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

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

darknetlive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 276 posts

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

#91

Post by jaywalk »

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.

It's incredible that Obama was just given a complete pass on that. But knowing what we know now about the media, it's not really all that surprising.

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

#92

Post by doubled112 »

kshacker wrote: post #48
mikece wrote: post #8

"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 o…

> are continuously ashamed of things we did

Maybe "ashamed" is too strong a word, but thinking smaller scale, if you look back at the way you handled things when you were younger, don't you think you could have done anything better?

Isn't this how we learn and progress as a person? Seems likely to be true for a society as well.

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

#93

Post by pclmulqdq »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #83
pclmulqdq wrote: post #57

Earlier 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.

> This was the first time in history that a US citizen was killed by the US military Not close to the first time. Kent State is one famous example. Countless people shot for trespassing on bases

The Ohio National Guard is not a branch of the US military. It reports to the government of Ohio.

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

#94

Post by giraffe_lady »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #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?

> I think it's good that US intelligence uses every tool at their disposal against foreign threats.

This either naively assumes the US's goals are aligned with some objective "good," or that things that benefit the US also directly benefit you, regardless of their goodness.

The second one I don't think I need to refute? Assassinating people for personal gain would not be valid under very many moral frameworks I don't think.

So we're down to basically "does the US generally use violence for widespread good?" Which is fraught, for sure, but also pretty clearly no? We use violence for all kinds of reasons some of which are roughly good for a lot of people but many are not at all. These institutions just aren't trustworthy in this way.

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

#95

Post by ALittleLight »

donatj wrote: post #60
throwaway0asd wrote: post #20

To 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…

Companies don't kill me. It's the government I'm worried about, and the governments of the world have literally no intentions on respecting your privacy.

But companies collect your data and sell it to the government.

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

#96

Post by hammock »

the_lonely_road wrote: post #49
ImHereToVote wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

> The government was killing its enemies 100 years before the word digital was invented

Citation needed. The current pattern of extrajudicial remote targeted killings outside of a Congressionally-declared battlefield is completely novel and only began in the Predator drone age, as far as I can see

Edit: some data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_by_the_...

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

#97

Post by jaywalk »

googlryas wrote: post #80
chasd00 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know why the parent poster linked to his son, but this is probably who he was thinking of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

A US citizen who was executed by a drone strike ordered by Obama himself.

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

#99

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

mikece wrote: post #8

"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…

> The CIA has killed lots of the wrong people because "signature strikes"

Please cite a source for this claim.

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

#100

Post by devteambravo »

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

Incredibly chilling for you to have to type this! But yes indeed.
Post reply on HN