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

Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 184 posts

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#141

Post by cryptonector »

FYI, no warrant is needed to set up a pen register on a person of interest. That's where LEOs request that the Post Office record the envelope metadata of all your correspondence.

ISTM that pen registers not requiring warrants is reasonable -- I'm not sure it's good for society, but it is reasonable.

ISTM that keeping track of cleartext metadata emitted by personal devices on the public Internet is exactly like a pen register.

DNS w/ QName minimization, DoH/DoE, and preferably DNSCurve, are techniques that can reduce the visibility of various metadata involved in gathering browsing history.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#142

Post by kabdib »

JoeSmithson wrote: post #48
_8j50 wrote: post #3

Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms. They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to. For home grown terrorism, how many school shootings happen when the people who know the shooter literally tell police/fbi beforehand about the state of the shooter. Are school s…

> Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Shit like this is said all the time on HN with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

A little searching will reveal some of the opsec apparently used by Osama bin Laden. Use of couriers with thumb drives rather than risk electronic communications, and other things.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#143

Post by salawat »

linuxftw wrote: post #136
btilly wrote: post #135

A point from Enlightenment Now that I wish was better understood. Groups that use terrorism to get their way almost always fail. This should not surprise us. Terrorism is the last available option for a weak interest group that has no better way to make their will felt. Therefore as scary as it is to face, the fact that they are resorting to it is evidence that they are underdogs and we should not be surprised that t…

> Groups that use terrorism to get their way almost always fail. Totally untrue. When the US used atomic bombs to level cities in Japan, that was terrorism. The goal was to strike fear into the regime and the people for an unconditional surrender. It was not an attack against the military or government, it was an act of terrorism. When the US uses drone strikes to blow up weddings, that's terrorism. They are not acti…

I actually think there may be a legitimate criticism here if you define demonstrating nuclear weapon/asymmetric warfare capability as employing terror toward political ends and stop there. I'd tread carefully there though. That's a lot of sensitive history you're coloring with a rather unattractive brush. There is a lot that prevents that particular viewpoint from being convincing without dragging down a lot of the framework of Western political discourse, however, to the point you may find astonishingly few people willing to entertain it. In the West, it is generally accepted that application of violence is justifiable. Those examples you called up fit within that justifiable envelope, in the first case, near unanumously, and in the latter case, it fit enough for majority buy in, but with significant controversy as well.

Point being, the label of terrorism in the eyes of Western political discourse necessarily connotes violence of an unjustifiable or unsanctioned by the majority nature. I'm curious on your view of the Civil War. Would the secession and war waged by the Southern States (or by the Union retaking them) also qualify as terrorism?

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#144

Post by Izkata »

JoeSmithson wrote: post #48
_8j50 wrote: post #3

Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms. They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to. For home grown terrorism, how many school shootings happen when the people who know the shooter literally tell police/fbi beforehand about the state of the shooter. Are school s…

> Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Shit like this is said all the time on HN with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

I know one piece of evidence contrary to that - the time 4chan used youtube videos posted by terrorists to find one of their training camps.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#145

Post by zdragnar »

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #58
JoeSmithson wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Shit like this is said all the time on HN with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

I do stats for a living, and while I think it's good to back up claims with data when possible, inductive reasoning is still a validate tool for understanding the world. The logic is that active, dedicated terrorist groups already know: "They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to." The reasoning that knowing this information…

> inductive reasoning is still a validate tool for understanding the world.

And here it has led you astray. Terrorist organisations have propaganda mouthpieces, and use social media like any other. One of my previous jobs involved building network analysis tools to identify and locate terrorists combing through their Twitter feeds.

For some, you could easily identify the point in their lives when they were radicalized, and trace connections to others who were also, and identify the people they had in common.

Inductive reasoning opens room for questions, not answers, because it does not account for unknown information.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#146

Post by streb-lo »

salawat wrote: post #143
linuxftw wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Groups that use terrorism to get their way almost always fail. Totally untrue. When the US used atomic bombs to level cities in Japan, that was terrorism. The goal was to strike fear into the regime and the people for an unconditional surrender. It was not an attack against the military or government, it was an act of terrorism. When the US uses drone strikes to blow up weddings, that's terrorism. They are not acti…

I actually think there may be a legitimate criticism here if you define demonstrating nuclear weapon/asymmetric warfare capability as employing terror toward political ends and stop there. I'd tread carefully there though. That's a lot of sensitive history you're coloring with a rather unattractive brush. There is a lot that prevents that particular viewpoint from being convincing without dragging down a lot of the f…

> Those examples you called up fit within that justifiable envelope, in the first case, near unanumously

I don't think this is true at all. Maybe if we define the West as America, but even then I think that's a stretch. I can say anecdotally in my circles that the trading of unwitting Japanese civilian lives en masse in exchange for American military lives is looked on with disgust.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#147

Post by isoskeles »

taneq wrote: post #56
isoskeles wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are school shooters not terrorists? They are not. Terrorism is supposed to be a political tool. Whereas school shooters are often just deranged or troubled people lashing out.

Terrorism is violence with the intention of creating fear to further a political goal. If a kid feels victimized and wants to hurt the people they feel responsible, that's not terrorism. If a kid wants to hurt bullies with the intention that it will make other bullies afraid and so reduce the overall amount of bullying in schools then that would fit the definition.

> If a kid wants to hurt bullies with the intention that it will make other bullies afraid and so reduce the overall amount of bullying in schools then that would fit the definition.

You have no evidence that most school shooters communicated such a goal (although there might be an outlier). Or if you do, I'm curious what it is.

Terrorists have a tangible goal, typically coupled with demands, not some hidden intention you make up to shoehorn a person into the definition. Even Elliot Rodger, who had a "manifesto", did not communicate any sort of demands or goals.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#148

Post by softwaredoug »

btilly wrote: post #135

A point from Enlightenment Now that I wish was better understood. Groups that use terrorism to get their way almost always fail. This should not surprise us. Terrorism is the last available option for a weak interest group that has no better way to make their will felt. Therefore as scary as it is to face, the fact that they are resorting to it is evidence that they are underdogs and we should not be surprised that t…

I thought for many terrorist groups, exciting such “extreme efforts” was exactly the goal. Al-qaeda hopes the US would abandon its principles and be provoked into making bad decisions, leading to its downfall. They had a multigenerational view of the effort. Seems by the state of things, they are winning?

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#149

Post by hedora »

streb-lo wrote: post #126
hedora wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re voting on an amendment to exempt candidates for federal office from warrantless surveillance. It is expected to pass. That way, the executive branch can tamper with state and local elections with impunity. The supreme court just heard oral arguments in a case where Trump’s lawyers argued he was allowed to shoot people for no reason in public. (Really. This is not hyperbole.) Presumably the next step is to (pe…

I think your last point is a bit of a leap, but I agree we have seen constant undermining of the institutions built to make the United States a free country during this administration. What I find most interesting is the complete hijacking of a large portion of the conspiracy crowd such that this is all permissible to them, as long as it keeps the Other out of the power structure.

I’m not sure it’s that big of a leap. Gore won the vote in Florida, but the courts installed Bush. The ballots were illegally transported from Ohio to Indiana and back, and then favored Bush in 2004 in a way that was a statistical anomaly. Both those elections were the first I can remember where the exit polls didn’t match the outcome of the election (and the bias was only in crucial districts in swing states).

2016 was a total catastrophe of an election. The courts intervened in one primary earlier this year, in bid to get a conservative judge elected. That backfired, fortunately.

The Senate is intentionally blocking funding for election security, and now, with COVID, they’re refusing to provide funding to allow mail in ballots in many states.

Some of the leaders responsible for underfunding the election have publicly said they are withholding the funding because the republicans will lose if there is high turnout this fall.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#150

Post by jeffdavis »

jdc wrote: post #139
kube-system wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms. They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to. Terrorists don't use cell phones because terrorists use cell phones?

Smart terrorists don't use cellphones because stupid terrorists do.

So let's catch the stupid ones then?
Post reply on HN