Setec Astronomy

[Hugh Akston]

Be on the lookout for a Natural Born Killer

One detective from the Facial Identification Section (FIS), responsible for conducting face recognition searches for the NYPD, noted that the suspect looked like the actor Woody Harrelson, known for his performances in Cheers, Natural Born Killers, True Detective, and other television shows and movies. A Google image search for the actor predictably returned high-quality images, which detectives then submitted to the face recognition algorithm in place of the suspect's photo. In the resulting list of possible candidates, the detectives identified someone they believed was a match—not to Harrelson but to the suspect whose photo had produced no possible hits.

This celebrity “match” was sent back to the investigating officers, and someone who was not Woody Harrelson was eventually arrested for petit larceny.

There are no rules when it comes to what images police can submit to face recognition algorithms to generate investigative leads. As a consequence, agencies across the country can—and do—submit all manner of "probe photos," photos of unknown individuals submitted for search against a police or driver license database. These images may be low-quality surveillance camera stills, social media photos with filters, and scanned photo album pictures. Records from police departments show they may also include computer-generated facial features, or composite or artist sketches.

[Dangerman]

This was in 2003. I imagine the analytics are even better now.

[JD]

Siri, Alexa, and Google Home can be remotely controlled with lasers, because "the microscopic MEMS components of these microphones unintentionally respond to light as if it were sound" and "while the researchers tested only Siri, Alexa, Google Assistant, Facebook Portal, and a small number of tablets and phones, the researchers believe all devices that use MEMS microphones are susceptible to Light Commands attacks."

So yes, somebody could, for example, command Google Home to unlock your front door from hundreds of feet away.

https://arstechnica.com/information-tec ... s-at-them/

[lunchstealer]

Apropos of nothing except the inspiration for naming the thread, I was listlessly scrolling through the streaming films on demand and decided to get nostalgic with Sneakers. Still a fun little flick, but so very nineties. Forgot that River Phoenix was in it. And James Horner doing the score with Branford Marsalis just peak nineties'd it.

Also the green eyeshadow on President Roslin... man makeup was bad before about 2003. Weird color eyeshadow always freaked me out, though.

[JD]

Russia has passed a law banning the sale of phones, computers and smart TVs without Russian software preinstalled. Best-case scenario this is just chauvinism and protectionism. Worst-case, it's because the Russian government can lean harder on Russian companies.

https://www.cnet.com/news/russia-will-b ... -software/
https://www.engadget.com/2019/11/22/rus ... sian-apps/

[D.A. Ridgely]

My money's on worst-case.

[Aresen]

My money's on worst-case.

You're being optimistic.

[Warren]

My money's on worst-case.

You're being optimistic.

Russia is looking at China and thinking they want some of that Orwell shit.

[Aresen]

My money's on worst-case.

You're being optimistic.

Russia is looking at China and thinking they want some of that Orwell shit.

So are Gina Haspel and Christopher Wray.

[JasonL]

For the record it does appear the Carter Page FISA warrant was granted based on misrepresentation of his previous role as an informant and by lying about validating core claims in the Steele dossier. I’m not a believer that this invalidates the whole investigation especially since that meeting did happen, but man people like Strzok and Comey should probably be facing time. Failing to disclose that you met with Russians wanting to give you campaign intel is bad but so is mobilizing FISA for oppo research. Bad bad bad.

[Pham Nuwen]

Can't we just agree that everyone has been talking about the FISA issue for at least 20 years but before this election it was understood you are in a hell of a lot of trouble if you directly ask a foreign power for assistance?

I am possibly to naive on the second part.

[Pham Nuwen]

Shorter Pham: Everyone already knew it was easy enough to game the warrant system but everyone also knew you don't directly ask a foreign power for assistance.

[JasonL]

Is the FISA thing better, worse, or the same if it’s not random FISA abuse but levers of state security mobilized against political opposition? Follow up, can one be especially bothered by levers of foreign policy being pulled for political dirt digging if one shrugs at FISA monitoring under false pretenses to the same ends?

[Jadagul]

The specific conclusion of the report is that the Carter Page FISA thing was not motivated by political goals. It was a deficient FISA application but only in the same ways that probably most FISA applications are deficient.

[thoreau]

Follow up, can one be especially bothered by levers of foreign policy being pulled for political dirt digging if one shrugs at FISA monitoring under false pretenses to the same ends?

I'm not going to defend the FBI, but you can't reasonably equate the pre-November 2016 investigations with Trump asking Zelensky for electoral help. The FBI kept quiet about Trump prior to election day 2016. (The same cannot be said for their investigations of Clinton.) Trump asked Zelensky to do something very public.

[JasonL]

The specific conclusion of the report is that the Carter Page FISA thing was not motivated by political goals. It was a deficient FISA application but only in the same ways that probably most FISA applications are deficient.

They flat lied. They notably excluded that Page was an informant and used a set of facts to excluding that fact to make his contacts seem suspicious. You think pretty much a ton of other FISA warrants have that fact pattern?

[JasonL]

Follow up, can one be especially bothered by levers of foreign policy being pulled for political dirt digging if one shrugs at FISA monitoring under false pretenses to the same ends?

I'm not going to defend the FBI, but you can't reasonably equate the pre-November 2016 investigations with Trump asking Zelensky for electoral help. The FBI kept quiet about Trump prior to election day 2016. (The same cannot be said for their investigations of Clinton.) Trump asked Zelensky to do something very public.

This is about public things vs private things or the timing being during the campaign?

Let’s say it were explicit, Comey has an email saying we’ll get this fucker he can’t be president. Is that a comparable issue of abuse?

[thoreau]

Let’s say it were explicit, Comey has an email saying we’ll get this fucker he can’t be president. Is that a comparable issue of abuse?

Yes. Is there any evidence of such a thing?

BTW, I completely agree that James Comey should not be FBI Director.

[JasonL]

But ... he was an informant. Paid by the person certifying to a judge that Russian contacts were suspicious. That’s not an oversight. What’s he trying to get to in doing this?

[Pham Nuwen]

I just assumed they were hiding a source. Is that wrong on my part?

[Pham Nuwen]

Come to think on it ... I thought they were actively trying to protect sources high in the Kremlin. Am I misremembering 2016/2017? I freely admit I don't remember stuff for the last year and a half I was in school.

Edit: A quick google says Trump outed a high level source not to long ago. I don't know guys. There is just so much shit I feel like your job should only be about Russia and the US governement because there is so much shit to try to make sense of.

Edit: No. 2017. High source in Kremlin as well. So much shit to sift through guys. I don't know anything I feel.

[JasonL]

I just assumed they were hiding a source. Is that wrong on my part?

From the judge? Using claims of Russian contact by a source as evidence of illicit contact knowing that was not true?

[Pham Nuwen]

Is there another way of hiding a source when you suspect normal channels are compromised or will see the light of day?

[Pham Nuwen]

I swear someone mentioned this years ago. I don't think it was me. I think it was someone here. I can't remember dammit!

[lunchstealer]

But ... he was an informant. Paid by the person certifying to a judge that Russian contacts were suspicious. That’s not an oversight. What’s he trying to get to in doing this?

I anal, so while I know the 'should' answer, I don't know the 'is' answer to the following: Is the state legally required to include counter-narrative information that would undermine their application for a warrant?

Also wasn't Page an informant to the CIA while the FBI was doing the FISA application? They knew about it, but they weren't his handlers/employers, were they?

If I understand correctly, the Page FISA warrant came well after the start of the investigation which was based on real, non-bullshit evidence that a foreign government was interfering on behalf of Trump and that there was evidence that could turn out to be nothing but could mean that someone or someones in the Trump campaign was involved with that Russian interference or otherwise in inappropriate contact with Russia. Based on what I see in the Balko weekly nutpunch roundup, this seems like it's at the very least not unheardof behavior, and I suspect it's fairly common.