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

151–160 of 181 posts

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#151

Post by dsfyu404ed »

pure-awesome wrote: post #123
Senderman wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point. Makes me wonder if that 2D mountain range projection could be used to 'search' through a 3D map for a match.

Coincidentally, I had exactly just that thought about a week ago whilst I was staring out at a nearby mountain. I have very little knowledge about this kind of problem, but to me, it seems like a solvable problem - there has been some interesting work in reconstructing 3D models from photographs of objects (I have a friend who did his masters in something similar) and I don't doubt that people working on that type of…

This should be a tractable problem. Cruise missiles navigate by matching the terrain they're flying by with a 3d model.

Doing it with 2d video and not having precise starting coordinates, speed/heading/altitude makes the search space larger but I think that is more than made up for by the fact that you're not trying to do it all on embedded hardware from the 80s.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#153

Post by bagacrap »

tw1010 wrote: post #144

That mountain ridge trick, how reliable of an identifier is that? I'm not really questioning the validity of its use in this situation, but I'd be curious to know more about the nature of the ridge to gps coordinates mapping. How many ridges map to more than one gps coordinate (albeit at potentially very distant locations, one of which could be excluded if more information is available)? Or is the mapping completely…

Try the peakfinder app. I think it works pretty well but haven't tested extensively.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#154

Post by PeterisP »

kelp wrote: post #76
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 c…

If you really want to produce propaganda, it's possible and plausible to build optics that will project arbitrary pixels directly onto the sensor of a phone camera. It's expensive and tricky, but it's a one-off expense and small compared to known intelligence projects. The phone can be secure, unmodified, but still be "convinced" of a false reality.

Furthermore, who controls the keys? The device manufacturers definitely will have access to them (since the signing keys need to be put in the device), and it's not that you need to convince the world that it came from my phone (where you might need to extract a secret from it), you need to convince that the key came from a phone. Once the major governments get a bunch of fake keys that would have/could have been put in a real phone of a major manufacturer, you either admit the inability to discriminate propaganda or you have to automatically distrust all media produced from all phones of that manufacturer, which won't happen, the public will look at such media and believe it or not depending on whether it matches their opinion, not depending on its signature.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#155

Post by TangoTrotFox »

mcphage wrote: post #149
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.

> News isnt to tell us how to feel. That's a pretty serious rule to break. Where did you make that up?

Most news agencies claim, on paper, to aim for impartiality. Emotional response tends to be the opposite of impartial reporting since emotions generally imply a moral response to something, which in turn is quickly stepping away from impartiality.

[1] BBC: Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences.

[2] NPR: Our journalists conduct their work with honesty and respect, and they strive to be both independent and impartial in their efforts.

[3] SPJ (society of professional journalists): Journalists Should: ... Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

Many newspapers are archived online. It's really phenomenal to see the change in historic and modern reporting. For instance this [4] is the NYT's reporting on Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war that immediately followed. Keep in mind that this was shortly prior to the mass production of incredibly dehumanizing propaganda and us rounding up hundreds of thousands of people in the west coast who even looked remotely Japanese, telling them to take all they could carry, and throwing them into concentration camps. The point here is to emphasize what the zeitgeist was at that moment in time, yet their reporting remained remarkably true to the ethics most media still claims to hold to, yet rarely practice -- NYT now included among them.

[1] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/bbc-edi...

[2] - http://ethics.npr.org/

[3] - https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

[4] - https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general...

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#156

Post by opwieurposiu »

aidos wrote: post #17

Incredible bit of analysis and presentation. It's hard to watch this sort of footage for me now. Once upon a time when I was younger I could handle it, but with young children the same sort of age it really tears me apart. Though, I think people should be forced to confront it, because it's the only way it's ever going to improve.

My brother died a rather pointless death at age 22. The buddha teaches us that all things are temporary. Stoicism teaches us not to worry about things we have no control over. If you can grok these two concepts then you will be well armored against the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune. https://aeon.co/essays/do-not-weep-for-your-dead-how-to-mour...

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#157

Post by JoblessWonder »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #103
JoblessWonder wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just that the investigation hinges on decidedly non-technical/novel methods. It is an interesting news story and presentation but isn’t as unique as I think people who just skimmed the twitter thread might assume.

So we’re just going to dismiss the fact that they used social media to get the tip in the first place? It’s incredible boot leather investigative journalism in 2018 and doesn’t need to be qualified. What are you? A paper salesman?

I totally agree that it is great journalism and is worth recognizing for no other reason than that. I think I was just being extra sour because it was the end of a long day and probably should not have been commenting on the internet. :(

Where did they mention that they used social media to get the tip? Or are you referring to the fact that the video spread via social media (which wouldn't have happened x years ago) and presumably led someone to reach out to them? Not being argumentative, just curious.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#158

Post by JoblessWonder »

Semiapies wrote: post #61
peteretep wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It all started with a tip that gave them the general area _though_ You've made this point twice in the comments. What are you getting at?

Agreed. It's still interesting video forensics. That's a detail that isn't somehow invalidated by the fact other components of good journalism also happened. Some people have very binary thought processes.

Yeah, you are totally right... it was late in a rough day for me yesterday. I'm not sure why I was so stuck on that.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#159

Post by mcguire »

dtf wrote: post #94
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 final statements on the Twitter thread stuck out for me too - they seemed a little incongruous. But they're taken (as is the entire thread) from the BBC Africa video, where they actually make perfect sense as the closing remarks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbnLkc6r3yc I'm not sure whether it's the medium (Twitter), or the lack of editing that makes them jar in the thread.

I watched the video; they seem to have the same sense there as they do on Twitter.

I don't actually think the BBC is suggesting the soldiers should be executed out of hand, but I think it weakens the story---I don't need the interpretation, thanks.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#160

Post by mcphage »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #155
mcphage wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> News isnt to tell us how to feel. That's a pretty serious rule to break. Where did you make that up?

Most news agencies claim, on paper, to aim for impartiality. Emotional response tends to be the opposite of impartial reporting since emotions generally imply a moral response to something, which in turn is quickly stepping away from impartiality. [1] BBC: Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. [2] NPR: Our journalists conduct their work with honesty and respect, and they strive to be…

> Emotional response tends to be the opposite of impartial reporting

"Impartial" is not the same as "unemotional". Part of the job of the news is to put what happens in context—not just what happened, but why it matters. News organizations aren't striving to be unfeeling automatons merely spitting out facts.

Post reply on HN