
The Online Privacy Lie Is Unraveling - prostoalex
http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/06/the-online-privacy-lie-is-unraveling/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29
======
hackuser
I think the argument that people accept it is disingenuous. If it was broadly
acceptable, why would businesses and governments often hide what they are
doing? Why wouldn't they clearly inform consumers up front?

In fact, if consumers like it so much then why not advertise it, to attract
more customers? Why haven't I seen this ad on TV?

 _At Acme, we collect your personal information and build an intimate profile
of you -- everything you do, from your emails and web usage, to who your
friends and family are, to your income, wealth and debts, to your medical and
driving histories, to your interests in culture, religion and politics. You 'd
be amazed by what we've learned about you! The more we know about you, the
better we can serve you!_

~~~
XorNot
Because people are irrational, and will give wildly different answers to
fundamentally the same question, depending on the phrasing.

Because the reality is, people's lives have been continuously improving as
more personal data has been collected and aggregated about them by various
services and that now, more then ever, the transparency and accountability of
governments has _increased_ in response to many of those _exact same services_
(Twitter/YouTube/Facebook/Google).

The metadata question gets asked contextlessly, which utterly changes its
meaning. Google Now is pretty upfront (and obvious) of the type of data it's
going to need to work. Given the value proposition, people are okay with that
and why should they not be?

~~~
alecdbrooks
>now, more then ever, the transparency and accountability of governments has
increased in response to many of those exact same services
(Twitter/YouTube/Facebook/Google).

I'm skeptical. Sure, advocates for transparency have used these platforms, but
that seems unrelated to these companies' mass collection of data.

Not to mention that one of the biggest whistleblowers recently (Edward
Snowden) revealed that these companies were complicit in NSA's not-at-all
transparent surveillence.

~~~
lern_too_spel
This post perfectly illustrates the "people are irrational" assertion.
Snowden's documents (re-)revealed that these companies were involved in
targeted surveillance for the FBI by way of NSLs, something that the companies
had warned about for years. [http://www.wired.com/2013/04/google-fights-
nsl/](http://www.wired.com/2013/04/google-fights-nsl/)

The new bit of information from Snowden was that the NSA could access data
from the FBI, which none of the companies knew about, let alone were
"complicit" in.

~~~
scribu
So let me get this straight:

    
    
      1. Corporation collects user data.
      2. Government wants access to that data, in secret.
      3. Corporation lets people know when the government accesses data about them.
      4. Hurrah, the government is more transparent.
    

If the corporation didn't collect the data in the first place, there would be
nothing for the government to request access to, transparently or not.

~~~
lern_too_spel
Here is a perfect example of irrationality. These companies process data that
the user wants them to process (emails and other conversations that the user
can search from any of their devices). Not collecting that data would
obviously (to everybody except irrational people like scribu) make those
products impossible to implement. That same data that is so useful to the
users is also useful to the FBI and anybody else investigating a person.

~~~
scribu
I don't understand how your claim (that users want the products that data
collection enables) refutes my claim (that data collection has not helped with
government transparency).

~~~
lern_too_spel
If your point is merely that "data collection has not helped with government
transparency," I do not refute it (and I know of nobody who would -- there is
no reason that Gmail nor banking nor even the price of tea in China would help
with government transparency). That is, however, a rather inane point to make.

~~~
scribu
> I know of nobody who would

Then you're forgetting about the guy up-thread:

> accountability of governments has increased in response to many of those
> exact same services (Twitter/YouTube/Facebook/Google).

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9672999](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9672999)

But reading your first comment again, I realize that you were making a
different point. Sorry.

------
higherpurpose
Exactly what I've been saying about the NSA mass surveillance issue. It's not
that many people are "okay with it" but that they _don 't truly_ understand
what's going on.

If 1 in 2 people don't even realize their supermarket data is shared with
others, how can we expect them to easily understand that the NSA is actually
collecting their "dick pics" as well as everything else, including GPS
locations, 3G tower locations, and so on? I strongly believe if most people
actually understood what was going on, they'd be much more upset about it.

There's a reason why "tech people" are much more upset about it. It's not
because they're "nerds" or anti-social or what have you. It's because they
actually understand what's happening and what can be done with all of that
data. And they also pay attention to hacks like the recent OPM one, where the
government proves itself to be completely incompetent in keeping our data
safe, enforcing the idea that neither the government nor companies should keep
too much data about us and for very long.

If we could get "normal" people to have as much understanding about these
privacy issues as tech people do, that could lead to some real privacy
reforms.

~~~
hackuser
> It's not that many people are "okay with it" but that they don't truly
> understand what's going on.

Also it says that people who know feel powerless to do anything about it. What
choice do they have, other than live in a cave?

~~~
wutbrodo
This is absolutely preposterous. Scrubbing every single instance of data
collection is obviously very difficult, but there are tons of high impact, low
cost things you can do but that people choose not to do. That really belies
the "people actually care but feel powerless" nonsense.

For example:

Browsing only in an incognito window prevents the persistence of many kinds of
identity across browsing sessions, at the low cost of having to type a
username and password more often. (I already do this for Facebook because
their cookie policy passes my personal line. It's not a hardship at all, but
that may be because when I have the power to change something I don't like I
prefer doing it instead of simply whining and pretending I'm powerless).

Not using a loyalty card prevents tracking of your purchases and the only cost
is the loss of a two percent discount.

Goimg to google's ad settings and turning off personalized ads. The cost is:
ten seconds and seeing 10% more ads.

~~~
dredmorbius
Counter-counterexample: EFF's Panopticlick shows how much individually
identifying data can be obtained simply from browser fingerprints. IP address
adds to that. Verizon was injecting tracking headers into its subscribers' Web
traffic directly.

Again: the problem with countermeasures is that you've got to take a _hell_ of
a lot of them before you've _any_ real assurance of even modest privacy.

See RMS's "How I do my computing" essay, featured here recently.

[https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html](https://stallman.org/stallman-
computing.html)

~~~
wutbrodo
I did mention that "complete" privacy is rather costly, but I think it's silly
to Ignore low cost countermeasures that have a high impact. Hell you can even
defend against fingerprinting, which is basically a medium cost very high
impact fix.

[https://panopticlick.eff.org/self-
defense.php](https://panopticlick.eff.org/self-defense.php)

I also disagree that the stated countermeasures don't have much of an impact.
The universe of entities that get any sort of picture of your behavior narrows
VERY sharply, and the remaining holdouts (the govt, those who control the
pipes) quite obviously require policy solutions

~~~
dredmorbius
Agreement and disagreement.

Yes, countermeasures can be taken. I apply a number of defenses myself:

⚫ Multiple browser plugins: adblock, noscript/scriptsafe, ghostery, privacy
badger, uMatrix. They work, variously, but also make browsing more of a pain.
Applying these to, e.g., my parents' systems leads to inevitable (and
difficult to diagnose remotely) issues. The median state of technical user
competence is _very_ low.

⚫ Privoxy. Though not on my primary browsing sessions as it's routed
through...

⚫ Tor. If you want to destroy your browsing experience, route all traffic
through Tor. Some sites flat out fail to function (e.g., Craigslist),
generally because they block _all_ traffic from proxies. Others repeatedly
throw up captchas, including several (Cloudflare comes to mind) who rely on JS
entirely, and cannot be bypassed for non-JS browsers. Also: pretty much all
commandline tools (curl, wget, youtube-dl) are difficult or impossible over
Tor, and you'll have to disable proxy for them. In other cases, Tor is seen as
"suspicous activity" and triggers account protection, a/k/a self-triggered
denial of service:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2w618r/how_to_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2w618r/how_to_kill_your_google_account_access_it_via_tor/)
(also discussed on HN).

(Some way to be able to toggle multiple (or no) Privoxy modes easily would be
useful.)

⚫ An extensive set of /etc/hosts blocks. Drawn from uMatrix's blocklists, plus
additions of my own. It's a total of 62,290 entries, including most common
(and many uncommon) tracking and advertising sites.

Plus other practices in real-world tradecraft.

It's still 1) tedious and 2) only modestly effective.

Email, mobile comms use, and messaging generally remain far less protected
than I'd prefer.

------
hackuser
For those considering whether to read it, it's a powerful statement on
consumer acceptance of privacy trade-offs:

 _Key findings on American consumers include that -

\- 91% disagree (77% of them strongly) that "If companies give me a discount,
it is a fair exchange for them to collect information about me without my
knowing"

\- 71% disagree (53% of them strongly) that "It’s fair for an online or
physical store to monitor what I’m doing online when I’m there, in exchange
for letting me use the store’s wireless internet, or Wi-Fi, without charge."

\- 55% disagree (38% of them strongly) that "It’s okay if a store where I shop
uses information it has about me to create a picture of me that improves the
services they provide for me."

The authors go on to note that "only about 4% agree or agree strongly" with
all three of the above propositions. And even with a broader definition of "a
belief in tradeoffs" they found just a fifth (21%) were comfortably accepting
of the idea._

~~~
asuffield
I am interested in whether, if you turned the questions around and asked
questions like "I want to give up my grocery store discount in exchange for
the company running the store not collecting information about me", you would
get the same results. Those loyalty cards are completely opt-in, the way they
are used is widely known, and out in the real world with money on the line,
people turn out to say "yes, I want this".

What does this tell us about the results of this survey?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> I am interested in whether, if you turned the questions around and asked
> questions like "I want to give up my grocery store discount in exchange for
> the company running the store not collecting information about me", you
> would get the same results.

That isn't the same question at all. The amount of the penalty for not using
the loyalty card is chosen by the merchant and the merchant naturally chooses
an amount that induces a majority of their customers to use it. That doesn't
mean the customers like it.

The interesting question is to what extent the customer benefits from
providing the merchant with the information outside of the artificial penalty.
But in all likelihood providing the information has negative value to the
customer, because the merchant can use the information against the customer,
e.g. to better determine when they can get away with charging higher prices.

The trouble is that it's a collective action problem. Paying the penalty to
opt out doesn't prevent the merchant from figuring out how to get more of your
money without providing you with any additional value, because they can do it
with a statistical sample of people who are like you but didn't opt out. So
everyone is collectively worse off when a critical mass of people use the
loyalty cards, but taking the "discount" is in the selfish interest of each
person individually. Classic tragedy of the commons.

The way we solve problems like that is with legislation, e.g. by requiring
merchants to charge the same price regardless of whether the customer uses a
loyalty card.

~~~
asuffield
It is of course not the same question: the article poses the question "would
you like to have this nice thing?", and the reversed form I posed is "are you
willing to pay for it?"

My immediate observation is that the majority of people will tend to say "yes"
to the first and "no" to the second, and what we can learn from this is that
mostly people tend to want.

I think you have rather casually tossed out the proposition that the status
quo brings the customer negative value, without supplying any justification
for that claim. I also think that your proposal of passing legislation to
force all merchants to raise their lowest prices is unlikely to prove popular.
(This proposal is commonly referred to as "increasing sales tax", and seems
like it would be regressive in nature)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> It is of course not the same question: the article poses the question "would
> you like to have this nice thing?", and the reversed form I posed is "are
> you willing to pay for it?"

It isn't a matter of willingness to pay. If the seller doesn't want you to
"buy" something (e.g. privacy) then they can set the price arbitrarily high so
that you won't.

> I think you have rather casually tossed out the proposition that the status
> quo brings the customer negative value, without supplying any justification
> for that claim.

Why do you imagine the merchant is offering the "discount" if it isn't net
profitable? When the merchant makes money by exploiting the data they collect,
whose pocket does that money come out of?

> I also think that your proposal of passing legislation to force all
> merchants to raise their lowest prices is unlikely to prove popular.

I don't recall proposing that merchants be required to raise their prices,
only that the prices they charge be the same regardless of whether customers
use loyalty cards.

~~~
asuffield
Here's how "net profitable" works. Before:

Merchant buys 5 units of item at $1 each and sells them at $3. Supplier makes
$5 in revenue. 5 customers each get one item at $3. Merchant makes a profit of
$10.

After:

Merchant buys 20 units of item A at $1 and sells them at $2. Supplier makes
$20 in revenue. 20 customers each get one item at $2. Merchant makes a profit
of $20.

Net profit: merchant is $10 richer, supplier is $15 richer, 20 customers are
each $1 richer.

People have different resources and trade between them generates wealth. More
trade generates more wealth. This is not a zero-sum game.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
All your numbers are saying is that more trade occurs when middle men charge
prices closer to their costs. But that isn't the problematic scenario. It's
this one:

Before: Merchant buys 20 units of item A at $1 and sells them at $2. Supplier
makes $20 in revenue. 20 customers each get one item at $2. Merchant makes a
profit of $20.

After: Merchant buys 15 units of item A at $1 and sells them at $3. Supplier
makes $15 in revenue. 15 customers each get one item at $3. Merchant makes a
profit of $30.

Net profit: merchant is $10 richer, suppler is $5 poorer, 15 customers are
each $1 poorer and five would-be customers can no longer afford the item.

The _trade-maximizing_ margin for the merchant is the lowest possible margin,
which is what maximizes overall utility because it increases the number of
transactions without affecting the net utility per transaction. But the
merchant isn't interested in maximizing trade, the merchant is interested in
maximizing his own profit.

The way a merchant maximizes his own profit is to reduce margins on goods sold
to price sensitive customers and raise margins on goods sold to price
insensitive customers. So your theory has to be that giving merchants more
information will cause them to reduce the prices of items sold to price
sensitive customers more than they raise the price of items sold to price
insensitive customers.

But selective pressure already destroys merchants who charge high margins to
highly price sensitive customers. Anyone who does that loses all their
business as soon as a competitor offers to sell for less. By contrast,
merchants who charge slightly profitable but not maximally profitable prices
to price insensitive customers can stay in business indefinitely, to the
benefit of everyone but themselves, regardless of the prices charged by
competitors.

Which implies that giving better pricing information to the merchants who have
survived market forces will cause them to raise prices more than lower them.

------
Zak
I'm a bit surprised by some of the mistaken consumer beliefs cited in the
article. For example:

 _> 65% do not know that the statement “When a website has a privacy policy,
it means the site will not share my information with other websites and
companies without my permission” is false._

Do people really not understand that having a policy on a particular topic
does not imply anything about the contents of said policy?

 _> 55% do not know it is legal for an online store to charge different people
different prices at the same time of day._

Why would people expect there to be a law prohibiting this? It's no different
(conceptually) from a small boutique shop that doesn't use price tags charging
an enthusiastic student a lower price than a wealthy collector. For a more
institutionalized example, membership in various organizations has provided
unadvertised discounts on tangentially related products and services for a
long time.

 _> 62% do not know that price-comparison sites like Expedia or Orbitz are not
legally required to include the lowest travel prices._

Again, this shouldn't be surprising. They don't advertise that they show the
lowest price. They're not even capable of guaranteeing that they show the
lowest price, as some airlines won't share pricing data with them.

~~~
jbuzbee
> 55% do not know it is legal for an online store to charge different people
> different prices...

> 62% do not know that price-comparison sites like Expedia or Orbitz are not
> legally required...

Statements like tell me that the survey was biased. It's making it seem like
these companies are doing something that should be illegal when all they are
doing is charging what the market will bear.

~~~
nfoz
There are many situations in which "charging what the market will bear" is
illegal. We have legal price controls, and restrictions on what/how items can
be sold, in many asset classes.

~~~
seanp2k2
If places can profit from operating in the margins where the law is shaky and
they're unlikely to be challenged on their choices (risk vs reward), they
probably will.

------
zmmmmm
Tries to make good points but indulged in so much hyperbole that I had to stop
reading. Words like "stolen", "lie", "heist", etc. I do think there's a case
to be made that online companies misrepresent to users how they deeply they
track them and use their data. But going overboard and pretending that having
somebody know some statistics about you in a de-identified and aggregated
manner is some heinous invasion of your personal privacy equivalent to someone
sitting with a spy camera watching you in your bathroom - that is completely
unhelpful in the other direction.

There's _enormous_ genuine value in this kind of data. That is, mutual win-win
value to consumers and end users and companies that learn to understand the
data. At the extreme there are a whole range of diseases where the only real
hope of curing them explicitly depends on us gathering enough data to find
cures. At a much more subtle level, a rental car company knowing enough about
its users to accurately predict when and where they are likely to want cars
_helps everyone_ and gets you cheaper prices and better availability.

The problem at the moment is that this issue has become recognised as a way to
attack advertising based internet companies and is thus being exploited by
their competitors. Those competitors don't care whether the baby is thrown out
with the bath water - in fact, if the baby goes all the better because it's
not an area of strategic advantage for them. So they might as well sabotage
all of it to get a bit of commercial advantage, and screw it if consumers and
society are the worse off for it. We need to be cognisant that much of the
heat around this is created by this being a commercial battle ground and the
actual issues are much more nuanced and need more careful thought.

~~~
skidoo
I think what tech companies do with information collected is absolutely no
different from identity theft. They help themselves to quite a lot more than
what any of their terms of service statements regard, and seem to be using
said datum for increasingly nefarious aims.

In that respect, terms like "stolen", "lie", "heist", etc, are wholly apropos.

------
EGreg
That is why we invented this:
[http://www.faqs.org/bs/ad.iphone.php?r=%2Fpatents%2Fapp%2F20...](http://www.faqs.org/bs/ad.iphone.php?r=%2Fpatents%2Fapp%2F20120110469)

Bitcoin has solved distributed money. But distributed social networking is
still a hard problem to solve. That's why people take what they can get. They
host their own blogs with Wordpress, the web is distributed, but social
networks are all centralized silos!

But soon that will change. When
[http://platform.qbix.com](http://platform.qbix.com) hits 2.0 :)

~~~
dredmorbius
Except for that "everything you buy goes on the perpetual record of the
blockchain" bit. And the fact that the one anonymous transaction most ably
facilitated by Bitcoin is fraud.

~~~
indians_pro
can you elaborate on the second sentence?

~~~
dredmorbius
Mt. Gox, for example.

------
mirimir
People are complicated, and are at least somewhat irrational. So polling is
hard, and is prone to bias and manipulation. But two observations are solid.
First, most people are entirely clueless about technical matters. Second, most
people believe that meaningful privacy is either impossible or unworkably
complicated.

I recall discussion from the mid 90s, as ad-funded commercialization of the
Internet accelerated, about impact on privacy. I'm not arguing that there was
much privacy in the early Internet. But privacy was another available path.
Now there's meaningful privacy only on the alleys and back roads of the
Internet.

I don't have any answers. But I do know that meaningful privacy is
incompatible with the current ad-funded Internet. Maybe there's a workable way
to deindividualize tracking data. Maybe anonymous blockchain nanopayments
would work as an alternative. Google ought to take the lead on this, I think.

~~~
gizmo686
Is ad funded and and privacy really incompatible. For example, radio is a
largely ad funded medium, but the technology is inherently private. Tracking
might make adds more valuable, but they are not worthless. Especially if you
condisder that adviters could still do the type of content driven targeting
that they have done on previus mediums (that is to say, it is not a privacy
violation to say that the readers of a particular piece of content are
interested in that type of content).

~~~
mirimir
Maybe so. Maybe Internet advertising developed with tracking simply because
tracking was so easy, and wasn't not prohibited. So there's strong selection
for accurate tracking. But that doesn't say that privacy-friendly advertising
is impossible.

I do get that it's naive to ask Google etc to take the lead. They're just
doing what's rational in the current regulatory environment. But who can
create Internet-wide incentives?

~~~
mirimir
... and wasn't prohibited ...

------
dredmorbius
A flipside of this is that there's no general guarantee that not participating
in such services affords much by way of protection.

You're already creating copious datastreams:

⚫ Your address is available : USPS (or foreign equivalent), USPS NCOA file,
DMV, voting registration, payroll processors, magazine subscriptions,
addressbook snooping from other parties' records.
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamtanner/2013/07/08/how-the-
po...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamtanner/2013/07/08/how-the-post-office-
sells-your-new-address-with-anyone-who-pays-and-the-little-known-loophole-to-
opt-out/)

⚫ Your place of employment: payroll processor, banking records, LinkedIn.

⚫ Purchases: Credit card, debit card, loyalty programs, checks, retail-site
tracking (phone signal or WiFi monitoring).

⚫ Your general consumer preferences are bracketed: Age, sex, home address,
income, educational data, magazine subscriptions, purchasing daa.

⚫ Your email exchanges: Even if you don't use Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, or
other major email service providers, people and businesses you rely on do. If
you've communicated with them, or even if you haven't, your data are there.

⚫ General location information: cellphone tracking data.

⚫ Annual driving data (miles): state smog data, insurance processors, toll
tags..

⚫ Online activities: IP address, ISP, browser fingerprints.

⚫ Medical data: Hospitals, insurers, payment processors, billing services,
third-party labs, drugs suppliers, etc...

⚫ Generally: data, information, photos, events, etc., entered about you by
third parties into online or offline, public or private, systems.

So: you can try to take specific steps to make small portions of your data,
but it's rather like building a dam when you're 1) already neck-deep in water
and 2) surrounded on all sides. Until you can create a comprehensive and
nonpermeable barrier, you see little benefit.

Opting out offers you little additional privacy, and costs you the discounts
or other benefits provided.

Possible alternative: opt in but under your own terms. Fuzz data, share cards
or identifiers with others, use tokens (phones, toll tags, credit cards, etc.)
for a brief time, then discard them or, better, exchange them with someone
else.

------
shawnreilly
Let's build something to help solve this privacy problem. Who else is in?

~~~
woutor
I'm in!

~~~
shawnreilly
Send me an E-mail shawn.k.reilly@gmail.com and let's discuss

------
dredmorbius
Why do companies seek more information on customers? Read their own fucking
marketing collateral.

Companies aren't falling over themselves to grab every last piece of personal
data available in order to push their own prices through the floor. Don't be
ridiculous.

They're doing it:

⚫ To find prospects who can't see their way out of a bad deal.

⚫ To find prospects who are highly inclined to spend. A wonderful Spanish
proverb I discovered recently is "Buy from desperate people, and sell to
newlyweds." Find those who absolutely need cash (even at pennies on the
dollar) for their belongings, and buy from them. Find those with stars in
their eyes, and sell to them. Look at the office furniture market:
fire/liquidation sales (buy) and startups (sell).

⚫ To sow market confusion to the point that meaningful distinctions simply
cannot be made.

⚫ To upsell, to increase conversions, to tack on additional fees, to tie
people into service contracts. All that bullshit.

Aon on Retail and Insurance:

 _Retailers have a chance to improve operating margins by 60 percent, McKinsey
projects._

...

 _" Data has always been important in the underwriting process, but now the
depth and breadth of available data has led to a dramatic increase in focus.
The quality of data can be a key factor in securing coverage, in obtaining the
best possible terms and conditions, and in setting equitable premiums. On
behalf of our clients, we collect and collate data that we then present to
insurance markets and use as a negotiating tool._

[http://one.aon.com/putting-big-data-work?page=2](http://one.aon.com/putting-
big-data-work?page=2)

Pitched at small biz:

 _Based on the purchase behavior information you gathered from your sales
receipts, you could consider running a few targeted seasonal promotions to
capitalize on the behaviors you’ve observed. For example, if people year after
year tend to buy similar products during a particular month, then consider
running a promotion to further incentivize that specific product during that
time of year._

[http://www.businessknowhow.com/internet/data.htm](http://www.businessknowhow.com/internet/data.htm)

IBM on MidSize business:

 _Analytics can turn this “big data” into the kind of insight that enables
companies to stand apart. In fact, analytics will be a deciding factor that
determines whether companies succeed or fail. Those able to effectively tap
data for game-changing insights can capitalize on virtually endless
opportunities._

[http://www.ibm.com/midmarket/us/en/business-
analytics.html](http://www.ibm.com/midmarket/us/en/business-analytics.html)

Using SAS software (a large enterprise analytic platform):

 _Using SAS solutions, we combine above median usage metrics – recency, depth,
duration, high value content – with other online conversions to identify a
customer acquisition opportunity or trigger alerts for our current customer
marketing efforts.... By enhancing outbound nurture emails with web behavior
and topics of interest, you become more proficient with your targeting...._

[http://blogs.sas.com/content/customeranalytics/2014/05/30/wh...](http://blogs.sas.com/content/customeranalytics/2014/05/30/why-
big-data-analytics-is-digital-marketings-best-friend/)

Borrowed from a response of mine to ex-Googler Chris Medina earlier this year:
[https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/dqqT25xA...](https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/dqqT25xAFtc)

