Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

inventati.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 775 posts

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#701

Post by graemep »

freeone3000 wrote: post #324
oceanplexian wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Damaging military equipment is absolutely outside any useful definition of terrorism. I hope no one takes this seriously. If you're caught sabotaging equipment on a US military installation in many cases they are authorized to use deadly force and you'll be held accountable under the UCMJ. The absolute best outcome is you're designated a terrorist and live to see a prison cell.

Terrorism used to be defined as attacking civilian targets to aid in political messaging. Attacking military targets is somewhere between an insurgency, partisanism, or an armed conflict. If we let terrorism mean “any act against the state”, then people who burn police cars are the same as people who plant bombs in shopping malls.

> Terrorism used to be defined as attacking civilian targets to aid in political messaging.

Not consistently, and its not a clear definition.

The same groups that attacked civilians in places I have lived in also attacked military targets as part of the same strategy. Terrorism is used to threaten, divert resources from front lines, cause economic damage, etc. Civilian targets are attacked in most wars. Is a car bomb outside a military barracks that different from one in a civilian area? What about a suicide bomb aimed at a sentry on a civilian road? I was about to drive past that one. Are the civilians who were killed collateral damage from an attack on a military target or victims of terrorism?

> people who burn police cars

So people who attack a civilian target. By your own definition they are terrorists if they are doing it for political motives.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#702

Post by graemep »

isityettime wrote: post #257
graemep wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Palestine Action has been designated a terrorist group in the UK as well after sabotaging military aircraft (the article says they sprayed paint, but does not say it was sprayed inside jet engines, rendering them inoperable). Masar Badil supports "armed struggle". One of the other groups ("hammer") recently designated a terrorist group (and linked to A/I Collective in another article I read ) got its name by attackin…

> Palestine Action has been designated a terrorist group in the UK as well after sabotaging military aircraft (the article says they sprayed paint, but does not say it was sprayed inside jet engines, rendering them inoperable). That pretty much tells you everything you need to know. Definitions of "terrorism" that extend to sabotage against occupying or invading militaries and their allies are meaningless and hollow…

> That pretty much tells you everything you need to know. Definitions of "terrorism" that extend to sabotage against occupying or invading militaries and their allies are meaningless and hollow dilutions.

British people attacking British forces are not sabotaging an occupying or invading military.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#703

Post by Nemo_bis »

culi wrote: post #446
cvalkz wrote: post #237

Could the persons that mention the PKK all over this thread kindly find links now that noblogs.org is partly dysfunctional and autistici.org is down? Google Search yields a very small amount of third party support for the PKK, all unreachable now. I cannot find any evidence at all and neither can LLMs that this organization has ever directly supported the PKK or hosted a PKK website.

It can't be because of a PKK link because then the US would have to designate themselves as terrorist. They literally armed and supplied to YPG to fight ISIS. The Kurds proved to be the most effective at stopping ISIS

As Matthew Petti wrote, «Some people, it seems, are friendly enough to have an audience with cabinet officials, yet too dangerous to have an email address». https://reason.com/2026/08/27/rubio-uses-terrorism-law-to-ba...

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#704

Post by hardbass »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #478
iamnothere wrote: post #45

Everyone’s missing the big picture here which is that this targeting of infrastructure providers as “terrorists” is unprecedented and concerning: https://decode39.com/16319/autistici-inventati-case-sets-a-n... If a radical group sets up shop on I2P, are I2P users and devs now terrorists? This is a problem. What about Monero users/devs? Veilid? Tox? Signal?

The picture everyone is missing is voting in November is how this gets resolved. The only way radical authoritarians survive on 30% approval ratings is apathy. Theres no reason to put up with this, the other side of a 70% electorate opposition is prison for the lawless incumbent

There is no resolving this until at least the maga generation dies off.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#705

Post by K0balt »

DaSHacka wrote: post #700
K0balt wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/pol was made in October 2023 after a meeting between moot and Epstein. 4chan may not have been a honeypot but it’s likely that /pol was influenced heavily by Epstein/Maxwell which indicates a plausible link between/pol and Mossad aligned Intel activities at least.

But /new/ was from before then and was essentially the precursor to /pol/ anyway

Sure. Epstein/Mossad/CIA was not likely involved in the creation of the Chan. But the creation of /pol apparently in response to moot meeting Epstein (and follow-up meetings) as well as Maxwell’s alleged “janitor” status on the board are both deeply suspicious at least.

BTW someone should probably check in on moot once in a while to see if he’s ok lol. Strange bedfellows and all that.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#706

Post by impossiblefork »

A1kmm wrote: post #680
impossiblefork wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. With dummy messages you are guaranteed that traffic analysis will not be possible. Because you connect to the network, then start sending messages to everybody continuously, a message every second, or every ten seconds, or every 100 seconds, you will, every second, or every ten seconds, or 100 seconds, be able to send a message to whoever you want, and you will not be distinguished in any way from the other netwo…

> No. With dummy messages you are guaranteed that traffic analysis will not be possible. I don't think that's true. There are two possibilities: If you're proposing that dummy messages are in addition to normal messages, then dummy messages add noise to the signal, but over a long enough time, for known noise distribution, it is possible for the signal to be statistically significant. That depends on there being enou…

No, you always send a dummy message the appointed time.

If you have a real message, or a network maintenance message, that substitutes for a dummy message. You never send messages other than at the appointed time.

Delayed or dropped messages won't matter, since you only send a message at the appointed time. So the network is literally indistinguishable from one where you have sent no messages to all participants and to even someone with complete control of the network.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#708

Post by DaSHacka »

dev1ycan wrote: post #557
iamnothere wrote: post #45

Everyone’s missing the big picture here which is that this targeting of infrastructure providers as “terrorists” is unprecedented and concerning: https://decode39.com/16319/autistici-inventati-case-sets-a-n... If a radical group sets up shop on I2P, are I2P users and devs now terrorists? This is a problem. What about Monero users/devs? Veilid? Tox? Signal?

Signal is a honeypot

So true, please use random no-name services with unvetted E2EE crypto or mainstream services with none instead.

Much better than Signal, the platform of choice for politicians, feds, and security researchers for their personal and private communications.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#709

Post by Nemo_bis »

mdp2021 wrote: post #223
apopapo wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will become pariahs financially speaking. Nobody will be authorized to wire money to/from them. It's brutal.

> Nobody In the USA - the consequences should be only related to USA pertinent actors. The newspapers in Italy say, "there is no judgement against them in Italy".

Italian banks immediately apply US sanctions because they are scared they'd be cut off SWIFT. Banca Etica, A/I's bank, previously refused to open a bank account to Francesca Albanese. https://www.bancaetica.it/banca-etica-chiede-alle-istituzion...

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#710

Post by Nemo_bis »

2legit2quit wrote: post #545
culi wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how US sanctions work. When the US sanctions something, nobody is allowed to donate to them. Basically any country that trades with the US (most) has to follow according to their trade deals. Any bank that wants to be in SWIFT must block any transfers

> Any bank that wants to be in SWIFT must block any transfers. Given that SWIFT is headquartered in Belgium and Italy's major bank is one of the 24 banks on the SWIFT board, how does this "blockade" in SWIFT happen? Is the inference that all of the banks bow down to the US, even though the US only represents 2 out of the 24 banks on the board?

It happens by cowardice. https://www.bancaetica.it/banca-etica-chiede-alle-istituzion...
Post reply on HN