Did Qatar pay a billion dollar ransom? • Hacker News Board

Re: Did Qatar pay a billion dollar ransom?

#41

Post by londons_explore » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 4:52 PM UTC

21 wrote: post #28

cheez wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting story. The only reason the information is out because a government hostile to the parties released the information.

How do you even authenticate the info if it's from a hostile government?

Qatar not denying it is half way to authenticating it.

Audio recordings get you 90% of the way.

Carefully checking transcripts and metadata for errors gets you further still.

Managing to get the same transcripts from the intelligence agencies of another country (either legitimately by asking, or covertly through "journalistic contacts") takes you to 99%...

You can never be 100% sure, but presumably the above met the BBC's standards for reporting.

Re: Did Qatar pay a billion dollar ransom?

#42

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 4:52 PM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #35

dev_dull wrote: post #33

> These were obtained by a government hostile to Qatar and passed to the BBC. How long until governments with access to required backdoors just start openly blackmailing citizens of “hostile” countries? Without a doubt it’s already happening. Resist all back doors.

All of the gulf nation states make use of ZTE, Huawei and other Chinese phone system 'core' equipment for SS7, SMS, and for their mobile carriers' LTE networks. The "lawful intercept" abilities built into these systems, being designed for sale both domestically in China and to authoritarian governments around the world, are quite thorough. Not that the intercept abilities in Alcatel/Lucent/Nokia/Ericsson equipment is…

[deleted]

Re: Did Qatar pay a billion dollar ransom?

#43

Post by defen » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 4:57 PM UTC

How did Hezbollah AND fundamentalist Salafi groups end up with the money? In my limited understanding those two groups don't like each other. Or is that enough money for them to put aside their differences?

Re: Did Qatar pay a billion dollar ransom?

#44

Post by eloff » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 5:06 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #38

dev_dull wrote: post #33

> These were obtained by a government hostile to Qatar and passed to the BBC. How long until governments with access to required backdoors just start openly blackmailing citizens of “hostile” countries? Without a doubt it’s already happening. Resist all back doors.

Bet that government was the UK, as part of the Five Eyes program, which has significant surveillance hardware in the middle east. Almost certainly the USA used that equipment and grabbed those transcripts to give to close ally Saudi Arabia, who used them to turn states against Qatar. The first world war was caused by the killing of a duke, the third world war will be caused by a clumsily worded text message from a pr…

There must never be a third world war, it would imperil human civilization itself. There can never even be a total war between two major powers anymore. Our weapons are just too awful.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that our politicians self-preservation instincts, strong as they may be, trump their egos (sorry for the pun.)

Re: Did Qatar pay a billion dollar ransom?

#45

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 5:07 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #20

kurthr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it only matters what type of people are in charge. Democracy won't protect your country, only whether those who have taken an oath to defend the rule of law, their country, and their vote, actually do. See recent events. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-replaces-natio...

Good systems are resilient to bad leaders. See the Roman Empire or England for example, neither has any shortage of bad emperors/kings and both avoided violent regime changes or subjugation by a foreign power for many hundreds of years (and counting in England's case)

> See the Roman Empire or England for example, neither has any shortage of bad emperors/kings and both avoided violent regime changes or subjugation by a foreign power for many hundreds of years

Violent regime change was quite common in the Roman Empire as most people use that term, and even in ~thousand years of Byzantine history after the final East/West partition of the Empire it's hard to find a period of more than a couple hundred years without violent regime change; I'm also having trouble finding “many hundreds of years” consecutively without violent regime change in England. I mean “3” is typically the minimum value meant by “a few” and doesn't qualify as “many”, and the last change of government of the UK by armed invasions was 330 years ago, and that seems to be the longest stretch England or the UK seems to have had without violent regime change.

Re: Did Qatar pay a billion dollar ransom?

#46

Post by dalore » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 6:08 PM UTC

gricardo99 wrote: post #25

peterlk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It lays out many of the basic principles by which the FBI negotiates with kidnappers. The author writes that the book is meant to first lay out the foundations, and then build on them to give the reader a toolbox (arsenal?) of negotiation strategies. An argument in the book is that these strategies work in business as well - I find this argument compelling. The title of the book is in reference to the fact that you c…

But I'm vaguely remembering several occasions where hostage negotiators do take less than 100% of their goal. Examples are where they initially secure the release of "weaker" hostages, such as those in need of medical attention, elderly, etc... In those cases, I'm guessing that's an easy win for the negotiators, since I doubt a hostage-taker necessarily wants a hostage that can't readily move, or dies on them unexpec…

That's more to start the release and get the idea of releasing hostages into the kidnappers heads. Once they have released one it sets the stage they can release them.

Re: Did Qatar pay a billion dollar ransom?

#47

Post by londons_explore » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 6:18 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #44

londons_explore wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bet that government was the UK, as part of the Five Eyes program, which has significant surveillance hardware in the middle east. Almost certainly the USA used that equipment and grabbed those transcripts to give to close ally Saudi Arabia, who used them to turn states against Qatar. The first world war was caused by the killing of a duke, the third world war will be caused by a clumsily worded text message from a pr…

There must never be a third world war, it would imperil human civilization itself. There can never even be a total war between two major powers anymore. Our weapons are just too awful. Unfortunately I'm not sure that our politicians self-preservation instincts, strong as they may be, trump their egos (sorry for the pun.)

I'm of the belief that a world war today, which immediately launched all existing weapons to cause as much damage as possible, probably wouldn't wipe out the human race.

As soon as you launch that many weapons, and kill such a high percentage of people, you eliminate the possibility of manufacturing new weapons, so the war would be instantly over.

And I believe that despite others simulations to the contrary, there will be small groups of people who will stay underground for years, surviving on tinned etc. food. After 5-10 years, radiation levels will still very high, but most dust will have settled, and the skies clear enough to start to grow crops and rebuild.

Humans, as well as many other creatures, will become more radiation hardened over generations, and given the bountiful supplies of tech and resources left over from our civilization, will be able to quickly repopulate the world.

Re: Did Qatar pay a billion dollar ransom?

#48

Post by kolpa » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 6:47 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #47

eloff wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There must never be a third world war, it would imperil human civilization itself. There can never even be a total war between two major powers anymore. Our weapons are just too awful. Unfortunately I'm not sure that our politicians self-preservation instincts, strong as they may be, trump their egos (sorry for the pun.)

I'm of the belief that a world war today, which immediately launched all existing weapons to cause as much damage as possible, probably wouldn't wipe out the human race. As soon as you launch that many weapons, and kill such a high percentage of people, you eliminate the possibility of manufacturing new weapons, so the war would be instantly over. And I believe that despite others simulations to the contrary, there w…

"Connections - Episode 1: The Trigger Effect"

https://www".dailymotion.com/video/x4e30ki

The punchline is at 29minutes

Re: Did Qatar pay a billion dollar ransom?

#49

Post by eloff » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 7:13 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #47

eloff wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There must never be a third world war, it would imperil human civilization itself. There can never even be a total war between two major powers anymore. Our weapons are just too awful. Unfortunately I'm not sure that our politicians self-preservation instincts, strong as they may be, trump their egos (sorry for the pun.)

I'm of the belief that a world war today, which immediately launched all existing weapons to cause as much damage as possible, probably wouldn't wipe out the human race. As soon as you launch that many weapons, and kill such a high percentage of people, you eliminate the possibility of manufacturing new weapons, so the war would be instantly over. And I believe that despite others simulations to the contrary, there w…

I agree fully, it's absurd to think of wiping out the human race. There is basically no disaster that would leave the Earth intact but wipe us out. We're the most adaptable species the world has ever known and we're everywhere.

I said civilization would collapse in a dire nuclear war scenario, which is not the same thing. Advanced civilization itself may actually be quite fragile - we see glimmers of that fragility now and again when government / order / utilities break down for prolonged periods.

Re: Did Qatar pay a billion dollar ransom?

#50

Post by gricardo99 » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 7:14 PM UTC

dalore wrote: post #46

gricardo99 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I'm vaguely remembering several occasions where hostage negotiators do take less than 100% of their goal. Examples are where they initially secure the release of "weaker" hostages, such as those in need of medical attention, elderly, etc... In those cases, I'm guessing that's an easy win for the negotiators, since I doubt a hostage-taker necessarily wants a hostage that can't readily move, or dies on them unexpec…

That's more to start the release and get the idea of releasing hostages into the kidnappers heads. Once they have released one it sets the stage they can release them.

yes, good points (along with user zck). My point is that it's a bit misleading to say these types of negotiations are all or nothing. There are incremental steps that work towards the ultimate 100% goal, which are valuable on their own, without reaching 100% goal. Clearly achieving 100% of their goal is always the objective, but I don't see "splitting the difference" as being contrary to that.

Example:

FBI: release all the injured hostages, and as a good faith measure we'll turn the water back on.

HOSTAGE TAKER: I'll only release 3 critically injured if you turn the water on now.

(some back and forth, where the hostage taker offers the 3 critically injured + 1 child, and doesn't seem willing to move their position any further, and precious time is being lost for the critically injured)

FBI: Ok, the water is back-on, we're waiting to receive the 3 critically injured + 1 child.

I'm no expert, so possibly that's not how it would go. Would the negotiator only take their initial offer while risking the lives of injured hostages? But the "all or nothing" label belies that there surely must be some back-and-forth with compromises along the way.

Of course you're never splitting humans, but you are splitting groups of humans, and perhaps plenty of other differences.