Earlier quoted context omitted.
what did the person say? it seems the comment was removed.
You can turn on "showdead" in your account settings to see dead comments.
I didn't know that, thank you.
“We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
31–40 of 276 posts
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#32Metadata is data. There is no "just" metadata. Metadata is a relative classification of one piece of data compared to another piece of data, not an absolute classification.
Why do people make hot take comments like this?
There's obviously a difference between metadata and other data, that's why we have a word for it.
What are you trying to say exactly?
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#33"Signature strikes" -- the target has a signature (movement, data, use of a satellite phone or specific cellular number, entourage, etc) that matches that of an HVT (high value taget) that is authorized for termination by drone strike. The CIA has killed lots of the wrong people because "signature strikes" don't require second source intelligence to verify who the target is (eg: is the person using the satellite phon…
"Signatures" aren't necessarily better or worse than other sources. Other sources can be mistakes or intentional lies. What matters is the quality of the totality of the evidence, and how well convinced we are of what the accuracy based on past experience; and how much the deciders knew about last inaccuracies, when deciding to continue a practice.
Statistical decision making is very slippery stuff.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#34"Signature strikes" -- the target has a signature (movement, data, use of a satellite phone or specific cellular number, entourage, etc) that matches that of an HVT (high value taget) that is authorized for termination by drone strike. The CIA has killed lots of the wrong people because "signature strikes" don't require second source intelligence to verify who the target is (eg: is the person using the satellite phon…
> As an American I'm ashamed that my government has done things like this and I fully support those responsible for these programs to be tried as war criminals.
Same and seconded. That includes presidents too; take every living president and have them stand for these crimes. There's no reason that being president should be carte blanche for murder.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#35Metadata is data. There is no "just" metadata. Metadata is a relative classification of one piece of data compared to another piece of data, not an absolute classification.
It's all data, that's true. But I think the distinction the various three-letter agencies make is between "metadata" and "content" for most data they process. So in terms of a phone call, an actual voice recording would be "content" while when the call was made and between which two numbers would be "metadata". With "content" + "metadata" they could verify that the target is actually who they think it is, based on vo…
One data's metadata is another metadata's data. Know what I mean.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, yes, poorly phrased. We don't know if he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and probably won't, because presidents and former presidents are immune to prosecution in this country. It's always possible the he had legitimate reasons for storing SC information outside a SCIF. No one can think of any, including his own legal team, but hey, ex-President, right?
> because presidents and former presidents are immune to prosecution in this country. I think saying things like this is deliberately provocative -- it's not the case. "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Trump commits crimes flagrantly and to such a degree that Nixon never would have dreamed. He will get some kind of legal consequence ... eventually.
> He will get some kind of legal consequence ... eventually.
I don't see how you could possibly be confident of that. Even if he is absolutely guilty and gets to the point of a trial, which alone is a huge huge huge huge step, he may be able to delay things for the rest of his life.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#37"Signature strikes" -- the target has a signature (movement, data, use of a satellite phone or specific cellular number, entourage, etc) that matches that of an HVT (high value taget) that is authorized for termination by drone strike. The CIA has killed lots of the wrong people because "signature strikes" don't require second source intelligence to verify who the target is (eg: is the person using the satellite phon…
Don’t forget American citizens are on the table too, no due process required!
EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki Thank you Jaywalk for the correct link
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#38"Signature strikes" -- the target has a signature (movement, data, use of a satellite phone or specific cellular number, entourage, etc) that matches that of an HVT (high value taget) that is authorized for termination by drone strike. The CIA has killed lots of the wrong people because "signature strikes" don't require second source intelligence to verify who the target is (eg: is the person using the satellite phon…
"Signatures" aren't necessarily better or worse than other sources. Other sources can be mistakes or intentional lies. What matters is the quality of the totality of the evidence, and how well convinced we are of what the accuracy based on past experience; and how much the deciders knew about last inaccuracies, when deciding to continue a practice. Statistical decision making is very slippery stuff.
I would prefer to be tried in a court of law, you?
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#39Metadata is data. There is no "just" metadata. Metadata is a relative classification of one piece of data compared to another piece of data, not an absolute classification.
Why do people make hot take comments like this? There's obviously a difference between metadata and other data, that's why we have a word for it. What are you trying to say exactly?
People who spy on metadata make dishonest claims like "it isn't an invasion of privacy since we are only collecting metadata".
> There's obviously a difference between metadata and other data,
No. Your metadata is my data; that's the point. "Meta" is an additional contextual characteristic of some (I'd say most) data.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#40"sussy General Michael Hayden"
The author shows their bias.
I think it's good that US intelligence uses every tool at their disposal against foreign threats. Tell me why they shouldn't? What is the alternative?