Forget having your computer stolen, what if your hard drive dies?

If you aren't backing up your critical files, there are a myriad of cheap cloud-based options: http://tarsnap.com for geeks or the paranoid, Backblaze/Mozy/Carbonite/Dropbox/Arq/etc. for others.

I'm glad Mac OS X and Windows include "set-it-and-forget-it" backup solutions, but users are reluctant to turn them on simply because they may not have the time or effort to set them up.

If you are afraid you won't be plugging an external hdd in enough, I think it's worth getting a Time Capsule (automatic Time Machine backup over wifi).

http://www.jungledisk.com/ is a super cheap cloud-based backup system based on S3 that has some nice client software, less n3rd than tarsnap.

That's what the extended warranty is for! /s ;)

Seriously that's what I ask when told about extended warranties when buying a laptop or similar item that would store data, I ask how does an extended warranty magically make my data reappear?

Also most non-technical people I know never make a restore disk right away when they buy a new system, so if they lose the HD and the hidden partition has to only copy on it.

Anyway, Dropbox, Zumodrive, Ubuntu One, Wuala, plus an SSD RAID setup and I back up to two 1TB external drives weekly rotating them out to my office at work.

1. Buy or setup a good, reliable file backup service. (daily rsyncs)

2. Use full disk encryption on the laptop hard drive.

3. Buy an insurance policy.

This way, you keep your documents, your privacy and get a replacement laptop when it becomes lost, stolen or damaged.

1. Yes, use backup, but also use version control. Keep your commits sufficiently up to date that you will able to get back to work quickly with a fresh new computer. Consider it a bad sign if you have to get your new computer restored to exactly the same state as your old computer to resume developing.

2. Encrypt, but just don't keep highly sensitive files on a laptop. I read that 1 in 10 laptop are stolen, and keep in mind that many aren't stolen because they never leave someone's apartment. If you travel around with your laptop, you're in a higher risk group. Use dummy data and dummy databases. Don't store external passwords to real systems on your laptop. Consider it a bad sign if you can't develop to a local database populated with inconsequential data.

3. Definitely buy the insurance policy, if you'd have trouble coming up with the money for a replacement. But they key here is to make sure that it's just money we're talking about. Try to set up your development environment such that the cost to you of a stolen laptop is the replacement cost of the laptop.

I'm a little worried this comes off as overly judgemental, so I just want to be clear that I understand this may not all be within the control of the developer. However, I think that an IT setup that requires people to carry highly sensitive information or passwords on portable devices that are frequently and easily stolen is a sign of a badly broken system, even with encryption.

I guess my only worry would be that the laptop is swiped while open, but i'd admit this is an unlikely scenario.

As a development practice, it's good to be able to build up a dummy db, but yeah, security isn't the big win here.

// Do you think this computes (oh, no pun intended). Don't petty thiefs repeatedly steal, don't they steal higher ticket items, doesn't capturing criminals act as any disincentive to continued crime. Is the criminal justice/rehabilitation system so broken that there is really no point in catching known criminals??

It's an unlikely outcome, but imagine this as a reverse-slot machine. You get one pull of the handle. Three of any fruit and you win a used laptop. But if three skulls come up, you are executed.

How good a bet is this?

I am pointing out that it is prudent to consider the risks, rewards, and potential for catastrophe when making a decision. Having done so, you make your own call. If you think the balance tips in favour of trying to recover the laptop, that is your opinion and I do not argue with your conclusion. But there is no "culture of fear" involved, there is simply a decision that differs from your own.

Now if you want to condone the idea of psycho-analyzing strangers based on their HN posts, I would encourage you to ask whether people who set out to recover the laptop are thinking strictly about the utility of the laptop, or whether they have an emotional desire to one-up the thieves or perhaps show the police up as inept.

Or maybe... And I encourage you to spend some quality time with a mirror while thinking about this... Maybe there is an emotional desire by some people to prove that they not afraid. This latter emotion is particularly dangerous. Ironically, it is often motivated by fear of being cowardly.

(And yes, the point is NOT to be taken seriously. I am not Dr. Phil!)

It's a culture that leads to people driving around in SUVs, living in gated communities, to the point of carrying guns where legal, and voting for governments who promise safety and deliver it with mechanisms of control: filtered internet, surveillance society, TSA, etc. Its endpoint lies somewhere in a Ballardian dystopia, like High Rise or Super-Cannes.

There's a difference between "living in fear" and "minimizing risk" just as there's a difference between "living without fear" and "courting danger."

Now, we had a mafioso living in the apartment downstairs from us for several months, with a couple of warrants out for his arrest. Good buddy with the police who patrol our street. Real friendly guy. Name was Teddy (yes, I know that's not a Spanish name). Stole all the landlord's furniture from the apartment, even the refrigerator. I don't remember what the warrants were for, but there's a substantial chance that he was a cold-blooded killer. But if he'd been on the other side of that table, I still don't think he'd be very likely to try to maintain possession of the stolen laptop by killing you. I'm sure he'd do his best to intimidate the living fuck out of you, maybe threaten to call the police himself, but I don't think he takes violence so lightly that he would stab you with a Starbucks knife in order to keep the laptop.

I'd feel pretty safe pulling that lever in a Starbucks, as they did.

If a used laptop is enough of a reward to wager your life, I admire your courage, but when I think of it in financial terms, the thought gives me the heebie jeebies.

I would have done the same thing, except I would bring more friends, at least some of whom would have professional photography rigs to get some nice snapshots of the thieves, as well as their car - assuming they arrived in one.

In 2010, Ottawa saw 27,446 property crimes, and 14 homicides[1]. In general, about half of murders are committed by a friend or family member[2]. So even if the other 7 murderers _all_ started out doing petty theft, there's still only 1 in 3,920 laptop thieves who's going to kill someone.

Now, as a high-falutin' tech blogger for whom laptops grow on trees, that still may be an unnacceptable risk/reward ratio for you. But if a laptop represented a more substantial investment, its value might begin to approach the value you personally would place on, say, 50 separate scuba dives. Which, at a death rate of 1 per 200,000 dives, is about where the risk evens out.

[1]http://www.ottawapolice.ca//Libraries/Publications/2009_-_20... [2]http://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/nvaa/ch16hom.htm

I appreciate what you're trying to say, and believe me when I say that if you consider the risks and want to go get your laptop, that's fine and I'm not arguing with you making your choice.

However, the statistics you quote above do not support your quoted odds. Since the 27,446 reported property crimes did not all involve the owner confronting the thieves, we cannot use the numbers to draw a conclusion about the risk of a confrontation resulting in a murder, much less an attempted murder or assault.

On the flip side, while I do not have statistics handy, deep diving, dry suit diving, cold water diving, decompression diving, mixed gas diving, drift diving, and other activities I have enjoyed of are thought to be associated with slightly higher risks than the overall statistics suggest, although not as high as the three big killers: Cave/wreck diving, rebreather diving, and commercial diving.

But if you go to the police about your laptop, they don't do anything, and then you go out of your way to create a possibly tense situation by confronting the thieves... And an altercation breaks out... And you fight to sieze the laptop... And an alleged thief is killed...

It's easy to say you have done nothing wrong because the thief brought it upon themselves by stealing the laptop and attempting to fence it. But blame is a non-zero-sum game. You also made choices that perhaps involved knowingly creating a risk of a physical altercation.

On the whole, if you are going to try to do a sting, I'd hope that you do not press the issue if the thieves refuse to run away without a fight.

Although it may sound like you are defending yourself, in reality you are saying that the laptop is worth more to you than a human life, and that is disturbing to me.

// I think you've misconstrued the situation.

If the thief refuses to return the stolen item and save their life then they are the one that has chosen to value their life below the return they can get on a used stolen laptop. Assuming that they are the thief and are not acting under some complex duress ("steal that laptop or we kill your child") then at any point they can return it and save themselves.

The onus is not on those who have been stolen from to act in favour of the thief. The thief assumes, and interestingly controls, all risk.

My instinct is that if someone does a self-motivated major immoral harm to you, are in a position to relieve or remove that harm and chooses not to then you're pretty much justified in carrying out any pre-warned harm against them. (Like I said that's just my instinct, very interested in contra-positions).

The hidden assumption you make is that blame adds up neatly to 100%. Since the thief is in the wrong, he controls the risk. But you also control the risk in the situation described, where you choose to meet the thief and take your laptop back. You both had an opportunity to make other choices.

My instinct is that if someone does a self-motivated major immoral harm to you, are in a position to relieve or remove that harm and chooses not to then you're pretty much justified in carrying out any pre-warned harm against them.

So for instance, if a thief is running away from me carrying my laptop, may I tell them to "Stop or I'll shoot?"

This is one of those things where different cultures take different positions. I don't want people doing things like that in Toronto, and the fact that people do things like that in other places is one of the reasons I do not wish to raise a family there.

I don't believe that I should ever have to be responsible for another person's tendency towards violence. It may be unwise to fail to account for such tendencies, but to be legally responsible for them is wrong. Had this situation turned violent, the woman and her neighbor would be no more responsible for that unfortunate outcome than a rape victim is to be blamed for wearing revealing clothes (again, perhaps an unwise decision, but certainly a legal and moral one).

Yes. Why not?

They then have the power to avoid all harm (in both directions), they can even stop and tell you how their family is starving, etc., so you can give them a bag of food and they can return your laptop.

Moreover if they pulled a weapon on you in return I think you'd be warranted in killing them.

>I don't want people doing things like that in Toronto

You want to protect thieves so that they can continue to steal without any risk?

If the criminals had murdered the neighbor, the police might be more inclined to go after them right away, and the criminals would have been worse off.

Of course, it would take logical criminals to realize that murder would get them into more trouble than (unarmed) robbery.

I agree that death is an unlikely outcome, but i beg of you, never bet your life on the rationality of petty criminals who engage their "fight or flight" reflex.

This seems a pretty unhealthy attitude. Basically you're saying to never, ever attempt to protect your belongings from a petty criminal.

If you have reason to believe that your life is truly at risk (e.g. you're in a dark alley, criminal has a gun), sure. You should probably surrender your property. If you do not believe that you are in danger, there's no reason to give up your property. You're just sacrificing your property for nothing, and emboldening those same criminals. Sitting in a crowded Starbucks with a couple of guys who are not visibly-armed is not a high-risk situation.

There's always some danger to your life. A random person on the street could snap and kill you for no reason. You can't dedicate your life to avoiding it. Don't make yourself powerless.

Well now, we are going in an interesting direction. I live in Toronto. I am happy that we do not have as many firearms as you might find in Texas. There is a massive and somewhat difficult chasm to cross between the two cultures around the question of "Protecting your belongings from petty criminals."

I'm willing to engage you on this question, but I fear that the HN server will run out of disk space before we can find a common ground.

And yes, I do mean "no reason". There is literally nothing for the criminals to gain by shooting you. They would change from petty thieves who simply lose the laptop and may yet go unpunished to murderers with many witnesses to the crime. This is a major loss, with no upside. Being a petty criminal indicates that they aren't the smartest, but it doesn't indicate that they are completely insane.

I feel that you must be drastically overestimating the danger in this situation to justify simply surrendering the laptop. There's not even a threat of violence here. You're making a chain of assumptions that takes you from "petty thieves" to "willing murderers". That's a hell of a leap.

Toronto is an enormous city. Even incredibly rare risks will show up on the evening news there once a month. Don't organize your life around the bullshit that shows up on the news. If you want to reduce risks, start with some statistics.

That narrative is usually an easy ticket to the front page of HN.

I'm not arguing the case either way, just suggesting that such stories are often interpreted through the filter of our existing bias.

As for filters - I admire the woman in the story, because she is a great example of the entrepreneurial mindset.

1: Attempt to achieve your goal by conventional means (call police).

2: Actually notice that conventional means will not get you what you want.

3: Come up with an alternate plan (DIY sting operation).

4: Execute fearlessly.

I argue that those four steps, broadly, are what a good startup founder does.

She probably risked her life more by driving to the Starbucks than she did confronting the thief in a busy public location in one of the safest cities in the world. Turn off your TV and get outside.

> After filing the second police report, an officer told her he would have to keep the computer as > evidence, and take prints that Nahwegahbow worried would wipe the computer contents. She > grabbed the computer from his arms and told him "You can't have it. It's mine. I just got it > back!" She got to keep it.

At least they saw reason and let her hold on to it!

  It's quite interesting how if you looked at this bureaucratic system from the perspective of a program or a website, you can't help but think of ways to solve the problem in the way any new start-up would; the system is outdated for today's world--and despite that no one dares tackle any of these issues as to not rock the boat or create a system without ample time off for some sweet vacations.

Note as well, a person acting quickly can out-shine the "professional" crime-solvers quite easily; another part of the appeal of such stories.