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

201–210 of 276 posts

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

#201

Post by googlryas »

trasz wrote: post #192
googlryas wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other due process is there, relative to the Authorization for Use of Military Force act of 2001? Congress gave POTUS the power to go after people like al-Awlaki with it. It's been on the books for 20+ years, the Supreme Court has essentially ruled it is a constitutional giving of power by Congress to POTUS e.g. in Hamadi vs Rumsfeld. If the US military could have captured al-Awlaki without incident, then drone s…

How about simply not murdering people on the other side of the world? Here’s a mental experiment for you: what would you do if Russia, lawfully (according to Russian laws) executed people in US? Because that’s exactly what US is doing to the rest of the world.

Well, that sounds like a great idea. But, it needs to be a two way street. Convince terrorists planning terror attacks to not murder people on the other side of the world, then I'm sure America would drastically cut down on the number of people it killed on the other side of the world.

> what would you do if Russia, lawfully (according to Russian laws) executed people in US? Because that’s exactly what US is doing to the rest of the world.

Well, that depends - is the US government a failed state incapable of enforcing its own laws? Or did the US government give permission for this to happen? Then sure, go right ahead Russia. The Yemeni government gave the greenlight for the US to drone strike al-Awlaki.

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

#202

Post by littlestymaar »

darawk wrote: post #127
forgetfulness wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the appeal process for being assassinated by the CIA like?

Pretty similar to the appeals process for being killed by the terrorist that the CIA chose not to assassinate.

So for you the CIA has the same moral requirements than terrorists groups? That line of reasoning ends up to the conclusion that CIA's assassination is just state sponsored terrorism, and I'm not sure that's the argument you are willing to make.

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

#203

Post by throwaway0asd »

barrysteve wrote: post #87
throwaway0asd wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an empty argument. People don’t have a choice on what third parties share and disclose. People don’t have a choice on things like HIPAA and banking regulations and they shouldn’t because those regulations protect people but don’t regulate people.

Choice doesn't mean controlling the other guy. At some point in the chain trust appears and canaries can be used to see if it has been violated, if you really care that much. Some people have a non-commercial precommitment to privacy and finding the companies that honor it and relate to it is the choice we want. If you want to force the discussion about privacy into regulation and non-market forces, then okay? Why wo…

What other guy? Advertisers? That’s not another guy. Privacy protections benefit everyone equally.

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

#204

Post by GoldenRacer »

pdonis wrote: post #123
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…

> As an American I'm ashamed that my government has done things like this Have you voted against all of your elected representatives that authorized it? The only way things like this will change is if the people force them to change by making it clear to politicians that they will not be elected or re-elected if they support them.

How do you suggest voting against the representatives that do this when both the Democrats and Republicans do it?

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

#205

Post by tremon »

wombatpm wrote: post #150
forgetfulness wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the appeal process for being assassinated by the CIA like?

Similar to gmail and youtube suspension process. It happens to you, you or someone makes your case on social media, someone in google may listen and modify the policy rules.

And then you get your life back?

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

#206

Post by monopoliessuck »

monocasa wrote: post #177
monopoliessuck wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I don't have a Google account. I don't have a Facebook account. They have shadow profiles of you.

I realize this.

I'm not saying I avoid the bot net completely -- no one does and it's only getting harder to do so. This is a result of people I know installing LinkedIn on their phones with my number in their contacts. It's still a consumer-first problem and awareness is lacking. Every dollar, click and eyeball you give to some product is one you're divesting from another and we should consider our market engagements endorsements of corporate behavior because that's what they are.

How much awareness will get people to reconsider though? People are paying out of pocket to install microphones in their own homes and cameras on their front doors. Even if dumb TVs were on offer for 2X the price, statistically no one would buy them. Privacy is only a concern if it's novel and studies show generations born into surveillance are numb to it. I feel like people need to be more aware AND more discerning in their consumption; awareness alone isn't enough. We should discriminate with our wallet more on these issues today while we still have some alternatives available.

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

#207

Post by tremon »

lupire wrote: post #188
hammock wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The government was killing its enemies 100 years before the word digital was invented Citation needed. The current pattern of extrajudicial remote targeted killings outside of a Congressionally-declared battlefield is completely novel and only began in the Predator drone age, as far as I can see Edit: some data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_by_the_...

The old version was to carpet/fire/nuclear bomb entire cities. Is that better?

And we did all this during (official) peace time?

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

#208

Post by tremon »

googlryas wrote: post #111
jaywalk wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why the parent poster linked to his son, but this is probably who he was thinking of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki A US citizen who was executed by a drone strike ordered by Obama himself.

I don't really see the problem with this either. It seems like they would have liked to capture him, but it was infeasible. The guy essentially declared war on the US with his actions. What special steps should they take because he is an American citizen? 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 Germa…

You don't see a problem when a head of state orders the summary execution of people they find inconvenient?

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

#209

Post by CamperBob2 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #176
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps - when he was president. He wasn't president when Mar A Lago was searched, though.

If he took them while he was still President it was perfectly legal to do so in any manner he chose. His mere act of doing it made it official policy because that was his unique Constitutional power. The next President can create new policy, re-classify information, etc. The only real risk is if Trump perjured himself or something about the docs when asked. All of his property is secured by the secret service. The id…

All of his property is secured by the secret service.

Yeah, that's not how this works.

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

#210

Post by kshacker »

doubled112 wrote: post #92
kshacker wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> are continuously ashamed of things we did Maybe "ashamed" is too strong a word, but thinking smaller scale, if you look back at the way you handled things when you were younger, don't you think you could have done anything better? Isn't this how we learn and progress as a person? Seems likely to be true for a society as well.

I just riffed off the word "ashamed" from the parent comment. I probably could have described it differently if I wrote it without that context.
Post reply on HN