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

131–140 of 276 posts

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

#131

Post by monocasa »

engineer_22 wrote: post #106
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is likely the most upsetting part. As flawed as US judicial system is, it is a system that still has to move within certain known parameters. The fact that judicial system stops applying the moment 'the government' decides it doesn't apply is in itself a big problem that effectively undermines basic trust in the system. I don't want to say that it started with Bush, because each president had their sins, but war…

-> some basic rules have to be followed if only to ensure citizenry that they are followed. I guess one of those rules could be: Don't travel overseas to participate in a war against the US government. Yes, I understand, this is a hard rule to follow, especially if you're of the rebellious bent, but comfort requires compromise.

I heard engineer_22 participates in a war against the US government. Oh wait, you'd like due process?

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

#132

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

mandmandam wrote: post #117
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The CIA has killed lots of the wrong people because "signature strikes" Please cite a source for this claim.

You can find this yourself so easily that your question qualifies as sealioning. But here you go anyway: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/05/obamas-most-dangerous-d... > “Signature strikes have resulted in large numbers of bystander casualties in Pakistan and Yemen,” Jameel Jaffer, a deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, told Foreign Policy.

> The numbers are impossible to pin down, given the lack of clear reporting on the ground in places like Pakistan and Yemen.

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

#133

Post by t_mann »

thekiptxt wrote: post #30
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? why is that distinction important to you?

I think OP is suggesting that “just metadata” is a sensationalist title, because to a lay person it suggests that decisions predicated on metadata are uninformed compared to decisions predicated on “data,” even though this isn’t necessarily true. If the title were “We kill people based on data,” then the knee jerk response might be “… obviously.”

the way agencies like the CIA use the term metadata, it is very much inferior to full "data". metadata is just the record of the time, date, parties,... of a phone call, without the voice record of the call. the latter would arguably make for a much better source of information (because you'd know what was actually said, could match the voices,...).

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

#134

Post by akira2501 »

ta8645 wrote: post #79
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. That seems incredibly unlikely. Friendly fire incidents have been a fact of war, pretty much forever.

Friendly fire is by definition an accident. Killing this citizen was intentional. I feel it's odd to allow them to be conflated.

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

#135

Post by nickff »

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?

About the same as that for being killed on a battlefield, and not much worse than that available to an indigent defendant.

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

#136

Post by nonameiguess »

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.

Apparently, you're not going to accept Kent State, but there are non-National Guard incidents from earlier than that. The Bonus Army protesters in 1932 were cleared from DC by the tanks of the 3rd Cavalry commanded by no less than George Patton. Unfortunately, there is no record of total deaths. 5 infantry regiments fresh out of Gettysburg were sent to quell the New York City draft riots in 1863. Again, not known how many they killed, but total deaths well into the hundreds.

This is to say nothing of the many, many times the Army was used to clear natives from lands claimed by the US. Presumably, in most of those incidents, they were not considered American citizens. However, they definitely were in the most recent incident I can think of, the Wounded Knee massacre, which happened in 1980. That was the 7th Cavalry, and they killed 250 Lakota, including women and children.

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

#137

Post by googlryas »

jaywalk wrote: post #126
googlryas wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What other due process is there, relative to the Authorization for Use of Military Force act of 2001? Congress gave POTUS the power to go after people like al-Awlaki with it. It's been on the books for 20+ years, the Supreme Court has essentially ruled it is a constitutional giving of power by Congress to POTUS e.g. in Hamadi vs Rumsfeld. If the US military could have captured al-Awlaki without incident, then drone striking him would probably not be considered "necessary and appropriate force". But, it wasn't reasonable to capture him, so what alternative is there?

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

#138

Post by bombcar »

devteambravo wrote: post #100
hammock wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is assassination we are talking about, not ad serving

Incredibly chilling for you to have to type this! But yes indeed.

Ad serving probably has less false-positives, because those cost the ad companies money.

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

#139

Post by mandmandam »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #132
mandmandam wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can find this yourself so easily that your question qualifies as sealioning. But here you go anyway: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/05/obamas-most-dangerous-d... > “Signature strikes have resulted in large numbers of bystander casualties in Pakistan and Yemen,” Jameel Jaffer, a deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, told Foreign Policy.

> The numbers are impossible to pin down, given the lack of clear reporting on the ground in places like Pakistan and Yemen.

Ha, it almost seems like you're saying that since the US doesn't keep good track of how many civilians they've murdered with "signature strikes", no one can claim that "lots of innocent people are dying". Even when many reports and groups say that lots of innocent people are dying, including the article you're quoting.

That would by psychotic though, so I'm surely misinterpreting what your actual point is. Care to clarify?

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

#140

Post by ivalm »

darawk wrote: post #127
forgetfulness wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How many Americans died from terrorism? How many foreigners died from anti-terrorism drone strikes?
Post reply on HN