“We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things

Post by nickff » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 6:06 PM UTC

hammock wrote: post #44

lupire wrote: post #33

Earlier 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.

This is assassination we are talking about, not ad serving

Post by tomjakubowski » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #57

the_lonely_road wrote: post #49

Earlier 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.

Post by TuringNYC » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

lupire wrote: post #5

Metadata 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.

Post by barrysteve » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

throwaway0asd wrote: post #61

barrysteve wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

That’s an empty argument. People don’t have a choice on what third parties share and disclose. People don’t have a choice on things like HIPAA and banking regulations and they shouldn’t because those regulations protect people but don’t regulate people.

Post by the_optimist » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 6:11 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #46

Consultant32452 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.