Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn • Hacker News Board

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#231

Post by dragontamer » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 9:33 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #229

dragontamer wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. It was not free game. They could not take copies preemptively. Wrong. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mai... It's been free-game for a hundred years. Keep up with the law dude. USPS "metadata" has been copied and tracked. Such information was used for the Anthrax cases of early 2000s... and other such crimes. It is illegal for police to read the contents of an envelope, but they can (and…

Okay, doing it for decades doesn't mean they need it. It wasn't there from the start. >How do you expect to track down a Swatter without using metadata? As I said in my other post, you don't actually need call records to find a swatter. They called the police, the police have the number, tada. I'm not arguing against deleting everything that could possibly classify as metadata, I'm saying we should cut down the types…

> As I said in my other post, you don't actually need call records to find a swatter. They called the police, the police have the number, tada.

And if the Swatter used another phone to call a Google Voice number to create a local line in another city, they will need Metadata to figure out what that _OTHER_ telephone number is.

Otherwise, they have a phone number to a fake google-account created in TOR. That's not very useful.

Phone Number 555-0000 called Google-Voice 555-9991, which THEN called the Police. Only having "555-9991" is completely worthless. You need metadata analysis to unravel the proxies.

Furthermore, executing a warrant generally requires a name and a case. You don't got a name yet, you're trying to build a case without warrant powers at this point of the Police game.

Do you think these Swatters are dumb or something? They aren't using their personal phone numbers to call the police, they're actually redirecting themselves a little bit.

> I'm not arguing against deleting everything that could possibly classify as metadata, I'm saying we should cut down the types of metadata available. And we need to stop the government from making copies of private data 'just in case' and declaring it not to be a search/seizure until some later stage.

The legal standard between 1940s (since the closure of the Office of Censorship, which straight up allowed the US Agents to read mail and censor them), and now has been that metadata collection doesn't need a warrant.

Metadata collection is NOT search/seizure in Smith v. Maryland. Its how things have operated for literally decades.

Now if you don't like it, that's fine. But know that you're moving from the status-quo. This is how the government has operated since the 1970s at very least (see again... Smith v. Maryland).

Going back to the cases before that was Olmstead v. United States, 1928, which collection of straight-up data was considered not search/seizure btw. (So we've actually cut back upon collection from a historical perspective. Police powers were greater in the 1920s than today)

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#232

Post by ics » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 9:34 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #224

ics wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's the universal sign for "this is the thing that needs to be removed". Unfortunately they don't have cones which read "unauthorized object subject to removal immediately" which would get the point across while preserving people's ability to see it until it was removed or properly evaluated. That would make the whole issue of removal look even more Orwellian though, would it not? The reason why I brought up the…

Something getting on my computer has massive potential to be malicious, and has bypassed security to get there. A statue stuck in a park has no more potential to be malicious than a random rock, and has not bypassed meaningful security. That's a big difference. The argument of "it exists, therefore it 'could' be malicious" is trash. They 'could' alter anything in the park to be malicious. In the computer scenario I'm…

    - Smuggling a heavy bronze statue into a park has bypassed
      security (yes, parks have security).
    - Statues have potential but very small likelihood of being
      'malicious'.
    - Heavy statues have great potential to cause physical harm when
      not properly built or installed.
    - This potential for harm is considered minimal to non-existant
      when the sculpture is commissioned or otherwise created by people with
      known identities.
    - When some idiot goes into a park and stabs somebody, it's a
      police issue.
    - When a passerby (or some idiot trying to climb it) gets hurt by
      large, official looking part of the park, it's a city issue (lawsuit).

A random rock that's 100# and 8' off the ground is, potentially, a dangerous rock.

Your reasoning around my analogy actually illustrates my point fairly well– I'm afraid there isn't much I can do to bridge our disagreement there.

Rather than the city of Boston be mocked for their overreaction, I would be much happier if we improved our education in electronics. And other things, because education is the best way we know how to conquer fear in an institutional setting.

The idea that this had "ultra-top priority" because of its political nature is, while possible, extremely unlikely. The chance that its political nature was even noticed by the people responsible for removing it are incredibly slim, and if anything I'm surprised at how long it took for it to get a tarp over it. I've seen much quicker removals of defacements in parks across the city, by park officials to plainclothes police. Despite this, the political nature of the message is wholly irrelevant to the actual issue at hand.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#233

Post by davorb » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 9:36 PM UTC

hullo wrote: post #55

rglover wrote: post #35

Seeing them cover this thing up is a hideous moment in our history: https://vine.co/v/eBBvedaHtBz . Shameful that something so harmless is immediately covered up (quite literally) because it challenges the state. The U.S. is getting scarier by the day, folks.

If you'd done the same thing with a bust of your mother 10 years ago, they'd have covered it up as well. Try the same thing (with Snowden, or your mother) in France or China, and see what happens. Just because they parks department is doing their job doesn't mean democracy is ebbing.

There was a guy that placed a bust of himself in a University library in Sweden. The bust is still there.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#234

Post by dreamfactory2 » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 9:37 PM UTC

happyscrappy wrote: post #137

Someone1234 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the republic/democratic state distinction, the US's democratic status has always been weak due to FPTP (ditto with the UK). It is essentially a system designed to keep the majority from even running and to keep the minority opinion silent. If the US (or UK) cared at all about democracy like they always claim they'd move to something better (e.g. Open list, party list, full on proportional representation, or…

The National Front will be part of the government in France. Is that what we should strive for?

Sponsored by the Kremlin from what I read recently. (And I'll don a tinfoil hat and bet all of the anti EU parties are getting backhanders from one of the other trading blocs.)

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#235

Post by rosser » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 9:38 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #187

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be well assured some religious group is going to use this to put up some religious symbol, after which some non-religious group is going to put up another demonic thinking chair.

We have the establishment clause to deal with that particular kind of abuse - this is completely nonreligious.

The Establishment Clause is irrelevant to the behavior of private citizens.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#236

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 9:39 PM UTC

ics wrote: post #232

Dylan16807 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something getting on my computer has massive potential to be malicious, and has bypassed security to get there. A statue stuck in a park has no more potential to be malicious than a random rock, and has not bypassed meaningful security. That's a big difference. The argument of "it exists, therefore it 'could' be malicious" is trash. They 'could' alter anything in the park to be malicious. In the computer scenario I'm…

- Smuggling a heavy bronze statue into a park has bypassed security (yes, parks have security). - Statues have potential but very small likelihood of being 'malicious'. - Heavy statues have great potential to cause physical harm when not properly built or installed. - This potential for harm is considered minimal to non-existant when the sculpture is commissioned or otherwise created by people with known identities.…

It's a couple feet tall and entirely inside the width of a large pillar. It's not going to fall on anyone.

Education about electronics is good, but I think fighting back against "fear of blame" is also an important thing. I'm sure someone in the organization knew that blinking lights don't make bombs. Why didn't that message get to management?

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#237

Post by dreamfactory2 » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 9:39 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #227

EthanHeilman wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are getting downvotes because you are making very controversial claims for which the evidence is very weak. For instance: 1. you say: "most successful double-agents in history" 2. you say: "probably sold US secrets to China and Russia" The NSA's leadership has repeatedly stated that they don't believe Snowden to be a foreign agent[0]. Unless you have more evidence than "based on the countries he fled to a…

Thank you for the link. Nonetheless, the Metadata debate remains important, so I'll continue to bring it up. I've read through the rest of these threads, and they're all "Snowden's a hero!!!" without even touching upon the debate that he's brought up. EDIT: Its as if this "metadata collection" is the most evil thing in the world ever done. Good gosh. Its still hugely ironic to me that Snowden fled to the state with t…

Hong Kong was a stopover. It was the US gov made him stay there and blocked his travel to anywhere but Russia.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#238

Post by Someone1234 » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 9:41 PM UTC

happyscrappy wrote: post #137

Someone1234 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the republic/democratic state distinction, the US's democratic status has always been weak due to FPTP (ditto with the UK). It is essentially a system designed to keep the majority from even running and to keep the minority opinion silent. If the US (or UK) cared at all about democracy like they always claim they'd move to something better (e.g. Open list, party list, full on proportional representation, or…

The National Front will be part of the government in France. Is that what we should strive for?

Unfortunately, yes, I think they should have a seat.

While I disagree with everything they stand for, it isn't for me or anyone else to decide who should or shouldn't get their voices heard.

If they have enough citizens to vote for them, absolutely they should get a seat. In fact giving extremists a voice somewhat counter-acts extremism as they feel like they have an outlet for their perceived issues.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#239

Post by jshap70 » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 9:43 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #156

slg wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments like this reinforce my point. You are basically framing this entire debate as good versus evil. That is not going to change anyone's minds and it serves no real purpose outside of rallying your own side. There is a middle ground between our government can read everything and our government can read nothing. I don't know where that line is, but the only way we find that line is through open debate. Except no…

Middle ground does not always exist. For example, take the plans to set up decentralized networks outside of the government's control. There have been discussions on how to allow the government to still be able to fight certain forms of illegal data exchange (terrorism and child abuse) while banning it from being at all involved in the others (drugs). But there is no middle ground solution. Any network that comprises…

>Middle ground does not always exist

I think looking at issues with this lens is how the whole idea of "you're either with us or against us" gets started. It's possible to be less opinionated than that.

I think everyone should take a step back and actually analyze the situation for what it is, rather than immediately grabbing the pitch fork.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#240

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 9:46 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #231

Dylan16807 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, doing it for decades doesn't mean they need it. It wasn't there from the start. >How do you expect to track down a Swatter without using metadata? As I said in my other post, you don't actually need call records to find a swatter. They called the police, the police have the number, tada. I'm not arguing against deleting everything that could possibly classify as metadata, I'm saying we should cut down the types…

> As I said in my other post, you don't actually need call records to find a swatter. They called the police, the police have the number, tada. And if the Swatter used another phone to call a Google Voice number to create a local line in another city, they will need Metadata to figure out what that _OTHER_ telephone number is. Otherwise, they have a phone number to a fake google-account created in TOR. That's not ver…

Okay, you have a point, but that's about proxies, not normal calls between two people.

If the police can't get access to limited phone metadata with oversight, the solution is to give them a way to get limited phone metadata with oversight, not to give them access to all the phone metadata.

>Now if you don't like it, that's fine. But know that you're moving from the status-quo. This is how the government has operated since the 1970s at very least

Fine, I want a change from the status quo. But it's not just that, I'm saying two things.

1. It is important that metadata (and data) collection does not expand because of the ease of technology.

2. I would prefer metadata collection to be rolled back a few decades and limited.

It's 1 that really worries me, and no amount of historical collection is going to comfort that.

Thanks for the disappointing enlightenment.