the General was quoted as having said this in in 2014.
As many predicted correctly: "metadata" has become profoundly more difficult to collect in 2022 for those willing to invest the time and effort.
“We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
71–80 of 276 posts
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 b…
In 2010, an American citizen was killed in a drone strike by the US military, without a trial or any attempt to make an arrest. This was the first time in history that a US civilian was killed by the US military. Before 2010, we were doing just fine without executing citizens on suspect legal grounds. Edit: Edited to state that this was not fire of combatants in a combat zone.
Which citizen was it? I've never heard about this before but I wouldn't put it past those war mongering fucks.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#73"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…
> "signature strikes" don't require second source intelligence to verify who the target is..
Read that Osama bin Laden was verified by people on ground masquerading as health workers.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#74Maybe this should be taught at big corporations of when being too “data driven” can be deadly.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 2010, an American citizen was killed in a drone strike by the US military, without a trial or any attempt to make an arrest. This was the first time in history that a US civilian was killed by the US military. Before 2010, we were doing just fine without executing citizens on suspect legal grounds. Edit: Edited to state that this was not fire of combatants in a combat zone.
Which citizen was it? I've never heard about this before but I wouldn't put it past those war mongering fucks.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#76The CIA, an organization well known for assasinations and coups all around the world kills people? WHAAT?
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#77"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.
>> "Signatures" aren't necessarily better or worse than other sources.
Right, they are almost always worse than first-hand information, and they are almost always better than low-grade intelligence obtained under pressure/influence (like the WMDs in Iraq). That is no justification.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
The has CIA tortured US citizens, destroyed the evidence and got away with it, I doubt anything will happen.
>> I doubt anything will happen.
Well not with that attitude. ;-)
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 b…
In 2010, an American citizen was killed in a drone strike by the US military, without a trial or any attempt to make an arrest. This was the first time in history that a US civilian was killed by the US military. Before 2010, we were doing just fine without executing citizens on suspect legal grounds. Edit: Edited to state that this was not fire of combatants in a combat zone.
> This was the first time in history that a US citizen was killed by the US military.
That seems incredibly unlikely. Friendly fire incidents have been a fact of war, pretty much forever.
Re: “We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
#80"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
From the article, it seems like he was collateral damage and not the intended target - the drone strike was targeting Ibrahim al-Banna. That sucks, very much a wrong place wrong time, but I would say that a fairly effective strategy for not being collateral damage is to not hang out with internationally wanted terrorists.