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

121–130 of 276 posts

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

#121

Post by folkrav »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #104
hammock wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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_...

Where is the battlefield when dealing with asymmetrical enemies like terrorists? If only they'd wear uniforms, not hide behind civilians, and stay in the designated battlefield area we wouldn't have this problem.

Cool. In the meantime, they're not (just) killing terrorists.

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

#122

Post by [deleted] »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #104
hammock wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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_...

Where is the battlefield when dealing with asymmetrical enemies like terrorists? If only they'd wear uniforms, not hide behind civilians, and stay in the designated battlefield area we wouldn't have this problem.

[deleted]

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

#123

Post by pdonis »

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…

> As an American I'm ashamed that my government has done things like this

Have you voted against all of your elected representatives that authorized it?

The only way things like this will change is if the people force them to change by making it clear to politicians that they will not be elected or re-elected if they support them.

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

#124

Post by DawnQFunk3 »

chasd00 wrote: post #37
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…

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

No post body was provided.

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

#125

Post by daniel-cussen »

googlryas wrote: post #111
jaywalk wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't really see the problem with this either. It seems like they would have liked to capture him, but it was infeasible. The guy essentially declared war on the US with his actions. What special steps should they take because he is an American citizen? A little different, but imagine if an American decided to go fight for Germany during WWII. Should he receive any special consideration above what native-born Germa…

Yeah that analysis of if he could be captured alive feasibly was his crappy version of due process.

Not enough for my taste, but it at least caused a hiccup in the meat grinder. And it diminishes Obama's legacy in an objective way that can be repeated ad nauseam, legitimately. He lives on past the bullets as a bullet-point in presentations, discussions, debates and speeches.

Salutations, fellow United States citizen Mr. Al-Awlaki.

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

#126

Post by jaywalk »

googlryas wrote: post #111
jaywalk wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't really see the problem with this either. It seems like they would have liked to capture him, but it was infeasible. The guy essentially declared war on the US with his actions. What special steps should they take because he is an American citizen? A little different, but imagine if an American decided to go fight for Germany during WWII. Should he receive any special consideration above what native-born Germa…

Americans are afforded due process rights under the Constitution. I'm not saying he wasn't a bad guy, he clearly was. But it's not the same as a soldier (or police officer, or anyone really) shooting someone who's actively shooting at them. This was a straight up execution of a citizen without due process.

Nobody, including the President, has the right to do that. It was blatantly unconstitutional.

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

#127

Post by darawk »

forgetfulness wrote: post #120
nickff wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uncertainty is (unfortunately) everywhere; for example, what probability is “beyond a reasonable doubt”? There are many who take issue with that question, but the answers I’ve seen range between 0.1% and 5%, with no general consensus.

What's the appeal process for being assassinated by the CIA like?

Pretty similar to the appeals process for being killed by the terrorist that the CIA chose not to assassinate.

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

#128

Post by monocasa »

googlryas wrote: post #111
jaywalk wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't really see the problem with this either. It seems like they would have liked to capture him, but it was infeasible. The guy essentially declared war on the US with his actions. What special steps should they take because he is an American citizen? A little different, but imagine if an American decided to go fight for Germany during WWII. Should he receive any special consideration above what native-born Germa…

> What special steps should they take because he is an American citizen?

The due process afforded in the constitution. With, you know, trials and juries and such.

> A little different, but imagine if an American decided to go fight for Germany during WWII. Should he receive any special consideration above what native-born German soldiers got, before Americans start shooting towards him?

I would say that an operation specifically to assassinate that person without a trial should be viewed as unconstitutional.

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

#129

Post by ch4s3 »

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 US government was not murdering anonymous strangers using a shadowy intelligence agency with no oversight 100 years ago. Army SigInt was only founded in 1917, and prior the US didn't formally employ any spies, and certainly didn't carry out assassinations.

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

#130

Post by CamperBob2 »

the_optimist wrote: post #89
CamperBob2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You invented 'retroactive.' I suppose you are blasé about this because it applies to someone of an opposing political party.

Is there any actual evidence that he declassified all of that material while in office? Did he even tell anybody?

No?

Well, then, any such claims are necessarily retroactive, or else they're invalid from the get-go. Which do you prefer?

Post reply on HN