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

Post by dmz73 » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:20 AM UTC

darawk wrote: post #241

InitialLastName wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by p_l » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 7:57 AM UTC

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…

Post by raxxorraxor » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 8:07 AM UTC

nickff wrote: post #81

hammock wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is assassination we are talking about, not ad serving

Uncertainty is (unfortunately) everywhere; for example, what probability is “beyond a reasonable doubt”? There are many who take issue with that question, but the answers I’ve seen range between 0.1% and 5%, with no general consensus.

Post by raxxorraxor » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 8:17 AM UTC

engineer_22 wrote: post #118

phkahler wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "Signatures" aren't necessarily better or worse than other sources. Right, they are almost always worse than first-hand information, and they are almost always better than low-grade intelligence obtained under pressure/influence (like the WMDs in Iraq). That is no justification.

>> Right, they are almost always worse than first-hand information, You're probably right about this, in a sense, but it beckons a pretty interesting question: provide an example when "signatures" are better than first-hand information. Counter example: If your job is to find enemy subs, then sonar feedback off the hull of a Akula Class nuclear attack sub may be better than direct visual observation of the sub

Post by raxxorraxor » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 8:49 AM UTC

the_lonely_road wrote: post #49

ImHereToVote wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer to be tried in a court of law, you?

That's a false equivalence though and not what the alternative option is here. The government was killing its enemies 100 years before the word digital was invented and will continue to do so as long as government exist. They will use every technology invented in the pursuit of doing so. Blaming metadata signature based approaches is no different than blaming their use of satellites, metallurgy, hell the wheel is a b…