4 ms·

> the targeted group used a very simple hack to frustrate the government’s idiotic tactics It's just a tracking pixel - what gives me pause here is that the go

> the targeted group used a very simple hack to frustrate the government’s idiotic tactics It's just a tracking pixel - what gives me pause here is that the government either doesn't know or doesn't care that "any IPs that every talked to our list of bad IPs" is a really inaccurate way to conclude that people are criminals - this should be obvious to anyone who claims knowledge in digital forensics. So the story is that "technology" can be used to magically create evidence against someone, as long as the court is ignorant about the quality of the evidence. This is very scary. The fact that this is even being presented as a "trap" seems sketchy to me, and seems like an after the fact excuse. Of course we should catch bad people, but not at the expense of due process.

philipodonnell 9y ago
This all seems surprisingly similar to the argument about punishing "bots" based on technological features that are not known to be 100% accurate. Less trivial to those affected, to be sure, but similar enough that I wonder if the same thought processes and dynamics are at work on both sides.
bitL 9y ago
> the government either doesn't know or doesn't care Read on how governments use random arrests to instill fear and terror to control its populace. Do you really want to give them the benefit of the doubt just because you consider those thoughts to be abominations, whereas some high ranked officials to be their way of doing things?