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

Post by salawat » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 9:14 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #170

Banana699 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about how much absolute money is spent per each false positive, it's about how much you can get away with wasting. If a decision maker in the CIA is not punished for each brain fart, why would they avoid mistakes ? You get the behaviour that you reinforce and tolerate.

Exactly. A false positive likely results in more money because you need to buy more equipment to replace what you just used, and even more to do it "right this time".

Post by InitialLastName » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 9:19 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 kornhole » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 9:21 PM UTC

Post by throwaway0asd » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 9:38 PM UTC

monopoliessuck wrote: post #101

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…

People don't have a choice about giving information to governments. There's a fourth amendment for a reason so I'm obviously anti dragnet. Private parties though may opt into providing anything legal to other private parties at their sole discretion and that's the nature of things. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans are making market choices that many of us would consider "not privacy respecting", that d…

Post by CamperBob2 » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 10:07 PM UTC

the_optimist wrote: post #216

CamperBob2 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My information source is the former NSA counsel, among many others. What's yours?

Varied, mostly practitioners. High value on non-partisans, demonstrated by inclination to make and entertain counterargument, and an extensive history of demonstrated preference. By the way, I cannot help but notice that your “former NSA counsel” remains anonymous. Susan Hennessey, nor anyone affiliated with Lawfare or Brookings meet the minimum criteria.