Doctorow's "Against Transparency" argues that calls for increased transparency are often a wolf in sheep's clothing. While superficially appealing, transparency initiatives frequently empower bad actors more than they help the public. The powerful already possess extensive information about individuals, and forced transparency from the less powerful merely provides them with more ammunition for exploitation, harassment, and manipulation, without offering reciprocal accountability. This creates an uneven playing field, furthering existing power imbalances and solidifying the advantages of those at the top. Genuine accountability, Doctorow suggests, requires not just seeing through systems, but also into them – understanding the power dynamics and decision-making processes obscured by superficial transparency.
Terms of Service; Didn't Read (ToS;DR) is a community-driven project that simplifies and rates the terms of service and privacy policies of various websites and online services. It uses a simple grading system (Class A to Class E) to quickly inform users about potential issues regarding their rights, data usage, and other key aspects hidden within lengthy legal documents. The goal is to increase transparency and awareness, empowering users to make informed decisions about which services they choose to use based on how those services handle their data and respect user rights. ToS;DR relies on volunteer contributions to analyze and summarize these complex documents, making them easily digestible for the average internet user.
HN users generally praise ToS;DR as a valuable resource for understanding the complexities of terms of service. Several highlight its usefulness for quickly assessing the key privacy and data usage implications of various online services. Some express appreciation for the project's crowd-sourced nature and its commitment to transparency. A few commenters discuss the inherent difficulties in keeping up with constantly changing terms of service and the challenges of accurately summarizing complex legal documents. One user questions the project's neutrality, while another suggests expanding its scope to include privacy policies. The overall sentiment is positive, with many viewing ToS;DR as a vital tool for navigating the increasingly complex digital landscape.
A journalist drove 300 miles through rural Virginia, then filed public records requests with law enforcement agencies to see what surveillance footage they had of his car. He received responses from various agencies, including small town police, sheriff's departments, and university police. Some agencies had no footage, while others had license plate reader (LPR) data or images from traffic cameras. The experience highlighted the patchwork nature of public surveillance, with data retention policies and access procedures varying widely. While some agencies promptly provided information, others were unresponsive or claimed exemptions. The experiment ultimately revealed the growing, yet inconsistent, presence of automated surveillance in even rural areas and raised questions about data security and public access to this information.
Hacker News users discuss the implications of widespread police surveillance and the journalist's experience requesting footage of his own vehicle. Some express concern about the lack of transparency and potential for abuse, highlighting the ease with which law enforcement can track individuals. Others question the legality and oversight of such data collection practices, emphasizing the need for stricter regulations. A few commenters suggest technical countermeasures, such as license plate covers, while acknowledging their limited effectiveness and potential legal ramifications. The practicality and cost-effectiveness of storing vast amounts of surveillance data are also debated, with some arguing that the data's usefulness in solving crimes doesn't justify the privacy intrusion. Several users share personal anecdotes of encountering ALPRs (Automatic License Plate Readers), reinforcing the pervasiveness of this technology. Finally, the discussion touches upon the challenges of balancing public safety with individual privacy rights in an increasingly surveilled society.
Anthropic's research explores making large language model (LLM) reasoning more transparent and understandable. They introduce a technique called "thought tracing," which involves prompting the LLM to verbalize its step-by-step reasoning process while solving a problem. By examining these intermediate steps, researchers gain insights into how the model arrives at its final answer, revealing potential errors in logic or biases. This method allows for a more detailed analysis of LLM behavior and facilitates the development of techniques to improve their reliability and explainability, ultimately moving towards more robust and trustworthy AI systems.
HN commenters generally praised Anthropic's work on interpretability, finding the "thought tracing" approach interesting and valuable for understanding how LLMs function. Several highlighted the potential for improving model behavior, debugging, and building more robust and reliable systems. Some questioned the scalability of the method and expressed skepticism about whether it truly reveals "thoughts" or simply reflects learned patterns. A few commenters discussed the implications for aligning LLMs with human values and preventing harmful outputs, while others focused on the technical details of the process, such as the use of prompts and the interpretation of intermediate tokens. The potential for using this technique to detect deceptive or manipulative behavior in LLMs was also mentioned. One commenter drew parallels to previous work on visualizing neural networks.
Google is shifting internal Android development to a private model, similar to how it develops other products. While Android will remain open source, the day-to-day development process will no longer be publicly visible. Google claims this change will improve efficiency and security. The company insists this won't affect the open-source nature of Android, promising continued AOSP releases and collaboration with external partners. They anticipate no changes to the public bug tracker, release schedules, or the overall openness of the platform itself.
Hacker News users largely expressed skepticism and concern over Google's shift towards internal Android development. Many questioned whether "open source releases" would truly remain open if Google's internal development diverged significantly, leading to a de facto closed-source model similar to iOS. Some worried about potential stagnation of the platform, with fewer external contributions and slower innovation. Others saw it as a natural progression for a maturing platform, focusing on stability and polish over rapid feature additions. A few commenters pointed out the potential benefits, such as improved security and consistency through tighter control. The prevailing sentiment, however, was cautious pessimism about the long-term implications for Android's openness and community involvement.
Starting next week, Google will significantly reduce public access to the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) development process. Key parts of the next Android release's development, including platform changes and internal testing, will occur in private. While the source code will eventually be released publicly as usual, the day-to-day development and decision-making will be hidden from the public eye. This shift aims to improve efficiency and reduce early leaks of information about upcoming Android features. Google emphasizes that AOSP will remain open source, and they intend to enhance opportunities for external contributions through other avenues like quarterly platform releases and pre-release program expansions.
Hacker News commenters express concern over Google's move to develop Android AOSP primarily behind closed doors. Several suggest this signals a shift towards prioritizing Pixel features and potentially neglecting the broader Android ecosystem. Some worry this will stifle innovation and community contributions, leading to a more fragmented and less open Android experience. Others speculate this is a cost-cutting measure or a response to security concerns. A few commenters downplay the impact, believing open-source contributions were already minimal and Google's commitment to open source remains, albeit with a different approach. The discussion also touches upon the potential impact on custom ROM development and the future of AOSP's openness.
Pressure is mounting on the UK Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) to hold its hearing on Apple's data privacy practices in public. The ISC plans to examine claims made in a recent report that Apple's data extraction policies could compromise national security and aid authoritarian regimes. Privacy advocates and legal experts argue a public hearing is essential for transparency and accountability, especially given the significant implications for user privacy. The ISC typically operates in secrecy, but critics contend this case warrants an open session due to the broad public interest and potential impact of its findings.
HN commenters largely agree that Apple's argument for a closed-door hearing regarding data privacy doesn't hold water. Several highlight the irony of Apple's public stance on privacy conflicting with their desire for secrecy in this legal proceeding. Some express skepticism about the sincerity of Apple's privacy concerns, suggesting it's more about competitive advantage. A few commenters suggest the closed hearing might be justified due to legitimate technical details or competitive sensitivities, but this view is in the minority. Others point out the inherent conflict between national security and individual privacy, noting that this case touches upon that tension. A few express cynicism about government overreach in general.
This blog post explores how a Certificate Authority (CA) could maliciously issue a certificate with a valid signature but an impossibly distant expiration date, far beyond the CA's own validity period. This "fake future" certificate wouldn't trigger typical browser warnings because the signature checks out. However, by comparing the certificate's notAfter date with Signed Certificate Timestamps (SCTs) from publicly auditable logs, inconsistencies can be detected. These SCTs provide proof of inclusion in a log at a specific time, effectively acting as a timestamp for when the certificate was issued. If the SCT is newer than the CA's validity period but the certificate claims an older issuance date within that validity period, it indicates potential foul play. The post further demonstrates how this discrepancy can be checked programmatically using open-source tools.
Hacker News users discuss the practicality and implications of the blog post's method for detecting malicious Sub-CAs. Several commenters point out the difficulty of implementing this at scale due to the computational cost and potential performance impact of checking every certificate against a large CRL set. Others express concerns about the feasibility of maintaining an up-to-date list of suspect CAs, given their dynamic nature. Some question the overall effectiveness, arguing that sophisticated attackers could circumvent such checks. A few users suggest alternative approaches like using DNSSEC and DANE, or relying on operating system trust stores. The overall sentiment leans toward acknowledging the validity of the author's points while remaining skeptical of the proposed solution's real-world applicability.
Belgian artist Dries Depoorter created "The Flemish Scrollers," an art project using AI to detect and publicly shame Belgian politicians caught using their phones during parliamentary livestreams. The project automatically clips videos of these instances and posts them to a Twitter bot account, tagging the politicians involved. Depoorter aims to highlight politicians' potential inattentiveness during official proceedings.
HN commenters largely criticized the project for being creepy and invasive, raising privacy concerns about publicly shaming politicians for normal behavior. Some questioned the legality and ethics of facial recognition used in this manner, particularly without consent. Several pointed out the potential for misuse and the chilling effect on free speech. A few commenters found the project amusing or a clever use of technology, but these were in the minority. The practicality and effectiveness of the project were also questioned, with some suggesting politicians could easily circumvent it. There was a brief discussion about the difference between privacy expectations in public vs. private settings, but the overall sentiment was strongly against the project.
Micah Lee's blog post investigates leaked data purportedly from a Ukrainian paramilitary group. He analyzes the authenticity of the leak, noting corroboration with open-source information and the inclusion of sensitive operational details that make a forgery less likely. Lee focuses on the technical aspects of the leak, examining the file metadata and directory structure, which suggests an internal compromise rather than a hack. He concludes that while definitive attribution is difficult, the leak appears genuine and offers a rare glimpse into the group's inner workings, including training materials, equipment lists, and personal information of members.
Hacker News users discussed the implications of easily accessible paramilitary manuals and the potential for misuse. Some commenters debated the actual usefulness of such manuals, arguing that real-world training and experience are far more valuable than theoretical knowledge gleaned from a PDF. Others expressed concern about the ease with which extremist groups could access these resources and potentially use them for nefarious purposes. The ethical implications of hosting such information were also raised, with some suggesting that platforms have a responsibility to prevent the spread of potentially harmful content, while others argued for the importance of open access to information. A few users highlighted the historical precedent of similar manuals being distributed, pointing out that they've been available for decades, predating the internet.
The author recounts their experience in an Illinois court fighting for access to public records pertaining to the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request portal. They discovered and reported a SQL injection vulnerability in the portal, which the state acknowledged but failed to fix promptly. After repeated denials of their FOIA requests related to the vulnerability's remediation, they sued. The judge ultimately ruled in their favor, compelling the state to fulfill the request and highlighting the absurdity of the situation: having to sue to get information about how the government plans to fix a security flaw in a system designed for accessing information. The author concludes by advocating for stronger Illinois FOIA laws to prevent similar situations in the future.
HN commenters generally praise the author's persistence and ingenuity in using SQL injection to expose flaws in the Illinois FOIA request system. Some express concern about the legality and ethics of his actions, even if unintentional. Several commenters with legal backgrounds offer perspectives on the potential ramifications, pointing out the complexities of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the potential for prosecution despite claimed good intentions. A few question the author's technical competence, suggesting alternative methods he could have used to achieve the same results without resorting to SQL injection. Others discuss the larger implications for government transparency and the need for robust security practices in public-facing systems. The most compelling comments revolve around the balance between responsible disclosure and the legal risks associated with security research, highlighting the gray area the author occupies.
Learning in public, as discussed in Giles Thomas's post, offers numerous benefits revolving around accelerated learning and career advancement. By sharing your learning journey, you solidify your understanding through articulation and receive valuable feedback from others. This process also builds a portfolio showcasing your skills and progress, attracting potential collaborators and employers. The act of teaching, inherent in public learning, further cements knowledge and establishes you as a credible resource within your field. Finally, the connections forged through shared learning experiences expand your network and open doors to new opportunities.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the author's premise about the benefits of learning in public. Several commenters shared personal anecdotes of how publicly documenting their learning journeys, even if imperfectly, led to unexpected connections, valuable feedback, and career opportunities. Some highlighted the importance of focusing on the process over the outcome, emphasizing that consistent effort and genuine curiosity are more impactful than polished perfection. A few cautioned against overthinking or being overly concerned with external validation, suggesting that the primary focus should remain on personal growth. One user pointed out the potential negative aspect of focusing solely on maximizing output for external gains and advocated for intrinsic motivation as a more sustainable driver. The discussion also briefly touched upon the discoverability of older "deep dive" posts, suggesting their enduring value even years later.
This Presidential Memorandum directs federal agencies to enhance accountability and customer experience by requiring annual "Learn to Improve" plans. These plans will outline how agencies will collect customer feedback, identify areas for improvement, implement changes, and track progress on key performance indicators related to service delivery and equity. Agencies are expected to leverage data and evidence-based practices to drive these improvements, focusing on streamlining services, reducing burdens on the public, and ensuring equitable outcomes. Progress will be monitored by the Office of Management and Budget, which will publish an annual report summarizing agency efforts and highlighting best practices.
HN commenters are largely critical of the executive order, questioning its efficacy and expressing cynicism about government accountability in general. Several point out the irony of the order coming from an administration often accused of lacking transparency. Some question the practicality of measuring "customer experience" for government services, comparing it to businesses but acknowledging the inherent differences. Others see the order as primarily performative, designed to create a sense of action without meaningful impact. A few express cautious optimism, hoping for genuine improvement but remaining skeptical. The lack of concrete details in the order is a frequent point of concern, leading some to believe it's more about public relations than actual policy change.
This GitHub repository showcases a method for visualizing the "thinking" process of a large language model (LLM) called R1. By animating the chain of thought prompting, the visualization reveals how R1 breaks down complex reasoning tasks into smaller, more manageable steps. This allows for a more intuitive understanding of the LLM's internal decision-making process, making it easier to identify potential errors or biases and offering insights into how these models arrive at their conclusions. The project aims to improve the transparency and interpretability of LLMs by providing a visual representation of their reasoning pathways.
Hacker News users discuss the potential of the "Frames of Mind" project to offer insights into how LLMs reason. Some express skepticism, questioning whether the visualizations truly represent the model's internal processes or are merely appealing animations. Others are more optimistic, viewing the project as a valuable tool for understanding and debugging LLM behavior, particularly highlighting the ability to see where the model might "get stuck" in its reasoning. Several commenters note the limitations, acknowledging that the visualizations are based on attention mechanisms, which may not fully capture the complex workings of LLMs. There's also interest in applying similar visualization techniques to other models and exploring alternative methods for interpreting LLM thought processes. The discussion touches on the potential for these visualizations to aid in aligning LLMs with human values and improving their reliability.
Court documents reveal that the US Treasury Department has engaged with Dogecoin, specifically accessing and analyzing Dogecoin blockchain data. While the extent of this activity remains unclear, the documents confirm the Treasury's interest in understanding and potentially monitoring Dogecoin transactions. This involvement stems from a 2021 forfeiture case involving illicit funds allegedly laundered through Dogecoin. The Treasury utilized blockchain explorer tools to trace these transactions, demonstrating the government's growing capability to track cryptocurrency activity.
Hacker News users discussed the implications of the linked article detailing Dogecoin activity at the Treasury Department, primarily focusing on the potential for insider trading and the surprisingly lax security practices revealed. Some commenters questioned the significance of the Dogecoin transactions, suggesting they might be related to testing or training rather than malicious activity. Others expressed concern over the apparent ease with which an employee could access sensitive systems from a personal device, highlighting the risk of both intentional and accidental data breaches. The overall sentiment reflects skepticism about the official explanation and a desire for more transparency regarding the incident. Several users also pointed out the irony of using Dogecoin, often seen as a "meme" cryptocurrency, in such a sensitive context.
This post explores the inherent explainability of linear programs (LPs). It argues that the optimal solution of an LP and its sensitivity to changes in constraints or objective function are readily understandable through the dual program. The dual provides shadow prices, representing the marginal value of resources, and reduced costs, indicating the improvement needed for a variable to become part of the optimal solution. These values offer direct insights into the LP's behavior. Furthermore, the post highlights the connection between the simplex algorithm and sensitivity analysis, explaining how pivoting reveals the impact of constraint adjustments on the optimal solution. Therefore, LPs are inherently explainable due to the rich information provided by duality and the simplex method's step-by-step process.
Hacker News users discussed the practicality and limitations of explainable linear programs (XLPs) as presented in the linked article. Several commenters questioned the real-world applicability of XLPs, pointing out that the constraints requiring explanations to be short and easily understandable might severely restrict the solution space and potentially lead to suboptimal or unrealistic solutions. Others debated the definition and usefulness of "explainability" itself, with some suggesting that forcing simple explanations might obscure the true complexity of a problem. The value of XLPs in specific domains like regulation and policy was also considered, with commenters noting the potential for biased or manipulated explanations. Overall, there was a degree of skepticism about the broad applicability of XLPs while acknowledging the potential value in niche applications where transparent and easily digestible explanations are paramount.
Summary of Comments ( 0 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43736718
Hacker News users discussing Cory Doctorow's "Against Transparency" post largely agree with his premise that forced transparency often benefits powerful entities more than individuals. Several commenters point out how regulatory capture allows corporations to manipulate transparency requirements to their advantage, burying individuals in legalese while extracting valuable data for their own use. The discussion highlights examples like California's Prop 65, which is criticized for its overbroad warnings that ultimately desensitize consumers. Some users express skepticism about Doctorow's proposed solutions, while others offer alternative perspectives, emphasizing the importance of transparency in specific areas like government spending and open-source software. The potential for AI to exacerbate these issues is also touched upon, with concerns raised about the use of personal data for exploitative purposes. Overall, the comments paint a picture of nuanced agreement with Doctorow's central argument, tempered by practical concerns and a recognition of the complex role transparency plays in different contexts.
The Hacker News post titled "Against Transparency" links to Cory Doctorow's "Pluralistic" blog post about California's Proposition 65 warning labels. The discussion generated a significant number of comments, revolving around the effectiveness and unintended consequences of such broad warning labels.
Several commenters argue that the ubiquity of Prop 65 warnings has diluted their impact, leading to a "boy who cried wolf" effect where people become desensitized and ignore them entirely. They suggest that this renders the warnings useless for their intended purpose of informing consumers about actual risks. One commenter highlights the absurdity of seeing warnings on things like Disneyland parking garages, arguing that it diminishes the credibility of warnings on genuinely hazardous products.
Another line of discussion centers on the legal and economic motivations behind the warnings. Some commenters posit that the system incentivizes lawsuits rather than actual safety improvements, as businesses are more likely to settle and display the warning than fight costly litigation. This, they claim, benefits lawyers more than consumers.
The potential for "regulatory capture" is also raised, with commenters suggesting that large corporations can more easily absorb the cost of compliance, putting smaller businesses at a disadvantage. This could lead to market consolidation and stifle innovation.
Some commenters express skepticism about the scientific basis for many of the warnings, pointing out that the threshold for listing a chemical under Prop 65 is very low. They argue that the law conflates hazard with risk, failing to account for the level of exposure required to pose a genuine health threat.
A few commenters offer alternative approaches to risk communication, such as providing more specific information about the level of risk associated with a particular product or using a tiered warning system to differentiate between minor and significant hazards.
There's also a discussion about the broader implications of mandatory disclosure laws, with some arguing that they can be a powerful tool for consumer protection, while others express concern about their potential to be misused or overused. The example of nutrition labels is brought up, with some commenters arguing that they are generally effective, while others point to their limitations and potential for misinterpretation.
Finally, a few commenters offer personal anecdotes about their experiences with Prop 65 warnings, ranging from amusement to frustration. One commenter mentions seeing a warning on a bag of coffee, highlighting the perceived absurdity of the situation.
Overall, the comments on the Hacker News post reflect a general skepticism towards the effectiveness of Prop 65 warnings and concern about the unintended consequences of overly broad disclosure requirements. Many commenters believe that the current system is flawed and needs reform, with suggestions ranging from stricter scientific standards for listing chemicals to tiered warning systems that better communicate the level of risk.