[HN Gopher] How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the T...
___________________________________________________________________
How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list
along the way
Author : half-kh-hacker
Score : 902 points
Date : 2023-01-19 22:39 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (maia.crimew.gay)
(TXT) w3m dump (maia.crimew.gay)
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Maia should try proton mail, it's fine
| vortegne wrote:
| maia is Swiss, i don't think protonmail is fine
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/06/protonmail-logged-ip-addre...
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Oh damn lol
| jhoelzel wrote:
| And this kids, is why you always need 2FA and you need to
| whitelist your build servers with ipranges. Yes Like the 90s.
| thrtythreeforty wrote:
| Headline buries the real lede a bit in my opinion; the author has
| gotten a snapshot of the no-fly list from 2019. Presumably the
| system under attack processes more up-to-date versions of it
| regularly.
|
| Corresponding news story: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/no-fly-
| list-us-tsa-unprotecte...
| racnid wrote:
| Basically any air charter service (no matter how small) will
| have access to the no fly list. It's honestly surprising that
| it's not up to date online within minutes.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| If I was the US government, I would add some fake but
| legitimate-looking IDs in such lists, different ones for
| every airline I send the list to, so I can identify who
| leaked the list ex post facto, and come down with God's Wrath
| on any airline that leaked theirs.
|
| But then, I am not a Bond-esque criminal organization bent
| for world domination.
| zztop44 wrote:
| This is called "seeding" a list and is standard practice
| for data brokers. But maybe that's a sign they're Bond-
| esque criminal organizations...
| philjohn wrote:
| Yup - they're the people ACTUALLY selling your data (and
| often for pennies)
| birdyrooster wrote:
| You can follow their steps to find this data it's not that
| hard. Then do whatever you want with it. Shodan isn't some
| mythical tool.
| NieDzejkob wrote:
| They say the access got closed before publication.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Yeah I was just pretending I knew what was going on.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I wonder which no-fly list it is. Is it a government no-fly
| list that would contain suspected international criminals and
| terrorists, or an airline's private no-fly list that would
| contain people who cause a ruckus on flights, drunks, anti-
| maskers, and so on. Maybe one shared between airlines? I would
| imagine that second list has grown substantially since 2020
| given all the craziness airlines have had to deal with since
| then.
| stolen_biscuit wrote:
| read the article before speculating? it answers that question
| Rhinozz wrote:
| The Daily Dot article specifies that it's the United States'
| (the Terrorist Screening Center's).
| asn0 wrote:
| > the nofly csv is almost 80mb in size and contains over 1.56
| million rows of data. this HAS to be the real deal (we later
| get confirmation that it is indeed a copy of the nofly list
| from 2019).
| netsharc wrote:
| CSV you say? Let's hope Bobby Droptable's cousin Bobby
| Double Quote Comma-Semicolon don't get in it...
| dylan604 wrote:
| I just had one today that had the last char of a field as
| '\', which escaped the closing quote and then munged the
| column count from there.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Isn't that your parser's problem? I don't think true CSV
| has any special characters other than comma, quote, and
| CRLF.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I thought it strange too. I saw what the issue was, and
| just "fixed" it be correcting the data in the CSV. For
| the lulz, I guess I could have played with the parser's
| options on deciding what is needed to be escaped.
| However, the data would have still been incorrect as the
| '\' is definitely not part of the desired content, so
| ultimately it was better to correct the input. i would
| kind of rather the import die than having the potential
| foot gun of '\' in a field for later sabotage.
| Someone wrote:
| There is no "true CSV".
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma-separated_values:
|
| _"The CSV file format is not fully standardized.
| Separating fields with commas is the foundation, but
| commas in the data or embedded line breaks have to be
| handled specially. Some implementations disallow such
| content while others surround the field with quotation
| marks, which yet again creates the need for escaping if
| quotation marks are present in the data.
|
| The term "CSV" also denotes several closely-related
| delimiter-separated formats that use other field
| delimiters such as semicolons.[2] These include tab-
| separated values and space-separated values. A delimiter
| guaranteed not to be part of the data greatly simplifies
| parsing.
|
| Alternative delimiter-separated files are often given a
| ".csv" extension despite the use of a non-comma field
| separator. This loose terminology can cause problems in
| data exchange. Many applications that accept CSV files
| have options to select the delimiter character and the
| quotation character. Semicolons are often used instead of
| commas in many European locales in order to use the comma
| as the decimal separator and, possibly, the period as a
| decimal grouping character."_
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma-
| separated_values#Standar... mentions a few standards for
| csv, one of which is the MIME type _text /csv_,
| standardized in RFC 4180.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I think it's valid to argue that you shouldn't be able to
| put some of commas, quotes, and newlines inside fields at
| all. And comma versus semicolon.
|
| But that doesn't extend to using backslash escapes in
| something that's legitimately trying to be CSV. That's
| someone getting confused and implementing a mix of data
| formats, or trying to be clever and making an extended
| CSV format.
| Someone wrote:
| It's valid to argue that, but that means you can't use
| CSV for many real-world data sets.
|
| That, in turn, means you almost cannot use CSV in any
| robust solution. Even if, today, your input doesn't have
| commas, quotes or newlines, can you guarantee it won't
| tomorrow, next year, etc?
| forgetbook wrote:
| Yes? What do I not know that makes this question harder
| than it seems to me?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Even if, today, your input doesn't have commas, quotes
| or newlines, can you guarantee it won't tomorrow, next
| year, etc?
|
| But... but those are the ones I listed as real special
| characters, unlike backslash. I don't understand the
| question.
| aardshark wrote:
| Every field is quoted. Every field is quote-escaped.
| That's all you need.
| 95014_refugee wrote:
| There are simpler and better approaches. Fortunately for
| us all, IP datagrams are not JSON-encoded, for example.
| fy20 wrote:
| How do I name my child CRLF?
| dylan604 wrote:
| earn Musk money, you can name your child WTF you want
| asdfghjkuytrf wrote:
| i think you failed to parse the technical joke
| dylan604 wrote:
| no, i totally got the line ending joke. i'm not an ID10T
| dagw wrote:
| Unless it's a CSV file exported from a Nordic locale
| Excel, in which case your CSV exports will use semi-colon
| as column separators and commas as decimal points. And
| yes the filename will still end with ".csv"
|
| So the following Excel export I just did will parse
| perfect fine with your CSV parser but give you completely
| the wrong thing: 1;2,3;3,3
| 2;7,3;9,3 3;4,5;7,5
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| That has nothing to do with the Nordics, but with the
| decimal separator. In locales that use a comma as the
| decimal separator (i.e., most European locales), Excel
| uses a semicolon as CSV separator.
| gg80 wrote:
| If I'm not mistaken RFC 4180 says that quotes should be
| escaped by prepending them with another quote, so "" and
| not \" (these are not double quotes but my phone won't
| let me type normal quotes), but yeah I guess it is a
| rather perverse value to put in a csv.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Note that virtually no one implements that RFC. CSV is
| merely a style of file, not a true file format.
| dtech wrote:
| That's how Excel does it though
| andreareina wrote:
| 1.5 million rows you say? Better hope nobody opens it in
| Excel and overwrites it...
| cube00 wrote:
| Hopefully the first column isn't ID either[1]
|
| [1]: https://alunr.com/excel-csv-import-returns-an-sylk-
| file-form...
| andreareina wrote:
| OpenOffice can't print on Tuesdays https://bugs.launchpad
| .net/ubuntu/+source/cupsys/+bug/255161...
| bongobingo1 wrote:
| Software is hard...
| wrldos wrote:
| Oh don't. I spent several hours last week unfucking one
| of those.
| owl57 wrote:
| Thank you, I'm considering adopting this as job title,
| like "senior unfucker".
| wrldos wrote:
| Mine is principal dung roller.
| pdpi wrote:
| I've long described myself as half janitor, half
| firefighter.
| jks wrote:
| I sometimes fill in my name as [object Object].
| cduzz wrote:
| Data Plumber.
|
| Some planning, some building out new stuff (usually clean
| work), some repairing active geysers of partially
| processed data that's getting all over the place fouling
| up the works.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| Intermediate Fucker reporting for duty.
| tomcam wrote:
| Do tell! If you've recovered ;)
| wrldos wrote:
| I have. All I'm saying is this plus someone who left 10
| years ago who can't and shouldn't have written a CSV
| parser using regular expressions. Input row:
| A,B,Alice "Mallory" Bob,123
| arcastroe wrote:
| This guy is a (hobbyist?) security researcher who responsibly
| alerts companies of vulnerabilities.
|
| However are his actions of downloading the no fly list and
| offering to share with journalists legal? Or does that cross
| into overreach and criminal activity?
| munk-a wrote:
| The fact that they can do it so casually means there's a
| problem journalists need to know about.
| logifail wrote:
| > downloading the no fly list and offering to share
|
| (This is a genuine question) but where's the actual value in
| having this list?
|
| I'm afraid I regard it as yet another piece of security
| theatre.
|
| Full disclosure: my passport always fails to scan at the UK
| Border automated gates.
|
| I had a discussion this week with yet another border agent
| after getting another "seek assistance" message and having to
| queue for a manual check.
|
| I pushed for more information on why, for the last couple of
| years, it refuses to scan.
|
| He suggested it's because I have very common first and middle
| names (although my surname is not common at all), so let's
| say I'm called Alice Bob MacQuaffle, someone called Alice
| and/or Bob is "on a list" somewhere. I would bet a
| substantial sum there is no-one on any terrorist watch list
| called MacQuaffle.
|
| This sounds like someone approved a ridiculously broad match,
| meaning anyone called Alice and/or Bob is inconvenienced
| every single time they go near a border.
|
| I would prefer to be safe when travelling just like the next
| guy, but matching watch lists using common first names ...
| _only_ .... really?
| japanman425 wrote:
| It's trivial to change your name in the UK so this is
| bonkers.
| autoexec wrote:
| We can be pretty sure it's not to protect anyone. Anybody
| too dangerous to allow on an airplane should probably be
| behind bars. What it does accomplish is letting the
| government punish people without justification let alone a
| trial and with pretty much no transparency or consequences
| when innocent people end up being hurt by it. I imagine
| that's a power which is hard to surrender, and 'we the
| people' haven't exactly been insisting that they give it up
| either.
| maccard wrote:
| > Anybody too dangerous to allow on an airplane should
| probably be behind bars.
|
| Someone who the US deems a danger but isn't in the US
| would fit this criteria.
| autoexec wrote:
| > Someone who the US deems a danger but isn't in the US
| would fit this criteria.
|
| If the bad person isn't in the US there's no need for US
| airlines to maintain a list of them which prevents them
| from getting on a plane, but then just sends them on
| their way to arrange other travel plans. What we want for
| really bad people outside of the US who should be
| arrested on sight at airports are warrants. Signed by
| judges. Not secret lists with no oversight or
| transparency, and not sending dangerous people back out
| into the American population.
| logifail wrote:
| > Someone who the US deems a danger
|
| Someone who is apparently so bad they can't be allowed
| through airport security into an aircraft, but only if
| that aircraft is travelling to or within the US?
|
| Yet someone who is apparently so innocent they can't be
| arrested/detained/charged with anything, _anywhere_ , and
| so are free to travel the rest of the world.
|
| It sounds ridiculous even just typing that out.
| dboreham wrote:
| No passport in my family of 4 successfully scans at those
| gates, fwiw.
| herbst wrote:
| I digged a little into this and to my understanding did she
| never actually 'hack' but just used publicy open data in a
| smart way which apparently is not illegal under swiss law.
| easrng wrote:
| it isn't a guy and it uses it/its pronouns.
| [deleted]
| kristofferR wrote:
| Guys doesn't refer to men anymore, it's now a neutral word
| that can refer to both genders.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| A lot of people say this, and I WANT this to be true
| because I don't know of a similar term that really works.
| I don't think most women agree.
|
| When my best friend came out as trans, I struggled to
| come up with a good way to refer to everyone as a group
| in a "hey everyone" kind of way. I eventually realized
| it's a stupid concept all together and walked into the
| room of my now mixed gendered friends while shouting "SUP
| CHODES!".
|
| Went over very well. I recommend it.
| greenhorn360 wrote:
| So how many guys have you slept with?
|
| It's not neutral but guys like to pretend it is.
| peteforde wrote:
| This is a genuinely clever reply.
|
| I do wonder what a linguist would suggest about these two
| uses, though. English is a language in which context
| often changes outcomes.
| refurb wrote:
| It's clever if you've never heard of context.
| mst wrote:
| Depends which register of english.
|
| If I'm in a mixed group down the pub I won't at all be
| surprised if somebody (usually female) walks up to the
| table and says "hey guys" as a greeting, intending to
| include male, female and enby members of said group.
|
| If I'm on the internet I'm not going to try and use
| "guys" as gender neutral because I fully expect I'd be
| misunderstood by a decent percentage of people reading if
| I did.
|
| So I wouldn't say people are necessarily pretending, it's
| entirely possible they're just used to it being neutral
| and forgetting that for a bunch of people it very much
| isn't.
|
| That's socially though - when talking about people I've
| slept with, I acknowledge I'd expect people to read
| 'guys' as only referencing the male-identified ones.
| Though I'm more likely to use 'dudes' for that purpose
| myself, because confusion around 'guys' can go in both
| directions.
| tremon wrote:
| Point taken.
|
| There's a difference though between "guys" as an address
| (which is used by plenty of female-only groups as well)
| and "guys" as a noun.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| It's neutral referring to groups, not individuals.
|
| If you approach a group and say "How are you guys?" it
| doesn't imply an all-male group.
| pelasaco wrote:
| Interesting to see in which prison "it" will land
| arp242 wrote:
| This is downvoted, but the homepage really does say "hello
| i am maia arson crimew (it/she)".
|
| I'd feel uncomfortable referring to anyone as "it" though,
| as there are some connotations with that :-/
| niemandhier wrote:
| I can understand that feeling.
|
| When English got rid of 'thou' and "thine" those were
| replaced by referring to everyone with the more polite
| "you", that surly helped adoption.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| I think a similar case would be if someone black asked
| you to call them an n word. They may be comfortable with
| that, but I am afraid others probably won't.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > the homepage really does say "hello i am maia arson
| crimew (it/she)".
|
| > I'd feel uncomfortable referring to anyone as "it"
| though
|
| In _Five Children and It_ (published in 1902), the "It"
| of the title is a magical creature. However, one of the
| characters is a human baby who is always referred to with
| the pronoun "it". I glossed right over that reading the
| book as a child, but I found it pretty disturbing
| rereading as an adult.
|
| However, once rereading the book had called the
| phenomenon to my attention, I noticed that it's not
| uncommon for me to want to refer to a generic child as
| "it". I wouldn't refer to a specific child that way.
|
| So referring to a person as "it" is sometimes the normal
| thing to do. (And, of course, intensely inappropriate at
| other times.) On the other hand, the intro appears to
| specify that maia arson crimew wants people to use "she",
| an exclusively subject pronoun, as the object pronoun for
| she. That is deeply unnatural and virtually nobody will
| be able to comply; it's much worse than using "it" for a
| person.
| rightbyte wrote:
| "Child" is gender neutral and was historically neuter
| when English had genders.
|
| I guess calling a child "it" is impersonal. Calling it
| "it" to its face is just strange since "it" is 3rd
| person.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > "Child" is gender neutral and was historically neuter
| when English had genders.
|
| By 1902, that time was several hundred years in the past.
|
| > Calling [a child] "it" to its face is just strange
| since "it" is 3rd person.
|
| Sure, but I haven't mentioned any such usage.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > However, one of the characters is a human baby who is
| always referred to with the pronoun "it". I glossed right
| over that reading the book as a child, but I found it
| pretty disturbing rereading as an adult.
|
| While it's uncommon today (and I think uncommon even by
| the time that book was written), use of 'it' for babies
| was definitely A Thing at one point.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| '-tsu' in Japan was used to refer to low caste/outcaste
| people
|
| Claudette Colvin was called it by the police when she was
| arrested
|
| But I do have a trans friend who prefers it pronouns so
| that's a sample size of one in the opposite direction
| distortionfield wrote:
| If they ask for it :shrug: also their tld is literally
| .gay so I think they're pretty aware of what they're
| asking for with their pronoun preference.
| dehrmann wrote:
| If _it_ asks for it.
| gambiting wrote:
| The page literally says the pronouns are "it/she" so you
| can call her "she" and no one should be offended,
| correct?
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Doesn't sound right to me. A normal clause of that form
| would look like "she/her" and indicate that the pronoun
| is "she" as the subject of a clause and "her" otherwise.
|
| This would indicate that maia wants to be referred to as
| "it" as the subject of a clause and "she" otherwise.
| gambiting wrote:
| That.....frankly doesn't make sense, or it breaks the
| English language in ways that I'm not familiar
| with(admittedly it's not my first language).
|
| Do you mean that instead of saying "it's her apple" you'd
| say "it's she apple"?
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > That.....frankly doesn't make sense, or it breaks the
| English language in ways that I'm not familiar with
|
| Correct; it is massively ungrammatical.
|
| > Do you mean that instead of saying "it's her apple"
| you'd say "it's she apple"?
|
| No possessive form is indicated. But instead of saying "I
| gave it a dress", you would say "I gave she a dress".
| gambiting wrote:
| Well, thank you for explaining. I have complete respect
| for anyone's choices in this area but I'll leave the
| opinion on this particular choice to myself.
|
| Edit: looking at other comments, it seems like it might
| not be the correct explanation after all?
| tsimionescu wrote:
| As someone else noted, GP is just misunderstanding a
| frankly confusing subject. There are essentially two
| common ways for people to specify their pronouns.
|
| Some people desire a single set of pronouns, and indicate
| this using the nominative/accusative pair (she/her,
| they/them, ze/zer).
|
| Other people accept either of two different sets of
| pronouns, and indicate this preference using the two
| nominative forms separated by a slash (she/they, they/he,
| and apparently, it/she).
| mrguyorama wrote:
| We should introduce that community to the Pipe character
| so they can disambiguate between the two forms.
| orra wrote:
| No, you misunderstand. You need to apply some common
| sense, not rigorous logic.
|
| "they/he" and "it/she" indicate alternatives, whereas
| "she/her" indicates different cases.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Both _preferred multiple alternatives for nominative
| case_ ("it /she") and _preferred single alternatives for
| nominative and accusative case_ ("she /her") are commonly
| used. When at least one of the pronouns involved are
| traditional pronouns rather than neopronouns this is
| pretty clear as to which is being used (though unless
| they are _both_ standard pronouns, its ambiguous as to
| the accusative case to use with the neopronoun, but of
| course it indicates that the standard pronoun and its
| corresponding accusative form are acceptable, so that's
| not really a problem), though if they are both
| neopronouns it might be ambiguous in theory (in practice,
| if they are both neopronouns, its always the second
| nominative /accusative form, not the multiple
| alterantives form.) Occasionally, you'll find neopronouns
| presented in a triplet where the third is possessive case
| (which really should always be the case with neopronouns,
| since otherwise you're left to conjure up your own
| possessive if one is needed.)
| kube-system wrote:
| Isn't " _they_ " wholly inclusive? It is a genderless
| pronoun.
| kazinator wrote:
| Why do we only get to choose our pronouns?
|
| I want to choose my prepositions: in, up and above.
|
| Also, my conjunctions are: however, moreover, and
| whereupon.
| asmor wrote:
| Because we already arbitrarily assign different pronouns
| to different people, usually based solely on their
| appearance, and there is no harm in letting people pick
| which type of gendered (or less gendered, in the binary
| sense) association they'd rather have.
| kazinator wrote:
| We also hurl prepositions at people based on their
| appearance.
|
| "He doesn't look with it": preposition _and_ pronoun.
|
| Oh, and don't get me started on adjectives. If a 5-foot-
| tall Douglas wants to be called Giant Doug, just oblige.
| yencabulator wrote:
| There's an easier fix for that, instead of having to
| memorize everyone's "unique" preference (xy/xor/xeps),
| change the language to avoid the issue. "They" for
| everyone is the only logical evolution.
|
| My native language doesn't have a he/she
| differentiation..
| mrguyorama wrote:
| You don't have to memorize shit. When you refer to
| someone and they tell you "I prefer pronoun X" just use
| that pronoun for the rest of the interaction. If you
| interact with them regularly or they are important to you
| somehow, you will remember, the same as you remember a
| pet name or nickname or screenname. If you forget and
| interact with them again they will remind you. They will
| likely not be angry if you forget occasionally, and using
| their chosen pronouns will please them and endear them to
| you. They only get hurt if you obviously do it on
| purpose.
|
| It's literally identical to the concept of learning
| someone's name, yet humans largely don't have a problem
| with that.
| yencabulator wrote:
| I don't know about you but I mostly refer to people with
| they/him/her/his/hers when they are not present.
| kazinator wrote:
| What? When you're interacting with a person, you don't
| need to know their pronouns. They are the first person in
| front of you, so the pronouns are "you" and "yours".
|
| The third person pronouns kick in when talking _about_
| them, to someone else, almost certainly in their absence.
|
| That may happen in writing.
| karmaMeansCool wrote:
| It's not good that you are uncomfortable when it asks you
| to talk about it with its preferred pronouns. It's 2023,
| it's about time you try to do what it ask you to do. When
| it tells you its preferred pronouns, try as hard as you
| can to follow it.
| [deleted]
| howinteresting wrote:
| As an older trans person who's been subjected to targeted
| hate speech in public, I used to be pretty uncomfortable
| with younger trans people using it/its pronouns. It's
| understandable, let's give people some grace.
| ramblerman wrote:
| Why is the discomfort of it not being called it (morally
| >) than the discomfort of someone who finds it demeaning
| to use it on people.
| arp242 wrote:
| "It" has a pretty clear meaning in English, and it is not
| as a pronoun for people.
|
| You seem eager to reduce this to "just" a pronoun issue,
| but it's not the same as calling someone "he" or "she",
| whatever they might prefer.
|
| No one gets to single-handedly (re)define the English
| language for everyone else. "It" in this usage does not
| fall in to normal English usage, other than to mock
| people. That they want to use it nonetheless or whatever
| reason, that's fine with me. I will always listen to that
| and do my best to oblige with that within reason.
| However, radically different meanings for words in common
| grammatical structures, for me, falls outside of "within
| reason". Other people may choose different, and that is
| fine too.
| asdajksah2123 wrote:
| > Knock Knock
|
| > Who's There?
|
| > It's me, Bill Gates!
|
| > "It" has a pretty clear meaning in English, and it is
| not as a pronoun for people. Therefore you're not Bill
| Gates or a person.
| skedaddle wrote:
| I'm pretty sure you've been trolled.
| arp242 wrote:
| It seemed serious, but at this point, who knows any more?
| fruit2020 wrote:
| Maybe it's something well know in the us/ gay sphere, but
| what does it refer to? I get to call the person he/she
| backwards so she/he feels acknowledged, I get calling
| one's/they instead of he because it may be a woman and
| they will feel discriminated. But it referring to a
| person?
| kazinator wrote:
| My pronouns are you/your.
|
| Whatever you have to say, say it to my face, and not in
| third person behind my back.
| niemandhier wrote:
| We are a first person singular we user, to celebrate our
| freedom from the aristocratic yoke.
| woooooo wrote:
| How dare you call it not good. It did a really neat hack
| here.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| No one is obliged to endure morally sane discomfort for
| the sake of someone else's comfort.
|
| This isn't "I don't want to call her him because he's a
| she." The person you're replying to has a very valid
| discomfort with reducing a person to an object's pronoun.
| Completely understandable and defensible and beyond the
| apparent needs of the author.
| [deleted]
| RHSeeger wrote:
| There's a difference, though, between
|
| > This person is female and I'm not comfortable referring
| to her as 'it' because females are 'she'
|
| and
|
| > This person is a human being, and 'it' is used to refer
| to objects. It's demeaning to call a human being 'it' and
| makes me uncomfortable
|
| The later is, at least imo, much more defensible.
| komali2 wrote:
| In the absolutely fantastic novel Too Like Lightning
| there was a character that is famous for the life-like
| dolls made of it. Eventually it comes to term with the
| fact that its preferred identifier is "it" because it
| feels more comfortable being referred to as a doll, or
| inhuman, i.e. literally objectified, than it does with
| being considered traditionally human.
|
| I also feel uncomfortable using "it" as a pronoun,
| luckily this person seems comfortable with "she/her" as
| well so we can just use those instead.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| If someone tells me they are happy and comfortable being
| referred to as "it", and that situation makes me
| uncomfortable, isn't that a "ME" problem?
| ripdog wrote:
| What? "It" identifies as an inanimate object? This
| neopronoun thing really is getting absurd.
| tbossanova wrote:
| Absurd? Maybe, but I'd hate a life without any absurdity.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I agree with you on this, but I feel a need to note that
| "it" refers to non-persons, not just inanimate objects.
| It's perfectly normal to refer to animals as "it", and it
| is also quite common to use it for babies (and even more
| common for fetuses). Not that this makes it any less
| weird to ask to be referred as "it", mind you.
| ripdog wrote:
| Thanks for the correction, you're quite correct.
| [deleted]
| nailer wrote:
| The guy is a woman.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_arson_crimew
| culi wrote:
| I think you're confused. The main person in the OP is crimew.
| The Daily Dot article talks about her in the first few
| paragraphs but towards the end they talk about a different
| security researcher that came across the same-ish list from a
| different source
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| The laws around digital access to networks are archaic and
| very broad, they were mostly defined in the 80s and 90s. I
| believe any unauthorized access (i.e. not having consent from
| the owner/operator) to a private network is technically a
| crime. Even if the Jenkins server was open, I bet finding and
| using the S3 credentials would have crossed the line of the
| law. Those S3 buckets are private and if you didn't have
| permission to access them, even if you have the credentials
| because you found them elsewhere, you could be breaking the
| law.
| account-5 wrote:
| Regards the archaic laws I'm not convinced, they tend to
| just parallel real world crimes. For example if you
| parallel it to the real world then the crime of trespass
| covers the Jenkins server situation (you can trespass on
| land that is open and easy to access) and you still commit
| a crime if you enter a house where you found the key on the
| floor outside the door, which covers the S3 situation.
| asdfghjkuytrf wrote:
| [flagged]
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| Trespass doesn't get you bent over in the shower of a
| federal prison. CFAA violations do.
| account-5 wrote:
| Yes there's clearly a discrepancy regarding punishments
| but the point I was making was about the initial crimes.
| I'm also not saying I agree either; certainly a lot of
| the punishments for crimes in America seem
| disproportionate to the offences commited.
| janmo wrote:
| Just accessing could also be seen as just looking through
| the window. And the lack of safety as a lack of curtain.
|
| Trespassing implies a presence, this could be seen as
| installing some software or code to maintain access on a
| system.
|
| Now let's imagine the OP went to the airline office and
| found that the door was open, on a desk there was a
| printed version of the nofly list, he takes a picture of
| each page and leaves. He would face 20 times less prison
| time.
| [deleted]
| karlkatzke wrote:
| Also seems to have gotten a crew list from the CommutAir's CASS
| or possibly from other airlines as part of the shared
| deadheading crew list, which includes crew addresses and
| employment information.
|
| There were also prod AWS credentials in the files exposed in
| Jenkins.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| And as always... Never use production data in the test
| pipeline.
|
| At the very least, I don't think the company was operating like
| every random developer should have full-access to the no-fly
| list, which is what they de-facto gave them when they dumped an
| old copy into the test pipeline.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Apropos of nothing, I also just really appreciate crimew.gay's
| aesthetic.
|
| This website is what me from 1993 thought a hacker's website
| would look like. A nod of respect to them for kickin' it old-
| school.
| harryvederci wrote:
| Oh hell yeah, I turned off my dark mode extension, much better
| now. Thanks!
| [deleted]
| neilk wrote:
| And they were born in 1999. We are dealing with a unique mind
| here.
| KyeRussell wrote:
| In reality it's like a kid listening to the beatles, but with
| computers. I'm a younger millennial that grew up entrenched
| in 'hacker culture' and even then there was a clear
| fetishisation of the good ol' days.
| japanman425 wrote:
| Like people using eMacs or vim these days
| veltas wrote:
| Not to start a flame war, but no, people use vim and
| Emacs because they're productive with them. I've
| certainly tried alternatives like vscode seriously and
| find I prefer vim.
| vanderZwan wrote:
| Arguably you need a bit of fetishization to get started
| with them though.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| In my case, it was using Linux distros pre-vscode that
| got me into emacs. In that era, your choices for general-
| purpose developer-oriented file editor were (a) emacs,
| (b) vim, (c) something that was ported from another OS
| and either running in an emulator or running atop a
| library stack that barely worked on your architecture and
| would take like thirty seconds to boot up.
| samastur wrote:
| Or just start early. I learned vi in Uni as part of our
| course and it's always there so I keep using it (but not
| solely).
| rsynnott wrote:
| Consciously using retro design is very much a thing in
| industrial design, architecture, and so on; it only makes
| sense that it would come to websites, too (and indeed you'd
| expect younger people to be doing it; most retro _anything_
| takes inspiration from a time period before the designer was
| around).
| concordDance wrote:
| Amusingly, "they" is not one of the pronouns it prefers.
| taurath wrote:
| Feels like a passing of the generational torch as elsewhere
| in the thread there's large arguments about pronouns while
| younger people who are way past that are out here getting
| into wide open Jenkins servers for active airlines lol
| iamtedd wrote:
| Love this take.
| 0cVlTeIATBs wrote:
| Didn't know you could tell someone's age by their
| comments.
| scrollaway wrote:
| "They" is a perfectly acceptable pronoun when you don't
| know somebody's gender, or preferences.
| asmor wrote:
| Sure, but we do, half the thread is arguing about the
| validity of it(s) pronouns.
| WXLCKNO wrote:
| Not sure if amusing but referring to someone as "it" makes
| it seem like an insult. I realize (per the bottom of the
| wiki article) that those are the chosen pronouns but still.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > This site is part of the lavender.software webring!
|
| A webring! I'd completely forgotten that these were a thing.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| "An elegant social network, for a more civilized age."
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| I agree with you, but probably in the 90s would have been a bit
| darker/greener :D But nice website brought me back in time ^^
| komali2 wrote:
| I love the .gay TLD! Had no idea it existed and now I want to
| register some domains against it
| patientplatypus wrote:
| [dead]
| IYasha wrote:
| "That would be the gayest site I've ever seen" :D
|
| Seriously, though, is the list on the github yet?
| culi wrote:
| > Suspected members of the IRA, the Irish paramilitary
| organization, were also on the list.
|
| Oof the international politics always come out in things like
| this. Twitter also publicizes all of its suspensions and bans.
| There's a Wikipedia article with a list of all the notable
| suspensions since 2010. It's interesting to see that, contrary to
| popular narratives, many of the international groups banned were
| actually far-left aligned.
|
| The list gets really boring the more you scroll down however. The
| last notable ban was Paul Graham for simply sharing their
| Mastodon handle. A boring dystopia indeed
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions
| lettergram wrote:
| It's also possible that wikipedia (and the editors there of)
| are more likely to be far-left aligned / knowledgeable -- thus
| leaving the far-right unaccounted for.
|
| That said, I also see bans of accounts with few followers
| regularly being far-right (white supremacist jokes for
| instance). They may just not be able to gather large followings
| at this point and / or be on alternative platforms.
| zeveb wrote:
| > The last notable ban was Paul Graham for simply sharing their
| Mastodon handle.
|
| Paul Graham is a man, not a plural entity.
| plusminusplus wrote:
| "the suspect jumped in their car and fled the scene"
|
| In English the word can be used as a singular pronoun
| upsidesinclude wrote:
| John jumped in their car...
|
| Right, so if you change it, then it's changed and it's
| different.
|
| Appreciate the clarification
| plusminusplus wrote:
| Yes, I suppose changing things changes them. Appreciate
| the redundancy.
| 0x44 wrote:
| Singular they predates singular you in the English language
| by about three hundred years.
| blast wrote:
| How do you know that? I know singular they goes a long way
| back, but this is an extreme claim that I've never heard
| before.
| sanedigital wrote:
| That doesn't mean the "they" here isn't unclear. I wasn't
| sure whose Mastodon handle Paul Graham shared. I certainly
| didn't think OP meant he shared his own handle.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| To be perfectly pedantic, this should only be confusing
| if referring to the Mastadon employees. Otherwise, if
| referring to the non-person entity, singular or plural
| appropriate syntax would be "it".
| emsixteen wrote:
| Good observation! Hope this wasn't an attempted, and failed,
| grammar 'correction'?
| mproud wrote:
| A very modern convention is now using "they/their" when a
| person may not be aware of someone's preferred pronoun. And
| even still, I have also seen people abandon gendered pronouns
| entirely.
| culi wrote:
| It's also a very old method. In fact, he/she is a later
| evolution of the English language. "He/his" used to be more
| equivalent to "it/its". It wasn't until ~15th century that
| the modern "he/him" and "she/her" fully evolved.
| "They/them" meanwhile was in full use by the 14th century
| upsidesinclude wrote:
| No one speaks in middle english. Dead language rules and
| customs are irrelevant to modern language norms.
|
| People once walketh befide their mules, but now we gots
| lambos
| culi wrote:
| Using they/them as a neutral pronoun is not dead and
| never died...
| WaxProlix wrote:
| And yet, pronoun ragers cleave to Olde Anglishe in an
| attempte to rectifye Ye langge. Sadge.
| culi wrote:
| This train of thought makes no sense. The fact that
| something originated in Old English doesn't at all mean
| it's dead. He/She also originated in Old English, just a
| little later. Should I make fun of people using he/him,
| she/her pronouns because they're "clinging to Olde
| Anglishe"? lol
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Non-binary people tend to prefer the they/their pronoun
| too.
| distortionfield wrote:
| It's also just far easier to use a plural pronoun to refer
| to a singular person to reflect the idea that you're
| talking about their whole persona, brand, work, etc... and
| not just specifically the human being, IMO.
| dmix wrote:
| > It's interesting to see that, contrary to popular narratives,
| many of the international groups banned were actually far-left
| aligned.
|
| The list that Wikipedia determines "notable suspensions" is
| probably not the best gauge to counter "popular narratives".
| What Wikipedia chooses to highlight is often the sum of actual
| popular narratives - not simply popular protests [1]- which is
| sourced almost entirely from the media and then filtered
| through the culture found among Wikipedia power users.
|
| A raw database of suspensions and their rationale [2] would
| probably be the only useful analysis.
|
| [1] The people most often protesting bans aren't always the
| people getting the most media-sourceable attention for their
| bans
|
| [2] Recent leaks show that that the US state/federal gov
| employees (and other well connected power players) often sent
| lists of tens/hundreds of accounts to be banned and Twitter
| employees often retroactively found reasons to do so when the
| given reason wasn't justified. So both the rationale and
| "notable" part both have questionable value for general
| analysis
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > contrary to popular narratives, many of the international
| groups banned were actually far-left aligned.
|
| Massachusetts state police posted a photo on twitter from
| inside one of the emergency management command post whatever
| facilities.
|
| In the background was a projector screen showing a web browser
| and in the toolbar was at least one link to a facebook group
| for one of the occupy movements.
|
| Of course, no visible bookmarks to any of the state's numerous
| white supremacist or far right groups.
|
| Those polo-shirt-and-khaki wearing clowns? From numerous
| accounts by witnesses, reporters, and photos on twitter they
| received what amounted to a police escort from the public
| transit station where they all parked, all the way into the
| city...and then from the transit station to their protest site.
| And then back again.
|
| See: FBI report from a decade or two ago citing the huge
| problem with white supremacist groups infiltrating law
| enforcement.
| kragen wrote:
| he didn't share his mastodon handle, since that had been
| prohibited; he just said he had one and you could look on his
| site for it
| sc077y wrote:
| ????? I just went through the entire table of suspended people
| and there were almost no far left groups besides Antifa. Most
| of the suspended were either far-right/alt-right, trump
| related, doxing related or spreading miss-information.
| dang wrote:
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34446878.
| culi wrote:
| too political?
| ellm wrote:
| > Suspected members of the IRA, the Irish paramilitary
| organization, were also on the list.
|
| A list that details primarily terrorists having terrorists
| listed on it. Colour me surprised.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| I looked at the 2022 ban list and didn't see anything I
| recognized as "far left" until Elon took over.
| pifm_guy wrote:
| Oh it must be nice to be able to do things like this, while only
| keeping an eye out for the laws of your own country, safe in the
| knowledge that your government won't extradite you for breaking
| the laws of another country.
| personjerry wrote:
| > with pretty much no skill required
|
| Seriously? I know like none of the tools or terms they used, like
| wtf is shodan?
|
| In general the author doesn't seem to follow the white hat
| guidelines, and I'd be worried what they've done is quite illegal
| (possibly on a federal level if the nofly list is so secret)
| srgpqt wrote:
| "Look at you, hacker. A pathetic creature of meat and bone.
| Panting and sweating as you run through my corridors. How can
| you challenge a perfect immortal machine?" -- Shodan
| jkingsman wrote:
| maia[0] (it/she pronouns) is almost certainly aware of that
| this is illegal, and has been indicted by a grand jury for
| other government hacks.
|
| shodan[1] is a search engine that deals in hosts and ip
| addresses rather than web pages, and is a goldmine for finding
| everything from exposed ip webcams to jenkins instances.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_arson_crimew
|
| [1]: https://www.shodan.io/
| mrsuprawsm wrote:
| US law is neither a universal law nor an international one.
|
| Accessing computer systems owned by a US company based in the
| US might constitute a violation of US law, but the hacker is
| based in Switzerland - where US law does not apply.
|
| As you can see in the linked Wikipedia article, accessing
| these systems is probably not illegal in Switzerland, thus,
| for all intents and purposes, no crime was committed.
| Klonoar wrote:
| Switzerland has assisted the USA in going after them,
| unless I'm missing something.
|
| (I am open to missing something here)
| piperswe wrote:
| According to its Wikipedia page [1], Switzerland doesn't
| extradite their nationals (including maia) without
| consent. maia might be trapped in Switzerland, but as
| long as it stays there the US can't get to it.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_arson_crimew
| coolreader18 wrote:
| And also it's been confined to Switzerland for at least a
| couple years now; committing US federal crimes isn't a
| new circumstance for it.
| ellm wrote:
| Legalities aside, it's morally wrong to hack a server,
| disregard reasonable disclosure, and publish (even to a
| selected group) an in-depth list of personal information;
| all for political reasons! (at least going off what their
| Wikipedia page describes as their motivations).
| InCityDreams wrote:
| >- where US law does not apply.
|
| Us law applies wherever they want. Very, very few
| governments will refuse a request....it's too expensive in
| the long run.
| karaterobot wrote:
| Here's an indictment from 2019 for similar activities. It's
| a crime in the U.S., thus prosecutable in the U.S. The
| question is whether Swiss authorities cooperate, not the
| jurisdiction.
|
| https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/swiss-hacker-
| indicted-c...
| f1refly wrote:
| The jurisdiction is quite questionable. If someone in
| north Korea would decide I'm guilty of breaking some
| bizarre law, I couldn't care less. Why would a Swiss
| citizen care about what the united states think is a
| crime?
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| It's easier to get extradited to the US than to North
| Korea
|
| In fact I don't think any countries will extradite you to
| North Korea. There's plenty (including many in the
| neighborhood of Switzerland) that extradite to the US for
| at least some crimes.
| [deleted]
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| As a nontechnical person who enjoys this stuff, also wasn't
| familiar. Anyone have a good rec for a starter guide for a
| nontechnical person to be able to do similar research (albeit
| in ideally more of a white hat approach)?
| sureglymop wrote:
| I know those tools and i agree. There's no skill required to
| use a search engine for compromised/misconducted servers to
| find a compromised/misconfigured server and then pile around on
| it. I don't think it's so good to publish it instead of
| reporting to the airline but I'm pretty sure that is for
| political reasons considering the author's political views.
| mpeg wrote:
| Anyone even tangentially involved in infosec knows shodan
| though... so in that context everything done in the article was
| trivial.
| mihaaly wrote:
| I think she used publicly available common tools in this regard
| without specific knowledge of the airline industry. Even
| searching the internet is a special skill for those never used
| a computer or held a smartphone but is a no brainer for those
| never created a search engine algorithm.
| intelVISA wrote:
| Hosting public facing Jenkins should be illegal tbh
| KyleBerezin wrote:
| You actually have most likely come across mentions of shodan if
| you use HN often. It is that search engine for insecure systems
| like exposed/insecure webcams.
| justinpombrio wrote:
| Cached version from the internet archive:
| http://web.archive.org/web/20230119220130/https://maia.crime...
| jkingsman wrote:
| For those unaware, maia is a pretty prolific hacktivist, and it
| has been indicted by a grand jury for a variety of USA govt
| penetrations but has USA proceedings on hold until it's
| extradited, which it's confident won't happen.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_arson_crimew
| yellow_lead wrote:
| so are there any repercussions for hacking US entities from
| switzerland ? Not that I think there ought to be.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| The Swiss tend to make your life vaguely difficult by
| confiscating your computers every now and then at the request
| of the US.
|
| You won't be extradited though.
|
| The Swiss could maybe prosecute domestically, but its not
| (currently) in the public interest to do so.
| sschueller wrote:
| Even then the sentences are reasonable while in the US you
| go to jail for just as long as if you killed someone in
| some cases.
|
| The ATT "hacker" got 41 month for guessing URLs. US
| sentences are insane.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Was there any penalty for CommuteAir or their employees for
| negligently distributing the list?
| ericpauley wrote:
| This is clearly on the darker side of gray-hat. Hate to be
| preachy but anyone seeking to emulate this sort of attack-finding
| should consider their ethical obligations as a computer scientist
| and follow best practices for responsible disclosure. It appears
| this was completely ignored here, including sharing stolen
| sensitive data of _normal people_ with whoever can plead a case.
| Miner49er wrote:
| Maybe I missed it, but what data of normal people was stolen?
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| >full names, addresses, phone numbers, passport numbers,
| pilot's license numbers, when their next linecheck is due and
| much more
| this_steve_j wrote:
| Hard agree here, with a qualifier.
|
| Breaking into private S3 buckets because you are bored is not
| considered an appropriate "Step 1" by the _professional
| community_ (people who get paid to do this for a living) at
| large.
|
| Among people who plan to be financially rewarded for their work
| and also not be in handcuffs, Step 1 is usually to "Get written
| permission".
| driverdan wrote:
| You have it backwards. Ethical obligations mean unethical
| things like government blacklists should be leaked in their
| entirety.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| Yeah cause we should totally have a top secret no fly list
| [deleted]
| ericpauley wrote:
| Maybe we should or shouldn't, but the potential victims of
| this aren't just some greedy corporation. Leaking the no fly
| list could cause irreparable harm to individuals whose names
| are on it or even similar, causing discrimination by
| employers and other organizations.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| Top secret stazi lists should absolutely be shared. It's
| why we have 'we have right to know' laws, so the government
| can't just lock people up in a jail and disappear them.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| And then, what, some hapless person on there gets doxxed
| and some red neck asshole rolls up on their house and
| shoots them cause 'Merica? After 9/11 we had these idiots
| killing brown people left and right just because "they
| could be terrorists."
|
| Don't be so naive. Lists of people are almost inherently
| dangerous things. I don't like that a no-fly list exists
| in the first place but it would be completely
| irresponsible to just publish it and wash your hands of
| it.
| ben_w wrote:
| While this is true, it is also true that many people
| think "where there's smoke, there's fire".
|
| Or, to put it another way, governments can make people
| disappear by publishing such lists and having the police
| be busy somewhere else when a mob happens.
| subroutine wrote:
| If someone was on a no fly list and they wanted the
| general public to know, they could just put it out there
| themselves. No? This seems more likely to be used as a
| form of public shaming than a way to expose injustice.
| lmm wrote:
| > If someone was on a no fly list and they wanted the
| general public to know, they could just put it out there
| themselves. No?
|
| How would they know? How would they prove it?
|
| There's a known case a few years ago where a woman was
| trapped away from the US for 3 years - her estranged
| husband put her on the list when she went to visit her
| parents, and boom, she's not allowed into the US and no-
| one will tell her why, making it easy for him to get
| divorced and keep the house.
|
| (If she'd known what had happened, and been able to put
| her hands on enough money, she could maybe have flown to
| Canada/Mexico and entered overland; all she knew was she
| was denied boarding)
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| >There's a known case a few years ago where a woman was
| trapped away from the US for 3 years - her estranged
| husband put her on the list when she went to visit her
| parents, and boom, she's not allowed into the US and no-
| one will tell her why, making it easy for him to get
| divorced and keep the house.
|
| How does one "put her on the list"? It's not that easy.
| AngriestLettuce wrote:
| Just because things _should_ work a certain way doesn 't
| mean they do.
| lmm wrote:
| Apparently if you happen to be working in the right
| government department then it is. It was only discovered
| when he applied for a promotion and they did an extended
| background check.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It's not like the federal government sends you a letter
| to tell you about it and what to do if you have an issue
| with it. While you raise a valid concern, I think it's a
| lot more likely to function as the basis of a class
| action suit - a sufficiently plausible and timely piece
| of evidence that would move a court to compel proper
| discovery.
| subroutine wrote:
| That's actually exactly what they do.
|
| If you are a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident,
| and the TSC determines that you are on the No Fly List,
| DHS TRIP will send you a letter informing you of your
| status on the No Fly List and providing the option to
| submit and receive additional information.
|
| https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-if-you-
| think-y...
| garbagecoder wrote:
| No, stop. I want to believe this is bad. Stop commenting
| with facts.
| subroutine wrote:
| Hah, indeed. As a side note, foreign nationals can likely
| determine their no fly list status from the Foreign
| Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions programs list. I put
| together an excel workbook of that data (shared link
| below [0]); it contains OFAC's _Specially Designated
| Nationals_ list (SDN), and non-SDN sanctions consolidated
| set. OFAC sanctions lists can be directly searched [1]
| and accessed via ftp [2]. In the excel workbook I shared
| below it 's interesting to web search the entities listed
| as "CYBER" (see the sdn_cyber tab).
|
| [0] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1t7QPqgvkNp42z
| ejlBBxi...
|
| [1] https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov
|
| [2] ftp://ofacftp.treas.gov
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Yes... _after_ you submit a form asking why you were
| denied boarding, as was stated in the opening paragraph.
| You don 't get notified automatically when you are put on
| the list.
| Jerrrry wrote:
| I have been told a few times that I am on the no fly
| list, so I avoid planes - that, and I am nearly 7 feet
| tall.
|
| Is my only way to discover if I am allowed on an airplane
| is to buy a ticket and get subsequently denied on the
| boarding gate/security? No FOIA request, or anything
| similar, to circumnavigate this?
|
| Thank you.
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| Yes this is insane. I'm a U.S. citizen and if I'm not
| allowed to fly because of some arbitrary national
| security measure then that measure had better be public
| information and known before I book a ticket. If my
| government has denied you the right to travel without
| telling you why I genuinely and sincerely apologize and
| take responsibility because it should not work like that
| and ideally I should be able to vote out the people who
| made that decision.
| uiri wrote:
| Why does your citizenship status matter? The right to
| domestic travel within the United States is enjoyed
| equally by everyone within the US.
| Jerrrry wrote:
| That's a constitutional right, and rights belong to
| citizens, not persons...
| uiri wrote:
| The Bill of Rights makes no distinction between citizens
| and non-citizens in its text. It says that rights belong
| to people, not exclusively to citizens of the several
| States.
|
| The Equal Protection clause protects citizens and non-
| citizens alike, e.g. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365
| (1971)
|
| The first amendment protects aliens once they are
| admitted to the US, Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945)
|
| There is a right to travel that is an extension of the
| first amendment rights to freedom of association and
| freedom of expression.
| notch656c wrote:
| Are you sure of that? Rights attributed generally to "the
| people" in the constitution can be limited from being
| enjoyed based on immigration.
|
| For instance, "the people" have the right to keep and
| bear arms but god help you if you're here irregularly or
| on a tourist visa and do not meet one of the exemptions.
| Sure non-immigrants are persons but federal law doesn't
| give a fuck.
| uiri wrote:
| The second amendment is one of the few exceptions rather
| than the rule. It is difficult to argue for inclusion in
| "the people" who have the right to bear arms when
| excluded from selective service and from the definition
| of the unorganized militia.
| notch656c wrote:
| By your logic women unaffiliated with service are
| excluded then. The unorganized militia, by US code, is
| (you can look up the code but this is pretty close)
| basically able bodied military age male citizens.
|
| Throwing in all these constraint when the constitution
| clearly say "the people" without qualification which
| magically means basically everyone one place but not most
| everyone somewhere else seems kind of arbitrary to me,
| but then again the courts seem to have held up visitors
| aren't people so hey. This is why I'm not a lawyer
| because really such fuckery makes my brain melt. If I
| were the sole sitting justice of the supreme court I'd
| say the qualification is a person is one unit of people
| and thus they have the rights of the people. IMO if
| you're one of "the people" then when the constitution
| uses "the people" unqualified elsewhere that's you --
| which by symmetry means if you can't own a gun you're not
| a person and have none of the other rights of the people.
| uiri wrote:
| State law in the state where I live defines the
| unorganized militia without regard to sex.
|
| At least the 7th circuit agrees with you, (United States
| v. Meza-Rodriguez) even if there are other federal
| appeals circuits that don't. So this is something that
| will likely go to the Supreme Court eventually.
| subroutine wrote:
| What if you are a US citizen, and it has recently been
| discovered you have been secretly dealing arms to Russia
| against current sanctions. And while authorities do not
| currently know your location they suspect you will be
| flying to/from Russia very soon?
|
| Should they let you know not to book a flight?
| from wrote:
| That's totally different - indictments are usually sealed
| before arrests in the kind of case you're talking about
| and there is longstanding precedent for that to prevent
| flight from prosecution. They would arrest you for ITAR
| and IEEPA violations before you board. That kind of thing
| happened long before the no fly list. That is different
| than an opaque list with a million people on it most of
| which have never been accused of anything and where there
| is an expensive appeals process and the government is
| allowed to use secret evidence.
| subroutine wrote:
| Why do you think they put people on the no fly list?
| gggggg5 wrote:
| It's very well documented, no point in speculating.
|
| https://www.tsa.gov/travel/passenger-support/travel-
| redress-...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
| subroutine wrote:
| > The No Fly List is a small subset of the U.S.
| government Terrorist Screening Database (also known as
| the terrorist watchlist) that contains the identity
| information of known or suspected terrorists.
|
| The TSA comment above is pretty straight forward but to
| be fair the wiki article is filled with instances of
| speculation.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I had the impression from the article that anyone could
| submit the form requesting information if they were so
| inclined; I just meant that most people probably only
| find out when they're denied. Then again, being 7 feet
| tall they might be doing you a favor.
|
| If you _really_ want to know shoot me an email.
| jeffchien wrote:
| I think you may not be reading the parent comment
| correctly. They're saying that those on the list have a
| right to privacy, therefore outright leaking the list is
| wrong. Being able to find out whether or not you are on
| the list is not incompatible with maintaining others'
| right to privacy.
| landemva wrote:
| > those on the list have a right to privacy, therefore
| outright leaking
|
| Those Americans on list have a right to question their
| accuser in court before a right (to travel) is
| restricted. When did we agree to suspend due process,
| 14th amendment?
| [deleted]
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| I am reading it correctly. They do not have a right to
| privacy, because we all have the right to know who the
| government is keeping on lists. Regardless the line of
| thinking reeks with hypocrisy - the government of the
| United States has been doing nothing but trampling
| privacy, yet when it comes to top secret government
| surveillance state programmes they hold it close to their
| chests
| berkle4455 wrote:
| > They do not have a right to privacy
|
| What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you understand the
| repercussions of it being found someone is on a no-fly
| list (because we all know the US government makes
| mistakes).
| jeffchien wrote:
| I don't understand your reasoning. To me, you seem to be
| saying that since the state violated everyone's privacy,
| the general public now has the right to violate these
| individuals' privacy even further to get back at the
| state.
|
| Publishing the list as-is would also imply that you
| believe the state is infallible and can't err when
| putting people on this list. There are thousands of
| people out there who have redress numbers because they
| have the same name as someone on the list. Can you
| imagine if getting a redress number is necessary for
| employment? Leaking the list would ironically increase
| the state's control.
|
| (edit: Again, I'm not disagreeing with letting
| individuals find out if they themselves are on the list,
| just disagreeing with the method)
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I think the intention here is to leak the list to a
| journalist, that will report on it's contents, but still
| not leak the list publicly.
| mempko wrote:
| What are you talking about? The list is literally designed
| to harm those people. It's a no-fly-list. If anything,
| having it public could provide public pressure to get them
| off the list.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| Though I don't like the idea of it, I'm also not certain that
| I know better than people whose careers are in national
| defence. I'm not convinced that it's a black and white thing.
| There are bad actors out there, and sometimes it's clearly
| advantageous to hide information from them, which means
| hiding it from everyone.
|
| Maybe there are reasons this is short sighted or I'm missing
| a greater point. I'd be interested to hear ideas in any case.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Am I missing something? It seems Maia didn't share the data at
| all, and only offers to if someone can demonstrate they will
| use it responsibly.
|
| Moreover, depending on the contents of the list, this likely
| offers proof of what is generally suspected, that the no fly
| list is a form of discrimination and authoritarian overreach,
| targeting people that haven't been convicted of a crime but are
| "suspected" due to race, religion, etc. The whole thing is
| probably unconstitutional/illegal, but it's hard to prove that
| since it's been secret.
|
| This seems like a clear case of hacktivism- trying to expose an
| unethical government program for what it is, so that it can be
| stopped.
| toss1 wrote:
| >>demonstrate they will use it responsibly.
|
| The problem is to define "demonstrate" and the criteria.
| Remember the gatekeeper is now an unemployed gal who "know
| lot's of things about cyber security" according to her main
| page. Seems likely a competent bad actor could easily
| impersonate a well-meaning reporter...
|
| Yes, security through obscurity isn't security, but this also
| seems incredibly irresponsible for any "security researcher".
| AFAIK, just basic standard good practice is to report the
| flaws and allow a reasonable interval before publishing, and
| there seems to be no hint of this.
|
| Modern society really is held together with duct tape, baling
| twine, and a few pieces of bubble gum...
|
| [EDIT: pronouns]
| kuschku wrote:
| Please give maia the respect she deserves and use the
| correct pronouns.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Apparently the pronouns to use are it/its? According to
| other people which makes your comment even better.
| ConfuSomu wrote:
| she uses both pronoun sets: it/its and she/her[1].
|
| [1]: https://maia.crimew.gay/
| toss1 wrote:
| after your comment, I looked at her main page more
| closely and found that she mentioned "it/she" in a
| superscript the middle of a paragraph, so that's what I
| corrected it to.
|
| I do have to say that, while it's polite to use people's
| preferences, when just reading an article and posting a
| quick comment, it's pretty casual, and (almost always) no
| offense is meant, so none should be taken. Note that the
| bulk of the comments here are all over the map, and I'm
| sure no one means to be offensive.
| LastTrain wrote:
| She goes by it, so go look in the mirror. We're all
| trying our best here.
| kuschku wrote:
| Maia uses both she and it pronouns. The poster before me
| misgendered it though, which absolutely isn't okay.
| counterfoil wrote:
| [flagged]
| LastTrain wrote:
| I try and use a person's preferred pronoun. Sometimes I
| fail, and that absolutely OK.
| DonutLord9 wrote:
| [dead]
| corndoge wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_arson_crimew#cite_no
| te-...
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I think the point here is to expose the nofly list as an
| unethical and/or illegal government program by leaking it
| to journalists that can evaluate and summarize it's
| contents, not to help them secure it better.
|
| White hat hacking assumes that the hacked party is doing
| normal or ethical business, and that helping them secure it
| would be generally beneficial.
|
| Also, I'm pretty confident that Maia, as a famous hacker
| and cybersecurity expert, isn't going to be easily duped by
| someone impersonating a journalist, and knows how to verify
| such things.
| Rhinozz wrote:
| >>Remember the gatekeeper is now [...] unemployed [...] who
| "know lot's of things about cyber security" according to
| [its] main page. Seems likely a competent bad actor could
| easily impersonate a well-meaning reporter...
|
| ...and it has a Wikipedia article
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/maia_arson_crimew), and has
| demonstrated in other cases (cf.
| https://www.dailydot.com/debug/feelyou-mental-health-app-
| dat...) that it has at least a reasonable grasp on what to
| leak and what not to leak.
| vunicipna wrote:
| [flagged]
| autoexec wrote:
| > Stealing source code and making it public isn't really
| helping anyone, most likely this is just an ego-inflation
| bragging exercise... A lot of these so-called hacktivists
| claim noble goals but then it later transpires to be down
| to other more selfish reasons,
|
| There are a lot of ways a hacker can get attention and
| gain notoriety to inflate their ego. They could be
| causing harm to people, breaking things, causing chaos,
| and spreading lies. There are a lot of invisible
| whitehats around doing good out there. The evil stuff
| stands out a lot more. Responsibly reporting the data
| leak issue in that mental health app, and being willing
| to reveal the data about the no fly list to someone (if
| it feels they're the right someone), that all seems
| pretty good to me.
|
| hacktivists are just people who try to make the world
| better through hacking. There's no requirement that they
| never do anything else for any other reason, or that they
| only ever hack for a really good cause, or that they
| never take any pleasure in the recognition they get for
| their actions or in what they've accomplished.
|
| What's even the point in looking down on someone for
| doing good things in order to gain a positive reputation?
| Isn't that something we hope people will do?
| irjustin wrote:
| > down to other more selfish reasons, e.g. Edward
| Snowden's mass theft and leaking of NSA secrets.
|
| What was Snowden's selfish reasons?
| toss1 wrote:
| Snowden was a compromised asset of Russia, working for
| them. Most of what he released had nothing to do with his
| stated purpose. People have all kinds of reasons for
| doing that sort of thing. Sometimes they really believe
| in the other country, sometimes it's entirely selfish. We
| won't know even if he says something on the topic, since
| we can never know his mind, and he'd demonstrated that
| he's dishonest.
| irjustin wrote:
| > Snowden was a compromised asset of Russia, working for
| them.
|
| So Snowden was a Russian asset, who wanted to go against
| Russia by leaking information about a US surveillance
| program, and then after failing being a Russian asset,
| went back to Russia...??
|
| I'm having a lot of trouble with this line of logic, can
| you point me to something credible on this?
|
| I can 100% believe there was a selfish purpose, but this
| doesn't seem like it.
| toss1 wrote:
| >>go against Russia by leaking information about a US
| surveillance program
|
| The information Snowden leaked was in no way against
| Russia, it benefited Russia enormously.
|
| Even the stuff that was on his claimed point created
| turmoil in the US to this day, which harms the US and
| only helps Russia
|
| The other stuff he leaked helped Russia directly, and
| directly endangered and likely got killed US people
| and/or assets.
|
| and of course he claimed his laptop was secure while he
| was in Hong Kong on his way to Russia. Anyone who thinks
| it stayed that way and he was allowed/invited to stay in
| Russia is a fool.
|
| There is nothing he did that didn't harm the US and
| benefit Russia, and he was a very successful Russian op.
| the mere fact that it is still being debated here in the
| Us shows how successful it was, even if just a
| provocation/disinformation operation.
| irjustin wrote:
| I took a quick look but please cite something. Lots of
| claims here:
|
| - Russian agent
|
| - Directly leaked explicitly on Russia's behalf
|
| - directly endangered and got US assets killed
|
| > There is nothing he did that didn't harm the US and
| benefit Russia
|
| This is what whistleblowing does - it harms the "entity"
| you're tattling on. It benefited all of the west's
| enemies for what it's worth.
| vunicipna wrote:
| In an attempt to sound like he had noble reasons for
| leaking hundreds of thousands of unrelated secret
| documents to journalists, Snowden claimed it was watching
| James Clapper's congressional testimony in March 2013
| that triggered him to start downloading and exfiltrating
| classified material.
|
| This was a lie. He'd actually started collecting his
| trove of stolen documents many months prior, in mid-2012,
| coinciding with arguments with his managers. He had a
| grudge against his employers, and he acted upon it.
|
| Snowden also never mentions that nation-state adversaries
| got all of this material too. The intelligence agencies
| of China and Russia must have been rubbing their hands in
| glee when he fled to them in quick succession. No wonder
| Russia continues to protect Snowden from being brought to
| justice in the US, from their point of view he did a
| stellar espionage job for them.
|
| That's not the only bullshit from Snowden either. Even
| little things like his claimed $200k salary when it was
| actually closer to $100k-ish. He's a serial fabricator
| full of grandiose claims about himself and what he did.
|
| His elevation to hero status is a moral travesty.
| autoexec wrote:
| > Snowden claimed it was watching James Clapper's
| congressional testimony in March 2013 that triggered him
| to start downloading and exfiltrating classified
| material. This was a lie. He'd actually started
| collecting his trove of stolen documents many months
| prior, in mid-2012,
|
| Did he say that the lies to congress were what "triggered
| to him to start downloading", or was that what finally
| convinced him to take the truth to the public instead of
| continuing to bring his concerns to other people within
| the intelligence community? If I remember correctly, he'd
| been investigating what looked to him like an
| unconstitutional program for a while.
|
| > coinciding with arguments with his managers. He had a
| grudge against his employers,
|
| Nobody gives up their well paying job (while also making
| sure they'll never work in their field again), risks
| their life and their life with their loving partner,
| gives up their freedom, gives up ever seeing their family
| again, etc all because they get into an argument with
| their boss.
|
| > Even little things like his claimed $200k salary when
| it was actually closer to $100k-ish.
|
| That'd be a weird thing to lie about, but he has
| clarified that issue. According to him the $200,000 was
| his "career high" salary. He took paycuts at Booz Allen
| Hamilton in order to get closer to the material he wanted
| to access. He ended up making $122,000 a year, but that
| wasn't the most he'd ever made doing intelligence work.
| Is there some evidence that shows he never made $200,000?
| vunicipna wrote:
| There's no evidence that Snowden brought his supposed
| 'concerns' to anybody in his chain of command, prior to
| defecting to Russia. The documents he began stealing in
| 2012 weren't targeted towards the bulk data collection
| program - he exfiltrated whatever he could lay his hands
| on, which of the hundreds of thousands of items were
| mostly military secrets, and classified information on
| intelligence work abroad. The claim that this was all
| driven by watching Clapper testify in committee is a
| convenient lie, a cover-up for what he was really doing:
| a massive theft of secrets across the board.
|
| Serial liars do often go back and 'clarify' their lies
| once called out, it's part of spinning a web of
| deception. Admitting any wrongdoing, as normal people
| might do, isn't on the agenda for people like Snowden,
| all puffed up and full of ego, living off their own
| bullshit.
|
| Not only did he defect to Russia and enjoy being
| celebrated there, he also has many people in the US and
| allies lauding his espionage, filmmakers and journalists
| gushing over his narrative and airbrushing out
| inconvenient facts. What a series of accolades for a liar
| and thief. He seems to revel in this 'wise whistleblower-
| in-exile' act he's carved out for himself while remaining
| Putin's pet. This treacherous escapade worked out better
| than he ever could have imagined.
| jrockway wrote:
| I would like Snowden just as much even if his reason was
| "I was bored and just felt like fucking some shit up".
|
| I also think this was likely good for the NSA. Their
| internal opsec and controls seem like they were terrible
| if they existed at all. Snowden was a wake-up call to do
| better, and hopefully that makes the US even more secure
| than it was before.
| toss1 wrote:
| Good to see that; thanks for digging deeper. I hope he
| has done this behind the scenes and the holes are
| patched, because I'm sure that by now, someone with worse
| intent has already followed those footsteps...
| Rhinozz wrote:
| In the aforementioned Daily Dot article:
|
| > CommuteAir added that the server, which was taken
| offline prior to publication after being flagged by the
| Daily Dot, did not expose any customer information based
| on an initial investigation.
|
| As a side note, maia uses it/its pronouns.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| If TFA (may not be accessible right now) is to be
| believed, "the" server is a _very_ generous
| understatement of the size of the exposed infrastructure,
| and customer information was very much accessible if not
| access _ed_ per maia's words. So seeing a statement like
| this from the CommuteAir PR people actually makes me feel
| less reassured, not more. (The attacking side looks
| better so far--maia itself is not a "watch the world
| burn" type, judging from its breach history, even if its
| writing makes you wonder whether the absurdist parody is
| deliberate or the author is in fact slightly manic. Kind
| of like Justine Tunney.)
| pc86 wrote:
| According to wikipedia maia has used both it/its and
| she/her at various times, so it seems either is
| appropriate.
| komali2 wrote:
| Sure but "he" isn't, which is what OP used.
| Pixeleen wrote:
| I get the impression that she's/it's doing this from a place
| of pain and desire to lash out, and "the system" is an easy
| target for her to fix onto. Not out of any sense of morality.
| refulgentis wrote:
| That's an odd take but I'm getting old. Once you cross 30
| its incredibly to spot when someone is an NPC laundering
| hate in the guise of reading minds. They're clearly young
| or angry, so you let it go.
| Pixeleen wrote:
| The adjective is missing from your comment so I mean not
| sure whether you meant to write that it's incredibly easy
| or hard. I certainly do not presume to be a mind-reader,
| but I do have experience with gender dysphoria. Self-
| hatred is a hell of a drug.
|
| She appears to have talent in connecting these data
| sources, but she's also in way over her head when it
| comes to motivation. On the world chessboard, she's a
| pawn. I can easily imagine that she's being egged on to
| do harm to the quasi-neutral but not isolated society
| that is now her life raft.
| danparsonson wrote:
| As I understand it, self hatred arises not from gender
| dysphoria but rather how others treat the person
| experiencing that.
| lamontcg wrote:
| > Maia didn't share the data at all
|
| You literally immediately falsified that assertion:
|
| > and only offers to if someone can demonstrate they will use
| it responsibly.
|
| And nobody ever lies of course.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Offering to share it privately, if specific conditions are
| met is very different from having already shared it, or
| publicly releasing it.
| throwaway292939 wrote:
| > including sharing stolen sensitive data of normal people
| with whoever can plead a case
|
| Wait, I thought Maia was offering to share who was on the
| no-fly list, not this stolen sensitive data this comment is
| claiming
| arp242 wrote:
| Depends what exactly they mean with "demonstrate". It can
| mean email from J. Random Person with "pinky promise I will
| use this list for good", or it can mean "well-known
| journalist with a clear public track record".
| woooooo wrote:
| She had only shared it with known journalists that she had
| a relationship at time of writing, and seems pretty bright.
|
| Hypothetically she might get scammed by someone and
| irresponsibly disclose but let's not condemn her for it
| yet.
| lamontcg wrote:
| You have an incredibly naive understanding of the
| propensity for people to divulge secrets.
|
| "Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead"
| TheDong wrote:
| We're talking about a no fly list which every airline in
| the world has a copy of. There's at the very least
| hundreds, if not 10s of thousands, of employees of
| airlines alone that have access to this list.
|
| If people had such an innate propensity to divulge
| secrets, surely the employees who setup that faulty
| jenkins server would have already sent you a copy of the
| no fly list, right?
| lamontcg wrote:
| And I would agree that it has been leaked, probably a
| lot, and that any halfway competent government
| intelligence agency in the world has copies if they feel
| they need them.
|
| That isn't really a counter-example to my point which is
| just that it is stupidly naive to suggest that Maia is
| somehow exempt from these concerns.
|
| If you want to argue that its all pointless secrecy
| theater, then I'd agree with that entirely.
| OneLeggedCat wrote:
| > Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead
|
| Probably thousands of airline and US government employees
| have had access to this list over the years. Yet neither
| you nor me can see anything on it, here in January 2023.
| komali2 wrote:
| This is why such a list should be public. You don't trust
| random grey hat hacker at .gay TLD to distribute the list
| to people who won't do harm with it. I don't trust the
| government to not distribute it, accidentally or otherwise,
| to people who want to do harm with it.
|
| In fact, the government _does_ do harm with it, by putting
| people on it without telling them (they might send a
| letter, that 's not guaranteed), and you only get to find
| out a few hours before your flight when you get rejected at
| security.
|
| Furthermore, this particular government fails to properly
| secure info all the time. Seems the last two _presidents_
| have been just leaving classified papers strewn all over
| the place.
|
| No, I'll trust the gay hackers over the government, thank
| you very much.
| lamontcg wrote:
| Sure. But that isn't the naive position that just because
| someone is Good(tm) that they will be careful with
| secrets. That's just the position that keeping secrets
| and having Kafkaesque bullshit is itself bad, so it
| doesn't matter, and the right thing to do is just post it
| on a pastebin hosted in Russia and call it a day.
| [deleted]
| infoseek12 wrote:
| And incidentally some of it is entirely illegal but sense she
| is already facing extradition for a federal indictment - in for
| a penny, in for a pound.
| [deleted]
| WatchDog wrote:
| Seems to making it's prosecutors jobs really easy, by
| incriminating itself.
| ripdog wrote:
| Perhaps this is just my autism speaking, but am I the only
| one who gets completely freaked out by sentences like the
| above? "It" refers to inanimate objects, things which can't
| have free will, do crimes, or be prosecuted.
|
| It's almost like you're talking about how a lawnmower decided
| to run a child over and then incriminate itself by boasting
| about it on social media. It makes no sense!
|
| I know she picked that pronoun herself, but I really wish she
| didn't. It just makes communication difficult.
| Twisol wrote:
| > Perhaps this is just my autism speaking, but am I the
| only one who gets completely freaked out by sentences like
| the above?
|
| Hi, fellow autist here.
|
| Yes, it feels like my brain hits some speedbumps with that
| particular pronoun. I wouldn't say I get "freaked out"
| though; it's just unfamiliar yet.
|
| Despite what other comments claim, I doubt this is
| agrammatical. "It" is part of the same grammatical class
| (the class of pronouns!!) and so fits anywhere "he" or
| "she" does.
|
| > "It" refers to inanimate objects, things which can't have
| free will
|
| Could you bring yourself to see the choice of "it/its"
| pronouns exactly as a self-identification with things that
| feel no agency of their own? I don't know why Maia claims
| those pronouns, but I'd get this motivation for sure.
| delta_p_delta_x wrote:
| Fairly neurotypical person here. I tripped up on the 'it'
| pronoun, too.
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| Competing access needs: autists need regularity, ??s ("the
| category of people who go by it/its") need ... creativity?
| chaos? uniqueness? Those goals are at direct odds.
|
| (I'm going to presume here that crimew doesn't actually
| want to be considered an object, because we don't generally
| respect objects' pronoun choices. So calling them an "it"
| in the grammatical way would be paradoxically self-
| defeating; we call objects he/she all the time and they
| usually don't complain.)
|
| This is also why I will always defend the use of "they" as
| valid. There has to be at least one universal pronoun.
| ripdog wrote:
| Yes, it's likely that I am more challenged by the
| grammatically incorrect pronouns than most neurotypicals
| in this thread, thanks for pointing that out.
|
| A lot of people who like to cry 'transphobic!' may wish
| to understand that there are people who need
| accommodation in our society other than trans people, and
| that heralding chosen pronouns as truly inviolable will
| sometimes make other people less comfortable.
|
| That said, I have so far managed to avoid any such
| accusations in this thread, thankfully.
| driverdan wrote:
| Quite frankly your wishes really don't matter in this
| context. They want to be called it, that's all that
| matters.
| ripdog wrote:
| I find it particularly amusing that you used the wrong
| pronoun while scolding me to use the correct pronouns for
| her.
|
| If that doesn't prove the impracticality of using "it" as
| a pronoun, I don't know what does.
|
| It breaks the rules of English that we all understand
| subconsciously, so it's difficult to do without
| consciously thinking about every single usage of a
| pronoun in a sentence, which is not how most people type.
| driverdan wrote:
| I use the word "they" in that context all the time
| regardless of gender or pronoun. I actually thought about
| that before using it. It's a common use of the word
| "they" in casual English.
| sokoloff wrote:
| But what if that usage is against its preference?
| Jerrrry wrote:
| And most people use "he/she," point being, "you" should
| of called "it" "it" instead of "they" during "your" own
| "self"-righteous quip.
| hyperhopper wrote:
| This is the result of most of progressive society saying
| that it is socially acceptable for a person's preference of
| expression to mean more than grammar and clearness of
| communication.
| CSSer wrote:
| I wonder what the motivation was. Anarchism is mentioned
| elsewhere, so if I wonder if that's a motivating factor
| here. At any rate, I appreciate that people are trying
| their best to be respectful. Personally, I'd also prefer to
| use "she" if that's alright with her (it?). This becomes
| confusing quickly when we're also trying to use it
| abstractly to refer to arguments and concepts.
| ConfuSomu wrote:
| it uses both pronouns: she/her and it/its, as written on
| her website[1].
|
| [1]: https://maia.crimew.gay/
| CSSer wrote:
| Sure, but that's not what the page says. The Wikipedia
| article says that. The page says "it/she". From what I'm
| familiar with, the order is usually "singular/plural" and
| when multiple are preferred I'm used to seeing it written
| as you notated it here as pairs in a list e.g. she/her,
| him/his, they/them, it/its, xe/xim, etc, in a list. I
| guess I can infer that's the intention, however, which is
| fair enough.
|
| But that really didn't have much to do with what I was
| discussing. That was a separate argument about how we use
| "it" to refer to objects as a rule. Humans are objects,
| but we also generally prefer to think of them as objects
| of a higher order variety. In conversation, we take
| advantage of this to parse and interpret context more
| quickly. Choosing to do otherwise makes it more difficult
| to know if the "it" I just used in this sentence is Maia,
| some other object, or an abstract point I'm making in
| this discussion. Anyway, that's why I prefer she/her.
| ripdog wrote:
| I totally understand wanting to be respectful, but
| respect goes both ways. She needs to respect the fact
| that her odd pronouns are literally breaking the English
| language for people who want to use them.
| uiri wrote:
| Have you considered that someone who chooses "it/its" as
| its pronouns is intentionally trying to break the English
| language with said choice? In this case, it is Swiss, and
| therefore it is likely not a native English speaker which
| could be a factor as well.
| felurx wrote:
| German has similar singular pronouns to English, with
| "he", "she" and it corresponding directly to "er", "sie"
| und "es".
|
| (Not trying to make any point here, just thought it might
| be useful for context.)
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| Swiss though, so the evil twin of German :P
| ripdog wrote:
| Possibly, but that just makes me more interested in
| simply ignoring her wishes.
| Larrikin wrote:
| I personally think that the ultimate end game for
| pronouns in English will be creations of new ones with no
| connotations (so easy to apply like names) that get
| incorporated into the language or more likely an eventual
| move to a single pronoun that applies to everyone.
| Chinese, for example, only differentiates in written form
| so would be an easy adjustment. They is every high
| schoolers preferred choice in essays before English
| teachers complain.
|
| I'm not sure how the under 20 is adjusting but in my
| groups of mid 20 to late 30 nobody is trying to
| disrespect anyone by not using preferred pronouns, but it
| just slips out from decades of usage, and people just end
| up replacing pronouns with the person's actual name after
| multiple times apologizing. The having to remember
| multiple names when meeting someone just doesn't seem
| tenable long term.
| Faark wrote:
| > more likely an eventual move to a single pronoun that
| applies to everyone
|
| Oh god i hope. As a german, we have pronouns for all
| nouns. So far no societal backlash against those, but
| they just seem totally useless to me (beside maybe a
| teeny tiny bit of "forward error correction"). You just
| have to learn them. Surest way to spot an immigrant. Then
| there is job titles. In the US, "nurse" seems to be used
| for both genders, but the words origin is female. Yeah,
| we have that as well for many jobs. Others usually have
| suffixes. Ofc we want to be welcoming to all. You can
| imagine the job listings...
| rsynnott wrote:
| That's more or less what singular they is, surely?
| becquerel wrote:
| You can't 'break' a language. You either just follow its
| rules or flaunt them. If your output is still
| comprehensible - which 'it' as a pronoun is - it's still
| language. Back in the day English used to have two
| pronouns for 'you'. Was merging them both into one
| pronoun also literally breaking the language?
| ripdog wrote:
| She's actively making the language less comprehensible by
| breaking the rules. Multiple times in this thread, people
| have said "it" and I've been confused as to what - or who
| - they're referring to.
|
| I'm not a language historian, so I don't have an opinion
| on your last question.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Really not. Most sentences can be easily rewritten
| without pronouns. I know a bunch of trans people and have
| trouble remembering who likes to be called what, so I
| just reduced the number of direct references. It's not
| that hard to do, because most conversations don't involve
| so many subjects that it becomes complex.
| ripdog wrote:
| I'm sorry to hear about that. Sounds difficult.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| That's the reply I should have given to your complaint
| about 'breaking the English language'.
| Miner49er wrote:
| That's a problem with the English language though.
| There's not a singular only version of "they" and there
| probably should be.
| uiri wrote:
| The singular only version of "they" is "they", just like
| the singular only version of "you" is "you". "You" was
| formerly plural, with "thou" as singular, but "thou" has
| since fallen into disuse.
| thequux wrote:
| You was _always_ both singular and plural, but in the
| singular form it was the formal second person pronoun,
| whereas thou was the second person singular informal
| pronoun; it 's the same as the difference between du/Sie
| in German, tu/vous in French, or je/u in Dutch. This is
| why the King James bible uses thou: it's intended to feel
| more accessible to its readers with a friendly tone.
| eesmith wrote:
| > You was always both singular and plural
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You says the singular "you"
| didn't occur until Modern English, and the singular form
| 'ye' died out in the 1600s with early Modern English.
|
| The King James Bible, published 1611, uses "ye" as the
| singular form of the formal "you", as in "Ye shall know
| them by their fruits."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version further
| notes:
|
| ] In a period of rapid linguistic change the translators
| avoided contemporary idioms, tending instead towards
| forms that were already slightly archaic, like verily and
| it came to pass.[87] The pronouns thou/thee and ye/you
| are consistently used as singular and plural
| respectively, even though by this time you was often
| found as the singular in general English usage,
| especially when addressing a social superior (as is
| evidenced, for example, in Shakespeare). ...
|
| ] Another sign of linguistic conservatism is the
| invariable use of -eth for the third person singular
| present form of the verb, as at Matthew 2:13: "the Angel
| of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dreame".
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Come all ye faithful is singular?
| eesmith wrote:
| I've been trying to figure this out and just end up being
| more confused.
|
| One issue is that song's use of "ye" seems to be from the
| 1750s, so about 150 years after the KJV usage, which in
| turn was somewhat archaic. English changes.
|
| Another is how https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_(pronoun)
| says:
|
| > In Early Modern English, ye functioned as both an
| informal plural and formal singular second-person
| nominative pronoun. "Ye" is still commonly used as an
| informal plural in Hiberno-English and Newfoundland
| English
|
| So it's possible that the KJV uses "ye" only for formal
| singular second-person, even if was also used more widely
| used for informal plural, and as that informal plural
| became more widely used, it became the go-to way to
| translate the Latin, which is in plural.
|
| And then I read https://www.etymonline.com/word/you?ref=e
| tymonline_crossrefe... and my eyes roll up in confusion.
|
| Most likely I misunderstood the text I copied from the
| KJV entry, and "ye" and "you" are _both_ plural forms?
|
| I give up.
| sokoloff wrote:
| After Miner49er went to the store, they went the bank.
|
| After Foo and Bar went to the store, they went to the
| bank.
|
| If we don't need a singular-only you, why would we need a
| singular-only they?
| smolder wrote:
| People seem to be assuming that this request for certain
| pronoun usage is made in good faith. Asking to be called
| "it" is probably just trolling on "its" part. "It" would
| probably laugh at the people bending over backwards to
| accommodate.
| tpm wrote:
| > "It" refers to inanimate objects
|
| It may do so in English, but it is Swiss, so probably also
| speaks German, where 'it' - 'es' is Genus Neutrum, exactly
| meaning neutral gender. For example 'the child' - 'das
| Kind' is neutrally gendered. Hope this makes sense.
| ripdog wrote:
| Makes sense, but we aren't speaking German here.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Hacker is anti-capitalist (cool), so I'm not sure they're
| concerned with what hat they're wearing in the endeavor.
|
| Graciously, though, they're at least feigning caution with
| handing out the no-fly list.
| aj7 wrote:
| https://www.egattorneys.com/federal-computer-hacking
|
| See in particular the broad definition of "protected computer."
| stonepresto wrote:
| For reference, it/she [1] previously was named Tillie Kottman [2]
| and was indicted by the US in 2021 [3].
|
| [1] https://maia.crimew.gay/
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_arson_crimew
|
| [3] https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/swiss-hacker-
| indicted-c...
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| patientplatypus wrote:
| [dead]
| tastysandwich wrote:
| As a software engineer even I sometimes can't help romanticising
| hacking in my imagination. But so many times it turns out to be
| just like some company left the front gate wide open and the
| "hacker" walked in and took a look around.
|
| Eg when an airline had a public API where you could get someone's
| passport number and details just from their boarding pass
| https://mango.pdf.zone/finding-former-australian-prime-minis...
| chaboud wrote:
| Private keys checked into code?
|
| Password salts that were identical for the entire set?
|
| "Random" initialization vectors always created from the same
| prng seed?
|
| Without coders like these, hackers would really have to work
| for it.
|
| (And, yes, I've encountered all of these in my career.)
| [deleted]
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| Check this out if you haven't heard of it:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
| japanman425 wrote:
| Less hacking, more like exploring.
| gggggg5 wrote:
| Since when are passport numbers supposed to be sensitive
| information? This isn't something you could use for identity
| fraud in any normal circumstances.
| sverhagen wrote:
| Don't all sorts of person-related details come in handy to
| stage a social engineering hack? Maybe a caller could
| demonstrate legitimacy by coughing up a passport number. At
| this point, it may impress me more than someone having found
| my SSN (_love you for that, Equifax_). Yet, SSN is still by
| many institutions considered something that should be stored
| in the vault.
| gggggg5 wrote:
| >Don't all sorts of person-related details come in handy to
| stage a social engineering hack?
|
| Maybe? But also maybe not really?
|
| Passport numbers change very frequently, nobody uses them
| to identify people.
| noirbot wrote:
| They change frequently? My passport is the longest-
| lifetime form of ID I'm offered, the absurdity of using
| Social Security Number as an ID aside. Most passports
| last for 5-10 years in my experience, and I'm not sure
| the number changes when you renew it.
| gggggg5 wrote:
| > I'm not sure the number changes when you renew it.
|
| Of course it does. Numbers used to identify people
| generally don't. Passport number identifies the
| individual document, mostly so it can be checked against
| INTERPOL's SLTD database.
| zinekeller wrote:
| I don't know if you are joking or I need to break it to
| you that in most cases passports are the _de facto_
| identification for foreigners and passport S /Ns are
| being used as part of identification procedures.
| gggggg5 wrote:
| > I don't know if you are joking or I need to break it to
| you that in most cases passports are the de facto
| identification for foreigners
|
| As a perpetual foreigner I've never had to use my
| _passport number_ for identification.
|
| >passport S/Ns are being used as part of identification
| procedures.
|
| Where?
| giza182 wrote:
| Ha! Loved the linked story. Thanks for posting.
| ohbleek wrote:
| I had always assumed that the "no fly" list was a phrase and that
| it didn't refer to an actual list, but rather a database with
| more detailed information than a "can they fly?" Column with a
| Y/N entry. In pharmacy we have a database we have to access when
| we suspect there is abuse, fraud, or diversion of controlled
| substances. The database is regularly updated with current
| information about prescriptions that were dispensed including
| location, prescribing physician, etc. I had always assumed the
| "no fly" list would be something similar. Now that I think about
| it though, that wouldn't be efficient or useful at all. It would
| make sense for it to be much more simple.
| mihaaly wrote:
| I naively thought a secret list (file) with secret data is not
| distributed among random developers of random organizations in
| full but having a private access point where specific persons
| could be checked for no fly list by those with right for it,
| audited, with measures to avoid abusing the service.
| Potentially with training set available for developers
| separately. There are services where the accuracy of certain
| data can be validated (i.e. for cars by license plate and other
| data) so those who query should already possess the data of a
| particular person when using it and not just browse everyone in
| the secret list they please.
| twelve40 wrote:
| yeah, surprised as well. In finance, there is ofac for people
| forbidden from moving money, but it's also typically used as a
| service/db instead of passing around csv files to everyone.
| Very bizarre.
| mrcode007 wrote:
| Not sure what service you're referring to but the file is
| here:
|
| https://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt
| twelve40 wrote:
| Have you ever witnessed this file being used by companies
| moving money stored in S3 as "shitlist2019.txt" for
| screening incoming transactions in production? Because
| that's what the article is alluding to.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| No, but I have seen it being ingested and turned into
| some horrendous XML on a weekly basis.
| from wrote:
| There are various aggregators who combine this list and a
| bunch of other sanctions/related lists like the BIS Entity
| List which is probably what he was referring to.
| mproud wrote:
| Could this have been an export given to someone upon request?
| Or maybe served as backup?
| edpichler wrote:
| Every company keeps its list or it's a USA government list?
| namdnay wrote:
| Network connectivity in airports can be patchy at best, and
| connectivity from the airport internal network to the internet
| even worse. All the check-in and boarding systems are designed
| to be able to work offline (with semi-automatic reconciliation
| afterwards). You have to query the no-fly list at check-in and
| boarding, so it's more resilient to have a list that can be
| loaded airport-side every morning
| fomine3 wrote:
| I'm not confident that is it safe to link to the site operated by
| such hacktivist. I prefer to see link for news article on HN
| headline, rather than criminal hacker's website itself, but I
| don't know rules.
| [deleted]
| 089513646753 wrote:
| A
| c1ccccc1 wrote:
| After seeing the title but before clicking on the article, I
| thought this would be about a legal hack rather than a security
| hole. More specifically, creating the minimum possible
| corporation that qualifies as an airline (so that you literally
| _own_ an airline), and then saying to the government, "hey, we
| need the nofly list, we're an airline, see?". The actual hack
| sounds way easier, to be sure, but I still like my version the
| best.
| [deleted]
| Scalene2 wrote:
| I came here to make the same comment. Also, I now know that
| .gay is a tld and I'm trying to figure out how to take
| advantage, registration isn't terribly cheap, but the only
| restrictions are ones that don't apply to any of my ideas.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Oh man. 1890s.gay would be a good one.
|
| [EDIT]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Nineties
| Eleison23 wrote:
| [dead]
| raydiatian wrote:
| Wow, actual hacker news.
|
| For once.
|
| Meanwhile, another front page article is some genius asking why
| there aren't any cars in 1984.
| [deleted]
| ec109685 wrote:
| While VPN's shouldn't be the only device, it seems like that
| should be part of any competent security posture. E.g. Jenkins
| should only be accessible from known VPN endpoint IP addresses.
|
| Administrative IAM's should be IP restricted as well:
| https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/iam-r...
| gcbirzan wrote:
| And the s3 buckets/dynamodb/whatever other data you store
| should be vpc restricted. Ours are like this by default, for
| exceptions (like aws services that run in some internal vpc
| that's not exposed) you can make an exception per role.
| colanderman wrote:
| Interesting to see ASCII SOH/STX/ETX in the wild! (^A, ^B, ^C in
| the .RCV files.)
| papercrane wrote:
| Those are pretty standard ACARS messages. It's the only time
| I've seen SOH/STX/ETX used, probably because originally in the
| 70s they were designed to be typed used with Telex machines.
| monkeya1 wrote:
| Hey all im new. Didnt expect so many of yall to actively check &
| comment on this one app
| mistersys wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34446673
| exabrial wrote:
| The TSA no fly list is a blatant violation of the Constitution:
| for the government to be able to remove a right, you must be
| convicted at trial.
|
| The fact it still exists at all is incredible, but a disturbing
| precedent.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| From the accompanying (and linked) _Daily Dot_ article[1]:
|
| > On the list were several notable figures, including the
| recently freed Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, alongside over 16
| potential aliases for him.
|
| > [...]
|
| > Numerous names included aliases that were common misspellings
| or slightly altered versions of their names.
|
| For non-natively-Latin names, the US government is thorough to
| the point of hilarity in including every possible romanization
| and misspelling of one, and they list full names not their
| individual parts so combinatorics ahoy, as well. For example, if
| you know a bit of any Slavic language written in Cyrillic, browse
| the Russian sanction lists, it's going to give you a chuckle.
|
| In all seriousness, this actually makes perfect sense given the
| prospective consumers of the lists may not have any clue about
| the languages the targeted people speak. It's just that the
| article makes 16 aliases sound vaguely sinister, whereas if
| you're a Russian--or, for that matter, a Ukrainian or a
| Belarusian--that's just a reasonably low estimate for how many
| romanizations of your name people may think up. (Not that Bout
| isn't sinister as hell.)
|
| [1] https://www.dailydot.com/debug/no-fly-list-us-tsa-
| unprotecte...
| Scoundreller wrote:
| It's bad in Canada too, where they don't even use dates of
| birth, so small children end up caught on a no-fly-list:
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/no-fly-child-redress-1...
| [deleted]
| l0b0 wrote:
| Shouldn't take much for this to overflow beyond 2**whatever
| names, which is probably going to be all sorts of fun for the
| 1970s software probably involved in processing this data.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| ... nah, it has error catching, it just won't process beyond
| that much.
| flawn wrote:
| That's the Lawnchair app founder LOL
| derelicta wrote:
| You never fail to amaze us, Maia
| Animats wrote:
| They should just send the list to the New York Times and Fox
| News.
| mkl95 wrote:
| TIL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_arson_crimew
|
| > In March 2021, crimew was indicted by a grand jury in the
| United States on criminal charges related to her alleged hacking
| activity between 2019 and 2021. The charges were unrelated to the
| hack of Verkada. Her home and her parents' home were raided by
| the Swiss police at the request of United States authorities, and
| her electronic devices were seized. People used the hashtag
| "#freetillie" to express support for her in the aftermath of the
| raid, and the Swiss magazine Republik compared her to Jeremy
| Hammond and Aaron Swartz.
| [deleted]
| neonsunset wrote:
| There is very little if anything similar between the subject
| and Aaron Swartz
| aj7 wrote:
| Exactly. There is a whole infrastructure of sympathizer-nuts,
| similar to US politics.
| japanman425 wrote:
| What a Wally. What purpose did it serve doing this?
| komali2 wrote:
| Are you asking, what purpose was there in bringing the hammer
| of the American Justice Department and down onto a random
| grey hat hacker? The same as always: enforce rigid
| authoritarianism and blind bureaucratic SOP.
|
| Remember kids, clicking the "next page" button on court
| document websites is legal, doing it with javascript is a
| felony, off to jail with you, join the rapists and murderers!
| dekken_ wrote:
| > doing it with javascript is a felony
|
| Wut
| ossner wrote:
| Perhaps in reference to the judyrecords fiasco:
|
| https://www.judyrecords.com/what-happened-with-tyler-
| technol...
|
| No one was actually sent to jail, but the proprietor of
| the site was dragged through the media as a dangerous
| hacker and felon.
| danuker wrote:
| I suspect they're talking about circumvention of
| technical DRM measures.
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
| some_furry wrote:
| They could also be talking about the Apple email leak
| caused by incrementing an UUID.
|
| There's probably other notable cases with the same
| failure mode.
|
| One of the things you learn working in computer security:
| history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Nah history in information security repeats daily. How
| many unsecured mongodb databases exposed to the internet
| and unsecured S3 buckets did we see? Credentials have
| been committed to github so often that Github chose to
| build an automated alert system on their own dime that
| you don't even have to sign up for. How many times have
| lastpass and Experian been breached? How often do we
| STILL see sql injection attacks, a problem that has been
| actually solved for decades?
| dekken_ wrote:
| > history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
|
| I do like Mark Twain
| some_furry wrote:
| Ah, yeah, that's where I heard it from first. Thanks!
| borski wrote:
| weev and AT&T as well.
| kleiba wrote:
| If you think the US is an authoritarian regime, I hope for
| you that you'll never have to live in an _actual_
| authoritarian regime.
| xtian wrote:
| [flagged]
| refurb wrote:
| Do you think the only measure of authoritarianism is
| number of prisoners per capita?
|
| At any rate, I was reading that countries like China have
| alternatives to prison called "administrative detention".
| Maybe we should just change the name of our prisons so we
| can goose the stats?
| xtian wrote:
| No I think we meet all other reasonable measures also.
| The experience of freedom in the US is the freedom to
| make increasingly virtual and arbitrary consumer choices.
| That's pretty much it. It's not the experience of freedom
| of speech in practice, not free time, not freedom from
| usurious debt, not the freedom of rising prosperity, not
| freedom from opaque government interference and meddling.
|
| When people use the word "authoritarian" they are just
| signaling that they believe the narratives that our media
| speaks with one voice about those bad, bad other
| countries.
| n4r9 wrote:
| The US (at least the Republican party & some supporters)
| possesses other authoritarian traits as well, such as
| using excessive force to quell protests, pushing a
| narrative which alienates outgroups (Mexicans,
| Muslims...), or widespread surveillance.
|
| Obviously it's not as bad as China or Russia, but it's
| not exactly a bastion of hands-off governance either.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| Call them "Guantanamo's". Problem solved.
| jslql wrote:
| [flagged]
| kleiba wrote:
| What does that have to do with authoritarianism?
|
| Here's a quick test I just derived to assess how
| authoritarian the country you currently live in really
| is: you go to a main square in your country's capital on
| a busy day and start declaring in a loud voice that, in
| your opinion, the country's current leader has no idea
| what they're doing, that all her/his political ideas are
| idiotic, and that the people of the country would be
| better off with almost anybody else in his/her position.
|
| Keep doing this for a little while.
|
| The level of authoritarianism of your country can then be
| measured by the reaction of government officials.
| xtian wrote:
| Ask Fred Hampton about that. Ask Darren Seals. Ask Gary
| Webb. Ask Julian Assange. Ask Edward Snowden.
| asdfghjkuytrf wrote:
| two wrongs dont make one rigth
| psychlops wrote:
| Authoritarian acts are performed by governments that
| aren't specifically authoritarian regimes all the time.
| kleiba wrote:
| Well, the word used was "authoritarianism", and I believe
| this is commonly used to refer to a political system, not
| to individual acts. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > I believe this is commonly used to refer to a political
| system
|
| > [I believe this is] not [commonly used to refer] to
| individual acts
|
| First is correct, second is not.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| I don't disagree but...
|
| The US might not be authoritarian overall but the people
| who wind up in positions of power in the various
| institutions that run it sure seem to have a much greater
| authoritarian bent than the populace in general so when
| they can get away with it (like when prosecuting a hacker
| or arresting a bootleg cigarette seller) they try to go
| all out. The kinds of people who routinely complain about
| these excesses often turn right around and complain that
| specific kinds of criminals they don't like aren't
| getting treated badly enough and it drives me up the
| wall.
| Nurw wrote:
| Nice whataboutism. Are you trying to say as long as there
| are worse authoritarian regimes exists critiquing the
| American regime is bad?
| kleiba wrote:
| No, I'm saying that the US is not an authoritarian
| regime.
| belorn wrote:
| The US breaks their own laws and international laws when
| going after individuals who embarrasses the US
| government, including deploying the military if it suits
| them.
|
| It is a bit like when telecom companies sent bribes to
| terrorists in order to gain telecom contracts. It not
| that they intend to do bad things, but occasionally they
| have to break the law when law stands in the way.
| akimball wrote:
| Tell that to the millions imprisoned for victimless
| "crimes"
| staringback wrote:
| The crimes that were written into law by democratically
| elected representatives?
| washadjeffmad wrote:
| Are they though? Bernie Sanders wasn't even allowed to
| debate as a popular presidential candidate because he
| didn't have a corporate sponsor or Super PAC funding.
|
| If voters are only choosing amongst candidates put forth
| by the establishment, and the establishment relies on
| funding and support from special interests, then
| democratically elected is somewhat different than
| democratically selected, isn't it?
| staringback wrote:
| I wasn't referring to the executive branch of the US
| government, in fact that branch has been chosen by state
| appointed electors and not individual citizens since its
| beginning.
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| Bernie Sanders debated every single primary debate. They
| were televised, they're still on YouTube.
|
| Here's a compilation of everything he said in the Nevada
| debate: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fricqR4t28Q
| Nurw wrote:
| He did not even say america was an authoritarian regime,
| you made that argument up yourself
| kleiba wrote:
| First, I only wrote "if you think...", so I did not
| attribute any opinion onto the OP.
|
| Second, however, there is good reason to believe that OP
| _might_ hold that opinion, since OP wrote about how the
| purpose of some actions of the American state, via the
| American Justice Department, were to "enforce rigid
| authoritarianism". Whose rigid authoritarianism could
| that refer to in this context, other than an alleged US-
| American one?
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| Autism is one hell of a drug. The most capable hackers are
| usually the ones that shouldn't be.
| jcq3 wrote:
| What autism has to do with that?
| homero wrote:
| Some are savants
| AYBABTME wrote:
| To be fair, the skills required to do what is written about
| here are basically fancy-googling, not exactly "most capable
| hackers" level. The author walked around town and turned the
| knob on all the doors they could see. Some doors weren't
| locked.
| brador wrote:
| "Jan 19, 2023" -- OP article date.
| jcq3 wrote:
| How such supposedly talented hacker end up to be doxxed? It's
| not that hard to become 99.99% anonymous online...
| implements wrote:
| Technically easy, _operationally_ virtually impossible -
| everyone will slip up eventually.
|
| Also, the need for recognition often drives any human
| endeavour - and that leads hackers, criminals, etc to boast
| of their exploits to at least someone ... who might be under
| observation, or under pressure to give up information to
| escape severe punishment for their own activities.
| jcq3 wrote:
| Prolly the need for recognition because if you hack from
| public wifi with tails tor mullvad, brand new laptop with
| specific hardware and so on I don't see how you can get
| caught up
| 748 wrote:
| Do you trust tails or mullvad, did you check every single
| function? Do you believe that the binaries that you
| downloaded without checking CRC or MD5 or whatever hash
| are the same alleged "open-source auditors" have "looked
| at and determined it is clean"? Do you even trust your
| hardware, did you check your monitor chips? Do you trust
| the public wifi and are you 100% certain cctv's are not
| being fed to systems that compare passive public wifi
| radio signal timings with the automated face recognition
| hash and store all this data somewhere? My argument is -
| why not? It is not impossible and given the available
| tech it's fairly simple to do even by a hobbyist? If you
| just want to play around - sure, just use nordvpn. But
| please be aware that the best strategy is to be the
| provider - be it vpn, mixers or encryption.
| cduzz wrote:
| Don't forget the time machine to go back to warn past
| self about the one time they slip up just prior to when
| they decide to really go all in on the haxoring.
|
| Some parts of the internet never forget, and the
| anonymous graph is only anonymous if all of it is
| anonymous. 99.999% isn't good enough.
| dvdkon wrote:
| No doxxing was necessary, Tillie did it all publically,
| publishing on a home server, making announcements on Telegram
| under their real name. I don't quite get it either, but they
| specifically didn't want to hide in (pseudo)anonymity.
| p410n3 wrote:
| Can Confirm. I was big into telegram communities at that
| time and joined when her group was public. I have nothing
| to prove because I delete all my stuff but the indictment
| shows screenshots and transcripts from the group. She
| literally posted selfies on Twitter sometimes.
|
| I don't agree with most of her more radical views and find
| her methods to be too extreme, but she clearly stood behind
| them and didn't hide
| the_af wrote:
| crimew's stated viewpoint and goals are "radical
| transparency". Hiding her legal name would go against this
| goal. It has nothing to do with competency and everything to
| do with her worldview.
| xyst wrote:
| Laws are written to protect multibillion corporations and
| billionaires. Prove me wrong.
|
| If we truly lived in a sane society, companies with lax
| security and god awful security policies would be punished.
| nipponese wrote:
| Surely this comment does not fit HN comment guidelines:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| > Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet
| tropes.
|
| > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological
| battle. That tramples curiosity.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate.
| If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed
| egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you
| flag, please don't also comment that you did.
|
| If you feel it's appropriate, flag the comment.
| aj7 wrote:
| So it's OK for individual vigilantes to punish them, am I
| right?
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Depends on the country.
|
| Mine was founded by some overseas family that can still come
| over and start telling us what to do as they please.
|
| So uhhh, yeah, can confirm, Canada's laws basically revolve
| around keeping old money wealthy without providing any value
| to anyone.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| The British Crown hasn't had real power since 1649, but
| please continue complaining about nothing.
| notch656c wrote:
| No you just (by constitution) have to swear allegiance to
| the crown to become a lawmaker, which makes you a
| perjurer if you don't acknowledge their power.
|
| Also is the monarch not commander in chief their armed
| forces? I thought being under the command of the queen /
| monarch was part of their oath. If your soldiers are
| sworn to do what the queen says that seems like a lot of
| potential power.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Yeah, it's crazy to me that the UK has no armed forces,
| the military are all personally bound to the monarch. The
| king has interfered in politics too, so arguments based
| on royalty not being active are off to a bad start.
| notch656c wrote:
| It's hilarious that even though I think my comment was
| misread, it turns out I think we both are right.
|
| You read it as me talking about the military in the UK.
|
| No I was talking about the Canadian military. They are
| bound to the queen and swear an oath to such, you know
| the one that lives in the UK.
|
| It really illustrates the absurdity of the situation.
| silexia wrote:
| Yes, punish the victims is the best policy.
| lbwtaylor wrote:
| So if I leave my front door unlocked, I should go to jail
| when someone steals from me? What nonsense.
| leni536 wrote:
| Probably not. But if you owned a warehouse and you left it
| unlocked without security, and someone steels from it stuff
| that is owned by somebody else, then maybe you are liable
| somewhat.
| mattmoose21 wrote:
| Your front door and the items in your house are not
| analogous to having sensitive information on a machine
| connected to the internet.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Fiduciary responsibility [1] is closer to the concept that
| applies here in my opinion. Companies have a fiduciary
| responsibility to protect the company and thus the
| investment in the company for the investors and
| shareholders.
|
| [1] -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary_responsibility
| hot_gril wrote:
| Wonder if she's on the no-fly list now.
| INTPenis wrote:
| Hah shodan, the title made me think this was about starting a
| dummy airline and getting the nofly list from the government.
| KyeRussell wrote:
| Same. Sorely disappointed.
| as_bntd wrote:
| I expected to read an article about actually owning an airline in
| 3 easy steps. :(
| kab0b wrote:
| I imagine it's something like Richard Bransons How to become a
| millionaire:
|
| 1) Be a billionaire
|
| 2) Start an Airline
| zootboy wrote:
| Indeed, the de-editorializing of the title made the
| interpretation more ambiguous. I'd actually prefer the real
| title ("how to completely own an airline...") or a more clear
| adjustment ("how to hack an airline...").
| jonp888 wrote:
| I guess we do need the verb 'pwn' after all :D
| mihaaly wrote:
| I was disappointed too. I wouldn't know what to do with an
| airline, I never had one, I wouldn't even know which one I'd
| like, perhaps Virgin Airlines?, but the thought of having one
| was exciting still.
| twelve40 wrote:
| I too was at first annoyed by a bit of an overhyping in the
| title and the overall style as well, until I remembered how it
| felt when you discovered something yourself, or even just read
| a good clever report from someone else. You get this rush that
| this is the coolest craftiest thing in the world.
| rsynnott wrote:
| I actually expected this to be "buy a bankrupt airline for
| ~nothing, and, oops, look, it still has a copy of the no fly
| list", to be honest...
| twunde wrote:
| Relatively off-topic, but I absolutely love the 90s/early 2000s
| vibes I get from this. I can't remember the last time I saw a
| webring, much less one with animated logos.
| [deleted]
| novok wrote:
| It's even more entertaining when the people who make it weren't
| even alive or old enough to understand or have memory of it.
| It's a bit of a trip for me.
|
| Made me realize that 'vintage' basically means to many people
| 'things that are before my living memory' and it can literally
| only be 0 to 5 years back before they were born.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| Anything post WW2 and pre 1995 feels pretty much the same to
| me.
| half-kh-hacker wrote:
| that's my webring :3
| KyleBerezin wrote:
| I spent like 30 mins clicking links lol. brings back old
| memories of a web long gone. oatmealine's site also convinced
| me to install cowsay
| agotterer wrote:
| Also loved the vibe. One of the web ring sites goes to
| http://cyber.dabamos.de/88x31/ which was an absolute blast from
| the past!
| wedn3sday wrote:
| This whole thing has made me incredibly happy to see that
| somewhere, someone out there on the internet is pwning people
| for stupid vulnerabilities and posting about it on a site that
| looks like this one. I admit the flashing ACAB really did it
| for me.
| berniedurfee wrote:
| I got 1983 vibes of Matthew Broderick owning an airline in 3
| easy steps to grab tickets to Paris.
| JoeyBananas wrote:
| [flagged]
| KyleBerezin wrote:
| look at the name of this site, then look at her, then look at
| the name of the site again
| JoeyBananas wrote:
| It doesn't say "Cracker news". Or "Brazen idiot news."
| taylorportman wrote:
| or honeypot
| BMorearty wrote:
| `cat` aliased to `bat`, nice. :) I really like bat.
| googlryas wrote:
| [flagged]
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I'm curious to learn: if "they" is being added to style guides
| as a way to refer to a singular human without implying any
| gender, is "it" the same or is there a somewhat different
| meaning behind the usage?
| codetrotter wrote:
| > if "they" is being added to style guides as a way to refer
| to a singular human without implying any gender
|
| Hasn't it always been the case that you could use "they" as a
| way to refer to a singular human without implying any gender?
|
| I seem to recall that "they" has been in use in that manner
| long before non-binary arguments were something I'd heard
| about.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I feel like I learned that the Chicago style guide, for
| example, embraced that only a handful of years ago.
| lamontcg wrote:
| Which is really just unfucking a mistake that language
| pedants invented for themselves in the 19th century.
| mrsuprawsm wrote:
| >Hasn't it always been the case that you could use "they"
| as a way to refer to a singular human without implying any
| gender?
|
| Yes, since Shakespearean times.
|
| For example: "I saw someone walking down the street the
| other day, they were carrying a guitar" -> a normal use of
| they as the 3rd person singular pronoun.
| Eleison23 wrote:
| [dead]
| SoftTalker wrote:
| No, and it's frustrating for people who had it hammered
| into their reading and writing habits all through school. I
| can't read a singular "they" without mentally tripping on
| it.
| eropple wrote:
| Singular-they constructions have been in English for
| literally hundreds of years.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Tell it to my English teachers from grades 3-12
| eropple wrote:
| Sure, point me to them.
|
| I learned a lot of wrong things in school. One could say
| I have spent most of my adult life unlearning them.
| Welcome to the club.
|
| Consider also James Loewen's classic book, too:
| https://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything-
| dp-16...
| JadeNB wrote:
| > No, and it's frustrating for people who had it hammered
| into their reading and writing habits all through school.
| I can't read a singular "they" without mentally tripping
| on it.
|
| If you mean "no" in the sense that this specific sentence
| isn't true:
|
| > Hasn't it always been the case that you could use
| "they" as a way to refer to a singular human without
| implying any gender?
|
| then you are mistaken, as sibling comments point out.
| Certainly there is a history of _teaching_ people not to
| use singular 'they' (I don't know how long, but I was
| certainly taught it), but people have actually been
| _using_ singular 'they' for a long, long time, and usage
| trumps fiat at least in English.
| tzs wrote:
| "They" has been used as a singular pronoun as far back as
| the late 1300s, but for the case where you didn't know the
| gender of the person or the gender was not relevant. Using
| it for someone whose gender is gender is known but is not
| male or female is much newer.
|
| Here's an article with details [1].
|
| The problem of what pronoun to use for someone who is
| neither male or female is not new, of course. That article
| says:
|
| > There have always been people who didn't conform to an
| expected gender expression, or who seemed to be neither
| male nor female. But we've struggled to find the right
| language to describe these people--and in particular, the
| right pronouns. In the 17th century, English laws
| concerning inheritance sometimes referred to people who
| didn't fit a gender binary using the pronoun it, which,
| while dehumanizing, was conceived of as being the most
| grammatically fit answer to gendered pronouns around then
|
| [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-
| nonbi...
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Wow TIL. That's very interesting.
| Rhinozz wrote:
| I'll add that while the OED dates the singular _they_ to
| the mid-14th century (betw. 1335-1361), use as to avoid
| gendering an individual is found from ca. 1450; the OED
| also gives earlier attestations for _them_ (1429) and
| _their_ (1398) of the same usage.
| a_t48 wrote:
| No - please do not use "it" as a catch-all pronoun for an
| unknown person. "It" is generally a dehumanizing term for a
| transgender person - though a minority use it as a pronoun
| (in those cases, go for it).
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I'm not asking if they're interchangeable. Just if "it"
| differs from "they" in some way in the above context where
| it sounds like that's the individual's preferred pronoun?
|
| Yes, calling someone "it" has been a ridiculously offensive
| thing to do in my life experience.
| a_t48 wrote:
| Ah! I'm not equipped to answer that, unfortunately. Would
| be interested to know, also. I certainly opened up a can
| of words replying to you.
|
| Edit: I suspect the answer differs from person to person.
| throwntoday wrote:
| I can't even remember people's names after they introduce
| themselves how am I meant to remember their pronouns as
| well.
| lmm wrote:
| It would be such a shame if groups that pride themselves
| on inclusivity had a socially acceptable reason to
| exclude lower-class and neurodivergent people...
| ben_w wrote:
| Same way you learn nouns in German.
|
| (Die/der/das are genders).
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| What if someone wants something else?
|
| If they demand dixyzx?
|
| What if they demand custom declensions on verbs that
| involve them?
| jimmywetnips wrote:
| It's really not that hard to keep a mental lookup table
| for each person and their custom pronouns and
| declensions.
|
| Another pretty elegant solution I've found if there's too
| much confusion amongst our team is to suggest people
| switch to learning Hungarian which doesn't have gendered
| pronouns. A few years of intense study is a small price
| to pay so that we can avoid the catastrophic mistakes of
| accidentally calling someone who's not in the room the
| wrong gender
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Unfortunately I tried that. After 3 years of Hungarian
| classes, I had a peer that demanded I speak to them in
| Klingon because they identified as hypermasculine. Now I
| have to start over again.
| throwntoday wrote:
| I took Japanese :S
|
| doitsuYu hazenzenwakaranai
| Arnavion wrote:
| "The German language doesn't understand?" :)
|
| (wa should be ga. wa means German is the subject that is
| doing the not-understanding.)
| astrange wrote:
| No, it's fine as is. I think you have ha and ga backwards
| but neither of them imply doitsuYu is "doing something"
| even though it's the subject of the sentence. It's a pro-
| drop language so meanings that don't make sense are just
| excluded.
| Arnavion wrote:
| >I think you have ha and ga backwards
|
| I do not.
| astrange wrote:
| ha is not the "subject", it's the "topic", which is
| different.
| throwntoday wrote:
| I was split between de or ha, forgot all about ga.
| Funnily enough I think omitting the particle altogether
| would have made more sense.
|
| Edit: After further reading ha seems to work fine. In
| this case I think both work but ga places greater
| emphasis on the german language being the thing not
| understood. de however was totally incorrect :P. But due
| to the tacit nature of informal Japanese I think the
| context already informed the reader who doesn't
| understand what.
| Arnavion wrote:
| Yes, people will understand what you meant if you used
| wa.
| throwntoday wrote:
| I don't think it's a matter of people simply
| understanding what I meant to say, it's grammatically
| correct from what I have gathered.
| hmry wrote:
| ga marks the subject, and the subject of wakaru is the
| thing that's being understood, not the thing that's doing
| the understanding. (Maybe you meant subject in the non-
| grammatical way? It's confusing.)
|
| Either way, ha is fine in this sentence to the best of my
| understanding. It marks doitsuYu as the subject, and
| thus the thing being understood.
| [deleted]
| tekla wrote:
| Bullshit. Why is a word that explicitly removes all
| identity connotations randomly dehumanization? Its one of
| the most neutral ways of indicating another, In the same
| way that "comrade" is.
| megabless123 wrote:
| bc folks on the right will weaponize `it` to remove a
| person's humanity
| a_t48 wrote:
| > explicitly removes all identity connotations
|
| Yes, including being a human
| CSSer wrote:
| I sympathize with questioning but this is pretty harsh.
| The explanation is fairly simple. "It" is how we refer to
| most inanimate objects and "subhuman" creatures in the
| English language. Debates on how appropriate it is to be
| addressed in this way or desire to be addressed in this
| way aside, it's certainly not random or a stretch to
| imagine why some might be uneasy with the idea if they
| feel it somehow associates the person with the
| aforementioned categories.
| jhanschoo wrote:
| > explicitly removes all identity connotations randomly
| dehumanization
|
| It's not randomly dehumanization, the neuter gender that
| the pronoun system preserves has always communicated
| inanimacy (read: nonhuman-ness) against the masc/fem
| animate genders. Etymologically, this distinction has
| been more primitive than the masc/fem distinction. One
| feature of the neuter gender is the use of the object
| form in languages that distinguish it from the subject
| form, hence he/him, she/her, but it/it.
| KyleBerezin wrote:
| To quote her home page "hello i am maia arson crimew
| (it/she)"
| a_t48 wrote:
| Yes, in this case it's appropriate
| KyleBerezin wrote:
| I see, just making sure we were all on the same page. I
| did not strictly mean it as a contradiction.
| JonathonW wrote:
| "It" is not generally used in English to refer to people, and
| generally carries a dehumanizing or even pejorative
| connotation when used to refer to a person (it's not unheard
| of to see "it" used as a slur against binary trans people,
| for example-- using "it" in place of preferred pronouns).
|
| Use "it" if someone specifically requests that "it" be used
| to refer to them. Don't if they do not.
| [deleted]
| joshmn wrote:
| My mom called me "it" for the first two weeks after I was
| born. She wasn't sure on a name.
|
| Exception not the rule, but made me giggle reading your
| comment.
| alwayslikethis wrote:
| I think infants are somewhat commonly called "it" for
| some reason.
| Rhinozz wrote:
| No, 'it' is not the same as 'they' here. To refer to a person
| of unknown pronouns, they/them/their/theirs/themself should
| be used. However, if one's pronouns are specified to be
| either they/them/their/theirs/themself or
| it/it/its/its/itself, use those preferred.
| drekipus wrote:
| You mean use it
| TazeTSchnitzel wrote:
| I once saw someone who goes by "it" explain that it liked
| "it" because it has a sort of _ungendered_ quality to it,
| whereas "they" is instead gender- _neutral_. It explained
| that we use "they" to refer to humans because we assume
| humans are gendered, and the implied gender is the quality
| that makes "they" (or for that matter "he" or "she")
| implicitly refer to a human. But it rejects the notion humans
| must be gendered, or that humans without gender are not
| human.
|
| I'm not sure I agree with that argument, but it got me to
| think. It blends the linguistic and the philosophical.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Grammatically, "they" and "it" are the same gender, they
| differ in number.
|
| Semantically, the difference in their singular use (prior
| to very recent evolutions) is that they was rarely used for
| specific known humams, and it was never uses for humans
| (but frequently for living things with sex and to whom
| grammatical gender corresponding to sex could also be used,
| in cases where the sex was unknown or unimportant, similar
| to the use of "they" for humans.)
|
| So, while I find the idea of "they" as gender neutral but
| "it" as emphatically ungendered conceptuallt interesting, I
| don't really think it reflects historical usage
| differences.
|
| OTOH, I suppose there could be debate about different
| presumptions of _social_ gender vs _grammatical_ gender
| here, too.
| wl wrote:
| "They" is animate common. "It" is inanimate. To the
| extent that English has grammatical gender, they're
| different.
| TazeTSchnitzel wrote:
| > Grammatically, "they" and "it" are the same gender,
| they differ in number.
|
| English doesn't have grammatical gender so this statement
| seems questionable to me, but that's a nitpick.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| This is exhausting. I wish we could simplify English so
| that all beings use a single pronoun, and be done with it.
|
| This one's that gender, this one's neutral gender, this
| one's genderless... who cares.
|
| If gender or plurality is key to the sentence we can add a
| word.
|
| I like how in Indonesian to make a word plural you double
| it: pencil pencil = multiple pencils
|
| Can we come up with a pronoun that literally means "the
| being or beings in question" without commenting on gender
| or plurality?
| Avicebron wrote:
| Should we overhaul all languages that use gendered
| language? I speak French and often think in French
| (le/la, etc), obviously I speak English, but a lot of
| modern English comes with heritage from cultures,
| languages, hell even concepts of thought (yes thinking in
| differently languages gives unique perspectives of the
| world).
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| Yes, we should indeed.
|
| Of all the most useful projects to humanity (diverting
| asteroids, developing free energy, curing cancers,
| solving childhood poverty, etc) in any top-3 list I'd put
| "having a single common language that is super-simple to
| learn and master and which everybody is taught from
| childhood".
|
| Let's not change English or French then, but leave them
| as "classical" languages, but teach kids the new
| easy/expressive/explicit one. No gendered nouns, no
| phrasal verbs, no reported speech markers, etc.
|
| Completing this initiative makes all the other ones
| easier to complete. And it's not like it's much more
| complicated than the other complicated things we donate
| to and try to push forward every year.
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34446906.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| barbazoo wrote:
| it/she actually
|
| https://maia.crimew.gay/
| userbinator wrote:
| [flagged]
| s5300 wrote:
| [flagged]
| userbinator wrote:
| [flagged]
| pvg wrote:
| _gives LGBTQ individuals a bad name_
|
| You are way out of line here, you don't get to decide how
| other people present themselves online and tying their
| persona to their gender or sexual identity is an outright
| stereotype/slur.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| I wish we just used "they" always. I am fine with people not
| wanting certain pronouns but I find it very tedious to track
| different pronouns in my head. Especially in a professional
| setting gender shouldn't matter at all.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I have found ways to almost always write and talk with gender
| neutral pronouns, without sounding too weird. After working
| with colleagues that use gender neutral pronouns, I find
| myself being careful not to assume any gender specific
| pronouns, which means in most cases just not using them.
| King-Aaron wrote:
| As an Australian, we seemed to develop a culture of calling
| everyone 'mate' regardless of gender etc. Helps since I
| can't ever remember a persons name, even after they've said
| it directly to my face.
|
| I've got no issue with people wanting to use different
| pronouns, though usually I try to keep it neutral in
| conversation anyway. "They/their" is extremely easy to use
| without much thought.
| naruhodo wrote:
| Actually, also as an Australian:
|
| Australia is a country where you call your mates "cunt"
| and call cunts "mate".
| fphhotchips wrote:
| Actually, also as an Australian:
|
| I'm pretty sure this is one of those things that's true
| in the Northern half* of the country that people think
| applies everywhere, like crocodiles and jellyfish that
| kill you. I've lived in SA and Vic all my life and all my
| friends would just be insulted if I called them cunt
| instead of mate.
|
| * "Northern Half" of course meaning above the Barassi
| Line and probably adding the NT, not the real geographic
| north.
| King-Aaron wrote:
| Depends on the circles of friends really. But yeah that
| one definitely isn't a country-wide rule if you plan to
| keep all your teeth
| danuker wrote:
| Truly and thoroughly upside-down.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Yeah, is there really interesting distinction. I was
| educated in a very conservative part of the country and
| they/them was the default Standard English practice. It
| wasn't about gender but it was about familiarity.
| eli wrote:
| I wish everyone was just named James. I had a good friend
| named James and it's much easier to call everyone that than
| to learn a bunch of individual names.
| recursive wrote:
| It makes sense to me that individuals should have names.
| Pronouns tend to be much less information dense, and are
| used as shorthand. It doesn't make sense to me that
| pronouns _should_ capture gender, as opposed to hair color,
| height, or age.
| burnished wrote:
| Well, it certainly is a much stronger disambiguater than
| those other signals. Dividing a population in half is a
| pretty powerful technique.
|
| Though now that I think about it age is also potent - you
| get the same rough division w.r.t relative age (younger
| vs older than the speaker), and you can divide the
| population roughly into quarters with ease and accuracy.
| Do miss and ma'am count as pronouns here? They code for
| age as well as gender
|
| Hair color and height dont really have the same sort of
| dividing power broadly speaking.
|
| Still, your line of thought there about what a pronoun
| should capture is intriguing.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| If we could simply convince the entire world to speak
| either Persian or Bengali, we could avoid the whole
| problem.
| munificent wrote:
| The property that pronouns capture is essentially
| arbitrary. That's why Romance languages assign gender to
| stuff like telephones and sandwiches.
|
| The point of gendered pronouns is that sentences very
| often have two nouns: a subject and object. If you have
| only a single pronoun, then any sentence can only use a
| pronoun to unambiguously refer to one of those. If you
| have two pronouns and you randomly and evenly distribute
| them across various subjects, then it's fairly likely
| that the subject and object will get difference ones and
| you can now unambiguously use pronouns for both.
|
| Since a very large fraction of human speech pertains to
| other humans and since human sex is a roughly 50/50
| distribution, it makes some sense that we used gender as
| our mostly arbitrary thing to assign a pair of pronouns
| too. We could have used, say handedness instead, but with
| only ~10% of people being left-handed, the odds of a
| sentence being about a righty and a lefty is much
| smaller.
|
| Pronouns are basically like special variables in a REPL
| that let you refer to the most recent expression. It's
| nice if you can refer back to a couple of them.
| ectopod wrote:
| The whole point of pronouns is to reduce cognitive
| overhead. If pronouns become something you have to remember
| for each person then you might as well drop them from the
| language and use names all the time.
| ccn0p wrote:
| Totally. Or use X for everyone. No overloading of common
| words well understood to be something completely
| different.
| eli wrote:
| Yes exactly: James for everyone.
|
| Some people may prefer a different name but I think
| they'll understand once we explain the cognitive load.
| mkaic wrote:
| James thinks James meant "James'll understand" instead of
| "they'll understand" :P
| [deleted]
| javajosh wrote:
| [flagged]
| dangerlibrary wrote:
| I don't disagree with you in principle, but this take
| ignores the boots-on-the-ground reality for trans and
| nonbinary people.
|
| Trans and nonbinary people are using this as a shibboleth
| to determine whether they can feel safe around you. You
| are not someone who wishes nonbinary or trans people
| harm, but unfortunately, there is a large segment of the
| population that does. The act of using someone's
| preferred pronouns is an act of saying "you are safe with
| me, I do not wish you harm." This is not a default or
| automatic assumption they can make, as it likely is for
| you.
|
| Many trans and nonbinary people, through no fault of
| their own, have PTSD from how they've been treated by
| others. Even those that have not experienced hatred or
| violence directly are no doubt aware of the
| statistics.[0] You're correct that, in many cases, this
| is a mental health problem. It's an accommodation for a
| colleague or friend that needs your help, for now.
|
| I have trans relatives and colleagues, and several I knew
| before they came out / transitioned. They've been
| understanding and patient when I have made mistakes, just
| as any normal person would be. It's not about hating
| people - in either direction. It's about treating people
| with kindness and respect and reminding those who are
| scared that you are on their side.
|
| [0] https://time.com/3999348/transgender-murders-2015/
| [deleted]
| wpietri wrote:
| Yeah, I have trans friends and former colleagues, and can
| confirm all of this. I'd love to live in a world where it
| wasn't controversial or dangerous, but we are not in that
| world yet.
| verall wrote:
| > I don't respect people's pronoun preferences because
| that would be creating reasons to hate people
|
| This has got to be peak hacker news
| wpietri wrote:
| At least it got flagged! But since I can't reply to it
| and put some effort into typing a reply, I hope you don't
| mind me dropping it below.
|
| ---
|
| What? I agree that for my tastes a lot of people take
| gender very seriously. But it seems wild to me to think
| this is somehow a new phenomenon.
|
| For millennia in many societies one's society-assigned
| gender determined a great deal about one's status,
| including what work you could do, what work you could do,
| and what sort of violence against you was acceptable. And
| in a lot of times and places, misgendering somebody was
| used as a deliberate insult and could even be seen as
| "fighting words", legitimate legal cause for violence.
|
| The only thing that has changed lately is a bit of
| individual freedom in picking that role for one's self.
| For those people, many consider it rude to ignore their
| choices, partly because of the history of gender, but
| partly because those people are targets of bigotry and
| violence. There's a whole list! https://en.wikipedia.org/
| wiki/List_of_people_killed_for_bein...
|
| All moral codes have a "coercive" element to them, just
| like all legal codes do. If you're going to be rude,
| people may, _gasp_ , say something about it. You trying
| to establish a different coercive moral code against that
| isn't somehow better. And getting all het up about it in
| this specific case, instead of all the other codes of
| politeness, suggests it's not really "coercive" morality
| you care about.
|
| Personally, it seems to me that trans folks have a pretty
| hard role in life. They always did, but now at least
| they're getting to be open about it. I'm glad to support
| them in that; calling them how they want to be called
| seems like literally the least I could do. Indeed, as a
| thoroughgoing nerd, I spent a lot of my childhood getting
| shit on for being different, so I'm happy to help make
| space for different kinds of difference.
| javajosh wrote:
| Have a nice day.
| howinteresting wrote:
| Going back to your original post:
|
| >Anyone who doesn't have the capacity to accept being
| called any pronoun has a mental health problem.
|
| By this metric the vast majority of humanity has a mental
| health problem, and you're an exception. Most cis, het
| men do not like to be called she or a girl.
| wpietri wrote:
| Yeah, that's pretty special. Personally as a cis nerd, I
| find the neurotypical obsession with gender roles pretty
| weird. I think we would be healthier if there were less
| of it, and like that we seem to be heading that way. But
| I don't think that makes everybody mentally ill.
| howinteresting wrote:
| Worth drawing a distinction between gender roles, which
| are mostly "socially constructed", and gender identity,
| which is someone's inherent sense of their gender (with a
| strong biological component).
|
| Gender identity is an essential part of what makes us
| _human_. Some people have a stronger sense of it than
| others. To the extent that mental illness describes an
| actual objective thing, having a gender identity does not
| make someone mentally ill, because it doesn 't by itself
| disrupt one's healthy functioning in society. It is when
| that gender identity is invalidated by others that it can
| affect people's mental health (just like calling someone
| a slur or insulting them can affect their mental health).
| It is still not an _illness_ , though.
| wpietri wrote:
| It looks like you posted a strident reply and then
| replaced it with something anodyne. Given that people
| have already replied, that strikes me as both rude and
| confusing. Just so everybody knows the edit history, here
| is your original comment:
|
| ----
|
| >At least it got flagged!
|
| Ah yes, censorship is good when it is an opinion you do
| not share, right? That I was flagged is wrong on the part
| of hacker news, and whoever got that ball rolling.
|
| >All moral codes have a "coercive" element to them
|
| Coercion is good too. Are you sure you're not the baddie
| here? Are you really sure?
|
| >as a thoroughgoing nerd, I spent a lot of my childhood
| getting shit on for being different, so I'm happy to help
| make space for different kinds of difference.
|
| Another popular strawman. I stated explicitly "live how
| you want" and yet you assert that I'm against difference
| or outcasts. You lied.
|
| >trans folks have a pretty hard role in life
|
| I'm speaking specifically of custom pronouns. If you cut
| off your junk and wear a dress, I think its rude not to
| call you "she". It is a shitty kind of idea that
| encourages people to introduce new error modes into their
| relationships, and the bitter irony is you think you're
| doing people a favor by doing that.
| bavent wrote:
| People disagreeing with you is not censorship. We can all
| still see your comment.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| I don't want to involve myself in this argument but I
| will say that I can not see their original post. It
| displays as just "[flagged]" for me. I don't know if
| that's the app I'm using or what, but I cannot see the
| post.
| bavent wrote:
| Really? I see the "[flagged]", and the post, it's just
| slightly dimmer and I had to manually open it. I'm using
| no special extensions or anything, just a normal browser.
| cldellow wrote:
| There is a stage past [flagged] where a post can also be
| [dead].
|
| You only see dead posts if you have showdead=yes in your
| settings.
|
| So you may have seen their comment before it was killed,
| or you may have showdead=yes in your settings.
| cldellow wrote:
| > suffering
|
| > cynical user of a tool of coercive soft-power
|
| > weapon masquerading as a new morality
|
| Take with a grain of salt, but I feel like you have
| stronger emotions on this issue than the trans and non-
| binary people I know.
| alwayslikethis wrote:
| My pet peeve about using "they" is it seems to imply an undue
| politeness or superiority. Plurality is an ancient metaphor
| for power, and many languages today have the same form for a
| plural "you" and a polite "you". Another example is the royal
| "we".
| jimmywetnips wrote:
| Did you know you is actually the plural and the singular is
| thou?
|
| My problem with any of this switching around is that since
| it's used by a very small minority in a very forced way,
| until it becomes mainstream in the way 'you' has become
| mainstream, it's confusing af.
|
| I've had multiple instances when a they was mentioned in a
| decision and I had to ask, " wait I thought we only had one
| designer on this ticket who else got added... Oh you're
| using singular they.. got it"
| richbell wrote:
| > My pet peeve about using "they" is it seems to imply an
| undue politeness or superiority
|
| I suppose it could be considered similar to Spanish and
| French where you have "you" (peers) and then formal "you"
| (authorities).
| rqtwteye wrote:
| Same in German. The formal address is in plural. "Sie
| sind..."
| rqtwteye wrote:
| I would be fine with "it" instead of "they" :-)
| [deleted]
| girvo wrote:
| I basically _always_ use "they". Doesn't even feel that
| awkward with the right sentence structures.
| dboreham wrote:
| The headline made me think this was about a scheme where you
| register as an airline, just to get access to the list. I mean,
| how many planes do you need to own to be an airline?
| dandongus wrote:
| Surprised to see this guy wasn't already in prison due to his
| previous antics, and it's too bad he didn't responsibly report
| this issue through the proper channels. Everyone's luck is bound
| to run out at some point.
| kaapipo wrote:
| *her
| richwater wrote:
| I love the implication that this random person should be the
| authority on whether or not I can see the no-fly list.
| vunicipna wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if he gets added to the list as well
| after pulling this stunt.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| She's already been indicted on federal charges for hacking.
| Not being allowed to fly wouldn't be the main issue if she
| found her way into an American airport or airliner.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_arson_crimew
| vunicipna wrote:
| Reading that wiki page, it sounds like he's on his way to a
| long stint in prison, or worse. Wouldn't be surprised if he
| gets black-bagged now that he's attacking critical national
| infrastructure and encouraging others to do so.
| zxexz wrote:
| Why do you keep saying "he"? It's pretty easy to respect
| people's pronouns...
| vunicipna wrote:
| [flagged]
| Eleison23 wrote:
| [dead]
| Psychoshy_bc1q wrote:
| who cares?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Someone who continues to deliberately misgender after
| being told about it - especially using "he" when the
| person's name (Maia) is traditionally a woman's name -
| seems to care quite a bit.
| notch656c wrote:
| If you use binary genders you use male or female ones and
| people tend to use the same pronouns once they start with
| them. If someone uses gendered pronouns you shouldn't
| take that to mean that's the one the subject prefers but
| rather that's the gender the person who wrote it
| perceived.
|
| If they truly don't care to perceive a gender then a 50 /
| 50 pick. When I look at it's picture I honestly couldn't
| tell you if I perceive more male or female so I would've
| done same as op and picked one randomly and then for
| consistency not change it, even if some unrelated party
| tried to confuse things by making me change it.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| We don't have to guess. They're just openly transphobic.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34450709
| vunicipna wrote:
| Someone who demands that others refer to him as "it", as
| if he's not even human, doesn't deserve to have any of
| his 'preferred pronouns' respected.
| belval wrote:
| I mean she pretty much explains the whole process of getting
| it. If you're willing to get prosecuted just go get it
| yourself.
| Rhinozz wrote:
| In the Daily Dot article above:
|
| > CommuteAir added that the server, which was taken offline
| prior to publication after being flagged by the Daily Dot,
| did not expose any customer information based on an initial
| investigation.
| KyleBerezin wrote:
| So the fact that she has gained access to this restricted list,
| has somehow granted you entitlement to it? Or are you implying
| that every person on that list should be doxed to satisfy your
| curiosity?
| vunicipna wrote:
| Interesting hack, but this seems quite the brazen confession to a
| fair number of computer crimes. If I were the author, I'd be
| worried about getting arrested and potentially extradited for
| this. Especially as he deliberately downloaded a load of
| confidential information after gaining access, and then shared it
| around. He'd be looking at years in prison for this, in the US.
| lom wrote:
| The author is already searched by US authorities for other
| hacks. See their wiki page here:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_arson_crimew#Indictment
| [deleted]
| helsinki wrote:
| She's already potentially facing US extradition from
| Switzerland for unrelated computers crimes. No idea why she
| would publicize this exploit.
| derelicta wrote:
| Switzerland's federal constitution prohibits extradition of
| swiss citizens to foreign powers. Now technically, this one
| amendment can be overriden by a mere act of Parliement, so
| unless there is a special act I'm not aware of, they are
| safe.
| IceWreck wrote:
| She's Swiss and the US already tried to extradite her for
| posting stuff on git.rip
| easrng wrote:
| it _ran_ git.rip
| curiousllama wrote:
| Hack aside, there's something poetic about leaking the no fly
| list from an email address called "nofly@crimew.gay"
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-20 23:02 UTC)