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

Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

prismreports.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 222 posts

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#151

Post by matheusmoreira »

tinix wrote: post #59

> All suspicious activity reported must be behavior based. It is important to keep in mind that suspicious behavior, such as taking photographs or videos, is not a criminal act by itself, but may be a precursor to criminal activity. the number of times I've been harassed by police for taking photos... even in small towns in the middle of nowhere people are paranoid.

> suspicious behavior, such as taking photographs or videos

What is the logic behind this? Why is it suspicious?

Everybody's got a camera now. People taking puctures is the most normal thing in the world now.

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#152

Post by gessha »

baddash wrote: post #122
josh2600 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is... under the laws as they're written today, if US Gov wants to take a peek at your stuff on FB and friends servers, FB can be barred from informing you that such a request has come in under the National Security Letter (NSL) guidelines. It's a very complicated thing :/.

I don't mean to be some annoying contrarian or something, but couldn't it be the case that if the govt was investing someone who was planning a terrorist attack, then notifying the person being investigated could work against stopping them? Not saying it wouldn't get abused though, which seems like the primary concern of most people in these discussions..

Isn’t it better for all parties if the user is informed that they’re being investigated?

This way they might stop from doing the act for which they’re investigated instead of actually carrying it out.

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#153

Post by ninjagoo »

andrybak wrote: post #45
ensen wrote: post #2

archive that won't hijack your back button https://archive.is/Td9AR

archive.is is one of the domains of archive.today, which used its end users for a DDOS attack on a blog. This caused English Wikipedia to deprecate it with the end goal of blacklisting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...

> archive.is is one of the domains of archive.today, which used its end users for a DDOS attack on a blog.

Please provide evidence for your claim. The wiki rfc [5] that you linked doesn't provide any DDOS evidence at all, which is odd for wikipedia.

> This caused English Wikipedia to deprecate it with the end goal of blacklisting

This appears to be a concerted effort to blacklist archive.today by unknown actors. There were at least 3 attempts with odd efforts to sway the vote [1][2][3] (the notes in the sidebars at those Wiki RFCs document these actions by bots and others), and a successful attempt to undo the blacklist [4], and then yet another attempt [5].

I'm curious as to why you did not include this very relevant background information in your comment?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment...

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#154

Post by dylan604 »

gessha wrote: post #152
baddash wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to be some annoying contrarian or something, but couldn't it be the case that if the govt was investing someone who was planning a terrorist attack, then notifying the person being investigated could work against stopping them? Not saying it wouldn't get abused though, which seems like the primary concern of most people in these discussions..

Isn’t it better for all parties if the user is informed that they’re being investigated? This way they might stop from doing the act for which they’re investigated instead of actually carrying it out.

Or they stop using the means of communication that has become compromised and find a new way starting the cat&mouse over again.

This is like saying that an undercover agent must answer "yes" when asked by anyone if they are part of a law enforcement agency. What would be the point of being undercover?

The problem is the abuse of the invasive searching. If the evidence is compelling enough, then present that evidence to a judge and have a legit signed warrant. Unfortunately, there will be judges with a rubber stamp.

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#155

Post by Zhenya »

lorecore wrote: post #83
Zhenya wrote: post #75

[flagged]

Why would an attack on Israel warrant spying on US citizens? We are not Israel and our government should not be working for Israeli interests.

It doesn’t. That’s not what I wrote.

I asking what does warning about attacks on Jews have to do with not saying something about Muslims.

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#156

Post by honzaik »

stronglikedan wrote: post #79
jedahan wrote: post #54

Reminder if you work for any of these companies (not unlikely on this site) you are actively enabling this. If your first reaction is doubt, deflection, rationalization or discomfort, there are ways out.

If you work for any company, you're actively enabling injustices against someone , so just make a living and don't worry so much.

this is like arguing that laws are useless because theyre not bulletproof. please stop with this pseudological thinking

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#157

Post by mulmen »

baddash wrote: post #122
josh2600 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is... under the laws as they're written today, if US Gov wants to take a peek at your stuff on FB and friends servers, FB can be barred from informing you that such a request has come in under the National Security Letter (NSL) guidelines. It's a very complicated thing :/.

I don't mean to be some annoying contrarian or something, but couldn't it be the case that if the govt was investing someone who was planning a terrorist attack, then notifying the person being investigated could work against stopping them? Not saying it wouldn't get abused though, which seems like the primary concern of most people in these discussions..

I think what gets lost in these conversations is that the government is using very lazy methods to catch low hanging fruit. Instead of extrajudicial spying they should be creating undercover identities and infiltrating criminal organizations. If law enforcement was competent Facebook wouldn’t even know it was happening.

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#158

Post by lorecore »

Zhenya wrote: post #155
lorecore wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would an attack on Israel warrant spying on US citizens? We are not Israel and our government should not be working for Israeli interests.

It doesn’t. That’s not what I wrote. I asking what does warning about attacks on Jews have to do with not saying something about Muslims.

They are pointing out the same thing I am: we are spying on Americans for Israel. Israel’s enemies get surveillance but not the so called “protection” this program uses as a veil for said surveillance.

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#159

Post by sysguest »

psychoslave wrote: post #58
sidewndr46 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people believe in scientology as much as they believe in a literature club. If you listen to someone like Tom Cruise's statements he says "I have gotten to where I am today because of Scientology". He doesn't name off specific procedures, treatments, practices, etc. Partially because they are barred from naming them. But if you're looking for a club you can advance it, I highly suspect Scientology is as quid pro quo…

Religion is all about social function, at least from social science perceptives I guess.

well even if it's "social function", do want to be labeled as retarded?

I just can't imagine tainting my name by joining those scientology retards...

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#160

Post by choo-t »

baddash wrote: post #122
josh2600 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is... under the laws as they're written today, if US Gov wants to take a peek at your stuff on FB and friends servers, FB can be barred from informing you that such a request has come in under the National Security Letter (NSL) guidelines. It's a very complicated thing :/.

I don't mean to be some annoying contrarian or something, but couldn't it be the case that if the govt was investing someone who was planning a terrorist attack, then notifying the person being investigated could work against stopping them? Not saying it wouldn't get abused though, which seems like the primary concern of most people in these discussions..

Oh yes, the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse.

Better to wiretap everyone just in case. Why stop there ? After all there a chance any privacy could be used to conceal some terrorist plot, better to record every meat-space conversations too, let's not take any risk.

Post reply on HN