40 ms·
“We kill people based on metadata” and other metadata things
- ugjka 4y agoWhat's up with those comments in the comment section
- npc54321 4y agoKeywords matched whatever triggers sockpuppets?
- cthalupa 4y agoI was confused as well, so I poked around a few other articles - it seems to happen pretty frequently on this site. Most of them do seem to be vaguely related to the articles so my best guess is that it's a combination of individuals trolling + lax/nonexistent moderation. The handful of articles I checked seemed to be above the board unless I missed some dogwhistles somewhere, so not sure why exactly the site seems to be a target for this specific sort of trolling.
- midislack 4y ago
- 762236 4y agoA little child? Great way to participate in constructive conversation
- titaniumtown 4y agowhat did the person say? it seems the comment was removed.
- lupire 4y agoRemoved comment should not be reposted unless the original decision is overturned by admins.
- happytoexplain 4y agoYou can turn on "showdead" in your account settings to see dead comments.
- henriquecm8 4y agoI didn't know that, thank you.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- veidelis 4y agoNothing outrageous was claimed.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoPerhaps not. Personal insults and attacks are against the site rules, though.
- CamperBob2 4y agoGood time to point out that Reality Winner is (edit: was) sitting in prison for less than what Trump appears to be guilty of.
- lupire 4y agoWhat has > Trump has already proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of. ? Has he ever been convicted in a court? Or did you mean a different phrasing about evidence?
- CamperBob2 4y agoSorry, yes, poorly phrased. We don't know if he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and probably won't, because presidents and former presidents are immune to prosecution in this country. It's always possible the he had legitimate reasons for storing SC information outside a SCIF. No one can think of any, including his own legal team, but hey, ex-President, right?
- wyldfire 4y ago> because presidents and former presidents are immune to prosecution in this country. I think saying things like this is deliberately provocative -- it's not the case. "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Trump commits crimes flagrantly and to such a degree that Nixon never would have dreamed. He will get some kind of legal consequence ... eventually.
- yupper32 4y ago> He will get some kind of legal consequence ... eventually. I don't see how you could possibly be confident of that. Even if he is absolutely guilty and gets to the point of a trial, which alone is a huge huge huge huge step, he may be able to delay things for the rest of his life.
- Consultant32452 4y agoAre you aware that Trump could have tweeted a copy of every top secret document the government has and it would have been perfectly legal?
- lupire 4y agoMetadata is data. There is no "just" metadata. Metadata is a relative classification of one piece of data compared to another piece of data, not an absolute classification.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y agoSo? why is that distinction important to you?
- SketchySeaBeast 4y agoI believe because they are saying the distinction ISN'T important. It's just data, used to make a choice.
- lordnacho 4y agoI think he's saying that people are defending the use of data by calling it something that makes it sound less intrusive
- jrogan993 4y agoMetadata seems less significant a word and trivializes it a bit IMO. Data on the other hand is a "serious" word that we can make decisions on.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- thekiptxt 4y agoI think OP is suggesting that “just metadata” is a sensationalist title, because to a lay person it suggests that decisions predicated on metadata are uninformed compared to decisions predicated on “data,” even though this isn’t necessarily true. If the title were “We kill people based on data,” then the knee jerk response might be “… obviously.”
- mcguire 4y agoHow about "We kill people based on poor quality, indirect data"?
- mikece 4y ago"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 phone really the HVT or is it a courier or even his kid?). As an American I'm ashamed that my government has done things like this and I fully support those responsible for these programs to be tried as war criminals.
- lupire 4y ago"Signatures" aren't necessarily better or worse than other sources. Other sources can be mistakes or intentional lies. What matters is the quality of the totality of the evidence, and how well convinced we are of what the accuracy based on past experience; and how much the deciders knew about last inaccuracies, when deciding to continue a practice. Statistical decision making is very slippery stuff.
- hammock 4y agoThis is assassination we are talking about, not ad serving
- nickff 4y agoUncertainty 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.
- forgetfulness 4y agoWhat's the appeal process for being assassinated by the CIA like?
- 4y ago
- de6u99er 4y agoImagine having a number similar to the one of a terrorist's burner phone and getting called by mistake by his handler.
- tiagod 4y agoI don't know how I never thought of this before... it's scary
- lupire 4y agoThe article is new, but the overly narrow HN title is 2014
- throwaway0asd 4y agoTo me discussions about privacy often seem like bullshit. Here is a comment I wrote yesterday about a former AdWords employee as privacy violation apologist: Hypocritically people bitch about intrusive data collection from governments and yet simultaneously give away the same data, and encourage others to do the same, and more to private companies knowing that data will be weaponized against them. As such it’s almost impossible to take any opinion promoting commercial violations of privacy seriously.
- barrysteve 4y agoThis is only viable when viewed as an economic game. As soon as a real war breaks out or national security is threatened, privacy invasions from foreign powers and literally anyone not whitelisted, will be ended quickly and be treated as acts of war. Assuming all private companies are bent is pointless. People should be allowed the choice to keep their data private and give it whomever they please. This is a 'free market' after all.
- throwaway0asd 4y agoThat’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.
- barrysteve 4y agoChoice 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 would people legally and politically consent to a fully transparent world? The regulation will only end up going one way in the end and for all the split hairs along the way, it won't be in favour of ending privacy...
- forgetfulness 4y agoFor a while I saw Palantir showing what sounded like remorse in their website, in stating explicitly that they had purposefully taken distance from their days security contractors providing products in service of the War on Terrorism; they provided one that was used precisely for this. It was a change from the previous branding I saw from them, one where they would whitewash themselves by showcasing their most charismatic employees, showing that they were a friendly tech company for cool people (look, we have a handsome black dude who plays the guitar!), regardless of, you know, the blood money. Now their website only talks about power and disruption, while showing pictures of heavy industry, infrastructure, and war.
- throwaway_4ever 4y agoPalantir CEO on that: https://youtu.be/MeL4BWVk5-k?t=185 https://youtu.be/MeL4BWVk5-k?t=185
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago"sussy General Michael Hayden" The author shows their bias. I think it's good that US intelligence uses every tool at their disposal against foreign threats. Tell me why they shouldn't? What is the alternative?
- glorygut123 4y agoThe scariest sentence in the English language - "The ends justify the means."
- the_optimist 4y agoThe very obvious 'alternative' is to restrict tools at their disposal. For example, genocide. Or nuclear weapons, poison gas, citizen hostages, mass casualty events, or tools with a high probability of killing innocent people. We are not and should not be a lawless people.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago> I think it's good that US intelligence uses every tool at their disposal against foreign threats. This either naively assumes the US's goals are aligned with some objective "good," or that things that benefit the US also directly benefit you, regardless of their goodness. The second one I don't think I need to refute? Assassinating people for personal gain would not be valid under very many moral frameworks I don't think. So we're down to basically "does the US generally use violence for widespread good?" Which is fraught, for sure, but also pretty clearly no? We use violence for all kinds of reasons some of which are roughly good for a lot of people but many are not at all. These institutions just aren't trustworthy in this way.
- yieldcrv 4y agowhat is going on in the comments on that site? what community is that
- the_optimist 4y agoDecent chance it's Michael Hayden himself befouling the site.
- Maro 4y agoI think the article's second part is missing the point [where a bunch of tools are recommended to remove metadata from eg. pdf files]. I suspect by "metadata" the general meant: A is a verified terrorist, B communicates a lot with A or maybe is often co-located with A, fits the demographic of a terrorist and some other coincidental "metadata" is enough to put a high-ish probability on B being a terrorist and target B; or at least treat him/her as acceptable collateral damage.
- evancox100 4y agoArticle seems to draw an overly narrow conclusion that metadata only means extra data attached to document files like pdf, etc. When CIA says “metadata” they mean things like who you talked to (vs. what you said), where you were (vs. what you did), etc. I mean sure watch out for metadata if you are leaking document files or whatever, but it’s much broader than that.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- wudangmonk 4y agoThe CIA, an organization well known for assasinations and coups all around the world kills people? WHAAT?
- lotharcable 4y agoGovernments killing people without due process in this manner is criminal homicide. Each person needs to held individually accountable for their crimes. State secrets should be declassified and released. Each person's individual actions should be documented. And they should be tried in court and serve sentences commensurate with their level of participation. This does not secure the country. This creates enemies and makes the situation worse. If we lived in a just world ever single one of these people would be serving a lifetime in jail. This includes the politicians that approved funding for it as well as any lawyers and judges that rubber stamped it. There is war and then there is what the Federal government is doing. They are not the same thing. It is unacceptable. It is global tyranny.
- rhacker 4y agoI'm not sure why this isn't upvoted beyond anything here. For them to even admit they've killed people based on metadata means they could kill you for your uncle's friend's mom being a terrorist.
- StanislavPetrov 4y agoSince the Obama administration, any male over the age of 16 we kill anywhere is retroactively considered a legitimate target regardless of any "proof" of their guilt. Obviously this is a horrific policy that is a fig leaf to cover up for mass murder. Everyone involved in these murders going back a decade should be on trial for their crimes. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-obama-men-killed-by-drones-are-presumed-to-be-terrorists/257749/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-o...
- Anthony-G 4y agoThanks for the link. I wasn’t aware that this was official US government policy. Reminds me of the Vietnam war (or American war as it was referred to by the locals) where the US couldn’t say they were winning based on the amount of territory they held (because they couldn’t actually capture and hold much territory for very long). Instead, the “quantitative measurements” of McNamara’s computer systems could only show that they were “winning” the war based on the number of enemy combatants killed – with the result that any Vietnamese killed by US forces were retroactively recorded as Vietcong. Most of us are familiar with Goodhart's law regarding measures becoming targets so I’d be curious to know how much it applied to the Vietnam war.
- arminiusreturns 4y agoPlease, with the anniversary coming up shortly, remember the event that they used as an excuse to start "programs" like these: 9/11. I was too young and dumb and propagandized to know what I was getting myself into, signing up to go fight "those evil terrorists", but it didnt take long for me to realize something wasnt right. I spent the vast majority of my life since I got out of the Corps trying to understand the why of it all, starting with the small picture view from an infantrymans perspective, working my way up piece by piece until I was at the 30k ft view at the global scale. You can't solve the war on terror or the turning on of the totalitarian surveillance state without solving 9/11, the justification that enabled those things. The story as told by government and their operation mockingbird 2.0 lackeys in media just isn't true. What I realized, that still terrifies me, is that all these tools and techniques we used "over there", are going to end up being used against us (and other countries) domestically.
- chasd00 4y ago> totalitarian surveillance state never let a good crisis goto waste! As soon as the first plane hit i bet the lights started getting turned on and the servers booted up.
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoYou're assuming way to much competence and foresight and way to little evil intent.
- aaaaaaaaata 4y agoPATRIOT Act already had drafts, no?
- thenerdhead 4y agoMaybe this should be taught at big corporations of when being too “data driven” can be deadly.
- nimbius 4y agothe General was quoted as having said this in in 2014. As many predicted correctly: "metadata" has become profoundly more difficult to collect in 2022 for those willing to invest the time and effort.
- hindsightbias 4y agoNumbers: https://www.airforcemag.com/us-airstrike-total-in-afghanistan-hits-new-record-in-2019/ https://www.airforcemag.com/us-airstrike-total-in-afghanista... Can't find the chart for Iraq.
- zaroth 4y agoPretty sure it was metadata that allowed the US to locate and strike Zawahiri in Kabul with a predator drone. So safe to say the US isn’t going to stop doing this any time soon.
- raxxorraxor 4y agoAh, so it is that kind of statistics. Drone enough and you will not a high value target.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lizardactivist 4y agoThe CIA is a US state-sponsored terrorist organisation. Every one of those people should be on trial for war crimes. The only consolation is that many of those people, the so-called "jackals", will eventually be taken out by their own. The diplomatic disasters they could cause should their conscience ever make them talk is too great of a risk -- all loose ends are eventually dealt with.
- kornhole 4y agoIsn't the company called 'Meta' actually short for metadata?
- anthk 4y agoUse pdf2dejvu to convert all your PDF's to DjVU. Convert all your images to farbleld, too. Problem solved.