> I wouldn't doubt overwork as a factor, but the elephant in the room is meaninglessness... people pretty much realize that the core feature of their jobs is their own economic exploitation...Burnout, like all pain, may be a feature.
Oh god, if you're feeling theatrically unhappy with your job, it's seriously time to make a move.
The core feature of my team is making something we think is awesome and missing from the world, where my role as the head of the startup is to do what needs to get done and make sure my team feels like their work and lives are fulfilling. If any member on my team felt like their work is meaningless or a source of emotional pain, I would not be able to sleep at night.
edit: Wow, I've gotten some negative responses and I'm not sure why. This isn't a "how can I exploit people" question, it's about making sure my interview process doesn't accidentally result in people that will be unhappy. It takes a lot to compete with incumbents and agreeing to work for a startup is the algebra of pros/cons.
> I have had startups expect more then the typical 40 hours a week, and yep, I burned out pretty fast.
I'm the head of an early stage startup and have a favor to ask: can you give me advice on how to detect someone with your 40-hours-or-I'll-be-unhappy mindset? I've never heard a candidate employee express anything close to "I'm in at 9AM and expect to be out by 5:30", even if shortly down the road, it becomes clear that they feel their work/life balance is being infringed upon.
I don't mean this in any negative way and I envy people that aren't boolean in or out, but people that would feel burned out on 5x10h days (+ sometimes a quick Sunday Slack session) aren't good fits _right now_ for my team. Reliable "I do my 40, put in good work, and I'll be here for years" people are _great_ for much later stage (post-IPO, for instance), but it would deeply bother me if I found out one of my workers was feeling burned out/demotivated.
Seriously just hire 5 people instead of 4. You have 125% right there and the fact that you aren't burning out people means you'll have less employee turnover. THAT's what costing you. Not people working 40h. You'll get better people for your money by being clear that even though it's a young, growing startup, work/life balance is valued. A single key person burnt out or unhappy will cost you more productivty than those extra nights and evenings ever could.
> It it would deeply bother me if I found out one of my workers was feeling burned
out/demotivated.
Then make sure people don't overwork. If something happens with a deploy that means people had to work late on thursday, then make sure they are compensated with time off.
> how to detect someone with your 40-hours-or-I'll-be-unhappy mindset
Yes. Here is how: if they aren't unhappy about working a lot then they are inexperienced. Another tell is if they have a family. In your situation, don't hire anyone with kids. Their kids will thank you. and those people don't want to work for you anyway.
The problem is you can't afford to make your company an evening pizza 27 year old bromance company because you likely can't cut out that much of the talent pool without it costing you.
Also: I don't mind people working a lot if compensated well. I could certainly have worked a ton of hours for a period of my life (before kids etc) but I would have been pretty annoyed had I accepted an offer at a company and later found out that the offer was for an expected 50h and not 40h. Don't have people come and waste time at your interview without knowing what the situation is.
There was a time in my life when I was willing to go through the entire interview process only to reject the offer demanding 45h work weeks. There was even a time when I would ask about hours per week up front and walk away from answers I didn't like.
Now, I'll say point blank that if you're telling your salaried employees to work more than an average of 40 hours a week, you're just an asshole. Even more so than if you're just saying those who would otherwise be skilled wage laborers are salaried exempt as a dodge around relevant labor laws.
The only people who should be living at the office are those with an actual, significant equity stake in the success of the company.
Here's how you detect 40h-or-unhappy. First, check to see if the person has a normal, cocaine-free, methamphetamine-free pulse rate. Then, pat them down and check their pockets for fully vested stock in your company. If you find the first, and not the second, that person will be unhappy working extra-long hours for your benefit.
Parent is absolutely correct. Paying fewer people to work longer hours will absolutely cost you more in the long run. Just hire another person.
Yep, this is right on the money. Very few people actually want to work more than 40. Most who I know would kill to work less, even if paid proportionally less.
That said, I always try to get a sense of expectations in interviews. I don't care if it makes me look like a clock watcher (I'm not). I ask about how the hiring manager works and if they expect their employees to adopt a similar schedule. Or I ask about what the work life balance is like. That kind of thing.
I work to live, not the other way around. I don't want to be just another person who works their ass off until 65 or 70 and then finally gets to retire, only to be dead within a year or two.
That's actually a lot easier said then done at an early stage startup for reasons of talent and compensation.
> The problem is you can't afford to make your company an evening pizza 27 year old bromance company because you likely can't cut out that much of the talent pool without it costing you.
Wow, wait? We're not a "bromance company" and I'm not even sure how to respond to this and I think it's vaguely insulting.
> Also: I don't mind people working a lot if compensated well.
We're very clear with compensation and living wage and actual equity is something we make sure is on the table.
> I could certainly have worked a ton of hours for a period of my life (before kids etc) but I would have been pretty annoyed had I accepted an offer at a company and later found out that the offer was for an expected 50h and not 40h. Don't have people come and waste time at your interview without knowing what the situation is.
This is really important to me and I make sure the candidate actually knows what he/she is getting into.
This is exactly why I wrote:
"I've never heard a candidate employee express anything close to "I'm in at 9AM and expect to be out by 5:30", even if shortly down the road, it becomes clear that they feel their work/life balance is being infringed upon."
The problem isn't that I'm trying to hustle people, it's that people tend to agree to situations they don't actually want when interviewing.
> Wow, wait? We're not a "bromance company" and I'm not even sure how to respond to this and I think it's vaguely insulting.
Sorry, no offense intended - I was reading between the lines. Basically if you expect people to be able to always stay after hours, then you are excluding pretty much everyone with a family for example.
It risks creating the typical monoculture of guys (yes unfortunately) between 25 and 35.
People have different ambitions and different needs. The time when I could stay at an office to 6PM is over. I might be willing to do it again in 15 years but now I'm expected to put dinner on the table at 6. A ton of people are in this situation, much too many to ignore even for a startup. They might not seem like a good fit for your phase of startup but I think that mode of thought is counterproductive. A varied set of people will be best. That also means you'll have people with different needs. Cater to those needs and be open with expectations.
Needing people to occasionally work more is normal. Even having an emergency meeting on a Sunday is normal. Just be clear with what the situation is, what is expected, and make sure that the plan is to never have 50h weeks or weekend meetings. The problem is having the "constant crunch time" culture.
> I've never heard a candidate employee express anything close to "I'm in at 9AM and expect to be out by 5:30"
Not sure I understood the problem here, was it that you would have preferred that to surface in the interview, but it didn't, which caused friction down the line when someone turned out to not want to work more than 40h weeks?
> It risks creating the typical monoculture of guys (yes unfortunately) between 25 and 35.
Oh yeah, totally. My motivation for asking was to make sure we don't end up in a monoculture of people that stick around after being surprised by the startup grind. That won't work for our business as we _need_ a mix of people, backgrounds, interests to really make it work (opposed to say, a hft/fintech platform, where diversity of thought/life experience isn't crucial).
> A ton of people are in this situation, much too many to ignore even for a startup. They might not seem like a good fit for your phase of startup but I think that mode of thought is counterproductive.
Yeah, it's definitely hard. Funding is limited and early stage is about maximizing the value of capital and speed of validating assumptions, and unfortunately, that often means preclusive criteria for people that need to leave "on time" regularly. Not saying it's right, but that's the reality of most startups.
I want to actively combat the bias of just short circuiting to people that are 22-30 and probably without kids, which means being able to have the conversation of "hey, please don't say this expectation is fine if it's not" and knowing how to tell if someone says it's fine for the sake of getting an offer, but it's actually not.
> Needing people to occasionally work more is normal. Even having an emergency meeting on a Sunday is normal. Just be clear with what the situation is, what is expected, and make sure that the plan is to never have 50h weeks or weekend meetings. The problem is having the "constant crunch time" culture.
The first 5 you hire are basically hopping into constant crunch with you, which is why their equity should be the carrot to make the stick worthwhile.
I think I rubbed people the wrong way or reminded them of a negative employer, but a weekend meeting for us is a few lines on Slack that essentially serves the purpose of "hey, so I decompressed and reflected, and here's where I'm thinking for this week. is this reasonable?"
I don't call meetings without a purpose and I _definitely_ don't want this to be the norm after we grow.
> Not sure I understood the problem here, was it that you would have preferred that to surface in the interview, but it didn't, which caused friction down the line when someone turned out to not want to work more than 40h weeks?
This is exactly it. If a candidate expressed this, I would say "okay, thank you for your time, I hope you're available when we know we can respect this."
I think this has a bit to do with the song-and-dance ritualization of the hiring process. Employers and employees can both get caught up in saying things they think the other side wants to hear, and when one side presents a question that the other side receives as signalling--you may say "We expect you to work as long as necessary to meet deadlines, even if that's until 10pm or later" and they may hear the stock "Are you a hard worker"--they do what they always have done: signal back the appropriate response.
I think it's appropriate to be very explicit. Call out the issue. Tell them you aren't signalling. Tell them you really mean what you say, and that if they're going to get burned out from that, then your shop isn't the place for them.
I think based on your responses you have the right attitude.
> We expect you to work as long as necessary to meet deadlines, even if that's until 10pm or later"
I think the song-and-dance is very much the problem. Just be explicit. If you want a company that has 50h weeks as norm, then say that (It's insane though). But saying "we expect you to work as long as it takes to meet deadline" is terrible. I'd certainly agree to work more at crunch time - but when is crunch time? how often? The problem is the culture of permanent crunch time.
Be open as a candidate too. I might say
"I'm fine with working a 50h week when required, unless it is the norm. Is it usually OK to do a 30h week the week after such a week?"
The response to that might indicate whether the employer was hoping to see me there for permanent crunch time or not.
> Employers and employees can both get caught up in saying things they think the other side wants to hear.. I think it's appropriate to be very explicit. Call out the issue. Tell them you aren't signalling. Tell them you really mean what you say, and that if they're going to get burned out from that, then your shop isn't the place for them.
You nailed it. The problem is that even when being explicit in expectations, candidates will still try to get that offer, even if it's not the right fit at that time. It's really hard to tell if someone means it when they say "oh, that's fine." I think startups have a certain glamour that masks the reality and people see interviews as tests, not conversations.
Further, I'd love to keep that person in the pipeline -- employee happiness and feeling valued is huge for me, so if that person needs to come in at 10 because they need to drop a kid off at school, I can respect that, and hope he/she is available when we can accommodate it.
> I think based on your responses you have the right attitude.
> I'm the head of an early stage startup and have a favor to ask: can you give me advice on how to detect someone with your 40-hours-or-I'll-be-unhappy mindset?
-Anyone over the age of 25
-Anyone with a spouse or family or has normal non-work hobbies or interests
-Anyone with pre-existing health or stress issues
-Anyone who thinks that getting burned-out is a bad idea
How are you going to feel if the third time isn't the charm, and you're laying on your death bed thinking about all that work you were doing rather than spending time with your family. Work won't miss you, but your kids will.
It's interesting the assumptions you make about when I see my kids, how much I see my kids and how I balance that with a job I deeply enjoy. Also interesting to see the assumptions made about what kind of people are passionate enough to work more than 40 hours a week. My only point in commenting was to help people challenge their false assumptions. Trust me, I've stared death in the eye, and had a tube hanging out of me for weeks. I am at peace with my priorities - and I spend lots of quality time with my children, thanks for your concern.
I don't know why you're being sarcastic, but I actually wanted to make sure I don't bring someone on to be unhappy.
People over 25 can work more than 40 hours and not get burned out. I feel that you just want to make me out to be a bad guy, so I'm not sure it's worth writing a longer response.
These people who like to work as little as possible are called human beings. Sorry, but you have unreasonable expectations for your team.
Think about it. You are asking human beings to make personal sacrifices for no personal gain, but for the sole purpose of making your dream a reality.
Honestly, I think you need to find people who find emotional shelter at work, so you could ask if there is any personal trauma they are trying to avoid.
> Honestly, I think you need to find people who find emotional shelter at work, so you could ask if there is any personal trauma they are trying to avoid.
This is actually great insight I've never heard before. When I threw myself into 18 hour days 7 days a week it absolutely was an attempt to avoid personal trauma.
Better than a drug addiction I suppose in that it got me places, but probably damaging in many of the same ways.
I'm considering what you say, but it doesn't ring true to my interpersonal experiences at all.
> Think about it. You are asking human beings to make personal sacrifices for no personal gain, but for the sole purpose of making your dream a reality.
My team has (real) equity and I like to believe they see the worth of the product. What attracted me to startups when I entered the game was the sense of ownership and agency in projects. That and work can/should come with a sense of reward.
> so you could ask if there is any personal trauma they are trying to avoid.
I think this would be somewhat inappropriate to ask "hey, so do you put in extra hours because you don't feel whole?". Everyone I work with knows they can come to me, even if he/she needs to take his/her house keys and to go to a second location to chat.
> You could also consider hiring hourly.
There's room for hourly consultants, but that hardly makes a team.
You may be an exceptional case. I do know people that are unreasonably driven, but it's always been for their own success.
> My team has (real) equity and I like to believe they see the worth of the product.
Hey, if you're 'paying' them for their time and they believe their equity is valuable, whether it is or not, sounds like everybody wins.
> What attracted me to startups when I entered the game was the sense of ownership and agency in projects. That and work can/should come with a sense of reward.
That to me sounds like someone who's been had by a capitalistic culture. Unless you're a winner, then good for you.
> My team has (real) equity and I like to believe they see the worth of the product.
You're paying your team in Bison Dollars: their compensation has value if and only if the world-domination scheme goes off without a hitch. But that's a big if. The value of the product won't be clear until it goes to market, but the value of the time they put in is lost forever irrespective of the market value of your finished product. Meanwhile, your team's landlords won't accept that equity as rent payment.
Unless they're a founder, the amount of equity you're giving them, no matter how much, is insufficient to ask someone to regularly work more than 40 hours a week.
Sorry man, it just doesn't work. People will do it, mostly young people. You can take advantage of that, but guess what, that makes you an asshole.
If my employees can't get their work done in 40 hours, then they aren't planning their work effectively. If, as a manager and a leader, I have a duty and a responsibility for the success of my team, then I must make them have a reasonable work/life balance.
I've known a ton of people happy to work until they were quickly burned out, but their output was usually a bunch of sound and fury representing nothing.
So does every other startup. Most of the time it either amounts to nothing, or is dilluted away.
"What attracted me to startups when I entered the game was the sense of ownership and agency in projects. That and work can/should come with a sense of reward."
Try this - start from the end: assume "40 hours or I'll be unhappy" is everybody, and consider realistically if your company IPO-ed and this person cashed in the options you'll give him, would the rest of his life be materially better, risk adjusted for that IPO ever becoming a reality, for every day of the week you make him unhappy as a fraction of the total days in a year?
So to paraphrase, you are asking HN: "How can I detect which workers are easiest to exploit?"
I don't know your exact situation, but extrapolating from experiences at early stage startups I worked at:
1) Hire more people. Instead of asking people to give 110%, hire 1.10⨉ the number of people.
2) Give employees the same stock (in the same class as the founders) not some second class options.
3) Get organized. A lot of crunch time occurs because tasks are not well defined, dependencies not identified etc... And write things down, that way you can read a document instead of bothering someone on vacation to ask a question.
Just let them know early on in clear terms: "This is an early stage startup, and we're very likely going to need everyone to work beyond traditional hours."
It really is that simple.
But you have to understand that some people don't honestly know if they want to work those kinds of hours until they do it. So you will have turnover because of burnout.
FYI, I did have prior experience in a startup. I thought it would be fun to do another one. I guess age just got me turned off to the bullshit. I was not excited to have to respond to silly questions like "what are some alternative ways of using gradle for automating builds" over the weekend. If we're working 60+ hour workweeks taking time off from dating to answer questions related to development process, not the core product direction, is not the sort of shit that's going to keep many people involved.
So, a lot of experienced people will probably be turned off by being asked to work a lot, because, hey, the older you get, the more of a life you probably have. You can probably tell by the amount of down votes you've received, the "we're going to need to work overtime" message is not an easy one to stomach. So, if you need experienced people, be prepared to spend big, and make sure they've got real autonomy. Someone who's been around the block is not going to care as much about your equity, and will lose confidence in you much faster as things don't take off.
>This isn't a "how can I exploit people" question, it's about making sure my interview process doesn't accidentally result in people that will be unhappy.
Have you considered that even those people that think they are game to work a lot will end up unhappy because of biology? We aren't made to put in 10 hour days with a Sunday slack session before getting back into it on Monday.
You mean doing nothing but chatting on Sunday for 30 mins if they don't have any conflicting plans? I bet most people would be fine with that for an otherwise great job. A quick chat that's not so quick and also involves doing work before or after it, not so much. So how honest are you being here?
Dead honest. I mean a quick async-okay-if-from-phone "hey, here's what I have lined up for this week, can you tell me if this is unreasonable from your perspective" exchange.
On Sunday? Not happening. Ever. Weekends are off limits, particularly since having kids. Man, I hate meetings enough during the work week, and you wanna have one on the weekend? Even if it's short, or over the phone, or via email, or slack, or whatever, it's still a work intrusion. I personally think the weekend should be four days a week, and damn near sacred.
I'm not sure that my response helps build a constructive discussion, but I'd suggest that you at least have the direction reversed (lobbyists propose actions, the "assholes" (as you put it) vote as they're told).
The defendant provided the password to his iphone (that contained highly-unsavory media of his nieces), which contained an unlock code for his laptop (filevault backup decrypt key). He connected the external drives to this laptop, and when he'd transfer media from his laptop to the drives, logging would occur with the file checksums. The hash/checksum is on the laptop with the filepath to the identified external drives, and because the hashes match known media of child victimization, the prosecution knows exactly where the evidence exists on the drive, once decrypted.
If the hashes are known to match, there is really no need for the original pictures, the evidence is already there?
This makes it sound more like it's a fishing expedition for evidence to use in other investigations, or to find evidence for a more severe punishment, both of which one can morally agree or disagree with, but is it how justice should work? I honestly don't know, but I think probably not.
It's a detestable crime, which is exactly why we must not allow the law to be bent out of shape because of that, as the results will be used in other cases where our moral compass maybe wouldn't sway our judgement as much.
The only justice we can enact, flawed at rational reasoning as we are, is a dispassionate justice. One where we as much as possible defer to the few rational facilities we have. Weak, but nonetheless, logical and rational thinking, is what we must base our arguments upon, as we are so easily swayed by our instinct to protect our children at any cost, often with little regard to what consequence it might have in a distant future.
I'm confused by your reasoning here. If we agree that the files are definitely on the system how is it a "fishing expedition" to want to see those files for further investigation. A fishing expedition would be forcing everyone to submit their devices for inspection on the off chance of finding evidence - this case is one where the evidence is known to exist and a person is refusing to hand it over.
The less emotive case would be the hard drive contained bank statements for tax avoidance - and I would still think that a court should be able to compel someone to produce that.
Would you like to go to trial and attempt to persuade 12 non-technical jurors that "hashcodes" unequivocally demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that there is child porn on the external hard drive?
It's a foregone conclusion technically that the illegal content is on the hard drive. His guilt is not a foregone conclusion (not in the US anyway).
The file hashes basically takeaway any good self-incrimination argument he could make and there might also be evidence of further criminality on the hard drive.
Sorry, but legally, the latter should be the only standard of truth. If he exposes himself to a higher standard of guilt, then he is incriminating himself.
But are we not just in the world of normal warrants here?
To my mind private spaces (be that my house or my hard drive) should have some protection, but it seems reasonable that that is less than my personal freedom.
I have no issue with a warrant being issued on a balance of probabilities basis in order to find evidence to convict a person based on beyond a reasonable doubt.
And all this ignores the possibility of discovering further crimes and accomplices by investigating the contents of this drive - if there is a balance of probabilities likelihood of find those on the drive I don't see any problems with compelling this to be revealed.
> I have no issue with a warrant being issued on a balance of probabilities
The problem with this is it isn't consistent with how the law works in other cases. For example, A judgment of 'guilty' is considered absolute, not probabilistic.
This is only part of their motivation. The other is that the prosecutor likely wants to avoid setting a precedent that future defendants can cite in their defense.
> If we agree that the files are definitely on the system [snip]
then prosecute him and be done with it. Anything else is either a fishing expedition or we don't all agree that the files are definitely on the system... in which case it's still a fishing expedition.
hashes can be inaccurate, it isn't a foregone conclusion in reality, just in their opinion.
I told this story before, but I once read an article about a police officer who said it was impossible for another person to have logged into an account because it was password protected, when we know that's not even close to being true.
impossible and improbable are not the same thing, and I sure as shit don't feel comfortable making the case that it's 100% locked in because of a hash.
The requirement should be for them to look at the actual content, not the hash.
> near is not the same thing as impossible. I told this story before, but I once read an article about a police officer who said it was impossible for another person to have logged into an account because it was password protected, when we know that's not even close to being true.
That's not even the same realm as this case:
> The Forensic examination also disclosed that Doe had downloaded thousands of files known by their “hash” values to be child pornography[0]
Thousands of hash collisions would require prior knowledge of the values and a concerted effort to deceive. It would be more realistic to say that human perception is broken when looking at the media than it is to argue with the mathematical reality at play here.
> The requirement should be for them to look at the actual content, not the hash.
Refusing the evidence known to exist and definitely covered by probable cause is why the defendant is still in custody.
No one is arguing with the legal argument, there are a lot of legal arguments that most people don't believe should exist.
So using the law to defend yourself doesn't really apply here.
> Thousands of hash collisions would require prior knowledge of the values and a concerted effort to deceive. It would be more realistic to say that human perception is broken when looking at the media than it is to argue with the mathematical reality at play here.
This confidence is why my anecdote applies. That confidence is flat out scary when you hear people in law use terms like "impossible" or "virtually impossible" when speaking about things that are not.
This is about the only way I'm ok with what they are doing. If this is the case, then I'm 100% ok with compelling him to unlock the drive for the sole purpose of accessing those files. Anything else on the drive should be off limits as it then becomes testimonial.
To me the danger is, what if this person committed other crimes and by unlocking the drive he give the prosecution info about those crimes. In a world where the investigators and/or prosecution have gotten away with parallel construction I wouldn't expect them to play fair. I mean, realistically it sounds like they guy is guilty as sin. That being said, I'd rather he get away with those hypothetical crimes than we start allowing situations like this to happen.
So, to recap, make him unlock to read the known files (by exact path) and nothing else on the drive.
To me, this whole thing smells of the classic tactic of telling the guy, "We know you're guilty; just confess, and we'll go easy on you." Which, of course, is a lie.
So I am of the opposite opinion. If the hash information isn't enough to try him with, then I'd rather he go free, than set a precedent that it's acceptable for a court to compel someone to decrypt information because someone in law enforcement just "knows" the evidence is there. Because once this order is allowed to stand, the level of certainty required to compel decryption is going to continually be lowered.
> To me, this whole thing smells of the classic tactic of telling the guy, "We know you're guilty; just confess, and we'll go easy on you." Which, of course, is a lie...If the hash information isn't enough to try him with, then I'd rather he go free, than set a precedent that it's acceptable for a court to compel someone to decrypt information because someone in law enforcement just "knows" the evidence is there.
I'm sympathetic to why you'd be cautious, but that's not fitting in this case -- this is a highly specific case with a number of circumstances that meaningfully differentiate it from the generic case of providing decrypted media. He's guilty and the checksums are enough to convict him (we're talking many checksums, metadata, partial confessions) and this is about him frustrating the discovery process.
> Because once this order is allowed to stand, the level of certainty required to compel decryption is going to continually be lowered.
This is a slippery slope fallacy. I had some leaning towards this perspective, but then I read the source document, which goes into far more detail. There's a definite nuance to this case.
I appreciate what you're saying about a slippery slope, but I don't find that the nuance of this case necessarily makes it a fallacy. The judge has compelled decryption based on hashes of files left around in logs on the hard drive, but what if an ISP reports that files with those hashes have been downloaded by a particular IP address?
The FBI gets a warrant, executes a raid, picks up every piece of electronic equipment in the place, but can't find the files the ISP says should be there. Can the defendant, in this case, be compelled to decrypt an encrypted hard drive file or partition at this point, because law enforcement "knows" that those files are somewhere in his (digital) possession? What if it were a guest in his house? What if it were the neighbor, stealing wifi?
Based on this precedent, I think another judge could find reasonable cause to compel in that scenario. Is this a violation of the 5th Amendment? The defense FOR the judge's actions in this case -- based on other reasoning in this thread -- is that only files with those hashes could be used against him, at this point. In this hypothetical case, though, what if LE found OTHER files of child pornography? Would they be admissable? Alternatively, if they found other material (e.g, bomb-making), could it be used against him in a separate case? I'm not sure I trust the government in either one of these situations.
It seems highly likely that we'll get a government employee's opinion on precisely this scenario someday, and I don't think that this employee is going to find in a manner against his employer. As with so many other of the Constitutional protections of the Bill of Rights, they've slowly been chipped away in precisely these kinds of legal "corner cases." Sue me for being paranoid.
Have we not spent the past couple of years confirming that the "slippery slope" of catching "bad guys" has, in fact, completely eliminated the protection of the 4th Amendment for communications? You could argue that it hasn't, because the government hasn't prosecuted a citizen based on the warrantless, wholesale monitoring of any and all electronic communications -- THAT WE KNOW OF -- but it's extraordinarily clear that shouldn't be happening in the first place, according The Constitution.
I'm glad you didn't take offense to me making reference to the fallacy as I appreciate our conversation and wasn't sure how else to express that thought.
If you haven't done so, check out the source document for the article as Arstechnica didn't include some important details (and the headline "Man jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives loses appeal" talks past what is actually happening): https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/rawlsopin...
> ...but what if an ISP reports that files with those hashes have been downloaded by a particular IP address? ... but can't find the files the ISP says should be there.
I think this case is particular due to the lack of breaks in the chain. In your hypothetical, law enforcement and the prosecution have _vastly less information_ than in this actual case.
Law enforcement knew the path from a remote source, to (presumably dhcp lease based) ISP records, to the laptop that accessed the content (known to be the defendant's), to checksums in logs matching a physical drive (also known to be the defendant's). Coupled with other evidence, the defendant frustrating the process by pretending to no longer know the decryption phrase, and partial admissions of guilt by the defendant, this is a vast distance than a hypothetical case of "someone from this IP address downloaded Game of Thrones Season 1 from bittorrent, so hand over anything that can store bytes" (to use a far less disgusting crime to help keep emotion away from the discussion).
> Based on this precedent, I think another judge could find reasonable cause to compel in that scenario.
Luckily, the US justice system is built on nuance; this case wouldn't hold up as a generalizable excuse to compel decryption -- which is why they're invoking the foregone conclusion rule to secure the production of evidence based on the enormity of the other factors.
> In this hypothetical case, though, what if LE found OTHER files of child pornography? Would they be admissable?
I honestly don't know. In this case, the defendant is refusing to provide (multiple pieces of) evidence that is known to exist by checksum and direct file path.
> Alternatively, if they found other material (e.g, bomb-making), could it be used against him in a separate case?
Having information on how to construct a bomb is not illegal, any more than getting a degree in chemistry is illegal, but plotting to kill people with a bomb is legally actionable.
> I'm not sure I trust the government in either one of these situations.
I agree with you, but on a different shade of the argument. I'm suspicious that the ecosystem of justice is built on securing convictions as opposed to seeking objective truths. In this case, I support the government/court based on the information I have.
> As with so many other of the Constitutional protections of the Bill of Rights, they've slowly been chipped away in precisely these kinds of legal "corner cases."
I don't know which other cases to which you're referring, but the argument to be made here is that this isn't a corner case. This is having mathematical certainty that the defendant has evidence and is refusing to hand it over.
> Sue me for being paranoid.
No law against being paranoid :)
> but it's extraordinarily clear that shouldn't be happening in the first place, according The Constitution.
Actual question: where in the constitution is this clearly stated?
> Actual question: where in the constitution is this clearly stated?
You're obviously way more legally savvy than I am. Just goes to prove that a _little_ knowledge is a dangerous thing. Totally agree on the "securing convictions" motivation.
I'm referring to the 4th, about needing a warrant to intercept communications. Is that not clearly stated? Maybe my ignorance is showing again. Doesn't the 4th -- on the face of it -- preclude any system of wholesale collection of electronic communications?
> You're obviously way more legally savvy than I am. Just goes to prove that a _little_ knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Oh no, don't feel that way. The law is a man-made thing at the intersection of logic and opinion, which is why there's so many laws and tests -- if you haven't read the source document that's linked in the Arstechnica article, I would, as it has a lot of important detail.
> I'm referring to the 4th, about needing a warrant to intercept communications...Doesn't the 4th -- on the face of it -- preclude any system of wholesale collection of electronic communications?
Law enforcement were specifically targeting traffic expected to have child pornography and the people trying to exchange it on freenet who join very-special-purposed groups. Peer-to-peer platforms depend on people being free to join, and having special-purpose groups really helps with the "probable cause" condition of the 4th.
On the back of that, the defendant gave them confirmation of his illegal acts, so this case is about recovering evidence known to exist.
Wow, that's a lot against this guy, but hypothetically couldn't compelling him to decrypt his drives based on a file hash set a dangerous precedent where police can just plant file hashes somewhere to get access to anyone's drives? Sort of the high tech version of the drug dogs that would signal on cue.
They're staying within the law -- the defendant being in violation of the law is why an order to comply was filed and why we have access to the court of appeals document.
If you don't like the process, that's a different conversation.
There are a lot of things that waive the speedy trial right. If a defendant files pretty much any kind of motion, the speedy trial timeframe goes out the window.
Subtle point: "they" don't want or care about his credentials -- they want the underlying evidence for which they know exists (check out "The foregone conclusion doctrine" in page 34 of the source document[0]) and they know that he is capable of providing said evidence.
> > Here, based on Doe’s own statements, the testimony of his sister, and forensic analysis of the hard drives seized from Doe via a search warrant, the government already knows that Doe possessed and owned the hard drives, that he can decrypt them, and that they contain child pornography.[0]
Based on computer logs (of checksummed files being transferred to drives (and, importantly, knowing those filepaths) he admits to owning), online activity, witnesses, his own admission, and his unlocking of his phone provided the evidence needed to reasonably detain him on suspicion of a serious crime. The defendant is known to collect child pornography, even provably sourcing his own from family members -- again, the source document provides far more detail.
Further, my understanding is that the complication is his refusal is frustrating the process of deciding exactly which crimes for which to charge him and he is acting in defiance of a court order (to produce evidence).
I think this is just a thing that happens in the movies. Also, check out the source document and let me know if you think someone found guilty of the described acts deserves immunity.
It's not really a matter of my opinion on the specific case. Even with the full documents, there is no way that I'd have enough information to judge fairly, so I wouldn't try to.
I'm just saying that they have a way out, and it seems that they've made the judgment that the potential of finding other criminals (if that's even a motivation) for them is not worth it. And the courts are making the downside "indefinite prison", which isn't much of a downside for the prosecutor.
I think you can expect this to be used far more broadly if this is allowed. If I were a prosecutor I'd probably abuse the power too as yet another lever to use to get my way.
Head's up that the source goes into some detail and is a miserable, sickening read.
Per the source (https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/fedsr...), the prosecutors already have a case based on checksums of the media that the defendant had downloaded, and per the logs, stored on his external hard drive. I imagine that the prosecution wants the media so they can perform harm reduction services for the identified, affected children and/or improve their data for going after other/future child abusers.
My understanding is that the prosecution doesn't need the decrypted data to secure a guilty verdict, but as they're entitled to it, they likely want it for secondary benefit.
Or, this is a case in which a defendant had a non-foreign-government reason to accept whatever consequences come from not cooperating (thus not having political machinations at work) and it's a case with real human harm that makes it worth pursuing for the prosecutor.
> (Google and Microsoft are entering the group chat space..) In other words, Slack doesn’t offer anything that Google and Microsoft can’t replicate.
Of course Google and Microsoft can replicate the functionality of Slack -- they have smart, talented staff and chatrooms are a solved problem. However, where Slack excels is in cutting across organizational units, skill-sets, and getting people to use it. It's persistent-history IRC without a technical barrier and great marketing/user acquisition/word-of-mouth.
Unless you're a Microsoft tech-org (meaning C#/.net is the norm, not exception), there's a high likelihood that the only Microsoft software that engineering and design departments have installed is Skype; if I was at Slack, wouldn't sweat the scenario of sales, marketing, and engineering suddenly adopting Microsoft (in fact, "Microsoft Teams" was ostensibly announced in November and no one in my circles has mentioned it).
Google is a trickier problem for Slack. Everyone uses Gmail and Google is the landing page of the HTTP-internet. However, and maybe this is contentious, Google's need to integrate their myriad services turns users away. Not to beat a dead horse, but Google Plus could not have asked for better conditions for organic growth and it still somehow turned into a ghost town.
> Almost every business either has G Suite or Office 365... As a company, why the hell would you shell out for one of them and Slack?
But, to my experience and opinion, "already paid for" and "close enough" may peel away some users from Slack and towards Google -- this is why orgs end up using HipChat.
One of the organizations that I am currently employed with is a remote .NET business. We use Slack for our communications. Office365 is separate from Visual Studio Team Services. You'll find very few purist organisations, as most use whatever is convenient.
> so much so that even open source projects use it over IRC.
Remove the small amount of technical know how to "properly" use IRC and make chats (and permissions) persistent, and I imagine you'd end up with something that looks eerily like Slack.
That said, I think the Slack load-time in-browser is silly-long and I get spammed with notifications. As for threads, Zulip (https://github.com/zulip/zulip) does things "right" and I wish Slack would rip off their approach (central topic is the "room" and threads are independent, visually-separate-when-highlighted chats within a central topic).
I've used IRCCloud before, and I thought it worked well. They have an "internal" type plan as well with a private server, but as above I can't get anyone to try it because Slack owns the mindshare.
Oh god, if you're feeling theatrically unhappy with your job, it's seriously time to make a move.
The core feature of my team is making something we think is awesome and missing from the world, where my role as the head of the startup is to do what needs to get done and make sure my team feels like their work and lives are fulfilling. If any member on my team felt like their work is meaningless or a source of emotional pain, I would not be able to sleep at night.