If you want your government not to spy on you, tell THEM. The governments was made to serve the people. The companies are going to do what they think is their best fiduciary responsibility. Get mad at your representatives in congress, not your email providers.