That is an absolute bombshell of a story and I'd guess that the vast majority of people have never heard of it but would be horrified if they did. It sounds like they even blackmailed the people.
This is one of those moments when I started to feel shock and horror shifting towards disbelief, and then remembered that this is the CIA and of course they did stuff like that because who would stop them?
One of those little examples of how journalism really is one of the last bulwarks between the country we want to think we are and the country we very easily could be.
The Church committee[1] in '75 did some good work to reign in the worst of the intelligence communities work. Most of that has been undone by now though.
The CIA's work on LSD wasn't the worst thing going on and - surprisingly to me - the intelligence agencies were far from the worst. Eg, there was a Sloan-Kettering Institute researcher who injected live cancer cells into unwitting humans through out the 1950s and 60s[2]. Or in 1952 a Detroit Hospital administered radioactive iodine to premature babies, and fed it via a tube to healthy non-premature babies. Or the doctor who administered 100 or more rads of radiation after forging consent forms.
Highly recommend Tom O'Neill's 'CHAOS' for some of the new details he dug up on MKULTRA. The rumor mill has it that he is working on a new book exploring its potential ties to the RFK assassination, the Grateful Dead, and the Jonestown massacre.
The fringes of this material gets wild and significantly less credible really fast. It is very important to stick to the hard facts when dealing with government wrongdoing or you open yourself up to the “conspiracy theory” thought stopper charge.
Wild conspiracy theories help cover up actual conspiracy and malfeasance.
The stuff you are referencing is definitely not impossible, but it’s unproven and likely unprovable and is mixed in with a lot of trash. We have enough documented stuff about the government meddling with the counterculture (e.g. COINTELPRO) that we don’t need to make shit up or chase phantoms.
> Wild conspiracy theories help cover up actual conspiracy and malfeasance.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you believe the principal actors in the publicly known and acknowledged aspects of MKULTRA were not held to account because of 'wild conspiracy theories' which had little traction outside fringe newsletters in the 1970s when MKULTRA came to some semblance of public light? Do you believe the general public would be more aware and educated about these abuses if not for the existence of those theories?
Everyone already knows the standard narrative line that "MKULTRA was a temporary, discontinued, and largely unsuccessful program, which like COINTELPRO was ended (we promise!) when documentary evidence of it was brought to light." I don't see how informed, fact-based speculation that there may be more to it than that does anything to 'cover up' or absolve the people involved.
Do you have any recommendations for gloves that dampen vibrations for bikers and are comfortable? Would something like Olympia motorcycle gloves with gel in them be a good choice?
You mention you have a lot of gloves - what are they all used for if you don't mind me asking?
I would look at changing the grips first, coupled with gloves that have a seamless palm area, like the Fox Ranger or Dirt Paw gloves. You can get softer grips than this but I personally use SRAM's locking foam grips. The soak up vibration but the uniformity gives them a predictable rigidity when handling the bike.
I have gloves for: Working on cars; Cold hiking, even colder hiking; summer mountain biking, winter mountain biking, armored downhill MTB gloves; summer commute cycling, winter commute cycling; weight lifting, and miscellaneous woolen gloves for when my hands are cold and I'm doing nothing else.
This is so cool! Erik, would you mind posting some more pictures of your container office? It looks very Ex Machina like from the picture and I'd love to see more and maybe even learn how you did what you did with it if possible.
They are also arguing that since they have given up on security and assume they are fully compromised everyone else should give up as well and just buy more of these devices for their homes.
Where in the law is it required that the government must offer due process in relation to contractual business deals with corporations? Is 'due process' even the correct term for that type of thing? You seem to be conflating the government punishing someone for crimes without due process to convict that person of said crimes.
You're stating that they're being singled out for just doing business and that businesses are just afraid of losing money. You seem to be ignoring the trade secret theft, IP theft, multiple intelligence agencies investigating them and stating that their hardware shouldn't be used, practically being an arm of the Chinese military intelligence, and probably more I'm forgetting. Seems like a very disingenuous argument to be making...
> multiple intelligence agencies investigating them and stating that their hardware shouldn't be used, practically being an arm of the Chinese military intelligence
Has anyone come forward with /any/ hard evidence that implicates huawei spying on their customers? This is my biggest gripe in this whole mess. The fact that no evidence has surfaced yet, despite how easily obtainable it would be for govs, indicates to me that that these accusations are motivated by geopolitics and have little to do with whether huawei customers are being spied upon or not.
As for disingenuity, I think that hurtling accusations at people without any sort of supporting evidence is what's disgustingly disingenuous.
It seems silly to debate the existence of the possibility that Huawei can spy on their customers or whether it has happened before. They ship binary blob software updates to the hardware routinely, as does any other vendor of this kind of equipment.
The only reasonable question is whether you believe Huawei will exploit this opportunity if asked or "asked" by the Chinese government.
Perhaps, but then following the same line of logic would make all hardware vendors equally suspect. All hardware vendors will eventually comply if "asked" by their government (including US, remember prism?). The only difference is the formalities followed.
I plan to continue using huawei as long as their pricing remains competitive or real hard evidence of foulplay is made public. Expecting people to single out a single vendor just because the a government with a history of lying said so is just silly.
Yes, people and organizations have come forward and said they have evidence. It's a simple google search away. You, similar to the OP, seem to be ignoring all of the many warnings from many organizations. If you think that intelligence agencies are going to show you, a random person, or the public the evidence directly I think you're not really aware of how they work. Why would they burn assets and methods to prove this when everyone agrees on it?
I would probably agree with you that attaining evidence of this spying would be somewhat easier for governments than for others. However, the rest of your assertion that these accusations are only due to geopolitics is pretty out there given it's almost universal at this point that people think Huawei are not on the up and up.
Hurtling accusations without any sort of supporting evidence is literally what you've just done. There's a ton of evidence out there to not use them.
Here are some pieces of evidence for you that literally were on page 1 and 2 of a search:
Yep, I'll just grab that from the CIA, NSA, FBI, and Australian Intelligence services for you. Should I assume you want it by today?
This might be the most absurd and rude statement all in one that I've seen on HN before. You're surprisingly aggressive and defensive on behalf of a Chinese multinational in your comments and don't actually seem to be interested in hearing the truth. Interesting.
I appreciate the intention in your comment to promote greater tolerance, but posting in the flamewar style is exactly the wrong way to do it, and violates the site guidelines. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow them, we'd appreciate it.
Where are you getting that people who own a Tesla sometimes are very generous and let strangers test drive their cars? I can't imagine a scenario where anyone would go for that given how expensive they are and how that kind of thing just doesn't happen with cars in general.
Personal experience. Tesla owners tend to be so stoked on their cars that they want to share the experience. Seriously. I've seen multiple requests and offers on Tesla forums and apparently it's pretty common at Tesla meet-ups as well.
In Europe, cars are pretty personal items, and typically only insured for one or a few drivers. Lending your car to a friend for a day would typically involve hours on the phone to the insurance company and a few hundred euros of fees. There are apps (cuvva) which try to reduce this, but even so it'll probably be cheaper and less effort to call an Uber rather than borrow a friend's car.
In the USA, loaning a car to a friend or neighbor seems far more common.
Here in Italy insurance isn't particularly cheap, but there is normally no limitation whatever about "insured driver(s)", as long as the driver has a valid driving license the insurance covers accidents. (and yes you can lend your car to a friend without calling the insurance) and though I have no direct experience (as car owner), France and Spain afaik work the same.
Most, not all, of the insurance policies I've had here in the UK cover other vehicles. If you actually read the cover, it's not ever enough for lending my mate's Tesla or 911 for a bit of Friday night hooliganism. Only once had that, and I paid significantly extra for it.
It's almost always third party only - legal requirement - cover, unless you have notified the insurance and got approval first. That would usually need you as registered owner, and paying a premium, or even higher fee for not being keeper.
So I can borrow a car, get home legally, and if I cause an accident the other parties have cover against which they can claim. That's it. If it's stolen while in my care or I drive into a tree, no cover. If it catches fire, no cover. If I bash the door on a bollard or seize the engine, no cover. No cover for any of the things that might normally happen lending the thing to a friend.
I would be very surprised to learn you get full comprehensive insurance on any borrowed vehicle. That would make insurance premiums trivial to game.
>If it's stolen while in my care or I drive into a tree, no cover. If it catches fire, no cover. If I bash the door on a bollard or seize the engine, no cover. No cover for any of the things that might normally happen lending the thing to a friend.
Yes, we are talking different things.
The one you just described is a kind of "all risk" (which is commonly called "KASKO" here), it is actually rather "rare", only some firms/businesses use it for their fleet and - sometimes - private citizens for "high range" cars (such as a Tesla or a Porsche 911 might be) that are more susceptible to vandalism or theft.
But there is still a difference seemingly.
If a car is insured for fire, it is insured for fire.
If a car is insured for theft, it is insured for theft.
The above two are NOT connected in any way to the driver.
If a car is insured for "own damages" (such as running the car into a tree) , it is insured for "own damages" and in this case there might be limitations on the drivers (or an even steeper insurance tariff/rate for a "anyone driving is covered anyway").
All risk, or comprehensive as it's known here, tends to be something you age into. When younger, few can afford it, and it's often not worth it anyway when the car or motorbike is several years old and not worth so much.
Yet it's those policies that tend to cover driving other vehicles. The Third Party, Fire and Theft only policies are usually named vehicle only.
Sounds like there's quite different standard ways of doing it. :)
How did you get that it is their main initiative for this year from this article? They have ~130,000 employees, so are you implying that a majority of 130,000 people are working on this main initiative over other things?
I'll be the first to say that Apple has not innovated much, if at all, over the past few years compared to other tech companies, but this seems a little hyperbolic.
And there's also no reason to think this is the only thing they'll do. I don't think it takes a majority of 130,000 to setup a deal like this but more than likely some people in finance and some people in legal while on the tech side people are still doing 1000 other things.
Their idea has merit whether they've entered the work force or not. And, they could be anything that relates to students and yet not a student, like a teacher. I wouldn't infer much if anything from usernames... else you might assume that I'm a monkey and my thoughts on taxes should be ignored because I live in a jungle.
