zlacker

>>fortra+(OP)
While it's not exactly a novel technique (I've read similar stories since the early 2010s at least), I'm continuously surprises by how much people are able to glean from inferences and online sources. The saga of the "he will not divide us" flag is particularly impressive.

>>manfre+a9
It's called OSINT and it's been around a lot longer than 2010.

>>def8ce+I9
I'm not sure why 'def8cefe' is being voted down for pointing out the name of this process. OSINT is short for "open source intelligence" and the TL;DR is that only "open sources" (eg: not government/restricted datasets) are use to perform a digital investigation. Steve Rambam has given talks about digital investigations from the very beginning of the H.O.P.E. Conferences on this topic. In addition to law enforcement using this it's also used by private investigators or just amateur enthusiasts who team up to help solve missing children cases and track down info from other past cold cases or to even bust child trafficking rings. The skills natural to Hacker News readers makes me surprised there's not more general interest in OSINT here, especially defensive tactics to make sure we allow as little of our personal info to land in open datasets to feed OSINT investigations in the future.

>>mikece+gb
There is interest in OSINT but my comment could be misconstrued as supportive of or normalizing LE practises so that upsets a very vocal interest group on the Internet.

>>def8ce+Mb
I mean, I don't think even the internet nut-jobs support torching police cars...

Edit: Ouch, looks like quite a few people here do. Do y'all really think that's the best way to effect social and political change? A minority of Americans screaming louder and using terrorism to vent their spleens won't solve the issue. In a democracy, everyone must focus on getting more people to vote for different policies to effect change.

>>mmm_gr+7d
Depending on the reason for protest, police cars and government buildings are some of the only things it makes sense to burn down IMO. With the recent protests against police and government racism, for example, I'd understand them burning things belonging to the people oppressing them rather than stores and businesses that provide jobs and services for people in the area.

>>dx87+if
I mean people are torching stuff in entirely different cities. It's not like they're torching chauvin's car then going home. Still illegal, but I guess I could understand the process behind that. Burning some cop car in Atlanta, what? That's just mob rage.

>>mmm_gr+Bl
I think that dismisses the very real impact long term systemic racism has had. Additionally, a black man was just (allegedly, charges have been filed) murdered by the police after a a police officer shot him in the back and another stood on his shoulders while he was dying.

There is justifiable outrage. I do not condone wanton destruction and arson, but disruptive protests work in a way that peaceful ones alone do not.

>>malnou+ln
No, they don't. They discredit the legitimate point that many state actors wantonly use excessive force in the minds of most Americans. Nobody will listen to proposals while he's worried about his things being destroyed. Nobody is going to vote for reform under the threat of having his business burned or his neighborhood terrorized. Using violence to achieve a political aim is terrorism, and will never achieve long-term social change. All it will do is prompt a backlash and close most Americans' minds to what is otherwise a legitimate grievance.

>>mmm_gr+jp
Sure it will when you use enough of it. Remember October revolution, Cultural revolution. You first have to eliminate your direct political opponents. Then you eliminate your allied but potential political opponents. Then you eliminate your possible political opponents from the general population. One of such systems collapsed but the other is still flourishing.