I’m just not inclined to surrender my phone to anyone for any reason. Maybe my sense of security is out of date, but it was drummed into me over years and years that physical access was a big deal.
That said, I fully support the idea of being phoneless in personal conversations. I was having lunch earlier this week with someone I hadn’t seen in a long time, and was determined to keep my phone in my pocket. It definitely took some willpower to ignore it when I felt it buzzing a few times.
I heavily curate my alerts so I knew these were messages from someone important to me. But sure enough, when I checked them after lunch it was all things that were totally fine to wait for an hour or so. And it was nice to be fully present for lunch.
Working in some (tbh mostly theatrical) high security environments, I've had to surrender my phone before going into a room. In the organizations that do this, they have lock boxes outside the room for this purpose. You lock your phone in and take the key with you. Still requires some trust but better than just leaving it with a couple guys, and is common practice in some places.
Even in the low security environment of a farmer's cow field at Silverstone in 2016 the lockbox and key system was in place. (This was a service to charge your phone while you were camping at the F1 race)
I am shocked that anyone would trust their 2FA to a slip of paper at an event where half of the crowd would probably describe themselves as a hacker or even social engineer.
Yet, more often than not, everyone just drops thier phones (and car keys) in a pile on top of the provided lock boxes.
There is always one or two boxes with labels for the boss and demi-boss, but they too just drop thier phones in the pile.
True. That's what my hat is for (I'm in the Army): my phone goes in my hat, my hat sits somewhere near the boxes, and the name-tape on my hat helps me find my phone later (since all the phones are indistinguishable black rectangles).
There are either way more people who work in the facility than boxes, or nobody trusts that the cheap combo lock will work again when they need to retrieve their stuff at the end of the day. I've had to help a co-worker pry his box open and I was like, "why would you put your stuff in there?"
That same co-worker, by the way, later claimed that his ex-wife (or someone she hired) came to our facility and rooted his phone while it was sitting in our lobby next to the boxes. It turned out that he was deranged, but it made me think for the first time about the risks of everyone with a TS/SCI clearance predictably leaving a big pile of phones unattended.
Lol. We wear berets with trade badges, not names. I came out of a meeting once to find a Sgt standing by the lock boxes all mad about me using my beret as a "bag" for my car keys and three cellphones. He would be more mad if he saw my beret atop my microwave holding my ID badge, wallet, dog tags, car keys, work keys and wristwatch. When the fire alarm goes off, I just grab the beret-bag with the important stuff.
(Fyi, you can always spot the secret squirrels by their watch tans. Only those who work in places where cellphones are not allowed still wear wristwatches 24/7.)
Not just the DoD -- pretty much the entire intelligence community, in every developed country. Also, several private companies with high-stakes IP; I know this is the case at some quantitative trading firms, for instance, and I knew some people working in Prime Air at Amazon in the early days who not only had to surrender their phones, but had to arrive at the office (whose address was unpublished even internally) by way of unmarked bus from a park-and-ride (and weren't allowed to wear anything which would identify them as working for Amazon).
Considering the amount of MFA attached to my phone plus communication access, my phone is a potentially more useful thing to steal than my wallet. Then again I rarely have cash on hand any more.
It’s a shame to see cash going away in some places. The alternatives are too traceable & used to sell your purchasing behaviors, & I’m not keen on that. We’re talking about the security of our phone’s data, but then giving up on our financial data. (Not to say there isn’t a place, but whole-sale ‘cashless’ is worrying).
Cash shouldn’t be going anywhere here in the USA. If you like eating food from a restaurant in the USA you’d better be tipping with cash. Otherwise the tip left on the card goes to the business. And we know how stingy restaurants are with pay.
I worked in hospitality for years. It’s tough, thankless, and not paid well. Tip heavy and often!
While I know that has happened in some places, it is illegal, and with a spouse who has worked in that industry for many years I can definitely say that the normal practice is that tips that are paid by credit card are paid to the server.
As it is also illegal for people to take cash tips without reporting said income to the IRS. Some illegality has become a cultural norm. Restaurants shorting people on tips is as common as speeding.
It could be split across everyone that works that shift, and it is taxed as salary, etc. Cash from table to pocket can be readily spent however by the person that did the work. Always tip in cash.
Yes the waiter cooked the food, cleaned the dishes, bussed the dishes, seated the table(politely!), and so on. They did the work.
I worked in a restaurant with tip sharing. The point behind it was, motivation by every step in the chain, for all persons, to do a good job. To compensate for a job well done.
So that even the dishwasher, would take time to endure glasses spotless, to put that little extra touch.
And all were hired, including the waiters, with this understanding.
Which means, you are advocating theft from coworkers!
If this is indicative of how waiters think today, I will be paying by card, and tipping by card.
To ensure a waiter doesn't steal from their coworkers, if tip sharing is a thing.
I worked as a waiter in a restaurant in the 90s when I was in high school. I was making $2.65/hr, the line cooks were making $10-12, yet I’d get shook down to tip the busboy, cook, bartender, hostess etc. If you didn’t play, you’d get slow-rolled. They wanted their vig whether or not the customers tipped well. Fuck that.
Tipping via card is even worse in many places because the manager or operator is just assigning money (or not) as they feel. Again, working spiffed retail sales, you need to track what you’re owed or mistakes will happen.
I am not intending to tip the dishwashers when leaving a tip, I am tipping the wait staff.
The actual solution is simply to pay staff a reasonable wage just like every other job. Lucky the solution is simple for customers, defect from the spiraling tip system.
I am not intending to tip the dishwashers when leaving a tip, I am tipping the wait staff
Of course you wouldn't want to have gratuity flow to the lowest paid of the staff, which has the most sweat enducing, filthy, labourish job in the place. They're probably an immigrant too, so screw em, right?
(The above response is due to you singling out the dishwasher, instead of, say, the chef, or everyone).
First, in Canada (unlike the US), everyone is paid a wage. Tipping amounts are different too, as a result.
However, tip sharing is not a new thing. I was part of it in the early 80s, in Canada, and it has nothing to do with the latest "tip me for just doing my job" culture.
Tip sharing properly reflects the wholeness of the job, not just the singularity of the waiting staff.
And while it is reasonable for you to have a different opinion on tip sharing being good or not, this does not change the fact that if you work a job with tip sharing, pocketing tips is theft.
I bet it's OK for all the other waiters to tip share, but then one waiter steal tips from the pool too?
Even with today's "the owner has money, slack off! Steal from them! Work as little as possible!" trend, this is taking money from hard working co-workers!.
I singled them out dishwashers because either they did a sufficient job or they didn’t. You don’t get super extra clean dishes, thus exposing the basic lie of tip sharing.
People get up in arms about tipping because the numbers have gotten so out of whack. 20% tips being expected completely undermine the basic economics of restaurants which is why they get so focused on tip sharing. The current expectation is to tip just to cover people doing their basic jobs.
Imagine going to a restaurant, getting average service, and then not tipping because everything was average. It’s not about tipping for excellence in the US, it’s about providing basic compensation that not a tip that’s just payment for services rendered.
Forget that. I tip because it’s a high abuse, high stress industry and I know that life. What you’re calling average is probably skewed towards above average treatment from the customers.
If you’re sick of paying 20% tips then work to change the law. Don’t take it out on the poor saps just trying to make ends meet.
Or, do what I do and avoid tipping restaurants when possible.
Tipping is inherently a negative experience and you should treat it as such. So for example any service that operates on tips looses a full star on review sites from me.
Wow, you even went to the "they're just immigrants", huh? I don't care who they are, I should not have to Bribe everyone from the dishwasher on up to do a good job. Just pay them. Don't make me, the end user, responsible for how well the entire staff is compensated. When I started reading this article I had sympathy for the folks who wanted tips. Heck with that, the whole chain should not extort me to do their jobs. I'll pay by card, and pay the minimum tip. Tipping is out of control.
>> Yes the waiter cooked the food, cleaned the dishes, bussed the dishes, seated the table(politely!), and so on. They did the work.
They may have done the work, but are mostly not paid the money. Wait staff are unqualified and generally paid dirt in expectation that they will receive tips from customers. Kitchen staff are certified/licensed in their trade, paid something more than nothing, and are not expected to earn tips. That is the current reality. A customer trying to force a new reality by not paying cash tips to wait staff will not be appreciated.
Many/most of my favorite places probably did have the server do much or all of the prep. I know because I can watch them. Places are crazy understaffed still.
One of reasons I use card even if would prefer cash otherwise is prices like 4.89 so by using cash you ends up with leads of heavy coins. I would prefer after tax prices to be reasonably rounded but .99 / .98 / .89 prices seems to be strongly embedded in US/UK culture.
The US government is unable to keep something as simple as its terrorist watchlist in good shape. People are constantly found to be terrorists when in fact, they are not. Imagine what it will be like when they can control your spending via digital currency.
Wait until you are trying to buy food/gas &in a town after the internet and/or power is out. That has happened to me many times ... in north america... in only the last few years. Perfect network connectivity is only a norm in big cities.
I switched to a card holder a few years ago, has my licence and various cards in it. I also keep my daily spending and joint account cards in my phone case - and my phone has some of the cards from my card holder in it.
Most of the time I just take my phone, but if I’m going in the car or out shopping I take the card holder.
The only time I throw some change in my pocket is if I’m taking the kids somewhere
I have a wallet but its been years since I've taken it with me. I had started doing a daily morning brisk walk for exercise, and didn't like having too much in my pockets when doing that. So for those walks I'd go out with just my phone in my left pocket, and my driver's license, insurance card, credit card, $20 bill, and a house key in my right pocket.
It didn't take long to realize that configuration was all I need for most outings. Just add my HSA debit card to my pocket and a keyring to my belt with my car key and a couple others, and add a stash of $100 or so hidden in my car and over 99.9% of my outings are covered.
There's also a sizable population of people like me who carry a wallet out of habit or because it has additional things like driver's license and various membership cards... but who never use the cards in that wallet, always relying on the phone
I've been wallet free for some years now. Even the driver's license has become an app here in Norway (optional, you still get the physical one).
The big downside is that my wallet and everything in it can run out of battery. That's not very redundant. Suddenly I won't be able to pay, identify, call, etc.
How do you show your driver's license to a government official without exposing everything else on your phone, especially to the police? From a US perspective, using one's phone as an ID seems incredibly risky.
You have to carry a licence when driving here in NZ but in the 10-15 years I haven’t carried a wallet I haven’t carried it. I’m not 100% on how it will go if I need it while driving (potential US$200 fine). It’s not needed for domestic flights or anything really.
Can they get through your fingerprint or key lock? It’d be entirely useless to steal my phone unless you are confident you can unlock it in 10 attempts.
My house got burglarized and my work iPhone got stolen in addition to oddly a cookbook in an opened Amazon box on the counter. It seemed so dumb in retrospect... at least after I spent a day or two turning over my place looking for it (blaming myself for losing it) before reading in the press that a 40yr old got caught in the act robbing 10 houses in my neighborhood. He just went in and grabs whatever he could see then leaves quickly, and I happened to leave my iphone on the counter that night.
I never got it back but I also realized it was basically a useless brick. Is there any value in stealing an iphone/modern android these days? They are so locked down what's the point?
The only regret I had was I didn't turn on "Find my phone" because I'm so privacy paranoid but at least the password was a much more complex alphanumeric one than most people's plus w/o an icloud backup (pre-2023 before it became encrypted).
> The only regret I had was I didn't turn on "Find my phone" because I'm so privacy paranoid [...]
Your government and phone company already track you. Turning on 'Find my phone' doesn't really add any more tracking on top, it just allows you to benefit from the tracking, too.
Find my iPhone, when enabled, gives you approval options towards locking down or remotely wiping the phone. It’s not to do with stopping others tracking you.
Certainly I'd imagine all smart-phone parts ranging from the camera modules, batteries, screens and cases are all worth money!
The logic boards might be tied to some sort of security?
I say this, as I use a small back-street phone repair guy who has drawers of various genuine and non-official parts for iPhones, and I've used him to replace smashed screens and camera modules!
It's true that Apple has paired hardware on newer phones, and that combined with Find My has really taken a huge bite out of how many iPhones are stolen, but Shenzhen is Shenzhen.
It is a mecca of technology, and you will find things that we'd generally otherwise consider impossible, like building your own iPhone piece by piece just walking around a market:
So even if they can't take a given part as-is, they can always find something useful. We'd think "the logic board is paired so it's useless": they'd think "ICs X,Y, and Z on the logic board commonly fail and now we got spares".
Apple pairs individuals hardware parts now. The camera, screen, boards, etc will not work in another iPhone unless Apple authorizes it and has their servers grant a new pairing.
That's a good point. The junkie-looking guy (at least from the press photo) may have known as much or found out later, and still managed to sell it. I guess making $40-50 is enough for the risk for these people.
The police found caught him in-the-act with a backpack full of stuff from a house down the street so he's certainly getting punished. The funny part is the police saw him before he entered the house but decided it was worth waiting until he left to get proper evidence.
I was home at the time sleeping and so was allegedly the last family he burglarized. Which makes it feel creepier.
I'm pretty sure Google/Apple OS boot locks are not simply geo-locked by mobile service vendors, so even in Africa it would be pretty limited in value for any modern phone. This happens when you start up the phone and it requires auth via the existing password and/or login to a Google/Apple account to deauth it from the primary account. Even after attempting to reinstall an ASOP boot OS on Android this will happen.
That wasn't always the case though and thieves may not realize that.
But otherwise for some reason I didn't consider selling it for parts to one of those tiny cellphone chop-shops. I assumed since it was a valuable iPhone it was ultimately mostly useless to them as a non-operational phone, but I guess $20-100 for parts is more than enough.
iPhone vulnerabilities are a dime a dozen. Even if it’s not breakable now all an attacker has to do is wait for the next 0-day and they’re in all your accounts, bank, etc. if my iPhone was stolen I’d be changing passwords and 2FA on everything ASAP. The value is your data not the phone itself.
Can you expand on what you mean here. I'm not entirely convinced you understand the security situation (nor what "0-day" means in this context) but I'm willing to accept I'm the one being naive here.
Say they have an old powered down iphone with an alphanumeric PW (or a temporarily powered-on locked iphone). What's the realistic risk for a run of the mill burglary? You think they can bypass the PW prompts, exploit an up-to-date OS, and decrypt the HD with a vulnerability available to the general public? And local data on my old phone, ie, some photos and some old iMessages on my device are a serious personal/financial risk?
I already changed the (tiny) set of relevant passwords not-2FAd immediately and everything else relevant is 2FA'd. My SIM card was delisted immediately by my telecom after I found out and the phone theft was reported to a national hotline/database, so not sure why I need to "change" my (phone number-only) 2FAs...
I mean you're kind of setting the parameters with hindsight here. On paper alphanumeric was always known to be more secure. But there was a very long time where there was no way that your run of the mill thief was going to get the equivalent of a GreyKey and break into your pin protected, activation locked iPhone 7 by hopping on AliExpress...
I agree a run of the mill burglar wouldn't have the foresight to sit on your phone for years and years, since the value of breaking in probably diminishes almost immediately as you get a new phone, Wallet deactivates, etc. but it's not a reach to imagine that in a few years we'll see the equivalent of the current Cellebrite tech become widely available.
If you're the kind of person to bet that a company that already got hacked for most of their data once... already has their hardware leaked on eBay because they partner with notoriously unreliable government partners... and relies on open vulnerabilities won't have their tech reverse engineered any time soon? You should save that $100 for a rainy day.
Will their tech leak, sure, that’s possible. Will equivalent tech for a future device a few years from now exist and be freely available, not as given as you seem to believe.
Even if they are they rarely bypass an already locked device. Unless they are paying big money for the latest Cellebrite. Which I'm not sure is even available commercially like that.
Does Duo on Apple Watch not make you unlock your phone? On Android it seems to refuse to allow you to approve access via Watch without unlocking the phone, and if I have to reach for my phone anyway, I don’t really benefit from trying to approve it from my watch.
Exactly my reaction. Yes, it's important to exercise self-control with your phone. Yes, there's a time and a place. No, don't trust likely-looking strangers with something that gives access to so much of value.
For the security aspect, they could offer to lock your phone inside a pocket-sized faraday cage so that you can keep it on your person while rendering it useless.
It doesn't even need that really, just wrap it in tissue paper or put a sticker on the screen - enough of a reminder that if you use it you'll be kicked out. (But allows you to keep it on you, and to go to look at something before remembering.
Based on what participants said afterwards, some people would reach into pocket forgetting that their phone wasn't in it. I'm guessing people would also forget they aren't supposed to be playing with their phone if there weren't some hindrance.
Nope. It would have to be a sound-proof, EMF shielded cage. Otherwise it transmits just later what it learns while unable to connect upstream.
I've been to places where I had to hand over my phone not long ago, the German consulate in S.F. being one. I don't think it's uncalled for. Generally I rather not carry such a device at all.
The security of the even isn't in question. It's the security of the phone.
If you have your phone in your pocket in a locked Faraday cage, it prevents compulsive checking and any network notifications. It also means coat-check folks don't have access to it. The fact it can record other attendees doesn't matter. They may have their phone just in their pocket.
Typing that out, it makes me realize the Faraday cage is unnecessary. Just turn it off, lock it in a reinforced sleeve, people at the front hold onto the key for you.
Surprised I didn't realize this immediately. I sometimes lock my phone in a bag and put the key in another room. If I'm really serious I put the key in an envelope and write on the outside why I'm doing this. Tearing the envelope makes a nice barrier.
I don’t think they meant security as in taking it into a secure location, they meant security of your own data and software on the phone by not leaving it where strangers could have physical access for hours.
They did this a Chappelle show I went too in NYC. You could keep bring your phone into the show but it had to be locked I a thick neoprene pouch they gave you. When you left the show there were people there it open them (they were locked magnetically somehow)
They're opened by magnets, so not exactly something you can give to the 'phone valet' for peace of mind since they could open it and re-enclose it non-destructively.
When I saw Chappelle, they put phones in cases and let you hold onto the locked case. There was a way to get into the case in case of emergency without special tools, but security was kicking anyone out with a phone not in said case.
I get so many unimportant notifications from my phone nowadays that my brain just learned to ignore the vibration. The only notifications I unconsciously listen for are the ones from my computer (when I'm using it) that are, guess what, Calendar, Slack, WhatsApp. E-mail notifications are delivered silently.
Maybe I should just silence everything else on my phone too...
You should spend a few hours turning the useless ones off, making the non-urgent ones silent, and filtering the important ones. For each notification, ask yourself "do I need to know this now?" If not, turn it off.
My phone only lets calls and instant messages through. Bank notifications are silent. Everything else is turned off.
Then filter email the same way. My inbox is a sacred space. It's similarly quiet.
It made a big difference for me. I get sidetracked a lot, and reducing interruptions and unnecessary information helped.
I've done this years ago and it's been great. The only push notifications I have left are text/whatsapp.
I just wish Android had better controls for notification sound. E.g., if my whatsapp groups get chatty I silence my phone. But if my wife calls I want it to ring.
I think there's room for a feature here: for approved contacts, notify them I'm busy when they try to call or message and ask if they want to interrupt. I think some desktop IM apps had that some time ago, but I haven't seen it on popular mobile equivalents.
The iPhone sorta has this with Focus Status Sharing and auto-reply to texts turned on. Clumsy/has caveats and is not quite what you said, but close enough to mention anyway.
iOS has this now with Focus Status Sharing; eg in messages others can see you’re busy and they caget extra options like ‘deliver quietly’ and ‘notify anyway’ - third party apps can do this too but not many have added it yet.
For a lot of comedy shows, they’ve started using locking Faraday-cage bags, and I like that system a lot more. Your phone stays with you, it’s just locked in a bag to block signal. Those bags (without the lock) are pretty cheap, too—I’m thinking of picking one up for things like Blackhat, but also for times when I want to encourage myself to be offline without crippling my ability to use my phone.
If it is not an alert asking you whether you want to give access, it is already to late anyway. (And since you don't want to give someone from Pakistan access to your account, you want to ignore it anyway. But change your pw though.)
Every such prompt I have seen has been useless, incorrect location and only because I was logging in manually.
But as long as I have to approve them, who cares if they are trying to log in in Pakistan? I won't approve the notification if I saw it right now, or later.
Focus mode on iOS is great for situations like that - no huzzing, and nitifications are hidden until you tap to reveal them.
As for the phone security - same for me, but because of that it needs such protections that I can leave it anywhere and I know that my data won’t be breached.
Chat apps should further user level message priority i.e. I prefix a preset keyword set on mine & my Friend's chat app for urgent messages so that the chat app needn't notify them when I send them cat pictures.
I wouldn't use it, so if it were the only way to order I'd leave, so that I could order somewhere else.
It's not just about being a stick in the mud over the ordering process - it would signal to me that I had the wrong idea of the kind of place it was: I'm sure you can order like that at McDonalds, but I don't want to eat at McDonalds.
Around 2014 I was invited to a birthday party. The party location was in a cellar bar in a narrow side street in the medieval city center. In the bar was absolutely no cell reception and even if you ascended the stairs and went infront of the door you only had Edge. There was no Wifi.
It felt magical. Like the parties we had in the before smartphone era. Each gust arrived their phone in their hand, noticed that there is absolutely no reception and just put it away. So people talked, joked and debated. With anyone staring at their phone.
Sounds nice, but it shouldn't take -that- for people to interact with each other. It's so incredibly rude to dick with your phone at a gathering of friends, yet so common, especially among but not exclusive to younger people.
I went to a small superbowl gathering once with some folks I didn't know(friends of friend), where the host quite literally spent the entire time on their phone, reading twitter. They'd announce "someone posted 'x'" about a play or commercial. The others would feign laughter, then go back to playing with their phones until they heard cheering or laughing. I left at halftime in disbelief people operated this way.
I guess I'm equally surprised that people on a forum built around an industry that relies on people being glued to these devices are surprised, in 2023, that the industry has succeeded in that effort.
Yet expecting some harsh top-down measure to deal with it is often as useless as expecting the drug addiction epidemic to end if only drugs were illegal. Ultimately we need to not only put effort into hard limits tech-wise for those in exploitative/extreme situations but most importantly developing social awareness and strategies to deal with the issue.
Not having a phone at the dinner table (with family, with friends, etc), for example, could easily become a social norm/taboo, and it already is for most people I know already. The benefit of these rules (vs more aggressive top-down rules like no phones in the venue period) are there can be exceptional exceptions when you really need to be on-call.
While I'm sympathetic to the motivations behind stuff like gov/venue controls for stuff like this, in practice it's usually a much tougher social issue that needs to be nurtured rationally/carefully, with respect towards those tangibly victim to the downsides. We all are inclined to seek cheap boogie men to blame for social issues but we also tend to disregard the downsides of the utility of hard/aggressive rules while simultaneously being fully aware of the natural inclination to bypass such rules when it matters.
Drugs are a poor comparison. I can make many drugs in my basement using cheap and widely available supplies. I cannot make a highly available global network optimized by corporate psychologists to be as addictive as possible.
If we decided to we could have our government snuff them out for good in a single bill.
This is definitely dependent on the group of people, but if you have like 2 or 3 people doing it, everyone ends up doing it. Nobody wants to talk to a person on their phone, even if they can multitask
Rudeness is subjective and based on implied social agreements that a) change, and b) are not as universal as they are assumed to be.
Based on my personal experience I can agree that if someone uses their phone in a gathering of people it can disconnect them from those people, and that some people see “choosing to disconnect” as disrespectful, but I think that to unilaterally call that disconnection rude is to ignore the world we’re currently living in as well as the legitimate chance that those people are addicted beyond their control.
This is a generic argument that could be used anytime a negative word is deployed. "That's just the world we live in, and they might not be able to help it, poor dears!" It's so soft it's difficult to find a hard point to attach an argument to, "nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so," rewritten in warm spit.
> It felt magical. Like the parties we had in the before smartphone era
This comment feels very foreign to me.
Very rarely do I encounter someone so glued to their phone that they can't interact at a social event. Usually that person doesn't engage much with other people and eventually stops getting invited to future events because they're simply not showing any interest in socializing. I don't even understand how someone works their way into a friend group if they're too attached to their phone to be socializing.
It's weird to hear about groups of friends who are all so attached to their phones that they can't interact unless forcibly separated from them (or from reception). And that's coming from someone with a very tech-heavy group of friends.
> Very rarely do I encounter someone so glued to their phone that they can't interact at a social event.
It's not like someone doesn't interact at all. But all those tiny distractions went away. No quick glance at a messenger, or social media, or looking something up.
I'll be honest, in my experience, being tech-heavy ≠ tech-dependant, If anything some tech-heavy people are hyper aware of their usage and actively avoid it in social settings
This would be a really nice restaurant/bar idea, too bad cell phone jammers are illegal in the US. Maybe you could layer your walls with foil to naturally block antennas?
It seems like it’s probably legal. Might want to provide a reception-available area to give people the option of stepping out to check their phone, similar to a smoking area.
I know it's not good in aggregate, but I miss smokey bars, even though I don't smoke myself. The smoke made everything look sort of softer, and the smoke hid some other odours of bars. :-)
There was also a defacto "tradition" on campus, you saw coats and shirts on balconies and then you knew they'd been to a bar last night. :-D
I thought I did too, but now I live somewhere where there are plenty of smoky bars, and the novelty wore off quickly. It's just a pain having to deal with clothes drenched in smoke after an evening out, when you have experienced not ever having to deal with that. Knowing that all bars are smokefree is much easier than having to remember which ones are and which aren't.
Maybe this could be like, neo brutalism. Purposefully use materials in locations that are cel reception dead zones.
If you wanna get all covert & secret agent ish, then have data harvesting agents plant lil doohickeys that extend range lol. Now you got some neo noir sci-fi cyberpunk espionage actions a-brewin.
AFAIK, while active signal jammers are illegal, passive signal jammers are legal. You should be fine just covering your walls in chickenwire (though this works for wifi frequencies, not sure about cellular frequencies).
No, the mesh doesn’t block everything. In the case of using your rule of thumb (1/10th wavelength), it’ll reduce the signal strength by about 33db if my math is right.
Our local ski resort has no cell reception, and it's magic. When you sit on the charlift you always talk to strangers. In the lodge everyone has their eyes up and is talking, and even when waiting for a lift people actually chat and laugh and joke.
I genuinely hope they never build a tower up there.
I seriously doubt phone reception is stopping people talking to strangers on ski lifts. People aren't generally on their phones on ski lifts even where there is reception.
I've been to numerous shows recently with no-phone policies (TOOL, Louis CK, Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle). I _love_ the policy, it frees people to enjoy the show, doesn't block views with people holding phones up and doesn't ruin the lighting.
I now intentionally seek out no-phone shows and events (it's common in standup comedy).
The first two enforce the rule with security - if you get caught, you get kicked out and banned from future shows.
The later two shows used the pouch system from Yondr. At Chris Rock the show started 90 minutes late since people came to the show with their tickets on their phones and had to walk back out to unlock them. There were also nowhere near enough staff to lock the phones and provide pouches, nor to unlock phones. It was chaos.
Chappelle doesn't do digital tickets, but on the way out there was almost a crush in the crowd as people lined up to get their pouches unlocked. We ended up forcing open a fire escape and went home with our phones still in pouches, I ended up unlocking the pouches at home (you just gotta beat it open, or use a magnet)
The implementation of these systems aren't perfect - but there is definitely room here for a good implementation.
My thought was that the best solution would be phone lockers in venues that are after ticketing. Simple slots that you slide your phone into and get an RFID tag with a locker number back in return. I'm sure somebody will figure it out.
>Chappelle doesn't do digital tickets, but on the way out there was almost a crush in the crowd as people lined up to get their pouches unlocked. We ended up forcing open a fire escape and went home with our phones still in pouches, I ended up unlocking the pouches at home (you just gotta beat it open, or use a magnet)
Since you stole the pouches the system can't work that well given the company lost money from your theft.
Wow, you’d think automatic unlocking, to save staff time and get people out of the venue when the show was over, would be the first functionality that you’d be looking for in this sort of thing.
I mean you could just embed those things that they attach to clothes and alcohol bottles at the store to sound a brief alarm when someone tries to cross a threshold with it, then have staff only stop people when the alarm goes off, otherwise foot traffic can flow freely while people dump their sacks in bins like they do with glasses after 3D movies.
> There were also nowhere near enough staff to lock the phones and provide pouches, nor to unlock phones. It was chaos.
That's crazy. I went to two Yondr standup shows and it was no real added delay at all. I assumed it would be on the way out, but unlocking took about 5 seconds per person and there were more than enough attendants to handle it.
They were both large theaters (~3,000 seats), not stadiums though or anything (~30,000). I do wonder how many attendants you need based on audience size. Or if they've moved on to "self-service" stations on the way out or something.
I find it weird that you’d need to have these systems, theatre has had a don’t use your phone during the show policy forever and doesn’t seem to really have any challenge enforcing it.
People don't generally try to record plays. And your clips wouldn't go viral even if it did, a clip from a scene out of context doesn't mean much.
Whereas a joke is very shareable, and stuff that pushes the edge can go super viral, especially when taken out of context -- risking Twitter/media backlash. So both the rewards and risks are WAYYY higher for standup.
Went to Chappelle + Rock and the no phone policy was a problem. It was a ticketmaster event so everyone had to check in with the tickets (digital) and the checkin then immediately power down phone and put in the pouch took 1-2 hours. The lines were insane at the beginning to lock and end to unlock, it was a horribly slow process and the pouches are just funky. Phones are very personal and putting your phone in a pouch that had another phone, that is a bit rough it just, no thanks.
I get they want people to enjoy the show and really not record it, there are problems though.
A major problem with no phone events is that you can't easily find friends in the event, we had to meet up with people and only knew their seats. People were in various areas and coordinating all that like the 90s was a task.
The biggest problem though is people with kids or elderly or assistance needs, being without the ability to receive or send messages in those situations is bad. Someone in our group had a family member in hospice and another with a babysitter, that time was a bit less enjoyable. Just having a phone on vibrate is nice to be able to check out and enjoy the show without worry.
A lower issue but one that stings a bit is you can only take pictures/videos outside the event. Once inside you never can even take a picture/video of anything. So the event history is just outside and since friends were inside those moments are only in memory not pictures/video. I love to get some experience shots at events/festivals/fairs/concerts etc, it can take you back.
Around that time I went to two other non no phone events that were much smoother and I have photo/videos from.
At Adam Sandler they did allow phones and just told people to stop recording, that was much easier. Concerts that are no phone also lose the option to do the lights on final songs or moments, that is fun. Sandler had everyone do it on the Chris Farley song.
Smashing Pumpkins / Jane's Addition around that time also allowed phones and recording and it was great.
All the events were cashless and many people just like to bring their phone to pay. Well you had to get out the credit card or use the wristband. That is another annoyance.
So my review of no phone events is they are bad and unnecessary, they delay the concert fun with lines, make contacting friends harder and take away from the experience, make paying harder, add a massive pouch you have to carry around with your phone in it. If an event is no phone I'll have to really really like the act otherwise I'll pass. If they want to stop people recording just have a no record policy if you want but don't hinder friends/family/memories.
Funniest part is there are tons of recordings of the Chappelle/Rock event and most from the boxes where the policy is lax. Another reason not to like the policy, only the proles in VIP and GA have to adhere. The event was great though, Chappelle, Rock, Donnell Rawlings were all hilarious, Blackstar (Mos Def) was good as always and opener Rick Ingram was hilarious as well. I just wish I could have maybe snapped a shot at least of the final part where they all got on stage. It was amazing to see Chappelle and Rock like 20 yards from where we were sitting.
I haven't heard of Dave Chapelle sketch in a long time, but hateful is likely the wrong adjective and a bit hyperbolic. If he does indeed make transphobic comments as part of his recent stand-up routine, than at worst he's being highly insensitive - but I doubt it stems from an ideological position rooted in hatred.
I’ve also never had my view literally blocked by someone holding up a phone, but I do consider it spoiling my view to have a little glowing screen held up right in front of me so i have to look past it to see the performance. It’s obnoxious. I suspect that’s what GP is referring to, as opposed to literally blocking the view.
No comment on the anger about comedians being offensive.
The argument that phones are banned from venues because they are disruptive is disingenuous, because far more disruptive things are not banned; or rather, the bans are not enforced. For example, I find it infinitely more disruptive to have people vaping at shows, and yet I have never seen people have to give up their vapes when attending a stand-up show, or ever be made to leave for vaping, for that matter.
As for anger about comedians being offensive, not at all. On the contrary, I think stand-up comedians have a duty to be offensive and push boundaries. I just think it's pathetic and cowardly to try to prevent people from recording those incidents.
Cell phones are distracting, I go to shows whether they're banned or not, but I dislike them personally - I do not think it's disingenuous. Maybe I'm just old, but I expect smoke (or vape) at a show, it doesn't detract for me. Some venues do in fact enforce no smoking or vaping (security will give you the flashlight warning at one, show you the door at two). And that's nice too, but the smokers and vapers are at least usually watching and enjoying the show - phone people don't strike me as particularly engaged. As a performer, that'd bug me.
I think it's more a mixture of a belief that people are absent when their phones are out, that it's rude to the other audience members, and makes new sets less awesome for audiences down the line.
I don’t think the phone ban has anything to do with comedians being afraid their edgy material will be heard. I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that live shows and streaming deals are the only way they make money and they don’t want leaked recordings affecting demand.
Count me among the people who don't trust you or the whole system. There are a lot of ways this could go wrong, when there's an alternative to turn off your phone in your own pocket. This is a sign that you live in a high-trust society, or at least think you do ...
Let me get this straight. A bunch of company executives/founders (37/150) provided physical access to their phones -- turned off I hope -- for the duration of the event?
And they should be proud of that? The phones used to cf. provide 2FA access to their company.
As someone commented: I am jokingly curious if they would do the same thing at DEF CON. Or provide that phone to a LEO/DoJ without a warrant.
In my experience it is not surprising at all. Without a vocal and engaging security advocate and a shared belief in the sensitive nature of the company's data and processes - all devices in the employee's possession are insecure.
If you think with a security mindset you probably work in security.
I’ve worked in security for 10 years at startups to faangs and have even presented at defcon a couple of times and don’t see the concern. I take my iPhone and regular laptop to defcon for a decade.
What is the worst that can happen? Everything is ssl with hsts so even if they own the wifi connection they can’t eavesdrop. Do you expect someone to launch an apple zero day?
Small reality check for everyone being outraged that company founders "risked" their company, customer information and all their bank accounts by doing that:
They are not that important, nobody is going to use a zero day iOS exploit or roll up with a Cellebrite device to unlock phones at a early stage founder event.
It's not the same as surrendering your phone to a hostile border guard as a human rights activist.
Snowden: "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
I’d be willing to bet that you already take reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood of threat actors ending up under your bed at night. My point is simply that relying on people you have no formal relationship, and haven’t screened in any way, to have your best interests at heart simply because “what are the odds?”, is a rather stupid approach to security. Especially when you’re making such a compromise simply for a little bit of cheap virtue signalling.
Just because the act "giving your phone to a person" is the same, it doesn't mean it's the same thing.
Trust and incentives are a thing. Just like depositing money in your bank is different to telling a stranger on the street to keep your money safe even if the act of handing over valuables is the same. It's not in the interest of the bank to lose trust, just like the founders of that app are not in the business of cracking the phones of fellow founders.
It would absolutely be worth the investment to put 99% of attendees' phones in normal boring lockers, to spend an hour with _one phone_ belonging to a high-value target attending such an event.
No way to prove that happened here, but it's the sort of thing that any crook worth their salt would be spinning up a fake phone-locker business for. "We'll provide phone lockers for your event" would get you a lot of boring-but-profitable gigs, and the occasional chance of a lifetime.
You're not getting it - I'm putting forward that the act is the same regardless of the intention.
You're exposing the same level of vulnerability whether you give it to a border guard, the cops, or your nurse in hospital.
It's fundamentally the same action and same vulnerability, papering it over with "you can trust this particular system" means nothing - the act is the act.
Searched the article and all HN comments for "parents", "kids", "babysitter", etc. No matches.
If you want to be more inclusive, have a sign like, "Tell your cofounder/babysitter than in an actual emergency they can call or text [number] and we'll come get you."
I could happily live without a phone. As it is, according to the Android "Digital Wellbeing" tool, I've opened / unlocked my phone only 10-20 times per day for the past week. I actually hate my phone (it's a three year-old budget model) and prefer to do everything on my laptop when I can sit down somewhere and focus.
But I have four small children, and my wife would not be pleased if I told her that I was just getting rid of the thing and would become harder to reach, or wouldn't be able to make an emergency phone call.
However, I'm also in the military and have worked in a number of environments where I couldn't have a phone. In those environments, there's always a 24/7 duty number that I can give my wife to call in an emergency, which someone will answer and start a process to find me.
Edited to add: In either Deep Work or Digital Minimalism, Cal Newport says that his wife made him finally get a phone when their first kid was born.
That's too broad of a statement to say with confidence
Say, I left them with a friend and there's an accident, I'm still expecting to be contacted for Allergies and Medical History, and so I can make my way there
Having lived in a really unsafe enviroment, there's too many variables that people who live in safe places take for granted, Have you ever been followed by a car? or have you had a family member kidnapped?
Calling the right person (Because local LEO wouldn't do enough until an actual crime had taken place, has saved me and my family more than once)
Your kids medical file contains that information and the emergency doctor is not going to call you for allergies information. You being as the hospital now or hours later is not important in an emergency unless you are also the doctor.
Your kid being followed in a car and kidnapped doesn't change because you are by your phone. If the police ignore you calling about a car following you the cell phone isn't going to help
In your situation I would trade in your cell for a gun. It gives you a fighting chance against kidnappers and I would not let my kids out without armed guards. Whatever protection a cell phone provides parents in the first world those benefits apply less in your situation.
I'm telling you, having had family followed, being able to call and coordinate people (Who may have guns) was the difference between my mom making it home and not
Allergies that weren't discovered in a medical setting aren't on file, I've had that happen to me
From a recent break in near my house, the only reason we could act timely, was because we called the owner, confirmed the house was supposed to be empty at that time, and then coordinated
Having dabbled with armed guards, unless you're high profile enough to keep a larger force, it tends to just put a bigger target on your back
> Your kids medical file contains that information and the emergency doctor is not going to call you for allergies information.
Kid's medical file is on a computer in the pediatrician's office. Kid gets taken to an ER at a hospital with which the pediatrician is not in any way affiliated. How does the emergency doctor quickly get the kid's records? Can the emergency doctor even find out what pediatrician the kid goes to unless a parent tells them?
I personally don't go that far — for a long time before cell phones, people trusted babysitters with their children — but in that era, it was customary for the venue to have a phone number and the parents to write it down for the babysitter in the event of an emergency.
I completely agree and am surprised at the responses to your comment.
Personally, I'm waiting on a call about an adoption, and I can't ever leave my phone until that goes through. Even before cell phones, parents would leave a number for the babysitter for where they'd be. Yes, kids were raised without phones before, but I'm sure it wasn't a better situation when parents got home and found a note that their kid had to go to the hospital or something. People may say this is fear-mongering, but I guess they don't have kids with health issues.
If you don't want to be distracted, there are features like Screen Time that can lock you out of every app except phone and messages if you want.
How would they find you, if you don't have your phone? They'd have to give you an AirTag or something, which they could ping in the event of an emergency. But this would add quite a bit of overhead (both in terms of buying tons of AirTags, managing them at check-in, and getting them back at check-out.
Or have one of those pager systems some restaurants use to let you know your burger is ready. You don't need one for every attendee; just the ones who are parents, doctors, etc., and specifically come up to request one (and register it in their name).
Pagers solve the issue for such professions, firefighters have them, those things are loud... For parents? Perhaps, but if you're paying for daycare you might as well trust them to get things right.
Also, not a daycare center, but a babysitter. For many of the babysitters we get, we're meeting them for the first time when they show up at our door; that's just reality these days. And it's not uncommon for them to text us while we're out, though thankfully no emergencies so far.
That worked in the 90's. But this all depends on infrastructure and I have worked in a couple of places now where we wouldn't have a phone number to call, because everybody has phones.
Its like saying "just use a pay phone, like we used to do". You could, except there isn't a single payphone in my country.
There are actually bags designed for shutting out phones. AFAIK they are mainly aimed at concerts to prevent people recording etc. So you drop your phone into a small bag that is a Faraday cage. The bag is closed with a very strong magnet (similar to theft prevention tags in stores. You then carry your phone with you without being able to use it, but also without anyone else being able to temper with it.
That said, I'm surprised why anyone wouldn't trust the wardrobe at a ycombinator event.
High-value targets, interesting technologies to steal, probably some shady secrets about some VC parties that could destroy some VCs or companies, source-codes, client data and trade secrets, info about unreleased products, plenty of reasons.
Pulling out a stunt: "Look how many naive people gave us our phone, buy our security solutions to prevent physical tampering. We didn't even have a logo, we just drew on a paper and pen."
Figure out how to make this conspicuous and you will have a luxury product . Like a badge , wristband . Maybe hypercolor shirt that responds to emf so you know the person is not carrying .
Only the most powerful people are capable of operating without one so there will be desire to signal that somehow.
This would be great for another reason: Social norms exclude the male population from being socially accepted to wear any kind of jewlery, with few exceptions (watches, studs, stickpin). This would help to increase inclusion.
Instead of hading over your phone, I prefer what Madonna did at her Madame X tour in LA (as also happens at other concerts), which is your phone gets locked up in a pouch (but you keep it).
I wear a watch and trained myself to just not take out my phone at social events. It's kind of a cool feeling to know you just don't need to look at it. Like learning to be comfortable in silence/boredom. And it does help me engage more with people and the world around me. Frees me up to think more.
There's no secret or magic trick. Just keep it in your pocket and don't take it out.
Yeah, I have got it to the point that I often go several hours at home or work without even knowing where my phone is. Out and about, it rarely leaves my pocket. I catch up on things once in the morning and once in the evening, and other than that unless something urgent is going on, the phone has little to offer me, and certainly nothing worth distracting from a conversation or an event.
Did anyone else say "your sign looks like you spent $1 on it, you're keeping the devices insecurely out on a bench, and this whole setup doesn't inspire confidence and is sketchy af?"
I see you're getting downvoted (gray comment) but I'll jump aboard the unpopular opinion here:
There is exactly zero chance I'd be leaving my device with these people. Trusting your phone to strangers when you can just silence it and leave it in your pocket is a fool's errand - this whole thing is just silly. It's unnecessary risk - everything from auth, to payments, to my career is piped through this device. Leaving it with absolute strangers is leaving someone with my most significant and risk-prone tool that I own.
Sorry to be pedantic but common folks - let's use some common sense here. This is so silly.
Chiming in to say this is not an unreasonable standpoint.
It's not that you're likely to be victimized in this particular venue. It's that you should practice good habits if your device has, or ever will have, access or exposure to information you or your company would be damaged by if stolen.
Yes, but not before removing my wallet and passport and briefcase that has all my logins to my business’s internet banking written down on a sheet of paper inside.
Obviously it would be worse if the valet started using my wallet and passport and business banking to steal from me, but it would still suck if they merely threw it all out the window.
You lost me with this analogy. Is the thief wiping the contents of your phone? This sounds like you need to improve your backup and recovery system... what if you lose your phone, or drop it in the toilet?
To be concrete, the concern isn’t that the phone check people are going to steal important data from my phone, it’s that they are going to lose my phone. I have backup and recovery systems but they are not seamless and not complete, something would probably get lost.
You're implying that car-theft would be equally as bad or worse than phone-theft. I'm not sure that's true for everyone. Further, stealing a car may be more difficult than stealing a phone.
This. I'd rather my vehicle was stolen vs or damaged vs getting digitally compromised. The damage someone could cause with my phone vs. stealing my car is vastly different.
How insecure is your phone that someone can digitally compromise you without knowing the passcode? If you lock a modern iPhone, even the FBI will have trouble extracting any content from it.
For years, phone forensics firms pretty much consistently had non-public exploits that would allow compromising even locked phones. As recently as 2019, Cellebrite publicly claimed that they can attack any iPhone with up to date software: https://www.wired.com/story/cellebrite-ufed-ios-12-iphone-ha...
And those are publicly known capabilities. You should assume that potential adversaries will have more than that. Am I certain that such exploits are known for the very most recent iPhone/iOS? No. But it would still be foolish to bet on them not being known.
Further, stealing a car may be more difficult than stealing a phone
Stealing it may be more difficult, but it's much easier to lose a phone than a car. I've never lost my car, but I've lost 2 phones (I got one of them back).
There are more types of phones than just iPhones, and there have been enough high profile incidences of zero day exploits that allow you to exfiltrate data from a locked phone to give a reasonably security conscious person pause to just hand over their phone to a stranger.
Even if you think of the people you're giving the phone to are trust worthy there's just no good goddamn reason to risk it.
My phone is safer in my custody - it doesn't matter who I am giving it to, including YC founders/staff. Giving my phone to other people, regardless of who those people are, is an extraneous risk when compared to having it in my pocket on silent.
I'm sorry - but this is just bad personal opsec regardless of what event you're attending, or who you're rubbing elbows with. Sorry, but my opinion on this is different than yours.
Agreed wholeheartedly. I would have refused not because I don’t trust the guys (the context of being a ycombinator founder event would give me a lot of confidence), but because it’s clear they aren’t really doing anything to safeguard the phones very well. Looks to me like it’s ripe for someone pulling a social engineering hack on them and getting access to some high-value phones.
If they had a bank of PO Box style lockers (so some rudimentary physical security) and a security guard I’d be satisfied, but a couple fellow founders standing guard over a card table while also themselves being distracted by the meet-and-greet nature of the event is not my idea of a good place to leave my phone.
they're sitting on a bench right behind him. One could fall off and get smashed. a third party could steal them. the fire alarm could go off and then what would they do?
It's just a dumb way to run this, if this is what you want to do. The amazing part is that they found so many people willing.
> The amazing part is that they found so many people willing.
Honestly it doesn't surprise me that much. People who tend to end up in these opportunities have incredibly privileged lives that allowed them to arrive at such an event/opportunity. With those privileged lives they can be quite insulated from stuff like theft, security, etc.
Just because someone's privileged, or rich, or a founder, or hell even technical... doesn't mean they have common sense. Handing custody of your phone over for no reason other than a "social experience" is just evidence of how they're out-of-touch from normal life/security practices.
If you can easily afford the latest iPhone why bother stealing one? More to the point being part of the YC social circle is worth a lot more than a phone. Being known as a thief, untrustworthy , would either lead to being ejected from that group or render it much less valuable. People do stupid things all the time but they do them less when they’re clearly not in their self interest.
some third party might steal it. It might fall off the super safe bench they're storing it on and break. It might somehow get compromised by them or a third party.
Why would anyone with an ounce of sense give these people and their setup anything of value?
They all just got half a million in funding. That may not meet your definition of “rich”, but it at least makes the economics of stealing a $500 phone pretty silly
they're storing it on a bench behind them. it might fall on the floor and break. someone else could steal it. The fire alarm might go off and it might get destroyed or lost.
It's just a setup I'd expect from someone in grade 2, not people pretending to be professionals.
I also use my phone for all sorts of security authentication. I wouldn't volunteer it to anyone else for any reason that wasn't an absolute emergency. It's a needless risk without any benefit. I can just keep it in my pocket on silent.
At the rate this economy is headed, it wouldn't surprise me. "Y Combinator Apologizes For Funding White-Collar Smartphone Theft Ring, Refunds Victims*"
This ad worked in so far as I downloaded their app. However, if you open it, you have to enter your phone number? No other way to sign up? Without even seeing the app in action?! Deleted.
I'd recommend One Sec if you're interested in something similar, I don't remember that asking for anything like that and have no idea why a similar app would need to.
Mid-30's: I don't carry a cell phone, nor do I use email (unless temporary burners).
Nobody believes me, and even showing them my numeric pager brings doubts.
I had a recent court filing (probate), and it really surprised me when the official public form asks for both phone and email (which I did not list, and the filing still went through). Same with DMV/titling vehicles... why does everything think this is okay [to "require" personal information]?
I'm afraid the comment doesn't contribute to the conversation. This is a lifestyle that can hardly apply to anyone else, especially those in a relationship or having a family, so might as well just keep it to yourself.
What absolute nonsnse. Many people throughout the worlds (we're talking hundreds of millions, if not billions) live without a phone or email and are in relationships and have families.
I am very jealous of you. I'm on the same journey but not quite able to get there. However I have found my resistence to be the same - my friendships are relationships prosper much more than before I started in this path!
Good on you for living the way that works for you. You only get one life, don't let others dictate it.
Achtung! Achtung! If you want to keep your guests' credentials safe from potential attackers, you should consider placing these phones upside down. Just imagine, a coordinated attack where someone takes a high-resolution picture of sensitive information and uses services like Coinbase to send it to their mobile device. By flipping your phones, you can prevent this security concern altogether.
PS And if you ever need a security consultant with expertise in software, hardware and office security, you know where to find me!
This is a great idea, and I'd love to do this at other networking events or even social events like weddings.
The biggest obstacle to doing this at social events is that people often want to take photos throughout the night, and own phones are almost always how we do this. One solution is to ensure there's a good roaming photographer who can take peoples details and share the photos later, but it still feels like a bit of a barrier to scaling this to places like function centres, etc.
My sister got back to Berlin from a hiking trip, where she brought no technology. It was the summer and per usual she was wearing her little sailor's hat, navy short shorts, and a white tank top. She went straight to Berghain, a techno mecca club with a notoriously strict door policy and the most extensive body contraband search in Berlin. No photos or video are allowed inside, so everyone's phone cameras are stickered.
Pam is friends with the booker and was on the staff guest list, so the door staff treated her with the smallest modicum of respect afforded by such a self-serious organization. They padded her hips but were frustrated to find no phone on her person. "Where is it?" they demanded. "I don't have it" she smiled with her natural strong ease. Impossible. They simply couldn't believe in the existence of a person without a mobile phone. Flummoxed, they finally demanded she remove her sailor's cap, as that was the last possible hiding place. Seeing nothing there, disappointed---but strangely charmed---they waved her in.
reminds me of when i had an art student/architect from austria rent a room for the summer. he carried a pocket map book and a pen, and proudly referred to it as "my iphone."
what was cool was that at the end, he had an awesome souvenir for the trip, complete with geotags (scribbles on the maps), contacts (phone numbers on the margins) and memory triggers (spills and tears of the pages).
I feel like I could provide another reason of “why I don’t want to give my phone up”, which is “fuck that noise”.
I don’t view the perpetual connectivity as a bad thing; I like being able to actively look stuff up immediately, I like being able to do something when my conversation partner inevitably has to use the bathroom, and I think the “phone bad” mantra is reductive nonsense.
Would you invest money to a startup run by people willing to give up their phones (with personal information, mfa, passwords, contact point) to an investor event? It seems like the right alternative would be to leave it at home.
Maybe this is my inexperience or overabundance of paranoia but that would be a red flag to me. It takes so little to lose the castle to an adversary...
I regularly go camping at locations without reception. It is an excellent opportunity to disconnect and enjoy nature, and without excessive artificial lighting it's hard to not fall asleep after dark.
In 2021 the Santa Clara county parks department sent a survey to campers on (among other things) whether they should improve the Mt Madonna park by having Wi-Fi. I'm sure the responses are heavily biased towards no. There's still no Wi-Fi there.
“My cofounder needed me to 2FA our Stripe login and I couldn’t”
I’m guessing the issue was that the request to 2FA was sent to the founder’s phone and thus they didn’t see it. It would take some testing but perhaps it’s possible to take advantage of Do Not Disturb and other similar features on modern phones to upgrade a phone check with the ability to notice when there’s something important and go fetch the phone’s owner. I’ve always wanted an Apple Watch in the hopes that I could set it up to be a low-information zero-interaction way of letting me know when I need to look at my phone, but it has always seemed like Apple Watches are designed to be mini-phones and just as distracting. Maybe there’s a way, though.
This is somewhat off topic, but in general one should turn off all alerts related to 2FA.
If you’re logging in, you’ll obviously know to go looking for it. If you’re not logging in, you don’t want to get tempted or fooled into approving access when you shouldn’t. Buzzing someone’s phone incessantly with alerts is a known social engineering tactic for breaking 2FA.
I was also confused by this. Stripe (as do many other services) allows multiple individual accounts with unique credentials to access the same "parent" account or service. If these guys were sharing a single account, I have to question how they ever got into YC, as that isn't remotely tech savy. (Yes, some service make credential sharing an unfortunate inconvenient and insecure reality – but not Stripe.)
This is more or less already possible. You can create a focus mode that only lets certain critical apps through. Of course the bigger problem is having the discipline to keep it on and not randomly pull out your phone anyways. And Apple (or anyone else) cannot fix that part.
I experimented with focus modes a while back and found them lacking. Does what it says on tin but I guess I was after Do What I Mean, i.e. I wanted my phone to figure out what was important for me. Maybe I’ll revisit them!
2. Given that on your phone might have your credit cards in your digital wallet, bank apps that can access your financials, and email to allow someone to reset password - there’s no way I’d surrender my phone to a stranger.
I’ll add another reason to the list of why I wouldn’t give up my phone: mine is connected to a continuous glucose monitor, a Dexcom, making it essentially a medical device. Having my phone near me at all times isn’t remotely frivolous.
No need to scare people about physical access. Turn off the phone, put in envelope, seal it. At the end of the event, verify envelope and seal are still in proper shape. Would yield another nice data point, number of seals broken.
From the App Store page this looks like a clone of One Sec, does it work the same way using iOS shortcuts? I’ve found One Sec does a really good job but setup is a bit fiddly with shortcuts. This is quite a bit more expensive too.
It works with screen time. No setup required. It looked really nice, but if you want to add more than one app you have to get a (not that cheap) subscription.
Tangentially related: I went to a Hasan Minhaj live show that had a phone check, except you kept your phone on you in a locked cloth bag that they unlock when you leave. Interesting concept I hadn't seen anywhere else.
There really was a period in mu life, when I was taking out my phone and fiddled with it during social events. But as most of bad habits it could be corrected by first being aware of it, then noticing it, and then stopping doing it after I noticed. Now I can consciously put the phone in my pocket and take it out only when I really need it, like for writing something sown or checking online something meaningful for conversation.
It also became a litmus test for social activities: if I want to take the phone out, it usually means that the event is boring, and it is better just to excuse myself from it.
I'm bummed it doesn't work on websites, I guess I'm a nerd so not the target audience, but I use the mobile web versions of twitter and reddit because I don't want to give the app developers more permission than they have,but I apparently can't block the safari app (I don't need more fine grained blocking than this). I guess apple is probably making this impossible, but it's still a bummer.
Also, would it be a ton of work to get a firefox extension?
Cool concept, I hope it eventually meets my needs. I have the game I compulsively play blocked at least.
So Apple/Google need to come up with a geofenced protocol where once you enter it, the phone enters DND by default. Which means multiple calls from same number go thru, and it could be overwritten for doctors and such, but in general once you walk in the fence phones are dulled.
You could even add a limit networking and app function without entering some verbose acknowledgment that you are being a rude guest or some such.
Most reasonable people would appreciate the assist to have phone realize you are at the opera and silence itself for you.
I see 0 reason why Apple or Google would do this. Imagine the outrage, and the potential for abuse is exponential (not even abuse: you wouldn't be able to use this feature is most of NYC or any mixed use property since you'd inadvertently take out anyone living above the businesses).
Apple already has a solution for this. If you have something on your calendar, like a party invite, it'll suggest to turn on DND until you leave / until the end of the event. No forced "your phone is now disabled, go talk to people" necessary.
I haven’t seen the auto DND but putting DND in my calendar events (and could be included with invites/wallet tickets which we would then accept) is a pretty nice idea too.
True it is ripe for abuse, hence why I was suggesting a geofence which requires setting up a physical waypoints around the enclosed space — not just a Wi-Fi hotspot telling your phone to keep it down. They could require a key purchased from Apple which then could be reported for abuse. Probably cheaper than foam case locks.
Love it. I love leaving my house without my phone when I have the opportunity. I cannot remember the last time I did anything productive or important phone frankly, other than 2FA or sending an email that I could have sent from my computer.
Giving your phone to a stranger can be daring, but it's probably the second best thing to leaving it at home. If you guys do that again, get a locker. I remember seeing a locker with chargers for phones in China. Requires less trust (if you don't actually plug it in).
> I love leaving my house without my phone when I have the opportunity.
I used to do the same, but after a fender bender I decided to keep one with me when driving in case I need to (1) take pictures or (2) make an emergency call.
But I don’t feel any less disconnected, because my phone is kept in airplane mode except when absolutely necessary. I get the benefits, without the drawbacks.
> Giving your phone to a stranger can be daring, but it's probably the second best thing to leaving it at home.
In my opinion, developing the self control to have a phone and not use it is better than giving it to a stranger.
Well, leaving my phone at home is my version of self control... I know myself well. What you're saying reminds me of minimalist phones though. Devices that are not powerful enough to do more than messaging etc. I should get one.
If anyone wondered whether it was a test by YC, then I guess one question would be which test:
* People who hand over their phones are perceived by YC as team players, or willing to engage fully with others, or savvy about some new tech-fashionable mindfulness practice (that the person is alarmed they haven't yet heard of).
* People who hand over their phones are perceived by YC as being followers rather than leaders, or having bad InfoSec sense, or not being connected and accessible at all times.
I cannot imagine even remotely engaging in a culture where either of those are possibilities, let alone speculating about which is likely. But then again, I'm not a fan of incestual SV culture.
People that are raving about security and privacy are missing that this was a Y Combinator event. Invite-only, from a population that's been selected for from the general populace.
Obviously that's why this worked - you're not handing your phone to a stranger, you're handing it to someone who affiliation is clearly identifiable and who is one degree of separation from you.
While I carry one, it's always in airplane mode, to save battery, and because my free time is mine: I am not available.
Yet, while I have the device, I seldom use it. It can be helpful occasionally, and I take pictures at times. I might take it out of pocket and use it once or twice a week. Battery lasts me over a week despite 5 years old device.
They got me to download it, but you can’t block Safari (where all of my procrastination goes), and to block a specific site, you have to have the site’s app installed. Bummer.
I downloaded it too, and was disappointed to see I need to enter a phone number before being able to even try the app. I went through the onboarding and then deleted immediately. They need to be more transparent about what the app does (why it's better than just using the screen time controls, which it seems to hook into), and what the paid features do. But mostly they need to not force you to enter your phone number before you can learn any of this.
There's an easy iOS trick that worked wonders for me - set your phone display to grayscale. Open Settings, then Accessibility, Display & Text Size, Color Filters, tap the switch and select "Grayscale". You will still be able to enjoy functional use cases for your phone without the inexplicable psychological addiction.
As I learned after my father had a stroke and before he recovered enough to remember and communicate his lock code, you can still answer calls, and some financial institutions give you your choice of SMS or call 2fa (yes it's bad). I suspect a lot of phones will still ring after power on even if they've not been unlocked.
I think they could have gotten more people to give up using their phones by just giving folks the conspicuous “phone free sticker” and calling out people who violated the norm and encouraging others to do the same.
I would only use this if they agree to let me leave my phone out in front face up so I can show off all the notifications I constantly get and let people who enter the venue see how important I must be.
This is insane. You don't relinquish control of your 2FA token for ANYTHING. You are basically allowing someone else to plug in your phone to whatever poisonous hardware they choose.
Well those flip phones aren't built with the same intentions. This phone was made to be distraction free as much as is practical. It restricts me in ways that I appreciate. I have zero ways to check email, reddit, etc.
This niche industry probably keeps wondering why nothing gets mainstream traction.
It's because they always miss one or two of the ten vital check boxes to get tech influencers (meaning, at the individual group level, more drilled down than "network effect") to jump on board.
One of the most vital check boxes: supporting whatever major method techies are currently using to avoid SMS/MMS.
That said, I fully support the idea of being phoneless in personal conversations. I was having lunch earlier this week with someone I hadn’t seen in a long time, and was determined to keep my phone in my pocket. It definitely took some willpower to ignore it when I felt it buzzing a few times.
I heavily curate my alerts so I knew these were messages from someone important to me. But sure enough, when I checked them after lunch it was all things that were totally fine to wait for an hour or so. And it was nice to be fully present for lunch.