what is going on in the comments on that site? what community is that
“We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
41–50 of 276 posts
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
What has > Trump has already proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of. ? Has he ever been convicted in a court? Or did you mean a different phrasing about evidence?
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?
Are you aware that Trump could have tweeted a copy of every top secret document the government has and it would have been perfectly legal?
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#43I think the article's second part is missing the point [where a bunch of tools are recommended to remove metadata from eg. pdf files].
I suspect by "metadata" the general meant: A is a verified terrorist, B communicates a lot with A or maybe is often co-located with A, fits the demographic of a terrorist and some other coincidental "metadata" is enough to put a high-ish probability on B being a terrorist and target B; or at least treat him/her as acceptable collateral damage.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#44"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.
This is assassination we are talking about, not ad serving
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#45What's up with those comments in the comment section
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#46Earlier 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?
Are you aware that Trump could have tweeted a copy of every top secret document the government has and it would have been perfectly legal?
Maybe. That's not what he did, though.
If you think it's a good idea to allow a former POTUS to retroactively and implicitly declassify information he is caught with after leaving office, or to issue a sweeping declaration that any documents he takes out of the Oval Office are automatically declassified, I suspect you won't be as blasé when someone of the opposing political party does it.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#47Article seems to draw an overly narrow conclusion that metadata only means extra data attached to document files like pdf, etc. When CIA says “metadata” they mean things like who you talked to (vs. what you said), where you were (vs. what you did), etc. I mean sure watch out for metadata if you are leaking document files or whatever, but it’s much broader than that.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#48"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…
I am reading "a peoples history of United States" by Howard zinn. It highlights US in a very negative light so with that caveat out of the way, it appears we are continuously ashamed of things we did just a century back. Always.
Maybe in a hundred years we will also talk about the current era as dark times (as long as we are the top dog or maybe number 2). But at that point we will have something else to be ashamed of (but that will not be talked of at that time).
If we spiral out of control or break up, then the story (in hindsight) will be even more amazing.
But then I look at other countries and apart from some good European socialism which is quite recent, there ain't much to be proud of, when you look at any country, of any era.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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?
That's a false equivalence though and not what the alternative option is here. The government was killing its enemies 100 years before the word digital was invented and will continue to do so as long as government exist. They will use every technology invented in the pursuit of doing so. Blaming metadata signature based approaches is no different than blaming their use of satellites, metallurgy, hell the wheel is a big part of their war machine. It has always been this way and it will continue to always be this way.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#50To me discussions about privacy often seem like bullshit. Here is a comment I wrote yesterday about a former AdWords employee as privacy violation apologist: Hypocritically people bitch about intrusive data collection from governments and yet simultaneously give away the same data, and encourage others to do the same, and more to private companies knowing that data will be weaponized against them. As such it’s almost…
This is only viable when viewed as an economic game. As soon as a real war breaks out or national security is threatened, privacy invasions from foreign powers and literally anyone not whitelisted, will be ended quickly and be treated as acts of war.
Assuming all private companies are bent is pointless. People should be allowed the choice to keep their data private and give it whomever they please. This is a 'free market' after all.