9 ms·

ACCC alleges Google misled consumers about expanded use of personal data

375 points by Khaine 6y ago

akdor1154 6y ago
The ACCC makes me proud to be Australian.
- senectus1 6y ago
  yeah, underrated Function of Gov.
- jiggawatts 6y ago
  For non-aussie readers of YC News, the ACCC is an Australian federal government department that represents the consumer interests of the citizens. This is a particularly important function in cases where there is significant asymmetry in transactions, as is typical with large corporations versus many customers making small purchases. In scenario like that, a defrauded consumer has essentially no recourse, as nobody is willing to take a minor matter to court. Even if they do, they'll face an army of lawyers that will certainly drag out the proceedings until its Just Not Worth It for the angry consumer. Class action lawsuits, the type popular in the United States, are a joke, serving only to enrich lawyers. In Australia, the ACCC sues or directly penalises corporations on the behalf of consumers. They enforce laws related to things like warranty returns. They have a reputation for coming down like a ton of bricks on misbehaving businesses, with eye-watering fines for even minor things like putting up an invalid "no returns" policy sign at the cash register. As a consequence of ACCC's actions, consumer confidence is increased, so people spend more, boosting the overall business activity in Australia. Companies that behave have everything to gain and nothing to fear. Companies that try to rip off consumers are eliminated from the market, so that they can't unfairly compete with law-abiding companies by dropping prices to levels where legitimate behaviour is unsustainable. An anecdote: A local computer parts store refused to refund my $500 for a new GPU that was faulty. I told them that this was illegal, and they're running the risk of an ACCC fine. They just laughed at me. I did nothing about it, and jumped through the hoops to return the card to the manufacturer instead. Someone else must have reported them for their behaviour, and next time I was there I noticed a prominent sign at the cash register saying that they've been fined by the ACCC $750,000 and that they had to display this sign to notify customers of their rights. For a local, small business retailer this is a brutal fine, but they're still around and now they provide instant refunds for DoA parts without argument! Plus, the look on the face of the manager who refused my warranty claim was priceless. The system works.
  - adamparsons 6y ago
    The MSY case was nothing short of incredible to watch go down. They were required to put a massive notice on their websites landing page about it too. From memory, they tried to hide it or make it tiny to view and ACCC came back and went "You really didn't learn huh? Wanna go for round 2?" and they went back to prominently displaying it again.
    - IntelMiner 6y ago
      I seem to remember their website flagrantly warning about their illegal returns/refunds "policy" With a giant red "THE ACCC HAS REQUIRED US TO LET ALL CUSTOMERS KNOW" etc etc at the top of the page
      - AndrewDavis 6y ago
        The best part of that was it was directly below their banner which had "MSY - The name you can trust"
    - chris_wot 6y ago
      Yeah, but let’s be honest, MSY is actually pretty good. I shop there all the time.
  - hnick 6y ago
    MSY? My local had that sign up, apart from that I liked them so it's a shame they closed. ACCC won't help with individual cases, though they will follow up and levy fines like you've said. So you probably did the right thing for yourself by working around them in the short term. Apart from that you need a state authority, ombudsman, or something else for direct help.
    - mianos 6y ago
      Kensington? That one was so handy to me too.
      - 6y ago
- WizardAustralis 6y ago
  The ACCC is one of those beautiful things, a government department that works precisely as intended without drama or controversy.
mark_l_watson 6y ago
Google acted inappropriately and in my opinion deserves the kind of punishment that is severe enough to curtail stuff like this. That said, Facebook and other companies are just as bad.
- prox 6y ago
  What really bugs me that there is really no opt out. You can ONLY click “I agree”, or don’t use it. So I don’t.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    That is the opt-out. They provide services in exchange for you clicking 'i agree'; if they can't generate value from your use of a service, they don't want to be obligated to lose money by providing you some service for free. The only problem is how consumers don't read the privacy policy and/or don't understand how valuable their data is to these companies.
    - inetknght 6y ago
      That's only part of the problem. The other part is locking away all of your data - emails, files, contacts, calendar, apps - if you don't want to agree to a change to the policy. Own an Android phone? Good luck opting out of a change to the agreement!
      - sukilot 6y ago
        Data isn't locked away. Only apps are.
        ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        Whilst Takeout is a thing, most of the data you'll get isn't in a form that's reasonably useful on it's own. You need to be a programmer to extract value out of a Google Takeout dump in a lot of cases. (I am sad more open source projects don't prioritize an "import from Takeout"-type feature.)
nl 6y ago
This is interesting. The allegation is that Google didn't properly notify users about combining Doubleclick and other Google data. Google did run a popup notification about the change, but: The ACCC alleges that the “I agree” notification was misleading, because consumers could not have properly understood the changes Google was making nor how their data would be used, and so did not - and could not - give informed consent. It's not exactly clear what the ACCC is saying here? Is it that Google didn't explain it enough, or is it that no amount of explanation is enough because user's "could not give informed consent"?
- Khaine 6y ago
  From the ACCC website “I agree” notification The conduct is alleged to have impacted millions of Australians with Google accounts. From 28 June 2016 until at least December 2018, Google account holders were prompted to click “I agree” to a pop-up notification from Google that purported to explain how it planned to combine their data, and sought the consumers’ consent for this. Some new features for your Google Account We’ve introduced some optional features for your account, giving you more control over the data Google collects and how it’s used, while allowing Google to show you more relevant ads. The notification also stated, “More information will be available in your Google Account making it easier for you to review and control”; and “Google will use this information to make ads across the web more relevant for you.” Not sure how you can provide informed consent, when the notification is so vague
  - nl 6y ago
    If you scroll down they include screenshots, which have diagrams including how the data flows, and additional text. It's quite a lot of information. Hard to know what the appropriate level here is, but Google sure did a lot more than just saying what the text said.
- IncRnd 6y ago
  You bring up a great point. If people don't understand the ACCC's statement, then people didn't understand the less informative Google popup notification.
- 6y ago
jb775 6y ago
> The ACCC considers that consumers effectively pay for Google’s services with their data, so this change introduced by Google increased the “price” of Google’s services It's interesting to think about a privacy policy tweak as a "price increase". I wonder if data will become regulated to the point where monetary value is transferred away from large companies and towards individual users so countries can tax their citizens on it.
- hnick 6y ago
  It seems to be an extension of the idea of Consideration in contract law. That makes sense to me. You can't change the agreement to extract more value without giving something back in return.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    Simple: increase free Drive space by 500MB, or even 1MB, each time it's updated.
- chii 6y ago
  Bartering for individuals tend to not be a taxable event. It's muddy when it involves a business and an individual tho - very hard to say if it's fair to tax bartering. But it's certainly not fair (imho) to tax the individual just because it's hard to tax the business for it.
  - catmanjan 6y ago
    This isn't true in Australia, you are meant to pay tax on barter, even individuals - I could even see the tax office pursuing it for big ticket items like heavy machinery
- dudheheie 6y ago
  The value in that scenario is being removed from the consumers not the companies, the consumer is the source and they exchange their data for services that would otherwise cost money. So in effect such a law would make the people poorer. Europe will probably like the idea because they've given up on fostering a competitive software industry but for nations that want to matter in cyber space like the US, China, Japan, and Korea, it's hard to imagine such a tax (essentially a production tax) actually benefitting consumers wallets.
dannyw 6y ago
FYI, the ACCC has successfully won victories against Steam refusing to provide refunds for faulty games. Just because it's a digital product doesn't mean you don't have consumer rights. If you buy a physical good and it doesn't work towards its described specifications, you deserve a refund. If you buy a digital good and you meet the system requirements but it doesn't work, you deserve a refund.
- judge2020 6y ago
  I think the steam problem was a store vs publisher issue. When No Man's Sky first released, you couldn't refund if you had player for more than 2 hours even though it was a faulty game. After the bad press spread, Steam stepped in and accepted refunds far past the 2 hour 'time played' requirement [0]. If Gamestop sells a faulty or unfinished game by EA (like Anthem), should Gamestop be obligated to refund you or should they ask the publisher if they want to refund the customer since the publisher might promise better future stability? 0: https://bgr.com/2016/08/29/no-mans-sky-refund-steam-pc-ps4-support-ticket/ https://bgr.com/2016/08/29/no-mans-sky-refund-steam-pc-ps4-s...
  - jlawer 6y ago
    Australian Consumer Law has many provisions based on the fact that many companies are not always able to be fully sued in Australia. In order to prevent this the end retailer is responsible for ensuring consumer rights. Of course the expectation is that the final retailer then claims against their distributor who then claims against the manufacturer / publisher. However this has been a problem with some digital marketplaces as they entered the Australian market. For tax reasons many products were sold via a Irish or Singaporean subsidiary and thus tried to avoid taxation on the sales (even some were selling in $AU from these offshore locations). As these loopholes were closed many companies essentially accepted they had Australian presences (mostly due to the changes around tax). However Australia has some fairly strong consumer protections (at least on paper), fairly broad statutes (terms like "reasonable durability" and "fit for purpose") and a fairly active consumer rights defender (ACCC) and many organisations have avoided Furthermore consumer rights cannot be removed via EULA agreements and such. Many organisations didn't change their systems for Australia as they were "mostly" compliant, and considered that digital goods were "New" and "Different" from the rules that affected physical products and retail operators. So under Australian Law.... yes. Gamestop (or more likely EB games in Australia) is liable for the refund. However they can then turn to their suppliers and sue them for breach of contract for supplying defective products. It is reasonable Future stability doesn't come into it, as the product was sold misleadingly. EB Games has already been taken to task over this for Fallout 76 and trying to claim people aren't entitled to a refund. 0: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/eb-games-undertakes-to-refund-consumers-for-the-fallout-76-game https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/eb-games-undertakes-to...
gundmc 6y ago
I'll be interested to see how this plays out. The ACCC media release might make it sound worse than it was. In the included screenshots, there is clearly text that explains in pretty plain English. They left these parts out of the media release itself. > ... With this change, this setting may also include browsing data from Chrome and activity from websites and apps that partner with Google, including those that show ads from Google. > ...In My Account, the Ads Personalization setting currently allows Google to use data in your account to tailor ads that appear on Google products. With this change, this setting will also allow Google to use data in your account to tailor ads on websites and apps that partner with Google. It's a lot to process in a pop-up that forces a user to make an instant decision, and the lack of an opt out without clicking through to "More Options" is shady, but it does feel like a pretty good layman's explanation of what they were going to do.
- shakna 6y ago
  > It's a lot to process in a pop-up that forces a user to make an instant decision Part of informed consent in Australia is "can freely make decisions without unfair pressure or influence from others." This kind of instant decision, and the following opt-in, don't fit within that requirement. > but it does feel like a pretty good layman's explanation of what they were going to do. It doesn't include the detail required by Australian law. > may also include browsing data from Chrome and activity from websites and apps that partner with Google, including those that show ads from Google. This is not enough. You cannot simply specify any arbitrary third party. You cannot simply say "browsing data", but have to specify what it is that you're grabbing. You have to say that you're grabbing IP ranges, headers, screen sizes, etc.
  - nl 6y ago
    > It doesn't include the detail required by Australian law... > You cannot simply say "browsing data", but have to specify what it is that you're grabbing. You have to say that you're grabbing IP ranges, headers, screen sizes, etc. What specifically? I'm Australian and I'm not aware of any law that specifies anything like that at all. > This is not enough. You cannot simply specify any arbitrary third party. That's clearly not true. Amongst others, credit companies in Australia do this frequently and haven't had issues with the ACCC over it.
zmmmmm 6y ago
Honestly, while this change was controversial, it was very well publicised and displayed to users at the time. I think it is quite a hard case to prove that users were misinformed - if it it does hold up, it'll create quite an interesting precedent where even executing a change like that with complete explicit opt-in isn't enough to keep you in the clear. It might have the perverse effect of making companies pre-load every evil thing they can ever think of doing into their initial terms of use because it is interpreted as impossible to post-opt-in a normal person in a reasonable manner.
- chris_wot 6y ago
  The previous privacy policy stated they would get the end users consent for anything that would reduce their privacy. They did not do this.
trishmapow2 6y ago
Original link is now access denied, ACCC have posted a correction that fixes an example they used: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/correction-accc-alleges-google-misled-consumers-about-expanded-use-of-personal-data-0 https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/correction-accc-allege...
phjesusthatguy3 6y ago
@dang story is no longer accessible; updated link in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23964132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23964132

375 points by Khaine 6y ago

akdor1154 6y ago

The ACCC makes me proud to be Australian.

senectus1 6y ago
yeah, underrated Function of Gov.
jiggawatts 6y ago
For non-aussie readers of YC News, the ACCC is an Australian federal government department that represents the consumer interests of the citizens. This is a particularly important function in cases where there is significant asymmetry in transactions, as is typical with large corporations versus many customers making small purchases. In scenario like that, a defrauded consumer has essentially no recourse, as nobody is willing to take a minor matter to court. Even if they do, they'll face an army of lawyers that will certainly drag out the proceedings until its Just Not Worth It for the angry consumer. Class action lawsuits, the type popular in the United States, are a joke, serving only to enrich lawyers. In Australia, the ACCC sues or directly penalises corporations on the behalf of consumers. They enforce laws related to things like warranty returns. They have a reputation for coming down like a ton of bricks on misbehaving businesses, with eye-watering fines for even minor things like putting up an invalid "no returns" policy sign at the cash register. As a consequence of ACCC's actions, consumer confidence is increased, so people spend more, boosting the overall business activity in Australia. Companies that behave have everything to gain and nothing to fear. Companies that try to rip off consumers are eliminated from the market, so that they can't unfairly compete with law-abiding companies by dropping prices to levels where legitimate behaviour is unsustainable. An anecdote: A local computer parts store refused to refund my $500 for a new GPU that was faulty. I told them that this was illegal, and they're running the risk of an ACCC fine. They just laughed at me. I did nothing about it, and jumped through the hoops to return the card to the manufacturer instead. Someone else must have reported them for their behaviour, and next time I was there I noticed a prominent sign at the cash register saying that they've been fined by the ACCC $750,000 and that they had to display this sign to notify customers of their rights. For a local, small business retailer this is a brutal fine, but they're still around and now they provide instant refunds for DoA parts without argument! Plus, the look on the face of the manager who refused my warranty claim was priceless. The system works.
- adamparsons 6y ago
  The MSY case was nothing short of incredible to watch go down. They were required to put a massive notice on their websites landing page about it too. From memory, they tried to hide it or make it tiny to view and ACCC came back and went "You really didn't learn huh? Wanna go for round 2?" and they went back to prominently displaying it again.
  - IntelMiner 6y ago
    I seem to remember their website flagrantly warning about their illegal returns/refunds "policy" With a giant red "THE ACCC HAS REQUIRED US TO LET ALL CUSTOMERS KNOW" etc etc at the top of the page
    - AndrewDavis 6y ago
      The best part of that was it was directly below their banner which had "MSY - The name you can trust"
  - chris_wot 6y ago
    Yeah, but let’s be honest, MSY is actually pretty good. I shop there all the time.
- hnick 6y ago
  MSY? My local had that sign up, apart from that I liked them so it's a shame they closed. ACCC won't help with individual cases, though they will follow up and levy fines like you've said. So you probably did the right thing for yourself by working around them in the short term. Apart from that you need a state authority, ombudsman, or something else for direct help.
  - mianos 6y ago
    Kensington? That one was so handy to me too.
    - 6y ago
WizardAustralis 6y ago
The ACCC is one of those beautiful things, a government department that works precisely as intended without drama or controversy.

mark_l_watson 6y ago

Google acted inappropriately and in my opinion deserves the kind of punishment that is severe enough to curtail stuff like this. That said, Facebook and other companies are just as bad.

prox 6y ago
What really bugs me that there is really no opt out. You can ONLY click “I agree”, or don’t use it. So I don’t.
- judge2020 6y ago
  That is the opt-out. They provide services in exchange for you clicking 'i agree'; if they can't generate value from your use of a service, they don't want to be obligated to lose money by providing you some service for free. The only problem is how consumers don't read the privacy policy and/or don't understand how valuable their data is to these companies.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    That's only part of the problem. The other part is locking away all of your data - emails, files, contacts, calendar, apps - if you don't want to agree to a change to the policy. Own an Android phone? Good luck opting out of a change to the agreement!
    - sukilot 6y ago
      Data isn't locked away. Only apps are.
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        Whilst Takeout is a thing, most of the data you'll get isn't in a form that's reasonably useful on it's own. You need to be a programmer to extract value out of a Google Takeout dump in a lot of cases. (I am sad more open source projects don't prioritize an "import from Takeout"-type feature.)

nl 6y ago

This is interesting. The allegation is that Google didn't properly notify users about combining Doubleclick and other Google data. Google did run a popup notification about the change, but: The ACCC alleges that the “I agree” notification was misleading, because consumers could not have properly understood the changes Google was making nor how their data would be used, and so did not - and could not - give informed consent. It's not exactly clear what the ACCC is saying here? Is it that Google didn't explain it enough, or is it that no amount of explanation is enough because user's "could not give informed consent"?

Khaine 6y ago
From the ACCC website “I agree” notification The conduct is alleged to have impacted millions of Australians with Google accounts. From 28 June 2016 until at least December 2018, Google account holders were prompted to click “I agree” to a pop-up notification from Google that purported to explain how it planned to combine their data, and sought the consumers’ consent for this. Some new features for your Google Account We’ve introduced some optional features for your account, giving you more control over the data Google collects and how it’s used, while allowing Google to show you more relevant ads. The notification also stated, “More information will be available in your Google Account making it easier for you to review and control”; and “Google will use this information to make ads across the web more relevant for you.” Not sure how you can provide informed consent, when the notification is so vague
- nl 6y ago
  If you scroll down they include screenshots, which have diagrams including how the data flows, and additional text. It's quite a lot of information. Hard to know what the appropriate level here is, but Google sure did a lot more than just saying what the text said.
IncRnd 6y ago
You bring up a great point. If people don't understand the ACCC's statement, then people didn't understand the less informative Google popup notification.
6y ago

jb775 6y ago

> The ACCC considers that consumers effectively pay for Google’s services with their data, so this change introduced by Google increased the “price” of Google’s services It's interesting to think about a privacy policy tweak as a "price increase". I wonder if data will become regulated to the point where monetary value is transferred away from large companies and towards individual users so countries can tax their citizens on it.

hnick 6y ago
It seems to be an extension of the idea of Consideration in contract law. That makes sense to me. You can't change the agreement to extract more value without giving something back in return.
- judge2020 6y ago
  Simple: increase free Drive space by 500MB, or even 1MB, each time it's updated.
chii 6y ago
Bartering for individuals tend to not be a taxable event. It's muddy when it involves a business and an individual tho - very hard to say if it's fair to tax bartering. But it's certainly not fair (imho) to tax the individual just because it's hard to tax the business for it.
- catmanjan 6y ago
  This isn't true in Australia, you are meant to pay tax on barter, even individuals - I could even see the tax office pursuing it for big ticket items like heavy machinery
dudheheie 6y ago
The value in that scenario is being removed from the consumers not the companies, the consumer is the source and they exchange their data for services that would otherwise cost money. So in effect such a law would make the people poorer. Europe will probably like the idea because they've given up on fostering a competitive software industry but for nations that want to matter in cyber space like the US, China, Japan, and Korea, it's hard to imagine such a tax (essentially a production tax) actually benefitting consumers wallets.

dannyw 6y ago

FYI, the ACCC has successfully won victories against Steam refusing to provide refunds for faulty games. Just because it's a digital product doesn't mean you don't have consumer rights. If you buy a physical good and it doesn't work towards its described specifications, you deserve a refund. If you buy a digital good and you meet the system requirements but it doesn't work, you deserve a refund.

judge2020 6y ago
I think the steam problem was a store vs publisher issue. When No Man's Sky first released, you couldn't refund if you had player for more than 2 hours even though it was a faulty game. After the bad press spread, Steam stepped in and accepted refunds far past the 2 hour 'time played' requirement [0]. If Gamestop sells a faulty or unfinished game by EA (like Anthem), should Gamestop be obligated to refund you or should they ask the publisher if they want to refund the customer since the publisher might promise better future stability? 0: https://bgr.com/2016/08/29/no-mans-sky-refund-steam-pc-ps4-support-ticket/ https://bgr.com/2016/08/29/no-mans-sky-refund-steam-pc-ps4-s...
- jlawer 6y ago
  Australian Consumer Law has many provisions based on the fact that many companies are not always able to be fully sued in Australia. In order to prevent this the end retailer is responsible for ensuring consumer rights. Of course the expectation is that the final retailer then claims against their distributor who then claims against the manufacturer / publisher. However this has been a problem with some digital marketplaces as they entered the Australian market. For tax reasons many products were sold via a Irish or Singaporean subsidiary and thus tried to avoid taxation on the sales (even some were selling in $AU from these offshore locations). As these loopholes were closed many companies essentially accepted they had Australian presences (mostly due to the changes around tax). However Australia has some fairly strong consumer protections (at least on paper), fairly broad statutes (terms like "reasonable durability" and "fit for purpose") and a fairly active consumer rights defender (ACCC) and many organisations have avoided Furthermore consumer rights cannot be removed via EULA agreements and such. Many organisations didn't change their systems for Australia as they were "mostly" compliant, and considered that digital goods were "New" and "Different" from the rules that affected physical products and retail operators. So under Australian Law.... yes. Gamestop (or more likely EB games in Australia) is liable for the refund. However they can then turn to their suppliers and sue them for breach of contract for supplying defective products. It is reasonable Future stability doesn't come into it, as the product was sold misleadingly. EB Games has already been taken to task over this for Fallout 76 and trying to claim people aren't entitled to a refund. 0: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/eb-games-undertakes-to-refund-consumers-for-the-fallout-76-game https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/eb-games-undertakes-to...

gundmc 6y ago

I'll be interested to see how this plays out. The ACCC media release might make it sound worse than it was. In the included screenshots, there is clearly text that explains in pretty plain English. They left these parts out of the media release itself. > ... With this change, this setting may also include browsing data from Chrome and activity from websites and apps that partner with Google, including those that show ads from Google. > ...In My Account, the Ads Personalization setting currently allows Google to use data in your account to tailor ads that appear on Google products. With this change, this setting will also allow Google to use data in your account to tailor ads on websites and apps that partner with Google. It's a lot to process in a pop-up that forces a user to make an instant decision, and the lack of an opt out without clicking through to "More Options" is shady, but it does feel like a pretty good layman's explanation of what they were going to do.

shakna 6y ago
> It's a lot to process in a pop-up that forces a user to make an instant decision Part of informed consent in Australia is "can freely make decisions without unfair pressure or influence from others." This kind of instant decision, and the following opt-in, don't fit within that requirement. > but it does feel like a pretty good layman's explanation of what they were going to do. It doesn't include the detail required by Australian law. > may also include browsing data from Chrome and activity from websites and apps that partner with Google, including those that show ads from Google. This is not enough. You cannot simply specify any arbitrary third party. You cannot simply say "browsing data", but have to specify what it is that you're grabbing. You have to say that you're grabbing IP ranges, headers, screen sizes, etc.
- nl 6y ago
  > It doesn't include the detail required by Australian law... > You cannot simply say "browsing data", but have to specify what it is that you're grabbing. You have to say that you're grabbing IP ranges, headers, screen sizes, etc. What specifically? I'm Australian and I'm not aware of any law that specifies anything like that at all. > This is not enough. You cannot simply specify any arbitrary third party. That's clearly not true. Amongst others, credit companies in Australia do this frequently and haven't had issues with the ACCC over it.

zmmmmm 6y ago

Honestly, while this change was controversial, it was very well publicised and displayed to users at the time. I think it is quite a hard case to prove that users were misinformed - if it it does hold up, it'll create quite an interesting precedent where even executing a change like that with complete explicit opt-in isn't enough to keep you in the clear. It might have the perverse effect of making companies pre-load every evil thing they can ever think of doing into their initial terms of use because it is interpreted as impossible to post-opt-in a normal person in a reasonable manner.

chris_wot 6y ago
The previous privacy policy stated they would get the end users consent for anything that would reduce their privacy. They did not do this.

trishmapow2 6y ago

Original link is now access denied, ACCC have posted a correction that fixes an example they used: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/correction-accc-alleges-google-misled-consumers-about-expanded-use-of-personal-data-0 https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/correction-accc-allege...

phjesusthatguy3 6y ago

@dang story is no longer accessible; updated link in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23964132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23964132