5 ms·

Interesting read. How high tech is used in the middle east to track and identify terrorists and how this tech is becoming more widespread domestically. Some ch

by tra3 6y ago

Interesting read. How high tech is used in the middle east to track and identify terrorists and how this tech is becoming more widespread domestically. Some choice quotes below. Must be super boring: > Kevin spent hours a day, seven days a week watching all kinds of people go about their lives, with the goal of separating out the insurgents from the civilians. Terrifying: > These are actions that allow for that individual to be moved out of civilian status and into insurgent status—to be targeted and killed legally according to army rules of engagement. > Because we know what you did, we think we know what you are going to do next. Powerpoint. Also terrifying. > The 429 package, which allows an insurgent to be killed in an air strike, must meet the legal requirements. The full-motion video gets snapshotted as evidence. While this is going on, the PGSS operator quickly generates a PowerPoint containing all the data, which goes to the S2. The S2 quickly reviews that, then sends the information to the battle captain. > If there’s not air support available, then the person of interest remains marked for death in the system. “The moment there is a target of opportunity to take him out, I call it in. I don’t have to go back through the approving process,” Kevin says. “The 429 package stands. That’s why it’s called a Target of Opportunity. When you have the opportunity, you strike the target.” You kill the man.

nickelcitymario 6y ago
The reference to Powerpoint caught me off guard too, if only because of how informal that is. "Should we kill him?" "I dunno, where's the slide deck? Are the slides convincing?" ...that just seems like an absolutely terrible way to decide between life and death. I know that on the one hand we're just talking about a file format, and the data has to exchange hands somehow. But it bothers me that the same tool I use to convince my bosses to, say, pay for a monthly subscription, is also being used by someone else to convince their bosses to approve killing human beings. Perhaps the reason this bugs me is it breaks the illusion of expertise and sophistication. It proves, once again, that people are just people, no matter what job functions they happen to have. (Also: It raises certain questions. Like: Is a person more or less likely to be killed if their powerpoint deck is ugly? Does typography impact these decisions?)
- suprfsat 6y ago
  CHAIRMAN: What was your position.? CICCI: Well at first like everyone else I, I was a soldier. CHAIRMAN: What is that? CICCI: A button you know SENATOR, come on. CHAIRMAN: No I don't know. Tell me. CICCI: Well -- when the boss says push a button on I guy -- I push a button. See SENATOR. QUESTADT: You mean you kill people. CICCI: I what? QUESTADT: You kill people at the -- uh -- at the behest of your superiors? [CICCI's lawyer tells him to say yes.] CICCI: Yea -- that's right Counselor.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  It's not particularly a departure from the traditional method where, under the fog of war, individual soldiers decide whether to shoot or not. (Not a defense of killing people based on slide decks, more of a comment on the historical consequences of war and military occupations)
  - nickelcitymario 6y ago
    Agreed. In a sense, perhaps I should be glad that they use something as common as a slide deck, because it acts as a reminder that war is just everyday people killing other everyday people.
  - RobertoG 6y ago
    It's not exactly the same, a soldier, under the fog of war, is scare of the consequences of acting. A guy in his living room using Zoom is less so.
- moksly 6y ago
  You have to wonder why they are even having the conversation. It’ll be 20 years since 9/11 this year. Some of the people who are getting killed as terrorists weren’t even born when it happened. Are they even a threat to us? Maybe they are, but I frankly think that you gotta wonder why we’re still killing terrorists in the Middle East.
buran77 6y ago
> But he thinks the growing movement among law enforcement agencies in the United States to use Palantir’s software programs domestically is cause for alarm People are usually easily biased by the information they're constantly fed. It becomes easy to concoct a good explanation for why something unacceptable can become acceptable sometimes. "We're fighting for freedom and democracy", "fighting the enemy", "fighting terrorists and pedophiles". All of a sudden a lot of stuff is justified. Then someone else uses it and the argument gets turned on its head. "They're terrorists, enemies, dictators", all others are too "morally corrupt" to wield this power. Most of those people are able to justify anything as long as they're doing it or at least it's not being done to them... Until eventually it is Because what's ironic is that most don't realize that to maintain power you must keep your enemies in check but eventually also your own citizens.
- kipchak 6y ago
  I wonder if there's a good solution to this problem, given it seems to be something well known at least back to WWII.[1] The best I can see is encouraging an open flow of information and education to increase the number of people who see through the fog, but that seems to be a fairly weak bulwark historically. [1]http://www.mit.edu/people/fuller/peace/war_goering.html http://www.mit.edu/people/fuller/peace/war_goering.html
- sjg007 6y ago
  A lot of it is political. Where sheriffs, judges, prosecutors are elected officials there can be intense rhetoric. People want to be re-elected and the we are protecting you is a fail safe argument. That's starting to turn with proposals for police reform but what is clear is that there's not a lot of data collection and evidence based analysis in policy making.

by tra3 6y ago

nickelcitymario 6y ago

The reference to Powerpoint caught me off guard too, if only because of how informal that is. "Should we kill him?" "I dunno, where's the slide deck? Are the slides convincing?" ...that just seems like an absolutely terrible way to decide between life and death. I know that on the one hand we're just talking about a file format, and the data has to exchange hands somehow. But it bothers me that the same tool I use to convince my bosses to, say, pay for a monthly subscription, is also being used by someone else to convince their bosses to approve killing human beings. Perhaps the reason this bugs me is it breaks the illusion of expertise and sophistication. It proves, once again, that people are just people, no matter what job functions they happen to have. (Also: It raises certain questions. Like: Is a person more or less likely to be killed if their powerpoint deck is ugly? Does typography impact these decisions?)

suprfsat 6y ago
CHAIRMAN: What was your position.? CICCI: Well at first like everyone else I, I was a soldier. CHAIRMAN: What is that? CICCI: A button you know SENATOR, come on. CHAIRMAN: No I don't know. Tell me. CICCI: Well -- when the boss says push a button on I guy -- I push a button. See SENATOR. QUESTADT: You mean you kill people. CICCI: I what? QUESTADT: You kill people at the -- uh -- at the behest of your superiors? [CICCI's lawyer tells him to say yes.] CICCI: Yea -- that's right Counselor.
maxerickson 6y ago
It's not particularly a departure from the traditional method where, under the fog of war, individual soldiers decide whether to shoot or not. (Not a defense of killing people based on slide decks, more of a comment on the historical consequences of war and military occupations)
- nickelcitymario 6y ago
  Agreed. In a sense, perhaps I should be glad that they use something as common as a slide deck, because it acts as a reminder that war is just everyday people killing other everyday people.
- RobertoG 6y ago
  It's not exactly the same, a soldier, under the fog of war, is scare of the consequences of acting. A guy in his living room using Zoom is less so.
moksly 6y ago
You have to wonder why they are even having the conversation. It’ll be 20 years since 9/11 this year. Some of the people who are getting killed as terrorists weren’t even born when it happened. Are they even a threat to us? Maybe they are, but I frankly think that you gotta wonder why we’re still killing terrorists in the Middle East.

buran77 6y ago

> But he thinks the growing movement among law enforcement agencies in the United States to use Palantir’s software programs domestically is cause for alarm People are usually easily biased by the information they're constantly fed. It becomes easy to concoct a good explanation for why something unacceptable can become acceptable sometimes. "We're fighting for freedom and democracy", "fighting the enemy", "fighting terrorists and pedophiles". All of a sudden a lot of stuff is justified. Then someone else uses it and the argument gets turned on its head. "They're terrorists, enemies, dictators", all others are too "morally corrupt" to wield this power. Most of those people are able to justify anything as long as they're doing it or at least it's not being done to them... Until eventually it is Because what's ironic is that most don't realize that to maintain power you must keep your enemies in check but eventually also your own citizens.

kipchak 6y ago
I wonder if there's a good solution to this problem, given it seems to be something well known at least back to WWII.[1] The best I can see is encouraging an open flow of information and education to increase the number of people who see through the fog, but that seems to be a fairly weak bulwark historically. [1]http://www.mit.edu/people/fuller/peace/war_goering.html http://www.mit.edu/people/fuller/peace/war_goering.html
sjg007 6y ago
A lot of it is political. Where sheriffs, judges, prosecutors are elected officials there can be intense rhetoric. People want to be re-elected and the we are protecting you is a fail safe argument. That's starting to turn with proposals for police reform but what is clear is that there's not a lot of data collection and evidence based analysis in policy making.