Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anatomy of a Killing

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 181 posts

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#71

Post by sulam »

emmelaich wrote: post #68
exotree wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single word of that is true. It is exactly what should be said.

> "No presumption of innocence was extended to the children who died with them." So, would it be better if they held a trial and then killed them? Does anyone believe that their innocence or otherwise has anything to do with them being killed? Are there circumstances that make you think that the killing of children is OK? It's at least a non-sequitur, possibly self-aggrandising yellow journalism and at worst it could…

You know what gives me the creeps? People who watch that video and read those facts and choose to focus on the tone of the closing tweet.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#72

Post by wruza »

segmondy wrote: post #66
mcguire wrote: post #54

A brilliant piece of work to place the location. On the other hand, this seems to be...below...the BBC: " The government statement makes clear that all these men enjoy the presumption of innocence, and that they will be given a fair trial. " " The two women killed outside Zelevet received no trial at all. " No presumption of innocence was extended to the children who died with them. "

You won't make such statements if you saw the complete video. To kill unarmed women and children? Sheesh, what would you have written in place of those?

"The government statement makes clear that all these men were arrested, and that they will be given a trial."

See, you just ditch "enjoy" and "fair" parts and it goes neutral. You don't have to be neutral, but news do.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#73

Post by cylinder »

mcguire wrote: post #54

A brilliant piece of work to place the location. On the other hand, this seems to be...below...the BBC: " The government statement makes clear that all these men enjoy the presumption of innocence, and that they will be given a fair trial. " " The two women killed outside Zelevet received no trial at all. " No presumption of innocence was extended to the children who died with them. "

Those are facts, not opinions. What's the issue?

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#74

Post by NeedMoreTea »

wruza wrote: post #72
segmondy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won't make such statements if you saw the complete video. To kill unarmed women and children? Sheesh, what would you have written in place of those?

"The government statement makes clear that all these men were arrested, and that they will be given a trial." See, you just ditch "enjoy" and "fair" parts and it goes neutral. You don't have to be neutral, but news do.

But the Cameroonian government statement includes those words. Ditch them and it becomes inaccurate, or at least incomplete, reporting.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#75

Post by [deleted] »

sulam wrote: post #70
Timmah wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

editorializing: (of a newspaper, editor, or broadcasting organization) make comments or express opinions rather than just report the news News isnt to tell us how to feel. That's a pretty serious rule to break.

These are facts. If you feel like these facts are biased, I have the perfect group for you to join.

[deleted]

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#76

Post by kelp »

apo wrote: post #22

I can't imagine this kind of analysis carrying much weight in 3-5 years as advances in machine learning and image manipulation turn the notion of "seeing is believing" on its head. edit: Imagine running this process in reverse. Pick the culprit, time, and location. Then arrange the scene to exactly match the false accusation. Probably didn't happen here, but in a few years it won't be possible to know the difference.

I keep meaning to write up a longer form version of this idea that I've been kicking around to solve this.

This issue is often talked about as an unsolvable problem, but I feel like we already have the technology to deal with it.

Lots of devices, such as an iPhone already have a secure enclave that can be used for identity. Why not use this to sign videos and images for authentication purposes?

Then certain devices can produce verified, undoctored images and videos. Or even allow some amount of limited tweaking, and editing while attesting to the original.

This could be embedded into the file produced, like exif data, and read by services like Facebook and Twitter to badge the image/video as verified and undoctored. This could improve the amature case significantly.

Professional photography and video equipment could have similar capabilities so originals could be produced and proven to be genuine.

I guess this idea still depends on the hardware devices remaining secure, which is far from trivial, but it does increase the cost of producing a fake. And to keep producing really good fakes, you have to have a zero day to fake a genuine signature, or it becomes know that any media produced with that device version is suspect.

If such a system became widly adopted, at the very least, savvy users, and the media would be suspect of anything not signed. And perhaps the general public would also learn to be skeptical, particularly if the issue of fakes became more widespread.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#77

Post by wruza »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #74
wruza wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The government statement makes clear that all these men were arrested, and that they will be given a trial." See, you just ditch "enjoy" and "fair" parts and it goes neutral. You don't have to be neutral, but news do.

But the Cameroonian government statement includes those words. Ditch them and it becomes inaccurate, or at least incomplete, reporting.

It did, but in a different tone. I understand the quoted letter as a sarcastic “they ‘enjoy’ it but that will not last long”. And then reporter takes these words and puts them in a sense of “a government makes clear that they will enjoy poi and fair trial” literally, as if government liked that and “fair” meant “good for them”. That seems like standard low-grade journalism, and like it was done here. Not that we shall not forgive that, but still.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#78

Post by daenz »

tptacek wrote: post #40
eveningcoffee wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it does matter. Tremendously. For example is this soldiers initiative or part of a general tactics encouraged by the higher command? Was the execution justified (i.e. motivated, that is, it was not a cover up or a random killing)? I can come up with few reasons to kill the woman but why the child? Is there some message behind this killing? Naturally these questions do not matter for despising such behaviour but a…

They murdered two children.

I've read your post and the parent's post three times but I still cannot understand the point you're making in response to their point. Can you clarify what point you're trying to make, and specifically, put it in context for trying to discover the motivations for the murders? Do you think seeking motivations is pointless because "they murdered two children" ?

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#79

Post by comex »

wruza wrote: post #77
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the Cameroonian government statement includes those words. Ditch them and it becomes inaccurate, or at least incomplete, reporting.

It did, but in a different tone. I understand the quoted letter as a sarcastic “they ‘enjoy’ it but that will not last long”. And then reporter takes these words and puts them in a sense of “a government makes clear that they will enjoy poi and fair trial” literally, as if government liked that and “fair” meant “good for them”. That seems like standard low-grade journalism, and like it was done here. Not that we shal…

To "enjoy" something can just mean to have the benefit of it. I don't think either the government statement or the BBC's quote meant to imply that the men would be literally enjoying themselves.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#80

Post by loeg »

elyobo wrote: post #57
mcguire wrote: post #54

A brilliant piece of work to place the location. On the other hand, this seems to be...below...the BBC: " The government statement makes clear that all these men enjoy the presumption of innocence, and that they will be given a fair trial. " " The two women killed outside Zelevet received no trial at all. " No presumption of innocence was extended to the children who died with them. "

Seems fine, unless you read it as them arguing that they should not be given a fair trial; I read it the opposite way, as them arguing that the women and children should have been.

> Seems fine, unless you read it as them arguing that they should not be given a fair trial.

That is exactly what the BBC tweets suggest to me.

Post reply on HN