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
Many people who are not "internet nut-jobs" support violent protest when necessary. we've had many years of "voting to effect change" already, and it hasn't worked! Recall the four boxes of democracy: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. If you get to the ammo box, you can damn well bet there's going to be violence.

In this particular case, I do find some of the violence justified, and I think it has more effect than a simple non-violent protest would. We get to see exactly how police respond when a few thousand dollars worth of property is being damaged versus when they have someone's life in their hands. The police are digging themselves into a hole here, and it's glorious.

That said, we aren't at the point where violence against people is a legitimate form of protest. In self defense, sure, but protesters should not, at this point, be attacking people. Burn down all the Targets, police stations, and cop cars you want. Let it be the cops who do all the violence against people. That's what's actually going to get peoples' attention.

>>pmille+pv
Something tells me you wouldn't support this were it your business being burned. They're gonna run into some roof Koreans, get shot, then more people will get mad even though it's completely justifiable to defend one's property with lethal force from an angry mob.

>>mmm_gr+HC
It's actually not justifiable to protect property with lethal force, and doing so is unlawful in many jurisdictions. Protecting the life of yourself and others is a justifiable reason to use lethal force.

I'm trying to be charitable here, so I will ask you to reflect on the reasons why you think protecting replaceable (or even irreplaceable) property is worth extinguishing a human life.

>>Saucie+wL
I'm aware that most states don't allow for it, though in Texas, my home state, that's somewhat in question and may be allowed[0][1] under certain circumstances. Regardless of the current legal situation, I believe all states ought to allow deadly force to defend or recapture property.

In light of your magnanimous question (inquiring after the views of another is called conversation, not charity), here's my rationale as to why one is justified in using lethal force to defend property.

Let's take an extreme case: Say I'm an immigrant from a third-world nation who arrives in America at a young age. I spend my life working to build a successful small business. I pour my blood, sweat, and tears into it. Now, someone comes along, full of "justified anger" and ready to burn it down. By doing this, he is destroying a huge portion of my life. While this is less severe than murder, it's on the same spectrum of evil; one is destroying another's entire life, the other, only part of another's life. Therefore, a man is justified in any amount of force necessary to protect his property.

I'm aware this isn't a common way to view, but I'm happy to answer more questions and defend it further. I don't believe life has any absolute importance over property because property represents a part of another life. While a person represents more life than a thing in most cases, a thief or arsonist forfeits his rights by committing crimes against another.

[0]: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

[1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=316114562717856...

>>mmm_gr+HE1
Get insurance.

>>pmille+PE2
That's your entire answer? Get insurance? Pretty inadequate for a discussion that's shifted to what's moral and not. People don't carry insurance on everything. A business, maybe, but I picked that as an example through which I could more easily illustrate the point. Same thing applies to a television.

>>mmm_gr+SM2
Yes, that's my answer. You want to protect your property, buy a product designed to protect your property. Don't fucking kill people over it.

BTW, yes, people do have insurance on their televisions. It's called "homeowners' insurance" or "renters' insurance."

>>pmille+dh3
It's not incumbent upon me to spend money to protect against the crimes of others. The reason I questioned your answer is that a potential practical solution doesn't answer the moral framework I proposed: property represents part of one's life and therefore can be defended as such.

>>mmm_gr+rn3
> It's not incumbent upon me to spend money to protect against the crimes of others.

Then, don't cry when you lose your stuff.

>>pmille+io3
No, I'm not losing my stuff (as I might in a natural disaster), my stuff is being stolen/burned/whatever. You still failed to address my point that I believe it's justifiable to defend my property with any amount of force necessary. My perspective is simply that if one attempts to steal or damage the things of another, "Then, don't cry when you get shot." Or they could just not loot/steal/burn.