4 ms·

You are as speculative in your comment as the press release its just bad manner. Why not just be truthful and communicate something "We expect that the data of

You are as speculative in your comment as the press release its just bad manner. Why not just be truthful and communicate something "We expect that the data of the whole afghan population is compromised but we can't be sure at this moment." Just don't paint your suspicions as facts if you have no way to validate them.

tommek4077 4y ago
The problem the CCC is presenting, is that now the Taliban probably can identify workers that helped the US. And everyone knows what they do with every single one of them. They don't need to find all.
- theCrowing 4y ago
  No, we don't it's mostly assertions and I hate it. We don't know about how these two machines were used and were they come from despite ebay. The whole release should have used way less absolute wording because in the end the CCC could look like a clown show just because of assumptions.
  - samus 4y ago
    What more do we need to know? The devices were found and they contained unencrypted and unobfuscated biometric data. There's so many things about these devices that should never have happened at all.
    - theCrowing 4y ago
      Absolutely right but the fact still stands that we have no valid data to paint it as a fact that the data of the entire population is compromised. It's a communication 101 that you never communicate in absolutes if you can't verify your findings.
      - sally_glance 4y ago
        Skimming a couple of the sources mentioned in the article and the linked german government Q&A it seems they scanned a) collaborators and b) "potentially dangerous" afghan citizens. So we can reasonably assume that biometric data of those two population groups was leaked by left behind devices. Not the entire population, but the two most sensitive groups. Sounds pretty bad imo.
        theCrowing 4y ago
        As I said before you are absolutely right it's fucking bad and repulsive but you can still communicate facts without making assumptions especially with a serious topic like this.
        rschneid 4y ago
        Reading this polite exchange I couldn't help but be reminded of the classic: https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM :) Glad we're all nice to each other in this corner of the web!
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - lynx23 4y ago
        Not a fact, but highly likely, since due diligence was obviously not applied. Thats enough as a hint what else might be not discovered yet.
      - hulitu 4y ago
        > It's a communication 101 that you never communicate in absolutes if you can't verify your findings. Even "Der Spiegel" or the Washington Post would dissagree on this statement.
      - FeepingCreature 4y ago
        If the data being available in cleartext on devices anyone can buy online isn't "compromised", I'm not sure what would be.
    - daneel_w 4y ago
      I think the point he wants to make is that the biometric data itself is raw and nothing about it is "tagged" to discern between collaborators and common people, nor is it circumstantially implied that all of the data belonged to collaborators, because all of the population - not just collaborators - were catalogued. For some reason people seem to immediately jump to the conclusion that a) every collaborator is now at risk, because b) this raw data is functionally identical to the final processed and augmented database that was built using this raw data.
  - croes 4y ago
    In the end people could get killed. It this case it's better to assume a worst case scenario
- daneel_w 4y ago
  Does something in this raw data distinctly separate collaborators from "common people"? It's a travesty that they left the devices and the data behind, but I can't see anything in the article clearly stating that the 2632 identities found in those devices either all belonged to collaborators, or was "tagged" in order to discern them. So how would the Taliban positively identify them without having access to the complete refined/processed database that these raw biometrics went into?
  - dmix 4y ago
    It’s a signal. The database is a giant signal the people were of interest to the US gov. The Taliban will be able to figure out if they were criminals or Taliban or not. That leaves a small group of people they can torture to figure out the rest. Just have to hand out these same bioscanners to local police then hand off any matches to the higher organs. This device had a few thousand people. They can collect hundreds of these devices and rebuild the whole database.
  - Abimelex 4y ago
    --> One of the devices contained biometric data on more than 2600 people, some of which had entries such as "Volunteer Background Checks," "Host Nation Police," or "Host Nation Military." https://twitter.com/BR_AILab/status/1607707952147992579 https://twitter.com/BR_AILab/status/1607707952147992579
    - daneel_w 4y ago
      "Some of which" isn't the same as "all of them", and none of those three categories exclude being an islamist. I get that it's a serious case of recklessness, but the reactions here are too alarmist.
      - iudqnolq 4y ago
        Your reply makes no sense. Not every Afghani collaborated, and plenty of collaborators follow Islam. This is obvious. This doesn't make those who collaborated any safer. You don't even need to know any specifics: it's a well-known humans tend to punish traitors even if they have a lot in common.

tommek4077 4y ago

The problem the CCC is presenting, is that now the Taliban probably can identify workers that helped the US. And everyone knows what they do with every single one of them. They don't need to find all.

theCrowing 4y ago
No, we don't it's mostly assertions and I hate it. We don't know about how these two machines were used and were they come from despite ebay. The whole release should have used way less absolute wording because in the end the CCC could look like a clown show just because of assumptions.
- samus 4y ago
  What more do we need to know? The devices were found and they contained unencrypted and unobfuscated biometric data. There's so many things about these devices that should never have happened at all.
  - theCrowing 4y ago
    Absolutely right but the fact still stands that we have no valid data to paint it as a fact that the data of the entire population is compromised. It's a communication 101 that you never communicate in absolutes if you can't verify your findings.
    - sally_glance 4y ago
      Skimming a couple of the sources mentioned in the article and the linked german government Q&A it seems they scanned a) collaborators and b) "potentially dangerous" afghan citizens. So we can reasonably assume that biometric data of those two population groups was leaked by left behind devices. Not the entire population, but the two most sensitive groups. Sounds pretty bad imo.
      - theCrowing 4y ago
        As I said before you are absolutely right it's fucking bad and repulsive but you can still communicate facts without making assumptions especially with a serious topic like this.
        rschneid 4y ago
        Reading this polite exchange I couldn't help but be reminded of the classic: https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM :) Glad we're all nice to each other in this corner of the web!
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - lynx23 4y ago
      Not a fact, but highly likely, since due diligence was obviously not applied. Thats enough as a hint what else might be not discovered yet.
    - hulitu 4y ago
      > It's a communication 101 that you never communicate in absolutes if you can't verify your findings. Even "Der Spiegel" or the Washington Post would dissagree on this statement.
    - FeepingCreature 4y ago
      If the data being available in cleartext on devices anyone can buy online isn't "compromised", I'm not sure what would be.
  - daneel_w 4y ago
    I think the point he wants to make is that the biometric data itself is raw and nothing about it is "tagged" to discern between collaborators and common people, nor is it circumstantially implied that all of the data belonged to collaborators, because all of the population - not just collaborators - were catalogued. For some reason people seem to immediately jump to the conclusion that a) every collaborator is now at risk, because b) this raw data is functionally identical to the final processed and augmented database that was built using this raw data.
- croes 4y ago
  In the end people could get killed. It this case it's better to assume a worst case scenario
daneel_w 4y ago
Does something in this raw data distinctly separate collaborators from "common people"? It's a travesty that they left the devices and the data behind, but I can't see anything in the article clearly stating that the 2632 identities found in those devices either all belonged to collaborators, or was "tagged" in order to discern them. So how would the Taliban positively identify them without having access to the complete refined/processed database that these raw biometrics went into?
- dmix 4y ago
  It’s a signal. The database is a giant signal the people were of interest to the US gov. The Taliban will be able to figure out if they were criminals or Taliban or not. That leaves a small group of people they can torture to figure out the rest. Just have to hand out these same bioscanners to local police then hand off any matches to the higher organs. This device had a few thousand people. They can collect hundreds of these devices and rebuild the whole database.
- Abimelex 4y ago
  --> One of the devices contained biometric data on more than 2600 people, some of which had entries such as "Volunteer Background Checks," "Host Nation Police," or "Host Nation Military." https://twitter.com/BR_AILab/status/1607707952147992579 https://twitter.com/BR_AILab/status/1607707952147992579
  - daneel_w 4y ago
    "Some of which" isn't the same as "all of them", and none of those three categories exclude being an islamist. I get that it's a serious case of recklessness, but the reactions here are too alarmist.
    - iudqnolq 4y ago
      Your reply makes no sense. Not every Afghani collaborated, and plenty of collaborators follow Islam. This is obvious. This doesn't make those who collaborated any safer. You don't even need to know any specifics: it's a well-known humans tend to punish traitors even if they have a lot in common.