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

241–250 of 276 posts

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

#241

Post by darawk »

InitialLastName wrote: post #212
darawk wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I know we're talking about drone strikes, but we should always and forever note that the civilian casualties from the US' war on terror far outweighs [0] those who died from terrorism. Not to mention the US troops who died to make Iraqi oil available to US businesses, or who continue to die by suicide and social deaths related to their experiences in the war [1]. [0] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/W…

Ya, I wouldn't defend the broader war. I think Afghanistan was reasonable and necessary but probably should have been more surgical, and Iraq was basically indefensible. However, conditional on being committed to fighting the wars, I think drone strikes are an excellent tactical choice.

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

#242

Post by stjohnswarts »

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…

I don't bear 1 ounce of shame of anything I wasn't a direct participant in. Not slavery, not the KKK, not any of our lame ass wars, none of that. Should we try to fix the ills of those terrible things? Absolutely. I acknowledge it all happened and it was an awful thing. It always has to be viewed through the context of the times it happened in though. None of this "white man's guilt" crap. Let's all work together to fix it, not continuously spin our wheels feeling guilty and hating each other. CRT is an attempt to push the guilt narrative and that's why I agree with it pitched out on it's head from schools, not because I think history shouldn't be taught but "emotion as history" is a bad road to go down.

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

#243

Post by matheusmoreira »

ALittleLight wrote: post #148
engineer_22 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-> 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.

Also it's a hard rule to follow if you are a child. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki

If this is how the USA treats its own citizens, it's scary to think about what it probably feels justified doing to foreigners.

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

#244

Post by fragmede »

salawat wrote: post #198
micromacrofoot wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, the US military practically has a blank check. I can think of multiple decade-long government projects off of the top of my head (including from NASA) that had entire programs scrapped because they ran out of money. Overages from a single military program, like the F-35, have eclipsed the entire budget of those canceled projects.

That has more to do with the fact that Congress hasn't the backbone to call the Executive to heel on spending or transparency, or to empower OIG/GAO to pierce the national security veil. You can't make actionable tweaks to the system when the books are compartmentalized. None of that though doesn't cost money. Which is why I question the logic that Ad serving is somehow more responsive or accurate because a false-pos…

Only if they're public companies. If they're private (eg Dell) then their books are hidden from public view.

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

#245

Post by r2_pilot »

User23 wrote: post #115
r2_pilot wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a true statement. The AEC has its own Restricted Data classification which is not under the purview of the president to declassify. There are other cases of classification but this is one that is not easily debatable.

> The AEC has its own Restricted Data classification which is not under the purview of the president to declassify. They can certainly say that, but since the executive power is constitutionally vested in the president in Article II, it can't be true barring a constitutional amendment. I believe there are court cases already establishing that Congress does not have the authority to limit the President's power to clas…

> They can certainly say that, but since the executive power is constitutionally vested in the president in Article II, it can't be true barring a constitutional amendment.

Re: that case; yes for executive classification [The Supreme Court determined in its 1988 decision on Department of the Navy v. Egan that the president’s power over classified information comes from executive authority granted by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which says, in part, that the “President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”]. However, Restricted Data is under the SOLE authority of the Department of Energy[1] to declassify, even if the DoE is under the executive branch. The law is specifically written, in fact, so that the president is not explicitly given the authority to declassify materials, yet does play a role in declassification once the DoE initiates the process, which implies that Congress did not wish to grant the presidency that power. But I'm not a lawyer, and my opinion means little.

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2162

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

#246

Post by aaaaaaaaata »

BobbyJo wrote: post #229
monocasa wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. My point was that you haven't defined what an "active situation" is. I could say "we should only kill people when we have to" and that'd be accurate, but that'd be useless for the point of this conversation, which at thi…

> however, such things happen

Source?

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

#247

Post by r2_pilot »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #51
Consultant32452 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware that Trump could have tweeted a copy of every top secret document the government has and it would have been perfectly legal?

Yes, Trump definitionally cannot have leaked secret documents while he was president, because he had the authority to declassify them and the act of distributing them would have been a form of that declassification. Reality Winner had no such authority to declassify documents.

The former president[T] could absolutely leak secret documents in violation of existing law. The former president[O] signed Executive Order 13526, which was never [publicly] rescinded nor modified by TFP[T], and that EO defines how classified material is to be handled. Agree that Reality Winner had no authority to declassify documents.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526

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

#248

Post by r2_pilot »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #185
Jochim wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I doubt I will be disappointed by the outcome. I've already been enjoying popcorn while watching the show. I recommend you review the laws cited by the FBI in the search warrant, and note that they do not require the documents to be classified for the penalties to exist.

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

#249

Post by aaaaaaaaata »

chasd00 wrote: post #108
arminiusreturns wrote: post #64

Please, with the anniversary coming up shortly, remember the event that they used as an excuse to start "programs" like these: 9/11. I was too young and dumb and propagandized to know what I was getting myself into, signing up to go fight "those evil terrorists", but it didnt take long for me to realize something wasnt right. I spent the vast majority of my life since I got out of the Corps trying to understand the w…

> totalitarian surveillance state never let a good crisis goto waste! As soon as the first plane hit i bet the lights started getting turned on and the servers booted up.

PATRIOT Act already had drafts, no?

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

#250

Post by nradov »

lupire wrote: post #228
monocasa wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

At the time of the assassination order, he had been out of the US for over 6 years, and was a public leader in a war against the US that had already killed thousands of American civilians . He was convicted and ordered to "capture dead or alive" by a Yemeni court. Should the US conducted the formality of convicting him of treason in absentia? Sure. None of this remotely excuses killing his children.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure doesn't allow trials in absentia in such circumstances.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_43

Post reply on HN