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

181–190 of 276 posts

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

#181

Post by lupire »

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.

Did you forget about the Jim Crow era, when courts themselves were highly suspect?

And union busting police? And modern police, before and after 2020?

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

#182

Post by hammock »

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.

The point is these killings have not been happening for 100 years as claimed. These are a new type of killing, with a newly invented legal justification

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

#183

Post by DuskStar »

webnrrd2k wrote: post #154
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 civilian was killed by the US military. I'm sure that there were plenty of other times it happened, but, for a relativly well-know and documented incident in 1932, check out the Bonus Army[1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army#:~:text=The%20Bon... .

Or Kent State.

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

#184

Post by lupire »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #173
guhidalg wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you’re splitting hairs. A government ordered death is the same no matter if the shooter is a soldier or a national guardsman.

This is a big difference. State national guards operate a lot more like the state police than like the army. Posse Comitatus does not apply to them. By the way, if you want to split hairs and bring up examples like Kent State, the elephant in the room is the self-defense justification in a lot of these examples. Find a killing that occurred when a soldier believed their life to be in danger.

How about Sherman's March to the Sea?

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

#185

Post by Consultant32452 »

Jochim wrote: post #172
Consultant32452 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any ideas you have about the President having to follow any sort of official process regarding classification are nothing but illusions. The most you're going to get here is he's irresponsible in a way people don't like but is not criminal. Even if I were to imagine he were technically breaking the law with some of these documents, look at it from a practical standpoint. At one point he could've done whatever he want…

I could've written down the correct numbers for the lottery but I didn't, therefore I don't get to claim any winnings. I think it's kind of ironic that - speaking generally - the "patriots" don't seem to care at all that a former president took state secrets after leaving office. I wonder how big the "nothingburger" would be if it turns out he actually did leak them.

This is going to disappoint you as much as Russiagate.

I'm not a Trump supporter.

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

#186

Post by trasz »

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 guess one of those rules could be: Don't travel overseas to participate in a war against the US government.

So how is this different from rules forced by ISIS?

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

#187

Post by idontpost »

darawk wrote: post #164
ivalm wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many Americans died from terrorism? How many foreigners died from anti-terrorism drone strikes?

These are actually easy things to look up. 910-2,200 civilians killed by drone strikes[1]. More than that were killed on 9/11 alone [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

No post body was provided.

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

#188

Post by lupire »

hammock wrote: post #96
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…

> 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_...

The old version was to carpet/fire/nuclear bomb entire cities. Is that better?

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

#189

Post by rhacker »

lotharcable wrote: post #63

Governments killing people without due process in this manner is criminal homicide. Each person needs to held individually accountable for their crimes. State secrets should be declassified and released. Each person's individual actions should be documented. And they should be tried in court and serve sentences commensurate with their level of participation. This does not secure the country. This creates enemies and…

I'm not sure why this isn't upvoted beyond anything here. For them to even admit they've killed people based on metadata means they could kill you for your uncle's friend's mom being a terrorist.

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

#190

Post by monocasa »

BobbyJo wrote: post #178
monocasa wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's illegal to assassinate even mass shooters in the US. It's only legal to kill them in defense during an active situation. And just going to through out there that Anwar al-Awlaki isn't accused of taking up arms, just publishing political speech that the US government didn't approve of.

> It's illegal to assassinate even mass shooters in the US. It's only legal to kill them in defense during an active situation. A drone strike feels like a pretty active situation no? I'm not being pedantic, just pointing out that there is a ton of grey area that your statement doesn't account for, and we'd need to dive into the details of this situation to determine whether the assassination was justified or not. Ev…

> A drone strike feels like a pretty active situation no?

Following that logic, drone striking you in your house is an active situation. No constitution needed.

No, I obviously meant that you're allowed to kill as LEO _in response_ to an active situation.

> For example, let's say you had credible information indicating someone was going to bomb and elementary school, and you saw them running down your street towards one such school. Would you shoot?

> What if, same situation, but you saw them riding a bike or driving a car toward the school? What if you had no idea where they were, but someone told you they'd be in a certain location before the attack and you could only get a drone to the location in time?

The real world is not the TV show 24. The purpose of the constitution is to constrain such actions even if extrajudicially drone striking every person with a modicum of 'credible evidence' against them would be easier or might lead to less tragedies.

Additionally, you're ignoring that there was no active situation Al-Waki was accused of participating in. Just political speech the government didn't approve of.

Post reply on HN